Okay I did it
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Call for posts Scientiae Carnival 5th Ed: Labour Day
May Day is nearly upon us, and it's time for another edition of the Scientiae Carnival. May 1st is celebrated as Labour Day where I'm from, and probably where some others of you are from. So write on, is it a Labour of love that you perform. a labour of necessity or maybe of curiosity ? Do you labour on with joy or frustration, out of choice or out of boredom? Else ignore the meme and just write in. I, and many others, would love to read it.
Please send in your posts, by e-mailing them to scientiaecarnival@gmail.com and tagging them with a technorati tag. Detailed instructions are here.
Thanks!
Please send in your posts, by e-mailing them to scientiaecarnival@gmail.com and tagging them with a technorati tag. Detailed instructions are here.
Thanks!
Allowing Women to Work Makes Economic Sense
A snippet from the Economist.
So women working is better for the economy and for society and it does not lead to lower fertility rates. Woo! Why this obsession with finding empirical reasons for why it is good for women to work? Women are humans, individuals, not a separate sub-species on which data has to be collected to make the case for "allowing" them to work. I'm always torn by these statistics, on the one hand they are reassuring, on the other hand they are insulting by implication. Yay, it makes economic sense for me to work, I say clapping my dainty little hands and skipping joyously. Now I shall work. Whatever.
To be fair though, I do think that the Economist publishes these articles in an effort to debunk stereotypes against women in the workplace. I just have this visceral reaction against such statistic-ification of something I think is as natural and necessary as, say, men working.
Okay end of rant.
So women working is better for the economy and for society and it does not lead to lower fertility rates. Woo! Why this obsession with finding empirical reasons for why it is good for women to work? Women are humans, individuals, not a separate sub-species on which data has to be collected to make the case for "allowing" them to work. I'm always torn by these statistics, on the one hand they are reassuring, on the other hand they are insulting by implication. Yay, it makes economic sense for me to work, I say clapping my dainty little hands and skipping joyously. Now I shall work. Whatever.
To be fair though, I do think that the Economist publishes these articles in an effort to debunk stereotypes against women in the workplace. I just have this visceral reaction against such statistic-ification of something I think is as natural and necessary as, say, men working.
Okay end of rant.
Professionalism or the Lack Thereof
One of the things that bothers me the most about the scientific establishment these days is the pervasive lack of professionalism I see at every level. From department heads and PIs to postdocs, lab managers and lab technicians. The only people who might be excused for not having learnt some professionalism are early grad students, but as they move onwards through grad school it should really be something they learn. Given the nature of many labs today though, they are not going to learn the value of being professional and will go on to be unprofessional postdocs, then PIs, then department heads.
What do I mean when I say professionalism? I mean that you have a job, therefore do your job, whinge if you will but do not make a career out of emotion and insularity. One's boss does not have to be one's friend. Their moods should not be a cause of great concern to their employees. Tantrums, hissy fits, concealment, bitching, sabotage, paranoid delusions, prestige issues, ego hassles, ignorance and just plain idiocy shouldn't have to be a normal part of one's day. I don't claim these as problems unique to a laboratory setting, I am sure these issues affect many workers in many walks of life (I know they affect publishers and engineers for example). But am I wrong in thinking that these problems are overrepresented in academic research settings?
Research is a hard job, it is completely self-driven, there are no benchmarks, no signposts that mark significant achievements other than peer-reviewed publications that go through an incredibly subjective evaluation process. You don't get much pay, praise or publicity. You work on an arcane subject in dimly-lit surroundings (maybe not always) and set yourself up for pillory by your peers every so often. Maybe 0.1% of us will find a cure for AIDS. Or even discover what AIDS is. I don't, however, think that the difficulty of what we do makes a lack of professionalism okay.
In fact being a professional would make life easier, at least it would according to me. Detachment from drama, perspective about achievement, calm in the workplace, hell, I want all these things! I am a better scientist when I don't want to curl up in a ball of stress every time I sit down at my desk. The experiment didn't work? Oh well, troubleshoot it and do it again. It did? Awesome, go get a drink. It's a job, life goes on. The boss didn't say hello? Forget it, as long as he or she discusses your data with you constructively and with an open mind. Go in, do your job, make some friends as a bonus, leave at the end of the day, go on with your life. Courtesy and respect (Propter Doc has put this very well) should be the cornerstones of the lab not precedence and credit-mongering. I don't know how we came to be a generation of scientists and mentors who are so caught up in the cult of scientific personality that an egregious tyrant with Cell papers in their CV is worshiped while a fair-minded collaborative mentor with less famous papers is followed by condescension and pitying whispers. It saddens me.
I really believe that increased professionalism, which also involves better treatment of employees and better compensation of exceptional talent, is the only way to better research. The question is, is unprofessional behaviour too institutionalized to root out? I don't know. What do you think?
What do I mean when I say professionalism? I mean that you have a job, therefore do your job, whinge if you will but do not make a career out of emotion and insularity. One's boss does not have to be one's friend. Their moods should not be a cause of great concern to their employees. Tantrums, hissy fits, concealment, bitching, sabotage, paranoid delusions, prestige issues, ego hassles, ignorance and just plain idiocy shouldn't have to be a normal part of one's day. I don't claim these as problems unique to a laboratory setting, I am sure these issues affect many workers in many walks of life (I know they affect publishers and engineers for example). But am I wrong in thinking that these problems are overrepresented in academic research settings?
Research is a hard job, it is completely self-driven, there are no benchmarks, no signposts that mark significant achievements other than peer-reviewed publications that go through an incredibly subjective evaluation process. You don't get much pay, praise or publicity. You work on an arcane subject in dimly-lit surroundings (maybe not always) and set yourself up for pillory by your peers every so often. Maybe 0.1% of us will find a cure for AIDS. Or even discover what AIDS is. I don't, however, think that the difficulty of what we do makes a lack of professionalism okay.
In fact being a professional would make life easier, at least it would according to me. Detachment from drama, perspective about achievement, calm in the workplace, hell, I want all these things! I am a better scientist when I don't want to curl up in a ball of stress every time I sit down at my desk. The experiment didn't work? Oh well, troubleshoot it and do it again. It did? Awesome, go get a drink. It's a job, life goes on. The boss didn't say hello? Forget it, as long as he or she discusses your data with you constructively and with an open mind. Go in, do your job, make some friends as a bonus, leave at the end of the day, go on with your life. Courtesy and respect (Propter Doc has put this very well) should be the cornerstones of the lab not precedence and credit-mongering. I don't know how we came to be a generation of scientists and mentors who are so caught up in the cult of scientific personality that an egregious tyrant with Cell papers in their CV is worshiped while a fair-minded collaborative mentor with less famous papers is followed by condescension and pitying whispers. It saddens me.
I really believe that increased professionalism, which also involves better treatment of employees and better compensation of exceptional talent, is the only way to better research. The question is, is unprofessional behaviour too institutionalized to root out? I don't know. What do you think?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Corollary to Verbal Inconsistencies
So Russell Simmons wants to ban certain epithets from hip-hop music.
Ah censorship. I detest those words, but if the thought exists, and not only exists but prevails, can you stop the mindset by stomping out the word?
Don't know...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Verbal Inconsistencies
Yesterday I was listening to the song "Boyz in the Hood" by Dynamite Hack (In my opinion, the Red Hot Chili Peppers of this decade, but...) on the radio. If you've heard the song, you will know that the lyrics contain profanity.
Of which the word sh*t was bleeped out every single time, but the words p*mp, ho, b*tch were left there in their profane glory. I am no prude, in fact I strongly believe in the redemptive powers of a good long cuss, especially when the experiment didn't work. (The reason these words are coyly asterisked is that I do NOT want anyone searching for profanity and finding my blog. I'm sure there are a 100,000 hits before mine, but I don't want there to be even a 1 in 100,000 chance). It never fails to get me, how a word that refers, albeit crudely, to an essential bodily function is unfailingly deleted from broadcasts, but pejorative references to women are sounded in their glory. I'm not in favour of excessive censorship and I do not want any of the aforementioned words to be removed from broadcasts, I just find it outrageous that words like p*mp, ho and b*tch are acceptable, even essential features of modern pop culture but words like sh*t or the venerable, almost quaint f*ck are assiduously screened out.
F*cking A! (Sorry those of you who disapprove of cussing)
Of which the word sh*t was bleeped out every single time, but the words p*mp, ho, b*tch were left there in their profane glory. I am no prude, in fact I strongly believe in the redemptive powers of a good long cuss, especially when the experiment didn't work. (The reason these words are coyly asterisked is that I do NOT want anyone searching for profanity and finding my blog. I'm sure there are a 100,000 hits before mine, but I don't want there to be even a 1 in 100,000 chance). It never fails to get me, how a word that refers, albeit crudely, to an essential bodily function is unfailingly deleted from broadcasts, but pejorative references to women are sounded in their glory. I'm not in favour of excessive censorship and I do not want any of the aforementioned words to be removed from broadcasts, I just find it outrageous that words like p*mp, ho and b*tch are acceptable, even essential features of modern pop culture but words like sh*t or the venerable, almost quaint f*ck are assiduously screened out.
F*cking A! (Sorry those of you who disapprove of cussing)
Friday, April 13, 2007
Why do I write this?
The simple one word gut reaction answer: Perspective. I read what I have written and am horrified by the bitterness, shocked by the spleen and ashamed of the whining. Then I feel better. Or I record the good times so that I remember that I did enjoy myself as well. Better yet, thinking about what to write helps me understand the things I am feeling and brings thoughts to the surface that I never even knew were lurking. It has been really good for me to put my thoughts down, to be organized, and to try and articulate the jumble of observations, instincts and hit-or-miss insight that make up my mind. It has been so reassuring and so heartening to read about all those other women, and men, out there who think about these things, write about them and share some really interesting ideas.
Another reason that has recently made the list, surfacing through the murky depths by the aforementioned process is this. I have moved to a different country, done rotations, done a Ph.D., started a post-doc and am in the process of figuring that particular stage out. I think I have realized and understood all these things that I want to tell other people who are starting down this perilous road, but how does one? If you're anything like me, you're probably not going to want to hear it, you want to live it and figure it out. And that is the way it should be. So I decided to just write about the things I see and the things I think, and occasionally about the science I love (but that's another blog). I figure, if you want to read it, I'll be honoured. And maybe the snapshots from my life will seem like something you're going through and maybe it will help, as it helps me every day, to know that other people are slogging through the same stuff. It's really not just you.
How does one ever say these things in person, or socially, unless it's to a really close friend? I feel embarrassed, soppy even. Know-it-all at worst, sentimental at best. So I take refuge in anonymity and write. I take deep refuge in anonymity and vent some of my frustrations with the people I work with because I cannot tell them they are jackasses to their face. And I try and acknowledge all those people who make it worth it, because it isn't all bad. Being a postdoc has ups and downs and roundabouts but a surprising number of people persist. This persistence is one of the reasons the system gets away with being the system, but more on that another day. We still do Ph.D.s and ruin our arms doing lab work, and as long as there is beer and there are pipettes, postdocs will continue to work. Hopefully, eventually under better conditions.
And that brings me to the third reason: the community. We are a community unlike others I belong to, united by intelligence, drive and discontent. We are close-knit because we are so alien and unfamiliar to mainstream society, not many people know what a postdoc let alone what it entails. We are bright enough to know we deserve better treatment, but we work on despite that in a quixotic quest for something-defining knowledge, overwhelming idealism, fame, glory, a Nobel prize or the cure for AIDS. I love writing this because I feel like I speak to a community, and hopefully, by trying to articulate what one may not be able to, occasionally speak for that community.
postdoc carnival
Another reason that has recently made the list, surfacing through the murky depths by the aforementioned process is this. I have moved to a different country, done rotations, done a Ph.D., started a post-doc and am in the process of figuring that particular stage out. I think I have realized and understood all these things that I want to tell other people who are starting down this perilous road, but how does one? If you're anything like me, you're probably not going to want to hear it, you want to live it and figure it out. And that is the way it should be. So I decided to just write about the things I see and the things I think, and occasionally about the science I love (but that's another blog). I figure, if you want to read it, I'll be honoured. And maybe the snapshots from my life will seem like something you're going through and maybe it will help, as it helps me every day, to know that other people are slogging through the same stuff. It's really not just you.
How does one ever say these things in person, or socially, unless it's to a really close friend? I feel embarrassed, soppy even. Know-it-all at worst, sentimental at best. So I take refuge in anonymity and write. I take deep refuge in anonymity and vent some of my frustrations with the people I work with because I cannot tell them they are jackasses to their face. And I try and acknowledge all those people who make it worth it, because it isn't all bad. Being a postdoc has ups and downs and roundabouts but a surprising number of people persist. This persistence is one of the reasons the system gets away with being the system, but more on that another day. We still do Ph.D.s and ruin our arms doing lab work, and as long as there is beer and there are pipettes, postdocs will continue to work. Hopefully, eventually under better conditions.
And that brings me to the third reason: the community. We are a community unlike others I belong to, united by intelligence, drive and discontent. We are close-knit because we are so alien and unfamiliar to mainstream society, not many people know what a postdoc let alone what it entails. We are bright enough to know we deserve better treatment, but we work on despite that in a quixotic quest for something-defining knowledge, overwhelming idealism, fame, glory, a Nobel prize or the cure for AIDS. I love writing this because I feel like I speak to a community, and hopefully, by trying to articulate what one may not be able to, occasionally speak for that community.
postdoc carnival
Monday, April 09, 2007
I'm a Happy Postdoc...At Least This Week
I started writing this last week, so the title should actually read last week, but since there is still some residual happiness, the title stands.
The experiment worked!!!!! It worked!!! The one that really sets up the whole project, the one that indicates that I just may be on the right track...that one worked! I may yet be wrong, and hundreds of controls and repeats have yet to be done, but it worked! (Mad happy dancing) That's the feeling, that's the feeling I work for. That is why I do research. That is why I worked hard, that is why I swallowed disappointment after disappointment and kept on plodding. It's a great feeling.
It's an ephemeral one. It will last till the next one doesn't work. Or, the next experiment will work and the next and the paper will go out. Then the happiness dulls or is replaced by other happinesses-it had better, otherwise you're the person who is always talking about "My Science paper.." (I don't have one, I'm just saying). The happiness can make you drunk with success and eventually flushed with arrogance. Or it will fade leaving something worse, the memory of exhilaration. Or, if you're really lucky and balanced, it will even out into something you can sustain in the longer term. However, if you're lucky and balanced, you wouldn't care so much that results would exhilarate you...and so on.
Is it worth it, to work for such transient highs and more persistent lows? I don't have the energy to sustain such high ups and such low downs for so many years. Soaring is great, crashing sucks and repeating the cycle is even worse. Or am I one of the less common hyper-emotional ones who is far too affected by her work? It is not because I am a woman, in fact the most emotional scientists I have met were men, but I digress into trivializations. Do I want to work for those elusive high moments? Do I want to deal with all the pits and self-doubt? To borrow from Rusted Root, am I hooked on a feeling? Am I high on believing that I will succeed? Do I need to be that way to be a successful scientist?
Don't really know, and dude, when the experiment works I don't know if I really care to think about it. Doubts can wait.
"I can't stop this feeling
Deep inside of me..
....
I'm hooked on a feeling
I am high on believing.."
-Rusted Root, The Ooga Chaga song, adapted to Postdoc-hood
The experiment worked!!!!! It worked!!! The one that really sets up the whole project, the one that indicates that I just may be on the right track...that one worked! I may yet be wrong, and hundreds of controls and repeats have yet to be done, but it worked! (Mad happy dancing) That's the feeling, that's the feeling I work for. That is why I do research. That is why I worked hard, that is why I swallowed disappointment after disappointment and kept on plodding. It's a great feeling.
It's an ephemeral one. It will last till the next one doesn't work. Or, the next experiment will work and the next and the paper will go out. Then the happiness dulls or is replaced by other happinesses-it had better, otherwise you're the person who is always talking about "My Science paper.." (I don't have one, I'm just saying). The happiness can make you drunk with success and eventually flushed with arrogance. Or it will fade leaving something worse, the memory of exhilaration. Or, if you're really lucky and balanced, it will even out into something you can sustain in the longer term. However, if you're lucky and balanced, you wouldn't care so much that results would exhilarate you...and so on.
Is it worth it, to work for such transient highs and more persistent lows? I don't have the energy to sustain such high ups and such low downs for so many years. Soaring is great, crashing sucks and repeating the cycle is even worse. Or am I one of the less common hyper-emotional ones who is far too affected by her work? It is not because I am a woman, in fact the most emotional scientists I have met were men, but I digress into trivializations. Do I want to work for those elusive high moments? Do I want to deal with all the pits and self-doubt? To borrow from Rusted Root, am I hooked on a feeling? Am I high on believing that I will succeed? Do I need to be that way to be a successful scientist?
Don't really know, and dude, when the experiment works I don't know if I really care to think about it. Doubts can wait.
"I can't stop this feeling
Deep inside of me..
....
I'm hooked on a feeling
I am high on believing.."
-Rusted Root, The Ooga Chaga song, adapted to Postdoc-hood
Monday, April 02, 2007
Third Scientiae Carnival is up
For those of you who would like to read articles of, by or about women in science technology and engineering.
At LabCat's. Enjoy!
At LabCat's. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
