Getting fucked over again.

Oh, I'm getting fucked over again.

This was my thought when I got an email this morning from a student I'm collaborating with.

In this case, "collaborating" is a kind word for:

a) babysitting

b) advising and editing because the official mentor does not

c) getting NO credit for these things from the student's mentor or from mine

d) getting buried in the middle of the papers that resulted from my ideas and supervision from beginning to end (so will get no credit from anyone who reads my CV, since they won't know the back story)

e) having to fight long and hard to get any of my suggested experiments included and then having the mentor and student complain that the story is 'stuck' (because they won't take my suggestions)

I'm pretty frustrated about this. The Official Mentor has been hot and cold with me, very friendly for a while but lately I'm getting left out of email discussions (almost everything is over email) and finding out about them after the fact from the student.

The student continues to be willfully clueless, despite my trying very hard to explain how important it is. I've asked explicitly, nicely and repeatedly, that my ideas be credited when they are passed along. I'm emphasized that this is important for my career, no matter how incidental or small, in the grand scheme of things, they might seem. And I always give everyone else credit when they help me, so I expect the same in return.

This means when something works because it was my idea, the student should say

"MsPhD suggested that we try ___, which I never would have tried otherwise. I thought she was crazy because you know, everyone does, but figured I'd do it anyway just to shut her up because I was sure she was wrong, but much to my surprise, that actually fixed the problem."

not

"I fixed the problem by ___."

This is what I do when someone else gives me a suggestion that works, no matter how stubborn I was being or how sure I was that they were wrong.

So I'm thinking, when the mentor and the student are discussing a project (one that I proposed and have been supervising) with another collaborator they brought in after the fact, I should be part of those discussions, no?

Of course, so far nothing that collaborator has provided (reagents, in this case) has been useful. But this person will get a better slot in the author list than I will, because this person is PI. It's exactly like that only too-true Phd comic about authorship.

I'm pretty sure that part of the problem is the student should be arguing to include me, but instead I am consulted separately. This means that the mentor doesn't realize I'm feeding the student all this information behind the scenes. Especially if the student doesn't say where the information came from.

It has taken me this long to put that together, but I'm pretty sure that's what's happening.

ARGH. I am so tired of these little slights, because it adds up to a lot of disrespect.

The worst part is, I have to continue to collaborate with this student and the mentor for a while longer, at least until the current project(s) are finished.

I had no idea they were like this when we started working together. Funny how people are always super nice and friendly at the beginning of a project, but when it comes down to "Where are we going to publish this?" everyone's real colors start to show.

It's probably at least in part because, like several of my student and postdoc collaborators recently, the student now claims* to be planning to leave academia. So there's no reason to give credit, be nice, and not to burn bridges, right?

Right this moment, I would so love to burn this one to the ground.

Just gotta suck it up a little longer, I guess.









*I've worked with people before who claimed they wanted to quit academia, but then ended up secretly applying for, and getting faculty positions.

Remembering why science is fun.

I haven't been blogging much because I've been too busy having fun doing science.

Hooray! There's a phrase I can never use too much.

Had an adorable encounter with a visiting student who said my lab would be the one to join, and how soon would that be possible?

So cute. Wish I could have said 'soon'.

Otherwise, I'm enjoying, sort of, compiling mounds of data and making them into presentable formats.

I say sort of because it's still pretty tedious. I hate making sure everything is lined up perfectly and exactly the same size, but it has to be done.

I say enjoying because hey, I can put on my iTunes and whenever I finish something and print it out, it looks pretty good.

My main problem right now is actually also why I've always liked science: switching back and forth from visual to verbal and back again is really challenging.

It never occurred to me that this can be so hard, until recently when I was reading a book that described exercises for switching among the senses.

One of the exercises is perfect for most of us in a very zen way, regardless of your profession.

It was simply to practice throwing a ball up in the air, and catching it.

The idea is to think about how when you're throwing, that's active, and when you release it, that's passive. Waiting for it to come back down is observant, and catching it is making a connection.

Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing from memory here.

Anyway the point being that it's a lot like research. There's the wind up to the experiment, then putting everything in motion. Then you wait for the result. Then you have to figure out what it means.

I'm on the part where I'm building up to put the meaning out there, out in the world.

In a way it is putting a lot of things in motion.

It's very easy to just do experiments and never tell anyone about them. We all do it. The weird results that don't fit with anyone else's, the ones that we can't explain.

Some people are satisfied to stop at that point. (You don't want one of those people as your advisor!)

In the current climate, the process of putting it out there is at least as important, if not more important, than doing the experiment.

It has its own wind up (making the figures, writing the text, practicing the talk), delivery, waiting (especially if you apply for jobs!) and hopefully, if all goes well, making that connection.

I'm struggling with being in visual mode and then having to go into verbal mode. It's hard!

The wind up part can be really fun. Nobody is judging your data or your interpretation of it, and best of all, nobody is judging you personally.

But eventually they will. That part is scary.

In the meantime, you have to enjoy the part where you know something they don't know: you already know the answer.

On failure.

This post was inspired by FSP's post of the same title, about the difficulties of spotting future researchers at the early stages.

Basically, FSP says it's hard. I say it's not. But I'm also the kind of person who would rather have no one in my lab than have the wrong people.

Here's how I describe the qualities of good researchers. I think these qualities are evident good researchers of all ages, even pre-PhD (note the sarcasm).

1. Good bullshit detector. Critical thinking. Objective thinking. Unwillingness to take anything on faith.

How to spot it: Journal clubs. If a student at the undergraduate level can't stand up and critically assess a paper, it's unlikely they will suddenly acquire that ability in grad school. If you don't think undergraduates can handle journal club, think again. They can and should be reading and discussing primary literature.

2. Creativity. Someone who is looking for what hasn't been done, and how it might be done in the future.

How to spot it: Do they ask good questions in class? In lab meeting?

Yes, I think undergraduates should volunteer in labs or work there in the summer at least once before applying to grad school. I would NEVER take a grad student who had not worked in a lab at least for 1 summer before applying. EVER.

3. Spine. You want someone who has their own opinions, will stick up for themselves, and will persist through the usual level of obstacles.

The last thing you want is someone who is book-smart but caves at the slightest setback or panics when things don't match exactly with the textbooks/journal articles.

How to spot it: This is the kind of thing you can tell from two tests if you know what you're looking for.

First, the interview. Ask this person if they've had any obstacles in their life. It could be anything. It will be illuminating.

The best student I ever had came from a family that ran their own business. She had a fantastic work ethic, and a fabulous no-nonsense attitude about everything.

More recently I had a prep-school student who knew the value of hard work through her sports training. She wouldn't take any crap from anybody, and she was always willing to speak her mind.

Second is in the lab. I've written before about how I think it's absolutely necessary to give undergraduates real projects, not pre-cooked kits like in lab classes (I think lab classes are worthless, and have blogged about it before).

Real projects are the best. This will tell you how they handle problem-solving and give them a real taste of what grad school will be like. You might not expect them to actually be able to solve any problems on their own at this stage, but watch for their reaction to the inevitable setbacks.

If they want to do something only once and then move on, beware! If they want to quit after 1 try that doesn't work, there's your answer! And theirs, too. The ones who can't handle failure cannot handle research, and they usually figure this out once they've had a taste of it.

4. Street smarts. By this I mean, someone who has common sense, who already has basic study skills, is at least somewhat organized, pragmatic, and not likely to get hung up on doing something one way when there are a variety of tools within easy reach.

How to spot it: Do they take notes? I require my students to take notes. That is non-optional. If they are not okay with that, they don't work with me. And I check their notebooks. The good ones grasp the concept that they will not remember everything. Even better are the ones who care that their notebook is the only record I have of what they did. The notebook tells you a helluva lot.

Are they willing to go look things up if they don't know them? One student really impressed me with this. We had a long discussion about how to do a calculation, and my way just was not working for her. The next day she came back and told me she discussed it with one of her instructors and came up with another way that would also get the job done. Bravo! I say. This is exactly what you're looking for in a researcher.

I also file a certain amount of maturity in this category. Do they keep a calendar? Are they always late and always making excuses?

Experiments are not forgiving of sloppy time management, and you shouldn't be, either.

5. Attention span. Most of the people I know who left research quit because they got bored easily. They enjoy the constant flow of new ideas that they get in patent law and science journalism. They did not want to work on the same project, or aspects thereof, for the rest of their adult lives.

How to spot it: Extreme cases are obvious when you've had a student in the lab for the summer. Here again, as with the question of 'spine', they will usually self-select when given the experience of having a project and being told to work on it exclusively for 3 whole months (!).

Less extreme cases are harder to spot, but easier to treat. Sometimes they don't know it themselves until they're mostly done with graduate school and thoroughly sick of their thesis project. Vacations help. Meetings and positive feedback help. If they get through all of that and decide to stay in research, usually finding the right postdoc project will cure it. Again, most will self-select after grad school since they've had the experience and a glimpse of the road ahead: more long-term, delayed gratification projects.

6. Big picture, little picture. The best researchers understand that sometimes you can fudge it, and sometimes you can't. It's like the difference between stir fry and baking (respectively).

Ideally you want people who can grasp the big picture, but still pay attention to the little picture when it matters. You want someone who is meticulous, but you don't want the fantastic technician who doesn't see that she needs to be reading several journal articles a week now that she's in grad school.

How to spot it: This is the tricky one. I myself am not meticulous by nature but rather by training. I've worked with some who are meticulous by nature but who learned to appreciate the big picture during grad school.

The most successful researchers I know are big picture people who take care of the forest and hire little picture people to take care of the trees. Unfortunately most graduate schools are selecting on criteria (like grades and GRE scores) that have more to do with meticulously trimming the trees and nothing to do with locating the forest.

7. Politicians. I wasn't going to include this, but on second thought I think I should.

If you want your students to go on and be successful in academia, better to pick the ones who are charismatic, good at persuading others to do their work for them, good at self-promotion, and unlikely to burn bridges. You know the type I mean. And yes, you can spot them as undergraduates.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Saw this quiz over at Geeka's site. I love it!

You're The Handmaid's Tale!

by Margaret Atwood

An outraged feminist, you have been oppressed and even silenced in
your life, fueling your fury against the society as it stands. Your role has been
strictly defined by society and you are almost certainly unsatisfied with it. You
have some vague idea of how this has come to be, but insufficient power to stop it,
let alone reverse the trend. And somehow you blame yourself for everything because
people ask you to. Beware people renaming your nation a Republic.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Thinking Blogs Award Meme

Thanks to Andrea for tagging me with the Thinking Blogger Award. I'm very pleased to have an excuse to post an actual image!

And here are my awardees (insert gleeful "tag! you're it!"):

1. Science Professor, who is more or less (maybe minus the kid thing) who I want to be.
2. Propter Doc, who is more or less exactly who I currently am.
3. Academic Secret, which always has me wondering who these people are, since some of the things they write are downright strange.
4. Jenny F. Scientist is a relatively recent addition to my blogroll.
5. Average Professor, who I'm not sure is average at all.

Ok, should get going here, will preview this and hope all the links work

Blogging Rocks

I gotta say, thanks to everybody who stops by just to say hi and that they like this blog.

The blogosphere is really the only place in my life where I can usually count on just as much positive as negative feedback- and sometimes even a majority of positive (!).

***

This week I actually managed to do an experiment from which I could draw a conclusion (out of the 6 total, only 1 told me anything useful). It's sad because when things are going well, I can do ~ 3 experiments a day, but lately I haven't been able to manage that many.

Among the distractions from doing my own experiments is both the best and worst part of my current position, though it's not officially in my job description at all:

Helping People.

Usually I try to pump people for information on what they're doing. You know, networking . So in that sense, it's not like I don't get anything out of it. But sometimes it feels that way.

The voices in my head say various things while I'm training someone/giving advice. Here's a sampling, in no particular order:

This is fun! I like helping people!

This is easy! I can totally do this. I can't wait to be a PI.

Too bad I'm not actually this person's PI.

Thank god I'm not actually this person's PI. I would never have hired them.

I wonder if they'll even acknowledge me in the paper.

I wonder if they'll stay in science.

I wonder if they should stay in science.

How on earth did this person get a PhD.

How is this person a PI and I'm not?

Wow, hard to believe this person is a PI and they still manage to find time to actually do experiments. Very impressive.

Maybe my time would be better spent on my own stuff.

I really wish the search committees could see this.

I wonder if the search committees realize this is what they should be looking for, instead of Cell/Science/Nature papers.

This person will probably get a Cell/Science/Nature paper, and not even acknowledge me.

Boy, I hope my suggestions turn out to be right.

Boy, I hope this person actually takes my advice.

I wonder if this person would write me a recommendation letter or tell anyone that I'm good and pass the word along through the grapevine?

This may be the biggest impact I have on science, through forwarding other people's science, more than my own projects.

This is my good deed for the day, I shouldn't expect anyone to say thank you.

They said thank you! At least they're polite.

Thank god we're done, next time this person asks for something I'm definitely going to say no.

So many people helped me along the way, and I never did anything for most of them. I'm just paying it forward, so I shouldn't mind doing this.

I wonder if the people who helped me thought I was ungrateful. I don't think I appreciated how much they did for me until now.




Sadly, lately I've noticed that only a tiny percentage of the people I've helped over the years have stayed in academic research. Of my friends from grad school, several went to industry, a few went to science writing, a few went to policy, several are still postdocs, and only a minority- mostly much older than me- are now faculty.

So it seems like the amount of energy I put into helping people doesn't really come back to me personally in any tangible - or efficient- way. In the past I've collaborated on papers that never got published. I've collaborated on papers and then been left off the author list (and not even acknowledged). So I'm not really expecting much to come out of helping anyone, but I still find it hard to leave them floundering.

So it's nice, like here, just to get the occasional "Hello!" from someone. Some evidence that people do notice.

Hello to you, too!

At least in the blogosphere.

cooking with beakers

Not sure what I think about this. Check out http://www.sciencey.com/

which had links to: http://www.orangemagazine.com/article.php?aid=202&a=p
and: http://organicglassware.com/

I like the idea of using labware in the kitchen, I always want the 70% Etoh spray bottle, the gloves, the kimwipes, the timers, etc. Finally broke down and bought a scale but the really precise ones were way too expensive (sob!). BUT, this site looks like it's designed for people cooking up things they'd like to snort or inject. What do you think?