Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Why?
Can I ask why does Bill Kristol keep going on the Daily Show? He has been on about 5 or 6 times. Jon Stewart uses him as a punching bag and he laughs along. I can see why the Daily Show keeps booking him, it is funny. Maybe Kristol enjoys being laughed at but there got to be better ways to have fun in life or maybe he is punishing himself for being the champion of the neco-con movement? I ask because it is just strange.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Posts to read...
The latest What's Up, Postdoc? is up on The Ways and Means of the Immune System. Check it out. Always a good read and Vero has done a great job!
Twice has the August edition of Scientiae. Wonderful posts are linked to so go read it!
A follow-up on the job prospects of those in the biological/biomedical sciences, here are some more posts on the matter:
The Daily Transcript
Pharyngula
Sandwalk I Sandwalk II
Genomicron
Larry Moran at Sandwalk talks about how things should be and how is as an advisor as does Gregory on Genomicron. The problem is many faculty I have encountered are not like that. There are many talented graduate students and post-docs who do not have good mentors. Advisors who try and keep their trainees eyes only on becoming research faculty. That is not healthy. More must be done at the university level. The only problem is that their is no incentive for the institutions to actually do anything. Why rock the boat when you have plenty of overhead dollars flowing in? Especially when rocking the boat means spending some of that money?
Twice has the August edition of Scientiae. Wonderful posts are linked to so go read it!
A follow-up on the job prospects of those in the biological/biomedical sciences, here are some more posts on the matter:
The Daily Transcript
Pharyngula
Sandwalk I Sandwalk II
Genomicron
Larry Moran at Sandwalk talks about how things should be and how is as an advisor as does Gregory on Genomicron. The problem is many faculty I have encountered are not like that. There are many talented graduate students and post-docs who do not have good mentors. Advisors who try and keep their trainees eyes only on becoming research faculty. That is not healthy. More must be done at the university level. The only problem is that their is no incentive for the institutions to actually do anything. Why rock the boat when you have plenty of overhead dollars flowing in? Especially when rocking the boat means spending some of that money?
To do...
In the next month and a half:
Need to write-up the last two papers from my thesis.
Figure out what adding Protein X to Protein Y as the latter modifies RNA Z does to the reaction.
With another post-doc write-up the results showing Protein X forms a complex with Protein Y especially when RNA Z is present based on those results whatever they are.
Finish biochemical characterization of an enzyme for our collaborators who solved the crystal structure of said protein and need my results to publish in a higher journal.
Turn 30.
Start new project studying if a certain metabolic enzyme from E. coli can be used as an antibiotic against a different group of bacteria.
With another postdoc, see if we can in an archaeal species replace an archaeal signature gene with a totally different bacterial gene whose gene product accomplishes the same task as the archaeal one and see if the replacement stresses the organism under various growth conditions.
Prepare a group meeting.
Start writing a review on thesis topic.
Today, doing the boring laying the ground work (i.e. purifying substrates) to do the experiments I want to get done while giving me the time to do the writing that needs to be done as well. What fun!
Need to write-up the last two papers from my thesis.
Figure out what adding Protein X to Protein Y as the latter modifies RNA Z does to the reaction.
With another post-doc write-up the results showing Protein X forms a complex with Protein Y especially when RNA Z is present based on those results whatever they are.
Finish biochemical characterization of an enzyme for our collaborators who solved the crystal structure of said protein and need my results to publish in a higher journal.
Turn 30.
Start new project studying if a certain metabolic enzyme from E. coli can be used as an antibiotic against a different group of bacteria.
With another postdoc, see if we can in an archaeal species replace an archaeal signature gene with a totally different bacterial gene whose gene product accomplishes the same task as the archaeal one and see if the replacement stresses the organism under various growth conditions.
Prepare a group meeting.
Start writing a review on thesis topic.
Today, doing the boring laying the ground work (i.e. purifying substrates) to do the experiments I want to get done while giving me the time to do the writing that needs to be done as well. What fun!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Oh what great news...
Nature has an article on the data being released from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology regarding the job market for those with PhDs in the biological and biomedical sciences (BBSs). The upshot is that the number of tenure track positions has pretty much flatlined since 1981 (hovering around 20,000) while the number of people receiving PhDs has increased to 7,000 in 2005. Needless to say most of those with a position are not leaving soon, creating a situation in which only 30% of those with PhDs in the BBSs have a tenure/tenture track faculty position (down from 45% in 1981). More and more, people are turning to industry (30%). The doubling NIB budget went towards many things, greatly expanding faculty positions was not one of them.
There is nothing wrong per se with PhDs leaving academia. People have different interests and talents. The problem is when you have graduate/post-doc advisors who cling to the idea of looking down at those that don't pursue a career in academia (usually narrowly defined as a faculty member at a research university). Those people are pushing an unrealistic set of expectations upon their advisees that is unhealthy. The numbers just do not support it. Anyone selling that notion is selling a pyramid scheme that primarily helps the advisor and his/her university & borders on "criminal" in my mind.
A PhD in theory should be about learning a set of intellectual skills on how to approach a problem, how to think and analyze data, etc. that can be applied to any number of career choices. That is a good thing. The US for one is a place that needs more people with scientific minds not less but realistic expectations have to be put forth.
What can be done? Well more money would help. Money to create more faculty positions while not increasing the number of graduate students a proportional amount. This would also create more competition between faculty members to attract students. This could only improve the quality of mentorship. In addition, create and pay for more higher paying research staff positions. There are people who are good researchers but are not cut out to be faculty members. Create room for those people. Let their skills be used appropriately Actually have career development staff at the university to aid graduate students and post-docs looking for positions outside academia. Really, why should faculty members have to carry this burden alone? Universities are getting overhead. It should be expected they then provide the proper resources for research labs. Career development without question fits there.
Undergraduate advisors also need to be more honest. Let those students thinking about attending PhD programs know the numbers and what is reasonable. Give them the knowledge they need to make an informed decision, that is your job.
We also need to improve the pay teachers receive. We need more science teachers teaching at the pre-college level. Make that a more attractive option. This also requires money to be spent on the resources to let science teachers teach well. Science is fun. Well thought out experiments are hands on learning. They get students to think, to learn and are significantly less boring than a lecture.
What else can be done?
There is nothing wrong per se with PhDs leaving academia. People have different interests and talents. The problem is when you have graduate/post-doc advisors who cling to the idea of looking down at those that don't pursue a career in academia (usually narrowly defined as a faculty member at a research university). Those people are pushing an unrealistic set of expectations upon their advisees that is unhealthy. The numbers just do not support it. Anyone selling that notion is selling a pyramid scheme that primarily helps the advisor and his/her university & borders on "criminal" in my mind.
A PhD in theory should be about learning a set of intellectual skills on how to approach a problem, how to think and analyze data, etc. that can be applied to any number of career choices. That is a good thing. The US for one is a place that needs more people with scientific minds not less but realistic expectations have to be put forth.
What can be done? Well more money would help. Money to create more faculty positions while not increasing the number of graduate students a proportional amount. This would also create more competition between faculty members to attract students. This could only improve the quality of mentorship. In addition, create and pay for more higher paying research staff positions. There are people who are good researchers but are not cut out to be faculty members. Create room for those people. Let their skills be used appropriately Actually have career development staff at the university to aid graduate students and post-docs looking for positions outside academia. Really, why should faculty members have to carry this burden alone? Universities are getting overhead. It should be expected they then provide the proper resources for research labs. Career development without question fits there.
Undergraduate advisors also need to be more honest. Let those students thinking about attending PhD programs know the numbers and what is reasonable. Give them the knowledge they need to make an informed decision, that is your job.
We also need to improve the pay teachers receive. We need more science teachers teaching at the pre-college level. Make that a more attractive option. This also requires money to be spent on the resources to let science teachers teach well. Science is fun. Well thought out experiments are hands on learning. They get students to think, to learn and are significantly less boring than a lecture.
What else can be done?
Monday, August 20, 2007
The heat, oh the heat...
The dog days of summer seem to be lifting a bit. My energy is returning. Heat and humidity I do not do well in. I wilt. It is a little pathetic. Lab becomes salvation with its A/C and cold room. Of course, just because it is salvation doesn't mean I work anymore just means I become a blob appreciating the sanctuary. Blobs, well at least this one, do not write much. Part of that was because I did escape some of that heat and humidity for a bit. It is never enough though. Why oh why did I choose to do my post-doc here? Oh well. It is one of the downsides though of staying in academia - there isn't the same degree of freedom of choosing a place in the country or world to live. Jobs are tight, you have to be somewhat flexible in that regard. This was a deal-breaker for a classmate of mine in graduate school. She left science completely because of it. Only so much any person can sacrifice in the name of science.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Ummm anyone see something wrong with this?
CNN is covering itself and well makes itself look good. What type of society are we living in when a newscaster is being covered by the newscaster's news organization about doing his/her job? When we are all engaged in framing wars what becomes of actual discussion based on facts? Do we really want news organizations actively engaging in framing even more than they have in the past?
From Matthew Nisbet regarding framing and why more scientists should tap into it:
"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."
A new organization should not be the one's encouraging citizens "to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge". They should be the one's you know giving them knowledge. Isn't that their job?
From Matthew Nisbet regarding framing and why more scientists should tap into it:
"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."
A new organization should not be the one's encouraging citizens "to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge". They should be the one's you know giving them knowledge. Isn't that their job?
Movie round-up...
Sorry for not posting. I haven't really had a good excuse other than writer's bloc. I have been enjoying the summer movies though that have come out. The blockbusters I have been overall more enjoyable than those that come out in late springwhere it was last in a trilogy after last in a trilogy or so it seemed. Though some of the "smaller" movies were very enjoyable. On to the latest batch of movies:
Ocean's Thirteen - Recaptures the charm of the first movie. The details of the plot are silly but the story knows that. It is all about the banter, the winks, the nods, the fun of having all these actors on screen together. It is Clooney's love letter to Vegas. Enjoyable, escapist fun.
Sicko - A well done Michael Moore documentary on the American health care system. Not so much about those without insurance but rather those with insurance & the rationed care they receive. The movie has numbers that back up what they say. I would have loved more but I am not exactly the average movie goer. The stories are one's I am familiar with having seen first hand what managed care leads to. My mother used to be a nurse. Insurance companies are what drove her away. There are Moore gimmicks but they are a welcomed relief. You need periods to laugh while watching this movie otherwise you would leave depressed. My fiancee teared up a few times while watching. Well worth it to see and start the dialog about changing our system.
License to Wed - This film stars Mandy Moore, Robin Williams and John Krasinski (The Office). It got lampooned by critics doing a little better at the box office than people expected (not great by any stretch but not a bomb). My fiancee and I enjoyed it. The audience we say it with laughed out loud a number of times. It is an amusing film with the simple message of communicate with your partner. Nothing deeper than that really save to set up the characters in silly situations. It isn't a deep movie but rather a light hearted movie with laughs. Sometimes in life that is what you need.
On to the blockbusters:
Transformers - Growing up I loved the Transformers. I watched the cartoons and had the toys even bought the comic books. This movie is a pure summer flick. It is just plain fun. There is humor and a little suspense thrown in but all in all eventually it comes down to stuff blowing up and robots knocking one another around. Very big thumbs up from me. My fiancee was not looking forward to seeing this but she dragged me to Pirates (which she was disappointed in) so our of fairness she say this with me. To her surprise, she enjoyed it as well. Not with the same glee as I did. It is a movie for the 10 year old kid in all of us.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - I don't read the books so I know this franchise only through the films. The last movie was a little too patriarchal for my taste. Order of the Phoenix though was enjoyable. The shortest of all the Harry Potter movies which was good. Things moved along and who can resist a rebellion story against teachers overexerting their authority? Not me that is for sure. The overall plot of all the series starts to actually build. The movie has the task of having to end without completing the story but does so with a sense of closure. A thumbs up from me. My fiancee is a big Harry Potter fan (she reread book 6 to prepare for the final book coming out on Sat) and she really liked it.
Overall a good bunch of movies to enjoy. Other than Sicko, nothing deep or Oscar worthy (save for special effects and the like) but honest to gosh fun. Nothing wrong with that.
Ocean's Thirteen - Recaptures the charm of the first movie. The details of the plot are silly but the story knows that. It is all about the banter, the winks, the nods, the fun of having all these actors on screen together. It is Clooney's love letter to Vegas. Enjoyable, escapist fun.
Sicko - A well done Michael Moore documentary on the American health care system. Not so much about those without insurance but rather those with insurance & the rationed care they receive. The movie has numbers that back up what they say. I would have loved more but I am not exactly the average movie goer. The stories are one's I am familiar with having seen first hand what managed care leads to. My mother used to be a nurse. Insurance companies are what drove her away. There are Moore gimmicks but they are a welcomed relief. You need periods to laugh while watching this movie otherwise you would leave depressed. My fiancee teared up a few times while watching. Well worth it to see and start the dialog about changing our system.
License to Wed - This film stars Mandy Moore, Robin Williams and John Krasinski (The Office). It got lampooned by critics doing a little better at the box office than people expected (not great by any stretch but not a bomb). My fiancee and I enjoyed it. The audience we say it with laughed out loud a number of times. It is an amusing film with the simple message of communicate with your partner. Nothing deeper than that really save to set up the characters in silly situations. It isn't a deep movie but rather a light hearted movie with laughs. Sometimes in life that is what you need.
On to the blockbusters:
Transformers - Growing up I loved the Transformers. I watched the cartoons and had the toys even bought the comic books. This movie is a pure summer flick. It is just plain fun. There is humor and a little suspense thrown in but all in all eventually it comes down to stuff blowing up and robots knocking one another around. Very big thumbs up from me. My fiancee was not looking forward to seeing this but she dragged me to Pirates (which she was disappointed in) so our of fairness she say this with me. To her surprise, she enjoyed it as well. Not with the same glee as I did. It is a movie for the 10 year old kid in all of us.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - I don't read the books so I know this franchise only through the films. The last movie was a little too patriarchal for my taste. Order of the Phoenix though was enjoyable. The shortest of all the Harry Potter movies which was good. Things moved along and who can resist a rebellion story against teachers overexerting their authority? Not me that is for sure. The overall plot of all the series starts to actually build. The movie has the task of having to end without completing the story but does so with a sense of closure. A thumbs up from me. My fiancee is a big Harry Potter fan (she reread book 6 to prepare for the final book coming out on Sat) and she really liked it.
Overall a good bunch of movies to enjoy. Other than Sicko, nothing deep or Oscar worthy (save for special effects and the like) but honest to gosh fun. Nothing wrong with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)