Ysterday, a news article from Science reported that President Bush has embarked on a new mission, exclaiming to scientist everywhere, “let’s be friends.”

Among the items in his peace offering:

• Boost the NIH budget by $10 billion
• Declaring a “second war on cancer”
• Apologizing for vetoing stem cell bills
• Appointing Al Gore as head of his new conservation initiative

favorite quotes:

“Let’s get these embryos into the hands of scientists who can use them for good.”

“In retrospect, having oil industry lobbyists edit our climate reports was probably a bad idea.”

About cancer – “Let’s finally rid our bodies of this weapon of mass destruction.”

Does anyone else think this is a legitimate change of heart? I feel like it is a political stunt aimed at winning votes for his party in the upcoming election.

I keep expecting to hear him come back today with “april fools”... Or, maybe I am still asleep and this is just one of those crazy dreams that feels all too real.

Growing up in a small town in West Virginia, I was always taught to be respectful of other peoples’ opinions. It was important, I was taught, not to be overly aggressive with my criticisms or unnecessarily mean. If I didn’t agree with someone, I was taught to express my alternate idea freely, but taking great care not to cross the boundary of disrespect. Now that I live and work as a scientist in Boston, I find that I frequently encounter individuals that were obviously raised with different social practices. Now, I am not naive enough to think that everyone will play nice, but I was shocked when I first started graduate school at how prevalent snarky criticisms of other people’s abilities and science seem to be in this world. Deep down, I can’t help but think that no one has a right to treat another individual as despicably as I have seen and experienced since entering the scientific establishment – not matter who you are. In fact, the prominent you are in you field, the more sensitive you should be to this issue so that you can bring out the best performance in people (not tear them down), which is good for science as a whole.

We all know that science is not a career for the thin-skinned. You have to be able to take harsh criticisms of your work, often given in public. You also have to be able to harshly criticize your own work and abilities, or else you risk publishing work that is incomplete or arriving at conclusions that are incorrect. Furthermore, there is a time and a place to be assertive if you want to get some respect yourself (especially if you are a petite blonde haired, blue eyed woman like myself); but I never interpreted “assertive” to mean cruel or snarky.

Despite observing these behaviors in fellow graduate students and senior scientists many times over, I still do not think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to criticize one of my peers (either in private or public) while using a disrespectful tone. Don’t we criticize the science (and no, you don’t have to sugar coat things- blunt is ok)? Why is it that many people feel that criticizing science must also be extended to a personal attack of the individual doing that science? Is this the way one scientist establishes “dominance” over another?

I write this hoping that someone reading this will help me to understand this behavior. Is it necessary? Or even effective?

Normally, I do not make new year’s resolutions. I think it is silly to set a new goal only because everyone else is doing it. When I make a promise to myself, I want it stem from genuine, self-motivation—the kind of promise I can actually fulfill. However, this year is different. I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, it is still a very, very dim light; but the beam is visible nonetheless. Despite the fact that grad school feels like it has lasted an eternity….despite the fact that I still have several years of postdoctoral work before I can get a job….and despite the fact that I still have absolutely no idea what kind of job I will be doing in 10 years….I am sensing that things will work out in the end if I just let them and not fight it every step of the way.

As 2007 ended, I was away from Boston visiting family for the holidays. This allowed me some valuable time to think and regain perspective on life. For the past few months, I have not been in particularly good spirits. It is so easy to lose sight of the big picture when you have your head buried in the day-to-day grind of you thesis project. Out in the real world, where 26 year olds have full time jobs and own houses filled with cars and families, everything is much clearer. My life couldn’t be more different. The important thing I have come to realize, though, is that I am actually ok with that. I love that I get to work in science. True, I have been a student for 21 years (80.7%!) of my life. And it is also true that I have several years of postdoctoral training before I can land my first “real” job at the age of 30-something. But would I really enjoy the day to day grind of an office or retail job? No way! Science is thrilling, even when things aren’t going well, there are still colleagues getting good results you can share. There are always data to be analyzed and experiments to be suggested. Science really is the only thing that will make me happy.

So, I have decided to make a New Year’s resolution after all: Enjoy the journey (no matter how slow it may be). Eventually you will get to the finish in one piece. In the end, I might even realize that the long training process is a gift, rather than a burden. After all there aren’t many careers where individuals literally get to grow up before they make a final decision….

Ok, this morning I was reading the news and happened upon a story of domestic murder.
While stories of bitter wives and husbands committing murder aren’t unheard of in the news, I was a little offended that the suspect, a biochemist by profession, wasn’t smarter or a little more creative (Disclaimer: I do not endorse murder of any kind, not do I want to make light of the sufferings of the victim). The killer, who will likely be sentenced to life without possibility of parole, enlisted the help of a former lab assistant to “capture” the ex-husband with the aid of a chloroform soaked rag and a stun gun. While he was unconscious, she placed his body in a 55-gallon tank of HCl which she had placed in a rented public storage unit.

Honestly, how could she not think she would get caught?

Furthermore, shouldn’t a biochemist be able to come up with a more creative way to commit the crime? A layman could think of chloroform and strong acid.

On a side note – that is one dedicated lab assistant. Either that, or it is just another example of how we are so underpaid in academic science that $2K to aid in a murder plot seems like a reasonable idea.

Having just returned from a 5 day vacation to visit my family for Thanksgiving, you’d think I would return to work feeling well rested and eager to produce data. Not so fast! The truth is, I never really left my work in Boston. Nope, it was constantly in the back of my mind the entire 13 hour trip there and back—and most of the time in between. I know it is silly. I understand that time off is essential to recharge the batteries and regain perspective on life. Why is it, then, that I feel guily for wanting to a take a vacation?

Deep down I know it is partly my love for science that makes it hard to leave it behind for a few days. On the other hand, there is something else fueling my inability to relax: the PhD degree process. From the moment we matriculate to the moment we graduate, students are indoctrinated with one basic principle: he/she who works harder/longer/smarter comes out ahead. I think this mentality makes it impossible for scientists to ever truly take a day off. We are always thinking about that experiment that won’t work or interpreting our data.

So, I am curious how more experienced scientists are truly able to find a balance. Is it even possible? Most faculty members I know encourage their grad students and post docs to work as much as physically possible. I wonder if this is a reality of science that I must learn to accept or if there is a way to unlearn this mentality.

Every PI has a unique managerial style. These attributes set the tone for the
entire lab and largely attract or repel prospective students and postdocs.
These traits have been categorized into 9 types. Which kind of PI do you have? Mine is mix of many.

The thing I like most about
this cartoon is that EVERY PI I know fits into one or more of these categories. There are also pros and cons of each type. On those days when I am feeling a little annoyed or longing for the relationship another colleague seems to enjoy with their PI, I remind myself that the grass is always greener…until
you think about things a little more carefully. Enjoy.

This cartoon appeared in The NIH Catalyst, Volume 3, page 23 (discovered on the webpage of Bruce Donald at Duke via another blog, Effect Measure)

Today I was looking for interferon alpha reagents. On accident I came across a comic book which chronicles the microbe fighting adventures of interferons. Yes, that is correct. Someone has finally anthropomorphized a cytokine family. So, for all of you scientist-artists out there, keep in mind there are more than just review articles and text books to illustrate!

Check out the adventures of The interferon Force at PBL’s website, where you can sign up for a free print subscription.

They also have a Myspace page with an awesome rock/rap theme song. I couldn’t stop laughing! Or post doc thinks I am crazy for laughing to myself.

Tuesday night, I went to an AWIS event to listen to 4 women speak about how they arrived at the current point of their careers. Before and after the event, I was able to talk with many grad students, post docs, and women from all stages of their career. While comparing notes about our respective doctoral programs, one thing struck me as odd: many students don’t have a single meeting with their thesis committee until they are asking for permission to write. I am enrolled in a PhD program where the committee meetings are treated as semi-annual progress reports – and it is enforced. We can actually receive an incomplete, and ultimately failing, grade for the research conducted that semester if we fail to attend these meetings. Now, I don’t mean that all of them are particularly eventful or helpful. Sometimes, the scientific discussion can be very useful, while other times it leaves something to be desired. At the very least, however, they force me to write up my recent work and set near-term goals. I was surprised to hear that many programs either don’t enforce these semi-annual meetings or even suggest it. Perhaps, in these programs the burden of progress review and goal setting falls solely on the student and PI themselves. I think this could be dangerous, if the advisor is too busy or inattentive, because we graduate students are at the bottom of the food chain in many academic institutions. I view these meetings as a positive experience, not only for monitoring student progress, but also protecting them from possible neglect or abuse by their advisor. It isn’t uncommon for students to be ignored by their mentor or disagree about the completion point of a thesis. The committee is there to act as a sounding board and to help resolve these disputes.
So, I am curious what people think about the necessity of these meetings. Are they essential to the progress of the student? Or are they unnecessary proceedings that waste everyone’s time?

The appendix may be the most underappreciated organ. You can live without it, so people never seem to think it is important. Well, you can live without your spleen, too, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Today, I read that some researchers at Duke Medical School claim to have found a function for the appendix. When I was in grade school, I remember hearing rumors that the appendix was a vestigial organ, whose function was once to grind up rocks that we consumed accidentally. I assume the article isn’t released online yet, and the news story originates from embargoed media information, because I can’t find the primary paper. The article claims that the appendix houses a reservoir of “good” intestinal flora. If the digestive tract becomes depleted of these organisms, for any reason, the appendix can churn out bacteria and reconstitute the entire digestive tract.
As an immunologist, I find this idea particularly intriguing. We have long known that the appendix is composed of lymphoid tissue. However, like most of the GALT (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue), we had little understanding about what it was doing. In the past few years, it is becoming more widely accepted that the gut flora are essential to good health (did you remember to eat your yogurt today?). As society becomes more and more sterile, our encounters with many microbes are reduced or eliminated. According to the hygiene hypothesis, this results in an imbalanced immune response prone to allergies, asthma, and inflammatory gut diseases. Our immune system seems to have co-evolved with the environment – it is dependent upon it for proper “education.”
So, this recent finding isn’t all that surprising. It’s just another example demonstrating we still have a lot to learn about how the immune system interacts with the environment—especially the gut.

Today I wore a new t-shirt. Normally, no one would notice; but his shirt is different. It may be the geekiest science shirt I own. The front of the chest has the structure of the peptide “KRISTIN” on the front. Not surprisingly, the shirt attracted a lot of interest from colleagues, who confirmed my suspicion that it is, in fact, a very geeky t-shirt. This is, of course, after I explained to them that the peptide spelled out my name. Secretly, I know all the people with J s and B s in their name wish they could spell their name as a peptide. I guess the fact that I instantly understood the shirt, while almost everyone else needed to be walked through it, verifies my suspicion that I am in fact, a science nerd ;) I choose to think that is a good thing.
Tonight, on my way home on the red line, I noticed a couple of guys looking at the shirt and discussing it. Obviously, they were scientists—one was carrying a journal and the other a AAAS bag. Without hesitation I asked, “Are you admiring my T-shirt? Do you understand it?” After thinking about it, they chuckled and admitted it was cool. We struck up a conversation and talked about science for the brief ride. We didn’t exchange information, but if we had been working in complementary fields or had more in common I could see it happening. This is the kind of incident that leads to unexpected collaborations and post doctoral fellowships.
This made me realize that it is possible to network without trying. You can meet people anywhere, anytime, even on the subway. You have to always be ready for it. The last thing on my mind when I put on the shirt this morning was not whether I would randomly meet a couple of red line scientists. Aside from the recent t-shirt incident, I have enjoyed subway conversations in the past when someone noticed that I was reading a research article related to their line of work. Given the high number of scientists that ride the red line, I have to wonder if it isn’t possible to network on the subway on a regular basis. I just may have to keep some cards with my contact info ready, just in case I meet someone I would like to contact in the future. Disclaimer: Kristin does not condone talking to strangers on the subway, as this can be dangerous or unpleasant