{"id":5750,"date":"2019-04-14T19:35:59","date_gmt":"2019-04-14T18:35:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/?p=5750"},"modified":"2019-04-14T19:35:59","modified_gmt":"2019-04-14T18:35:59","slug":"getting-away-from-the-toxic-lab","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/2019\/04\/14\/getting-away-from-the-toxic-lab\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting Away from the Toxic Lab"},"content":{"rendered":"

The journal PLoS Computational Biology recently published an article Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs<\/a>. Written by a PI it was obviously aimed largely at those who might be just setting out with their own groups, but clearly any leader can benefit from thinking harder about group dynamics and how they, as leader, interact with everyone around them; and, just as importantly, how they encourage the rest of the team to interact with each other. Almost all of the ten points, and their broader explanations, I could wholeheartedly agree with. However there were a couple of sentences when things jarred with me.<\/p>\n

First up, was a very curious clause<\/p>\n

banning all forms of harassment and discrimination within the lab<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This reads rather like banning cigarette-smoking in the lab: it\u2019s OK as long as you do it outside. Banning is simply not the right word. I would have felt much happier with some phrase like<\/p>\n

making it clear that harassment and discrimination are simply never tolerated, ever, anywhere.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2018Banning\u2019 conveys entirely the wrong message. Harassment and discrimination should be outlawed with a clear message given that it is just as unacceptable down the pub or in a conference setting as in the lab and that any behaviour along these lines will have consequences.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the whole piece read as if students and postdocs turned up and worked the hours they worked \u2013 these could (in the author\u2019s view) be flexible times, they could choose to work a bit longer or shorter as long as they got the work done and, where appropriate it could be done from home \u2013 but there was no suggestion that there might actually be a motivation to do the work for joy, satisfaction and the sense of enquiry that drives so many scientists at every stage of their career. I felt it all came across as a bit grindstone. Does the PI not enjoy their work? Was that what we were meant to deduce? It is true that the further one gets from the bench (or whatever the equivalent is in computational biology), it is harder to get the buzz of discovering the new result, the unexpected twist in an experiment or an analysis, but that sense of discovery lurking around every corner ought to be a sensation that every student gets caught up with at some time or another during their project.<\/p>\n

Instead, the only nod in the direction of the researcher who voluntarily wants to chase unicorns because it\u2019s so damned exciting was<\/p>\n

as PIs we should also respect those lab members who choose to work for long hours because they feel that they must do so to be more productive, to secure a position in science, or because they have the ambition or the desire to be so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s not all about ambition and the next career stage. Pleasure and satisfaction should get a look in.<\/p>\n

Finally, what wasn\u2019t mentioned at all was \u2018support\u2019 \u2013 the nearest heading was \u2018Promote the professional development of your lab members<\/em>\u2019, although there was a nod also to taking note when students were going through a tough personal time. Important though that undoubtedly is, offering support can cover this but also encouragement when things go scientifically awry, developing students\u2019 resilience, pointing them in the direction of opportunities and helping them write their CVs. \u00a0Group leaders should be very aware of their role as mentors and\/or sponsors<\/a> \u2013 which of these is appropriate may depend on the career stage of the researcher under consideration. They need to think about the skills acquired beyond the bench\/computer terminal\/conference hall\/paper-writing. They should be thinking how to encourage a shy student to speak up in group meetings and how to teach another student to tone down the sarcasm addressed to the less sparky.<\/p>\n

They should \u2013 and this was touched on under the heading \u2018Promote the well-being of your lab members<\/em>\u2019 \u2013 be aware that a student may become depressed either because their paper has just been torn to pieces by a referee or because their mother is seriously ill. It is important to create an environment in which the student can open up if they feel so inclined, but certainly one in which they can feel that there are those around who care and who would offer help if help was acceptable to them. These points were, I felt, insufficiently addressed in the PLoS Computational Biology article, and yet I feel are crucial to creating a healthy working environment.<\/p>\n

Let me return to the point about assisting with CV writing so that I can shoehorn in a point of discussion I recently had with a colleague about gaps in CVs. Should a job applicant, for instance, just sweep any periods of relative unproductivity under the carpet i.e. not mention them at all, or does that lead to concerns that the person is indeed unproductive, rather than that they produced a baby, or looked after that seriously ill mother or had a bad spell of ME? I am firmly of the view that such declarations should be made, even if only in outline e.g. mentioning caring responsibilities or ill health. Too often otherwise a committee reading a job application (for instance) can say, but what happened in the 2 years after the PhD, there\u2019s nothing to show for it? This must be a weak applicant \u2013 and then bin the application. Instead of thinking, goodness they\u2019ve done so much on top of having premature twins (or whatever) and form a proper judgement.<\/p>\n

When I first started working in the gender space 15 or so years ago, I was astonished to be told by various early career researchers that their head of department or some other adviser had told them to omit any mention of periods of maternity leave on their CVs. I promptly gave them the opposite advice. It seems such uncertainty over what to do persists. Perhaps there are still panels out there that look at forms that mention maternity, shudder and toss the application aside. We all know misogyny is going strong \u2013 think of the obnoxious trolling<\/a> of Katie Bouman<\/a>, the STEM woman of the moment in the eyes of the media \u2013 but what objectionable behaviour is ‘safe’ in the anonymity of Twitter or the Reddit pages does not really apply to an academic panel. I would hope there are enough decent people out there to turn on anybody who tries to behave like that regarding job applications. Perhaps I\u2019m too optimistic, but we have to keep hoping.<\/p>\n

To return to my main theme, there are many things that can be done to ensure there isn\u2019t a toxic atmosphere in the lab, where clones of the group leader thrive and everyone else is ignored or worse. Articles such as the PLoS one are helpful, but we should be aware of what is missing and keep working in our own spaces to be sure that future generations develop and prosper to the best of their abilities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The journal PLoS Computational Biology recently published an article Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs. Written by a PI it was obviously aimed largely at those who might be just setting out with their own groups, but clearly any … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,5],"tags":[72,1313,279,280],"class_list":["post-5750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research","category-science-culture","tag-cv","tag-group-leader","tag-mentors","tag-support"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5750"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5750\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}