Parental Science Geeks, Beware!

Posted on March 16, 2011 by Steve Caplan

For many of us career scientists, our work–our profession–is really a way of life more than a job. So it is doubly so–perhaps exponentially so–when in a family both parents are science geeks scientists.

Scientists have long been portrayed as geeky and odd in the media. More recently, they have been portrayed on Occam’s Typewriter in geeky fashion eyeware.

In geeky science families, dinner time can sometimes become a sounding ground for new ideas, and other science-related topics. How many of us parents have ever stopped to reflect how our children feel about this?

Normal families discuss recent events, the news, culture, the arts and sports at mealtimes. And of course, nutrition; after all, we are all certified nutritionists. But what do scientist families discuss?

Budding actress and cartoonist M.C. has provided us with some insight into the situation:

It’s time for revenge on the nerd-geek-parental scientists…

Posted in Education, humor, research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 40 Comments

Money and the perversion of science

Posted on March 12, 2011 by Steve Caplan

Having just returned the grant review session at the NIH I thought that this would be a particularly good time to bring up something that has been bothering me for a number of years.

It’s quite sad, but I’ve slowly come to the opinion that in science, just like in economics, money is “the mother of all metrics”. When I was a student, money mattered because without it one could not buy antibodies and other essential reagents. But when it came to comparing which laboratory did better research and made more important discoveries, the measure of all things was always the publication of papers.

As a postdoc at the NIH, money was rarely considered–perhaps because it never was an obstacle for anything. Laboratories received slots for postdoctoral positions based on research productivity. Each postdoctoral position came with the sum of money allotted to the lab for reagents and equipment. So it was only natural to compare the science of one lab with that of another by looking at their publications––as an indication of scientific achievements.

When assuming my position as a principal investigator some years ago, I remember the shock I felt when I attended my first seminar in the new department and heard the introduction of an external speaker. Much praise was heaped on the speaker for the number of grants he held and the number of years he had held them for. On the other hand, relatively little was said about his publication record and most importantly, the seminal findings made by this researcher.

I’ve been talking a lot with one of my senior graduate students recently about options for choosing a postdoctoral laboratory. In the course of these discussions, I realized that an important criteria might be the ability to sum up a researchers life work by several bullet points: in other words, if the researcher is truly been not just productive, but has also managed to progress in some linear fashion within his or her given field, this seemed to me to be of particular importance.

Of course, the researcher needs funding in order to buy reagents and carry out research, but surprisingly there seems to be wide general agreement among many colleagues that I have spoken to that there is some magical number of personnel beyond which a researcher loses his/her optimal per capita output. For example, laboratories that have up to eight researchers-including postdocs, students, and technicians-seem to have more publications per researcher then laboratories that are larger than that. This of course raises the issue as to whether it is wise for funding agencies to continue to heap multiple grants and large sums of money on laboratories that are already well-funded and have huge numbers of people working in them.

Most of us are probably familiar with some of these super-laboratories, where if the number of people working there are disregarded, the output of the PI is phenomenal. For example in a given year such a PI might publish a Cell paper, a Nature paper and a Science paper. These really are outstanding accomplishments. However, if one follows this researcher’s output over time and realizes that there are 19 or 20 postdocs in the lab, and that only 3 to 5 of them are the ones actually publishing these outstanding papers, that leaves a lot of unsuccessful and frustrated postdoctoral fellows behind. Of course, one could argue that in a capitalist type of system, this is the way things work; the top postdocs succeed, and the others, who are either less capable or less lucky, sink.

So when I advise one of my own students or a student from my department who comes to me asking about advice for postdoctoral positions, I often counsel them to take these kinds of issues into consideration. Yes, some of these labs are phenomenal places to train, and present outstanding opportunities for highly motivated, self-sufficient, and yes, lucky postdocs who manage to be in the right place at the right time. However, they do need to take into consideration that if they fall in the category of the 75% whose projects are not headed for Cell, Science, or Nature papers, they need to be aware that they can end up in a difficult situation.

So overall, while money may make the world go round (and grant funding may dazzle the universities), I think it’s critical for us as scientists to remember that money is not the measure of all things. For when we retire or expire, we will not be remembered as the scientist who had this or that much funding, but as the scientist who advanced a certain field by his or her specific findings. I’ll take findings over fundings any day.

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

International Women’s Day: 100 years

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Steve Caplan

Seeing as it’s now exactly almost 100 years since the first celebration of International Women’s Day, I thought it might be important to have some perspective on the equality of women in Israel, a country where I spent many important years of my life.

It would probably surprise many people to know that the reason that I did not return to Israel to accept an academic position after my postdoctoral work was not that I was unable to get a job. Actually, I had several offers. Others might have thought that it was the security situation; the constant fear of terror and anxiety. Although I certainly do not miss these feelings, I must admit that that was not the main reason either.

Oddly enough, perhaps, the key reason was related to the inherent gender inequality in the country, stemming from (at least in my view) the religious domination of the country. How can one possibly expect equal salaries, equal opportunities, and equal treatment when women cannot even get divorced without explicit permission from their husbands. So it’s hardly a surprise to learn of the extent of inequality that exists there. And when I considered what the future held in store for my daughter, I could not envision giving up system where at least on paper, equality exists.

In keeping with the spirit of this date, I am going to cross post an article from the best Israeli newspaper by an outstanding journalist named Avirama Golan.

Israel is no country for women

    Feminism is arguably the most successful revolution in contemporary times, but a close examination of the situation for women in Israel in recent years reveals a number of worrisome steps backward.

    By Avirama Golan

    International Women’s Day is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, but before we clear our schedules to join in the festivities – like a day of pampering at the spa, or getting flowers from the bank that charges us excessive interest for pointless services – it’s worth reminding ourselves what the celebration is actually about and asking whether it is justified.

    March 8 has been designated to commemorate the time when women joined the economy in general and the workforce in particular. In this respect, as in many respects that concern women’s lives, far-reaching changes have indeed been made. Feminism is arguably the most successful revolution in contemporary times. But a close examination of the situation for women in Israel in recent years reveals a number of worrisome steps backward.

    Let us set aside for the moment the really serious problems – trafficking in women, child marriages (Balad MK Hanin Zuabi is to submit a bill calling to raise the legal age at which girls can get married, but agreements between families in fact bypass even the existing law ), child prostitution, violence against women and so forth – and focus on the average woman here. A woman from the middle class, who has been told by the government that her life has improved immeasurably in recent years thanks to the impressive growth of the economy.

    What does she have to complain about? She has a job, an apartment, a car, and let’s assume also a husband and two or three children, as is accepted practice in Israel. She attended university, where she specialized in a modern profession and now, at the age of 37, let’s say, she enjoys good health and the kind of freedom her great grandmother could have only dreamed of. But perhaps not.

    Her great grandmother was indeed married off and had five children at a young age, without anyone consulting her; she barely ever left the kitchen, and no one heard her opinion about anything. The great granddaughter, by contrast, looks more like a small personal enterprise than a human being. When today’s woman reached the age of 29, and was still not married, her surrounding environment – which until then had politely clapped its hands over her academic and professional achievements – stopped being enthusiastic and started to get worried.

    When she got married, everyone heaved a sigh of relief, but when she was not yet pregnant at the age of 33, all the well-wishers began asking what she was waiting for, whether the time had not yet come and whether she perhaps needed the address of an excellent specialist in fertilization. From the moment she became pregnant, she became the property of everyone in sight. All her work colleagues asked personal and embarrassing questions and the family interfered in every decision. This merely grew worse once the baby was born, and she joined the club of those women who “combine a career and a family.”

    This nasty phrase is the front for an entire system of social codes, all of which demand the young woman be an exemplary mother who will nurse her baby, take him to all the developmental groups, and swimming and yoga classes; that she be an excellent cook and a sweet wife; but also that she keep her trim figure by taking exercise classes, and give off an aura of sexiness (but not too much, of course ) and charm – and all of this without losing the momentum of her success at work.

    Her partner, too, who is supposed to be attentive and sensitive, a model father and a wonderful husband (there’s no way he would forget a birthday ), while also developing a brilliant career and an impressive income, is collapsing under the pressure. To this we must add the crazy prices of apartments, massive mortgages, the lack of security about employment, and the huge costs of day care centers, emergency visits to the doctor, special medication, dental treatments and additional academic study – all those services that a welfare state is supposed to provide its citizens – and you have a desperate and fearful couple. Only the woman even more so.

    Women in Israel earn about one third less than men. Compared to their counterparts in the West, they are doubly inferior. The majority of women here serve in the army, which means they must delay their academic and professional plans; they are under pressure to start a family at a young age and to give birth to more children than what is accepted practice in the West; and all of this in a traditional and conservative environment that denounces any exceptions (and this is several times more serious when talking about Arab women ), despite the dramatic rise in the number of divorces. Of course, they find themselves facing additional emotional and economic struggles.

    On the one hand, women are subject to draconian laws with regard to marital ties and must face rabbinical courts that are galloping back to the Middle Ages; and on the other hand, they must contend with the oppressive demand for eternal youth (to be obtained through botox injections ) and success in a wild work market filled with hatred toward families in general, and specifically toward mothers (as well as fathers ) who are merely trying to remain sane.

    In short, the Israel of 2011 is not a state for women. Instead of a holiday, could we perhaps just have a little rest?
    i#me

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 20 Comments

Postdocs treadmilling in science careers

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Steve Caplan

I recently read Jenny’s outstanding and insightful commentary entitled “Give postdocs a career, not empty promises” published on March 2 (in your nth favorite weekly science journal beginning with the letter N).

First, I want to voice my absolute support, for what it’s worth, with Jenny’s comments about changing the structure of the scientific pyramid. I agree completely that this competitive system is cruel and a real waste of talent and experience to have highly trained postdoctoral fellows unable to find suitable jobs, and to treat the scientific workforce–-students and postdocs–as though they were disposable pipettes.

I agree completely with Jenny’s philosophy that one of the duties of a mentor is to give an indication to students and postdoctoral fellows in the laboratory as to what their chances are of obtaining faculty positions in academia. I think that is absolutely a vital and necessary thing for every mentor to do.

However, I think that the problem actually goes quite a bit deeper than that. For example, I find that newly recruited students into graduate programs in the sciences often have very little or no idea at all what they are getting into. In my institute, we have our own departmental program for graduate students, as well as an umbrella program that is used to recruit students to the Institute, and they have their choice of which departments and laboratories to rotate in. I frequently find myself interviewing students who would like to be accepted into either of these programs and I have the opportunity to discuss with them their career goals and see exactly what they know and what they would like to do.

For the most part, I find that the students have very little idea of what they intend to do and even what their options are once they graduate. Students seldom seem to have any idea of what is expected of them in the course of their graduate work in order to obtain permanent positions or jobs once they graduate. In fact, they often seem only interested in how to obtain their PhD degrees and have very little concern at this point as to what they will do with the degree once they have obtained it. It seems as though nobody has spent the time to counsel them on what constitutes a successful graduate degree and successful graduate career and how they can use that in order to obtain jobs in the future.

Many of the students seem to come with the idea that the very most important thing for them is to achieve high grade point averages in the courses that they take at the beginning of their PhD programs. Rather than sit and explain to them the nuts and bolts of my own research program when I interview them (as some of my colleagues do), instead I find it important to discuss with them what their future goals are and what they intend to extract from the PhD experience. I find that they seldom have any idea that when they complete their PhD and graduate that they will be assessed by their scientific abilities: their publication records, the techniques they have mastered, and importantly, recommendation letters from the mentor and other faculty that they have worked with.

So I would go even further than Jenny and actually say that the mentor’s role is critical in educating prospective students and/or postdoctoral fellows so that they will understand exactly how the system works.

A key issue raised by Jenny in her article is the idea of professional scientists or professional postdoctoral fellows. Jenny correctly points out that after all of the training in doing science, and the laboratory work that postdoctoral fellows have done, many of them are either not suited or really do not necessarily want to do the kind of work that a principal investigator needs to do. This includes grant writing, administration, teaching, dealing with overall bureaucracy and of course the rat race in trying to obtain funding to allow a laboratory to continue its research. Really, a principal investigator, is never actually trained in the mess of bureaucratic activities that she/he spends so much time dealing with.

Principal investigators actually learn on the job to do all of the sorts of human resource-related bureaucracy and deal with issues of personnel, etc. For this reason many new investigators find themselves in shock when they realize that their progress in academic institutes as new investigators no longer depends on their prolific ability to generate data at the bench, but rather stems from their skills as administrators–something for which they have never been formally trained to do.

Jenny has proposed that it would be a good idea to have “career tracks” that are available for postdoctoral fellows who have gone through so much training so that they may stay in the laboratory and continue their productive and experienced research studies. Personally, I think that this is a wonderful idea and have been advocating this myself for many years. The problem, of course, is the issue of money. And at least in the United States the system dictates that each laboratory is its own entity and is responsible for funding the individuals who work within the confines of a laboratory. This means that in order for an investigator to be able to hire such a super postdoctoral fellow he or she will need to be able to finance such a person in the laboratory.

Would a research institute give up on constructing a new “center” or building (with donors names and golden plaques for key contributors) to fund a pool of talented “senior researchers” to be ‘awarded’ to successful laboratories–with the goal to be able to attract additional funding? After all, without the prospect of some ‘return‘ on the investment, research institutes are unlikely to support such an idea. Would the donors and contributors be satisfied with their names on the backs of these senior researcher’s shirts? It would be great, but are we kidding ourselves?

But I’m with you, Jenny–lead on…

Posted in Education, research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Bad sports?

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Steve Caplan

When we first moved to Omaha, Nebraska some years ago, and settled into our new house, it was a Friday. By Saturday noon, we had made an initial stab at organizing a few essential boxes, and wanted to relieve the “cabin fever” by taking a drive to familiarize ourselves with our new surroundings.

On this July afternoon, we drove downtown, barely encountering cars on the road. It was surreal, almost like a ghost town, and we were beginning to wonder whether there were actually people in the city–or whether this was just a mirage, made up of only houses and buildings.

Well, yes–Omaha does have many inhabitants. So where were they this sunny July afternoon? They were all either attending the “Big Red” University of Nebraska Cornhuskers college (American) football game in Lincoln, Nebraska (50 miles away)–or they were watching it on television. Given that there are no professional football teams in Nebraska, there is a great deal of local pride in the “Cornhuskers”. Indeed, so much so, that (at least according to the scientist played by Harrison Ford in “Extraordinary Measures“) the coach of this team is the highest paid employee of the University of Nebraska (estimated at 2.1 million dollars a year). That apparently includes the President of the University, the Chancellor of the College of Medicine and the various Deans and other high ranking academics.

It is true that I spent my youth/adolescence mostly in Winnipeg, Canada (home of the mosquitoes and snow). However, all of my undergraduate and graduate studies were at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. To the very best of my knowledge, there were NO sports teams at the university. Neither the most popular sport (European) football (=soccer in the US), nor the highly popular basketball. The reason? Studies were extremely intensive. Who could possibly have time to even watch sports, not to mention actually play and train. Although my experience with European universities is very limited, I suspect that organized sports (especially those that are nationally televised and regarded more seriously than the studies themselves) are not major components of the academic systems. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Is a huge investment in sports justified? Does this come at the expense of scientists, historians and academics, as well as scholarships and fellowships for students? Those in favor of college sports maintain that the interest and revenues generated by the sports programs by far outweigh the financial costs. In other words, sports are more profitable than science, for example–and well, colleges today have “accountability”. Business is business. But what about academics? Is that not the first priority of an institute of higher learning?

I myself am not biased against sports and athletics. During my youth, I loved to play (European) football, basketball, ice hockey, tennis, volleyball and more. I even managed to train and run a couple marathons before my knees “went south”. Perhaps because of that. Years later, when I found an unbelievably brilliant physiotherapist who helped me through my painful knee troubles, I moaned about not being able to play sports and stay healthy. I recall the shock that I had when he looked at me and said, “Who says playing sports keeps you healthy? Playing sports ruins your body.”

I thought about that statement a lot. Especially when reading that Olympic swimmers typically have about 8-10 shoulder operations by the time they are 30 years of age, and that the average professional golfer also undergoes a similar number of shoulder and sometimes knee operations. Professional basketball players continually have knee operations, and I have read about many who receive routine cortisone shots for back and shoulder pain. There is no need to discuss wrestling and certainly not boxing, if one even deems it a “sport”. I could go on and on–any sport with repetitive motion (all sports, basically) when played at a “professional” level will lead to injuries. Just take me as an example–a professional computer user–and I have been suffering this past month from severe neck/shoulder arm pain (what can I do, grants and papers are due…). So much so, that I have actually splurged and purchased voice recognition software to try dictation. So don’t laugh if my upcoming blogs come out unreadable!

But I digress, and digression is painful for me right now… So my real question is what is it with our “love of sport”–a love that survives even in the face of pain and injury? Is the sport the ultimate (legal) display of domination? The simulation of war, as aptly told in John Knowles great novel “A Separate Peace“? Now, I can already feel Henry going into offensive mode over this next statement–but is sport an evolutionary custom to replace our caveman-like hunter-warrior desires (yes–gender purposefully male here, and not ‘caveperson’)? Is scoring a goal in football equivalent to male penetration and dominance?

Before I exacerbate my shoulder problems further, and alienate Henry, I will sign off…

Posted in Education, science | Tagged , , , , , , | 21 Comments

I’d rather be blasting homeopathy…

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Steve Caplan

Although Austin has been doing such a great job in this area, and Cath’s defrocking of “horror-scopes” made a nice contribution, I would like to get my own claws on this matter. But alas, sadly, I have my own agenda that needs attention first. One day, perhaps, I will have the time to touch on homeopathy. And chess. And also challenge those who think they can “wipe the floor at scrabble”. Hope the letter tiles didn’t get dirty…

But for now, it’s another couple letters of complaint that I managed to throw together, in between what I’m actually supposed to be doing. The first letter is to an acronym-termed anonymous company that posted a $63 fine on my car windshield while my family and I were enjoying a phenomenal dance performance by the African-American group known as “Step Afrika”. The second letter is to my representative congressman, Mr. Terry Lee. All bets are off as to whether either letter will even be replied to.

Place your bets:
A) Replies to Letter 1 and Letter 2
B) Replies to Letter 1 and not Letter 2
C) Replies to Letter 2 and not Letter 1
D) No reply at all…
E) None of the above (just for good measure)

Letter 1:

Dear Payment Center – PRRS,

Last evening on Feb. 18 at approximately 7:35 p.m., my family and I arrived in downtown Omaha—specifically to the Holland Center, to watch the 8:00 p.m. “Step Afrika” dance performance. We have had season’s tickets to all dance performances for the past 4-5 years, and have been paying $8.00 for parking at the nearby outdoor lot.
First of all, in all these years, we have NEVER (I repeat, NEVER) been issued any receipt to place on the dashboard of the car. The system was managed exclusively by one manner: only paying customers were allowed to enter the lot. Our only instruction was to “park anywhere”.

My family, including a 9 year old boy and 12 year old girl, along with my wife and myself, were absolutely appalled to find that we had been accused of violating the law (and were ticketed with a $63 fine) when we arrived back in the parking lot after a wonderful and inspiring performance. We have raised our children to be honest, law abiding, and entirely truthful. My wife and I are both professors involved in biomedical research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and ethics in science are an integral part of our mentoring of graduate and medical students.

In this regard, I have three honest witnesses, who heard the conversation between my wife and myself about who would take the parking fee out of whose wallet to pay, and whether we should try to find exact change, or pay the $8.00 fee with a $10.00 bill—which is what we ultimately did.

The next inaccurate issue is that the ticket was issued for 2/18/2011 and the time listed was 19:04. This is the time that we left our West Omaha home for the ~30 minute drive out to the Holland Center downtown. We arrived approximately at 19:35, as noted above, which allowed us to enter the Holland Center at about 19:40, watch part of a high school step show and then find our way to our seats just before the performance. I myself did not arrive home from work in West Omaha until 18:30 p.m., when my family sat down for dinner, and as noted, we did not leave our home until about 19:00.

My family and I are very disturbed by this unjust citation, and we respectfully request that this fine be waived, as we have paid our dues to the yellow-jacketed parking attendants, and have done nothing wrong. We would like very much to prove to our children that there is justice in the American system, and that this dispute will meet with a fair reponse.

Respectfully,
…

Letter 2

As a citizen of the city of Omaha in Douglas County, a scientist, author and constituent, I strongly request that you vigorously oppose H.R.1, a continuing resolution (CR) for the remainder of FY2011, that includes steep cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These proposed cuts to the NIH budget will be a disaster for my laboratory and other the laboratories at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. The proposed budgetary cuts will not only have a very negative impact on jobs in Nebraska, they will slow the development of cures for many diseases, including cancer. Moreover, the loss of key personnel in my laboratory and others in the state resulting from these budget cuts will be harmful to the Nebraskan economy. Please understand that researchers such as myself come from institutions across the globe, and every laboratory built and stabilized in this state contributes in numerous ways to the growth of Nebraska: enhanced economy, jobs, spending and tax dollars, as well as bringing and maintaining more outstanding citizens to this state.

H.R.1 plans to fund the NIH at FY08 levels. If this CR is enacted, these drastic cuts will devastate biomedical research; cures will be delayed, jobs will be eliminated, and American leadership and innovation will be jeopardized. NIH is the primary federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical research, most of which is done at medical schools, hospitals, universities and research institutes distributed in every state in the country. NIH-funded research drives scientific innovation and develops new and better diagnostics, prevention strategies, and more effective treatments. NIH-funded research also contributes to the nation’s economic strength by creating skilled, high-paying jobs; new products and industries; and improved technologies.

Continued commitment to NIH is essential for securing a strong national economy and for maintaining our leadership as the global leader in research and development. Indeed, as President Obama stated in his 2011 State of the Union Address to Congress, “one key to future growth in the U.S. economy will be to encourage American innovation and job creation by investing in research and development—including biomedical research at the NIH.”

Investment in the NIH produces a steady stream of talented researchers who lead the way to treatments and cures for some of the world’s most devastating diseases. In fact, a report by Families USA estimated that in FY07, NIH awards to the states resulted in 351,000 jobs that paid an average annual wage of more than $52,000 and this resulted in $50.537 billion in increased output of goods and services to the U.S. The jobs, the spinoff industries, and the local development that are sustained by NIH awards will disappear or relocate to more competitive nations—such as China or India—without continued and stable funding for the NIH.

In addition, a cut of the magnitude proposed by H.R.1 will slow research progress and squander invaluable scientific opportunities, to the detriment of our nation’s health. As a result of recent investments, we have experienced extraordinary advances in biomedical research that have resulted in significant breakthroughs in many life-threatening diseases. Examples of these advances include a 60% reduction in death from coronary heart disease; a reduction in U.S. cancer death rates by 11.4% among women and almost 20% for men in the past 15 years; and indeed, because of NIH-funded research, a dramatic improvement in life expectancy overall. These advances did not happen overnight. It takes a sustained commitment of time and resources to realize these and many other medical breakthroughs.

I urge you to strongly oppose H.R.1 and support the NIH with sustained, dependable funding. We need to continue to work together to build an economy that promotes jobs and spurs scientific innovation. Science, research, discovery, and innovation are keys to a better future and are a strategic step forward in ensuring not only a strong economy but also a healthy nation.

Sincerely,
…

I KNOW WHAT I’M BETTING, AND IT’S NOT WHAT I’M HOPING...

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

A working vacation

Posted on February 19, 2011 by Steve Caplan

Some time ago, one of my children asked me to explain what an oxymoron is, and I scrambled to find a good example. Well the title of this blog is a good one. Or is it?

Years ago as Ph.D. students in Jerusalem in the mid-1990s, my spouse and I were among the very bottom percentile of technology-driven Israelis–we did not own a cell phone. I find myself reminiscing about the time when I took the shuttle bus from the Hadassah Medical Center parking lot to my laboratory building, and as usual the bus was packed like a can of sardines and I was hanging on to a seat for dear life. Cell phones were becoming very popular, and there were two men standing on either side of me shouting away into their phones, and intermittently shouting at each other to “shut up so I can hear”. I actually ended up breaking up the developing pushing/shoving fight between the two of them, and thinking to myself that I never want one of these contraptions that seem to ‘dehumanize’ people. Does technology ‘dehumanize’ people? There is a wonderful series of photographs published in Carl Zeiss’ semi-annual “Innovation” booklet entitled “Love in the time of the internet”; particularly the one entitled “Digital Blind Date” that seemed to sum up my fears…

But I pride myself on my ability to adapt, to learn new tricks, and not to fear the advance of technology–in the lab and in my personal life. So when we arrived in Rockville, Maryland here in the US for post-doctoral studies, with a 3 month old baby, we realized that it would be extremely helpful to have a mobile phone. After all, we did not want to get stranded on a highway somewhere with the old car we were barely able to purchase.

As we moved to Omaha, Nebraska to take on faculty positions about 7 years ago, we found it useful to expand our plan to include a second mobile phone; after all, we now had two motor vehicles and two children, and instant contact became a necessary fact of life. With a daughter who has just begun middle school, has after school activities and rehearsals, we recently found a third line quite useful.

About 2 years ago, a friend and colleague of mine suggested that I get a “Blackberry”. I looked at him like he was crazy. After all, I work all day and half the night in front of a screen, have wireless internet at home, and seem to be “always in contact” with my lab and with work. Journals, grant agencies, students. Do I not deserve a little “quality time” without being online 24/7?

Well, I thought about it–as I noted earlier, one of my many few attributes is that I can be convinced, when a good argument is put forth. I am not afraid to admit I am wrong (but don’t tell anyone…). I decided to give it a try.

To my surprise and satisfaction (now 2.5 years later), I found that the immediate access to e-mail (and now Twitter and even Occam’s Typewriter) did not drive me crazy. In fact, on my first vacation, a series of hikes and travels through some of the beautiful parks in the Pacific Northwest (and a visit to Cath’s beloved Vancouver), I found that the Blackberry–hooked directly to my university e-mail–provided me with a great deal of relief and comfort at knowing that I could stay “in the loop” and be able to respond to any arising crisis in my lab. Why didn’t I realize this earlier?

Such was the case when last week I spent 6 days in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico– a beautiful place for a vacation (admittedly not our first choice as we are not “beach people”, but chosen for a variety of personal reasons). As my children played in the sand, I would wander up and down the beach, answering e-mails, making sure things were going smoothly back in the lab, and I was even able to publish my most recent blog, “Regression to the mean” from my Blackberry sitting by the pool after coming out from a swim.

Have I lost my freedom? I don’t think so. On the outings we were able to arrange, dolphin swims for the kids, “zip-lining” over the jungle canopy, and the best–bird watching, the Blackberry was silent or away in a locker (did not want to drop it several hundred meters into the jungle below). So was this really “a working vacation”? Or was I able to relax more, knowing that I am in easy contact?

Below are a few of the wonderful sights we saw. In future blogs I hope to go back and post images from other recent trips to central America (Belize and Costa Rica), and eventually older trips to S. America.

A Mexican iguana, recently

These are Mexican Crox, not the Cromer-type...

Unknown teal-green plant, Banderas Bay near Nayarit, Mexico

Masked Tityra

Can anyone (Kristi?) help me out with this one?

Russet-crowned Motmot, near Banderas Bay, Mexico

Not as nice as Cath's starfish banner, but beggars can't be choosy...

Yellow-winged Casique

Male Painted Buntings-- in fact two of them--the Americas' most beautiful bird?

One more: Who am I?

Who am I? Can any non-molecular biologist help?

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , , | 22 Comments

Regression to the “mean”

Posted on February 15, 2011 by Steve Caplan

They say that Steve Caplan is a mild-mannered scientist. But he pops into a phone-booth–no wait–that’s a thing of the past–he pops into the darkroom, and out comes Dr. Mean…

Well, I do have a temper. Perhaps it’s slow to boil, but occasionally I lose it. I’m human. And what tends to set me off is an overdose of “ego-display”- also known as “peacockization”. And of course we scientists are” full of it”…

Several years ago I was minding my own business in my office when my computer again alerted me of an incoming e-mail. I was awaiting several sets of critiques, from journals and grant agencies, so my pulse took off and I nervously toggled to my e-mail program.

What awaited me was neither manuscript or grant critiques. It was a letter sent by an affiliated faculty member (in a different institution) informing every member of my department–students, technicians, post-docs, and faculty–that this affiliated (“courtesy”) faculty member had just published a paper in such-and-such journal, and as it was an important body of work, he was certain we’d all like to read it. The paper itself was attached.

In goes mild-mannered Steve into the darkroom and out comes Dr. Mean, fully regressed.

Claws sharpened, clickety-clack, Dr. Mean comprises the following e-mail (more or less) and “Replies to All”…

“Dear Dr. X, Thank you so much for your consideration and for kindly providing this most fascinating body of work to us all. I reckon that some of us were having trouble sleeping without it. By the way, FYI, there is a wonderful little tool provided by NIH called PUBMED (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), and it’s great because every researcher can find exactly what he/she is interested in. You should definitely try it.

With best regards,

Dr. Mean

Ps. Did it work? Don’t know–never heard from him again…

Posted in humor, research, science | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

The four Yorkshiremen at NIH…

Posted on February 10, 2011 by Steve Caplan

I said it. It didn’t mean to slip out, but it did. Well, I can’t cap the genie back in the bottle, can I? So here it is: “When I was at the NIH…”

When I was a young student, my Ph.D. mentor was fresh from her postdoctoral studies at that famous group of institutes, the National Institutes of Health–NIH. When she wanted to impress upon us how quickly research moved (compared to our snail-paced and marginal research), she would always begin with that statement: “When I was at the NIH…” Being respectful students, we would always groan and roll our eyes nod and agree. Yes, it must have been wonderful to be at the NIH. But I swore to myself that if I ever have my own lab, I would not go around ranting and raving like the Monty Python sketch with the four Yorkshiremen, “When I was at the NIH…”

Well guess what? It was a wonderful place for a postdoc! When my time came to look for a postdoctoral position, I was heavily influenced by the stories of all night protein purifications, massive P32 labeling experiments with no holds barred. It sounded like a dream place. After all, in Israel we often had to plan experiments weeks in advance because orders for reagents could easily take 3 weeks to arrive from the US.

So I lined up 5-6 interviews for positions at NIH. In one interview (now remember, this was back in 1997)–actually for the lab I ended up choosing– the mentor was talking to me and said: “aside from the common reagents like media, serum restriction enzymes, DNA purification kits, etc., each postdoc has about $1000/month for additional reagents”. I think my tongue was hanging out of my mouth when he said this, and he must have been somewhat taken aback, because he immediately spoke again to allay any concerns: “But if that isn’t enough, we can always find ways to purchase more”. I was sold.

So I did my postdoctoral research at NIH. And it was wonderful. All the reagents, equipment, collaborations. Microscopes galore. All you have to do is be motivated to succeed!

But now in my own lab it finally slipped out. A momentary lapse. A lazy-style experiment. And there it was: “When I was at the NIH…”

Well guess what? I have a former student now doing a postdoc at NIH. So when physicists debate the “particle or wave model”–I’m sure it goes in waves.

The NIH-centric model

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Which researcher is more likely to be “productive”?

Posted on February 8, 2011 by Steve Caplan

We all have our own styles and ways of doing things. What do YOU think? Is it the “cluttered” bench, or the “pristine” bench. Both photos taken (as a good control) at the end of a working day…

The Pristine Bench

The Cluttered Bench

Posted in humor, research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 12 Comments