On having a heart and using my voice

I recently updated the photo on my UK drivers license, and had the new card sent to my parents’ address. They received it a few weeks ago and couriered it back to me (along with the original marriage certificate I’d had to send with the application to get my name changed), but the associated updated NHS* Organ Donor card only showed up at their place in the last few days. My Dad informed me of this fact during our regular Sunday Skype, and asked me what I wanted to do:

Dad: “Shall we send it over, or keep it here?”

Me: “I think it makes more sense for it to be in the same country as my actual organs”

Dad: “So you want us to send it?”

Me: “Well, I’d send you my organs to put with the card, but I’m using them”

Dad: “Cheeky bugger. Now, shall we just bring it when we come over in May, or do you need it before then?”

Me: “…”

(I know the card has no formal meaning in Canada or anywhere else outside the UK, by the way – but because I don’t drive here I don’t have its Canadian equivalent, so the presence of the NHS card in my wallet might be helpful to the people who’d have to make any organ-related decisions, regardless of their location.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In other weekend news: who do we have here?!**

robocall

There’s a longer shot of me in the video embedded in the news story itself. Mostly I just look a bit stupid because I was walking along talking to the colleague I’d just spotted (I also ran into someone I’d met at Vancouver Change Camp, someone who recognised me from Twitter, and David Suzuki), and only saw the CBC cameraman – standing stock still in the middle of the flow of people – at the last minute, and thought I was going to walk right into him. But before and after that I looked all chanty and angry and such.

It felt damn good to get out there, make some noise, and demand that someone bloody well DO SOMETHING (i.e. hold a prompt and thorough inquiry that has serious consequences for anyone found guilty – consequences that include holding byelections in all affected ridings) – but even better to realise that I’m not alone, not the only one who’s paying attention, and not the only one who’s as mad as hell about it (the apathy among most of my friends has been almost as depressing and infuriating as the allegations themselves). I think this issue has legs – I’ve heard people talking about it who don’t usually discuss politics at all*** – and hopefully Saturday’s protest was just the start.

Watch this space!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Sign #127 that Cath is now fully Canadianised: typing NHL instead of NHS. Twice. For shame, for shame!

**Sign #128: being on the CBC news

***My favourite comment, regarding unwanted dining companions during a conference: “just get the government to call them at the last minute and send them to the wrong restaurant. Problem solved!”

Posted in activism, bad people, Canada, current affairs, family, medicine, personal, photos, politics, Vancouver, videos | 8 Comments

Whaddya mean “that’s not normal?!”

North Yorkshire, circa 1987.

A classroom full of nine- and ten-year-olds.

An assignment to write a story that involved food.

A girl (not the blogger!) standing up at her desk, pulling her knee socks back up before starting to read her story to the class.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I remember walking down my street, and then the next thing I remember is sitting up in bed eating bacon and eggs. That’s when I knew that I must have been hit by a car. My mum came in -”

Teacher: “Hold on – I think I might have missed something here. How did you know you’d been hit by a car?”

Girl: “Because you always get bacon and eggs when you’ve been hit by a car!” (“DUH!” implied but not stated).

Teacher: “Have… have you been hit by a car before?”

Girl: “Just once. My Mum’s been hit two or three times, and my Dad at least two times. And you always get bacon and eggs after”.

(Everyone stares at her, including the flabbergasted teacher).

Girl: “Is… is that not normal?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we’ve all been there at one time or another. A twist to a technique that you inherited from the person who taught you but that no-one else has ever seen before; a freaky thing one of your limbs or joints does (and has always done) that makes everyone else back off in horror; a word or phrase that your new colleagues interpret very differently from the friends you grew up with. For me the most striking example was when I was in my late teens and mentioned to some friends that I had to visit a card shop on the way home to buy my parents an anniversary card. I’d always done this – prompted by my parents, who’d also get a small box of chocolates or something out of the deal – and never questioned it, because that’s just What You Did. But my friends all thought it was really, really strange – and other groups of friends have concurred over the years (Mr E Man’s family don’t even send each other birthday cards, but that’s another story).

These things have different names in every office I've ever worked in. My favourites were "slippery Jimmies" and "polypockets".

I’ve found that moving to a new job, town and/or country every few years has been a great way to challenge my own little assumed normalities that are actually quite unique to me and my family, or to a particular company, university, town, country, or continent. And, because it’s Friday afternoon, the fire alarms are being tested with all the resulting noise and distraction that entails, and my brain won’t work after a long week of grant submissions and missed sleep, I’m hoping you’ll all entertain me by sharing your own examples in the comments!

Posted in career, communication, education, family, food glorious food, freakishness, grant wrangling, personal, silliness | 14 Comments

Could this be…

…the most useless list of spellcheck suggestions of all time?

tumourderived

(I’m sure a tamarind genome sequence is in the works, somewhere…)

…the worst possible weather in which to be running around collecting grant signatures from PIs in three different buildings?

photo(29)

…a dangerous and potentially even ruinous marketing strategy in a climate like Vancouver’s?

photo(32)

(taken at BierCraft on Cambie Street, Vancouver)

…the most patient author in the world?

(from the consistently hilarious TOC ROFL)

…a new trend of religiously themed beer?

photo(30)

(taken at our favourite beer store, Brewery Creek on Main Street, Vancouver)

photo(31)

(also taken at BierCraft)

…a day too full of grant wrangling for proper blogging?

Why, yes! Yes to all of the above!

Posted in career, drunkenness, English language, idiocy, photos, publishing, science, screenshots, silliness, snow, technology, Vancouver | 8 Comments

Time to write a final report on a completed grant!

Don't worry, it's only a first draft

Posted in cancer research, career, communication, English language, grant wrangling, Instagram, photos, silliness | 14 Comments

Hockey Pool Update, Weeks 19 and 20

Many thanks to Chall and ScientistMother for hosting Weeks 17 and 18, respectively!

I messed up a bit by thinking Ricardipus had signed up for Week 19, but he hadn’t – he’d just said that he could do it “some time soon” – so this is a double update! I’ve now added a list of who’s doing which weeks to the spreadsheet, so if you haven’t hosted for a while please mozy on over and sign up for a week in February or March (Ricardipus, I’ve already signed you up for next week, but feel free to change that if needed).

Right, the update:

week1920

(I’ve hit my allotted upload limit here on OT, so I had to do this via Flickr and for some reason it’s put the graph on a grey background. But I’m doing this on my lunchbreak, sandwich in hand, so I don’t have time to fix it – sorry!)

Well, my run at the top came to an end in week 20, as my puck pick luck deserted me and Modscientist leapfrogged ahead with a very strong weekly showing. Ricardipus also did well in both weeks, almost catching me, and Lavaland kept up the pressure in fourth place. It’s still incredibly tight in this top group, and the leader of the pool seems to change almost daily!

Gerty is still all alone between the two main groups, doing consistently well and trying her hardest to pull away from the bottom five! In that trailing group ScientistMother and Mr E Man are almost neck and neck in 6th and 7th places, while Beth and Bob continue to trade places in their race for the bottom to be the most efficient player (i.e. the one who survives on the fewest points per week). Chall had a poor week in week 19, but has picked up since then and remains in 8th place.

It’s still a long way until the final game of the regular season on April 7th! Anything could happen!

Posted in hockey pool | 10 Comments

Never gonna let you down?

I have somehow managed to retain some semblance of a utopian view of science.

I don’t mean to say that I’m blind to its flaws or that I’m not at all cynical about it. But I think I’m less cynical (or maybe just blinder) than the average scientist: I still believe in the scientific method as the best means we have to understand our universe, and in science as one of humankind’s most worthwhile endeavours.

Don’t ask me how – it’s a miracle I’d rather not probe too deeply lest it collapse under scrutiny.

Stronger than anything, though, is my sense that Science People are My People.

I first felt this sense of being “home” when I met my fellow genetics students at the age of 18. I had a few friends in high school who’d chosen science A levels (a very few – there were five of us taking chemistry and seven taking biology (two of us taking both), from an intake of 180. There were also seven students taking physics, but I wasn’t one of them because I chose maths instead), but in most cases it was as a means to an end for a particular career (optometry, speech therapy, engineering, sports science) rather than because of any particular love of pure science for its own sake. But when I started my undergrad training, I suddenly found myself among people just like me for the first time ever – people who would breathe “cool!” to their friend during a lecture on virology or molecular evolution, people who not only didn’t think it was strange when I confessed that I wanted to do a PhD but rather said “oh, yeah, me too!”.

My feeling of having found my “tribe” only intensified as my training continued. I loved the atmosphere of working in a lab, of discussing science on coffee and lunch breaks. Less tangible – but more important – was my enjoyment at finding myself surrounded by people with an above average intelligence, sense of curiosity, and aptitude for logical thinking. Yes there were a few personality clashes, but my workplace encounters with genuine bona fide closed-mind dumbasses were (and remain) vanishingly rare.

The exceptions therefore come as a bit of a shock.

The first example (and the inspiration for this post) was brought to mind last night, the first night this year that I’ve left work at my usual time and noticed that the sky wasn’t completely dark; a long stretch of rainy days had obscured the progress we’d been making recently, suddenly revealing a much later sunset when the clouds finally cleared. This is one of my favourite moments of every year, even though Vancouver’s latitude of 49 degrees North (just marginally north of Paris) grants me much more winter light than Glasgow (55 degrees North) ever did.

And it was to Glasgow that my memory returned… specifically a lab lunch outing in the middle of winter, at which assorted colleagues were moaning about how horribly dark it was and how it wasn’t fair that those bastards south of the border got more light than us.

“I think it’s totally worth it to have longer days in the summer, though”, quoth I. “I mean, I wouldn’t want to go outside in this weather even if it was light, but in the summer I love having more time outside than when I lived in England”.

Blank faces all around.

“No, we get less light here”, explained one of the techs.

“Yeah – in the winter. We get more in the summer”.

More blank faces.

The whole table was listening in at this point, and it transpired that no-one else at that very well educated table of Brits, Germans and Greeks, from PI down to the newest student, knew this fact that I’d almost thought was too obvious to mention. I had to explain in excruciating detail about the poles and the rotation of the earth and the fact that the closer you are to a pole the more extremes of dark and light you experience, with the Arctic and Antarctic circles experiencing days and weeks of unbroken light in the summer and dark in the winter, with locations along the equator having essentially no variation in sunrise and sunset times… and it was news to everyone there.

“Were you originally thinking of getting into astronomy, or something, before you chose genetics?”, asked one of the postdocs once I’d finished.

“Um, no… I thought it was one of those things everyone knows”.

But the consensus was that there was no point learning and remembering that kind of information unless you were “really into” astronomy. So much for scientists’ unbridled curiosity about the world.

The second example was another seemingly minor incident that for some reason continues to bother me, and stems from my last job here in Vancouver.

I arrived at work at roughly the same time every day and brought my bike in through the back door, where the bike storage room was located. I tended to run into the same people over and over again, including one of the R&D scientists who seemed to be on roughly the same schedule. We didn’t work together directly, but it was a small enough company that everyone knew who everyone else was, at least by face if not name, even if they were on completely different projects in different departments. I would therefore always say hello – but she never, ever replied or indeed acknowledged my presence beyond an occasional scowl. (This may possibly have biased me against her and her other actions, because exceptions to bike room buddy friendliness are few and far between. In fact I think she was just one of two or three I’ve encountered in 14 years of cycling to work).

More often than not, I’d encounter this person while she was attempting to stretch her keycard to within range of the card reader by the door. At the time (i.e. before we had to start wearing photo ID cards around our necks AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE due to some kind of US regulation for Canadian companies who register to fast-track shipments through the border), most of us kept our cards on one of those wire reel clips that fit over a pocket or belt loop – or, indeed, a bike pannier strap. This scientist and I had very similar styles of panniers, both used two of them every day, and both chose to fasten our card clip to a strap on one pannier for the ride to work. But while I kept my cards clipped to my left hand side pannier, to match the position of the card reader to the left of the door, this other person put her cards on her right hand side pannier.

And then had to struggle to make the wire stretch over her body and bike so the card could activate the reader, all without letting the bike fall over.

So, several times a week I would ride up; spot her trying to maneuver herself, her card and her bike into position without falling over; say hello; get no response; activate the card reader using my own card, conveniently positioned on the correct side of the bike; hold the door open for her after I went through; get no word of thanks.

She kept clipping her cards onto the right hand side pannier, despite clear weekly demonstrations of the superiority of my method. Every time. For MONTHS, until I suddenly stopped seeing her at the back door.

Is that any way for a scientist to behave, I ask you?! If I’d worked on her projects, I do believe I’d have made a point of dedicating extra time and effort to a very close scrutiny of her methods and results!

As I said, this kind of incident is mercifully rare, and most Science People remain well and truly My People. But the exceptions really do jar – and apparently I remember them for years. That may well say more about me than anything else… or maybe an above average tendency for being judgmental is just another characteristic of My People!

What do you think, peeps?

Posted in career, cycling, freakishness, idiocy, personal, science, whining | 48 Comments

Because it’s been far too sciencey around here lately

The best Rube Goldberg device I’ve ever seen on the Best of YouTube podcast (and there have been a few):

and, inspired by a Twitter conversation with Richard Wintle yesterday about gnus (inspired in turn by someone at work asking me how to “do a gnat chart”), some classic Flanders and Swann (but not the gnu song, because that would be too logical)

http://youtu.be/jc_BFM_wJMU

Happy Friday!

Posted in blog buddies, music, silliness, videos | 10 Comments

CIHR: Canada Innovating to Help Review?

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is this country’s major source of government funding for biomedical research – the equivalent of the US NIH. They’ve just released a document describing some proposed changes to their grant mechanism portfolio and peer review processes that I thought were worthy of discussion, since I’ve heard similar issues raised on blogs from several countries.

The full document is available here. I haven’t had time to read it in detail yet, but here are the highlights from the executive summary:

New Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme

The Foundation Scheme is about supporting people. It is about providing long-term support to investigators with a demonstrated track record of success. We want to reduce the time they spend writing grant applications, and leave them more time to conduct research. We want to give them the freedom to create, change, and re-direct their efforts, as required. We also want to give them more time to mentor and develop the next generation of researchers. The assessment criteria for this scheme would be based on the caliber of the applicant, the vision articulated for the proposed program of research, and the support provided to the applicant by their Institution. Applications under this scheme would, therefore, be focused on track-record and the overall approach to a series of research endeavours, rather than on project details or methodology.

Early Career Investigators

CIHR recognizes the critical role that new/early career investigators play in creating a sustainable foundation for the Canadian health research enterprise. This is why we are proposing to have a separate stream in the Foundation Scheme for new/early career investigators – to ensure that new/early career investigators are assessed with their peers and are not competing for funding against established investigators.

They’re also going to run a Project Scheme, which seems to be a slightly modified version of the current Operating Grant programme; this grant is the bread-and-butter means of support for most Canadian biomedical research labs, analogous to the NIH R01.

Focusing Peer Review Criteria

We are considering implementing multi-phased competition processes for both schemes. The intent is to focus reviewer attention on specific criteria at different points in the process. This would be supported by structured review to minimize inconsistent and inappropriate application of review criteria, and to improve transparency of the review process. Both multi-phased competition processes and structured review will help manage applicant and reviewer burden by reducing the number of applicants who move on to full application, and by reducing the length of time it will take to review applications at each stage.

Focusing on the non-obvious funding decisions

We also want to maximize the use of face-to-face committee meetings. Too much of our current committees’ time is spent discussing applications everyone agrees should be funded, or applications everyone agrees have fatal flaws. There is, however, always a “grey zone” where reviewer views are varied for a number of different reasons. We believe that the introduction of a two-phase screening process review will allow for early recognition of outstanding applications, will allow for screening of non-competitive applications, and will concentrate face-to-face discussions on applications that fall into the “grey zone”.

Reviewer Assignment

We also want to improve the way applications are matched to reviewers to ensure that appropriate expertise is assigned to each application. This will help to avoid having to “force fit” applications into the standing committee structure. This will be aided by the establishment of a College of Reviewers that will facilitate access to appropriate expertise and provide the framework for mechanisms to recruit, train and reward reviewers for specific roles.

Overall I think these are very positive changes, that if implemented to their full potential will go a long way to addressing some of the more common complaints I hear about the grant application and review processes – not just at the CIHR but across all agencies in various countries. The only part that worries me slightly (beyond the fact that aiming to let PIs spend less time applying for funding might impact my future employability!) is the part about focusing reviewer attention on specific criteria at different points in the process, supported by structured review. To my mind this opens up the process to the possibility of political interference that may not always have the best interests of science in mind… but a change of federal government would help ease my mind on that point!*

I’m planning to read the full document over the next few days, and to answer the survey on the website. If you’re in a CIHR-funded (or CIHR-fundable) lab, I’d encourage you to do the same, and to circulate the document in your own institute. Even if you’re not directly affected, I’d be very interested to hear your views on these potential changes!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*I have been very unhappy to see recent CIHR press releases use the controversial “Harper Government” terminology rather than the “Government of Canada” that has always been used in the past, but that’s a whole different issue.

Posted in Canada, career, current affairs, grant wrangling, politics, science | 4 Comments

Designing an online grant submission system?!

Good for you!

Let me help you out!

In my four-and-a-bit years as a grant wrangler, I’ve applied to a bewildering array of Canadian and international government and charitable funding agencies. Every organisation has their own system (some even have different systems for different grant mechanisms), each with its strengths and weaknesses – I won’t name names, but anyone in the same business as me will have their own favourite and least favourite systems!

For your viewing and/or schadenfreude-related pleasure, I’ve therefore put together a helpful* list of good, bad, and “meh” practices for each of the major components of a grant submission. Please add your own in the comments!

(NB I originally tried to to this by making an elegantly formatted table and uploading it via Flickr, but the image quality wasn’t good enough. Still available here if anyone’s interested, or I can email you the PDF if you’re really interested!).

FORMAT

Bad: Paper. I mean, really. (Last time encountered: 2010, FFS);
CDs are almost as bad (not encountered since 2008, thankfully).

Meh: Email attachments. PDFs almost acceptable; anything else, not so much.

Best: Online only.

CONTACT INFO (PI, co-applicant, suggested / excluded reviewer etc)

Bad: Failure to recognise phone number if input in wrong format (e.g. (555) 555 5555 instead of 555-555-5555 – the horror!);
Failure to recognise email address if a space accidentally got typed after it (happened to me yesterday, resulting in an unspecified “section incomplete” error that took 20 minutes to identify and fix);
Fax number as required field, especially for excluded reviewers (often not listed on PIs’ websites: no possible way to ask them for it!).

Best: Auto-populates upon pasting in the person’s email address / system login name / agency PIN.

CV

Bad: Uses a completely unique format;
Requires non-standard extras, e.g. grant # for each current & submitted grant, or the impact factor / reason for choice of journal / detailed description of applicant’s role for every paper.

Meh: Uses a standard format, e.g. NIH Biosketch style.

Best: (If Canadian): uses Common CV (online system that lets you enter all CV info in a standard format and will then generate the correctly formatted CV for any member organisation);
(If foreign): Any format acceptable, as long as it includes [reasonable list of normal CV features].

DETAILS & ABSTRACTS OF OTHER CURRENT AND SUBMITTED GRANTS (to assess overlap with current proposal)

Bad: Details for each grant must be completed individually via an online form;
Every abstract has to be attached separately.

Meh: Full, detailed list required, but can be done in Word and attached as a single PDF;
Not required unless there actually is an overlap to declare;
Not required unless funded.

Best: Just don’t ask for it. Several major funding agencies get by just fine without it, you know.

BUDGET

Bad: Form only shows one year / one line item at a time;
Separate justification text required for each line item / category of items.

Best: Form shows all line items for all years, allowing applicant to easily check against an Excel spreadsheet;
Line item and annual totals calculated and displayed as you go;
Budget justification attached as single PDF.

PROPOSAL / OTHER LARGE TEXT SECTIONS

Bad: Entered into text box, meaning that it has to be carefully and repeatedly checked and re-checked for formatting, non-standard characters, and to make sure headers aren’t separated from associated text etc. (Last encountered: today).

Meh: There is no middle ground. Text box EVIL, attachment AWESOME.

Best: Attached as PDF.

INSTITUTIONAL SIGN-OFF

Bad: Anything involving envelopes and stamps / Fed-Ex accounts.

Meh: Online after applicant submits the grant, forcing local office of research facilitation to impose crazily early internal deadlines but then still resulting in a mad crazy deadline panic that is out of applicants’ hands due to volume of applications.

Best: Applicant uploads scanned signed form to online application in their own time and is then solely responsible for submitting by the one and only grant deadline.

APPLICATION VALIDATION / PREVIEW

Bad: No validation check or preview.

Meh: Omissions / mistakes trigger a warning, but no details are given.

Best: Clear description of what’s missing / wrong and how to fix it.

FINAL APPLICATION FILE (generated by system for applicants’ records; usually emailed to co-applicants by the main PI or their wrangler)

Bad: Not a PDF;
Incomplete – e.g. doesn’t include figures or proposal (last encountered: last month);
Fugly thing with no spaces between sections, so sections start in the middle of a page (ditto).

Meh: Complete, but boring stuff up front, e.g. CVs, list of other current and submitted grants etc. Yes, I have seen this kind of thing placed before the grant’s abstract, proposal, and budget;
No table of contents or hyperlinks to specific sections.

Best: Each section starts on a new page;
Index available with hyperlinks to each section and attachment;
Most important info up front (applicants, review panels, abstract, proposal, references, figures, budget, THEN the boring stuff)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*well, I found it helpful anyway. I needed a good venting session and online grant submission forms are an easy target.

Posted in career, grant wrangling, science, technology | 14 Comments

Lay it on the line

As I mentioned way back in 2008, I’m often called upon to write lay abstracts for my department’s grant applications and website, and – less often – for press releases and assorted other documents. This is still one of my favourite tasks, and I like to think that through frequent practice I’m somewhat adept at it by now.

Many of the funding agencies to which we apply provide us with a community reviewer’s comments on our application alongside the peer reviews. For the most part these volunteers (whose role in CIHR grant review is described here, although the job description will vary from agency to agency) provide anonymous feedback on the societal value of the research, but recently I’ve noticed a trend toward feedback on the quality of the lay abstract itself.

Examples of recent feedback include the following:

Lay Abstract Title: This is a good attempt at a lay title, but is still a bit too technical. What is the ultimate outcome of “characterising novel gene mutations”? If it is the development of new diagnostic tests and drug treatments, perhaps say “Finding new ways to detect and treat cancers of the ….” instead.

and

No lay title was provided but one is needed as the project title is far too technical. A possible title could be as simple as “Investigating a potential new therapy for [redacted]”.

and

This is a very good attempt at a lay abstract, as the overall tone is easy to follow and makes a complex topic fairly understandable. The opening is quite good, and provides the reader with objectives for the research. Watch the use of technical terms, such as “[redacted]” – there is no need to name the mutation. Refer to it as “a certain type of mutation in the gene” instead.

and

For the most part this is an excellent lay summary. I think it could have been written without mention of either the [redacted] protein or the [redacted] complex, which are beyond the understanding of most lay readers. With a few changes the discussion could be limited to [redacted] and ‘other related genes’. Even though this makes the content of the abstract less accurate, it provides enough detail to explain what you are doing without the intimidation factor of unknown abbreviations.

and

The explanation of what the study will do is well explained, but could still be expressed in even simpler terms. The outcomes at the end of the abstract are very good, and will resonate with the general public. Try and move even one step further out and explain why the research can impact the average person – longer survival rates; better quality of life; lower treatment (health care) costs, etc.

This is great. When we’re rushing to meet a deadline, I do get some feedback from the PIs in the form of edits to my drafts – edits that I take the time to pore over in great detail after the deadline, to understand what worked and what needs to be improved – but there isn’t time for anything more explicit and detailed than that, and my lay abstracts don’t tend to get as heavily edited as the more technical section drafts. Besides, a PI who’s an expert in the field is not ideally placed to critique my attempts at non-technical summaries. So I greatly appreciate the effort these anonymous volunteers put in to helping me improve my science-to-English translation skills!

Thank you, community reviewers! You do excellent and very important work!

 

Posted in career, communication, English language, grant wrangling, science | 12 Comments