DrugMonkey

DrugMonkey’s post today is an excellent introduction to the topic of how a post-doc might choose to organize experimental/conceptual effort as a post-doc to maximize the appearance on the CV–and, hopefully, the reality–that she is an independent thinker capable of being PI of her own lab. I have a few illustrations and amplifications on his post below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »

I already did the “out with the Old” and the maudlin things. Now it is time for “in with the New”. It’s a New Year and it will soon be a new year of DrugMonkey.

So in shameless solicitation of our own little Sally Fields moment, DearReaders, would you be so kind as to supply some thoughts on the first year of DrugMonkey? [Update 1/16/08: Although WP doesn't do sticky, I'm re-time stamping this. I got my reasons...; Update2: and "sticky" again.] Read the rest of this entry »

The NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni has a newsletter out which advances several arguments for the importance of science education. YHN may be occasionally guilty of taking the Great Zerhouni to task for some of his choices and directions as director and some of you may have a critical cant on anything he has to say. Well, this had some gems. If nothing else, it is a good rehearsal for your own thoughts on the importance of science. Read the rest of this entry »

In the context of tenure-track faculty job searches we’ve previously discussed CVs, the job talk, and the chalk talk. Now let’s talk about a sometimes underappreciated aspect of the job interview: the one-on-one meetings between the candidate and departmental (and possibly extra-departmental) faculty. Read the rest of this entry »

A recent reader discussion touching on scientist compensation has blown up on a prior post. Bill (no, not that Bill) and whimple have been leading the charge. To add another data point we have the current NIH Notice on Salary Limitation on Grants, etc. The money quote is as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

There is no question that some people see this blog as “ranking on” students and post-docs in a manner exactly complementary to the way that Young Female Scientist “ranks on” PIs. Read the rest of this entry »

Genetic Engineering News has published the total NIH funds awarded to each of the top 25 institutions in 2007. Here is the list: Read the rest of this entry »

I have already posted on Job Talks: the formal seminar describing her post-doctoral research that a job candidate presents as part of her on-site visit to a department to interview for a faculty position. As part of their faculty interviewing process, many departments also expect the candidate to present a “chalk talk”: an informal presentation solely to departmental faculty–usually without slides–that describes her immediate, medium-, and long-term plans for her independent research program as a PI. Read the rest of this entry »

John Edwards on both Medical Marijuana and, wait for it, the role of science in public policy.

[h/t: Drug Law Blog]

…which was apparently an evolved position

The meme, if such it is, comes from AinE&S and StrangerFruit.

The rule: post the first sentence of the first post for each month. Read the rest of this entry »

BoyBand physicist Uncertain Chad excoriates the IndieRockersofScience^TM.

Screw that.

Stadium Rockers all the way my man!

In a couple of comments to a recent post, people were exploring the concept of whether it matters if a particular individual is funded to do something since perhaps the other competing, well-funded labs will just do it anyway (start with this one). I would argue that this is wishful thinking. While there is some truth to the idea that only by accumulating a big pile of resources is one free enough to play around and take risks, established programs have a tendency to get conservative. So breaking up OldBoy type cronyism is a good goal.

As luck would have it, we have two RFAs (one doubles up for different mechanisms which is necessary with the new and idiotic grant packages) and a Program Announcement (with Set Aside Funding; “PAS”) from NIDA that let us pursue this a little more. Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve been discussing the degree to which insular sub-groupings of scientists protect and maintain themselves and their peers through the grant review process. We’re using “bunny hopping” thanks to whimple and the NIH CSR calls this “clustering“. Note upfront that this analysis and discussion does not necessarily require overt malicious intent on anyone’s part. The presentation at the recent PRAC meeting from Don Schneider identified the IFCN (Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience) group of study sections as top suspects in the “clustering” phenomenon. Can we derive a little more information one wonders? Read the rest of this entry »

I had a note before on the Neurotree.org site which is databasing neuroscientists’ training genealogies. The masters of Neurotree have put up a growth chart which shows that additions continue to accelerate each quarter. Some of the discussion under my prior post seemed to find this a mere interesting curiosity. I have been thinking about this as I’ve browsed around on the site and come to a different conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

Having been infected by the establish your own scientific eponym meme, I present for your satisfaction the PhysioProf Conundrum.

The PhysioProf Conundrum posits that the amount of time spent in a faculty meeting discussing a topic is inversely proportional to the extent to which discussion can lead to an effectual decision. Huge amounts of time are spent in faculty meetings opining bombastically on the wisdom of already-made high-level administrative faits accomplit. Minimal amounts of time are spent on key decisions such as faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure.

There is also Carter’s Corollary to the PhysioProf Conundrum, which holds that the amount of time spent in a faculty meeting discussing a high-level administrative fait accomplit is directly proportional to how long ago that fait accomplit occurred.