Apparently every scientist I know got this spam yesterday:

Dear Joachim Schachtner
Considering your great expertise I would like to invite you to review the below appended article submitted to Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience.
Please kindly communicate your decision within 3 days by logging into your Frontiers account and selecting “My Frontiers => Review Editor => Review Invitations Received”.
If you accept, you will then have 10 days to submit your review.

From these Frontiers in ding dongs who seem to send me more irrelevant email than not.
Even worse, a few of our colleagues were a little slow to realize that the stupid Frontiers outfit allowed the recipients to post to their spam list! So every reply from helpful scientists saying “um, that wasn’t supposed to go to me..” was a reply-all!!! Aggh! I can see the first one or two maybe, but who the hell doesn’t realize what is going on after that and stop with the replying already?

I can’t make this a poll because there are simply too many options and subtleties.
The question, Dear Reader, is would you please relate how postdocs are compensated, or have been compensated, in institutions/labs/situations of your experience.
A comment from me on a prior thread lays out the NIH starting pay for postdocs on NRSA awards.

and just because…i thought I’d look up the numbers my memory being what it isn’t and all… all are starting postdocs with 0 yrs prior postdoc experience.
FY97, $20, 292
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not96-266.html
FY98, $21,000
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-001.html
FY99 $26,296
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-161.html
fy00, $26,916
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-008.html
FY01, $28,260
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/Notice-files/NOT-OD-01-011.html
FY02, $31,092
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-02-028.html
FY03, $34,200
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-036.html

I have always stuck to the NIH NRSA scale when setting my postdoctoral trainees’ salaries. The reason* I do so is that it seems to me to be the only fair way, assuming that one’s University does not set a higher default scale, to deal with a mixed bag of NIH fellows and paid-from-grant people.
I do not supplement above the payscale. Or I have not yet done so. Within my own group, the grants fluctuate over time. There are times when I could “easily afford” a few extra thousand and times when I could not. Starting to pick and choose when/who to supplement seems to me to lead to bias. You supplement person A now but three years down the road you can’t afford it for the person B- aha, BIAS! You are discriminating because you really could afford it, technically, it would just mean a bigger hit to the research program. Sticky. Also sticky is the issue of postdocs within the department being paid more / less than the person sitting next to them just because the PI is relatively flusher at that moment in time. I’m willing to use the NRSA scale as an excuse to pay my postdocs more than the PI next door if she chooses to pay less. Not so willing to tilt departmental equity “just because”.
So have at it. What were / are you paid as a postdoc? If a PI, what practices have you adopted and why?
__
*To my recollection I was always paid a salary consistent with the existing NRSA payscale as a postdoc. This may contribute to my viewpoint as well.

The UK has now made the 4-MMC (Meow-Meow, mephedrone) compound illegal to possess as of April 16, 2010. It will be interesting to see what pops up next as the latest waiting-to-be-criminalized recreational drug.
Apparently MDAI (5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane; Wikipedia) is a hot prospect in the UK drug user stakes. I dunno, the go-to user forum thread on MDAI doesn’t make it look all that promising but who knows. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Legal sourcing has a way of trumping the actual quality of the high, as we’ve seen with mephedrone in the UK in the past year. My read on the user descriptions (such as they are) sure doesn’t make it seem as if mephedrone is as fun as MDMA. The primary draw seems to be that it was a reasonably good high but more importantly it was legal and available. Hmm, now where are those cannabis fans who claim that legality and ready availability of cannabis has nothing to do with use patterns?

The UK has now made the 4-MMC (Meow-Meow, mephedrone) compound illegal to possess as of April 16, 2010. It will be interesting to see what pops up next as the latest waiting-to-be-criminalized recreational drug.
Apparently MDAI (5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane; Wikipedia) is a hot prospect in the UK drug user stakes. I dunno, the go-to user forum thread on MDAI doesn’t make it look all that promising but who knows. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Legal sourcing has a way of trumping the actual quality of the high, as we’ve seen with mephedrone in the UK in the past year. My read on the user descriptions (such as they are) sure doesn’t make it seem as if mephedrone is as fun as MDMA. The primary draw seems to be that it was a reasonably good high but more importantly it was legal and available. Hmm, now where are those cannabis fans who claim that legality and ready availability of cannabis has nothing to do with use patterns?

Unintended Consequences

April 17, 2010

Do the post-docs and their supporters who are agitating for a dramatic 6% increase in the NIH post-doctoral fellowship stipend levels understand that–because this scale is frequently applied by institutions to post-doc salaries supported by research grants and because research grant budgets have been and will continue to be flat–this is going to force layoffs and/or attrition of 6% of non-fellowship (which are the vast majority) post-doc positions?

BlackSheepDM_234.jpg
source
A report in Popular Science (authored by Jeremy Hsu) points to a recent paper published in Academic Emergency Medicine. In this, Dawes and colleagues report on an investigation on the effects of TASER on sheep intoxicated with methamphetamine (MA). I was alerted to this by Damn Good Technician who wanted a little bit of context for what would seem to be a WTF? kind of study.
ResearchBlogging.orgThe study was conducted in Dorset sheep who were anesthetized, and administered 0, 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg of methamphetamine HCl (curiously from dissolved Desoxyn, the approved pharmaceutical product) in an IV infusion. The drug treatment was a between subjects factor (N=4 per group) and animals were monitored for “continuous blood pressure, heart rhythm (one-lead), pulse oximetry, and capnography… Arterial blood sampling was performed at baseline, 30 minutes after the administration of the methamphetamine, and after each exposure from a TASER X26”.
To answer the question of why?, and for appropriate background on the science try a PubMed search for “cardiac TASER“. I note a study in which 5 sec of TASER didn’t cause cardiac damage or symptoms in law enforcement trainees and another showing minimal cardiac effects on law enforcement volunteers after vigorous exercise. Also of interest are the case studies of atrial fibrillation in a previously healthy adolescent and recovery of a teen in TASER induced asystole. These, a mini-review by the Dawes group and other searched papers should give you some context and support from the feeling you might have from half-remembered MSM reports over the years that TASER is suspected of being somewhat less than “safe”.
What I’m not finding right away is very much about the drug intoxicated suspect who might be TASER’d by law enforcement. Remember this guy? My best estimate was that he was acutely intoxicated with 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, “Ecstasy”) although that might be one of my blog interests talking. You might also wish to consider some papers found by searching PubMed for “methamphetamine cardiac toxicity“, “methamphetamine vetricular fibrillation” and “methamphetamine heart attack“.
Together this background would seem to identify a situation crying out for additional study.

Read the rest of this entry »

BlackSheepDM_234.jpg
source
A report in Popular Science (authored by Jeremy Hsu) points to a recent paper published in Academic Emergency Medicine. In this, Dawes and colleagues report on an investigation on the effects of TASER on sheep intoxicated with methamphetamine (MA). I was alerted to this by Damn Good Technician who wanted a little bit of context for what would seem to be a WTF? kind of study.
ResearchBlogging.orgThe study was conducted in Dorset sheep who were anesthetized, and administered 0, 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg of methamphetamine HCl (curiously from dissolved Desoxyn, the approved pharmaceutical product) in an IV infusion. The drug treatment was a between subjects factor (N=4 per group) and animals were monitored for “continuous blood pressure, heart rhythm (one-lead), pulse oximetry, and capnography… Arterial blood sampling was performed at baseline, 30 minutes after the administration of the methamphetamine, and after each exposure from a TASER X26”.
To answer the question of why?, and for appropriate background on the science try a PubMed search for “cardiac TASER“. I note a study in which 5 sec of TASER didn’t cause cardiac damage or symptoms in law enforcement trainees and another showing minimal cardiac effects on law enforcement volunteers after vigorous exercise. Also of interest are the case studies of atrial fibrillation in a previously healthy adolescent and recovery of a teen in TASER induced asystole. These, a mini-review by the Dawes group and other searched papers should give you some context and support from the feeling you might have from half-remembered MSM reports over the years that TASER is suspected of being somewhat less than “safe”.
What I’m not finding right away is very much about the drug intoxicated suspect who might be TASER’d by law enforcement. Remember this guy? My best estimate was that he was acutely intoxicated with 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, “Ecstasy”) although that might be one of my blog interests talking. You might also wish to consider some papers found by searching PubMed for “methamphetamine cardiac toxicity“, “methamphetamine vetricular fibrillation” and “methamphetamine heart attack“.
Together this background would seem to identify a situation crying out for additional study.

Read the rest of this entry »