May 31, 2011
The Nature News Blog has a bit on the recent meeting of the Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The NIH commissioned the Institute of Medicine to:
Explore contemporary and anticipated biomedical research questions to determine if chimpanzees are or will be necessary for research discoveries and to determine the safety and efficacy of new prevention or treatment strategies. If biomedical research questions are identified:
Describe the unique biological/immunological characteristics of the chimpanzee that make it the necessary animal model for use in the types of research.
Provide recommendations for any new or revised scientific parameters to guide how and when to use these animals for research.
Explore contemporary and anticipated behavioral research questions to determine if chimpanzees are necessary for progress in understanding social, neurological and behavioral factors that influence the development, prevention, or treatment of disease.
I was struck by a comment reported by the Nature News blog from a participant who objected to the scope of the study.
I have blogged, now and again, about the ~four-tiered nature of the selection process for NIH grant awards. These consist of initial peer-review, Program Officer expression of programmatic interests, the National Advisory Council (of peer scientists) for each Institute or Center of the NIH and the Director of each IC. We tend to clump the latter three into “Program”, since they really all do express the interests of a particular IC whereas the initial peer review process focuses so strongly on the quality of the science and the strength of the overall proposal.
Unlike the apparent position of many fellow scientists, I have no problem with this multi-tiered selection process nor, more pointedly, do I have a problem when Program interests override or overturn the strict priority order / priority score that comes out of initial peer review.
I have even mentioned now and again that I think a little more transparency from Program on how they select applications outside of the review order would go a long way to damping down the whinging.
A bit of Program Officer transparency has emerged, however, that gives me pause.
May 27, 2011
What is the point of NIH having dual assignment of grant applications if it ends up being a huge negotiating hassle to even get the second IC to consider picking up the award if the primary passes on it? And how many successful secondary pickups of applications are there?
I really should apologize to my readers who get their feelings hurt when 1) I bash GlamourMag science and 2) CPP bashes society journal level science. I just couldn’t figure out how to make it something other than a nonpology. So the nonpology version is, sorry dudes, sorry that your feelings are hurt if there is some implication that you are a trivial fame-chasing, probably data faking GlamourHound. also, if the ranting that I trigger from certain commenters has the effect of making you feel as though you are a trivial, meaningless speedbump who is wasting NIH dollars better spent on RealScientists who do RealGrandeWorkEleven. The fact is, CPP and I are in relatively comfortable situations compared with many of our readers. It is no secret that we have jobs and grant funding. Although it is true that both of us are not above making an exaggerated point for
dramatic discussion-encouraging purposes, it is probably no surprise that we come from distinctly different points of view ForRealz on this particular issue. Speaking only for myself in this case, I’ve been around long enough and enjoyed enough of what I consider to be success in what I want to do as a scientist that it tends to insulate me against criticism. I get that this is not true for all of you. If my intent in raising these issues (i.e., to show that the dominant meme is not reflective of the only way to have a career) backfires for some of you, I do regret that.
Louis CK is so fucking funny it makes my teeth hurt.
I still haven’t worked out if the idea that there are a host of “good” postdocs out there if the PI could only get them to come to their lab is a pleasant fantasy, a recipe for mentoring disaster or a truth that is only available to that guy, over there.
What IS it with people who arrive at these unshakable assumptions about others based on only the tiniest sliver of the available evidence, and cling fast to these assumptions no matter the additional evidence?
This kind of dude is a stone cold professorial mensch for doing thankless labor on behalf of very young would-be scientists. Really. I mean that.
Huh, I wonder how the Britlandisher science blog collective has been getting along?
I just don’t get what is in the heads of these journalists. Look at sports journalists. They get the box score right. They pursue the injury story, ask questions, do the follow up. Heck, they even do follow up on contract negotiations FFS. Coverage of a drug story in the press, though? Forget about it. No details, no followup. A million stories in the news these days about “bath salts” or “plant food” and allegations of emergency room visits and overdose deaths. Do you think we EVER see followup stories with definitive identification of the drug content (methylenedioxypyrovalerone and 4-methylmethcathinone, we presume)? Never. Journalism sucks.
Update 2: Oh, man, this Gallup poll on estimating the proportion of Gay-Americans is gonna reverberate. I would’a said 5-10% myself. Srsly though, 43% of Democrats think more than 25% of Americans are gay? Really?
May 26, 2011
A study in Perspectives in Psychological Science by Norton and Sommers is getting a lot of attention. It shows that eleven percent of White people in their sample think that there is maximum anti-White bias in US culture in the 2000’s compared with just 2% of Whites who gave a maximum rating to anti-Black bias. The mean rating of White subjects for anti-White bias in the present day is actually higher than their mean rating for anti-Black bias.
I really don’t have much more to say than this to those poor deluded teabagging souls…
May 26, 2011
The topic was launched by a query over at writedit’s blog. Someone wanted to know if any K99/R00 awardees had landed R01 grants.
The answer is yes. Some have.
I suspect the question was motivated by a broader curiosity given that it referred to “success” of the grant program itself.
How would you define “success”?
Do you ask about the proportion that landed R01 support versus folks hired at same time w/o a K99/Roo? Seems to miss the idea that transition to independence was the point of the program. Valid or not, the assumption is that these folks were appointed faculty earlier than otherwise would have been the case. Or, appointed, period.
How about versus postdocs awarded F32 at time of K99s? That seems like a better comparison to me. Or maybe the K01- the K99/R00 population I am familiar with is one that might otherwise have been poised to pursue small level funding in almost-faculty positions typical of K01 recipients of my acquaintance.
On the smaller scale answer about success, I know 4 or 5 current Assistant Profs who were/are K99/R00 recipients. All of them seem to feel this was a positive contribution to their job hunt and negotiations. Although one has R01 support already, I don’t think it is necessarily expected value at this point. We’ll have to give it another year or two to really assess if they are having trouble landing grants or having an easy time of it, given the difficulties everyone faces right now.
May 26, 2011
How often do you cite a paper for the overall, Gestalt thrust of the story? For the whole picture?
How frequently do you cite a paper for only a figure or two out of the whole thing? Or for a method?
What does this tell you about the notion that there is such a thing as a meaningful standard of a “complete story”?
May 26, 2011
I find myself increasingly trying to hold back and let the trainees have the ideas.
Meaning when I’m discussing one of the projects with a postdoc or two, there are gonna be a lot of ideas that we all could possibly arrive at in the discussion.
I think I used to just ramrod ahead with my ideas and let them state theirs if they could get a word in edgewise. Now I try to hold back more. Let them say the more obvious, and not so obvious, ideas in their own ways.
I am uncertain if I am getting older, better* at mentoring, worse** at mentoring or if it even matters.
*recognizing the power and “style” differential?