Collins appoints Gary H. Gibbons, M.D. to head NHLBI
April 6, 2012
I’ve been seeing the Tweets about the recent appointment of Gary H. Gibbons, M.D. [Pubmed] to head the National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute over the past day or so. I admit, I’ve been tempted to crack wise about the upcoming appointments of Charles B. Chimpanzee at NIAAA and Omar P. Orangutan at NIGMS and the like*. But for the most part, not being all that interested in pumps and airfilters and such, I was uninterested. Well, I finally read the Press Release. Morehouse School of Medicine, eh? Dare we hope? Read the rest of this entry »
Another autopsy confirms MDPV involvement
April 6, 2012
From Springfield MO:
Joshua Amir Nossoughi, 32, of Springfield, died last July in a hospital about two hours after officers confronted him as he tried to break into the Battlefield city hall. During a long effort to catch and subdue him, Nossoughi was unfazed by five separate Taser shocks, pepper spray and two dozen baton strikes to his legs, The Springfield News-Leader reported (http://sgfnow.co/H97QAv).
Officers finally captured the 6-foot-4, 240-pound man and got him into an ambulance, but he was pronounced dead at a hospital. His body temperature was 105 degrees.
“Basically his temperature was too high to sustain life,” Deputy Medical Examiner Tom Van De Berg said.
The autopsy found a compound called MDPV in Nossoughi’s blood and liver.
The school of hard knocks
April 6, 2012
One of several tensions between trainees and PI should rightfully be over the “way things should be” and “the way things really work” in science.
The mentor, usually, plays the role of the cynic when it comes to getting papers accepted and grants funded. The trainee, usually, plays this role when it comes to collecting data.
Papers are an interesting situation. Excessive amounts of “this is the voice of experience talking” can lead to a defensive crouch. Conservatism. Never drawing bold conclusions or asserting strong implications.
OTOH, experience is good for something. Knowing what triggers reviewer ire can be the difference between the paper getting accepted instead of being rejected. Naturally, you as PI know it will get in somewhere eventually but trainees have timeline issues that even they might not fully realize.
How inclined are you, Dear PI Reader, to let the trainee submit the paper the way they like it when your bet is that a particular thing will make the reviewers crawl all over you?
Do you let them learn the lesson the hard way?
DrugMonkey 