"Alternate careers" is just a way for NIH to get themselves off the hook

September 26, 2012

The always perspicacious Biochemme Belle noted that Francis Collins, boss of the NIH, is suggesting that they need to take steps to de-stigmatize the idea of alternate careers. I.e., careers outside of the traditional academic, grant funded, professorial-appointed track.

At the NIH, we’re in the middle of analysing whether we have the right quality and quantity of training programmes, so people are well prepared for a satisfying and rewarding career. They don’t all have to become tenure-track scientists and clones of their mentors. We need to stop talking about alternative careers as if they are somehow second rate.

I have noted before that the NIH, if you view it as an entity which pays for a service, is making out like a bandit on loopholes to traditional worker protections. Actually, it isn’t all that different from any other white collar, salary style job loophole but it is still a loophole. The work of the NIH is primarily person-work. Lots of people conducting experiments, analyzing them and writing them up into manuscripts which will eventually be published. It is labor.

Correspondingly the NIH benefits when it can get this labor done for less money than would otherwise be accomplished. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Free enterprise my friends, much beloved of all US politicians.

via this

The way it has done this is to get as much of its labor done by “trainees”. That would be graduate students and postdocs. People who are paid less than what we think of as market rate (as indexed by professorial salaries, scientist salaries in industry and even academic technician salaries) to do the work. The way that these poor suckers are deluded into providing this underpaid service is by sticking a carrot in front of their faces.

The carrot is that of a subsequent job on EasyStreet.

Well, a highly desired job, anyway. Which the trainees are told can only be obtained by working their behinds off (often time at well above standard 40 hr weeks), sacrificing many traditional life goals (like marriage, home ownership, childrearing) and the like. The carrot is tasty, and the working conditions for the trainee are hardly slavery, so the system works.

It should never, ever for one second be missed that the NIH is making out like a bandit from this situation and has every interest in continuing it. Otherwise their money would go nowhere near as far in research productivity. Because their labor force would cost them more if the approximately 75% of PHD students who should really be career techs just started as techs the month after their BS was awarded. It would cost them more if the postdocs who really are best suited for some sort of career staff-scientist, low level project directing type of position* likewise started such a full-benefits, COL adjusting, regular raising job right after the PhD dries.

I think Collins’ comment is consistent with trying to keep a good thing going a little longer.

The heat is on about the carrot. People are talking about how few of the donkeys ever get the carrot and how long they keep plodding away in pursuit of an empty goal. If the suckers trainees don’t believe in the carrot anymore, the scam scheme unplanned exploitation structure will start to collapse.

“Aha!”, thinks** the beast that is the NIH. “All we need to do is put up a carrot and three turnips and the poor fools will think they have better odds of getting something!”.

updated: also see this.
___
*lest this come off as unduly dismissive from my lofty throne, but for a quirk of fate I very likely would have ended up in such a position and have been reasonably happy about it.

**no, I don’t think any of this is explicit and Machiavellian.

Advertisements

No Responses Yet to “"Alternate careers" is just a way for NIH to get themselves off the hook”

  1. toto@club-med.so Says:

    “It would cost them more if the postdocs who really are best suited for some sort of career staff-scientist, low level project directing type of position likewise started such a full-benefits, COL adjusting, regular raising job right after the PhD dries. “

    And it would suit those postdocs much better if such positions actually existed, or were actually advertised. All the job offers I see are for either postdocs or tenure-track positions.

    “No, you can’t have a stable research job without getting a 1-in-100 tenured professorship. Not yours.”

    Like

  2. Dr Becca Says:

    And not only that, but “Look how COOL it is, to get a turnip, you guys! It’s not any less awesome than a carrot, it’s just a slightly different colored root vegetable!”

    Like

  3. miko Says:

    I get ~5 emails a week dangling exciting turnips I may not yet have considered. Turnips for which I am especially well suited. Really specific turnips like “policy careers” and “consulting.”

    Such events were the focus of this year’s…ahem…I have a hard time saying these words…Postdoc Appreciation Week.

    It’s not just the NIH. Universities are shoveling this bullshit as fast as their spindly little deanlet arms can manage.

    Like

  4. Joe Says:

    About half of the students who have come to my lab planned to go to industry from the start. Some of the others shied away from academia once they saw what the grant game was like. Are there good numbers on how many students want the carrot of academia vs. the sweet potato of industry?

    “If the suckers trainees don’t believe in the carrot anymore, the scam scheme unplanned exploitation structure will start to collapse. ”
    I suspect that no matter how bleak the situation looks to US trainees, that trainees from other countries will gladly fill these slots, and the unplanned exploitation will continue for some time.

    Like

  5. Genomic Repairman Says:

    But what Joe’s students may not understand is that the industry perspective is almost as bleak as the academic. Sure, you can get a job in industry, if you have a BS in biology, but PhDs have pretty much overqualified themselves out of most of the basic jobs. The number of highly technical positions that require a PhD in industry are shrinking as a result of the poor economy.

    Like

  6. Morgan Price Says:

    “Because their labor force would cost them more if the approximately 75% of PHD students who should really be career techs just started as techs the month after their BS was awarded.” — But NIH is paying tuition and salary for these PhD students, and grad students tend not to be very productive in their first 1-2 years.

    I also suspect that you’re underestimating the lure/prestige of the PhD, both in terms of “luring” in trainees and in the mind of NIH, Congress, etc. The second bullet in NIH’s mission statement is “to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources” which probably means that more PhDs produced is counted as a success.

    Like

  7. miko Says:

    Yep… there are very, very few industry jobs between “need a BS” and “need a PhD plus 5-7 years industry experience.” And especially for neuro, the job market is inundated with people with industry experience.

    Like

  8. miko Says:

    And should clarify… industry jobs are usually NOT what is meant by alternative careers. These are non-research related careers. Policy, patent law, science writing, education, etc.

    Like


  9. While I basically agree with DM’s cynical assessment of the issue, the thing is that basically the same conclusion (that the people in charge know full well that the system only works if many more grad students and postdocs are created than can have “normal” scientific jobs later on) has been brought up time and time again, even in the 1990s when I was in grad school. It’s almost a cliche at this point.

    So why are so many people still going into science? Have they never really heard this already? Or do they think it doesn’t matter as they are so obviously brilliant that the system will of course reward *them*?

    Like

  10. dsks Says:

    Yeah, what GR said. Industry isn’t hiring for shit right now, so that aint much of an alternative. That isn’t going to improve given the current trend of reducing in house basic science research and instead contracting it out to academia (with its attractively cheaplabour and no benefit strings attached). I hear there’s a fair few non-profit institutions that are running on endowment vapours to boot.

    It all makes a dude want to get Jerry Maguire on this thing, write a memo lambasting the grad program, and refuse to take any new trainees. But I confess I’m afraid that if I do that, come tenure decision time, not even the goldfish is going to be on my side.

    Like

  11. Drugmonky Says:

    JB-

    Because relative exploitation or not, grads and postdocs get paid a decent wage and can live decent lives….if you take out the expectations part that is.

    Pounding nails for a living sucks ass compared with running experiments.?

    Like

  12. miko Says:

    “Pounding nails for a living sucks ass compared with running experiments?”

    Does it? Splitting time between home reno & lab was happiest time of my postdoc.

    Like

  13. poke Says:

    Miko:
    I don’t think the sort of nail pounding DM is referring to is all necessarily as much fun as putting in a new hot tub…

    JB:
    Did you learn this fun factoid about the science job market before or after entering grad school?

    Like

  14. Virgil Says:

    I agree with you on the cheap labor thing for post-docs, but for grad’ students that’s a bit of a stretch. Whichever way you cut it, there’s no way a 1st-3rd year grad’ student trainee is capable of “doing the work” at the same level as someone with a PhD.

    Let’s not try to make the case that if all the PIs and post-doc’s died tomorrow the grad’ students would inherit the earth and make good! On the other hand, the case could be made that the post-doc’s would probably do OK in such a situation.

    Regarding all the NIH and institutional hoopla, it is interesting to watch, but one wonders why the institutions feel obliged to do anything at all? For undergrad’ colleges, where the students are paying customers, it can be embarassing (and costly) when your graduates don’t get jobs with their newly minted double majors in art history and Italian renaissance economics. For grad’ schools, where’s the pain? Taking a completely mercenary viewpoint, so what if your PhD grads don’t get jobs? You paid them while they were training, you don’t owe them a career. There’s no recourse like there is for crappy undergrad’ degrees that leave suckers in debt. What’s a whiney post-doc gonna do, sue you?

    This is not to say the system is without problems. I just have a really hard time understanding why anyone at the dean/admin’ level in a university would give a flying f*** about the problem. Even if (domestic) kids stop applying to grad’ school, there are billions of Indian and Chinese immigrant students willing to take their places. Seriously give me one reason why any college dean should care about this?

    As DM so nicely puts it, the NIH really doesn’t have any incentive to give a sh!t either!

    Like


  15. @poke
    Okay, granted, I learned the way things worked *during* grad school rather than before, but by the late 1990s there were “the scientist shortage is a myth; most grad students will never obtain a tenure-track position” type articles in the mainstream media which presumably prospective grad students could read before making the leap.

    Like

  16. DJMH Says:

    Miko, “spindly little deanlet arms” is the winningest phrase I have ever heard.

    Mostly it would just be nice if NIH stopped rating grad programs on how many of their students stay in academia.

    Like


  17. […] DrugMonkey addressed the alt-careers scam yesterday as well, particularly the NIH’s role in perpetuating it. I’ve discussed this before, […]

    Like

  18. Alex Says:

    ” but by the late 1990s there were “the scientist shortage is a myth; most grad students will never obtain a tenure-track position” type articles in the mainstream media which presumably prospective grad students could read before making the leap.”

    There were a few, but the media still pays more attention to the myth than the debunker. And the funding agencies and academies keep putting out the reports calling for more scientists. There’s a lit of chaff to distract the kids from the wheat.

    It would be interesting to go back and read the old reports and see what they projected as the areas of greatest need. Those must be growing industries, right? Then we could construct a stock portfolio based on those predictions and see how the portfolio did over the ensuing decade or so. I mean, if those report authors are so good at predicting workforce needs then this is a slam dunk!

    We should get some bright twenty-something econ grad student to work on this. Tell them that it’s a great project and success will guarantee a TT job.

    Like

  19. profguy Says:

    Caveat: I am a physical scientist, not bio, funding comes from NSF and other agencies but not NIH. That said, I think the issues in my field (in all fields of science for that matter) are the same as in biomed, just not quite as bad.

    First of all I think it is untrue that the number (or quality) of papers published per research dollar would necessarily go down if less of the work were done by students and postdocs. Sure, more experienced scientists (techs, long-term non-PI researchers etc.) are more expensive per hour, but also much more effective at getting things done. Know what they’re doing, don’t take classes, tend to be fully functional grown-ups, etc.

    But second of all as another commenter said I think the agencies count producing PhDs as a goal in and of itself. That is probably even more true of NSF than NIH. Whether or not those PhDs are happy, there is a valid argument to be made that their existence benefits society as a whole.

    Third I think many scientists who have never been in the “real world” have overinflated expectations about how good life would be in another career. Sure some civilians are happy in their careers, but many (including smart educated people, who just don’t have PhDs) are not. Our capitalist system is hard for everyone. Science just has a different set of trade-offs than some other professions.

    Fourth, yeah I started grad school in the early 90s and these discussions had already been going on for some time back then. So the idea that somehow people are just now finding out that not every PhD gets a great TT job is hard for me to understand. Unless it’s happening later in bio than physical sciences for some reason… maybe because NIH did well for a while…

    Like

  20. miko Says:

    I agree w/everything profguy said, except:

    “So the idea that somehow people are just now finding out that not every PhD gets a great TT job is hard for me to understand.”

    That “not every PhD” is true, but elides a substantial shift in career outcomes in the last 20 years, especially with industry no longer being the sponge it was. Any kind of research job is pretty much off the table for a huge proportion of postdocs.

    Like

  21. Grumble Says:

    Sheesh, DM, in a week in which we find that pot cures cancer, all you can come up with is to recycle this old canard that grad students and post-docs are exploited, O woe, O woe?

    I never once felt I was exploited as a grad student, post-doc, or “glorified” post-doc – not once, in all 16 years it took me from 1st rotation to 1st day of tenure-track job. I knew it wouldn’t be easy and that the odds were against me. I knew I could be making 2, 3 times as much money doing something else. But I love science, and throughout those 16 years I was learning, growing, and getting deeply involved intellectually with problems that absolutely fascinate me. AND I got married, started a family, bought a house, bought 2 cars, had full health insurance, and traveled the world.

    Tough life, huh? For those 16 years, I was no different than any other “exploited” grad student or post-doc. So stop with the cries of outrage over what NIH is doing or not doing about this ridiculous non-issue.

    Like

  22. profguy Says:

    Miko, maybe that’s true in bio. The 20-year change you talk about had already happened in physics 20 years ago, and I don’t think it has changed that much since then. That includes the decline in industrial jobs.

    One result was a lot of physicists went to wall street. One might argue this helped to cause the financial crisis, as they engineered ever more complex derivatives with all their fancy math…

    Like

  23. Alex Says:

    “But second of all as another commenter said I think the agencies count producing PhDs as a goal in and of itself. That is probably even more true of NSF than NIH. Whether or not those PhDs are happy, there is a valid argument to be made that their existence benefits society as a whole.”

    I have said it a million times and I will say it again: The funding agencies just love grad school. If an undergrad works in my lab and learns some useful stuff and gets a job, well, that’s nice. But it would be much nicer if they went to grad school, in the eyes of the funding agency.

    Like

  24. Bill Says:

    As a former NIH staffer, I’d agree with the general thrust and disenchantment many have expressed here.

    I would, though, take exception as follows: it is NOT the NIH that benefits directly from the cheap labor of trainees and post-docs — it is the institutions themselves which benefit most directly from the reduced costs. The NIH, to my way of thinking, simply provides the funds — most often as a grant, NOT as a contract with required deliverables. The NIH operates under the broad assumption that if enough seeds are planted, something good may come of it — but that no particular improvement in the public’s well-being is required of the PI’s and institutions when they accept the funds.

    In short, blame the schools who continue to foster and delude their student workers with the illusion of “carrots yet to come”. If they were forthright about it, they would post precisely what the outcomes of their academic programs have been for the previous decade. With that information in hand, potential student applicants could perform their own due diligence about a career track that looks to have few pleasant outcomes.

    Like

  25. Jonathan Says:

    First off, the universities and research institutes are the ones with the biggest responsibility here, not NIH, and they’re very good at lobbying Congress to get what they want (and what they want is their supply of cheap labor not getting cut off).

    Secondly, while I love the idea of staff scientists, and have advocated that as a solution in the past when writing about the pipeline problem (eg this post from 2008 http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/fixing-the-structural-ills-of-us-biomedical-research/), who is going to be paying their salaries, and how? If we’re talking permanent positions, then that means hard money that doesn’t come from NIH grants. If we’re not talking permanent positions, then what’s the difference between a staff scientist and a postdoc in the first place?

    Like

  26. miko Says:

    Staff scientists salaries in principle come from severely reducing the number of postdocs. How that works in terms of funding/grants and who pays out of what pile, I don’t know.

    I do know of at least one institution that seems to be desperately seeking out ridiculous ways to spend all the overhead it hauls in. $1500 lamps all over the fucking hallways. For real. It’s offensive.

    Like

  27. DrugMonkey Says:

    If we’re talking permanent positions, then that means hard money that doesn’t come from NIH grants.

    No, it doesn’t. Technicians are real employees and yet their salaries are in no way guaranteed. Grant runs out, they get laid off.

    The point is the benefits, the salary raises and the default expectation that if all goes well they will stick around for the duration, as opposed to the default expectation that they are gone in 3-5 yrs

    Like

  28. becca Says:

    The cake is always a lie.

    “The number of highly technical positions that require a PhD in industry are shrinking as a result of the poor economy.”

    Yes, the positions are shrinking, but not it’s not about the economy per se. From what I’ve heard, positions in R & D in Big Pharma have been shrinking for a much longer time than the current disaster in unemployment (they have more lead compounds than they’ll ever know what to do with; now the name of the game is getting some through phase II/III clinical trials as efficiently as possible); and Biotech went through a boom in the 90s followed by a crash, pretty much coinciding with the computer world.

    “It all makes a dude want to get Jerry Maguire on this thing, write a memo lambasting the grad program, and refuse to take any new trainees. But I confess I’m afraid that if I do that, come tenure decision time, not even the goldfish is going to be on my side.”

    Know anyone who has done it after tenure? Face it, the system is designed for getting smart people to work against their collective self-interest.

    “Pounding nails for a living sucks ass compared with running experiments.?”

    I loves me some nail guns. But you think the apprenticeship hazing aspect of grad school sucks, you haven’t seen what carpenters can do to people like me.

    Like

  29. Dave Says:

    If we’re talking permanent positions, then that means hard money that doesn’t come from NIH grants.

    Not. Happening. Ever.

    Like

  30. drugmonkey Says:

    And how do you feel about this mumbling about rolling back faculty softmoney %ages Dave?

    Like

  31. Dave Says:

    Well as a soft-money man myself, anything that reduces the amount of money I have to bring in to pay myself is great, but I just don’t see how it will ever happen.

    I mean I had a meeting with the chair this week as I wanted more lab space. He gave it to me and all was great, except he started telling me that I should start taking all the equipment from the lab I am currently in (I am squatting) because, and I quote: “…if he doesn’t renew his grant next year, we are taking his space and closing his lab”. You might think that this is good for me, right? But it’s not. It is a fucking sad reflection of how things are right now. Throw into the mix that the guy in question is a full professor with tenure and all this comment did was highlight my own vulnerability. Perhaps that was exactly what the chair wanted to do. Nevertheless, a time for celebration for me was instead laced with anxiety, fear and an urge to run as fast as I can away from this place.

    I guess I say all this because talking about alleviating the pressure on soft-money staff to pay their own salaries appears to be completely off the radar right now. Nobody gives a shit and it’s only going to get worse. Despite being just given a nice new lab to call my own, I have no optimism for the future and I guess I am just trying to ride it out for as long as I can because I never wanted to do anything else. The big elephant in the fucking room is that there just isn’t enough NIH money to go around DM.

    Like

  32. Dave Says:

    Appears you were writing about this back in 2010. What happened? Nothing. All this talk from that douche Collins and it has just gotten worse and worse. He has done nothing to address the problem, if he even can address it.

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/01/21/collins-warns-universities-to-roll-back-soft-money-jobs-sortof/

    Like

  33. DrugMonkey Says:

    I don’t think you appreciate the hurry-up-and-wait of politics, Dave. early rumblings are shots-across-the-bow and test-balloons. they see how much pushback they are going to get and from which direction. that helps them to decide how to advance, what polices to pursue and which ones to quietly abandon.

    NIH is just as subject to stupidity and believing in pipe dreams as anyone else. They probably think the Ivy Medical Schools and HighFalutinResearchInstitutes have these loads of endowment cash they are just sitting on and can use to pay all the salaries if they really want to. This is, of course, mostly untrue.

    Like

  34. WS Says:

    In short, blame the schools who continue to foster and delude their student workers with the illusion of “carrots yet to come”.

    Bill,
    I always appreciate getting the NIH perspective in this discussion. What I don’t understand is why the NIH does not exercise its tremendous influence to make some changes. Since the NIH funds the overwhelming majority of biomedical research in the U.S., if it were to impose restrictions on the use of its funds, research institutes and universities would have no choice but to comply. In an earlier blog, Jeremy Berg would have us believe that the NIH is essentially powerless to impose any changes or restrictions on the use of its money, which I find hard to believe. How about doing something as simple as no longer funding graduate student training grants? Or as you suggest, requiring every university that receives NIH funds to inform Ph.D. applicants with a comprehensive list of their graduates’ job placement for the previous decade? In the absence of such simple steps, it is hard not to believe that the NIH has every interest in maintaining the status quo.
    I also liked your analogy about planting as many “seeds” as possible in the hopes that something sprouts. I think the NIH approach is more akin to the reproductive strategy of some fish or insects, namely to produce as many offspring as possible (Ph.D.s in this case) with the expectation that only a small fraction will survive.

    Like

  35. BugDoc Says:

    @WS: “How about doing something as simple as no longer funding graduate student training grants?”

    It’s not clear to me that decreasing training grant funding will predictably decrease student training. After all, we also pay our students on research grants and there is no control over the numbers there by NIH or institutions at this time. A more predictable solution would be for NIH to continue to fund training grants at some level, but restrict the use of research funds for paying things like tuition. After all, the research grant mechanisms are explicitly for research and not training. Thus, one can rationalize that paying tuition from grants is not allowable (some foundations already do this). If students are primarily funded from NIH training grants, there will of necessity be pretty stringent control of the number of students PIs are willing to take on. Universities/departments/PIs then have to decide if they will pay for tuition or will decrease the numbers of grad students to match the amount of available training grant funds.

    Like

  36. drugmonkey Says:

    An excellent proposal BugDoc.

    Like

  37. Alex Says:

    Disallowing tuition expenses is, in some sense, an indirect attack on indirect costs. There are some institutions that waive tuition for PhD students, or waive tuition for PhD students who have crossed some particular milestone (e.g. completing course requirements, advancing to candidacy). There are others that don’t.

    Once a PhD student is done with formal course requirements, the “instructional” cost associated with the student is really the cost of keeping the thesis advisor employed, the lab in operation, and the associated support infrastructure running. An institution or department that charges tuition for directed research courses is effectively looking for something to cover departmental overhead and some portion of faculty salary (e.g. counting supervision of research courses toward teaching load). I realize that the official justifications for charging tuition for research students are (on the surface) very different from the official justifications for charging overhead to grants. However, if you look at what it actually amounts to, what the student actually does and what the costs associated with the department educating that student really are, the differences are blurry.

    Like

  38. Alex Says:

    It gets even weirder if you think about what it means to charge tuition for somebody who is a TA. The central administration sends the department a pot of money to pay the salary and benefits of the TAs. The department sends some of that back as tuition. If the TA happens to not be an in-state resident (e.g. an international student) and it’s a state school, they send back even more.

    It’s really kind of weird, when you think about it.

    Like

  39. Dave Says:

    @DM: Maybe you are right, but I find it almost impossible to believe that indirect costs will be reduced to pay for some of the things we are talking about. That is the most likely source of funds to cover soft-money faculty. But they certainly will not consider doing this until they have no choice. That will come when they have lost (or fired) so many faculty that their revenue stream and, therefore, bottom line is significantly damaged and they will start offering SOME incentives for soft-faculty to come back. I can see that happening fairly quickly, especially is this fiscal cliff situation becomes reality.

    Or, they will just do what they are doing here. Make up the difference by building more clinical facilities, hiring more clinicians and bring in more fee-paying patients. Research will be a luxury they cannot and will not pay for……

    Like

  40. miko Says:

    The problem with restricting the use of research funds on salaries/tuition (and thus requiring fellowship) is it transfers decision making about who gets trained to precisely the people who need to have much LESS input into what science gets done and who gets to do it: NIH study sections. No need to go into their prominent role in perpetuating pedigree/glam science and stifling creative, long term, or risky research here.

    An alternative would be to limit # of trainees supportable on different types/sizes of grants and do away with fellowships altogether, but PI is free to choose who the trainees are. Fellowships are a nasty business: they are based on PI/institution but have a large influence on trainees prospects… more pedigree perpetuation.

    Like

  41. Joe Says:

    I find the whole charging tuition to the grants to be a blatant accounting gimmick/scam. I already pay the students off the grants and pay their benefits. The students don’t take classes after the 2nd year, but the grants are still paying 16k / yr /student for them to work in my lab. The money goes into a pool that is used to pay other grad students, e.g., humanities students, for which no outside money is available. It is another way the NIH is funding the university generally and getting ripped off in terms of research per dollar.

    Like

  42. WS Says:

    Anyone from the NIH out there to comment on all of this?

    Like


  43. […] Non-academic jobs (just like academic jobs), do not simply fall from the sky. They require skill building, networking, informational interviews, resume writing and rewriting, job applications, and actual experience (sometimes in the form of an internship). Inherently, all of these things take time away from the research enterprise, but they are necessary. Really. You could argue that grad students and postdocs should be doing these things on their own time, but graduate and postdoctoral training is called TRAINING for a reason. Postdocs are by definition temporary jobs, so career development (not just for academic jobs) should be part of the training. It would be great if the NIH realized this–unless this “alternative career” language they used in the recent report is just a scam. […]

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: