Throwing punches about PubPeer
September 30, 2015
Wow.
PS Brookes has posted a spirited critique of an Op-Ed offered by Michael R. Blatt, EIC of Plant Physiology.
[Blatt] then adds this beauty…
“So, whatever the shortfalls of the peer-review process, I do not accept the argument that it is failing, that it is a threat to progress, or that, as scientists, we need to retake control of our profession. Indeed, if there is a threat to the scientific process, I would argue that, unchecked, the most serious is the brand of vigilante science currently facilitated by PubPeer.”
So let’s get this straight – the problems facing science today are not: (i) a lack of funding, (ii) rampant fakery, (iii) politicians seeking to defund things they don’t like, (iv) inadequate teaching of the scientific method in schools, (v) proliferation of the blood-sucking profiteering publishing industry, (vi) an obsession with impact factor and other outdated metrics, (vii) a broken training to job pipeline in academia, (viii) insert your favorite #scipocalypse cause here.
End of year pickups
September 29, 2015
It’s one of those times of years to go a-RePORTERing, my friends. Select 9/1 or 9/15 in the Project Start Date field and put your favorite IC in the field for that.
As the NIH reaches the end of the federal fiscal year, they have to balance their budget. Meaning that in many cases they will pick up out-of-order grants to satisfy some goal or other. No doubt sometimes it is just making the dollars and cents add up by slotting in a few more R03 or R21 grants.
Maybe it is a chance for them to trigger on priorities that they have been letting simmer on the back burner or maybe it is a class of grants that has to wait until the end of the year for some reason. BigMechs seem to be funded during September in several of my favorite ICs.
I seem to notice SBIR/STTR grants (R41, R42, R43, R44 mechs) rolling out, which makes sense. The overall NIH has a certain percentage it has to meet in terms of SBIR awards and I assume this rolls downhill to the IC level. So this is part of the balancing of books for the final accounting.
The thing I was noticing this year is that the list of grant awards from my favorite ICs seems…interesting. To me anyway. And given when I tend to find interesting (i.e., the unusual) it would be no surprise if this was as feature not a bug. I.e, real.
Look at it this way. The unusual has the potential to be treated somewhat poorly by study sections or it wouldn’t be an unusual application. If you subscribe to a view that study sections suffer from a certain conservatism (and I do subscribe) than it makes sense that the end of year pickups might be interesting due to them being unusual. Perhaps there are POs who likewise look at the list of near-misses and are attracted to the grant application that offers a little breath of fresh air. Perhaps it is because there are the odd RFA extras that can be squeezed under the budget line.
…or maybe I am extrapolating too far from very limited data.
Repost: “Thanks, Doc.”
September 28, 2015
Reposting due to recent comment thread. This post originally appeared on the blog 8/28/2008.
Watching Michelle Obama speak at the Democratic Convention this week was awe inspiring and hope uplifting for many Americans and others worldwide. I was feelin’ it myself. But what really hammered home the real message here, for me, was listening to various media interviews with African-American women. They explained in both humble and soaring terms how important it was for their dreams, aspirations and parental hopes that Michelle stood up there, brilliant, black, beautiful, charismatic and, let’s face it, just plain fabulous. Her strength and will as an advocate for the downtrodden, her country and her family alike was a big hit for women everywhere who finally, finally see families that are just like theirs making a serious run at the US Presidency.
This reminds me of a phenomenon experienced by a scientist with whom I am familiar.
“The conversation usually ends with ‘Thanks Doc, it means a lot’.”
It is no news that US research science looks like a little bit of apartheid. White folks are overrepresented in the faculty ranks and overrepresented in the trainee ranks down to the undergraduate level, relative to the general US population. Frequently enough relative to local city or state populations as well. African-Americans and Latino-Americans are considerably underrepresented.
[Don’t yeah-but me with your favorite allegedly overrepresented group in the comments, it is irrelevant to today’s discussion.]
In the service ranks, this is a different story. Visit a few Universities around the country, attend scientific meetings in the usual hotspots of Washington DC, New Orleans, Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago and unless you are in complete denial or completely oblivious you notice something.
African-Americans and Latino-Americans (and some additional nonwhite ethnic groups) are considerably overrepresented in the service ranks. Administrative assistants, janitors, animal care techs, facilities staff, hotel and convention staff..you name it.
These national realities are not just anecdotes, of course. Every time we talk about affirmative action issues in the Academy on a national level, the dismal stats are related.
I make my views on casting a wide net and dismantling artificial barriers to success in science pretty clear in my blogging. I argue this both from the perspective of an advocate for my scientific domain who wants progress made and as an advocate for the individual scientist and his/her career.
Michelle Obama and the scientist who receives the “Thanks Doc” conversations remind me of another important, perhaps more important, reason for dismantling artificial barriers to science career success.
It matters that “people who look like me, are like me, have families like me” are a highly visible part of the landscape. It matters a lot. And this is why I will smack down knuckleheads who bleat on about quotas and “taking slots from the more deserving” and crap like that. First, of course, because those types (almost hysterically, unbelievably, overrepresented in the fizzycyst population) display a fundamental intuitive misunderstanding of populations, central tendencies, variance in the distribution and the rarity of extreme talents.
Second, because they disingenuously ignore the warm fuzzies, opportunities and biases associated with the vast majority of the Academy looking just like them. Third because these morally shriveled little wankers are just plain fun to tweak and can be tangled up in their inconsistencies and hypocrisy with little effort. But I digress.
Unsurprisingly, the scientist to whom I am referring looks somewhat other than the vast majority of independent scientists at the University in question. Actually, I think people have a fairly difficult time discerning just what ethnic association fits but lets just say “nonwhite”, pointedly underrepresented in science. Of a variety with which many people who work in support roles at the University in question identify. Ethnicity pegging is not helped in that this person does not speak, act, associate, recreate, hobby-ate, idea-ate, iPod-ate, etc in any particularly ethnically-specific or stereotypic ways that I can detect. This observation is quite important. Unlike Michelle Obama, for whom many aspects of the identity package are consistent with the women being interviewed on the radio this week, this scientist basically only looks “like them”.
My subject scientist relates numerous conversations which follow a common thread. Some staff person will drop by the office to say “Thanks Doc. It’s really important to see one of us in this office doing this job.”
That is the crux of the issue. Image is important. Identity is important. It matters to the larger issues of diversity that we have readily apparent, quotidian, barebones diversity. It matters to our social fabric of opportunity and fairness. It matters to the fundamental principles of what it means to be an American citizen when we are talking politics. It matters to the fundamental principles of the Academy as well.
Sports and work ethics
September 28, 2015
I was having an online exchange with someone (who may or may not wish to self identify in the comments) about mentoring for work ethic.
As part of the meander, this person observed that sports participation may have a lasting influence on one’s general work ethic, style, etc.
I felt more as though my approach* to sports as an adolescent and twenty-something was very similar to my evolved work style as my career developed. From this I conclude that it was probably something more essential about my personality that drove both styles or work ethics.
Interesting to think about causal lines though.
How about you, Dear Reader? From whence comes your work ethic?
*it will not surprise you that I was never about putting in the 110% required for the very top echelon.
Recruiting faculty
September 26, 2015
Professors L. Vosshall, C. Bargmann and N. Tronson were discussing the representation of women in the pools of applicants for faculty jobs the other day.
http://twitter.com/pollyp1/status/647029106551468032
I surmised from the Twittscussion that they find that too few women are applying in their respective searches. These three are very well known neuroscientists so it isn’t like they don’t have the usual connections, either.
So what would you suggest?
How can a faculty member on a search committee work to get more underrepresented* individuals into the mix for a new hire?
___
*we can broaden this beyond just sex disparity
Glam cost
September 24, 2015
How much do you think it costs to generate the manuscript that is accepted for publication at your average Glam journal?
How do you align this with your views on fair distribution of research funding?
Ask Drugmonkey: Call to the Hivemind on Behavioral Neuroscience coursework
September 23, 2015
A longtime Reader asks:
My colleagues and I are trying to finalize our revisions/updates to the courses we will require as part of a PhD in behavioral neuroscience. It would be helpful to get input on what others’ experience is: how many credit hours of classwork are required, and what are seen as the essential items? [We’re at 47 class credits currently, trying to reduce to either 41 or 38 but facing resistance to eliminating non-neuro psychology classes from requirements.]
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
I myself think that “eliminating non-neuro psychology classes” is a huge mistake and I join their local resistance. The field of so-called behavioral neuroscience already has far too many people who are insufficiently grounded in good old Behavioral Psychology.
If you take the current replication hoopla seriously, it is a bad idea to cut behavior out of the curriculum.
Question of the day
September 23, 2015
Provocation from Michael Eisen:
Has me thinking… Would you do it? Would you pay $25,000 of your own cash money to secure publication in Nature.
I think I would do that. Have to take out a loan to do it but I think I’d chalk that up to career investment.
The currency of science news
September 23, 2015
Ok, I take the point that journalism should not only talk about science upon the publication of a paper.
Absolutely.
Science news can be much more fluid and the semi-public knowledge of a finding precedes formal publication.
But if there is a paper then it should be cited. Not merely linked obscurely, but properly cited.
Scientists have been complaining about the failure of journalists to cite papers associated with their science news stories for ages. Ed knows this as well as anyone in science journalism. So I am confused as to what he is about here.
Birds of a feather…
September 22, 2015
Some of you may have been following the news about venture capitalist Martin Shkreli who decided
to raise the price of toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim from $13.50 a pill to $750.
Mr. Shkreli has gone on to enrage basically everybody by defending his moves on social media and traditional media with, shall we say, aplomb.
Then one of the scitweeps remembered something interesting:
What?
Yep.
Of the $2 million seed money, New York-based Retrophin and the Wilsey family foundation in San Francisco have combined to contribute about one-third. The rest has come from angel funders in increments of $10,000 to $400,000, Perlstein says.
Perlstein first caught Retrophin CEO Martin Shkreli’s attention on Twitter, and their exchange led to a meeting at the J.P. Morgan conference in San Francisco.
https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/418603162971287554
Sounds like the start of a beautiful relationship.
The most fascinating and perplexing accusation ever leveled against YHN on the Internet
September 17, 2015
Typographical Errors
September 17, 2015
http://twitter.com/PsycGrrrl/status/644269305605914624
I have never understood this nonsense. Ever. What do typographical errors on a manuscript or grant application have to do with the quality of the science or the scholarship. The thinking?
Copy editors can catch the typos in manuscripts.
Grants? You are on your own risking a failure to communicate your points. But a couple of typos leading some jackwagon to decide they can’t trust the science based on this? Please.
Chris Christie, State’s Rights and Marijuana
September 17, 2015
Governor Chris Christie thinks that being a hardliner about the states which have legalized marijuana for recreational use is a way to distinguish himself in the race for the Republican nomination for US President.
This is in an era in which the Republicans seem to be softening on their stance on marijuana, so this is a bit strange.
What was weirder is that at the debate last night Christie argued that he was in favor of medical marijuana decisions by States and indeed bragged that his State of NJ made medical use of marijuana legal on his watch as Governor.
Christie tried to soften his hardline stance by claiming “I’m not against medical marijuana.”
Here’s what I find strange.
Christie seems to be standing on the notion of “federal law”, States’ rights be damned.
“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it,” Christie warned. “As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.”
When you take an oath of office, Christie said, you’re agreeing to enforce the laws. President Barack Obama has ignored the law and looked the other way as states like Colorado and Washington have moved toward legalization, he said.
The DEA still lists marijuana on the Schedule I list. This is distinguished from Schedule II drugs not on a “high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence” (on which both Schedule I and Schedule II substances qualify) but on accepted medical use. The federal law does not recognize any medical use of marijuana at this time.
So Christie makes no sense. He has to be against both recreational and medical marijuana laws enacted by States if he is going to stand on Federal law as his reason.
Keen Political Insight
September 16, 2015
Poll of the day
September 16, 2015
Do you now, or have you ever, thought that a “Co-PI” was an official designation on an NIH grant?
Where did you come by this notion, if you have?
How recently have you had colleagues describe this as a real thing (and not as a confusion for the Multi-PI)?
Are there other major or minor funding agencies you are aware of that use “Co-PI” in some formal way?
Is it the same as NIH’s Multi-PI or more like the “co-I, but better” implied by the old, inaccurate use with respect to NIH grants?
DrugMonkey 