Spectrum.

NPR had a story on the other day about researchers who found a much higher prevalence of autism when they looked at every kid in a town in South Korea. One of the big signs was "social awkwardness", another I imagine was obsessiveness and a lack of interest in anything but a narrow band of subjects they were interested in. Hearing this story made me think of a lot of scientists. I'd wager that if the autism spectrum were extended just a little bit, it would catch a lot of Ph.D.'s of the world. I could be totally wrong too, but it does seem to take an obsessive focused mind to be in science, though that does seem to be changing. Now-a-days, Ph.D.'s seem expected to be all things at all times...computer programmers, math whizzes, experts in their fields, experts in other fields, knowing how to integrate different fields, create new ones, teach, write well, communicate to the broader public and just generally be an intellectual bad ass. I'm not a great scientist (yet?), but I'm trying to have better habits in work and in life...but the expectations of Ph.D.'s in 2011 seem outsized somehow. I've blamed myself for not measuring up for years...and I can confirm it's no way to live or have a successful career- in any field (it's very de-motivating and soul-crushing). Maybe what I think the expectations are is unrealistic. Now I'm attempting to do the best I can- and do what I can...and give myself some credit for what I DO accomplish.

Not ready for prime time.

I was at the Northeast Section meeting of The ASPB yesterday. I am getting ready to put together a poster for the program directors meeting in Washington in a few weeks. I don't feel any of my data is ready for presentation (even in poster form). I like complete stories, but maybe those don't exist in science. After all, any tested hypothesis brings up more questions, or at least alternate ways to test that hypothesis to see if it's supported. I'm trying to get used to the idea of just putting my work and ideas out in the world (like writing posts like this), but I find it hard to let go of the idea that a complete story would be nice to have. I'm getting used to the idea of having a "building phase" where I just try to find my voice or the solid ideas to base the direction of my research. Hopefully by embracing the uncertainty/chaos of ideas, I'll find my way. Sort of like the way gene expression works...it's noisy, but coherent transcripts pop out and form functional RNAs and proteins.

Interrupted!

I've been thinking more about being constantly interrupted in lab. It breaks my concentration and it takes time to refocus on a task. It doesn't happen too often at the bench, but often at my desk when I'm trying to concentrate/work through something. As a solution, I think I'm going to try and make signs that let people know if it's OK to bother me or not. Plugging into my iPod hasn't worked so well. Hopefully this will be a successful experiment. I can just point to the sign if someone tries to interrupt, and I avoid feeling like a complete jerk by telling someone I can't talk to them right away, which seems like the expectation when someone is standing there looking impatient.

Back after 5 months- and postdocs still have issues.

OK, I've taken way too long off this blog. But I am now determined to do this more than ever as a writing/communication exercise. "Nature" did a whole issue (the news section, at least) and part of their web page to the value of a Ph.D and problems with the system of academia the world over. It is a hard system to be a part of. Though I can feel proud to be a Ph.D. at some level, I can't help but think I'm one of the ones who isn't "worthy" of it. The big issue is that there are too many Ph.D.'s and postdocs, so we're clogging the system and may give it a heart attack sometime soon. Although I know I might be smarter than average (I caught a pretty egregious error in the Washington Post crossword today...), but it does seem like the pressure is to be more perfect (this seems to be a pressure in society generally too). Not only do your own specialized research, but network, learn to be an economist, internet guru, expert communicator, master whole new fields in a single bound! That said, my research is going better lately- which is a welcome change. And I'm slightly more optimistic about my future too, which is also good. Let's hope I continue to feel more positive, despite what seems to be a permanently bleak outlook for a Ph.D.'s the world over. Science is amazing, the business side of it seems to continue to get worse.

Not sure how I did with this post...going to cut myself a slight break since I haven't posted for a long time and I don't write nearly enough.

Related articles

• Education: The PhD factory (nature.com)

The future as a postdoc?

I read a report in "Science" the other day talking about the state of the scientific workforce. It was a bleak picture for the most part, particularly with regard to how postdocs are invisible in many ways (this may be improving a little bit). There are too many of us to all get scarce academic jobs (what the current system primarily trains us for), many private companies that might hire us are choosing to hire overseas due to the lower cost of labor. So where does that leave the current generation of postdocs who are highly educated and specialized? To fend for ourselves for the most part. To do the best we can and explore more than just research as a career. I hope the picture will improve, but for now it's stress and pressure (like in many other fields- but typically, we're not paid as much as other professionals). I know there's a drum beat in the United States to train more scientists, engineers and mathematicians. I'm all for a more educated populace and science is amazing for what it provides, but the business side of it is currently not a pretty picture from where I currently sit.

Explaining nature to those who don't study it intensely.

An increasingly urgent and new job of practicing scientists (and not just our representatives who are journalists or the PR department of a university or professional society) is to explain our work to people in the general public who's money we use to further human knowledge. 

I can speak to the fact that it's hard when I get asked by family/friends "how are the plants?"...that's such a broad question and I struggle to explain how my research is going without getting the blank stare back. I understand this to some extent, they're not molecular biologists, don't tend to think of biological organisms as machines that are capable or adaptation and interact in a very dynamic way with their environment like us researchers do. I can also say it's the wrong question to ask- "What have you been doing?" strikes me as a better question to ask a scientist. Asked that way, I feel I can better explain some of the experiments I'm doing in terms that might be more understandable- though it does get complicated when explaining some of the tools I use in my work too.

But I guess when I get asked "how are the plants?" I'll do my best to explain what I've been up to in the lab (and perhaps tell some other stories from the literature that I  find fascinating). It's something we as scientists are going to have to get better at- our work is important- maybe not immediately, but in the long run, innovation and invention drive the economy and provide us with all the great products we enjoy in modern life.

Experimental failures.

I know that science is riddled with failed experiments, many of which are actually informative (and some great discoveries were made through "mistakes"), though mostly unpublishable. I take most experiments that don't seem to work out actually pretty hard- especially ones where it's hard to conclude much from except that I've messed up somehow. The pressure to make progress and get results is intense, not to mention the expensive nature of many experiments these days and the focus on the short term grant cycle vs. long term arcs that larger scientific stories and progress tend to take. I'm not sure how to deal with all of this very well. I can go back and try an experiment again of course, I can not be a hyper-perfectionist, and I am really working on trying to enjoy the process of science and rise above the stress of it all. All easier said than done, of course. I know science is of vital importance, but the practice of it is often highly psychologically stressful.