I don't know.

I don't know how to program a computer. I don't know math as well as I should. I don't speak another language. I don't know a lot. I apparently lack everything needed to succeed in the 21st century in science according to several prominent scientists I've heard speak over the last few years as well as read in various articles/blogs. I suppose, like most people, I'm going to work hard and do my best to get by. It's a little discouraging to keep hearing "molecular biology is over", "only do applied science", "model organisms? Those won't be funded any more", "If you're not doing systems biology, you can't succeed" etc. I know the world's full of these challenges and I'm trying to stay positive about my prospects. At the same time, I've been delaying any sort of gratification- sacrificing a fair bit (life, for instance- what's a weekend? I am not familiar with the concept) to do science. The one good argument for keeping the tenure system around is that scientists have toiled so long and hard, dealt with rejection after rejection after rejection with few positives (when achievements come, it's like they don't matter, you're onto the next thing already and can't take a moment to appreciate them) that when tenure is achieved (seems like a virtual impossibility for me right now), we've earned a break. That doesn't mean I'd get lazy exactly, but certainly things need to get less intense at some point. I know I've said it before but I'll say it again. Science is amazing. The business of science is BRUTAL. I've stopped beating myself up so much for the times I screw up in the lab (everyone does), I am relaxing a bit more and I think it's keeping me more motivated to keep working. But I am still not sure what direction my career is going to take and that's scary to me right now. It's hard for me to see a direction or goal I'm working toward. I guess the best thing I can do is keep learning, trying and never stop exploring. But I don't know.

What they think.

One theme I read a few things about today is about what other people will think. This has been a constant struggle for me in my life. It is almost certainly an outgrowth of perfectionism, a trait I think I share with many scientists. I read Anna Quindlen's 1999 commencement speech about putting down the bag of bricks that is trying to live up to what everyone else expects of you. That is a good message for me to hear and it's a change in perspective I am trying to bring to my life. I still care, but I care less about what abstract people who I don't even know might think. So far, the world hasn't ended and I seem to be freer to pursue things that I want to because they're people, issues and work I care about. I'm not perfect, but I'm doing the best I can and finally trying to be an actual human being in all my complexity.

Basic science doing good.

I saw this article from the Huffington Post posted on lifehacker today and though the content is really interesting and good; Who doesn't want to reduce stress at work? I could definitely stand to stop my stress loops in their tracks more often. I'm a lot better at it than I used to be, but it's still a challenge. Another thing that struck me was just how much basic science went into informing this story. The questions that had to be asked, and answered about human evolution, how the body responds to stress, where we feel stress, that there's a specific part of the brain in charge of the fear/anxiety response and many more. I'm sure it took years to build up that knowledge base, and yet more years to understand the detrimental effects of chronic stress on our bodies and minds- something we didn't necessarily evolve to deal with. None of these questions on their own form a complete picture, but taken together they bring a more complete picture into focus. I'm sure most of the scientists had a vague notion about how their work would help complete the picture of what it is to be human, but probably didn't have Mr. Robinson's complete argument in mind- they just knew stress seemed like it could be a problem and one with interesting biology behind it. My point is that basic (or foundational) research with seemingly no point, starting as a drop of water, can turn into a river when combined with other drops. That's why exploring seemingly arcane hypotheses that are narrowly focused is important for progress in any field. All those basic research discoveries in chemistry, physics and computer science are what's allowing me to type this post in fact. Don't get me wrong, applied research is great too, but only doing applied research is limiting, as is only doing foundational research.

The conference

I was at a small conference for the first time in my life last week after only having attended much larger plant society meetings before. Small conferences are much nicer in many ways. The talks were mostly good. The ones that weren't were because they were hard to follow mostly due to ineffective use of Powerpoint. During the poster session I actually talked to quite a few people about my poster, which was good, even though I'm not sure the story I was telling was all that great. It also drove home for me just now far I have to go to establish some sort of career in science. I'll keep working at it, of course, and keep trying to work towards alternatives as well. Onward and upward (I hope). Now it's back to the grind, and hopefully back to more regular and more interesting posts than this one.

Posterified.

I'm rushing to put together a poster and it's terrifying in many ways. I'll get something in the space and try to make it look good and all. I know I've been doing this for years, but I am still anxious about showing work in progress or early work...that's probably the perfectionist speaking. But it also speaks to an anxiety I have that everyone else expects me to be perfect too and anything short of that is unacceptable. When I was learning to do science (which I'm still learning), it seemed like the goal was to take the human out of the equation as much as possible. I have a hard time with that idea. Of course there's a part of science that is objective- standardized measures and assays are what we all rely on to interpret the natural world and to invent amazing things. Ideally, there's also an objective interpretation of the data too. But there always will require a critically thinking human brain to give the data meaning. And of course people are who do science...and we screw up sometimes and our experiments are almost all imperfect in some way. We forget facts, we haven't read every single paper on our subject of expertise, we're just doing the best we can (and no, I almost never feel that I ever do enough). I know there are a lot of decent people that practice science, it just seems that we often don't treat each other as humans. Most of my friends who work in the private sector actually take vacations and get things called weekends. I love science, I just hope I don't get posterified at this conference and that it's OK if I'm human.

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.