Hello PhD

Traditionally, spending time on social media was a great way to make your PI angry. Your job is to finish experiments, read papers, and present your work at conferences, not to upvote and share the latest blue-dress illusion. But there are some unexpected benefits to the Twitter network that could help your science and your career. #JustAScienceThing This week on the show, we explore the weird world of Twitter, and how real-life scientists are using it to their advantage.  Here are some benefits you may not have considered: 1. Keep up with the research in your field Raise your hand if you’ve ever missed out on an important paper in your field because your PubMed filter wasn’t precise. Or if you ever missed an advance because you decided you’d rather watch a Netflix series than flip through that stack of journals. Scientific research moves quickly, and having a social network of like-minded scientists means you’ll have many more eyes on the literature. Follow the researchers in your field and rest assured you’ll never miss that big breakthrough. 2. Promote your own work It’s a dirty fact that citations make your journal articles more valuable (Impact Factor, baby!).  Would you be surprised to learn that Twitter references correlate with early citations in other articles? If you’re not sharing your research on Twitter, you’re missing a wider audience that may benefit from your findings. 3. Build your network and find a job Most scientists I’ve met don’t like the word ‘networking.’ It feels awkward to ‘cold call’ a PI or collaborator, asking for reagents and inquiring about jobs. But what if you had a rapport BEFORE you even met? Follow the researchers you respect, reply to their tweets with your own perspective, and after awhile, you’ll recognize each other at that next conference and have a basis for conversation. No cold calls necessary. 4. Attend the conference behind the conference If you’re still not ready to dive into the Twittersphere, dip in your toe by participating in a conference.  Most meetings will define a hashtag that allows attendees to filter on tweets stemming from the conference. You’ll discover a rich conversation happening in and around the talks and events. As one scientist presents her findings, others can ask questions or summarize the results on Twitter for follow up later. There’s no reason to be passive just because it isn’t your turn on the dais. 5. Support the causes you believe in We interview Dr. Stephani Page, who launched an unexpected hashtag revolution one snowy day. Stephani wanted to find other black scientists and engineers on Twitter, so she tweeted: “Role” call. #BLACKandSTEM what do you do? — Stephani Page, PhD (@ThePurplePage) February 13, 2014 Little did she know, that seemingly innocuous tweet would lead to articles in magazines like Fast Company, interviews on Al Jazeera and NPR, invitations to speak at conferences, and a supportive network of other STEM professionals. She shares her amazing story and how it’s affected her career this week on the show! You can find her @ThePurplePage. And of course, you can always find US on Twitter @hellophd.  Come join the conversation! Good Beer and Bad Drugs This week, we discuss

If the idea of saving money while in graduate school sounds laughable to you, you’re not alone. Many grad students live month to month on a stipend that places them near the poverty line. After rent, food, and clothing, there’s nothing left to save. But food, clothing and shelter don’t cover all the expenses you’ll face as a grad student. There’s also car maintenance and repair, gifts for loved ones, and the occasional concert or trip to the beach. How do you squeeze these add-ons from an already meager budget? Hitting the Target This week, we talk with our friend Dr. Emily Roberts about some creative ways grad students and postdocs can make a regular investment for irregular expenses. Emily shares her experience when as a student, she and her husband spent well over their budget on unpredictable expenses like car repairs and basketball tickets. Vowing never to make that mistake again, Emily looked for ways to force these every-few-months expenses into her monthly budget. Her solution: targeted savings accounts. Simply put, these are bank accounts with a name and a purpose. Instead of saving a wad of cash under the mattress for ‘a rainy day,’ targeted savings accounts serve a single purpose. Emily created one that saved money just for car repairs.  She stared a separate account to purchase show tickets the following year. Each month, a small amount of money would auto-draft from her checking account, and deposit in each targeted account. Over time, these grew, and when it came time to fix the car or buy theater tickets, the money was already there.  She didn’t have to sacrifice her grocery budget this week to make ends meet. You can hear more tips and ideas for setting up accounts of your own in this week’s episode.  Or head over to GradStudentFinances.org for additional articles and a worksheet to help you identify your irregular expenses. Hello PhD listeners can also sign up to view her webinar on income tax tips for graduate students.  Yes, it IS that time of year! Tastes Like Chicken This week, we’re scratching our heads over the recent report from the CBC that the chicken on Subway sandwiches contain only 50% Gallus gallus.  Because DNA! Of course, Subway disagrees, and ordered their own antibody-based testing to show that there’s plenty of Gallus to go around. Something that doesn’t taste like chicken: the Julius and Haze IPAs we sampled from Treehouse Brewing. These truly exceptional beers are apparently hard to come by. It’s complex enough that their website has a section devoted to finding them, and a section for ordering. I believe the brewmaster is allowed to ask you three riddles before filling your growler, and may demand a sacrifice should you answer incorrectly.  Be warned!  

If you read the following headline this week, you might have experienced a small thrill: AAAS Forms Partnership to Expand Access to High-Quality Scientific Publishing AAAS, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is the organization that publishes the flagship journal Science Magazine and related titles.  You might believe from that headline that you could now access Science articles for free from anywhere in the world! You’d be wrong. Unlocking Access While AAAS DID ‘expand’ access, they did it in the least thrilling way possible.  They reached an agreement with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and committed to allowing open access for Gates Foundation funded research articles.  That’s expected to be 10-15 papers per year. But wait, there’s less! The agreement only lasts for one year, beginning January 1, 2017, after which time the decision will be reviewed. To secure this privilege, the Gates Foundation had to pay AAAS a lump sum of $100,000 for the year. So much for ‘open’ access. Scientific publishing is an unusual animal. Government agencies like the NIH and private NGOs like the Gates Foundation contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to advance research.  Scientists labor at the bench to make discoveries.  Peer reviewers offer in-depth analysis and expert consulting for free. Meanwhile, scientists must pay the journal to publish a paper, and then pay some journals a subscription fee to read that paper! Open access journals offer a different approach. Though they may still charge a fee for publication, the finished article can be freely accessed without a subscription or paywall by anyone in the world. This week on the podcast, we explore the newsworthy-ness of the AAAS announcement, why the Gates Foundation may be paying to play, and what YOU can do as a scientist to advance the cause of open access. We also sample the Wicked Weed Pernicious India Pale Ale brewed in Asheville, NC.  They claim their IPA is so good, it will make all others taste terrible by comparison.  It is tasty, but I bet we’ll find others to enjoy in the future… Friends of the Show We’re 67 episodes into this wild ride we call Hello PhD and we need your help more than ever!  We’re asking friends of the show to continue sharing it with your lab mates and social networks to help spread the word and make science training just a wee bit easier for everyone. We also want your feedback.  Whether you’re a regular listener or just wandered by, take our survey to help us improve the show. And if you’re feeling generous, why not donate a few bucks and become a Patron of Hello PhD?  We’ve got a Patreon account now to help cover the costs of hosting and distribution. We’ve got some fun rewards set up for anyone who contributes, and thanks for your support!  

Though techniques and terminology vary from one scientific discipline to another, all scientists are bound together by a set of core principles. We call this the “scientific method,” and the approach is sacrosanct. Observe the world around you, state a hypothesis to explain what you’ve seen, devise an experiment to prove yourself wrong, and report your findings so that the next inquisitive mind can build upon your work. So what happens when an elected official seeks to erode the foundations of scientific inquiry? Scientists take to the streets. March Against Madness After just over two weeks in office, US President Donald Trump has stirred up more controversy than most presidents achieve in two terms. And whether you love or loathe his policies on abortion, immigration, and the economy, it’s his approach to science that warrants a watchful eye. So far, the news media has described a president and cabinet who are antagonistic to the scientific community. In their first week, a gag order silenced ‘unapproved’ communication from institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture. At the same time, the EPA was instructed to remove references to ‘climate change’ from its website, though that edict was later walked back. The agency remains under a strict media blackout and some contracts have been frozen. But perhaps more troubling than seizing control of the money and message of scientific agencies is the administration’s cavalier attitude toward the goal of science: to understand the truth.   Spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway famously invoked the concept of ‘alternative facts’ to defend the President’s insistence that the crowd at his inauguration was many times larger than the cameras showed. Trump himself continually flouts scientific consensus and verifiable data. He believes vaccines cause autism, has said climate change is a hoax, and recently declared that any poll showing disagreement with his policy is automatically ‘fake news.’ Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 6, 2017 Scientists working directly in government agencies are already feeling the chilling effects of this administration, but those in academia and the private sector are also nervous. An administration willing to deny scientific consensus, hamstring research agencies, and publicly humiliate detractors is unlikely to increase research funding or clear the way for major breakthroughs. So what’s a scientist to do? Protest, of course.  Dr. Smith Goes to Washington A Facebook group called “March for Science” emerged in recent weeks and called on scientists to stand up for the immense value of scientific inquiry in our society.  The group ballooned quickly,

Though most of us have never served on a graduate program admissions committee, we can still appreciate the difficulty of their task: Given a stack qualified applicants, choose the few that you believe will succeed. Where do you start?  Perhaps you check on each applicant’s GPA, or focus just on the GPA in their science classes. Or maybe you trust the Graduate Record Examination (GRE).  After all, it’s designed to measure a student’s readiness for graduate school, right? Because reviewers differ on which metrics they trust most, it’s worth considering a scientific approach to admissions. Are there any predictor variables that actually correlate with student outcomes? Let Me Gaze into My Crystal Ball That’s exactly the question taken up by Joshua Hall et al. in their recent paper titled “Predictors of Student Productivity in Biomedical Graduate School Applications.” If you’re paying close attention, you’ll notice that Joshua Hall is also the co-host of the Hello PhD podcast! Josh works with a large biomedical training program at UNC Chapel Hill, and he and his colleagues have a vested interest in choosing the very best students from a large pool of applicants. They wanted to collect data on student outcomes, and then correlate them to the screening data included in a typical application. Would GRE scores or extensive research experience help predict laboratory success? Of course, “success” is subjective and difficult to define or measure. Instead, they used student publications as a proxy for productivity and a tangible outcome. Using data from 270 graduate students admitted to the biomedical program at UNC Chapel Hill between 2008 and 2010, Josh and his colleagues correlated the following five factors to students publishing rates: * Undergraduate GPA * GRE Scores * Length of prior research experience (in months) * Letters of recommendation (standardized answers) * On-site faculty interviews (standardized answers) The results? Only recommender reviews had any significant correlation with student productivity. Even faculty reviews and longer research experience did not predict which students would publish. Listen in to this week’s episode to hear more on each factor included in the study, and why it’s such a serious indictment of the GRE and other traditional screening metrics. With time and additional research, we may be able to screen and interview graduate students in a fairer, more consistent way. For now, you’ll still need to shell out $200+ for that GRE score. Feeling Hot, Hot, Hot For this week’s Science in the News, Josh brings us down with a report that the global temperature is up. A few years ago, climate scientists observed a ‘stall’ in the predicted warming caused by increasing CO2 levels.  It turns out that may have just been due to a measurement error from data collected by ships crossing the oceans. More recent analysis using data from a fleet of “Argo Floats” show that warming has been consistent, with the Earth breaking heat records for three years in a row. Here’s how the floats work: This seemingly benign story of improved instrumentation now enters the realm of political theater, as politicians and pundits raise the specter fabricated data, media bias, and political pandering. Isn’t science fun? With all that heat, we try to stay cool with the Jai Alai IPA from Cigar City Brewing.  It’s crisp and refreshing,

You might think internships are the domain of business students and undergrads.  You’re training every day in a lab – why would you need more experiential learning? The short answer is that your laboratory training is a great internship if you want to go on to a faculty position at a major research university. But what if you want to use your scientific training to craft policy and legislation in your state government? Or what if you want to work with a Contract Research Organization and help shepherd new drugs through clinical trials? The Best of the BEST The NIH recognized this gap between the current training regimen an the job prospects of biomedical grads.  They cite a 2012 study by the Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group that found only 20-25% of graduating biomedical trainees went on to faculty positions. That means 75-80% did something else with their careers. To bridge this gap, they introduced the Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) program. BEST provides funding and support to 17 research institutions to experimentally improve career development. This week, we talk with Patrick Brandt, PhD, about the program he administers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  The UNC program includes funding that allows students to leave their dissertation labs for a short time to work directly with industry or government agencies. Dr. Brandt tells us about a few of the internships recently completed by trainees, and shares some tips for getting a spot in the program.  He also discusses some of the ways students convince their PIs that time away from lab is worthwhile. Dr. Brandt has noticed that students participating in the intern program are highly successful at getting a job after graduation.  And it’s not just jobs with the intern host company. Sure, an internship provides experience, CV fodder, and network of contacts, but Dr. Brandt thinks the real value lies elsewhere.  He believes interns find greater success due to a surge in confidence the feel after working ‘in the field.’  They gain focus and can speak the language of their target industry, and that goes a long way when you’re trying to land a job. It’s beginning to look a lot like New Year Sure, the holiday season is far behind us, but no one told Winter Storm Helena that swept through the southern US this past week.  We were snowed in for a few days, and celebrated with New Belgium’s Accumulation.  It’s a white IPA that would be a great introduction for your friends who aren’t sure about hoppy beers. Plus, after a few sips, you’ll feel warmer! And here’s a link to the crazy robotic moth to fuel your next nightmare: Insect-controlled Robot: A Mobile Robot Platform to Evaluate the Odor-tracking Capability of an Insect

Statistically speaking, Teresa Ramirez didn’t stand a chance. She was raised in Compton, California, a city south of Los Angeles and the eponymous setting of the N.W.A. album “Straight Outta Compton.” Teresa loved books. She asked questions during class. She put in extra time to help out after school.  In a high school where gang violence was an expectation and higher education was not, Teresa stood out like a sore thumb. Straight Inta College This week on the show, we find out what transformed a teenager living in a dangerous part of town into an accomplished scientist who makes the path easier for the next generation of trainees. Teresa reflects on the blend of luck, kindness, and personal motivation that propelled her through college, graduate school, and beyond her PhD.  She shares the struggles that sapped her confidence and the leaps of faith that ended up paying off in unexpected ways. Whether you’re a high school student, undergrad, PhD candidate, or postdoc, she has advice that will help YOU make the next step in your career.  Work hard, stay open to every opportunity, and take a few chances.  You won’t regret it. Deck the ‘Nog And since it’s the Holiday Season, Josh and Dan mix up a special ethanol to celebrate.  It’s Eggnog! If you mistakenly believe you hate eggnog based on the yellow, syrupy gloop poured from a cardboard carton this time of year, then you’re in for a surprise.  REAL eggnog is a creamy, rich indulgence that is almost too decadent for words.  Luckily, we have words for everything, so we walk you through the recipe step-by-step. Next year, we’ll try it aged…  Stay with us!

The 2016 presidential election was divisive, dramatic, and distracting.  That’s why you probably missed a series of rulings and regulations that could have a profound impact on your research. But fear not, Daniel and Josh are back with news on the recent legislation and how it affects your funding and focus. Fair Labor for Postdocs First up, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or “FLSA”, was scheduled for an update that would raise salaries for full time employees.  Way back in Episode 2, we outlined how President Obama’s proposed changes would apply to postdoctoral researchers.  Universities and institutions like the NIH would be required to either boost postdoc pay to $47,476, or treat them as hourly employees and start tracking their overtime pay. Staring down the barrel of additional paperwork, many universities made plans to simply increase postdoc pay above the threshold before the December 1, 2016 deadline.  But on November 23rd, a US District Judge imposed an injunction, blocking the implementation until further review. Many universities and research organizations decided to go ahead with the pay bump, but a few balked.  You can find out what your employer decided by visiting the Future of Research website.  They’ve compiled school-by-school reports on FLSA compliance and they’ll maintain that list moving forward. For recent grads seeking out a new lab for your postdoctoral work, be sure to consider the ever-widening pay gap that exists among otherwise comparable universities.  Vote with your research, and make sure you are compensated appropriately for your valuable work. 21st Century Cures As of this writing, the 21st Century Cures Act has passed the US House of Representatives with bipartisan support.  This omnibus health care and research bill cuts a wide swath, touching everything from basic research to medical device marketing. Before we unpack the parts of special interest to the HelloPhD audience, let’s let President Obama give us the tl;dr. In addition to lots of money flowing into treating opioid addictions and cancer, there’s a $4.8 billion authorization for the National Institutes of Health over the next ten years.  In fact, the first section of the bill is devoted to “Discovery,” which translates to basic scientific research carried out in universities like yours. We cover some of the relevant earmarks in detail in this week’s episode, but here’s a quick link-list for anyone wanting to learn more: * (Sec. 1002) The NIH must establish an Innovation Prizes Program to fund areas of biomedical science that could realize significant advancements or improve health outcomes. * (Sec. 1023) The NIH must reduce the administrative burdens of researchers funded by the NIH. * (Sec. 1028) Each national research institute must conduct or support high-risk, high-reward research. * (Sec. 1041) A loan repayment program is established for health professionals engaging in research.

There’s no denying it: science is hard work. After a long week of 3AM time-points, contaminated cell cultures, and the ‘simple PCR’ that failed for the fifth time, you might lose sight of why you got into this business in the first place. But, with Thanksgiving on the horizon, we decided to pause and consider all of the GOOD things going on in life and lab. On the Bright Side We asked our listeners and our favorite subreddits why they love grad school and working in science. As the responses poured in, we remembered just how great a life of research can be as long as you take the time to notice. Lab workers love the flexibility of their work schedule. Instead of the 9-5 rat race with 30 minutes for lunch, we get the benefit of planning our time around experiments and results. Need to make a doctor’s appointment or spend some time with family? There’s no form to fill out – just go! Listeners also found joy in the amazing people around them. As a group, scientists tend to be a quirky, curious, and intelligent bunch, which makes for great conversation. Add the stress of graduate training and you see students and postdocs forming lifelong bonds with their labmates. We’re in this together, right? Other common themes in your feedback centered around the perks of the graduate lifestyle. The chance to travel for conferences and the myriad opportunities for free food came up regularly in the conversation. Daniel shared a very personal message of thanks with everyone who pursues basic research in the sciences. When cancer recently touched the life of his loved-one, he found hope in a clinical trial built on more than 100 years of scientific research in fields from virology, cell biology, neurophysiology and medicine. With our day-to-day experimental successes and failures, it’s so easy to lose sight of the importance of our work. But know that this holiday season, the work you do provides hope to thousands of people whose lives depend on innovation and discovery. So what are YOU thankful for this week? More Causes for Thanksgiving This week, we stick with the holiday theme to taste the Dogfish Head Punkin Ale. It’s not the cloyingly sweet pumpkin-spice monstrosity you expect from most pumpkin beers, so it’s safe to enjoy with dinner. Just save room for the pie! And Josh shares some not-so-new-news about how scientists are growing unusual bacteria species outside of the incubator. It’s an inspiring tale of bargain basement materials that fuel priceless discoveries.

Dear Dr. Scientist, I’m writing to tell you how much I admire your work in the field of science that you study.  Your lab has done some tremendous work researching very important topics of significance.  I just loved your latest research article and I’m sure it made your university or institution proud! In any case, I’m looking for a postdoc position in a lab like yours.  Please let me know what day I can start. Sincerely, A Grad Student If you want to end up in University spam filters, then just copy and paste this email to everyone in the department. If you’d like that postdoc advisor to take notice and invite you for an interview, we have some tips for making contact and getting a response! Take me to your mentor This week on the show, we hear from Tessa, a nearly-minted PhD student who is on the hunt for a postdoc advisor.  She wonders about the rules and etiquette for reaching out: I’m very close to finishing my PhD in physics. I would love to know your thoughts on cold calling academics in the job hunt. I know this is done a lot, but personally I always feel a little awkward reaching out to researchers at the top of their field, who I’ve never met before.  Some of the questions I’ve been pondering are: – How might this first email sound? – Whether you should ask directly about opportunities to work together or just express interest in what they do. – How to explain how my research interests aligns with theirs in few words. – How to stand out amongst the crowd. – Whether there are other things I should be doing like creating an online presence, webpage, etc. We start at the beginning, by reminding you to think about whether you actually need a postdoc to achieve your career goals. Assuming a postdoc makes sense for you, we share advice for identifying eligible advisors by mining your existing network of research contacts.  Ask faculty members and postdocs in your department who they’d recommend based on your research interests.  You might discover labs you’d have overlooked in a web search, and you’ll have a ‘warm’ introduction rather than calling cold. If your colleagues can’t help, there are a handful of do’s and don’ts to consider when crafting an email. Do: * Open with a personal connection – “I saw your talk at the recent convention” or “Jim suggested I contact you.”  Making it personal and targeted will get them to read past the first paragraph. * Let them know you’re looking for a postdoc opportunity – There are times to be coy and times to be direct. In this situation, hinting your way into the job is going to be difficult and confusing. Let them know you are looking for a postdoc position and how your research interests will align. * Include an updated CV and references – Make it easy for the advisor to see how your background and skills are a great fit. Don’t: * Contact them by mail – No need for a snail-mail package with your CV and recent publications.  It’s not 1802. Everyone has email now. * Spam a big list of labs – You shouldn’t email that advisor if you aren’t interested in the lab.  Yeah, I know it’s scary to put all your eggs into just a few baskets, but you’ll get a better result with focus and specificity. * Expect a response after one email – Look, people are busy.  Even if they’d love to have you in their lab, they may have forgotten to reply.  Send a gracious follow-up email or hop on the phone to let them know you’re truly interested. Do you have suggestions for how to contact PhD or postdoc m...

In some jobs, one day at the office looks a lot like the next. You could look through your calendar and optimize your meeting schedule and to-do list without much thought. But working in a lab is different: your projects are in constant flux, experiments lead to other experiments, and you need to balance bench work with meetings, mentoring, and writing. That busyness can lead to inefficiency as you tackle the items on your list one after another.  Worse, you’re forced to plan overlapping activities to fill the ‘downtime’ during incubations and time points. This week, we encourage you to take a step back, look over your list of competing priorities, and ask some hard questions about what’s really important. You might find you have more free time on your hands than you ever imagined… Throw it in the Focus Funnel Managing your time in lab goes beyond just making each experiment efficient and effective; you need to choose what tasks to take on, and which to let go.  That’s where the Focus Funnel from Rory Vaden’s Procrastinate on Purpose comes in handy. Just take your to-do list, and ask the following questions: * Does this task actually need to done? If not, eliminate it. * Does it involve a repetitive task that a computer could do?  If so, automate it! * Can someone else do it just as well as I can? If so, delegate it. * Does it need to get done right away? If not, procrastinate. If you answered no to all of the above, you’ve got a task that is important and requires your attention ASAP.  Now’s the time to set your pomodoro timer, and get the job done. As you work through this mental checklist, you’re sure to find activities that are best eliminated, automated, delegated, and procrastinated. Skip the fifth repetition on that Western blot that just won’t produce a pretty hot-dog shaped band. It’s okay, they’ll still publish your paper. Make an Excel template that runs all of your favorite statistics after a qPCR.  It’s better at math than you are anyway. Train your local undergrad to split your HeLa cells.  I promise you can get more if the first few batches get contaminated. Wait until after you talk with your PI to finalize those PowerPoint slides.  You know he’ll find something to criticize – why not make it something you were planning to fix anyway? The Focus Funnel can’t get you out of all of your work, but it will help you put each task in perspective and help you maximize the time you spend on the things that matter most. The Pirates of Alcosynth This week, we’re sampling the Hornigold English Style India Pale Ale from Mystery Brewing in Hillsborough, NC.  It derives its name from a piratical source which we reveal on the show.  The brewmaster at Mystery is none other than Erik Lars Myers, author of North Carolina Craft Beer & Breweries, so you know he knows his stuff! We also learn about Professor David Nutt’s research on synthetic drugs without the side effects.  He’s created a compound named “alcosynth” that has all the fun of alcohol without the hangovers and liver damage.  He believes psychoactive substances have been part of human culture for millennia and will continue to be important for the foreseeable...

On those days when you manage to take a break from bench-work and call home, you will almost certainly get ‘The Question:’ “So, how is your research going?” If you’re new to grad school, you might make the mistake of telling your parent or loved one exactly how your research is going. “Well, I was up until 3 AM doing time points but then one of the buffers was contaminated so I had to throw out my last two weeks of work and start over.” To which your parent will reply, “That sounds awful!  You must be so upset.  Are you sure a career in science will make you happy?” And you’ll stop and ponder that last question.  Will a career in science make you happy? Will you prance from bench to bench giggling to yourself, high on the sheer exhilaration of learning? Or is it much more likely that you’ll face roadblocks, confounding data, experiments that only sometimes work, and that every once in awhile, you’ll push the boundary of your knowledge into new territory.  In those moments, you might feel proud or relieved or curious, but not exactly ‘happy.’ Does that mean you should leave science to find a career that can make you happier? Or is Mom asking you the wrong question entirely? And the Pursuit of Unhappiness When a friend or loved one reflects on your life in the lab, it can highlight some of the challenges you face every day. Asking whether science makes you happy requires that you answer with a yes or no, but in fact, you may not be pursuing a research career because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You may have chosen science because you have a burning curiosity that won’t let you sleep when there’s a puzzle to solve.  You may have seen the effects of a disease that you feel compelled to cure.  Or perhaps you’re the type of person who believes in the purity of the scientific method, and you want to apply that enlightened thinking to more of the world. Whatever the case, you probably didn’t sign up for graduate school because you believed it would give you a permanent feeling of bliss.  So how do you explain your motivation and drive to friends and family? This week on the show, we talk with Deirdre Sackett, a fourth-year student who recently reflected on her meaningful unhappiness in grad school.  She drew inspiration from The Oatmeal’s recent comic outlining his own lifestyle of busy, fascinated unhappiness. Science isn’t about being happy or unhappy, she says.  “You will face failure in your studies, no matter what you’re doing.  Don’t let anyone define what your worldview of happiness is.  That’s for you to find and it’s not happiness, it’s meaning. That’s deeply personal to you and it’s not something that anyone can tell you to feel.” The Science of Fitbit This week, we also learn about the effects of activity trackers on weight loss.  These days, everyone wears a Fitbit, Jawbone, or Apple device to count their steps.  Perhaps it comes as no surprise that the actual outcomes of fitness tracking are complicated. And to tip the scales in the other direction, we enjoy a bottle of the Smuttynose Peach Short Weisse.  They use a two-step fermentation process with Lactobacillus, so the beer is tart and crisp with just a hint of peach.  It’s not sour enough to cause your lips to pucker, but it is an acerbic surprise on your first sip.

When we imagine what life is like for people who are blind, our first reaction might be paralysis. We consider just how difficult our lives would be without sight; preparing breakfast, dressing for work, and navigating from home to the lab sound like insurmountable obstacles. And if those trivial tasks seem daunting, consider your work day.  Could you keep up with the pace of scientific research, running experiments and publishing papers with your eyes closed? In our imaginary blindness, many of us would despair and find an alternative career path, but we’re missing a very important distinction between the thought experiment and reality. The fact is, people who have been blind since birth have developed the skills to leap each and every hurdle we’ve listed. It’s a normal part of every day to commute to work or read a scientific paper. Their biggest struggle may be overcoming the decidedly limited imaginations of their sighted peers. Expect Success This week on the show, we interview Kevin Currin, a second year grad student in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology who also happens to be legally blind. Kevin’s passion for science started at a young age, and he spent time building his research skills prior to applying to graduate school. Importantly, he also used that time to build a network in the science community. As he got to know other students and faculty, they learned about his drive and perseverance, as well as some of the tools he uses to get his work done. Taking a few minutes to understand how Kevin interacts with the artifacts of scientific research goes a long way toward helping his sighted colleagues understand why he’s so good at what he does. * Reading papers: Screen reader software recites the content on the computer line by line at whatever speed he chooses.  He’s trained his ear to listen at higher speeds, so he’ll read an entire paper in the time it takes most people to get through the introduction. * Programming: Similar answer, but the code he writes is echoed back to him as he types. * Data Analysis: Data visualization is out, but he argues that many scientists use graphs and summary statistics in a way that actually obscures data. Depending on the data set, he’ll either consume the raw table, or define the metrics that answer his questions. * Presentation: Giving scientific talks is no problem, but he will enlist outside opinions when making his slides.  He initially spent time considering whether a bar chart or scatter plot would appeal to his audience, but since this is not how he perceives the data, he leaves that choice up to others who have a vested interest. Of course, Kevin’s road to success hasn’t been without bumps.  He’s encountered his share of misunderstanding and bias (one faculty interviewer completely dismissed the notion that Kevin could conduct research at all.)  Still, he’s found a community that supports his scientific aspirations, and he’s doing his part to make the path easier for other blind individuals. Kevin is passionate about changing the expectations for the blind.  He says that our culture, and even parents of blind children, see career success as a happy anomaly, reserved for the few savants and geniuses of the blind community.  Mediocrity is the expected default. But to change that, he calls for all of us to expect blind students and colleagues to perform as well as their sighted counterparts.  It reveals our own implicit bias when we say things like “I can’t believe how well you did on that test” or “It’s so impressive that you were able to get into graduate school.”  We certainly would not repeat those phrases to other minority groups! In addition to resetting our expectations, Kevin calls for broader and better outreach efforts.

When we think of scientists, we often think of the lone researcher plodding away at the bench late into the night.  We imagine Alexander Fleming scrutinizing his penicillium molds or Einstein pondering the latest equation he’s written on the chalk board. We go a step further when training new scientists: we ask them to complete an ‘independent research project.’  We tacitly perpetuate this notion of the solitary scientist, making her own success or failure. The side effects of this lone-wolf approach to research are painfully manifest: projects that stall on a single experiment, money wasted teaching everyone the same techniques, and students who burn out due to frustration, lack of direction, or just plain loneliness. In Part 3 of our goal to modernize the PhD process, we propose a radical 180º turn from the independent project. Let’s turn science into a team sport. Though ‘group work’ was a dreaded sentence in your undergrad classroom, teams themselves are essential in most modern industries.  Can you imagine a manufacturer who expected one person to think up a product, design the machines, assemble the widget, box it up, and launch an ad campaign? Yet that’s our vision of an ‘independent scientist.’  A scientist needs to identify the important questions in his field of study, design experiments, execute them, publish the results, and score grants from various funding agencies. Imagination Laboratory If we draw parallels to the lab, a new way of doing academic research arises.  We see a cohort of students, postdocs, technicians and PIs who team up to solve the same problem.  They map out the figures for a paper, and then divide up the work. Instead of laboring away alone at the bench, experiments become an intricate dance.  An undergrad prepares the media while the PI (who has good ‘luck’) makes the clone.  A tech transforms the bacteria, inoculates the flasks, and teaches the undergrad to do a miniprep. A grad student, who has flawless aseptic technique, is responsible for transfecting the mammalian cells without contamination.  She hands off analysis to the postdoc who has had ten years of experience at the microscope and prefers that quiet, methodical work. They gather at lab meeting to assess the results of their team effort, and to chart a path through the next week. Experiment by experiment, figure by figure, they divide and conquer the paper and publish faster than their competitors.  Everyone works to her strengths.  No one is left to flounder when an experiment fails. In fact, it’s in every person’s interest to help the others.  Never again does a student sit stymied by the transfection that just won’t work; the whole lab needs that step to succeed, and everyone pitches in to diagnose the problem and break the bottleneck. Of course, this system has its pros and cons.  While it’s possible to move more quickly from idea to paper, it requires a level of coordination that won’t happen by accident. And PhD programs would require a tweak to graduation criteria.  First-author papers would no longer be common, or meaningful, in such a team-based approach. Tell us what you think – would you be willing to team up with others in your lab?  Have you ever worked in a setting where teamwork was the standard?  Leave a comment below, or tell us about your experience via email. Some good news, and some bad news In this episode, we round up some recent ‘science’ news you might have missed. First, the FDA banned antibacterial additives commonly found in soap.  News flash: all soap is already antibacterial, thank-you-very-much.

Today, a graduate student will make a terrible mistake. He’ll blindly commit to a long-term relationship that will make him miserable.  He’ll be too shy to ask his partner the painfully awkward questions that could predict their ultimate failure as a team. Does this person have time for me?  Is she enthusiastic about helping me succeed?  Do our goals align? Of course, this is not a romantic relationship: it’s the commitment formed between a grad student and his advisor.  And though it’s not a marriage, it can cover some of the same emotional ground.  When it’s healthy, you’ll both grow as people and you’ll achieve more than you would alone. When it’s unhealthy, you might bear the emotional scars for the rest of your life. With just a few simple changes to the graduate-advisor relationship, we can make sure more students, and their mentors, reach their full potential.  Why leave it to chance? If we want to improve PhD mentorship, we have to consider how the relationship forms and finds support at all levels. 1. It’s not “you,” it’s “us” Though it may be a stretch to describe the graduate student/advisor relationship as a marriage, it does have some useful parallels.  The first is that both sides are responsible for the relationship. Often, we decry a ‘terrible PI’ or a ‘mean advisor’ and forget that the student forms half of the relationship.  The two must work together as a team, and there are a few ways to ensure a good fit. The Wisconsin Mentor Training Core offers a checklist that mentors and students can talk through when assessing fit.  It seems trite, but many graduate training experiences have risen, and fallen, on such simple questions as: * Can I commit adequate time to mentoring this person? * Does this person have access to the kind of opportunities that can support my learning? * Am I committed to developing my own mentoring skills? Though it might feel awkward, having an honest conversation with your intended advisor could save you from years of disappointment, depression, and anxiety.  You don’t have to use the clinical-sounding questions in your conversation, but you should rephrase them and understand the answers before you commit. 2. It takes a village We need to stop thinking of the PI or advisor as an army-of-one.  That creates an unhealthy codependence, and leaves the student with very few resources if the relationship turns sour. Instead, every student should identify a mentorship team – the three to five advisors, coaches, and cheerleaders they’ll lean on during their training. Your PI might be your academic advisor and help you navigate the world of peer-reviewed research.  But you may also want to find a friendly post-doc that can recall the tricks of completing a dissertation or to diagnose why your mini-prep always fails. Do you want to pursue a career off the faculty track?  Then you’ll certainly need to identify a science writer, industry researcher, or policy wonk to show you the path.  Your PI doesn’t have the same resources as a seasoned professional in that alternate field. 3. Follow the lighted exit signs Universities and departments can significantly improve training outcomes by giving students the option to move if their research-relationship isn’t working out. Too often, there is a stigma associated with ‘changing labs,’ and it’s so pervasive that many students prefer to quit graduate school rather than ‘starting over.’  But sometimes, a fresh ...