Uncertain Futures - 2009 in Review

Yes, so it's that time again. Another year, another evaluation of where I've been and where I'm going. I've been posting so infrequently mostly because there's been no change, and I decided that constantly complaining without making a positive effort was an incredible waste of my time (and yours).

I just reread my 2008 in Review post, and the outlook has significantly improved since then.

1) The Spawn can walk and has outgrown 4 of his 5 dangerous food allergies. One to go. He's an obvious mechanical genius (in my completely unbiased and objective opinion), and is talking so fluently that I swear he teaches ME new vocabulary daily. It's been an incredibly exciting year watching him grow and develop, and he's a fun, happy, and curious kid. What more could I ask for? Well, except for the potty training thing...

2) The Breadwinner did manage to land a job. It's not a dream job, and the pay isn't exactly what we were hoping for, but we are making it under budget on his salary with some frugal spending. The position is temporary, with no set end, which makes things a little dicey for my job hunt. While everything isn't completely rosy, and the future is hazy, things are definitely looking up from our bleak prospects a year ago.

3) I still live in Suburban Hell. I would have though it'd have grown on me by now, but I still bristle daily at the lack of vibrancy in my surroundings. The combination of Spawn and Suburban Hell has changed my life significantly, although not necessarily for the worse. I've exchanged opera and Shakespeare for the beach and hiking, and restaurants and pubs for cook-outs and drinking wine under the stars.

4) My job - no progress. I'm interviewing for a couple of cool new positions (teaching and policy) in the fall, but both are stretches. My postdoc dreams (nightmares) have been put on hold because of budget/time constraints. Honestly, my day to day existence in this position is wonderful - intellectually challenging, low stress due to my exceptional time management skills, creative, fun... I just miss having that overarching goal, the greater purpose, that has always driven me, and I find that no matter how comfortable/fun/interesting my life is now, it's not enough. I hope that in the next year, the Breadwinner will find a more permanent (and lucrative) position so that I can return to the unmitigated misery of pursuing my dreams.

Overall, I'd say this year was a success - neither the best nor worst of times. We've had no major traumas but no major successes either. It's easy to get caught up in the complacency of daily existence and miss the big picture, the 500 lb gorilla that's constantly knocking on the door (or my head). I hope in 2010 that we'll be able to get back on track, follow our "destinies" if such things exist. 2009 has felt like a vacation, a side-step from the real business of our lives (for both me and the Breadwinner), and we need to somehow do what feels right, what guides us, despite the sacrifices.

That being said (and this is a big secret so no tattling, but I feel confident that non-existent readers don't gossip), we've decided to bring a Spawn II into the world in early August. The timing would work out nicely if my job hunt is successful (arriving before the school term starts), and otherwise I decided to take advantage of my "vacation" job to procreate before I have to rededicate myself to the lab. The Breadwinner feels strongly that Spawns should have siblings, and I hear that when there's two, they entertain each other, leaving you free for other pursuits...

So what are my goals for the year to come?

1. Find a new job - something that isn't just fun but that I'm passionate about and that drives me.
2. A healthy, happy Spawn II (with no food allergies). Spawn I can feel free to grow out of the milk allergy as well.
3. The Spawn will hopefully be potty trained before year's end.
4. I need to exercise and read daily (and start again working on my aborted attempt at a book). I've let my priorities shift with my added responsibilities, and need to re-find my focus.
5. I want to take a vacation - go somewhere cool (and not for work), somewhere adventurous that inspires and stretches the imagination.

Not so bad. They seem attainable (well, except for the potty training one). As far as the job hunt, the next few months will tell.

A Happy and Healthy New Year to all, and may the best day of your past be the worst day of your future!

No More Excuses

For over a year now, I've been unhappily employed in a job that doesn't challenge me and pays more poorly than I would like. The perks are great - I work short hours, work from home a day a week, have a short commute, and get to spend a lot of time with the Spawn. However, you'll notice that all of these 'perks' are actually about me NOT being at work, and not about the job itself.

I've maintained this employment out of both ennui and fear. I've gotten used to the easy lifestyle and lack of challenge, and worry that I wouldn't be a success in a more difficult endeavor - something that required creativity and hard-work. While I would inevitably be more fulfilled in another position, would I be as happy in my life if I again had to work on the weekends/all night? Who would take care of the Spawn? With no family here, and the Breadwinner working over an hour away, I am the primary caregiver. Our budget is already tight without having to hire a nanny to supplement his school time, and is it really fair of me to never see him?

In addition, there's the added pressure of making the right decision - what direction do I try to head now that I can move on? I don't want to pursue ANOTHER career path where I'm unhappy.

I've been using the Breadwinner as an excuse to not consider this deeply. First his unemployment/job search and then his New Venture (now failed) gave me hope that he'd take the decision out of my hands and that I'd be restricted in my choices by us moving. But now it looks like we're going to be here for a couple of years, and I can't justify continuing to procrastinate.

What would I like to do? I think I'd like to teach at a small liberal arts school. Although I should be qualified, judging by the complete lack of response from my Visiting Professor application, this may not be a viable option currently. There are no local positions being advertised because of the bad economy (and the compensation for these positions is very low even if they were advertised). Plus, I have the distinct impression that my editorial role makes me LESS qualified that a FOL (Fresh Out of Lab) postdoc.

The questions then becomes, how do I position myself to get the new 'dream job' (decent hours married to intellectual stimulation with the rewards of challenging young minds)? I could do some adjunct teaching at local community colleges to build up my teaching credentials. But that's a part-time solution to a full-time problem, more a stop-gag measure while I'm job hunting than an active strategy. I think the best answer, of course, is to suck it up and do another postdoc. But I don't WANT to do another postdoc. Even though I really enjoyed my postdoc, just the thought of the low-pay indentured servitude makes me shudder. I was so happy to escape when I took this position (which in retrospect I realize that I liked more for the fact that it wasn't a postdoc than the merits of the job itself) that it will take a major mental leap to go back.

Therein lies the conundrum. I likely can't get the job I want currently and absolutely hate the thought of doing what I need to do to get there. There are alternative career options, which I'm exploring. I could use my science background in business/government in some way. I apply for these jobs often - mostly because I don't really qualify and/or care either way. The danger with this route is that it's what stuck me in my current situation - a negative driving force (leave the bad job), rather than a positive driving force (go to the new job). I'm also considering trying to be a staff scientist - which is like a full-time career postdoc. This position scares me a bit - doesn't have the grant writing pressure of a full-time PI, but definitely lacks some of the pizzazz. Could I do that a couple of years and then transition to a teaching/tenure-track role? If so, it may be the most viable choice (if I qualify) for my transition period between when the Spawn is still young and when he's older and I can again dedicate my entire life to science.

I guess that's my problem in a nutshell. I truly want to be a scientist. If I had no other claims on my time/affections I would spend all of my time thinking about and performing research. But I have the Breadwinner and the Spawn, and I'm just not willing to be that person who sacrifices their family. I know I keep coming back to this, but I just don't think it's possible to do science (for me at least) without committing every single thought to it - for me science is all-encompassing. People talk about work-life balance, but for some people, work is life. I would rather do nothing at all than do something half-assed.

I guess the current plan is to continue applying to positions that I don't really qualify for and see what turn up. After the new year, I'm going to suck it up and find a postdoc, as much as I don't want to. I just can't waste anymore time.

Publish or Perish

I know its been a while since I've written, but I decided that I shouldn't keep complaining about something without taking action. Venting is only useful if it inspires action, and while I'm still not complacent or content, I'm being productive and am more centered. Perhaps it's not amazing that my inspiration dried up with my inability to bitch.

Today's inspiration came from something I read on the Scholarly Kitchen. This article, and the study it cites, discusses the role of citation (and publication) in science. It suggests that the current Publish or Perish environment not only discourages innovation, which I've discussed previously, but also results in false support/reproduction of inaccurate (at best) hypotheses.

What exactly does this mean? As a scientist at a research university (and despite my hiatus into editing, I still remember how it works) , there is enormous pressure to publish in as 'High Impact' Journal as possible. Where did this pressure come from, and what does it mean?

Historically, scientific publication began as handwritten letters sent to other scientists and to scientific societies describing new findings. These letters would be read aloud, or printed and distributed to other scientists in the field, who would then either applaud or deride the author, depending on whether the new data supported their current working hypothesis or not. Publication was not only a way to freely disseminate scientific information (as the current open source idealists would have it), but a way to build a reputation. And a reputation could be built as much on your response to an original letter as on the letter itself.

Jump ahead to present day. Science is expensive. Gone is the day when you can drop a bowling ball out of a tower and measure the acceleration due to gravity with a stopwatch, where the lone wealthy scientist can work in a lab in his/her attic. High tech immunology labs require hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to remain in operation. In order to afford expensive equipment, such as a half a million dollar multi-photon/confocal microscopes, individual scientists need to pool resources. Thus the academic research institution. (I won't talk about industrial research - that's a whole different can of worms.)

What are the driving forces of current academic researchers? 1) Funding. 2) Space. 3) Tenure. The first two at least (as is the third, but in a different way) are limited resources, and there are incredible levels of competition to achieve them. Tenure committees, university administrators, and funding agencies needed 'objective' criteria by which to measure scientific success to distribute these resources. And they somewhat randomly chose publication (and later citation).

On first blush, publication/citation seems a valid means of judging scientific success. The sheer quantity of the papers that you publish can be used to measure your scientific output, and the number of people who cite your paper indicates the value of your work. Most tenure committees and funding agencies use some combination of these values to determine success (as well as the more ambiguous "scientific reputation" metric).

However, judging a scientist on publication/citation has had some unwanted side effects:
1) Scientists, especially early career scientists, are more likely to take on "sure thing" projects so that they can produce their requisite publications, vastly diluting the quality of production of, arguably, their most creative years.
2) Scientists are loathe to publish data that contradicts currently accepted "dogma", as it not only tarnishes their scientific reputation but also results in publications (if the data get published at all) with few citations in Low Impact Journals. After all, most scientists only support work that supports their own; they are encouraged to focus more on telling a coherent 'story' than on an objective evaluation of all of the available data.
3) Negative data (experiments that didn't work) don't get published, resulting in repetition by multiple groups and a waste of resources.
Taken together, these side effects result in incremental scientific advances that inch forward, rather than shift or even malign, the current paradigm.

I realize that much of my argument relies on my firm belief that while individuals have free will, populations of individuals do not. A loan scientist may throw off the system, take great risks for a different motivation (curing cancer, winning the Nobel?); however, the group that is scientists are currently rewarded for publication, not breakthroughs in scientific knowledge. And the group will follow the status quo and try to be successful in the current reward structure. I certainly did.

Describing a problem is only the beginning, however. Finding a solution is more difficult. It requires out-of-the-box thinking from visionary individuals who have an unwavering belief in their solution and the courage and committment to institute change. Such individuals are rare (note the pathetic Congressional attempt to modify our current dilapidated health care system), and if there's one thing I've learned over the last year, I am not that visionary. I see the need for change but lack that critical spark, the untouchable self-confidence, that I've seen in others that drive change.

I do have some suggestions, however, that maybe when vetted may form a basis for an action plan.

1) The current funding system should be restructured.
(A) Promising young career scientists (based on graduate and postdoctoral work as well as innovative grant writing) should be given special money and rewards to focus at least a part of their time on potential high impact research - the more daring the idea, the more likely to be funded (ie - the current "young innovator" grants should be expanded to include a broader population).
(B) Innovative senior scientists and scientists that would like to switch fields should be offered incredibly competitive but high reward (ie high monetary value) funding. Again, this is currently done, but should occur on a much grander scale, providing at least 30% off all available funding.
(C) Incentives should be changed from publication to results. I guess I'm envisioning something akin to the X prize - a high level of funding dollars in response to achieving specific goals, something to motivate not only innovation, but direct competition - a biomedical sciences space race of sorts. Major goals, some "attainable" and others "unattainable", could be decided by a multi-disciplinary committee of scientists, policy advocates, and community members.

2) The current publication paradigm should be reconfigured.

I agree with the open choice idealists; government funded work should be freely available to the public (not a popular view in the publishing industry, let me tell you). I believe, however, that publishers do provide a strong value to manuscripts and to readers. Peer review is critical, but the most important service that different Impact Factor level journals provide is quality screening. I know that when I read a paper in Science or Nature, it will be of strictly higher quality (and potentially higher impact) than if I read a paper in a specialized society Journal, at least the majority of the time. Considering the high number of articles that come out every day in a given field, scientists need an external vetting process to differentiate the articles they read as compared to the articles they scan. And given that I can't think of another way to objectively evaluate science external from peer review (money and marketability of course being the choice for industrial science), that is exactly what I'm suggesting.

I would like to see the paper publication process be streamlined into one workflow per field. Rather than submitted to Science, being rejected, then submitting to a more specialized Journal, etc, etc etc and modifying the paper at every subsequent stage until it settles into its proper "impact density", I think that all manuscripts should go through the same peer review process. Reviewers could suggest the appropriate rank/level for the publication. (Note in this view, print Journals are a thing of the past, as they should be currently). The most important thing about this system, however, is that a manuscript's rank is not static. In a wiki/utube-like manner, articles may rise or fall down the ranks by additional rankings from other scientists, who are the most able to evaluate the potential impact of a body of work. In addition, each article can have an associated comment stream, moderated to ensure comments discuss the scientific value (or lack there of) of the current work. These articles should be freely available to the public (potentially through governmental funding for the service or maintenance by a not-for-profit). Production costs (formatting, editing, peer review and comment mediation, site maintenance and archiving) could be paid by the authors (which is currently the case anyway) or other currently-being-explored revenue streams.

If you believe in the equilibrium of a wiki, over time and with sufficient rankings, articles in this system will be a more accurate measure of scientific success/impact, as judged by the entire scientific community and not just 2 peer reviewers and an editor. Indeed, a less important paper could rise in the ranks over time as prevailing views shift, whereas an immediately exciting but ultimately unimportant paper could fade away in this dynamic system. True innovators, both short- and long-term, will be rewarded, and incremental papers will be discouraged. Plagarism and figure manipulation will be strongly selected against in such an interactive scientific community. Work quality and thoroughness will improve - no one wants to be dissed openly for sloppy work.

Concluding Thoughts
As I mentioned previously, while its easy to wax poetic about dreams of an idealized scientific world, implementation is not quite as simple. The building blocks are already in place for the funding changes I've outlined; however, shifting money from traditional funding avenues (RO1 grants, etc) to encourage innovation will certainly hurt many labs. I think the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs, but I don't have a lab that's going to close because of lack of funding.

The changes to the publishing industry that I've outlined are more revolutionary than evolutionary. As with any revolution, heads are lost. As a publisher/editor at an independent society Journal, I'm likely to be one of the first on the chopping block, which I don't relish. And yet I think it's worth it for the potential benefits to science, and the resultant benefits to humanity as a whole. The STM publishing industry is currently in crisis, but publishers are proud of their tradition and slow to change. At publishing meetings, every talk has an underlying current of panic, but also the feeling of inevitability. Change would have to occur at the more powerful publishing companies that publish multiple Journals. For example, NPG or Cell Press (which are already pulling small independent publishers under their umbrella in the name of economies of scale) could create a top-down publishing process such that there is one submission process for all of their Journals in the same field, and an article can be assigned to a particular level Journal within the system without having to be resubmitted. Some Journals already accept peer review from previous submissions to expedite the review process. My plan merely formalizes the process. As authors realized the simplicity of the system, submissions to independent presses would likely dry up, and they would join the larger publisher umbrellas. This seems possible, and even likely.

Less likely is the dynamic article ranking/comment process. Publishers like 'copyright' and 'official record', whatever that means in today's world of online interactivity. And yet, I think that STM publishers are especially prone to experimentation. I think it's possible, over time, that this systemic change could come to pass, and that it SHOULD come to pass if STM publishers want to remain viable and relevant to the changing needs of information consumers. As to open access, while I think that publishers can find other ways to provide revenue than by charging for information access, I doubt this will occur unless by government mandate. (Note that publishers seem to be flourishing even under the current open access government mandates).

I'll be interested to see how scientific motivation changes in the future, and I think that scientific publishers will play a key role in guiding that motivation. Without the proper innovations, as in conventional news media, they (we) will not survive. They truly must "Publish or Perish," and I hope that science doesn't perish with them.

Perspective

Every once in a while, I like to step back and take stock of where I was, where I am, and where I'm going. As a non-affiliated heathen with complex theological beliefs, I've chosen to celebrate astronomical events (the solstices and equinoxes) by evaluating my progress (or lack-thereof) as a human being and by renewing my commitment to constant improvement.

The summer solstice is a time of both joy and sorrow. As the longest day, it should be celebrated; yet the solstice is also the tipping point for darker and colder days ahead. This dichotomy is also true in my personal life. My wedding anniversary with the Breadwinner reminds me of how lucky I am to be able to share my life with someone who I respect, and who respects me. Yet there's another, darker, anniversary now as well. A dear friend of mine, four years ago today, died with no warning on the baseball field of heart failure. We laughed when he passed out at his own wedding, a symptom of the defect that killed him. I cry whenever I think of our naivety.

Such sudden changes put life into perspective. The focus of this blog has basically been bouncing between me complaining about the inanity of my existence (and, despite my previous post, not actually DOING anything about it) and posting random scientific information that I find interesting. Have I been creating value? Even if Lachesis has measured me a long length, I haven't been living my life with urgency. Yes, patience is a virtue, but complacency/conservatism/fear of change is most definitely not. What do I want to accomplish? And what is preventing me from doing it?

The Past. What do I most want to put behind me? My complacency? My inactivity? Yes, but primarily the feeling of helplessness, of realizing that things aren't as they should be but not being able to doing anything to change. I've applied for a job that I'm over-qualified for that I think will make me happy. It's here, and if I actually get it (unlikely considering the competitiveness of the job market and my "non-traditional" editor experience), it will complicate things with the Breadwinner's New Venture. But I can't sit back and wait anymore. I'm not going to instigate a full-fledged search, but I had to do something.

The Present. What am I doing right? What should I continue? I like that I'm writing - this blog, my pathetic "novel". I remember being a 10 year old sitting at my Mom's old typewriter writing short stories about teenage detectives. I remember being a teenager writing horrible black melodramatic death poetry on an old IBM. My writing, however poor, was always a constant in my life, a way to focus my thoughts and stoke the coals. And then I went to college, and I stopped. Too many late night drinking binges perhaps? I lost my faith in myself. Not that my writing was ever any good (because I always knew I stunk) or that anyone would ever want to read it (because, honestly, how many poems can you possibly read about drowning in a bathtub?). I never wanted anyone to read what I wrote anyway - it was so personal, such a part of me, that letting it go would leave me exposed. But I let my self-criticism (criticism has always been one of my strengths) quash even the desire to write. After all, there's no need to fear mockery if you mock yourself first. So anyway, I'm glad that I'm writing again. I missed the feeling I get by creating something, and who knows - maybe future generations will find my crap and think I'm an unsung genius?

The Future. Where do I want to go? Who do I want to be? I was wondering the other day of what the me's from the past would think of the me today. The Kindergarden me wanted to be an astronaut. The 8th grade me wanted to live in an English castle, with a PhD in English literature, and be a writer. The senior-in-high school me wanted to be a scientist, and teach undergrads. The college-graduate me wanted to cure cancer through immunotherapy. And the post-PhD me? She didn't know what she wanted.

All of these versions of me do have one thing in common though - they'd be disappointed with my current life. The high school senior me had planned never to marry, but I most certainly wouldn't change marrying the Breadwinner. No version of me ever wanted any children, but I wouldn't change my decision to have the Spawn. They certainly wouldn't have wanted to live in the suburbs. OK, I'd change that one. But the common thing about their vision, about MY vision, is that I've always wanted to live the type of life where I'm making an impact - the type of life where even if I don't succeed, at least I know I've tried. I've always wanted to lead a life of adventure, to travel the world, and a life of culture. By not having a goal, I've stalled.

Again, a diversion. My solstice-soul searching is supposed to be practical, and practicable, not quixotic. What do I want for the immediate future? I want to find a new job, where I can be happy and contribute. I will wait to see on my new application, and start to seriously search as soon as we know about the New Venture. I want to improve myself - read more books, work out more, go to more theatre and concerts, watch less TV, eat less junk. Seems doable with the proper motivation. I want to continue to improve my Chinese (I'm up to nearly 40 characters) and to actually play my piano. I want to meditate daily, and of course continue to write.

Which all brings me back to the beginning - perspective. After stepping back and evaluating, I'm not doing as badly as I thought. There's room for improvement - there always is. But I think my new path is the right one. Hopefully at the equinox, I'll have a whole new set of hopes and regrets. And if the Moirae decide to snip my string before then, at least I'll have lived with urgency.

Suburban Hell

Yes, this IS going to be a gigantic personal rant. Feel free to skip this post if you prefer more scientific fare.

I am experiencing what can only be described as ennui. I am so bored with the daily routine of my life that every time I empty the dishwasher or prepare the Spawn's lunch, I want to scream, jump, tear at my clothes. I hate housework. I hate that I can sweep the floors and they're dirty the next day. I hate doing the laundry - washing clothes just to wear them and have to wash them again. I hate the cyclical nature of it all. The tasks themselves are not so bad - mindless chores are actually wonderful times for mindfulness meditation. In fact, during my postdoc I actually relaxed during these common activities. But now, they're not an escape from reality; they ARE reality.

I guess it all cycles back to my job. A Journal is also a cyclical activity. I edit, review, critique, write, and just when I finish it's time for the next issue. Time to do it all over again. I need something linear, something creative. I need to feel that I've accomplished something, and that I can build off of what I've accomplished to accomplish something more - something better. What is the purpose of life if you can't make progress? I've tried, repetitively, to make this a "day job", to accomplish something outside of my occupation. I paint, and I like it. It's creative, but honestly - I suck. I've started writing a novel. But it's drivel. I've thought of trying to write something decent, but I really have nothing to write about. Where would I get my inspiration? In the bottom of the laundry basket? From my desk in the storage room? From Suburban Hell?

Because that's where I am - Suburban Hell. There should be nothing innate in living in a nice home outside of a dynamic and alive city that should result in this boredom. Boredom is an intrinsic emotion; it has more to do with the person than the environment. Yet everyone I meet lacks the passion and drive of my previous friends. Maybe people who choose to live in the suburbs are all stuck in repetitive uninspiring careers. Maybe years of being forced to care about the length of their grass and style of their curtains slowly erodes a person's intrinsic creativity until he/she becomes trapped in an inescapable pattern of thought. It could be like gravity - just as spending too long in a sub-G environment would prevent people from walking on Earth, years with no significant mental challenges prevent people from not only being able to, but wanting to, do more, BE more.

I'm approaching the event horizon, the point of no return where nothing can escape. I try to write, but even reading the scientific literature seems like so much work sometimes. Why bother? I don't need it for my job. It's so TIRING being bored - often I'd rather watch television than write or even read. I've been reading Marx for almost a week now and I'm making little progress. After all, there's always a baseball game on.

So what's the answer? I'm trapped in my job because of the Breadwinner - we're waiting on a possible change of situation that I don't want to imperil due to lack of patience. I guess I just have to maintain my angst for a while longer - until the Breadwinner's situation becomes clear. I hate placing the decisions of my life in someone else's hands, but I guess I just need to stay angry and discontent long enough (hopefully we'll know in 6 mos) to make my move. Until then, I hope I can maintain the motivation to survive Suburban Hell.

Who Owns Your Genes?

Time to return to what the Breadwinner, in his Business Dialect, would refer to as my "Core Competencies." I think I require a bit more time to ponder the greater grammatical issues raised in my last post. (Sadly, I am not a SNOOT. I was reviled as a child for my constant reading and large nose rather than my grammatical excellence.)

This week the NY Times published an article on gene patents (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html).

Many of my academic and medical colleagues are horrified by the thought of genes being patented. Patents restrict access for research as well as the development of new tests and therapies. Patent-protestors (rightly) argue that scientific discoveries, especially in the biomedical sciences, benefit all of humanity and that sharing data and duplicating experiments are key components to the success of any scientific endeavor. Nobel prizes in medicine are no longer won by the lone scientist working in his or her personal lab, but by collaborators and (more often) competitors who build off of each other's data. One discovered, data are public domain.

And yet, gene patents are (currently) legal. The two genes Myriad Genetics, the company mentioned in the article, has patented (BRCA1 and BRCA2) are commonly mutated in breast cancer. BRCA screens are instrumental in identifying familial risk for breast cancer and play key roles in putative patients' prophylactic decisions to alter their diet or even undergo double mastectomy. Yet research and diagnostics on these genes is inhibited by the high cost of licensing.

On the other hand, the Breadwinner would argue (as he has similarly in the past) that industry needs incentives. The gene discovery/pharmaceutical vetting process is incredibly expensive and has a very low rate of success. Unfortunately, the current socialist funding structure in academia, while sufficient to drive new discovery, lacks the appropriate awards (both monetary and professional) for risky research. Failure results in loss of funding, and high risk/high reward research is often neglected for the more moderate "sure thing." Industrial-level funding is required for the high throughput screens often needed to identify products or assays that will have diagnostic/therapeutic success.

Therein lies the debate. How do we encourage industry to pursue research while simultaneously allowing competion? For traditional pharmaceutical drugs, the answer has been the patent. Yet pharmaceuticals and genes have a key difference: the drugs are a product, whereas the gene is the target. (I'm not even going to touch on the responsibility of big pharma to provide lifesaving drugs to populations that can't afford them.) Perhaps rather than allowing a patent on a gene (as intellectual property), the courts should only allow patents on processes and technologies derived from that gene. In the example above, Myriad Genetics could be allowed a patent on screening for the mutations they've discovered, without stifling research to the gene itself.

Is that enough? The courts will decide. But either way, I welcome the lawsuit. Although I hate the litigious nature of our society, it is only by challenging the status quo that things will change.

Support the Serial Comma!

This is the title of the University of Chicago's new fundraising campaign. I can't help but find this incredibly funny (and totally UofC). As an editor, you tend to have a bunch of little grammar pet peeves that just grind when you see them. I'm the first to admit that I have completely awful grammar and poor writing style - I write with a lot of irritating clauses and sidenotes and am very stream of consciousness. It's because I'm lazy, and why I could never be a professional writer even if I could get someone to publish me. However, I do have one big pet peeve as an editor (and before) - the serial comma. I love it. I obsess about it. Even more so because it's so controversial. When I see a series without a comma before the conjunction, a little shiver runs down my spine and I grimace. I want to shake the author until their teeth rattle. I'm that violent. It must be because it was pounded into me in grade school the way the hamburger structure of a paragraph was (two buns, with the meat in the middle). But either way - you go UofC! Support the serial comma!

Swine flu

As an immunologist and a Mom, I feel I should probably chime in on the swine flu. I'm not an epidemiologist, or a psychic, and I have no idea if this is going to turn into a deadly global pandemic. I certainly hope not, and I do have fears for the Spawn, but although the media coverage has actually been pretty detailed (and fair in my opinion) I'm going to discuss this in layman's terms for those interested.

What is the swine flu?
Every year, I, at least, get my flu shot. What is the flu shot exactly, and why do we need to get it every year?

The flu virus is actually very simple. It has a protein coat with RNA inside it. Imagine a balloon filled with pieces of spaghetti. When the virus infects a cell, human or pig or bird or whatever, the RNA (spaghetti) is injected into the cell and the protein coat (balloon) is left outside. In case everyone doesn't remember the Dogma of molecular biology from their basic high school biology class DNA->RNA->protein. Flu viruses don't have DNA, so they coopt the machinery from the infected cell to make protein - a bunch of new protein coats in fact. They also replicate their RNA. Now the infected cell has a bunch of RNA (spaghetti) and protein coats (balloons) floating around in it, the virus assembles (the spaghetti goes into the balloons), and the new viruses (many many MANY more) go on to infect other cells.

Back to the flu shot. Your immune system produces antibodies to different proteins on the viruses protein coat, which neutralizes the virus. You get the vaccine because the immune system is much faster the second time it sees a virus than the first, and the dead (or live but weak) vaccine that you get is enough to stimulate the immune system without making you sick. The problem with the flu is 1) it mutates very quickly and 2) there are a bunch of strains out there. If you've heard about H1N1, H5N1, etc, the H and the N are different proteins in the protein coat of the virus. They are what the immune system makes antibodies to. Every year, vaccine makers try to predict what will be the most prevalent strains of the flu and make the vaccine to those strains. They're usually pretty good (which is why I get the flu shot).

Back to the swine flu. Sometimes (and it's not so rare) two or more different types of flu viruses infect the same cell. So instead of only having 1 type of spaghetti and balloons in a cell, you get more than one. You can imagine with a big mixture of, say, red and blue spaghetti that when the spaghetti is going into the balloons, sometimes it gets mixed up. If you have a blue balloon with mostly blue spaghetti and 1 strand of red spaghetti you have an entirely new virus. This happens all the time among human viruses, which is another reason you need to get your flu shot every year.

Much more rarely, because it is difficult for a virus specific to humans to get into a pig cell (or a bird cell), pigs or birds can get human flu, or humans can get pig or bird flu. This usually happens in someone who spends a lot of time around pigs or birds. Pig or bird flu in humans tends to be very dangerous to people who get it because the proteins are so very different that the proteins of the human flu (which your immune system has seen for a long time). Usually, though, it doesn't spread from person to person because it's only really made to infect pig or bird cells.

The problem comes in if both a pig and a human (or bird) virus infect the same cell at the same time. If the new virus that comes out happens to have some proteins to spread from human to human and other proteins specific to pig, it can be very dangerous. That is what the current swine flu is (and I read that it also has bird RNA in it).

Why are we afraid?
In 1918, there was (we think) a similar virus that spread across the planet. The pandemic wasn't taken care of properly. We were at war so countries weren't exactly forthcoming with knowledge sharing; medical personal were either in the trenches or overworked; there was no anti-viral tamiflu stock; secondary bacterial infections often set in after the flu left. It's estimated that 20-50 million people worldwide died. Scary stuff. Notably, the 1918 flu primarily killed healthy 20-45 year old people, not the very young and very old like it normally does. There are a number of theories about this, but no one really knows why. This new swine flu also seems to be killing healthy 20-45 year old people. A frightening parallel. Also, the 1918 flu was H1N1, as is the new swine flu. Of course, H1N1 flu has been in circulation since 1918, nearly every season, but the similarity has raised some people's concern.

Reasons this probably won't be 1918 all over again.
A lot of things are different now than in 1918. Medicine has dramatically improved, as, perhaps more importantly, has epidemiology. I would like to think, despite my fascination with infection in general, that we can handle this. It is definitely not clear at this point how deadly this new swine flu is. The large number of deaths in Mexico could be from substandard care. A lot of people don't have access even to running water. We don't know how deadly 1918 was - they didn't have genetic screening to tell us home many people got low level infections and SURVIVED. Hopefully it's just a slightly more severe case of the normal seasonal flu.

What am I going to do?
I'm going to watch and wait. The problem with the flu is its high rate of mutation. It could easily mutate into something a lot more nasty, especially as it spreads. The timeline of the 1918 epidemic was over a year, not a month, and there was a lull where the virus appeared to be gone. We can't give up vigilence too early. Hopefully a vaccine will be developed (although I read this flu is slow-growing, not a good sign) and ready for distribution by October. Hopefully this is all sensationalist media response. But definitely wash your hands - well and often. Cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze. Standard prevention.

Anyway, I hope that was informative and that my whole spaghetti/balloon metaphor wasn't too stupid (I seem to be missing the creativity for a better one right now). I would be glad to answer any questions, or go into more details if anyone is interested.

Following Your Dreams

I'm going to turn away from science in this post and talk about careers and compromise.

I'm a firm believer in following your dreams, if you know what they are. Maybe I read too many adventure novels as a child or heard too many people tell me that I could be whatever I wanted, but it sunk in. I believe that if you work hard (and I've always worked VERY VERY hard, often much harder than the smarter, more talented people around me), you'll be successful.

The thing about belief is that it isn't always grounded in fact. The vast majority of people do not get what they want, no matter how hard they work.

The problem isn't me. I know I blew it by taking my current position. I'm going to have to go back, reset, take two or three more years to recover from my editorial vacation. But that's the price I have to pay for making the wrong decision, and I'm willing to pay it if it gets me where I need to be. I am sick of being a nearly middle-aged schmuck, but schmuck I'll be as I work towards my goal.

The problem is the BreadWinner. He has always worked as hard, or harder, than I have. We must have picked up the Puritan work ethic from the small town, working class places we grew up. Right now, he is deciding whether to accept a position that is not his dream. His dream job, which he's qualified for, is not available in the current 'economic downturn'. Veering from the path now could set him back, remove him from consideration in the future. (Much like my editorial vacation has done for me). Sure, it could be an interesting new path for him to follow. And, practically, he needs the position (I don't call him the BreadWinner for nothin'). But every cell in my body screams 'no'.

Sometimes (often), there are things in life that are out of your control. And sometimes you need to compromise to survive. And I have no doubt that the BreadWinner will work hard in his new position, and will find a new goal and a new dream (as I have). A wrong turn isn't always a dead end. But that's just rationalization. Giving up on a dream, compromising, is one of the hardest things you can do. Especially when you're giving up out of necessity, not choice. Life is difficult, and we've always been incredibly fortunate (still are). The most important thing is that we keep on moving forward.

To eat or not to eat...

Yes, this week I'm going to talk about food allergies again. There's a lot of misinformation out there about the recent 'rise' in the number of children with severe food allergies, and parents are understandably concerned about their kids developing food allergies.

In talking to some of my non-food allergy friend Moms, I've realized that some recent studies that actually provide hope to FA sufferers may be dangerous. Multiple people have asked me if I'm going to try to tolerize the Spawn to peanuts. My answer, of course, is 'sure, when the protocol is approved for clinical use'. Although I give most FA-parents credit for being overly cautious and 'not trying this at home', relatives or caregivers may not be so cautious. Although I could ground a peanut up and dilute it 1:1000 or 1:10,000 per weight in flour, there's no way that I would even consider doing this without the type of balance that I used in lab. My kitchen scale just ain't gonna cut it.

Equally dangerous is the study that came out of Israel last year showing that when examining 'genetically similar' populations in Israel and England, there was a much higher prevalence of peanut allergy in England (recommendation: wait) vs Israel (recommendation: eat a lot of peanuts as soon as you can). The jury's definitely out on if the TIME you introduce a food influences allergy development (I tend to be in the 'It Doesn't' camp but the data's inconclusive at best). Why is this study dangerous? Because FA-reactionaries ('you're just a paranoid Mom') use it to justify their beliefs that parents are causing the damage to their kids.

All I know is that from my personal experience (n=1), withholding and preventing tolerance wasn't the problem. The Spawn broke out in hives after I had a peanut butter sandwich while I was nursing him. (Speaking of which, I've never actually seen any convincing evidence that nursing DOES prevent food allergy - who came up with that one?) His face became red and swollen after his FIRST milk formula bottle (primed by the cowsmilk antigen in the breastmilk). He developed his allergies before I even had a chance to withhold/tolerize. I feel confident that I, at least, didn't do this to him by being a 'paranoid mom' (although I played a large role due to my genetic contribution).

So what's the conclusion of my rant? Although these studies are good news for allergy sufferers, they certainly aren't a cure. By letting the general public feel more relaxed about the dangers of food allergies, the news hype surrounding the stories may actually do more harm than good.

Product recommendation: I have recently discovered Amy's organic soup (and other Amy's organic products). The Spawn can't eat milk or soy, and ricemilk isn't nearly as fatty (necessary for baby brain growth). Amy's has both normal (high fat and good for the Spawn) and fat-free (good for me) versions of nutritious soups that are high in protein and vitamins and minerals. The Spawn LOVES them (will even eat the dreaded GREEN BEAN in the context of Amy's vegetable soup). If you're looking for an easy, healthy, allergy friendly meal, this is the way to go (they should sponsor my blog).

For all of my allergic-panicked parent brethren, check out this Yahoo news article on hope for peanut allergy sufferers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090315/ap_on_he_me/med_peanut_allergy

I have the (likely false) egomania that because I'm a scientist, an IMMUNOLOGIST, I should be able to cure the Spawn's food allergies. The problem, of course, is that I've done my work primarily in mice, and mice don't get food allergies (at least they don't on rodent diet). To model food allergy in mice, you have to inject them with an allergen, along with some sort of stimulating adjuvant (I wonder if it works like this in humans too and we don't know it). Of course, the human population is a lot more genetically variable than inbred strains of mice, so we'd be much more likely to see variability in the extremes of immune system function, but my opinions on the limitations of using inbred mouse models of human disease deserves its own series of posts.

The concept of tolerization has been around for a long time. This is the basis for "allergy vaccines". You provide your immune system with small, but increasingly larger, doses of allergen until it recognizes the allergen as non-threatening (to simplify to the point where even the Spawn would understand what I'm saying) and shuts off the immune response. This is commonly used for certain environmental allergens, but has been avoided for food allergens due to 1) their potential severity 2) their inpredictability and most importantly 3) the fact that it doesn't work. The mucosal/oral/intestinal immune response is distinctly different from other types of immune response, and much more poorly studied. Only recently has mucosal immunity even received it's own subgrouping at major immunology conferences. Therefore, it's no surprise that food allergen tolerization has been a failure - we don't understand enough about the underlying biology to tolerize properly.

Enter the new clinical study out of NC and Arkansas. They slow induce tolerance with incredibly small (<1/1000 peanut) but increasing oral doses of peanut flour until kids can eat the equivalent of 15 peanuts without a reaction (hard to imagine accidentally eating 15 peanuts). The real kicker with this study is that once the therapy is stopped, some of the kids were still tolerant 2 years down the line. Me, I'd rather take a daily peanut flour dose than risk a surprise anaphylactic reaction with no epipen, but I guess I'm just conservative. This therapy could enter clinical practice in 2-3 years (just when the Spawn is old enough to give it a try).

Anyway, the study is well done and gives me hope that the Spawn won't have to be a bubble boy, never going on adventurous vacations b/c of the lack of nearby hospital and having an embarrassing Mom always explain the use of the epipen to prevent "Dead Kid" to friends' parents and teachers. The counter-culture attack on allergy-kids ("it's just crazy over-protective parents, there's nothing wrong with the kids") will make managing dangerous food allergies even more difficult, and so I hope this tolerization therapy actually takes.

The Value of Complaining

I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that waxes eloquent about one of the key "benefits" of the recession/depression, an increase in gratitude and a decrease in complaining. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612215614023427.html

While I agree that individuals may be more content if they are grateful for what they have and don't complain about what they lack, I would strongly disagree that a decrease in complaining is a positive change for American society. Gratitude and contentment are dangerous things. Discontent breeds innovation, entrepreneurialism, and change. Someone who's grateful they have their job takes less risks. They're much less likely to pursue their dream, experience new things, or even hold people to account for subpar behavior.

On example in the article is Mr. Hirsch, a director at Credit Suisse. While I'm sure Mr. Hirsch is quite happy that his clients are content with a 35% loss in their investments, as a fund manager he should be expected to outperform the market - value companies based on actual, not perceived, value (anyone else notice the falling P/E ratios?). His clients SHOULD complain.

The United States has been successful because it's population is traditionally not content. Immigrants, whether us or our great-great(etc)-grandparents, who form the backbone of this nation, are inherently not content with their 'lot in life'. We landed on the moon because we 'wanted more'. Be glad that Jenner or Pasteur wasn't content or grateful. I've heard rumor that MLK was a complainer.

In these troubled times, we NEED people to complain. Fearful acceptance got us into the Iraq war. Complacence led to the collapse of the credit markets. Things do not always work out for the best, and the ostrich-head-in-the-sand strategy can only make things worse. So I'm going to do my civic duty - I'm going to continue to bitch and complain.

022709 - The failings of medicine

As a scientist, you tend to trust that medical doctors are rational scientific beings, and that medicine is a scientific pursuit. As a researcher, you're immersed in rational approach to drug design. If, as a bench scientist, I want to find a therapy to a particular illness, I'll learn everything I can about the illness. Making an observation is never enough to get published, you need to show molecular mechanism to be considered in even the most specialized journals.

For example, instead of infecting a mouse with TB and observing that they have T-cell-mediated response, a CD8-mediated T cell response, or even a class Ib-restricted CD8-mediated T cell response, you have to identify which molecule(s) secreted/expressed by the class-Ib-restricted CD8+ T cells is responsible. And this can't just be a suggestion, you have to over-express the molecule to show the response gets better, and then inhibit the molecule to show the response gets worse. Then, and only then, can you claim that you have a new potential therapeutic drug target, which may or may not work in humans. Logically, it should, but unfortunately human immunology is just different enough from mouse immunology to make this kind of a crapshoot.

As outlined above by my over-specific example, candidate drug discovery from the scientific perspective is incredibly rational, and it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all therapies currently on the market were derived in a similar fashion. That is total bullshit.

Medical doctors (and the pharmaceutical companies that supply them with drugs) are not scientists, no matter what they may claim. Treatment of various diseases is based on what people have randomly (er, empirically, sorry) determined works. Often in the case of new medicines, especially in the past, doctors tried new medicines, found them to be safe and effective, and only later bothered to figure out what exactly they did to the human body. No wonder there were so many side effects. Take thymidine kinase inhibitors, common treatment for certain types of cancers. Gleevec isn't specific to a particular type of thymidine kinase. Just because it's a magic bullet miracle drug doesn't mean that we know what's going on. Sure, you can't do detailed mechanistic studies in humans, but the coronary side-effects of Avandia suggest that a greater understanding of the mechanism behind the drugs could be highly beneficial.

Which brings me to my point. The Breadwinner's grandfather has been recently diagnosed with dementia. In the course of one year, he went from a walking/talking/driving grandfatherly figure to a man in a nursing home that doesn't recognize his own grandson and only talks when someone's blocking his view of the TV. In ONE YEAR.

A bit of a case history. His original MRI showed "brain shrinkage", apparently a complex medical term for - 'yeah, it looks like you have some sort of dementia, although we can't do a differential diagnosis because we really don't know anything about the brain'. The treatment - 'sorry, sucks to be you, sit back and try to enjoy the rest of your addled life'. This man is in his early 70s, not 110 - they didn't even put him on any drugs, let alone try to get him involved in a clinical trial or do genetic testing to see if this is something that may affect his relatives (such as the Breadwinner or the Spawn). After significant deterioration (and an intervention on the part of myself, the Breadwinner, and his sister), the Breadwinner's mother saw a special on NPH (normal pressure hydrocephalus) on Good Morning America and decided to take him to a neurologist. After months of trying to get an appointment while he deteriorated further, still on no drugs, he finally had a spinal tap that indicated a shunt might really help him. Note at this point that the man was still living at home, and able to have a minimal conversation. His care was being monitored by his wife, who really has no idea what the doctors are saying, but was loving and could still manage. They put the shunt in, and he seemed to be doing better when ANOTHER neurologist noticed that his hands were trembling. Must be Parkinson's, right? What is this - the Dr. Gregory House school of diagnostic medicine? Let's just treat him for one thing after another until you find something that works!. While having patients get progressively worse and "brilliant" doctors be consistently wrong makes for exciting television, in real life random (again, empirical, sorry) therapies are probably not the best treatment course. He reacted badly to the medicine and now barely speaks, can no longer move, and is in a nursing home.

What is the take-home message from this story? I'm enfuriated that the 'state of the art' in elder care dementia is 'it just happens, too bad, I guess we can't do anything about it'. Bullshit. Unfortunately, that's the state of the art in most cancer care. 'Shoot, we tried one thing after the other and none of them worked, I guess you're just going to die'. Assumptions and laziness are fatal in medicine (which is one of the reasons I never wanted to be an MD - don't want anyone's death on my conscience). Doctors are not rational beings, and you have to make sure you take your patient care into your own hands. I guess my advice is that if anything serious is wrong with you, go to an academic center. Even if they don't care about you, they care about their research and you'll be treated with the best possible care.

But back to my main point. These doctors had no idea if the Breadwinner's grandfather had Parkinson's (no tests were run other than the 3 min hand shaking observation) in the first place. Then they gave him a medicine that they didn't full understand, nor tried to (WHY did he have a bad reaction? Maybe you can learn from this mistake to not turn another patient into a vegetable?) I know, it's probably asking too much to expect people who dedidated their lives to helping others to actually intellectually think about the causes of their failure.

But it's not their fault alone. The medical system in general is broken, partially due to the insurance-driven care system and partially due to the lack of funding for basic and translatable research. MDs have to see as many patients as possible and don't have time to get to know the patients, take complete case histories, observe other "non-related" symptoms. They have to cover their asses with malpractice insurance, and so don't want to know why things go wrong. If they found the reason that the Parkinson's drug harmed the Breadwinner's grandfather, they'd have to admit wrongdoing and would open themselves up to a lawsuit. Not that we'd sue, but this is a litigious society and I understand their worries. The costs of malpractice insurance in some states are so high that OBGYNs have stopped delivering babies because they actually come out in the red in the process. I hope, probably futilly, that Obama's new plan for health care reform will actually improve things. We'll see, but change is necessary.

All that being said, I want to get back to science, real science, for a second. There are three studies out this week that shed new light on the molecular mechanisms governing Alzheimer's disease (and perhaps other forms of dementia). Two talk about the interaction between the accumulation of amyloid protein and endogenous prions (think mad cow disease, only not infectious). Could misfolded proteins be the cause of all these problems? A third shows that the astrocyte network is activated in Alzheimer's patients, perhaps causing the over-all cognitive problems (which do not appear to be associated with individual nerve loss). All three studies suggest, in the scientific way, rational drug candidates for the treatment of dementia, and I hope that they translate to actual, rational therapies. Maybe by the time the Breadwinner is in his 70s, with adequate funding and proper healthy care reform, one of these studies could end up preventing this from happening to him.

Nutty Notions

Sorry for the cutesy title, but I just had a jam-packed weekend celebrating the Spawn's first birthday with an insane number of family and friends. As a result, my brain is gelatinizing (picture the new Alec Baldwin commercial) - or maybe in the process of de-gelatinizing.

The Spawn's first birthday was a bit more challenging than most because he's an allergy baby. Yeah, I know - an immunologist with an allergy baby. Life is just filled with little ironies. Right now he can't eat milk, soy, egg, sesame or peanut. We have to carry around an epipen with us at all times. I go for shock value when he visits someone's house without me. My spiel - "This is how you use the epipen. He's never had a serious problem, but it's better to know how to use it and not have to than to not know how to use it and have a dead baby". I always make sure to say 'dead baby', because the shock value alone makes people pay attention.

Poor guy - fortunately he doesn't know what he's missing. I had no problem finding a decent vegan cake, but let me tell you how disgusting allergy-free frosting is. I tried making it with lard (not so appealling to a vegetarian) and buying an allergy-free frosting at the store. Both were shiny, hard, and not overly tasty (judging by the yucky face).

But onto the point of my blog for the day. Kids often outgrow milk, soy, egg, and sesame, but only 20% of kids ougrow peanut allergies. Unfortunately, peanut allergies are the most insidious and scary of the lot. There's positive news out of Mt. Sinai though. In a paper published in the Feb 2009 issue of J Allergy Clin Immunol, a group led by Dr. Xiu-Min Li found that long-term anaphylaxis protection was observed in mice treated with a combination Chinese herbal remedy - FAHF-2. Through unknown mechanism, it skews the peanut allergen immune response from Th2 to Th1 (could this also be a new adjuvant?).

This drug is currently in phase I trials for safety and dosage (results should be available by the end of 2009), but the safety data is promising because of its long term use in herbal medicine.
For those who scoff at herbal medicine, aspirin was originally an herbal medicine (from willow) as was penicillin (mold). While most herbal remedies are probably crap, we shouldn't scorn natural or traditional sources for potential new drug therapies.

Mouse success and human success are very different things (even I can cure cancer in mice), but this therapy is definitely something to watch if you're a parent of a kid with allergies.

Abstract:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH4-4VJKVPP-X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6eea32664dfdbf3fbf11c5577ffa6414

Quality of Life (or lack thereof)

Despite my desperate desire to do another postdoc (or, more accurately, my desperate desire to leave the position I'm currently trapped in), I want to talk about quality of life in science.

This weekend, I caught up on my reading of my favorite comic strip -PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) comics (www.phdcomics.com). PhD comics is written by a now assistant professor, although he started when he was a grad student I think. I highly recommend this comic for anyone who 1) is in graduate school 2) is dating/friends/married to someone in graduate school 3) is a PI who has graduate students or, mostly importantly, 4) is thinking about going to graduate school. I read this strip and relate to all of the jokes/situations and personally know people (many people) who fill each of the sterotypes.

What does this have to do with quality of life in science? My reading of PhD comics reminded me of a key truth - quality of life in science sucks. People work long hours and are motivated by guilt because their coworkers are working longer hours. Their bosses expect even longer hours. They get paid nothing, even at the prof level. Two career paths who work comparable hours are investment bankers and lawyers - yet fresh from college I-bankers make more money than tenured professors.

Interesting, a recent study (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123119236117055127.html) lists 'biologist' as #4 on the best jobs list. Apparently the survey didn't actually assess job satisfaction or sleep deprivation. Scientists, who are supposedly logical, should not want to be scientists. But people become scientists because they're driven. It's a calling, like the priesthood (and for many scientists, has similar results on their sex life). But it's the culture, not the actual duties, that impact quality of life so negatively. A consultant has to travel, because they can't do their job without traveling. But, while there are some 15 hour experiments, most scientists could stop after 10 hours a day and lead relatively normal lives.

Who maintains the culture? I think it's the PIs. It's sort of like hazing - I had to go through this so you do too. Every PI I've ever talked to has 'funny' stories about the terrible things they had to do as students/postdocs. This isn't exactly like medicine - where you can arguably believe that residents working 90+ hour weeks are seeing more patients and therefore will be better doctors someday. I did not learn more by doing 50 instead of 40 gel shift experiments. I hope when I get through my own period of hazing, I remember and provide for a better quality of life for my students and fellows. The cycle has to stop somewhere.

CEOs and Sports Coaches – Joining the Club

Being a CEO or a Professional Sports Coach (whichever sport you prefer) has gotta be the best gig going. What do these positions have in common, you ask? In most positions, including the execs and assistant coaches one notch down the totem pole, your hire-ability is based on past performance. You’re good at what you do and people decide to give you more responsibility, see if you can take it to the next level. If you’re a corporate executive, this means that you’ve come up with some new synergy that’s saving your company millions. If you’re an assistant coach in the NFL, it means you’ve got a defense hotter than an old lady’s hair on a Florida summer day – you make Peyton Manning look like Kyle Orton. At any level but the top, you work your butt off, hoping that one day you’ll get the winning ticket to a very exclusive club.

CEOs and Professional Sports Coaches, on the other hand, have no accountability at all. You can run your company into the ground and still get hired at another company – because of your “experience”. I don’t know about you, but as a shareholder I wouldn’t want someone with the experience of bankrupting a company at the helm. Or again, let’s take Professional Sports. Rod Marinelli, who led the Detroit Lions to the worst record in sports history, now has a position as an Assistant Head Coach with the Chicago Bears. What was Lovie Smith thinking? – “Hey, this guy is the worst of all time, we need him on our team.” Mark my words – Phillip Schoonover of Circuit City, Richard Fuld Jr of Lehman, and even James Cayne, the famous bridge-player of Bear Stearns, will all have new positions in a couple of years when the heat dies down.

Heck, let’s throw politics in here too. The political club is a family club. In our supposed meritocracy, how likely is that that the father and son Bushes were both the best candidates to run our country? Are they really that genetically superior? And now they’re talking about Jeb running – Canada here I come! Let’s assume Jeb is comparable with George. Why would we want to continue what was arguably one of the least successful presidencies in our history? Shouldn’t our economic collapse, endless war, and poor reputation abroad rule him out of the running? And what about Caroline Kennedy (who admittedly has left consideration for the New York Senatorial seat)? Just because Daddy was a decent politician doesn’t give her any skills. My Daddy was a mechanic and I probably couldn’t even change the battery in my car.

What does all this have to do with science? It’s all the same thing. Science is supposed to be objective and fair – you’re funded based on the quality of your ideas and published based on the merit of your work, but it works just like sports or business or politics. People get funding because they’ve had funding. They get published in high profile journals because they had a big name at an important university. Peer review isn’t double blind – reviewers know who they’re reviewing and make allowances for “famous” scientists that they wouldn’t make for the new assistant professor or brilliant postdoc. The average age of the first R01 grant for new investigators in 2007 was 42. These people are considered “young” investigators. I, for one, don’t consider 42 to be young. In mathematics, you’re past your prime at 25. Computer science entrepreneurs are in their teens and 20s. Scientists in their 20s and 30s have the passion and freedom to take risks, to make the truly great discoveries and not just pad their CVs. Imagine the biomedical breakthroughs that we’ve missed because the system is broken, because of the old-boys club. Who needs a malaria vaccine or a cure for childhood leukemia anyway?

So what does this mean for the standard schlub – Joe Stuck-in-a-Rut or Dr. Nancy I-Can’t-Get-A-Faculty-Position-Because-an-80-yr-old-Guy-is-Clinging-to-his-Lab-and-Hogging-All-the-Funding? How can we break into the upper echelon – become one of the deservedly maligned elite? Before he left the NIH, Elias Zerhouni changed the funding rules to favour first-time R01 applicants. It’s not a solution, but it’s a start. The system IS broken – our best and brightest are trapped in indentured servitude (postdocs) during what should be their most productive years. And I’m not even going to start on the below sub-standard pay these “hopes for the future” receive. (How can you attract the best talent if you pay an administrative assistant more straight out of college than you pay your 30-year-old Ivy League PhD postdoc? But I’ll save THAT for another time).

We have to change the culture of Science. Postdoctoral organizations (aka unions) are a start, but it’s hard to gain much bargaining power when by definition the position is a 2-5 year slot. Sure, postdocs are leaving academic science to go into industry, consulting, policy, editing (like me). But with the technological challenges the world is currently facing, we need MORE scientists, not less. If the Bush administration has taught me anything, it’s that we can’t rely on government to solve our problems. My dream is a series of independent institutes, not unlike academia, where young scientists can have the capital to fund their riskiest dreams. It’s not a practical plan, but we need somewhere to start fresh and leave the old culture behind. In order for things to change, we need funding from outside the government – always a dinosaur behind the times – funding that will pay commiserate with our specialized skills, reward creativity and not conservative small-scale “safe” experimental plans, and allow for decent quality of life.

Where will this money come from? – that’s where I fall flat. I’m not a financier. Industry is a prime target, but how do you do basic research with industrial backing? Philanthropic organizations could do it, but how do we convince people to donate money to such risky ventures? Of course, successes would inevitably pay for themselves (and the myriad failures that would likely result), but until then where would we get the money? Maybe from the CEOS and Professional Sports Coaches or others who are already in the club? Unfortunately, I have a lot of questions but very few answers, vision but no means to make it a reality. So I open the question to you, especially those who are outside the ivory tower. How can we fund young scientists, give them the drive and freedom to address the challenges we face today and in the future? How do we start a new club?

The Healing Power of Anger

Well, I now have two readers. Incredible. As this was supposed to be an anonymous blog (so that I can't be googled and have my often angry/controversial musings used against me in my job search - this also explains my new Spawn-free facebook pict), I'm hoping that knowing people actually read this won't affect the sincerity of my writing (or my complete lack of attention to typos and poor grammar). But onto the topic at hand...

In my old position as a postdoc, I was angry all of the time. Literally. I thought about my work constantly - it was the first thing I thought about when I woke up and the last thing I thought about when I went to bed. I dreamed about experimental design, paper writing, and mouse colony revenge. I jotted down ideas on napkins at my friend's weddings, in restaurants, and in bars when my liquid inspiration would kick in. I even was thinking about my work when I was in labor with the Spawn. And my work made me angry - very angry -- Mt. St. Helens angry.

I hated being angry. I hated complaining to the Breadwinner for hours at night about how much I hated my job, my coworkers (who were obviously subpar), my boss (who actually was quite wonderful in retrospect). I hated the tedium, the failed experiments, the endless stress. I would wake up angry that I had to go in and inject a mouse with chemotherapy on a Sunday morning, or Christmas day (yes, I was there on Christmas day). I would go to bed angry that I had stayed late in lab (with all of my coworkers at home) for an experiment that didn't work. I would yell and bitch and complain - and feel secretly proud that I could deal with all of the crap and still be successful. I guess it was a macho thing.

But you know what - I miss being angry. It gives me a certain adreniline, a sense of purpose, some confidence. My my dear editor boss (also very nice) came to talk to me about the "language" that I had added about copyright in a manuscript on Friday, I got angry for the first time in this job. Because, honestly, it was legally fine and who really cares at the end of the day what copyright language is in a manuscript. Maybe somebody, but not me. I did not spend 4 years in college, 6 years in my PhD, and 2 years as a postdoc working my butt off and sacrificing my social life so that I could be talked to about copyright language in a manuscript. I was trained to think analytically and critically, to focus on the big picture as well as small details, and I'm doing that. But I want to work on something that I think is IMPORTANT. And you know what - when I realized that I was angry - I missed it. I miss being angry all of the time. I miss having the passion about something to not be completely flat - to actually have an extremely over-reactive response about nothing. I miss all of the horrible crap about the lab, not because I liked it, but because it was worth it. Every single second of anger was worth it. Eureka.

Some Thoughts on Health Care Journalism

One of my favorite duties as Scientific Editor is that I get to write press releases on articles that I find interesting. I think I really enjoy this for two reasons - 1) I get to create something rather than just edit someone else's work and 2) it's kind of cool to interact with the press.

I was reading this NEJM article on the pitfalls of health care journalism, and this topic kind of hit home. I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not a journalist, and I have no obligation to be objective. My supposed goal is to sensationalize our author's findings as much as possible and let the actual journalist do the diligence to actually put the findings in perspective. (Is this new treatment REALLY going to cure tuberculosis - probably not.)

My understanding is that journalists have some sort of code (again, note my ignorance), similar to the Hippocratic oath, where they must be objective and not over-sensationalize stories. And yet when I follow up (yay google) on the articles written on my PR - they're usually just basic rehashing (or cut-and-paste) of my press release. I like to think of myself as an ethical individual, so when I noticed this I started toning down my releases, presenting a more balanced perspective. I would be willing to bet that most public information officers wouldn't even consider this option.

On to my point. After I issue a release, for example of muscular dystrophy, I get contacted by not only journalists but by patients and family members with the disorder, desparate for new therapies. The problem is that any therapy based on my basic sciences releases is at least five years away (I'm being very optimistic here). Which leads to the conundrum. I feel responsible for falsely raising these people's hopes, but at the same time science needs to be in the news so the general population can actually understand how important it is. People need to be more aware of the directions (and benefits) of past and current research. It always amazing me how everyone will buy an iPhone but no one actually knows how it works. No wonder the US is being left behind in technology development.

Anyway, I got a bit off topic and started rambling (no surprise there). The question is - how can you balance the benefits of health care/science journalism to society with the sometimes personal detriments patients? I'm going to have to think about this a lot more - but let me know what you think.