DrugMonkey

If you had asked me before a day or two ago what I considered highly focused and concentrated writing, I would have said something around about 3-4 hour blocks. If I can get those in, I see some serious progress made on manuscripts or grant applications. Or animal use protocols, or biohazards protocols, or chemical hazards protocols.

And when I'm trying to hit a grant deadline, I'm going to need to put in several of these, anywhere from 5 to 10....and that's when the writing is going well. Plus, I've been doing this for awhile so it isn't exactly novel behavior...

Writing my dissertation? I was putting in 3-4 hour blocks of time one to two times per day for weeks. That was #madwriting*.

30 minute writing sprints?

Well, I suppose it is very good practice for 4pm on a grant deadline day when the admin says "Where's the Abstract, Statement of Public Health Relevance and did you update the personal statement on your Biosketch?"

__
*there were circumstances. there usually are...

Additional Reading

The Twitter Phenomenon of #madwriting

Posted by DrugMonkey at 11:07 AM • 10 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

April 15, 2011

Your Grant in Review: Appealing the review outcome

Category: Careerism • Grant Review • Grantsmanship • NIH

A recent Notice from the NIH (NOT-OD-11-064) indicates that there is a need to standardize and refine the appeal process.

Here's what struck me on seeing this Notice pop up: I bet there has been a massive uptick in the rate of appeals since the sunsetting of the A2 and the threats to rigorously weed out thinly concealed revisions as "new" submissions.

One viewpoint on the wisdom of appealing the scoring of your grant proposal that is very common is captured in this comment over at the NIGMS blog:

Based on everything I have read about the appeals process on various Web pages of the NIH and Institute Web sites, it seems like you'd have to be extremely foolish and poorly informed to bother appealing.

NIGMS Director Berg responded:

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 11:36 AM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

April 14, 2011

Placing credit where it is due

Category: Careerism • Conduct of Science

I've had a few interactions lately that have led to some pondering on the attribution of academic credit for papers. It all starts with the hilarious gyrations that promotions and tenure committees occasionally, maddeningly, go through.

As most of my readers are aware, in biomedical sciences we have a system in which there are four key elements to placing credit for a given academic paper.

1.) The first author. This person is generally a trainee and generally assumed to be the person who did "most" of the real work on the paper. This can be defined in many ways, from conducting the bulk of the experiments to the most important experiments to the drafting of the manuscript. Defined, that is, by the research team itself when determining who is deserving of the first authorship. Once the paper has been published, the assumption about the role of the first author is more nebulous but no less firm in attributing the academic credit.

2.) The senior author. Often the last author, often the primary mentor of the first author and often the PI of the grants identified as supporting the project.

3.) The "communicating author". Most often the senior author, less frequently the first author and very infrequently someone else*. If the senior author, this is just a reinforcing stamp on his/her seniority, particularly if there are several relatively senior people with their own laboratories contributing. If the communicating author is the first author, this can be an indication from the research team that the project is really all under the intellectual domain of the postdoc or graduate student in question. The senior author is saying "no, really, it was all my brilliant postdoc and she should get all the credit. ps, email her for reagents or mouse lines, not me".

4.) The grants identified as supporting the project and, by extension, the PIs of those grants.

P&T; committees frequently find themselves parsing academic credit schemes not just from the biomedical perspective, but also from alternate academic traditions in which the number of other authors matters more than it does in biomedical disciplines, where the senior author is the first author, where single-authorship is important....or there is variance in other minutia. This can in itself be infuriating, after all, how hard is it to recognize that the tradition you trained in is only one of many equally arbitrary crediting schemes?

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:45 PM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

April 10, 2011

Are University Professors Doing Their Job if Undergrads Do Not Know How Research Works?

Category: Careerism • NIH Budgets and Economics

The question is posed by a new post from funkdoctorx:

The issue here is that the public does not understand what professors really do and how research works at the University level. Now, if you are a professor or postdoc reading this, think way back to the time when you were a first year graduate student. Remember how much there was to learn about the way the academic world, and academic research worked? Did you have much, if any, idea of this from your time as an undergraduate? I know I certainly didn't grasp this at all. Even as a young post-doc I'm still working to understand how the system works despite being at it for 5+ years.

I was no different.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:59 PM • 22 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 30, 2011

The Care and Feeding of Your PI: A tip for grad students and postdocs

Category: Mentoring • Postdoctoral Training • Postgraduate Training

GMP has a hilarious LOL/sob post up over at Academic Jungle in which she laments becoming PI Pushover.

Although I promised myself I would never do that to myself -- let the student graduate before all his/her obligations to the group have been fulfilled (the papers we have agreed on are written up and submitted), it turns out I am as much of a pushover as the next faculty, if not more.
...
I let the temp postdoc graduate at the end of 2010 because we figured a couple of months would not mean much, and graduating in 2010 (sooner) looks better on his CV than 2011 (later).... in the 3 months he's been here after the PhD...only just gave me a pathetic draft -- unworthy of a second-year grad student, let alone someone experienced in writing papers -- of what's supposed to be the crown jewel paper from his thesis, which clearly demonstrates he doesn't give a rat's ass about it any more.

Of course, the academic blogsphere is entirely made up of hardworking trainees with distant, out of touch PIs (on the one hand) and PIs who are highly engaged mentors cursed with lazy-ass trainees (on t' other).

So the comments are lining up accordingly, just like they will do with this post after I publish it.

But here's the thing Dear Hardworking Trainee....GMP is right.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:07 PM • 18 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 21, 2011

Ignorance of the way review goes down is a dereliction of duty, NIH.

Category: Careerism • NIH

Grr.

On more than one occasion I have expressed confusion when the NIH reveals a bit of data or enacts a policy change based on something or other...and gives out the impression that the related emergent behavior of their systems has been a complete and utter mystery to them up to that point.

One pertinent example is the creation of the Early State Investigator category out of the previous omnibus New Investigator category. In each case it refers to someone who has never served as the PI of a major NIH research grant before. The idea was to make sure that newcomers to the system weren't being totally blocked by the Good Old Boys and Girls who already enjoyed the NIH largess. I first served on a study section before they created the ESI category and I can tell you it took about half a day for me to realize what time it was. Namely that the "NI" apps that were most competitive were from highly established senior investigators who just didn't happen to have previously needed NIH funding. Perhaps they were career NSF-grant folks. Or had made their careers in foreign institutions and had only recently moved to the US. But "New", they most certainly were not.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 2:13 PM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 17, 2011

Repost: Tribal Celebrations

Category: Day in the life of DrugMonkey • Underrepresented Groups

Sadly, I am not cooking today. This was originally posted March 15, 2009.

Step One: Make sure at least one of the Spawn is napping, visiting a friend or otherwise out of your hair.

Why, whatever do you think we are celebrating today, Dear Reader?

Step Two: Make final check on materials and reagents. Run to store to get the remaining critical items. Sing loudly to your favorite ethnic folksongs to get in the mood.

stay tuned, Dear Reader, stay tuned...

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 3:55 PM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

Were "incense" products containing JWH-018 and other cannabimimetics ever "legal" in the US?

Category: Cannabis

A comment over at Brayton's blog drew my attention. A D. Johnson notes:

A few days ago, police arrested Eric Srack, a business owner in Salina. Srack had been selling an herbal potpourri which people were using as a legal alternative to marijuana.

The comment is apparently referring to so-called "incense" products being sold in head shops, cigar stores (like mine) and convenience stores that contain cannabimimetic compounds. The JWH series (JWH-018, JWH-250, JWH-073 seem to be common), CP_47,497 and a few other compounds are ligands for the endogenous cannabinoid receptor subtype 1 (CB₁) just like good old Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Natural products pharmacologist David Kroll has an excellent intro to these compounds at Terra Sigillata and dr_leigh has a two-parter on the pharmacology here and here. The summary version is that these compounds have the same basic pharmacological effect as that of THC which confers much of the psychoactive properties of cannabis, i.e., stimulation of the CB₁ receptor. In many cases these canabimimetic compounds are more potent than THC in their actions and they are what are referred to as full agonists, in contrast to the partial agonist actions of THC. Unsurprisingly, these "incense" products are capable of inducing dependence which looks reasonably similar to dependence produced by cannabis.

Back to our story.....

The stuff wasn't illegal until around a month ago, when the police decided that it was chemically similar enough to something that was illegal to warrant an arrest.

In other words, the state government fiddled with the law until it enabled the police to arrest someone for doing something that wasn't illegal when he started. Are these drug enforcement guys just bored?

As I responded at Brayton's blog, this is inaccurate.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 1:12 PM • 30 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

A traditionale aire for the daye

Category: Music

For CPP and other non-traditionalists.

Posted by bikemonkey at 11:57 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 14, 2011

On being Underrepresented in Neuroscience

Category: Diversity in Science • Neuroscience • Society for Neuroscience • Underrepresented Groups

The Society for Neuroscience is accepting applications, due May 20, for the Neuroscience Scholars Program. The fellowships are to pay for attending the Annual Meeting of the SfN, membership dues and some unspecified stipend for local activities.

The part that contributes to one of our off-again, on-again conversations around these parts is the specification of Eligibility for the program.

Individuals from racial and ethnic groups that have been shown by the National Science Foundation to be underrepresented in health-related sciences on a national basis.

Okay, standard "minority" stuff here. Light the torches, my affirmative action antagonists, light the torches.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 2:15 PM • 39 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 8, 2011

Lake Wobegon effect in NIH grant review

Category: Grant Review • NIH Budgets and Economics

All the Investigators are strong....and the Environments are above-average.

The "Investigator" and "Environment" criteria have been an explicit part of NIH grant review since forever, and have been given approximately equal weight with Approach, Significance and Innovation.

The blurbs in the official NIH notice on the current scheme read:

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

...

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

I always had the distinct impression these were essentially throwaway criteria because they were almost always rated very highly. Sometimes the "Investigator" criterion would be a place to cap on the more-junior career status or lack of productivity but for the most part it was treated very politely.

Sally Rockey has recently posted the verification of this impression on the OER blog.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 5:16 PM • 39 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 4, 2011

Cable guy saves baby from pitbull

Category: Debate and Discussion

I'm thinking I should start a Feel Good Friday series.

Isn't this great? The cable guy? Freaky movie dude. Annoying because the 8-12 window means he shows up at 2pm?

Awww.

A pit bull belonging to the babysitter's son attacked the babysitter as she held the infant just as [Cableguy] Dargan arrived for a routine call. Dargan jumped on the dog and held it down while Skyler called 911.
Police soon arrived and fatally shot the dog.

Jordan was hospitalized for serious bite wounds, but his mother told the Daily Freeman of Kingston that her son is expected to make a full recovery.

Isn't that great? I mean, that kid coulda been killed. Bravo, Cableguy, bravo.

Posted by DrugMonkey at 3:28 PM • 23 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 2, 2011

Extensive guidance from NIH on Unallowable Resubmissions of Grant Applications

Category: Careerism • Grantsmanship

As we've discussed before, the change to permit only a single revision of a NIH grant has thrown a lot of uncertainty into the extramural research force. Although one obvious solution would be to just submit another "new" grant that is a thinly disguised re-working of the prior unfunded version, the CSR of the NIH is on to us. They have been working diligently to convince us that they will weed out such dodges with extreme prejudice.

I have just noticed that they have an extensive description of their screening process up on a web page. Complete with some examples and scenarios.

Key things that caught my eye include:

Which Applications Are Problems?

· Applications submitted as new (A0) but appear to be resubmissions (A1)

Yikes. So even if you get triaged and have criterion scores in the 7s and 8s, you can't just start over with an A0? The decision isn't up to you. You have to resubmit.

More after the jump...

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 7:27 PM • 31 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

March 1, 2011

Congratulations to Assistant Professor Becca!

Category: Tribe of Science

One of our own, Dear Science Blogosphere, has inked her signature upon the line to accept a tenure track Assistant Professor slot. Please head over to the "Fumbling Toward Tenure ~~Track~~" blog to offer your congratulations and best wishes to the blogger known as Dr Becca.

I have a slightly greater than passing familiarity with Dr Becca's plan of research for her initial months and years as head of a brand new lab. I can assure you, Dear Reader, that there is a great deal of interesting and useful new science that we can expect to result from this new program over the next years and decades.

Best wishes, DrBecca, and congratulations on reaching this stage of transition to independence. This, in and of itself, is a testament to all of your hard work and creativity leading up to this point. You deserve this opportunity and I have little doubt will make the most of it. Remember this when the going gets tough!

Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:58 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

February 23, 2011

R.I.P. Charles Robert Schuster, Ph.D.

Category: Drug Abuse Science • Immunopharmacotherapy • Obituary • Opiates

sourceAn towering figure of the substance abuse research fields has passed away. According to a note posted to an ASPET mailing list, Charles Robert Schuster, Ph.D. suffered a fatal stroke on Feb 21 in Houston Texas. NIDA Director Nora Volkow has also posted a notice to the NIDA-grantees mailing list.

The CPDD biography of Dr. Schuster is a brief overview of his career.

After six years in the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Michigan, he joined the Departments of Psychiatry, Pharmacology, and Behavioral Sciences and founded the University of Chicago´s Drug Abuse Research Center. In 1986, Dr. Schuster was appointed the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a position he held until 1992. In January of 1995, Dr. Schuster was appointed as a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences at Wayne State School of Medicine and the Director of the Substance Abuse Research Division.

One of the most fundamental and lasting advances of Dr. Schuster was the development of the self-administration model of drug reinforcement. Bob Schuster was one of the first to demonstrate that animals would work to receive intravenous infusions of drug and he was a major player in several of the initial observations on the reinforcing properties of recreational drugs through the 1960s and 1970s.

James R. Weeks published in 1962 that female rats would press a lever to receive intravenous infusions of morphine. Schuster and his colleagues were the first to adapt this method to nonhuman primates, getting started at approximately the same time as Weeks (there are references to Abstract presentations from Weeks as early as 1960 or 1961).

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 5:28 PM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

February 16, 2011

Does the NIH support too many Principal Investigators?

Category: Careerism • NIH • NIH Budgets and Economics

Commenter Neuro-conservative pointed to a set of data slides on the NIH site. I was struck by the one showing the number of investigators supported on Research Project Grants by the NIH over time.

So obviously the ESI/NI pickups and preferential payline strategies enacted around Fiscal Year 2007 or so worked to significantly increase the number of first time awardees. I make this out to be something on the order of 1,000-1,200 newly funded investigators in FY2010 over a ~2,2000-2,500 baseline back in FY2004-6. (Although if you check the last slide on the website, you'll see that if you limit it to R01 equivalents, the trend is a lot less impressive.)

Most interesting, however, is the uptick in experienced investigators that seems to be associated with the doubling. Since we know that inflation and Bush era flatlined budgets essentially un-doubled the budget, well, we can see the problem here pretty starkly, no?

The number of experienced investigators being supported on NIH dollars has not fallen back anywhere near fast enough.

Some 2,000-2,500 experienced investigators were added to the books during the great doubling. At best this has been pared back to the tune of 800-1,000 investigators. While the first time investigators are up by a good 1,800 since the start of the doubling period.

I've been taking the piss out of PhysioProf for his observation that he thinks the NIH is intentionally trying to pare back the number of funded labs. I may have to reconsider my skepticism. Not only that, but reconsider where I stand on the *need* to drop significant numbers of investigators off the books. Five to fifteen percent, maybe even 20 percent...these are the numbers that might be necessary if inflation and flat budgets have really erased the budget doubling.

Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:45 PM • 29 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

Take 5 and call your Congress Critter: W/ Talking Points

Category: Call yer CongressCritter • NIH • NIH Budgets and Economics

Isis the Scientist recently posted a letter from the FASEB regarding a proposal in the Congress to pass a continuing budget resolution that whacks $1.6 Billion from the NIH budget for the current fiscal year. That's a whole lot of grants that won't be funded.

I'll join many of my blogging colleagues in urging you to click on [ This Link ] to find the phone number of the Washington DC office of your Congressional Rep and for you to make that call.

I'll also suggest a few things you might want to have at the top of your list for communicating to the office staffer who answers the phone. This originally went up Oct 29, 2008.

Since many of our US readers are feeling jazzed about politics right about now, it is a good time to discuss Talking Points. You, DearReader, whether in the biomedical science biz or merely interested in some aspect of biomedical science, are the first line of attack in advocating for the continued health of our federally funded science enterprises. As we've all learned over the past 8 or even 16 years of US politics, crafting and honing messages to convey essential themes is critical to political success. Generating a mantra-chant and drumbeat of lemming feet on a consistent and limited set of bullet point topics is the way to cut through the noise and transmit the message. Call it framing or Talking Points or whatever you like.

I have a suggestion for how scientists may wish to approach their CongressCritters.

Read on »

Posted by DrugMonkey at 10:47 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

Previous Next

Mar	APR	May
	27
2010	2011	2012

Profile

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blog Promotion

Schwag

Search

Archives

Blogrollin'

Searching for Science

NIH Basics

Drug Abuse Basics

Animal Research

Comeek

Old Quotes

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Channels

RSS Feeds

More ScienceBlogs

The Latest Readers' Picks

Science News from NYTimes.com »

From NYTimes.com