Now on ScienceBlogs: The death of Tetrapod Zoology
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded biomedical research scientist.
PhysioProf is an NIH-funded basic science faculty member at a private medical school.
February 9, 2010
Category: Grant Review • Grantsmanship • Poll
Okay DearReader. Believe the NIH grant review process is irretrievably broken? Now's your chance.
If you have ever submitted a research grant proposal to the NIH, please estimate the percentage of your grant submissions (include each revision as an independent submission) that have received reviews with serious flaws.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 10:50 AM • 11 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 8, 2010
Category: Grant Review • NIH Budgets and Economics • Peer Review
An observation for those reading along with a comment thread that is developing on a prior post. Gummibear asserted:
I also have to add that the quality of the NIH peer review system needs an external audit. Things that are going on there are quite unimaginable in journal peer review.
It emerged that our commenter was ticked about a grant review. Surprise, surprise.
Like regularly writing utter nonsense in summary statements, with complete impunity. An example from my recent experience: a reviewer was unfamiliar with the field and wrote a whole critique full of rubbish. He/she 'luckily' went too far and devoted a paragraph to certain methodology, expressly describing my use of it as 'strange'. It was then easy for me to provide a list of literature references to identical approaches and prove that the 'strangeness' resulted solely from the reviewer's state of mind and education. So I did in an appeal.
There is a little more detail but really it is going to be hard to evaluate the specific claim of mistreatment outside of going through the grant app and critiques ourselves. Nevertheless, I like to look for the general points. I arrive at this:
It is most useful to dissociate your disagreement with an established NIH process from your own particular treatment within the process.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:56 PM • 34 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 6, 2010
Category: Careerism • Mentoring • NIH • NIH Budgets and Economics
Professor in Training has raised an absolutely fascinating issue.
The topics that were touched on during the discussion included whether the bar should be set a tad lower for my peers and I than it was for recently-tenured or soon-to-be tenured colleagues. And the very real prospect of myself and most of my newbie peers being denied tenure due to frighteningly low paylines and essentially wiping out a whole generation of promising faculty members.
I'm sure my readers will want to go over there and play. One thing I'd like to see addressed is if anyone else's institutions are even discussing this? I haven't heard anything like this being discussed, personally.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 4:17 PM • 73 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 4, 2010
Category: Humor
I know we don't give enough respect around here for the giant pile of disadvantage the menz labor under. And I regret that.
Equal time after the jump. (NSFW...)
Posted by DrugMonkey at 8:15 PM • 12 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Grant Review • Humor • NIH
HAHAHHAHA! We love this guy....
By the time you get your pink sheet there is nothing you can do but react, and over the years I have developed three generic pink sheet reactions:1. WTF? Did these stupid bozos even bother to read my proposal?
2. Oh, shit. They found the weak spot. I wonder if I can fix it and resubmit.
3. YES!!! (pumps fist in air) THEY BOUGHT IT!
Posted by DrugMonkey at 1:44 PM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Grant Review • Peer Review
The Feb 2010 edition of the Office of Extramural Research Nexus contains yet more explanation of the way reviewers are supposed to use the "overall impact" scoring field.
What we call the "Overall Impact" of the application is the compilation of the evaluation of the review criteria. As reviewers assess Overall Impact, they take into account the individual review criteria and provide an overall evaluation of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. The following points provide some clarification between Significance and Overall Impact:Overall Impact
* Takes into consideration, but is distinct from, the core review criteria (significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach and environment).
* Is not an additional review criterion.
* Is not necessarily the arithmetic mean of the scores for the five scored review criteria.
* Is the synthesis/integration of the five core review criteria that are scored individually and the additional review criteria, which are not scored individually.
emphasis added but I could just bold the whole damn thing. This is supposed to help reviewers? More importantly (I presume and assert) it is supposed to help reviewers to act more consistently with each other?
This is exactly the sort of thing that drives me crazy about CSR and their complete and utter mess which is reviewer instruction.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:43 PM • 33 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 3, 2010
Category:
Posted by DrugMonkey at 7:28 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Ask DrugMonkey • Blogging • Science Communication • Social Media • Tribe of Science
As I have been beating the decidedly undead horse of Nature Network over their recent introspection post at the Of Schemes and Memes blog, I better take up the challenge from steffi suhr of the Science behind the scenes blog.
This recent kerfuffle (again, if you've missed it, good!) has - for me - just reinforced how important it is to allow different styles and accept and tolerate (blog-)cultural differences. So, in the general spirit of kissing and making up, I invite you to join in and answer these slightly different questions1:* What made you start blogging?
* Is a sense of community an important part of blogging for you, or do you prefer blogging 'solo'?
* Are there blogs you never look at? If yes, why (be nice and don't name names)?
* Who are you blogging for/who are you talking to?
* Do you think you may be getting people exposed to some science through your blog who otherwise wouldn't be?
* Do you think any non-blogger cares about any of the above things?
My answers after the jump.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:20 PM • 13 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 2, 2010
Category: Blogging • Conduct of Science • Day in the life of DrugMonkey • Debate and Discussion • Science Communication • Science Publication
Longtime blogfriend bill is laughing right about now. Or he will be soon.
I've been a considerable skeptic that Web2.0 has anything serious to offer the pursuit of science itself. Not a theological skeptic who can't see the potential, just one who doesn't think we're there yet and can't necessarily see the path to full Web2.0 / Science integration.
Nevertheless I see potential for the public outreach mission of Web2.0 adoption by scientists. Obviously- since I haven't stopped blogging yet.
Getting my feet wet allows me a little greater latitude and perspective in trying to think about what needs to be done to realize broader Web2.0 adoption in the daily conduct of science. And I have some ideas.
When you have an idea, the best thing to do is to figure out how to test it, right? To figure out what preliminary data you need, what literature is most relevant and what experts you need to consult. In the design stage, you can use all of these factors to check your assumptions. See where your gut might be leading you astray.
As you proceed along, you can try to see what parts of your protocol are working, what needs to be tweaked and what needs to be junked.
Like I said, I have some ideas. I share the broadest goals of what NPG is trying to accomplish in terms of using the more interactive internet technologies to enhance the conduct of science. I'm working on a couple of projects.
This is by way of lengthy preamble to why I would be gazing upon the cockup that is the Nature Network introspection exercise with some dismay.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 5:16 PM • 27 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Careerism • Conduct of Science • Mentoring • Science Politics
An important side point needs to be made in light of the discussion here. Unless you are plugged in to the swinging-dick Hughes pipeline (or the equivalent) and have access to swinging-dick Hughes lab rejects (or the equivalent), when you first start your own lab, you have no choice but to get yourself off the ground with less talented post-docs, frequently with abysmal oral and written English. Of course, one of your most difficult and important tasks as a new PI is to enable these people--despite their limitations--to fulfill all of their potential and succeed at publishing good papers.
Only after you have established yourself with published papers and awarded grants, do the more talented, more ambitious post-docs have any interest in joining your lab.
Posted by PhysioProf at 12:56 PM • 141 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 1, 2010
Category: Animals in Research
I've been keeping an eye on the situation in which the OSU President quashed the funding of an imminent NIH research award because it was "controversial" and "not in the best interest of OSU". The project featured the use of baboon subjects in anthrax research for which the University had invested in biocontainment infrastructure.
Academic scientists are annoyed for all kinds of reasons ranging from academic freedom to the issue of investing in new projects only to pull the plug arbitrarily.
They are also annoyed by the sneaking suspicion, denied by the offical OSU pronouncements, that OSU was influenced heavily by a wealthy donor who has Animal Rights motivations. I have this suspicion as well and I was happy to convey these suspicions when I first heard of the situation. It is objectionable when a wealthy ideologue donor can arbitrarily interfere with the type of research that goes on at a University and we are right to call OSU out for this.
But here is what we* should not do.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 1:23 PM • 20 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 31, 2010
Category: Careerism • Conduct of Science • Mentoring • NIH Budgets and Economics • Science Politics
One thing that people are very confused about is the idea that post-doctoral training is only about training. It is also about selection: identifying the most talented and accomplished scientists to give a shot at scientific independence.
It is delusional to think that post-doctoral training "trains" scientists to become PIs in the same way that plumber apprentices are trained to become plumbers: if you just slog through the training and keep your head down, you will become a decent plumber. The more accurate analogy is to minor league baseball: yeah it is necessary training to learn how to play ball in the major leagues, but it is also a selection mechanism to identify those players who have a decent shot at success in the majors.
This is exactly why the idea that two-year post-docs--like in the old days--are more than sufficient to "train" scientists to run their own labs is a fucking joke. It may be sufficient to "train" scientists, but it is insufficient under the vast majority of circumstances to implement the selection function of post-doctoral training. There are *many* more scientists seeking PI positions nowadays, and thus the selection function of post-doctoral training becomes more important and more stringent.
Longer post-docs should be welcomed by those aspiring to PI positions, as it provides a much fairer opportunity to prove one's mettle. Many post-docs start slowly for a variety of reasons, and so just because you don't have much to show after two years, doesn't say much about your potential. But if you haven't achieved much after 5+ years as a post-doc, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not just a matter of bad luck, bad mentors, or anything other than a simple--and unfortunate--lack of the skills and talents required to be a PI.
Posted by PhysioProf at 12:55 PM • 123 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 29, 2010
Category: Ask DrugMonkey • NIH Budgets and Economics
Had a letter come in to your friendly blogstaff today.
What are the implications (if any) of a three-year spending freeze by the Obama administration staring in 2011 on the NIH research budget (no money at all, no increase in money over 2010, a decrease vs. 2010)?
A couple of links to the story are here, here, here.
I don't really have much of a response beyond "bad". How about you?
UPDATE 020110:
Phew? ($1B, or about a 3% increase for NIH)
Posted by DrugMonkey at 5:38 PM • 50 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Blogging • Debate and Discussion
I'm elevating a comment I made in a prior thread. We're chatting about the Nature Network exercise in self-reflection about the insularity of their blog community. I made two points.
True that there is a population for any blog that should theoretically be in the audience but that departs because of the "tone". Allegedly I, for example, lost some readers because I extend latitude to certain antediluvian commenters. It should be a consideration.
What should also be a consideration is who is being excluded because they simply do not know you exist- individual blog, blog consortium or even the whole science blogosphere.
It was a good critique, but there are always going to be tradeoffs.I happen to think that one of the good features here at Sb is that we start with a very open approach from which individuals bloggers can tighten up if desired. This can be incredibly fine grained. I've had a commenter or three that others of my readers object to and want to know why I don't ban them. Other Sb blogs that I share readership with may have done so. To the extent that we overlap in blog-interest, readers can find the content without being exposed to the 'clownery of some of my commenters. Perhaps I lose a few voices, and I regret that, but I have to draw my own lines in making what I think of as my blog's tone what it is.
There are other types of commenters who pervade other Sb blogs that simply don't come around here and if they did express that type of behavior here would be moderated or banned. Yet I don't think Sb is the weaker for the Pharyngaloids, ERV's selfconsciously outre fanbois, Laden's "the real" neandertals or even Ed Brayton's libertardian halfthinkers. I think we are the stronger for it- as a collective blog enterprise.
There was a comment at that NN thread (see problem? I have no idea which blog it is on, see Munger's comment about individualizing the blogs) about writing for her own peeps and not giving a hang about traffic. Why have a public blog? There are more private social media and fora. More generally, why have the NN blogs visible to anyone other than those who register and login?
The very fact one engages in *public* blogging says that one is interested in reaching new people. Period. After that we are merely discussing whether you are doing a good job meeting performance goals...
Right? Why are you putting stuff out there for the entire Internet to see if you don't mean to reach people who might be interested in what you have to say, but you have no other way to reach them. In a word, perfect strangers. There are a plethora of controlled-access technologies that would serve the same purpose if all you were after was a private circle of friends.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 9:00 AM • 91 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 28, 2010
Category: Cannabis
Most of my readers are aware of the growing head of steam being perked up by the medical marijuana movement (and that I think it is a Trojan Horse for recreational consumption). I have also described how perceptions of the harms associated with cannabis are associated with population level use. This suggests to me that it is important to identify adverse health consequences of cannabis smoking ranging from oral health complications to paradoxical potentiation of Ecstasy-induced hyperthermia, to a dependence syndrome in some users that shares some features with nicotine dependence.
I have a new and fascinating consequence of cannabis smoking for your consideration today, Dear Reader. There is an odd syndrome of cyclical vomiting that has resulted in a series of Case Reports. One theme that runs through these is the apparently mysterious presentation at the hospital, since most of the expected causes of severe episodic vomiting were painstakingly ruled out.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:13 PM • 104 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Animals in Research
The Americans for Medical Progress organization has opened the competition for the AMP/Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach for 2010-2011.
The Michael D. Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach, established by Americans for Medical Progress in 2008, promotes peer education about animal research among students and young adults aged 18-30. Named in memory of AMP's former Chairman, Michael D. Hayre, DVM, ACLAM, the Fellowship provides support for peer outreach and education projects in the United States.
These fellowships are modest awards ($5,000 stipend; $2,000 project support) intended for:
college students and young adults in the United States who are frustrated by the domination of animal rights rhetoric against biomedical research and who are committed to making a case for the necessary and humane use of laboratory animals in the pursuit of treatments and cures.
Applications are due May 15, 2010.
I would also like to ask my readers to consider making a small donation to the program. As you can tell from the fellowship amounts, a little bit from many people can go a long way.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:29 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 27, 2010
Category: Blogging • Debate and Discussion • Science Communication
The Nature Network of blogs announced reaching a 50,000 comment milestone today.
Yes, that's right, we've reached the impressive though totally arbitrary milestone of 50,000 comments on the blogs. Congratulations to Richard Grant, who unwittingly tipped the threshold with his remark 'Wintlito? Is that like Wintle Lite?' on this post.
As you know, I'm of the opinion that blogging is mostly about the comments so cheers to them!
A related Twitt from @NatNetNews asked:
Is Nature Network too insular? How would you like us to improve? Have your say in the comment thread: http://bit.ly/8GDI7b
So if you have any opinion on that, go comment.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 7:28 PM • 40 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Animals in Research • Ethics
A recent post over at Casaubon's Book discusses the plight of the male farm animal and, in particular, the humble rooster.
What do I mean by "the problem of husbandry?" What I mean is that generally speaking, in the rearing of domesticated animals, one gender of the animals is more valuable than the other. Often, but not always, females are preferred, because they lay the eggs, give the milk, and can reproduce themselves perfectly well with only a very tiny number of male participants.
Now true, we have a highly similar problem in genetic research which involves breeding laboratory vertebrates (most typically mice) for a desired genotype. Frequently enough some fraction of the bred animals never make it into the papers. A desire to match group sizes means that in the simple Mendellian situation, you have twice as many heterozygous as homozygous offspring. A poorly-surviving genotype may further complicate the picture. As does the array of current multi-gene breeding techniques designed to target a controllable gene expression system to a specific tissue.
Nevertheless I wanted to address the broader points made by Sharon Astyk because they are critical for the well-intentioned, non-extremist person who only leans in the direction of Animal Rights wackaloonery.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 11:50 AM • 43 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 26, 2010
For my Twitter refusenik friends who may have missed this making the rounds this morning.
This is the title of a typical incendiary blog post
Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:38 PM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
