Now on ScienceBlogs: Science Poem Manifesto
Careerism in NIH funded biomedical science with an occasional foray into drugs of abuse such as MDMA and cannabis / marijuana.
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded biomedical research scientist.
PhysioProf is an NIH-funded basic science faculty member at a private medical school.
July 29, 2010
Category: Science Publication
This post originally appeared at the old site May 22, 2007.
I have some unusually un-cynical thoughts today.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 9:37 AM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 28, 2010
Category: Conduct of Science • Ethics
This post originally appeared at the old site Oct. 4, 2007.
Many academic honor codes boil down to two essential statements, namely "I will not cheat and I will not tolerate those who do". For "cheat" you may read any number of disreputable activities including plagiarism and research fraud. My alma mater had this sort of thing, I know the US military academies have this. Interestingly a random Google brings up some which include both components (Davidson College, Notre Dames, Florida State Univ (which as been in the academic cheating news lately), and some which do not (CU Boulder, Baylor); Wikipedia entry has a bunch of snippet Honor Codes. The first component, i.e. "don't cheat" is easily comprehended and followed. The second component, the " I will not tolerate those who do" part is the tricky one.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 7:30 AM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 27, 2010
Category: Cannabis • Chronic Pain • Opiates
Our good blogfriend JuniorProf has launched a campaign to explain why pain research matters. I am already learning lots of stuff from his older posts. Also from observations such as this one at Almost Diamonds and this one from Zuska.
The thing that caught my eye recently, though, was this post:
Drug discovery in academia and NIH, a new type of U01
This brings us to the bane of drug discovery: absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME). This is something that industry does very well.
...
ADME in academia, well, let's just say, not so much. The reasons for this are likely pretty simple: its an important area of drug development but not the most exciting, by any stretch of the imagination (sorry you ADME specialists), and it often requires all sorts of rather expensive testing in model organisms that aren't used often in academic labs. Its also highly compound-specific and this makes grant writing very hard (or so I hear).
JuniorProf then goes on to make an argument for why drug development should be done in academia and how that might work best. He then describes a recent NIH initiative that is trying to support some academic drug development effort.
Go read. Follow @juniorprofblog on Twitter or perhaps just the #painresearchmatters hashtag.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:39 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 26, 2010
Category: Day in the life of DrugMonkey
Huh, you know what? The original plan was to get started here on ScienceBlogs with a plain banner and then after a few weeks have one of those banner contests so the brilliant and creative readers could come up with something.
Wow, has it been so long? And the first time I changed the banner was for the strike.
Now it is starting to grow on me. What do you think?
Posted by DrugMonkey at 7:49 AM • 8 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Blogging • Science Communication
Ok, while I'm on housekeeping chores, might as well get this one out of the way. Been a little light on the Latest 24 Hrs channel lately hasn't it? What with all the people leaving ScienceBlogs and the Strike and all there has not really been the same level of activity around here.
So I have a charge for you. Take a look down the blogroll (appended below), yes even if you are a regular reader. Find a link that is new to you, click over there and find us all something interesting to read. Bring it back over here and drop a link in the comments, eh? Oh, and make a comment on that site about what great stuff you think it is, will ya? (only please, DearReader, do not leave one of those assy comments saying "I came over here from DrugMonkey" because those make my skin crawl.)
If you've read every thing on the blogroll and can't find any blogs you haven't seen before, well, give me something new for the blogroll!
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:39 AM • 12 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category:
I'm anticipating making some design changes for ye old swagge shoppe in the near future. Since it is just the free version of Cafepress I'll have to take down the old designs to do so.
Thought I'd put out a last call on the old stuff for a week or so. They look like the following.
In case you didn't know, you can also get items related to ScienceBlogs.com, Adventures in Ethics and Science, On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess, A Blog Around the Clock, Greg Laden's Blog and Digital Biology.
The in situ images are after the jump.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:38 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 25, 2010
Category: #FWDAOTI
This pretty much tells it as it is.
Posted by bikemonkey at 7:21 PM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Education • Mentoring • Postgraduate Training • Tribe of Science
Gerty-z of Balanced Instability blog posed an age-old problem in post-graduate education.
I was talking to a graduate student the other day. It was a hallway interaction, she had not searched me out for advice. I have known this grad student for several years, and she is one of the superstars in a highly-ranked graduate program. By every metric, she should be graduating. Now. Turns out, her advisor has been suggesting that she stick around for another year or two.
ruh roh! Conflict of Interest raises its ugly head.
I bring this up because this is not the first time I've heard a similar story. In fact I've heard of what appears to be at least one entire department that is riddled with this tendency to prolong the graduate school interval as long as possible, seemingly only to extract more value out of productive trainees.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 2:51 PM • 51 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 24, 2010
Category: Gender • MDMA • Science Communication
The following is a more casual description of a stream of thought I had about these posts I've been writing on the MDMA/PTSD paper.
takehome message, MDMA is good for treating PTSD if given in the therapy session.
one of the features of such a study is that it is going to get media attention. I was ignoring that all week so that I could blog the paper unmolested.
Trolling around the media coverage I started on a slow burn.
Going through Google hits, there was a great deal of emphasis on PTSD caused by combat stress. Angles on the story which suggested we have a big ol' problem looming (true dat) and won't it be great to have some new hope (true dat) and then doing a less than complete cockup of the facts of the paper.
Problem is that it is a small study as it is, 12 MDMA-treated, 8 placebo controls, but only ONE had combat trauma as the index trauma. ONE. The rest were mostly sexual assault, crime (not further specified) and childhood trauma (sexual assault and physical neglect). Me, I was happily bashing away at the overselling of the single combat PTSD case in my draft.
On the way home it hit me.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 4:08 PM • 7 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: MDMA • Public Health • Science Communication
I am disappointed in the mainstream, and not so mainstream, media coverage of the Mithoefer et al, 2010 paper on MDMA-assisted therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I had been holding off reading any of it because I suspected it might distract me from actually discussing the paper.
After writing up my thoughts on the paper, I went strolling around the Google News hits for MDMA to see what had been written about this paper. There was a whole lot of of really bad journalism. Sure, for the most part they got the basic facts right, but I noticed a consistent issue having to do (I assume) with journalism's penchant for selling a story they'd like to tell over the story that exists.
Let us start with the more venerable news organizations.
ABC News Ecstasy may help traumatised veterans
See the title? Pretty common to see something abut veterans or combat PTSD in the title as well as in the article body.
found that the drug seems to improve the effects of therapy in military veterans
(This part of the ABC report caused me to laugh though:
The researchers, led by Dr Rick Doblin of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
Posted by DrugMonkey at 3:08 PM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 23, 2010
Category: MDMA • Neuropharmacology
My readers will recall that I have blogged now and again about ongoing efforts to get 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), the psychoactive compound preferentially sought as Ecstasy in recreational users, approved as a medication to be used in psychotherapy. The initial attempts have focused on the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD is a seriously debilitating condition and we may not have sufficient resources and knowledge to deal with, e.g., an anticipated uptick due to the current wars that the US is prosecuting.
I introduced the MDMA/PTSD Phase I clinical trials here, noting
The short version of the theory is that the subjective properties of MDMA (empathic, inhibition lowering, etc) are consistent with helping people in difficult psychotherapeutic situations (such as for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and, supposedly, end stage cancer anxiety) make therapeutic breakthroughs during a limited number of treatment sessions of talk therapy. This is not proposed as a chronic medication like a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). The funny thing is, I approve of the concept of moving forward with clinical trials based on the available evidence.Why not? I mean PTSD can be a very devastating psychological issue and if there are treatment-resistant cases that can benefit from a limited number of MDMA exposures, great.
I concluded that particular post with this observation.
As is general practice in medicine, sometimes there are going to be risks associated with therapy. Sometimes quite substantial risks can be acceptable if the alternative is bad. However we get ourselves into a world of trouble, sometimes even losing a perfectly helpful medication, if we are not as honest as possible, up front, over the actual risks.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 10:55 PM • 36 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Grant Review • NIH Budgets and Economics
crossposting from drugmonkey.wordpress.com.
Yay!
He has a new post up in response to a request for the full regression analysis. This analysis is tasty and here was the bit that drew my attention:
A principal component analysis reveals that a single principal component accounts for 71% of the variance in the overall impact scores. This principal component includes substantial contributions from all five criterion scores, with weights of 0.57 for approach, 0.48 for innovation, 0.44 for significance, 0.36 for investigator and 0.35 for environment.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 8:26 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 22, 2010
Category: #FWDAOTI • Neuropharmacology • Quackery
A Twitt from Dirk Hanson, of the Addiction Inbox blog, pointed to the Mini Chill drink which purports to be:
..the world's only drink guaranteed to make you feel great! Our all natural blend of herbs and aminos is Dr. formulated and proven to promote relaxation, improve mental focus and even boost your mood!
Dirk made some crack about this being an alcohol enhancer and, fascinatingly, the website for this product has a whole page for cocktail recipes. Mood enhancing, healthy...and a mixer! Oh joy...
At any rate, I was searching for the Quack Miranda Warning when I clicked on the "Lab" page and I immediately noticed something funny. An icon right in the middle of the page is linked to the ingredients page which says the product contains:
four primary ingredients found in nature, all of which have been subjected to molecular research and clinical studies. These components are Valerian Root, Aminobutyric acid (GABA), Theanine and 5-HTP.
Oh this is a classic of misdirection and insinuation isn't it? "Molecular research" and "clinical studies" eh? Yet I bet not one single clinical study showing that this product has the benefits that they claim. Just guessin there. Anyway I'd best leave the quack busting to the real experts like PalMD and Abel Pharmboy, so let's return to the iconography.
That icon, linked to their supposed evidence mind you, reminded me of this ResearchBlogging.org icon. When you put them together like this it is obvious that the Mini Chill icon is not an exact duplicate. But still. It evokes the ResearchBlogging icon, does it not? Surely this is not just me?
If you will recall the ResearchBlogging icon is the descendant of a prior icon. The goal of this icon was, of course, to evoke rapid identification with the intent of ResearchBlogging.org itself. I.e., to form a sort of Good Housekeeping seal of approval that the post you were reading met certain basic standards.
If this is not simply a coincidence, I find it really interesting that some quack product would try to coopt the authority of ResearchBlogging.org. Among other things it would seem that marketing donks think that the ResearchBlogging.org is actually meaningful to people. That's good at least.
I never did find the Quack Miranda Warning.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 10:33 PM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Blogging • Tribe of Science
crossposting from drugmonkey.wordpress.com.
By now many of you have read Bora Zivkovic's lengthy Op/Ed on the history and future of scientific blogging. This was written upon the sad occasion of his departure from blogging at ScienceBlogs.com. An impromptu tribute to Bora popped up on blogs and Twitter.
The central themes are the essence of Bora. That he encouraged a nascent blogger (e.g., scicurious). Connected them with the greater blog community. Sent them their first traffic. Etc. And from the more established folks the themes of improving their blogging-through "bloggable" alerts, link fests, carnivals and more. Bora created the Open Laboratory end-of-year print summaries of the best-in-blogging. He and another collaborator put what is now the go-to meeting of the year for online science communication, SciOnline.
These themes are but the tip of the iceberg because of course every person has an individual story, even if only in 140 characters or less.
Together this evidence reveals the central place Bora Zivkovic occupies when it comes to scientific communication online. It also reveals the deep appreciation many have for his efforts.
Abel Pharmboy notes on his new blog that there is still a disconnect between Bora's labors and his ability to make a living from what he does. Abel suggests that it is time for the community to step up and deliver a more tangible appreciation for Bora.
let's take "I Owe Bora" to a new and literal level. Lots of you know that he has been in a bit of financial difficulty and I know that he's too proud to ask for help. In standing for his principles, he's giving up over $100/month from ScienceBlogs and the network is still two months behind on their payments. Several people have asked me how they might help out The Blogfather. So, I'd like to put up a PayPal donation button for all of us to show our appreciation to Bora and put our money where our mouths are (and tweets and posts are).
Posted by DrugMonkey at 6:16 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 20, 2010
Category: Grant Review • NIH • NIH Budgets and Economics
NIGMS Director Jeremy Berg posted a tantalizing graph on the relationship between the eventual voted Overall Impact score for R01s assigned to his Institute and the Significance criterion on the Feedback Loop blog. This drew some interest from YHN and writedit as well as the commentariat. Nothing like a bunch of comments to stimulate the blogger to give up some more, eh?
Director Berg has a new post up in which he posts additional correlation graphs. He ends with this comment.
The availability of individual criterion scores provides useful data for analyzing study section behavior. In addition, these criterion scores are important parameters that can assist program staff in making funding recommendations.
So let us connect the dots just a little bit. Remember this older post in which Director Berg came by to link us to the NIGMS data on grant awards by percentile rank? And on question indicated that as far as he knows his Institute is the only one to publish grant review data?
So I think Director Berg is probably pursuing a bit of an agenda to try to speak to other ICs of the NIH about the value of evaluating (and publishing) grant review outcomes.
Here's where you come in. Nothing like traffic and comments on the NIGMS Feedback Loop blog entries that are of interest to this readership to help support Director Berg's case. We scientists actually care about what they are doing and we pay attention. We seek to talk to others about their grant outcomes to refine our understanding of the process. And the most junior of us are the most needing of info...and yet the most to sea because they don't have as many connections.
I submit that it will actually make the POs jobs easier if we have data instead of half-baked rumors and above-the-waterline partial view. Go comment!
Posted by DrugMonkey at 11:34 AM • 36 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 19, 2010
Category: Blogging • Day in the life of DrugMonkey
sourceA post up on A Blog Around the Clock today indicates that Bora Zivkovic, aka coturnix, will be leaving ScienceBlogs.com.
As one might expect, his departure post is an epic blog-tome which offers a great deal of perspective and history of the science blog as media form.
All I can say is Holy Schmoly. If there is one personality that has shaped this place as a network of science blogging it is Bora. Yes, PZ pulls in the traffic. True.
But in terms of connecting and sharing and having actual cross-blog discussions, inside and outside of Scienceblogs.com, Bora is the root, the DNA and the glue. Pick your metaphor, pick your analogy.
Wow.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 12:14 PM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 16, 2010
Category: Blogging • Science Communication • Tribe of Science
It is a young blog but there are extenuating circumstances. I think you will enjoy Take it to the Bridge authored by commenter namnezia.
The station at the end of tenure track
In practice though, even if you are tenured, you still need to fund your research, and a two-year wild goose chase with no positive outcome will result in no publications and make it harder and harder to renew your funding. So any advantages tenure gives you are counteracted by the need to stay funded.
so then you go down there and have to maneuver this large shop vac through the clutter of old baby paraphernalia which is all over the basement, and as you are vacuuming up the water you realize you are only wearing your socks and they are wet and the extension cord for the vacuum is sitting in a puddle, and you realize you have not thought this through before starting because you are exhausted after putting the kids to bed who were acting like they had eight espressos
Being a big fan of James Brown, in the middle of the song "Like a Sex Machine", as it is reaching one of its many crescendos, the rhythm steadies and he banters with the band - "Are you ready to take it to the bridge?", meaning the bridge of the song, "Can we take it to the bridge? Take it to the bridge...ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR...", and the the band bursts into this funky guitar riff which just makes you want to pee in your pants with joy.
Word, word and word.
welcome to the author side of the blogosphere namnezia.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 5:45 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 15, 2010
Category: Grant Review • NIH Budgets and Economics
NIGMS blogger (oh, and yeah, the Director) Jeremy Berg has posted a very interesting set of data on the review of grants.
Director Berg examined the scoring for the 360 R01 applications assigned to his Institute for the October 2009 Council round. This, you will recall, was the first one to use the current scoring scheme . So in some senses this should be regarded as the baseline value.
The analysis Director Berg shows in the graph is the correlation between the "Significance" score and the Overall Impact Score. If you will recall, there has been a bit of grumbling on the part of reviewers and applicants alike about the weird disconnect of the new system.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 4:35 PM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Careerism • Education • Tribe of Science
A post from Mike the Mad Biologist takes a shot at a recent post on the Chronicle of Higher Education's site. Hackner and Dreifus pursue a thesis that Universities need to return to their roots, or "roots" I should say, and refocus on the education of undergraduate students. The part that got Mike the Mad....well, Mad, was this:
Spin off medical schools, research centers, and institutes. Postgraduate training has a place, as long as it doesn't divert faculties from working with undergraduates or preoccupy presidents, who should be focusing on education--not angling for another center on antiterrorist technologies. For people who want to do research, plenty of other places exist--the Brookings Institution, the Rand Corporation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute--all of which do excellent work without university ties. Princeton University has succeeded quite nicely without a medical school--which often becomes the most costly complex on a campus, commandeering resources, attention, and even mission. In fact, the "school" often becomes a minute part of a medical complex: Johns Hopkins has fewer than 500 medical students, but atop them sits an empire with more than 30,000 employees.
Posted by DrugMonkey at 1:29 PM • 37 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
