career development

This is why I blog: from rock bottom to top tier

terrasig — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:02:19 +0000

This is why I blog: from rock bottom to top tier

Last July we wrote about the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and spoke of Buzz Aldrin's autobiography about his battle with alcoholism in the years following. The post drew a comment from a reader who I've renamed "Anon."

Thank you so much for this post.

I am a recovering drug addict and am in the process of applying to graduate programs. I have a stellar GPA, have assisted as an undergraduate TA, and have been engaged in research for over a year.

I also have felony and was homeless for 3 years.

I don't hide my recovery from people once I know them, but I sometimes, especially at school, am privy to what people think of addicts when they don't know one is sitting next to them. It scares me to think of how to discuss my past if asked at an admissions interview. Or whether it will keep me from someday working at a university.

I've seen a fair amount of posts on ScienceBlogs concerning mental health issues and academia, but this is the first I've seen concerning humanizing addiction and reminding us that addiction strikes a certain amount of the population regardless of status, family background or intelligence.

I really appreciate this post. Thank you.

Regular readers know that while I am not a substance abuse researcher, many drugs of abuse do come from my research area, natural products. Think cocaine, morphine and other opiates, psilocybin, mescaline, etc.

I also have special compassion for folks with the biochemical predisposition to substance dependence, especially as I come from a long line of alcoholics including my beloved father who I lost way too early.

With that said, I'm sure you understand how Anon's comment hit me and how grateful I was for her appreciation. So moving was her comment in fact that I raised it to its own post. Since many of you readers are in academia and serve on graduate admissions committees, I figured you'd have some good advice for Anon.

Well, you did. Here's the comment thread as a reminder.

And guess what? I got this e-mail from her a couple of days ago.

Hi! Remember me from last fall? You graciously posted a letter I wrote you in response to an article about alcoholism, and I got advice from people about how to go about applying to grad school given my criminal record...forgive me, but I no longer have our previous emails, and so also, your actual name. I apologize!
Well, I wanted to drop you a note and let you know how it all turned out...it went smashingly well. I was accepted at every school I applied to, and I will be attending [Ivy League U] in the fall! I did great, even received a [major fellowship award].

About half of the schools I applied to specifically asked about a criminal record. After reading the comments on your blog around how some schools separate the criminal questions from the remainder of the app, I called each school that asked and inquired about how their process worked. They all separated that section, and it was reviewed by the Deans usually. While I had to provide additional explanation of exactly how I ended up in the position to commit my crimes (homeless and addicted is the easy answer) at one institution, each institution that asked about my record accepted me in the end.

So, exciting days for me! Just thought I'd let you know how it wrapped up...or is just beginning, depending on how it's looked at! By the way, I also recently celebrated 5 years clean. Now, I'm atheist, so my H.P. [Higher Power] doesn't REALLY work like this, but check it out. I received my acceptance letter and offers of full financial support from [Ivy League U] and [another Ivy League U] at the beginning of March. They were both dated March 2. Which is my clean date. Hot damn, ain't life something?!?

Thank you for your help last year, I appreciated it a lot!

Take care!
[Anon]

Hot damn, indeed!

As you might guess, I am beside myself with joy for my dear commenter. I am most encouraged that the system worked in a way that a former addict has been rewarded for busting her ass and getting her life back together.

And even after four years of doing this bloggy thing, I am amazed at the wonderful people we draw here. Yes, yes, the internet is often an ugly place. But this community - I'm talking to you, Dear Reader - put up over 60 comments of advice for Anon at this post on how she might approach the grad school application process and interviews, particularly in having to explain a three-year gap in her work and education history on top of the concern in addressing her criminal record. You gave someone who needed it some very unique insights that I doubt would have been possible before this medium existed.

Wow. Just wow.

So to those of you who dial us up every day: take pride in the assistance you've offered this outstanding and dedicated woman and helped her achieve her dream.

Congratulations, Anon - and thank you, readers.

terrasig Sat, 04/10/2010 - 04:02

Tags

Academia

Blogging community

career development

drugs of abuse

Love for Terra Sig readers

Women in science and medicine

Categories

Education

I love this! Love it! This is what I love about the internet.

i got all choked up reading this

Congrats Anon. Best of luck in grad school!

That is FANTASTIC. Best of luck, Anon. Knock 'em dead in grad school!

that is great. congrats! I'll praise the Lord for you! Amen.

Wonderful! It's good to hear about people growing and moving forward and using resources like this community.
Keeps me going to work another week.
Of course, it'll probably help me justify staying up too late online, but, hey, I'm opportunistic.
I heart the internets.

Thank you all!! I also &hearts the internet and the community it can offer! Thank you for your support, advice and encouragement, and I am SO looking forward to grad school...

anon

Congratulations, Anon! Your story (and others like yours) helps to give me back some of my faith in humanity and hope for the future.

I wish you all the best in grad school!

I remember the original comments and posts very well, as they did a great impression on me, and it's great to hear this - congratulations anon.

One of my best students was a former San Quentin inmate (for manslaughter). This man had a huge impact on my whole class (English comp.) by being volunteering often to go over this topic and how he planned to approach the essay structure while the rest of the class remained timidly silent (mostly younger folks). I won't soon forget him, though I do not remember his name. His history: Navy Seal discharged for having asthma; drug addict alcoholic unable to deal with life beyond being a Navy Seal; bouncer at a bar where he killed a patron; San Quentin inmate; over-the-road trucker paralyzed from the waist down in a tragic accident; father, husband, grandfather; best community college student ever. Even introduced me to Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit," which I played to each class over subsequent semesters. To all of you out there with struggles, I say, "Keep on keeping on." You'll get there. And who knows who you'll impact for the better, once you turn your life to the better.

This made me smile.

A lot.

Howsitgoin', eh?: Nature offers $10,000CDN for outstanding research mentors

terrasig — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:35:56 +0000

Howsitgoin', eh?: Nature offers $10,000CDN for outstanding research mentors

I'm delighted to see those $32/article access fees going to good use: Nature is accepting nominations to recognize two outstanding research mentors in Canada with cash prizes.

Since they were launched in 2005, Nature's awards for mentoring in science have rewarded outstanding research mentors in Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia and South Africa. The competition is held within one country each year, in the belief that mentoring reflects not just notions of good scientific practice and creativity that are universal, but also scientific traditions and cultures that are, at least to a degree, national. . .

. . .This year's competition is taking place in Canada. Two prizes of Can$10,000 (US$9,900) will be awarded, one for a mid-career mentor and one for lifetime achievement in mentoring.

As regular readers know, I love my Canadian colleagues - several of whom I consider to be excellent research mentors.

It's pretty easy to be a crappy mentor. That's why there are so many.

But good mentoring and career development skills takes very special people - those who acknowledge a responsibility to those who choose to train with them and who care that the accomplishments of their scientific progeny can have as much or greater impact than their own direct scientific contributions. Sadly, the quality of one's mentoring efforts rarely figures into faculty promotion and tenure decisions. So any effort to recognize and reward outstanding research mentoring is a wonderful idea.

Nominations are being accepted through 30 June 2010 and the full details can be found at http://go.nature.com/CKbeC4.

terrasig Wed, 04/07/2010 - 14:35

Tags

Canada

career development

mentoring

Welcome back Nature Network blogs!

terrasig — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:02:10 +0000

Welcome back Nature Network blogs!

Looking all shiny and spiffy today are our colleagues over at the blogging network hosted by Nature. After some downtime to install a new blogging platform, Movable Type 4, Nature Network blogs are back with a much more pleasing aesthetic and a more user-friendly interface.

For those readers who don't have their own blog, the publishing software behind the scenes makes a big difference in how easily (or not) you can post text, photos and multimedia, and add all sorts of widgets and personalization features. I started, for example, on Blogspot with the Blogger interface (owned by Google) but had I to do it over again today I would have used Wordpress where, for example, our favorite literary bartender scribbler50 works his weekly shift at Behind The Stick. Both of these are free services that allow you to start a blog in literally 30 min. Wordpress also has a local version of their software you can use to further personalize blog templates and host a more SEO version of your blog.

If this is gibberish to you, just go over to the new Nature Networks interface. It now has a nice Recent Posts list analogous to the Last 24 Hours feature at ScienceBlogs.That was actually the original frontpage of ScienceBlogs when launched in January 2006 and I still find that to be the more useful for a quick look at things than the main frontpage here.

But some cool stuff Nature Networks now has is a Most Commented page to follow the posts with the most involved conversations, a Recent Comments page, and a Popular Blogs tab that permits one to list blogs by activity (which I assume to mean page views), ascending and descending alphabetical order, and by the wonderfully British term: recency.

One still is required to register to comment at Nature Network blogs, a feature that for good or for bad is generally an energy-of-activation barrier for some that limits the conversation. But what I *love* about the new Nature Network format is that I can read the type. The default text is a larger and nicer font than what I have here and there is some white space between the lines that makes it more friendly to my 40-ish eyes. (By the way, bloggers can alter their text settings here to make the appearance more friendly as does Revere(s) at Effect Measure but I don't yet know enough HTML to work on my own custom style sheet, or CSS).

Here's a nice example of the text from my fellow Colorado expat colleague, Kristi Vogel at The Gulf Stream. You've got a nice wide main text column and then two right-hand column for profiles, widgets, and other typical blog detritus. It also looks as though bloggers will have more opportunity to personalize the appearance of their blogs to provide better distinguishing between the writers and cultivation of their personal brand.

Oh yeah, and there's content as well. For a nice example, take a gander at this insightful post by Dr. Eva Amsen at her blog, Expression Patterns, on why she chose not to do a postdoctoral fellowship.

So, happy day to you my colleagues at Nature Network blogs. Enjoy your shiny new toy!

terrasig Thu, 03/04/2010 - 03:02

Tags

Blogging community

career development

Thanks for sharing and possibility to comment! Did some commenter mention Russian Brides ads? So, another places to look for pretty Russian brides are:
E - Russian Brides
http://www.e-russianbrides.com/
or Aurora Dating Service
http://www.auroradating.com/

Thanks for this update, Abel.

BTW, those who have legibility problems, especially reading longer online documents, may want to try the Readability browser add-on -- it works om most browsers and on PCs, Macs, and Linux machines. Just play around pushing radio buttons at the Readability page until you get something that's good for your eyes, then drag the link to your browser's toolbar to be used whenever you need it. (Note that Readability doesn't work well for main pages of web sites; it's more for reading longer text/documents online.)
http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability

Thanks, Abel.

I'm sure the new platform will be great to work with, once I stop getting thwarted by an Invalid Login message, and can actually access my blog. Oh NOES! ;-) Temporary glitches are to be expected with a site overhaul - undoubtedly it will be fixed soon. Just as long as ads for psychics and nutritional woo supplements and Russian brides don't appear in the sidebars all of a sudden ....

A most commented list? I thought they only cared about the quality, not quantity of their comments. :)

oh, they'll learn, bsci, they'll learn.

I see they also have linkable comments which is a huge positive step. I'm hoping they will customize their appearances as time goes on- individual banners, yo!

overall though, a great new look Nature Network!

Individual banners would be awesome, DrugMonkey!

For some reason, I thought we had a "Most commented" tab on the old NN platform - I didn't use it, so I can't be sure.

I see they also have linkable comments which is a huge positive step.

Yes, that feature will be especially useful for those who do scientific "research" and documentation on teh raging blagwarz du jour. ;-)

So, are they letting you install SiteMeter code, KristiV?

I don't know about Sitemeter, DrugMonkey, but there is supposed to be some sort of page view metric in the new platform. I imagine it's like the Dashboard on Wordpress.

I say "imagine", because I still can't access my blog, or even log in to comment. :-( Maybe I should revive my poor old neglected Wordpress blag.

Thanks for the nice words. The biggest change for me is that I can finally create/edit blog posts from my Mac Desktop or iPhone - great for writing drafts in places without internet access.

Amy Bishop UAH case: What role should personality or collegiality play in tenure decisions?

terrasig — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:02:44 +0000

Amy Bishop UAH case: What role should personality or collegiality play in tenure decisions?

Valued commenter wc just left us a link to one of the most insightful articles to date on Dr. Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama in Huntsville biology professor charged in the shooting deaths of three colleagues where two other professors and an administrative assistant were injured.

In today's Decatur Daily, staff writer Eric Fleischauer has an extended interview with UAH psychology professor Eric Seemann. You really should read the whole thing because it provides an inside view of Bishop's personality and relationships. But here is a critical passage:

Despite her excellent research ability, Seemann was not surprised she struggled to obtain tenure.

"Amy was kind of hard to get along with," he said. "I've talked to people who said, 'Wow, she can be really arrogant,' or be really headstrong. I knew that to be true. But at the same time she was brilliant. She was really one of UAH's rising research stars. People I know in biological sciences would say, 'She's a great researcher, but she's lousy to work with.' "

She was brilliant and she knew it.

"At one meeting I was with Amy, she was complaining to a group of us. She said she was denied tenure not because she was a lousy researcher -- she's not, quite the opposite -- and not because she didn't have good classes, she believed she did -- I think some might say otherwise -- but because she was accused of being arrogant, aloof and superior. And she said, 'I am.'

I recently had the opportunity to lead an effort to draft from scratch a reappointment, promotion, and tenure document for a newly-established department. With a committee of deans and department chairs, the final document pretty much included your typical quantitative requirements for teaching, research, and service. But one dean strongly suggested to me that we include a section on collegiality, defined loosely as the ability to interact constructively with individuals for the greater good of the department and the university. While wording to that effect was included, it was not explicitly defined as an evaluative criterion.

In academia, we often tolerate a great deal of destructive and defiant behavior that disrupts the organization in the name of "genius," perceived external stature and, perhaps most importantly, grant dollars (which generate indirect cost dollars for the institution). When describing some situations I've encountered to my colleagues in other non-academic businesses, their conclusion was that some of these people would often be let go if such behavior occurred in their workplaces.

For this consideration, let us step away for a moment from the horrible tragedy in Huntsville. Let us assume that an assistant professor there adequately met all of the explicit quantitative criteria for promotion and tenure in terms of teaching, research, and service. I would expect, however, that if the candidate under consideration was not an otherwise constructive member of the organization, comments in this regard would have been included in the chair's recommendation to the college dean's promotion and tenure committee based on the deliberations of the departmental promotion and tenure committee.

The questions for you, dear academic reader are:

1. Do you think that lack of collegiality is grounds for denial of tenure for a candidate that otherwise meets the basic quantitative criteria outlined in university guidelines?

2. Do you feel that collegiality - or whatever you want to call it: teamwork, cooperation - should be an important factor in making academic tenure decisions?

Update Feb 15 - One of the most collegial academics I know both online and IRL, Prof Janet Stemwedel, has an excellent post this morning on her blog, Adventures in Ethics and Science, entitled, "Collegiality Matters." She expands there on what comprises academic collegiality and why she thinks it is an essential consideration in tenure decision.

terrasig Sun, 02/14/2010 - 07:02

Tags

university of alabama

Academia

career development

Amy Bishop was able to get away just like many of her
ethnic fellows can get away all the time.

http://podblanc.com/amy-bishop-jewish-3-pump-amy-adopts-haitianmrs-trin…

Although Amy Bishop had a difficult personality, so do many people and they don't kill others. There is a strong possibility that Ms. Bishop was taking an antidepressant to help her cope with a denied tenure.

The Physicians Desk Reference states that SSRI antidepressants and all antidepressants can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, hostility, etc. These side effects can also appear during withdrawal. Also, these adverse reactions are not listed as Rare but are listed as either Frequent or Infrequent.

Go to www.SSRIstories.com where there are over 3,600 cases, with the full media article available, involving bizarre murders, suicides, school shootings/incidents [53 of these]workplace violence, and murder-suicides - all of which involve SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc, . The media article usually tells which SSRI antidepressant the perpetrator was taking or had been using.

An important piece missing in this well thought out article is that whether one is "difficult", "arrogant", "superior", or whatever, disappointments in one's professional career are normally not reacted to by gunfire and murder! Dr. Bishop might have been a talented scientist, but she was clearly mentally ill and unsuited to an academic life in the very least. I sympathize with her but that feeling cannot supersede what I feel for her victims.

I believe that collegiality should be a considered a deciding factor. What good is a genius if it isn't for the greater good especially in academia. If your an intellectual individual working in an academic environment, how can others benefit or wouldn't you want others to benefit from it. Social skills is important. Not much can get done when working with a difficult individual, I find it similar to running into a wall. What happened at that University is a tragedy.

We need to separate mental illness from personality to comment on the two questions, given that the UAH case is the impetus for asking.

In our society we deal with mental illness poorly, and those in the health care professions know more about the ingredients for that situation than I do. Universities deal even less well with mentally ill employees and also employees engaged in criminal activity (sexual harassment would top my list as an example). To what extent UAH recognized the potential for mental illness or criminal behavior in the Bishop case, those of us on the outside cannot know.

On the question of personality and collegiality required for tenure: I've given that question a great deal of thought in the past 33 years of being on the faculty at UCD. My short answer is NO, it should not, if the person meets the research, teaching and service components of the job. On the other hand, personality should be expected to affect those components, particularly teaching and service, and so personality is indeed embedded in the requirements for advancement in academia. But if a colleague has a productive research program, and a good teaching record, including mentoring graduate students, then whether person is simply unlikable for some reason to her/his peers should not matter.

Missing from this discussion is recognition of the risk young scientists run and the extraordinary dedication that their job requires. Academic scientists often "train" for half their professional lives before becoming eligible for tenure. "Trainees" are often underpaid in comparison with other professionals (MDs, lawyers) with similar education and experience. Then, after all of this personal investment, we come to tenure. Often, this hinges on the level of research funding the candidate has, and this depends on factors that the candidate cannot fully control. Professional opportunities for scientists who have been denied tenure are limited, so it is clear why the tenure decision is a source of anxiety to junior scientists and failure to gain tenure is a source of frustration and despair.

This is not to condone illegal or "non-collegial" behavior by anyone, but to shed light on the risks and inadequate compensation of trainees. Who would enter this field fully aware of the facts? If we want continued technical excellence at US universities and continuing innovation to support industry, we must do more to support science trainees and ensure that their personal investments and the national investment in their training are not wasted.

I'd assume that the ultimate goal of tenure decisions is to maximize the quantity and quality of whatever mixture of teaching and research the institution making the tenure decision does.

In the trivial case of having a choice of candidates, of roughly equivalent qualification, choosing based on personality traits would seem wholly reasonable: at worst, the rest of your faculty and staff are incrementally happier, at best, the tenure candidate with the better personality ends up being more productive through collaboration.

In the less trivial cases, where you are trading off between genius and pleasantness, it doesn't seem like there would be any general purpose rule, it would depend on the character of the work being done. If effective collaboration is essential, being an unapproachable asshole would be a major impediment to getting good work done. If, on the other hand, superior ability, along with the assistance of people willing to put up with you because you are Just That Good, happens to produce excellent results, it would be hard to justify axing somebody for being unlikeable.

I'm glad to see this paragraph written:

"In academia, we often tolerate a great deal of destructive and defiant behavior that disrupts the organization in the name of "genius," perceived external stature and, perhaps most importantly, grant dollars (which generate indirect cost dollars for the institution). When describing some situations I've encountered to my colleagues in other non-academic businesses, their conclusion was that some of these people would often be let go if such behavior occurred in their workplaces."

I think it's long past time to be asking why this situation is allowed to continue. It makes the news when the tragedy is high profile, but the fact is that smaller personal tragedies occur constantly because such behavior is tolerated, and in fact rewarded. Many academic behaviors have already been litigated in companies, long ago, and industry has learned that tolerating them has a price. For a bunch of smart people, academia is way behind the curve on this one, but I expect modernity will catch us in the end.

Thanks for writing this.

I would say that it depends heavily on what kind of work they are doing, what type of teaching position they have and other factors like that. There have been many brilliant scientists throughout the years who are just not very good at explaining concepts in simple terms and are not generally good speakers or communicators. They may be excellent with their subject matter, but put them behind a podium and tell them to give an address to a small group and they'll studder, say the wrong thing, confuse people or bore them to death.

I have met a couple brilliant researchers who actually come across as shy and are not outgoing at all. I did some computer work for a guy who was an amazingly intelligent researcher in the mathematics of chaos theory, but he never returned phone calls and was impossible to deal with in general.

If we're talking about a job that involves primarily pure research, then that's fine. If it involves a combination of research and some graduate advising or teaching, then it might also work out.

However, if we're talking about an undergraduate professor or biology who is going to be regularly teaching, holding office hours, advising students and so on then it won't cut it. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are, if you can't teach then you shouldn't be teaching - you should find a role that better suits your skills. Aside from being bad at it, my guess is that a person like that would be absolutely miserable having to spend time trying to explain things to undergrads.

As far as teamwork and cooperation - again, it depends on the setting and type of research. If it's something that generally requires a lot of team work and very little individual research, then you have to be a team player. It doesn't matter if you're brilliant, if you can't get the job done because you can't work in that setting. If it's something that is mostly individual research, it might not be an issue.

The real question is whether she did her job well. The reason why she did or didn't do her job well could be personality or intellect. It really doesn't matter. If you don't cut it, you don't cut it.

Too often, the boss uses time spent away from work to decide what he really thinks about a person and his future in the workplace.

If three people are equally qualified to _be allowed to stay_ (!), "personality" shouldn't be used to decide who leaves.

No adult should be punished for not sharing the group's tastes in entertainment.

If someone is said to be "not a good teammate", it should be understood to mean that the person refuses to shoulder his fair share of the group's unpleasant tasks.

"but because she was accused of being arrogant, aloof and superior. And she said, 'I am.' "

She murdered 3 people , yes murdered not killed because she acted in a premeditated way. Planned (or went) with a gun to a faculty meeting. I think of course she should go to jail and rot.
But lets think a little about sexism and tenure.
Was she an easy person to work with?, probably not, working with an arrogant person is beyond impossible. But think about this, if a I man would have acted this way (arrogant/superior). He would have been just an arrogant ass but a genius non the less and thus would have obtained tenure anyway. I woman cannot brag about being a genius , we must giggle and smile and be coy and shy, otherwise you are an impossible bitch.
This whole thing has a sexist side that most people are choosing to overlook.

Is the author aware that this woman shot and killed her brother in her early 20's....this would seem to be the major FAct to consider in this case!

Indeed, everyone - the outcome here is tragic and extreme. And not to minimize this, as I spent a lot of time in my previous post on this case, here I am questioning how we value/devalue certain behaviors in the academy.

I agree wholeheartedly with those of you who raise the point about mental illness. The spectrum of CNS biochemical dysfunction is sadly stigmatized in our society, even more so in academia and even in settings such as medicine and neuroscience where we should know better. Voices like the Johns Hopkins clinical psychologist Kay Redfield Jamison, who lives with bipolar disorder, as few and far between.

When does narcissism or other personality disorders become diseases deserving of consideration under ADA guidelines? When does just being a dysfunctional, disruptive arrogant ass result in consequences in academia?

I really appreciate anon's point (#7) and thank her/him for appreciating that part of this post. We do indeed tolerate a lot of crap in academia that wouldn't fly in other businesses.

On the other hand, we do a lot of things in academia that are unlike other businesses: tenure decisions ask that every faculty member meet the same exact criteria without appreciating that each person has a subset of strengths that together improve the organization. My colleague, Dr. Janet Stemwedel, held forth on this very point the other day at her own excellent blog, Adventures in Ethics and Science, where she presents a superb argument for why we should do away with, "The idea that tenure should require dazzling excellence at research, teaching, and service."

The decision for tenure, even if it's supposed to be made based on basic quantitative criteria, will never be a truly objective process. Even if lack of collegiality is NOT considered grounds for denial of tenure... someone who is obnoxious or arrogant may find themselves denied for some other more "official" reason. These decisions are fraught with politics. In theory, I would say that lack of collegiality should be considered but then who defines collegiality? I think that some very accomplished, politically savvy indivisuals might get through anyway regardless of interpersonal skills.

The world of academia is so fraught with giant egos, arrogance, and politics that it's a more complicated issue. In an ideal world, I think that candidates with better people skills, who are more adept at teamwork, etc should be favored.

Re: post #6:
"I'd assume that the ultimate goal of tenure decisions is to maximize the quantity and quality of whatever mixture of teaching and research the institution making the tenure decision does."
Tenure is part of the feudalistic structure in academia, ostensibly there only to promote research, academic freedom, rigor and to protect the professor from reprisal from grading too toughly or spending time on unpopular curriculum and the like. It does some of these things, but what it does vastly more of is to produce aging, lazy, self-satisfied professors who won out in the tenure hustle, while in their prime. The real labor that benefits the college is then done by systematically tortured and underpaid adjuncts.
Get rid of tenure, form a sensible system of ranking and job security and measures of academic freedom to all college teachers, pay those on the bottom much better, and offer grants for research.

I was terminated without cause because of a personality conflict with a new headmaster hired after I had been well established at the school. I was and still am taking these drugs mentioned, i.e., zoloft, wellbutrin, clonopin, lunesta, I also own and know how to use several guns. The school stole one of my designs (I was the art teacher and I am a painter, fiber artist, and graphic designer) and refused to pay me even though I never signed an IP contract giving them total control over my artwork. They had no reason to let me go and no rightful claim to my personal property but they did it anyway. Of course, I was upset, but it never even crossed my mind to retaliate in ANY way, let alone even think of causing physical or mental harm to anyone. I also have a pretty high opinion of my talents but I am reasonable enough to understand sometimes things don't go as planned so you get another plan. Amy Bishop has her degree, her research record and had an opportunity to make another plan. There are so many people in this world right now who are in much more desperate situations than she was and they aren't just going around killing people. I'm still not teaching 5 years later but I'm still working on a new plan. And it doesn't involve violence!

Suppose it depends on the level of collegiality required. Sometimes people just don't have the wiring for good social skills. They may get along well with others, are found to be generally pleasant, do an excellent job, but they are unable to do the small talk or schmoozing, and avoid social functions as those make them uncomfortable.

They often can be blunt or even appear rude, and while they may later recognize what they said was rude or inappropriate, they don't understand why it was--only that others think it was (i.e. note to self: if someone asks you for an honest opinion, they don't want an honest opinion).

We can't discriminate against someone with a physical handicap, but we do it all the time against someone with a social skill handicap. If a person is an abrasive or divisive person then perhaps they're not suited for working with others,and in those cases, deny them a position where they will create friction or a poisonous workplace.

But too often the schmoozer, the one with the great social skills, is picked over the better qualified, more brilliant, but slightly socially inept person who would get along well with others given the time needed to adjust to strangers in his/her environment.

Too much emphasis is put on the person who makes others feel at ease when the more important qualifications for the actual work are overlooked. Hire the person who makes you feel good, not the person who is good--seeing that in action many times is very frustrating over a lifetime, especially if others are getting full-time jobs and you're having to take contracts, often moving just to find work, giving up a stable life in one spot, no way to own a home or raise a family because you never know where you'll be 6 months from now or if you'll have money coming in.

Put all that onto a person who has poor social skills, is probably a bit of a loner and due to all the moving is single, and perhaps given their poor coping skills many of them will have some sort of mental episode (most, fortunately, do not kill others, but still suffer from depression, breakdowns, suicide, or just drop out of society altogether).

No answers here. Introverts might have invented the world, but extroverts are the ones running it, and they don't understand introverts very well at all.

Hope you're feeling better, Abel.
-dan

Let's be honest and include collegiality as one the explicit requirements for tenure. When it is not made explicit, those offended by a lack of collegiality go on a witchhunt to drum up some other lame excuse to fire the candidate.

Is there any evidence other than conjecture that Dr. Bishop has a mental illness? Until she has a diagnosis, we should avoid jumping to that conclusion. As a person with a serious mental illness who also manages to hide it from coworkers, I cringe every time something like this happens because the first assumption is that the person is mentally ill. The stigma is hard enough without adding to it by lumping people with mental illnesses in with everyone else who commits a heinous crime.

For the already tenured faculty in a department voting on tenure, the vote is basically one of "Do I want to spend the rest of my life interacting with this person on a daily basis?" It is thus wholly appropriate that being a flaming asshole is relevant to the decision. Of course, this appropriate consideration can also serve as cover for illegitimate--and possibly illegal--reasons for not wanting to spend the rest of one's life interacting with someone.

Regarding question #2 (which is the easier) I would answer that certainly collegiality should be considered. I suppose a special dispensation might be made for an insufferable genius from time to time. But the value of such a burdensome intellect should be weighed against the damage it will do to others. There is no "extra" value to having a genius around, apart from the output of his or her work and the net effect on the department.

I think these are the same sorts of calculations all employers make, and that academia just weighs certain qualities differently.

Well, in the humanities tenure rejections based on subjective criteria has led to departments where a pretty narrow perspective on the subject at hand blatantly perpetuates itself among the junior tenured faculty.

What you get is a group that is surprisingly homogeneous in terms of outlook, not best teachers, researchers and thinkers available.

OTOH: obviously these subjective factors can't be discounted altogether.

Perhaps the best solution is to ask for a supermajority in favor of rejections for subjective reasons?

P.S. @Randall 9: Yes! The chair of the department where I worked for a while did just that. He discriminated against someone who did not drink alcohol. He insisted on having departmental meetings at the local pub, and while everyone ordered alcoholic drinks, one person, "Chris", did not.

It didn't matter that it was because Chris physically couldn't drink alcohol, the chair felt as if he was being judged for drinking. He regularly made snide remarks to others that revealed his insecurity, and his teasing of Chris started becoming condescending, telling guests something like, "We'll all go out for drinks, except for Chris, who will just drink milk".

Chris was very good, well-liked by students, received top teaching marks on evaluations, was very knowledgeable about many things outside their field, was rather funny and witty once relaxed a bit, but after 5 years of contract work, Chris wasn't hired for the full-time position.

Instead it which was given to a newer and less qualified person who just happened to be a great storyteller and shared the chairs preference in alcohol (Guinness). I was so disgusted I made a formal complaint as did others. The chair was demoted (in that he wasn't returned to the chair position when the renewal came up 3 months later), but Chris still was out of a job.

I suspect the type of academics that exhibit a lack of collegiality in day to day interactions with peers are likely to engage in unethical behavior in other professional activities, such as reviewing papers, reviewing grants, writing reference letters etc... This tolerance of destructive and bullying behavior in academia reflects a much broader issue with ethics.

Post #22 is further evidence to support my remarks in post #14. The chair depicted by Mr. Andrews would not have held inebriated department meetings if he did not have tenure, and if he had, he could have been fired (as appears appropriate.)
In what other job are you so completely protected? President of The United States?
Ask Bill Clinton what it was like to be impeached.
State Senator? Ask Eliot Spitzer.
Attorney? Can you spell "d-i-s-b-a-r-r-e-d?

Steven (#14) is on the right track. The original purpose of tenure was to protect academic research in controversial areas of thought and practice. Things like stem cell research or homoerotic photography, for example. It has become distorted and redefined by individual institutions to the point where there is no one REAL definition of "tenure" leaving it wide open to interpretation by those applying for (or being denied) tenure. In some institutions tenure and promotion automatically go hand in hand. Tenure was never meant to be the brass ring of lifelong job security because you played the game well enough for the first 5 years of your employment, it should simply be a part of any existing contract for temporary protection while you are working in an area which may be considered unpopular or inappropriate to certain groups of people. Job protection, not perpetuity. There is no reason the world of academia should not work just like the real world and academics should stop thinking of tenure as the goal and only consider it the necessary but temporary protection of their freedom to think and create.

A consideration of collegiality or personality for tenure would be an abomination. Not that anything can excuse the acts of Dr. Bishop, an 'arrogant' 'difficult' female professor is perceived quite differently compared to a male professor. These same characteristics would be essential to equip a male professor or any professor to survive the rigor and competition of academia.

It is far past time to get rid of the idea of the solitary genius working in a lab as the template for how science "works" but it would take a huge overhaul of the hiring system if not the graduate degree program to be effective. Collegiality should be evaluated formally since, as Emily says, it's being done anyway and probably being used to maintain status quo wrt the type of people in the department. People don't have to be best friends but they should be able to treat co-workers (at all levels) with respect and in a professional manner.

For what it's worth academia is not so different than any other business. I would consider profs to be equivalent to at least middle management and Deans/Department heads as VPs. Some seem to have been brought up by wolves; others seem more equitable and sympathetic.

One could describe the academic world as overly "tolerant", as this writer feels.

However, in academia, outside ideas are not generally welcome. On most campuses, there is an "easy road", politically, and a "hard road". Most professors and students try to believe in the ideas that constitute the "easy road". This enables them to get good grades and move their careers forward. This IS academia today.

The risk of a "collegiality" clause is that professors could use such a clause to reinforce the prevailing ideology (whether political, 'scientific' or technical) of department heads. Such a clause would probably be misused.

It is possible that Bishop was simply mentally ill and a self-centered person. Bishop was dangerous, but I'd bet she'd have still been dangerous even if a quest tenure was nowhere involved in her life.

"The world of academia is so fraught with giant egos, arrogance, and politics that it's a more complicated issue."

Giant ego is another term for thin skin. And much of what constitutes "collegiality" is wrapped up in cultural assumptions, which is very important when you have a lot of international faculty.

I'm just a lowly staff member, of a particular class that has very little job security on campus. So I try (and sometimes fail) to step lightly. But I interact with professors all the time and appreciate the eccentric along with the socially skilled. If you get in the habit of being offended, it's easy to forget how to ask or answer difficult questions.

Dr Amy Bishop was a NO researcher. In looking more into her research, I think she was exactly right. Her patent application to use NO to treat and prevent neurodegenerative diseases is correct, and would work, provided she had the right NO generators. The bacteria I am working with are the correct NO generators.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009152483

I really do understand how frustrating it can be to be correct, and to not be given the opportunity to be heard. The NO research community is not very âcollegialâ (in my opinion as an âoutsiderâ). There are a lot of researchers with very big egos, even when they are wrong. I have heard complaints of reviewers using their positions to thwart the publication of research that they disagreed with.

The approach of using NO to treat neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's will work. It should essentially stop the progression of the disorder as soon as it is used. It can't reverse the damage that has already occurred, but it can stop or greatly reduce the progression of damage. I can easily understand how frustrated someone could get when faced with changes in circumstances that could add years or more to the time it takes to implement the development of these techniques. Neurodegenerative diseases kill many people each year. All of those deaths are the cost of delaying the implementation.

Try to understand the frustration of knowing how to save many hundreds of thousands of lives but being unable to do so; think Semmelweis, Jenner, Snow, Pasteur, Koch, Flemming, Banting, Salk.

I close with two quotes from Arthur Schopenhauer:

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy.

Tenure criteria are typically in areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Tenure decisions should be totally based upon these alone; no other considerations should be used unless they are part of clearly stated criteria and unless objective standards for these are clearly established.

Unfortunately, collegiality, personality, and campus politics have become part of the tenure decision processes, in spite of there often being no established objectives standards. This is inherently unfair and a represents situation that is abusive to junior faculty.

Universities need to be protective of those with diverse personalities and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent being infected with political correctness.

A more complex issue that merits further examination is how schools deals with mental illness and faculty undergoing tenure review. A significant part (~15-20%) of the overall population and faculty deal with a form of mental illness. Colleges need to be supportive of these faculty and have processes in place to ensure that they do.

The first thought when someone commits cold blood murder may be "They must be insane." However, I think it is very unfair to then go on and speculate that "mental illness" might be some sort of mitigating factor in regards to the behavior of someone like Amy Bishop. I think it is just as likely that she was an "just" an arrogant, aloof person who was angry, had a gun and thought she was superior to others, and so she murdered people because she wanted to and she could. I think people naturally want to find some "reason" such as mental illness or the fact that "the university was trying to steal her intellectual property" or "she was a female in a male dominated environment and thus subjected to unbearable stress" (see other blogs) to explain and make her behavior more rational and understandable - and that is an irrational effort given what is known at this time.

And to the question: yes, lack of collegiality could be grounds for me to vote no on someone's tenure. And, no, I would not use the fact that someone was an arrogant and aloof person - and that maybe I personally despised them - to override the fact they met all the other criteria and vote no. But, let's just say, someone was so bizarre and disconnected from reality and scary that you absolutely could not work with them? And, in turn, they had no desire (or ability) to productively work with others? I would then vote "no" given that the granting of tenure basically would ensure, for most practical purposes, that I might then spend the rest of my career lifetime "trying" to actually then work with this person. Even if they were a "genius", a tenured faculty member in any department I would belong to is not a lone-ranger. But, again, their inability to perform as a team member and to cooperate would have to be very extraordinary and severe for me to actually vote "no" in a specific tenure decision.

I vote for doing away with tenure. Why should academia be different from the rest of us lowly workers? That would also do away with pressure, disappointment and all the negatives that come with not getting it, and resulting in murder in this case. Also, when I was in grad school, tenured profs were known to cruise, cruise, cruise after a while and they could not be fired!

The points raised about "who" defines collegiality are excellent, especially the one about groups comprised of multiple international cultures.

I am in a situation now where I would not trust the dean to make definitions of collegiality or cooperation because she herself is an example of what *not* to do. (She was hired with tenure)

As I understand it from a workshop provided by our provost's office, collegiality has been upheld as a criterion for tenure in every court case where it has been challenged. Collegiality is not defined here as being pleasant to everyone, in that case, universities would have few tenured faculty members.

@agr #35

If the other Lepidopterists don't like the Marilyn Manson poster on my office wall, or think I'm a pretentious wine snob, do I have no remedy because Marilyn Manson fans and snobs aren't legally protected categories?

Most of us are good enough and almost none of us are geniuses, so what needs to be decided is what the rewards of reliable competence are.

This post is actually fascinating to me because it raises this point of collegiality, or if you will, "being nice". I am currently making my way through the excellent book "Women Don't Ask", a book on negotiation which primarily highlights the techniques women need to take to successfully negotiate in a man's world.

One of the central concepts of the book is that the personality trait of collegiality/niceness is MUCH, MUCH more important in the careers of women than it is in men. And there is ample research that has been done to support that conclusion.

So, in light of Amy's excellent research record, and her not-so-nice personality, I am left wondering if she would have been denied tenure if she were a man. (Of course, this is no excuse for murder, I am just wondering).

Given that men are *not* held to the same standard of collegiality and niceness that women are- no, no I do not think collegiality should be taken into account when awarding tenure. At least not until gender discrepancies in science disappear, and that won't happen for a long time.

A superb point, CE - we are all familiar with how "assertiveness" in men is called "bitchiness" in women. I'm sure the book describes many more cases and studies. With a nonzero number of women in my life who have/are negotiate(ing) the academic career ladder, I think that I should also read, "Women Don't Ask."

Curious. The (insert 'cooperative' or 'collegial' or chosen code-word here) problem is for most all structures public and private not just academia, in the U.S. where mediocrity is more valued than creativity, where you are your job, and job is you, working backwards, both ways.

The qualities wanted, cooperative, collegial, etc. are code for kiss the boss's ass, and go further to tell him or her how awesome he or she is, not just to him or her but all around. I suggest you lay it on with a trowel. No matter if it is a boss at the Burger King or the Home Depot or in your college, wanted are loyal employees gathered around him or her, rather disgusting. You probably could not get hired at Burger King or Home Depot, period, fin, since you could not bring yourself to "fit in" to their ass-kissing structure as you have where they have met your price. So pervasive is this fawning in the U.S. that it's fair for us to surmise that the U.S. military and the local high school teachers and principal, war and teaching, are the same way, where sycophantic flattery prevails, called 'getting along' or 'respecting authority,' where persons unable to suck up to persons in power are marginalized, and incompetence rules. Parcel of the mindset is the feeling that employees are fungible, if new word for you pretty much like chickens where one chicken is pretty much like another, a few plumper. We can't win a war, we can't educate.

In what areas is this boot-licking not the case. Most MD's are arrogant and not sucking up. This helps them make decisions. Physicists seem to have avoided this stupid structure, congratulations. I have heard that on the MMPT (Minnesota multiple personality psychological test) the big three anti-social groups, which are lawyers, bohemians, and criminals can be lumped by this attitude of independent thought, no wonder some are unpopular.

Only through their sly framing about the UAH happenings will we get information, but we know today how those things go, don't we? In Knoxville, TN last week an elementary school teacher shot his principal and vice-principal, because they were not going to re-hire him. We can be sure he did not "fit in" and decided to make it official in his own way.

As for you, sblg reader, academic or not, if your boss or one of his myrmidons tells you 'welcome aboard' or some such you are forewarned to fawn in support every chance you get if you want to advance, or be granted tenure, which is a rather silly situation for you, don't you think? since performance is elsewhere? And if you are thinking, this guy is asking for trouble, you already knew what I am talking about. I know what I'm doing. We may ask, are academics as clean as they make out to themselves and their students? We may answer, no.

Abel, I think everyone, both women and men, could learn a lot from this book. Many of the negotiation techniques discussed are applicable to both women and men. And also, as a man, it would shed light on your interactions with many of your female colleagues and/or trainees.

Tenure committees in the United States are universally flawed. More often than not, mediocre people are granted tenure because some dean likes them, while superior candidates are rejected because they expose the mediocrity of the others. She just snapped. This was all compounded by the fact that she has four children and limited means of supporting them. Even brilliant scientists are having trouble finding jobs as budgets for research have been cut. The critera of collegiality is too vague. It leaves too much room for people with vendettas or who are simply jealous, to blackball a candidate. Those are the certain to be the ones without the imagination to be a great scientist. This is all quite tragic, a reflection on America's disdain for the excellent and its worship of the type that gets along. It is everywhere in our society, from universities to board rooms. What is surprising is that there haven't been more incidents like this. Yes, there is a conspiracy in America and it is the conspiracy of mediocrity. America values a team player over genius.

The overwhelming effect of feminist ideology is deforming the facts of this case.

Where is the evidence that Amy Bishop was a "brilliant" research scientist? No-one here knows how much of her "co-invention" was really the work of husband, who also co-authored three of the seven peer-reviewed articles she has published. I am not a geneticist, but I would be surprised if anyone were to get tenure these days with just seven co-authored articles, unless they have a strong record of teaching, community service and --yes-- collegiality. This assistant professor is being called brilliant because she's a woman living in a feminist age.

Yakubu, you sound like a real prize.

No-one here knows how much of her "co-invention" was really the work of husband, who also co-authored three of the seven peer-reviewed articles she has published.

And no one here knows how much of her husband's "co-invention" was really her work. She co-authored three of the xx peer-reviewed articles her husband had published.

Yakuba, if you look at the patent application I linked to above, she is the sole inventor. If that application would issue (it won't because there is prior art that anticipates it), it would be a many-tens-of-billions of dollars per year market. The abstract is quite correct, it would prevent the major CNS degenerative diseases.

I appreciate that people who are not expert in NO physiology can't appreciate that. Many who consider themselves expert in NO physiology can't appreciate that. She probably could.

CE: Yeah, how nice of Yakubu to come over and man-splain to us. I deeply appreciate your response.

Thank you daedalus2u for pointing out that the female member of that marriage was the sole inventor on the patent application.

OH NOES! The feminists are ruining stuff again!

Candid, you beat me to the niceness crap. For women, it's not so much niceness as it is d00d-compliance. Rosalind Franklin and Barb McClintock bounced around from place to place. McClintock knew she wouldn't get tenure in Missouri, so she left. Rosalind was ready to walk away in frustration when she became sick. "Women Don't Ask" is a great book, also read the "Rosalind Franklin: Dark Lady of DNA" by Maddox.

Amy Bishop sounds like she was part of a two-body deal for the hire at UA-H. If her husband got tenure working on the same stuff and co-authoring the same papers as her, while/if she did clock stoppage to have children, some other factors played a role in a tenure denial.

Her husband is saying that she won her appeal but the provost over ruled the appeal board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/us/15alabama.html?hp

I think collegiality matters. Two of my friends (tenured professors) work with a professor who's pathologically abusive to co-workers and grad students, and unfortunately they're in an interdisciplinary science field where they can't just ignore her. They've lost their best graduate student because of this colleague; other potential students have turned down an offer to work in their labs because of the reputation of how difficult it is to work with Professor X. Both of my friends are considering leaving their tenured job and going to another university if this woman gets tenure, because going into the lab is just too miserable with this person.

Imagine you're on the tenure committee for this woman. Her research is stellar. Your top professors and grad students will flee if she doesn't go, and that could take down the reputation of your whole department. How would you vote?

Fellow scientists, this whole discussion is based on the unfounded premise broadcast in popular media, that Amy Bishop was a ârisingâ or âgreatâ researcher. As many have pointed out, academic tenure is based on the individualâs research, teaching and service portfolio. If we were to look beyond her research productivity, what else in her package warrants her tenure? A quick search using the ISI database (author = Bishop A, address = Alabama) shows that she has published only three papers for work originating in her lab at UAH, one in 2005 co-authored with her husband, and two in 2009. This level of research productivity (0.5 papers per year) is far below average for promotion/tenure consideration. In many places, intellectual property (e.g., patents or patent applications) is counted as part of scholarly productivity, and this would have brought her number up to 0.8 per year, still below average productivity in the molecular sciences, and certainly not worthy of high praise. Bluntly put, her dossier would not have been competitive even for an entry-level faculty position similar to the one that she has held. Another important âresearchâ component of the tenure package is grantsmanship and graduate student training. How many NIH or NSF grants has she won while at UAH? How many M.S. or Ph.D. students has she supported or trained? Of the two recent (2009) papers that she published, she was the first and senior author on both, suggesting limited student contribution.

By the normal tenure clock and based on new details that surfaced today, her formal tenure review probably began in summer/fall 2008 â at a time when her dossier would only have shown one published paper, two submitted manuscripts and two patent applications (none granted as of today) from work initiated at UAH. In short, her teaching evaluations have been average, and her research productivity has been sub-average. Even if she was well-liked, collegial, and superb in the service component of her package, her dossier does not appear to warrant a lifelong appointment at a major US University. In my view, her tenure denial was based on her subpar dossier over the last 6 years. One great invention may lead to a successful business, but one invention is hardly a pass to a potentially lifelong academic appointment. She may have talent as an inventor, but her record should not go unchallenged as being that of a âstarâ in an academic institution.

I must say I very much enjoyed all of the comments listed with this article. One point that was not mentioned is that while being denied tenure is a very negative event: it is more devastating to the well meaning but 'average' scientist. If this person was truely 'brilliant', and her ideas were going to make millions, I am pretty sure she could find a new home and become successful. Indeed, as the owners of their own company, she could make her own rules. A brilliant person can move on and be successful anyway. There is still no reason to kill.

Yabuka - you say you are not a geneticist. I'm curious - what are you or do you claim to be? Do you claim to be any sort of scientist? If so, then you seem to have forgotten a rather fundamental concept: the idea that one gathers data to test a hypothesis and come to a conclusion - and not vice versa. What basis is there in any known fact for your statements: 1) "The overwhelming effect of feminist ideology is deforming the facts of this case" and 2) "This assistant professor is being called brilliant because she's a woman living in a feminist age". Could it be that you forgot to employ this basic precept (i.e., "the scientific method") in some sort of academic career? Did someone (heaven forbid - a woman?) let you know you weren't as "brillant" as you claimed in your tenure packet? Could your post represent anything more than a case of badly fermented sour grapes? Of course, I can't conclude anything without gathering some more data, so consider these just a few partial hypotheses based upon your little post (aka rant).

Bishop's publication and funding record is very weak, and would not even be close to meriting tenure in the biomedical sciences at an elite institution.

Some food for thought stimulated by KM's comment is this prescient Feb 3rd essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, "Life After Tenure Denial," by a pseudonymous prof who wrote essays early on as well:

http://chronicle.com/article/Life-After-Tenure-Denial/63815/

And Daniel, thank you for asking about my health - I'm at least up to blogging thanks to my fourth-line antibiotic regimen and third-round of high-dose prednisone to manage my pneumonia recovery. So, many thanks to all for engaging in this conversation while I am recuperating.

@ Lizzie, my sympathies of a sort

There's an underlying assumption here that there's only one structural way to work with Professor X, the old way or no way. And it's implicit here that the department head is not competent on this situation, that he or she cannot solve or address problems. Of course, that thought of incompetence is unthinkable with this group, after all he's the head, he is his job.

And as an aside, "the reputation of the whole department" is likely to be a self-imposed artifact delusion indulged in by puffed up faculty members and may not extend fifty miles from the parking lot, they would not know, the sycophantic culture is so strong.

As to your question, how would I vote, I would need much more information than what you have deemed necessary to list.

I think she is smart but I also think she is an egocentric sociopath with no conscience. It appears likely that she "accidentally" fired multiple shots at her brother after he seemed to be outshining her academically. She was investigated in the early 90's as a likely suspect when pipe bombs were mailed to her Harvard medical doctor who as her supervisor was possibly writing a negative evaluation of her. Then you have the horror of this week. I am no criminal psychologist but there seems to be a pattern here.

As a retired teacher, I might also add that intelligence does not necessarily equal a successful teacher. Teachers need to be able to relate to their students.

If collegiality would be a criterion for tenure, our universities would be pretty empty. But in Amy Bishop's case I do not see that that was an issue. According to ISI and PubMed she only published three papers during her time at UAH and one was a review and the other two came out in 2009. Not good if you are up for tenure in the spring of 2009. So collegiality can not be a big issue. Arrogance in the face of failure is more likely. GPW

On Amy Bishop's past academic work history:

It seems that Amy Bishop and her husband were suspects when 2 bombs were sent to a professor she worked with at Boston's Children's Hospital when she was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard. The news article provides many details including the fact that "Bishop surfaced as a suspect because she was allegedly concerned that she was going to receive a negative evaluation from Rosenberg on her doctorate work, the official said."

It would appear she may have a history of problems with collegiality in the workplace, as well as an issue with poor performance evaluations. I feel very sorry for the professors in her department who were doing their job when they had to evaluate her for tenure and reaped the result of her wrath when the results did not suit her.

see http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/ala_slay_suspec…

Collegiality should be a criterion, because it's important for the psychological well-being of the rest of the staff. No one wishes to work in a hostile environment; such hostility can suck the life out of those who suffer under it. Even a brilliant person who has difficulty controlling negative ways of relating to others can ruin an entire department of, arguably, other brilliant scholars.

But, this topic begs the question of whether Dr. Bishop actually belongs to the category of those offended by the use of collegiality as a criterion. Dr. Bishop is a person who shot and killed a sibling when she was 19 years old, and then was investigated in the case of a pipe bomb that was mailed to a professor/doctor at Harvard Children's Hospital--said professor was one on her PhD committee responsible for the evaluation of her dissertation. In both incidences, she was never charged, and in the first incident there are pretty strong signs of a cover-up. Collegiality could hardly have played any motivating part in why she allegedly committed these crimes.

I have to agree totally with CJ and CPP. The words genius, brilliant etc... have been all over the web coverage of this story, and her record is mediocre at best. Also, somewhat galling to think how true academic brilliance may be devalued in the public eye by this inappropriate description, but hey, that's the media. Combined with the rest of her record, seems like this would be a fairly clear cut case against tenure in most quality universities. I sense that an unjustified sense of entitlement may be part of the equation. I have been involved in tenure assessment, and one of the problems can be that an overaccommodating academic community doesn't act soon or clearly enough, stringing people along and contributing to the problem. OF course this is worst for personalities that cant tolerate hearing anything negative about themselves and can't conceive of there being a valid reason for criticism, but this is also where it is most necessary.

My department has a statement about collegiality in our tenure/promotion criteria. It hasn't come up as an issue - I'm fortunate to have wonderful colleagues. But I've wondered whether "collegiality" could be used as an excuse to discriminate, as other commenters have mentioned.

It's tricky, because the characteristics I associate with colleagiality - basically, caring about and respecting other people - affect teaching (and through advising of grad students, research). Caring about teaching can transform an adequate teacher into a great teacher with time, and disdain for students can eventually transform an effective teacher into an ineffective one. Problems advising grad students can hurt research productivity in the long run. And constant infighting in a department can hurt everyone, undergrads, grad students, and faculty. So I think that collegiality, at least in some form, is important. But I don't know how to evaluate it in a way that is fair, and that doesn't give an advantage to people who are good at manipulating others.

(My department is now tenured-up, and the worst behavior change I've seen is an increased willingness to play music in an office. Not a bad change, at all - just amusing. But I think my department managed to hire good people, rather than shaping them with a requirement for collegiality.)

CJ, CPP, and peabrain: You are all correct that Dr. Bishop's publication and funding record would very likely have been insufficient for tenure at elite institutions. For referral by others, here is the Google cache of her faculty page. I'm having trouble finding her record for training graduate students.

However, and I cannot speak for the standards of this department at UAH, basic science departments at undergraduate teaching-intensive institutions have somewhat different standards of research and funding productivity. One peer-reviewed publication per year may be acceptable when one is teaching two, three, or even four three-credit hour classes per semester.

Also keep in mind that UAH is still a NIH R15-eligible institution, meaning that they do not traditionally garner a high-level of NIH funding (of course, they seem to have a much better infrastructure for NSF and NASA funding). If one looks at NIH RePORTER for NIH grants awarded in Alabama's 5th Congressional District, Alabama A&M University in Normal seems to do much better than UAH in NIH funding.

So yes, "genius" and "brilliant" may not apply in this case. But we do also need to keep in mind that the weight given to criteria for promotion and tenure at "non-elite" universities may not be familiar to all of us.

This comment has been removed by the author due to its racist content.

For even top predominantly undergraduate institution (PUI), I know from personal experience that an NIH R15 grant is a very prestigious achievement. Due to heavy teaching loads and limited support staff, publications rates for PUI science faculty are typically one publication every other year according to the CUR.

If Amy authored several papers during her time,gained NIH R15 funding, had research that was proven competitive for funding by venture capitalists, and had a NASA experiment done, her scholarship would have been fine for tenure at most PUIs. HBCUs such as Alabama A&M receive a great deal more funding for the NIH than PUIs since there are many more program available for them.

Based on available evidence it does not appear that Amy's scholarship would be a credible reason to deny her tenure. In fact, Amy has probably been one of the top research performers at UAH. They certainly have issued a number of press releases on her work.

It sounds like Amy Bishop and anger management have been lifelong strangers. But as for protecting everyone from the Amy Bishops of the world: It's just not possible to test, guess, or interview anyone sufficiently to completely anticipate everything that person will do. People can be very, very good at successfully hiding their true feelings from everyone else -- and some crimes of this nature may simply not be preventable.

BTW, I personally believe that handguns should be regulated. But whether or not they are, there will always be people who are convinced that the world is out to get them, and will commit violent crimes of perceived revenge. And some large percentage of these crimes will never be anticipated by anyone.

How can a faculty member who is about to snap in a similar situation possibly be identified or helped. Amy Bishop's family and friends seems to indicate she gave no sign that a violent act was forthcoming. This story, I think, provides an interesting insight:

"Ms. Barreca, a professor of English at the University of Connecticut, summed it up just right, I think. She wrote yesterday that this was not, as the NY Times story put it: âa Harvard-trained neuroscientist who was described by her colleague as being ânot as good as she thought she wasâ who was mangled by a system she then sought to destroy in a rage of blind violence.â Barreca instead, with empathy uncommon in situations like this, writes that Bishop was:

a different soul, one who howled out her pain and rage twenty years ago, one who might have been rescued or restrained, one who might have been cured or caged or at least taken out of circulation. But because she was smart and because someone was willing to take care of her, the system forgave herâonly to have her attack and kill those who represented another kind of system, one that did not reward her to her satisfaction, twenty-four years later."
http://trueslant.com/eilenezimmerman/2010/02/14/amy-bishop/

Amy Bishop killed her brother in 1986 after an argument.
She was a suspect in a bombing case of a Harvard Professor
where she attended in 1993, who she had disagreements with.
Amy Bishop kills 3 colleagues and wounds 3 others at
University of AL, Huntsville on 2/12/10 because she was denied tenure.
A person with average intelligence "can see what is wrong with this picture"...

I'm not a scientist and I'm not in academia... can I be the token lay person on this thread?

First, tenure (ie, guaranteed job security without ownership) is somewhat foreign to my thinking. But, I do see a comparison with a "partnership track" at large law firms. Yet, partnership in a law firm has the element of ownership.

Then again, lawyers have (as do MDs to a lesser degree) the option of hanging a shingle and going it on their own. And this option, for lawyers, can be monetarily rewarding. I'm not so sure the same is currently true for MDs. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but several close family members are - both solo and "big law" practices.)

It seems to me that Amy Bishop, with her invention, is (or was) one of the few biologists who could, in a sense, hang a shingle and go it alone without the big firm. Because of this, I tend to disregard the monetary argument... that she couldn't feed her four children without tenure. Frankly, that argument is bullshit.

Was the success of that invention dependent on her getting tenure? That part of the equation, I'm sure I don't understand... but if it was, it doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, I understand perfectly "fitting in" and being a "team player" and the requisite bullshit required to do both. These are not exclusive to academia -- they are rampant in the non-profit world. I understand holding back the gag reflex required to play such roles when those in charge are obviously not qualified to be there... and one wonders how the hell they got there.

One of the reasons they got there was the "good ole boy-girl network". (Puhleeze don't tell me there aren't good ole girl networks.) These are social status related and they are not immune to penetration, but they fight it off when they can. Without the leveling influence of capitalism, such networks can and will choke off innovative, ie, disruptive, influences.

Meritocracy could be substituted for capitalism, but that obscures the currency. The best solution for humanity is a blend of meritocracy and capitalism. A solution that allows the inhospitable, cranky genius a place to do her thing without disrupting the 'normal' flow of business and the exchange of ideas.

The particular and peculiar case of Amy Bishop is not one upon which we should establish policy. She is, fortunately, an outlier. Policy must be established on normalities to be effective. Outliers must be handled separately, else normality has no meaning.

Donna, the success of the invention hinges on who controls the patents. The University controlled the patents.

If the success of the invention depends on her working on it, and she can't work on it because the University won't let her, then the invention can't be successful.

I thought it quite interesting to read in the Times story (link @#47) that the "novel" that was found on her computer consisted of a tale "about a scientist who killed her brother and atoned by excelling at her work". Not to get all Freudian about this, but perhaps the "incident" back in her 20's (whatever it was--accident, deliberate) was never fully dealt with by her psychologically, and the tenure denial was not seen by her troubled psyche in the same way that anyone else would take a devastating career loss. Getting tenure and being a success was to her, "an atonement" for the loss of her brother. Now don't get me wrong--this does NOT in any way condone/justify her actions, but this (warped) reasoning may be the justification in HER mind as to what she felt she had to do--in order to "atone" for NOT being able to atone for her brother's death. I don't think we can know with any certainty what was in her mind at the time, but certainly she is not someone we want running around free in the society to possibly do this again. I do think that whatever happens to her will never mitigate the damage she has caused to so many, starting with her own brother. What we as a society can do about this to prevent such things from happening in the future is at best a difficult question that may have nothing to do with WHY she did what she did.
Obviously, the stress of getting tenure is factor that most are able to deal with without shooting up a room full of people, and yet because of what this woman did we are all here discussing this (and other)issues that surrounded her actions. My feeling is that irrespective of what Amy Bishop did, the tenure process is one that needs to be re-vamped, if only because our society, workplaces and workforces have changed a great deal since the idea of tenure was put into practice.
The idea of collegiality is really nothing more than "fitting in" to an organization, at whatever capacity. In many places, a person who was shy or nerdy, but did exemplary work might be able to "fit in" to the organization depending on what interactions he might have with his colleagues. If they never saw each other but for the faculty meetings, and he was aloof but respectful, than it might not matter. By the same token, someone outgoingly friendly but brash, might ruffle feathers and just not "fit into" the culture of the workplace. So judging an individual on collegiality is fair game if it is interpreted as the person being a good fit for the department. How a department defines that fit is really up to the culture present in the department at the time.
In the example of Amy Bishop, what strikes me is that the people that she killed were all involved in research that involved plant science of one sort or another, and looking at the rest of the bio department, if I were to venture a guess,(and its only a guess) it would appear that the department seemed to be gravitating toward genetics/plant science as a main research focus, not surprising, given that it is Atlanta. As a neuroscientist, focusing on brain pathology such as ALS, perhaps Bishop was "not a good fit" for the department-the type of research that she intended to do might be a better fit at a university with a medical school or at least one with a hefty psychology department doing neuroscience. The circumstances stated in the Times regarding the appeal being denied at the Provost level also makes me think that the tenure decision was one of "we think its time for you to move on" along with whatever lack of publication, so-so teaching, and aloof personality she might have had. In the end, she just wasn't a good fit for that University.

One hidden danger of promoting anything like collegiality as a necessary attribute is that it risks turning into a "hmm, yes, but is s/he one of us?" question that covers for racism, sexism or any other discriminatory -ism.

As other posters point out here and elsewhere, the underlying issues here are about the stresses of academic life in a violent and angry society. This wouldn't happen in most countries because (a) she probably wouldn't have got so angry, (b) she wouldn't have seen violence as the appropriate avenue for her anger, (c) she wouldn't have had a handgun to be able to cause such carnage.

I would say that some form of collegiality should be taken into account in ensemble with the rest of the tenure package. The same aspects of "collegiality" apply to how people interact with people OUTSIDE the department as well. If someone's an asshole, they're probably embarassing themselves, and by extension the department, to the rest of the University. And they're embarassing the University to the outside world.

If they teach really well, or have great research, or bring in huge grant dollars, or do great service to the department, then it could be that even despite negative collegiality they are a net positive to
the department and the University.

Let's see if that might have been the case with Dr. Bishop.
Here's Dr. Bishop's publications list.

I'm not impressed. People have been quoted as saying that she's brilliant, but being smart just isn't enough to get tenure. You've got to produce. She arrived at UAH in 2003, and must have submitted her tenure packet in fall 2008 (2009 March was when she was denied tenure). Over that time she's got 4 papers. And none at all in 2007 and 2008 right before she was coming up for tenure. She may have had some "in prep" or even "in press" by that point. But this publication record is pretty thin.

It's not so thin that great teaching, huge money, good service, and a collegial nature might not have been able to make up the difference. They could have. But it's damned weak.

It seems to me that while collegiality may have been an adverse factor here, there is plenty reason to have denied Dr. Bishop tenure without it.

#69, daedulus... if the University controlled the patents, then, to my capitalist way of thinking, they owed her tenure based on the value of the patent. However... since there was apparently a separate company established to market the invention, that doesn't quite make sense.

If the university supplied the equipment and opportunity to make the invention possible, they should certainly gain something in exchange.

And if it needs to be said again, identifying an institutional problem does not condone murder as a solution. Just in case that needs to be said again.

I am reminded of the local grant given to a non-profit agency to procure the development of a web-based program to track availability of, and assure non-duplication of, social services to the homeless. I was involved in the original design and observed the transformation (somewhat "magical") from something the government (HUD) and local community charities paid for into a for-profit entity revolving around one person. The work is now sold at an enormous profit to various governments across the U.S.

It seems to me that there is built-in corruption somewhere... and I don't even pretend to understand what it is exactly, much less how to curb it.

Interesting to read comments that are well-written, well-spelled, and well-informed. My thoughts are that Dr. Bishop is a classic narcissist/sociopath/borderline personality disorder,i.e, she is NOT mentally ill in the true diagnostic sense. As a fairly liberal female, I don't believe anti-feminism is an even an issue here, as Bishop admitted being arrogant, aloof and hard to deal with. A colleague, female attorney, exhibits many of the same personality traits of Dr. Bishop. She also is "not as good as she thinks she is". This female attorney's method of "payback" is to backstab other attorneys, try to create new alliances with attorneys that can help her out of the messes on cases she tries to take that she is totally incompetent to represent people on, etc.

Trust me, this is NOT someone you would want for your boss, let alone a co-worker. She is beyond seeing the world in an idealized way, she lies without compunction, even on non-important things. The average person would be unaware of her personality defects.

How does this relate to Dr. Bishop? "Collegiality", however defined, in my opinion, should be considered when making tenure decisions. There is an absolute difference between someone who may be socially awkward because he or she is shy, and someone who is "socially awkward" because that person believes he/she is better than everyone else. When colleagues don't agree, the narcissist turns into a "toxic" personality, who in fact can cause great harm to other co-workers, colleagues, and the department.

Can this criteria be abused? Certainly, as in the example of the young man who didn't drink with the others and was "cut out" because of it. However, this is common in the business world in any form, it is not endemic to academia.

My son, an NHS student at one of the top 1200 high schools in the U.S., had a biology teacher very much like Bishop- told the class to read the text,and based on her tests on material she never taught. Consistent student complaints over the years have led to... nothing, no discipline, even in the fact of outrageous treatment of students by this teacher. She is regularly castigated on "Rateyourteacher.com" by past and present students. She certainly has influenced many extremely intelligent students to NOT take advanced biology classes as her reputation precedes her....

Bishop obviously has no conscience and why? Her parents covered up her acts, including fratricide. She never learned there are consequences for her actions. She "got off" it appears from the mail-bombing incident of Dr. Rosenberg, another person with whom she had a dispute. This is just a classic case of an intelligent person with no conscience, no empathy,nothing except "me-ness". It has nothing to do with her being a female, a supposed socialist as showing up on neo-con blogs, or what have you.
"Collegiality" encompasses a wide range of behavior... perhaps faculty members should evaluate tenure candidates using online Narcissistic Inventory Personality Disorder tools? At least you'd know if you were dealing with someone who can NEVER acknowledge that he/she might be wrong, versus the socially inept scholar who just isn't "charming" enough to ingratiate him/herself with the other faculty...

just my thoughts- undergrad included pre-med,sociology, and psychology... and personality issues come up all in the time in practice of law, be it criminal, or civl (divorce/custody- fitness of parents).

A few notes:

1)This was a horrible act, she appears to be a sociopath, and there appears to be no excuse for what she did (kill someone over tenure).

2)I am surprised anyone would attempt to evaluate her tenure case by counting the number of publications. I'm not in her field, but for all I know one of those publications provides her discipline's equivalent of E=mc^2. If so, it would totally change the entire way we conceive of the life sciences. I'm not saying this is true, but I am appalled that by counting her publications and rendering a judgment commentators are implying that number of publications, not quality, is what matters. That numbers rather than quality is what matters in many universities accounts, in part, for the narrow-mindedness of vision and the triviality of contribution of much of academia.

3)This follows because when numbers of publications are the criterion, then the savvy professor will write as many small contribution publications as possible. There is the term SPU--smallest publishable unit. Such an approach makes a travesty of a serious evaluation of the contribution and promise of a scholar. By analogy, it'd be like rejecting Leonardo da Vinci because when he came up for "tenure" he had only one painting--the Mona Lisa--and, instead, tenuring a da Vinci peer who in the same time had painted a couple dozen tea cups with pastoral scenes in various shades of gray.

4)Those calling for "collegiality" to be a criterion for tenure are forgetting that the people determining who is and is not collegial were hired and tenured before collegiality became a criterion. Thus, they may themselves be so uncollegial as to have created a bizarro world where integrity is anathema and mediocrity is championed. Allowing those people to be arbiters of what is collegial would be a disaster. Consequently, unless the new standard is going to first be applied retroactively (by what authority I know not), then all one will do by adding this criterion is legitimate whatever dysfunction may already exist. Not a step in the healthful direction.

5)Collegiality is not necessarily a bad thing, but may not be relevant to faculty life because, in fact, no faculty member really has to work with anyone else. Collaborating is an option, but it is not required, even in "big science" fields (even though it may be the norm). Faculty are not required to attend faculty meetings, not required to sit on departmental committees, and not required to sit on university committees--service can be done externally and satisfy that requirement. It would be tough to run a department if no one did departmental service, but it is not the case that everyone must. Consequently, I contend that the push to add collegiality as a criterion is totally at odds with the reality of academic life. One wonders what hidden agenda might actually lie behind the suggestion. After all, how would any external actor evaluate the claim that "Jenny is non-collegial" as a reason for tenure denial?

6)Turning to teaching evaluations to evaluate whether the professor has a weak or strong tenure case is yet another mistake. I can't speak for her institution, but we all know students are not the best evaluators of teaching. Indeed, many students have been so coddled prior to getting to college and, in fact, in many college classes, that when they finally encounter someone who expects students to do the work of learning and the teacher is there to assist, not do the work for them (i.e., students should read the book, not expect the professor to tell them what important material to skip simply because it "won't be on the exam"), the students cannot handle it. And, in today's academy, that means something must be wrong with the professor. Over time I have come to see that bad teaching evaluations are actually a sign of good teaching, unless the students can back up their assessment with some real data such as, for example, evidence of being provided incorrect formulas, documentation showing the professor is never available for office hours, and other clear signs of poor teaching and interaction. Of course, such documentation is never available. You may think my reversal of interpretation odd, yet research shows that positive teaching evaluations are either not correlated with learning or are negatively correlated with learning. One study used students' performance in the second course of a two-course sequence to assess the effectiveness of the teacher in the first course, and found that the students taught by the teacher with the lower student evaluations outperformed those taught by the teacher with the higher student evaluations. The reason for high or low evaluations has been shown to be related to trivial matters (e.g., voice pitch) and to be differentially evaluated owing to teacher characteristics (white professor's smiles are interpreted as supportive, black professor's smiles are interpreted as threatening).

In such a world, how would the addition of "collegiality criteria" improve matters? Not at all, I submit.

All these facts indicate that counting publications, scoring student evaluations, and calling for a collegiality criterion are all poor responses to a broken system. To fix the system will require scholars to spend more time on applying the criteria they already have--read, don't count; observe, don't survey. Until they do that, the idea of adding criteria to the tenure process, when faculty do such a poor job with the criteria they already are supposed to apply, is a non-starter.

That said, there is no excuse for the murders. One arms oneself with a lawyer to deal with such perceived injustices, not a Saturday night special.

I call it "tenure abuse" - professors who have not published a thing since they got tenure refusing tenure to a younger person who has in their short career published more than any 3 of the "in-company retired" sitting in judgement-- apparently just because they can. Teaching ability as a criterion? Don't make me laugh - people in the tenure treadmill have told me many times that getting a teaching excellence award is the kiss of death to tenure. I know of a tenure denial to a teaching excellence award winner with several million $ in grants. Why? Because all the new grad students chose to work for *him* - most of the other faculty didn't have enough grant money to support them, & they'd have to teach plus do their thesis research. He was also a far more involved mentor than a lot of the other faculty. That case was so egregious, he moved to a more highly regarded university right after tenure refusal, -- typically being denied tenure means you have to move to a less well regarded university. If you define "collegiality" as meeting whatever opaque **personal** preferences the tenure committee is using to decide that someone is worthy of associating with them for the rest of their careers, "collegiality" is the ONLY thing that matters in tenure decisions. That's illegal to put in writing, so usually other excuses are used - such as, in one case I knew, that 7 papers were published in the year prior to the tenure decision [apparently instead of being more evenly distributed in time] & the quality of the journals was not high enough. Or a young researcher hadn't pulled in enough grant $-- when the little he did have was more than most of the tenured guys, many of whom had nothing. Etc. Unfortunately, there are so many good applicants out there, tenure committees can play this miserable game 'til they get someone whose personality & demeanor suit them to a T. He/she might be a worse teacher than some of the people let go, or a worse researcher than some of those rejected, but they don't care. They care most about their personal comfort zone - that's what "collegiality" means. This country squanders its research talent with abandon.

Dear Colleagues,

it a is very interesting and hopefully fruitful discussion.

Your questions (I post my answer below each question):

1. Do you think that lack of collegiality is grounds for denial of tenure for a candidate that otherwise meets the basic quantitative criteria outlined in university guidelines?

Yes, I do. The research grants system + the "quota hiring", which is a logical consequence of the grants system, have poisoned the collegial atmosphere in academia, turning the "alma mater" into something like "spiders in a box", not to use harsher language ...

Everybody is ready to do literally EVERYTHING - just to get the desired grant ...

2. Do you feel that collegiality - or whatever you want to call it: teamwork, cooperation - should be an important factor in making academic tenure decisions?

Yes, I do. "Collegiality" is, to my mind, a much deeper term than just "teamwork" and "cooperation", because collegiality means you are not only considering your colleague as a specialist, but you are also taking into account his/her personality ... Moreover, the very "making tenure decisions" - especially as concerns life sciences - the very idea of "tenure" in academia and non-profit research organizations - should be carefully re-thought in detail. I hope this honorable discussion society will generate ground-breaking ideas in this vitally important direction ... Am ready to provide you with the 1st "kick-off": rethinking of the grant system ...

If collegiality is defined as being collaborative, respectful and supportive of others, not being a flaming asshole or a chronic obstructionist, then fine. Let's include it in tenure decisions.

But, in my experience, collegiality is too often defined as not making your colleagues feel uncomfortable or challenged in any way. Being fun to hang out with. In that form, it can be used to keep out members of any group underrepresented in the department. And that is bullshit.

Regarding the question of whether teachers' performance in the classroom may be properly evaluated using "ratemyteachers.com" I believe one of the criteria is "hotness."
This is great, if we think our academic duty is to arouse students sexually. Maybe we should just pass out copies of Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues?
In one of the colleges where I taught there was a brief "self-evaluation" at the end of the course/teacher evaluation form. Out of nine students, I received nine evaluations. One of the students was always late to class. Yet all of the self-evaluations answered "I am always on time to class" in the affirmative.
It's interesting that teacher/course evaluations are considered honest and truthful for the same reason that graffiti in the bathroom stall is considered puerile nonsense: they are both anonymous.
Evaluations may be useful when they're honest and informed. But when we give too much weight to them we are paying too much attention to the "consumer" part of formal education and too little attention to the "apprentice" part.

After reading this thread about Professor Bishop I am even more disturbed by the lack of information in the general public. The books "A Brilliant Madness" and "Lies In Silence" can explain what some of the posts discuss. Mental illness does not discriminate. Race, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic status, etc. It is sad but reasonable to presume that when someone commits a crime such as this there is likely an underlying mental health disorder. With a failing mental health care system, and lack of treatment, sadly this woman was delusional and took victims and loved ones. It is a lose-lose situation.
SJ Hart

The authority in such matters (in the U.S.) is the AAUP. They have a very clear policy on this: Collegiality should not be considered. Here's a link:

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/collegiality.htm

There was a recent case at MIT where a prospective new faculty member was being recruited and one of the existing senior faculty members discouraged her because he did not want any competition.

http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N52/52tonegawa.html

This kind of defending of "turf" is extremely damaging to institutions and individuals.

1. No.
2. No.

It has been proven time and again how the tenure process is vague and easily corrupted. In so competitive an institution, the meaning of collegiality can and will be distorted to suit whoever needs it to work for or against the candidate seeking promotion in the university.

By definition, the general term indicates only the shared responsibility of a group. This would entail several levels on campus: program curriculum, departmental matters, school agenda, etc. If the goals are clearly set at each level, then collaboration among colleagues can take place and the power and authority that is (or should be) shared among peers can be put to good use.

At no time in this cooperative process, is there any certainty of harmony, yet this is often the grade that is applied. Collegial practice should be strictly understood as a matter of professional and informed participation. Instead it is reshaped on a variety of individually-inspired levels to evaluate whether a co-worker is agreeable and/or a nice person. The "popularity contest" of the playground persists and gravely alters the intention of any collective workâ¦ the benefit of the larger institution, not the personal satisfaction of individuals in their smaller dominions.

Collegiality clauses protect those that pander to the status quo, conform to social norms and accede to administrative policy.

Collegiality clauses leave open to spurious attack those individuals who seek effective change, are diverse in nature, and whose ideas challenge the system.

Which is all highly ironic, since the rationale of tenure is meant to provide security to an academic from just such coercive censure of unpopular ideas. The first group described doesn't need tenure and the second will never attain it. *sigh*

I reckon tenure is meant to protect professors with unpopular ideas within their subject matter, not to protect professors with unpopular ideas like "I will make every committee you put me on a living hell for all the members and unproductive to boot."

There needs to be a way to foster the former but not the latter.

(Also, Ping!)

Wow - Janet just said everything I could want to say. Faculty are NOT islands, and when we behave as if we are, our programs suffer.

Dr. Free-Ride, this goes without saying. The P&T process is contractually staged across the six years leading up to a tenure decision. Crazy, disruptive and malignant types should not receive re-appointment, never mind continuing appointment.

I want to comment here as someone who graduated from the biology program there with a BS in 2008. It was a pretty diverse department. There were 3 women faculty other than Bishop, 1 of which had tenure according to the department website. I don't think the feminism concerns are valid in this case. Some of the women there had plenty of intellectual confidence, and rightly so, without being considered "aloof" or "superior" like Bishop as was mentioned in the Decatur Daily article. I also don't recall anyone saying similar things about the male faculty members. Overall the people in the department were nice. There were outgoing and shy people. There were old hippies and people who wore suits everyday.

In regard to "tenure abuse" mentioned earlier with people getting lazy, look at Dr Robert O Lawton's publication record. He got published in Science after having tenure. He's (along with UAH's Atmospheric Sciences dept) getting the biggest grants of his career now. That also tells you what can be expected for this department. Her original application was in 2008, and the quality and quantity of her publications were not sufficient for the department then. Her 2009 publications were better, but the significance and possibilities of her inventions were probably not well known when she was evaluated. She hadn't even invented some of the things that are being talked about big when she was evaluated. I guess even in a 2009 re-evaluation, you can't expect them to give her tenure based on what she might be about to do. Yeah she was recently talked about as an up and coming big deal for her inventions, but all this talk was after she was denied because there was nothing like that to talk about when she was denied.

We need much more info on Amy Bishop. It is hard to believe that a woman as educated as she is and as brilliant as her peers admit she is, simply went insane over nothing. It makes more sense to me that the doctors with less intelligence than she has were blocking her tenure because they were envious. It is the most brilliant people that can think out of the box and move this world forward.

Keep in mind the show "House"....yes this is a TV show but if the person like the character "House" is normally fired for failing to get along with lesser educated staff then those expecting to be educated will learn less from the less brilliant person.

Part of the problem in the US system is that submission of a tenure package at five years is for many scientists a year or two too soon. Many elite institutions (e.g., Yale) promote to associate at year 5 or 6, but do not award tenure for another couple of years. This makes a lot more sense than the more typical system in state universities like UAB.

Another point is that many universities will allow you to push back the tenure decision for a year or two if you have kids, especially (but not only) if you're a woman. Similar allowances can be made for the dath of a parent or spouse, etc. This is to acknowledge the fact that life is complicated. Looks like Bishop might have been fine (given that she has 4 kids) if only she'd taken advantage of such a policy.

So sad.

@88:
"It makes more sense to me that the doctors with less intelligence than she has were blocking her tenure because they were envious. It is the most brilliant people that can think out of the box and move this world forward."

Was her brother doing that, too, when she killed him?

The implication of your post is disgusting.

@88,91:
Look at the department website. Professor Robert O Lawton has been published in Science, and his more updated publication/grant info is on his personal page which is currently a broken link on the university website, but he continues to do excellent work. Professor/department chair Podila had recently been co-author on a Nature publication and was on about 2 publications per year. Who is envious?

@91: We have no reason to believe the death of her brother was anything but an accident.

@92: Everything I have read says Amy Bishop was extremely intelligent and it is her project that the university was pushing forward and about to make money from. Seems to me that if her project was accepted that her tenure should have been automatic. As a chemist I frequently sign off on work I do for large companies but will never release a new idea to these companies. As a professor looking for tenure she had to produce quality projects but a university that was not going to offer tenure should not be allowed to forward an idea or project from that same person being denied.

Maybe they were blocking her tenure because she's a PSYCHOPATH. She may have been a genius but it seems clear there was something wrong with her. I doubt she's mentally ill or "snapped." She previously murdered someone, attempted to murder someone else (mail bombing), and has now killed 3 more.

Spiny Norman, sibling abuse is not uncommon, especially female siblings by male siblings. I have no knowledge if there was or was not abuse in this case.

Often parents are oblivious to abuse of siblings by siblings. If she shot her brother in self-defense, the family might want outsiders to think it was an accident, rather than know she was defending herself. Nothing was going to bring their son back, destroying their daughter in a trial only amplifiess their loss.

Yes and yes.

Our own institution is currently suffering from the aftermath of hiring a (pathologically) non-collegial person who looks very good on paper. Several labs have already lost time to failed collaborations with this individual, and the institution itself has a sticky personnel issue as postdocs who still have time left on their appointments flee the problematic lab.

I question the premise that a person who is non-collegial to the point of being unable to effectively collaborate is likely to meet any well-designed quantitative criteria for tenure and hiring. It would be a simple matter to include past successful collaborations in those quantitative criteria, in any case.

Great questions. Fun conversation.

re teaching reviews/evaluations:
Amy Bishop taught the A&P series. This is the most difficult course that nursing students have to take at UAH, so many of them will probably resent the difficulty and give a poor review based on that. She had no exceptional ability as a teacher, but as a rather recent UAH biology graduate, I downweight the reviews of nursing students and especially athletes.

Abel, Janet, I completely agree with your thoughtful posts. But... I dont think it will work to include a collegiality criteria in tenure decisions. It will almost certainly be misused so as not to tenure candidates who are "not our kind, dear" (or to tenure those who are better at schmoozing than at teaching or publishing). And this would be bad for those with "different" (but lets hope not violent) personalities and the lone single woman who is quite shy in a department full of older married men. Besides, most tenure reviews already require that the individual contribute to the community (called committee work or administration). Also, most universities have rules that allow for dismissal of faculty that are disruptive.

I don't think he is talking about collegiality in terms of being shy or having different tastes. If a tenure review makes a decision on that basis, then it is going to happen anyway, collegiality clause or no clause.
He's talking about professors that are destructive in their interactions with students and colleagues. Like a professor I had who called his students "fucking bitch", and made sexual innenduoes, including bestiality, during class.
Yeah, absolutely, this stuff should not be allowed to slide by in a tenure decision because someone is a "genius."

Dear adepts of the ***PATHY and other extravagant theories,

I would greatly appreciate your educated attention. Please find below the story told by a colleague who knows Dr. Amy Bishop very well - personally - since decades.

To get to the original URL address, just kindly click on my nick (this is one of the most recent comments to one of the blogs by Zennie62 at the sfgate.com)

"zorean
2/15/2010 12:15:49 PM

donquixote5, janersM and borninAL,

Thank you for your support - the heartache and guilt that I have been feeling is keeping up at night. When I first heard about it on the news, all I heard was her name ( nothing about her degree or where she was from ) and my heart sank, I knew it has her.....

But more importantly, I wanted to answer the question about why she picked science and "loners" in science.

Amy didn't choose science, it chose her. It was the only area that she truly enjoyed and was good at it. It was also an area where she didn't need to make small talk or socialize in order to BELONG. Amy easily fit into meeting/discussions on neurons, oxidation, etc. AND PEOPLE LISTENED. It was the only place in her life in which this happened - where she existed.

I know this because she told me. She never emoted, but one time out of nowhere she told me about this. Amy and I went to college together and then I worked at the Longwood Medical Area while she was getting her PhD an doing post-doc work. So we saw each other often. She also told me that day that I was the only person at college that even acknowledged her and because of that, that she liked me quite a bit. I nearly bowled me over ! In all our interactions there was NOTHING outwardly that would indicate she liked me. NOTHING ! But I took her word for it that day. It broke my heart. We never talked about it again, though we did talk about the "incident" as she called it ( her brother's death ) - I know why she killed. All these headlines and news and postulating make me so sad...because it is very, very simple, and I know it deep in my heart. She was a soul that couldn't be saved, no matter how badly she wanted to be.

It wasn't about being denied tenure, it was about her not being "enough" again - and having the only community that she felt a kinship with, one in which she didn't have to emote or do small talk, banish her. Where was she going to go ? Who would have interest in her ? Where would she get the human contact she wanted so badly.

Yes, donquixote5, there are many "loners" in science - I should tell you that I spent 23 years in molecular biology - but those scientists are either very shy, or awkward, or just so focused on their research that they become myopic. But they welcome a chance to talk about their kids or the weather or the Red Sox. Amy is and was always vacant.

Finally, regarding the sociopath: sociopaths are usually very charming and manipulative and have no conscience. So JanersM is right in stating that she is not one. She was very blunt and didn't have an ounce of charm. She was also not manipulative. Anything having to do with navigation the psyche was out of her ability.

Lastly, this is the only place that I have "talked" about this - outside of with my husband and another college classmate ( who characteristically, doesn't remember her ). This has been a real outlet for me. Thank you."

I was in a doctoral program in chemical education at a university that shall remain nameless. I had problems with the students in a Physical Science laboratory who were simply reluctant to do the work. They would not download the experiments from the Internet after we had moved away from the laboratory manual. I eventually lost my cool and the parents complained to the Chemistry Department Head. I was forced to meet with him and two other professors who were more worried about the reputation of the Department than anything else. I told them that I had had considerable experience teaching at the community college level before entering the program and that I had never encountered this situation before. To make a long story short, my research committee met and denied me permission to continue with the program although I was nearly finished. All I had left to accomplish was one class, the thesis prospectus, the remainder of my research, and the dissertation. The students told me that I was the best teacher they had ever had and even my own faculty advisor told me that I was treated shabbily. I eventually obtained the services of an attorney who advised me to file a complaint with the human rights commission of that state. The doctoral program was terminated three years ago and I found out the news not from the Chemistry Department but from a friend who lives in the same city the university is located. I know I am headstrong and so I did my best to get along with people so that I could obtain my degree and resume my career in chemistry. I felt that the situation in the Chemistry Department was excessively political and that the emotional needs of the students were not being met. A return to academic rigor is in order. As a consequence, I can sympathise with the emotional turmoil faced by Dr. Amy Bishop due to the denial of tenure but not her violent response to it. There are problems with the tenure process including cronyism and promoting incompetent faculty.

After writing this and reading all of your thoughtful comments and experiences, it seems that most agree that constructive interpersonal interactions should be valued but that what we call a lack of collegiality is a slippery topic, particular where it comes to defining it.

I also share some of the misgivings most recently expressed in #98 by Pam Ronald. Who defines the "not fitting in" can be used abusively.

But perhaps what I was most thinking of in the context of this post independently of the horrific shootings is the example given by CP in #96 of the faculty member who looks good on paper and turns out to be a toxic influence that damages careers, collaborations, and program reputations. The chronic obstructionist described in Anonymous #78 also falls into this category.

But Anon #78 also has a very important point that we not conflate collegiality with foregoing robust discussions, avoiding challenging decisions, or otherwise making one's colleagues feel uncomfortable. That's not a trap we want to fall into.

thanks for the heartfelt and insightful contribution dq5 (#100). To me this rings true and does evaporate away all other discussions of feminism, socialism, sociopathy and tenure-related resentment. It seems much deeper emptiness and as you point out, perhaps tragically inevitable that she would eventually reach some kind of psychological impasse. Which does kind of bring us back to gun control...

Peabrain:
I also appreciate comment #100. At the risk of sounding like a "bleeding-heart liberal who has more sympathy for the alleged perpetrator than for the victims" I find Bishop is more likely a tragic, psychologically damaged character than a dastardly one. I also think, no matter what the pressures, one is not "driven" to murder. People lose presidential elections, competition for concertmaster of an orchestra, and Olympic events without losing control of their behavior. She is responsible.
As for evaporating away discussions of tenure-related resentment, to the question of what we will decide to believe about Prof. Bishop, you would be correct. However, the author's questions were not about her, but about policy. The premise of the questions is that tenure, as it is exercised today, with all of its ramifications, is to be considered a very good thing, and I consider this to be open to challenge.
Best regards, Steve

There are so many good insights into how someone like Amy may have arrived at a point where she felt shooting her colleagues was an option open to her.

But all this talk about science is a bit off base. Science and its crappy treatment of women/minorities isn't to blame.

I've worked as a woman in science for years, and all the things said previously, about cronyism, sexism, unfairness of the good old boy clubs, is still all too true in much of science. I've been the recipient of some pretty amazingly bad treatment (and I've seen other women treated much much worse) that I don't believe would have been tolerated if it weren't for the fact that i was a woman, that professors and their grant money mean more to a university than ethics, or because i didn't possess the more traditionally 'male' characteristic of aggressive/assertive personality.

Most female scientists/students, however, know that it's an unfair playing field. Most don't do much complaining officially. Those that do are often labeled difficult, even when they're complaints are completely justified.

But what sets someone like Amy apart isn't that she was a good female worker in a job that wasn't over friendly to women. That can be said of many MANY jobs.

What sets her apart is that when she felt she was mistreated, she also felt ENTITLED to get a gun,, bring it to her place of employment, and murder those people she felt were mistreating her.

Frustration, despair, difficult work conditions, how many people in the world, men, women, and children, face situations that are untenable?

Not many feel they're entitled to take lives because of it.

It is hard to believe that Amy wasn't mentally ill long before this. I am sorry for her family, especially her children. And for those poor unfortunate souls who she killed, and their families.

But she DID have a choice. Science can be an incredibly difficult place to be for a woman, but she chose to be there.

I disagree with the poster who knew Amy and said "science chose her". There are people who are forced or born into much more unfair and untenable situations. Most will not go on to kill those responsible, even if given the chance.
I am sorry that this woman apparently led a lonely and sad life, despite having children, a husband, and a career, in the richest country in the world. She appears to have been a miserable person, and it sounds like she was or felt invisible.

But my sympathy ends at the point she felt entitled to kill a group of people (god only knows how many she had planned to kill), because she was unhappy with them or felt mistreated.
She wasn't in a prison they built for her, she was in a prison of her own mind. Science had nothing to do with it.

and cheers to the pro gun control comments.

Yakker, with all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what Dr Amy Bishop was feeling. What you are doing is projecting your feelings onto her. You are imputing how you would feel in her situation, and how you would have to feel to do what she did. You have no data to support your projections.

You are "othering" her so you can have the fantasy that you will never do what she did. That somehow you are "different" than her, and no matter how desperate the situation you are put into, that you will never break and do what she did. The truth is, no one knows what they will do when pushed to the breaking limit. A near death metabolic state can induce psychosis and profound delusions. Severe stress can cause a near death metabolic state, even purely psychogenic stress.

The poster who said that "science chose her" has known Dr Amy Bishop for over 20 years. How long have you known Dr Amy Bishop? Her husband knew her for even longer. He didn't notice anything wrong. If he had, he certainly would have stopped her, would have called 911, would have gotten her to a place where she would be safe and where everyone around her would be safe. That is what any compassionate person would do, even for a stranger. Her co-workers didn't notice anything either, or they would have done the same thing.

Hindsight is always 20-20, but lets not delude ourselves with wishful thinking or by pretending that we know what happened. We don't know what her thinking process was, she may not know what it was either. Trauma does strange and unpredictable things to people. It can induce quite profound delusions which are indistinguishable from reality.

Lots of academic physicians are suffering from personality disorders and are often responsible for the suffering and death of those around them, including patients. The press to excel may stem from those personality issues and/or the expectations from being in a highly competitive workplace.

In my experience, the physicians always do very well for themselves in term of promotions, salary, appointments to chair positions and department politics. The ones I have known have also all been male.

Ordinarily, daedalus, I'm right there with you. Even when you get a little wacky on the NO stuff, you are usually pretty much right. But this time? I can't.

Look, a person has to have SOME faith in herself. I believe in my heart that there is no way in this universe that I am ever going to take a loaded gun to a faculty meeting, much less pull it out and shoot a bunch of people.

Trauma does do extraordinary things. People with brain injuries do things they never anticipated.

But even if I accept that by a series of awful coincidences Dr. Bishop acted without forethought and just happened to completely lose her mind in a place full of the colleagues who "broke" her, and she just coincidentally had a loaded gun along with her, I do not believe those same coincidences will happen to me.

Having compassion for the mentally ill does not mean saying, "There but for the grace of chance go I," about a fellow female scientist turned mass murderer.

DearReaders - Most interesting stuff, especially the psychology. Readers might be interested in the piece I wrote on "The End of Tenure". This was a technique worked out by Eastern Michigan University [EMU] to end the career of a tenured full professor without any justified cause.

In this case, EMU hired for $65/hour a MI-Licensed Forensic Psychiogist to do a secret and remote analysis without the tenured professor's knowledge or the contract-required permission to access his personnel file. This ended up in 1982 making him unable to be employed for the rest of his life - now almost 30 years ago.

Since these were "Crimes of State", Michigan now owes him an estimated over $300M in back salary, inflation, and interest.

Please consult the blog for details:

http://www.tenureguy.blogspot.com

Thanks for your interest and feedback.

Bruce Graves

There are several points I think worth pondering in this case. Amy Bishop was a brilliant woman. & She is said to have had a difficult personality and perhaps didn't like being part of the team. But there are some other traits which set her apart from the usual push and shove of the tenure trip.

First, if she indeed killed the brother as the result of an argument, then she had an anger management problem and lack of impulse control. If she sent the bomb through the mail, this is planned and premeditated. Perhaps it was not her, but an interesting thing to ponder. Next, there is the issue of the unregistered firearm. Her husband claims they didn't even own a gun. This fact implies that Ms. Bishop planned to do something like this for quite a while, as obtaining an unregistered firearm isn't something you do by going to a gun shop.

My sense is that besides having lack of impulse control there was something else going on, a long term, premeditated plan to get revenge if things didn't go her way. Now perhaps she was delusional in all this, who knows. I think the tenure issue was a part of it but who can know why a person will throw her entire life away as well as the lives of others over any obstacle such as this.

No matter, it is a tragedy for many.

@26: "A consideration of collegiality or personality for tenure would be an abomination. Not that anything can excuse the acts of Dr. Bishop, an 'arrogant' 'difficult' female professor is perceived quite differently compared to a male professor. These same characteristics would be essential to equip a male professor or any professor to survive the rigor and competition of academia."

and

@28: "The risk of a "collegiality" clause is that professors could use such a clause to reinforce the prevailing ideology (whether political, 'scientific' or technical) of department heads. Such a clause would probably be misused."

As a female assistant professor with an ideology different from some members of the central administration at my university, I have been confronted with both of these issues... 1) that I run the risk of looking "bitchy" because I am confident and assertive, and 2) that by choosing the "hard road" of operating under the condition that a REAL university would want me to do the scholarly and activist work that I believe is right, even if it pushes the boundaries of the central admin's comfort zone, that I am risking not looking "collegial." This is despite the fact that most of my colleagues would probably define me as very "collegial."

I just worry about how to define this term and how to quantify it. I have a colleague in another department dealing with someone he works with who has managed to do the "easy road" politically and has people all over campus fawning after him, while the folks in his department are fuming. But even though he is not particularly liked by most in his department, he will probably have the kind of funding success, because of the way he's wheedling and ingratiating himself to certain bigwigs, that will get him tenure. I would love a system that evaluates his relationships with his colleagues as an additional tenure criterion. I just wouldn't want that criterion then turned on women, people of color, or other uppity people who want to make their universities better.

Like many bloggers at scienceblogs.com....

A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was "obsessed" with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.

Source: âOddballâ portrait of Amy Bishop emerges

Very interesting article... But:

"
Let us assume that an assistant professor there adequately met all of the explicit quantitative criteria for promotion and tenure in terms of teaching, research, and service. I would expect, however, that if the candidate under consideration was not an otherwise constructive member of the organization, comments in this regard would have been included in the chair's recommendation to the college dean's promotion and tenure committee based on the deliberations of the departmental promotion and tenure committee.
"

I don't believe there's a lot of truth to this. In my opinion its biased towards the opposing party.

I am from Huntsville and have been following this tragedy closely.

First point: It is not the decision of this community or any other to second guess the UAHuntsville tenure committee and their reasons for denying her tenure. Based on her reaction to conflict and other local stories, we can see that they were right.

Second point: Agree with #49, I had heard that she had not done enough articles until shortly before tenure when she worked furiously. But then again, that was for the committee to evaluate.

Third point: The issues of racism, feminism, issues of congeniality, her supposed intelligence, tenure abuse, psychological profiling is moot. Amy killed one black woman, one black man, and one Indian man. Two others are still in critical condition. The third injured has been released but he may lose his eye. My father knew Dr. Adriel Johnson 20 years ago when he was an up and coming biology professor. He has since continued to tutor at risk minority boys and volunteer with the Boy Scouts. Dad said he was always a hard worker and steady. Amy Bishop may have different not because she was from Harvard. Or a nerd. Or socially awkward. Or arrogant. Or angry. Maybe she was different because she did not value life.

Where did this happen? This is not for me to speculate nor justify. Did it happen because her mother worked for the Police Board and someone let her go when she killed her brother? Did it happen when she became angry with her advisor at Harvard and maybe sent him dud pipe-bomb?

I'm just thankful that she was not brilliant enough to really take out the whole UAHuntsville Biology department without any clues.

Fourth point: Amy was a loner. @100 and 101: I sympathize with your feelings of isolation and trauma with tenure. My father retired from UAHuntsville and had years of hardship from a Dean who did everything he could to destroy him. The Dean may have contributed to at least 2 families losing children to mental illness. I am just thankful that Amy did not try to kill you.

Fifth Point: Amy was strange. My husband just told me that on one of her latest articles, she put her childrenâs name on the byline.

Anytime something like this happens; we want to justify, explain, and analyze this tragedy. I think Amy's previous infractions without punishment led her to believe that she could get away with this. I pray that even if she is deemed "insane", she stay locked up well until she is not able to hold a gun in her hand any longer.

Appreciate the courtesy with comments and theories. There's more analysis and understanding here than at other web sites where there is a lot of anger and hate spewing.

But some of the intellectualism disregards the fact that what happened is just plain tragic.

By the way, according to Dick Reeves from BizTech (incubator and Angel funder), UAH would have allowed her to keep 50% of all profits from her fledgling company; very generous indeed.

Amy Bishop was probably for gun control. According to rateMyProfessor (before it was scrubbed) she frequently discussed her far-left politics in class. The problem was not gun control. In Alabama, there is no need for gun registration. A background check is done, but legally anyone can buy a gun unless deemed mentally incompetent. Because Amy was never arrested for anything previously, any background check would have been clean.

Finally, while most seem to be arguing that UAHuntsville is not a top tier academic institution (an assertion that many locals including myself disagree with); and, Hometown University should have accepted her "brilliance", the tenure committee or the schoolâs leadership do not owe the public any explanation of the tenure discussion or decisions. While Amy may have been qualified, she also was leading a protest movement to censure the President of the University for implementing a policy for first and second year on-campus residency. (Not really a bright idea for someone up for tenure.)

Ironically, the President wanted to implement this policy to help accelerate the transition of UAHuntsville from a night school to a more traditional college campus, though this transition had been occuring for the last 20 years. It may be Amy and the blood of three others who ultimately have put UAHuntsville on the map. Please pray for the two survivors who are still in critical condition.

Where exactly is this paper where whe put her kids on as co-authors? 'Cause I can't find any evidence of it.

It was posted on another thread.

http://www.dovepress.com/effects-of-selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibi…

anon#115

Here is the link to that paper:

http://www.dovepress.com/effects-of-selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibi…

The lead author is her youngest daughter who is around 12 years old. The other authors are her teenage daughters and her husband. The Cherokee Labsystems is her husband's company. It's address is her house! Google it!

This paper was published in a "vanity" journal. It is peer reviewed, but the guidelines to peer reviewers state that the journal is looking for reasons why the paper should be published more than why it should not be published.

The paper with her children's names on it is pretty juvenile. If her children did the work, why shouldn't they be co-authors? I am speculating, but maybe the work was done as a marketing gimick to show that even children could use the new neuron tissue culture equipment the company was developing. If it produced publishable results, it is better to publish them then than to throw them away.

UAH is not a private club. It is a state funded university. It can't be run as a private club. It can't be run at the whim of the administrators as their private fiefdom. The tenure process needs to be looked at, to see if it was properly followed. Not following the appropriate tenure process does not in any way justify murder, but there is no justification for not following the proper procedures either.

It is important to look at every contributing factor and for those contributing factors to be publicized so that those contributing factors can be corrected at UAH and everywhere else before they contribute to another disaster. It is a big mistake to latch onto only one factor and ignore or cover up everything else.

To phisrow:
You cannot be Just That Good. You are The Arrogant.

On the issue: Unfortunately, most one can see nowadays in the academia is something like the Friday meeting on beer and potato chips. Itâs simply a matter of taste.

Abel, Dan is right. Most of us we are no schmoozers, yet we do most of the job.

Indeed, there is an ass-kissing structure in most of the cases, since most are mediocre.

daedalus2u

This was not a spoof paper. She included it in her list of publications.

Her children did NOT do this research.

She is a fraud.

to 107 @murmur55

A characteristic of this group is little knowledge of the nature of people which may be because they never learned it or they may be still in adolescent denial. This does not keep them from being good scientists, but it does mean their judgments about people are flawed so you will probably not receive any acknowledgment other than this about what you personally observed. They don't want to hear it, or cannot.

to JoeProf at 75

Your post was not too long; it was packed with organized, meaningful comment and well considered. You would be a good person to have on a tenure committee to ensure fairness.

The world it is the old world yet.

Matthew 5:21-22
"You shall not murder...whoever is angry with his brother...reconcile to your brother..."

No question, she had a choice: To not kill.

More discussion on Amy Bishop from a psychological perspective and the implications of being denied tenrue:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crimes-violence/201002/amy-bishop-a…

For those of you questioning the possibility of Dr. Bishop medicated w/antideps please reevaluate..........Was she also on meds in 2003, 2002 and 198? when exhibiting criminal behaviour? And if she was, (highly unlikely), more than likely she was medicated the years in between so why was she not killing or trying to kill people at those times? I would rather spend time diagnosing her than finding excuses for her.
Re, tenure. Let me preface I have and will not ever be in front of my colleagues to ask for a guarantee of a job for the rest of my life. But should we not keep only those who are foremost GREAT teachers and whom can teach students? Tenure should never ever be given to someone who cannot TEACH! Colleges and Universities are places of higher education. Not places of higher athletics. Not places of grant generators. Places of higher academics.

Re: "Tenure should never ever be given to someone who cannot TEACH! Colleges and Universities are places of higher education."
Makes perfect sense to me. Except here's what, in many a college, these great tenured teachers are doing: teaching very small workloads, while much more work is done by poorly paid, overworked adjuncts. Logical conclusion? The adjuncts are doing work that is much better than anyone gives them credit for, and the college administration knows this, and intends to keep operating this way, and does everything in their power to conceal the reality.
Meanwhile, the tenured guys teach a few students brilliantly, have their feuds, keep doing research, attract students and publicity, keep up appearances for the accreditation boards, travel the world, retire young and get great at golf.
Sorry I keep diverting the discussion; my topic is more interesting.

Unfortunately Dr Chopia seems to have an undergraduate understanding of what a university's core function is.

The production and desemination of knowledge.

Teaching students is only implied by the desemination bit. Tenure is dead in most of the world anyway so it's a moot point.

As a retired director of research and development in large high-tech corporations, I see the issue not as the collegiality or lack thereof of any particular professional, but rather as the question of what the administration or management does to minimize and correct disruption due to personality differences and clashes. I spent a large fraction of my time for 29 years dealing with the personnel issues that arise with "difficult people", which some of the best scientists are. In rare cases, someone's behavior was so antisocial that I had to remove the person from my payroll. But in the great majority of cases of "difficult people", even including a few who were suffering from clinical psychiatric disorders, as well as a number of people suffering from various addictions, I found that thoughtful counseling of that person and others, sometimes by me and sometimes by psychologists and/or medical professionals, reduced conflict to negligible levels and kept the person productive. It is my belief that most administrators and managers of scientists, in academia, in industry, and in government, do not exercise the skill to do this properly. Doing it requires recognition that scientists, like everyone else, are human beings with flaws, and that to get the best contribution from them requires attention not only to their work and work products, but to their strengths and weaknesses as human beings. In the extreme, I did deal with people who were angry enough to portend violence, including a specific threat to shoot me. In only one of those cases did I find it necessary to remove someone from the payroll; in the others I worked with the individuals to address the causes of their anger, and kept them as productive employees. The Amy Bishop case seems to me a failure on the part of those who should have acted either to help Bishop or to get her off the premises immediately.

Hmmm.....you think someone who can not get along should have been given tenure. Oh perhaps someone capable of murdering three people and injuring three more (two critically) should be placed in a position to be in control of impressionable college students. Yes I can see how that line of thinking allows us to have increased safety in our universities. Actually no I don't, perhaps I am just not smart enough to see your line of reasoning. Your logic escapes me. I guess I need to go back to school.... except, I would be afraid to go there. A tenured professor with no ability to relate to mere humans might decide her needs to have her way supersede my need to live and she may kill me.

Dear Prof. Dr. Vyssotsky (comment 130),

many sincere thanks for your very apt, timely and insightful comment !

To my mind, "what the administration or management does to minimize and correct disruption due to personality differences and clashes" is actually the contribution of the authorities to the notion of "collegiality" under discussion in this forum, to the healthy moral climate in research organizations.

Regretfully, all kinds of the decision-making, steering, funding-control positions in the academia are with drastically increasing rate taken over by people, who are interested only in their own social recognition, and - as a result - aren't willing to (or are simply incapable of) deal(ing) with the "boring" administrative stuff, like what you are suggesting.

"The decay of a fish starts from its head", as the famous Russian saying states (sorry for this clumsy English translation !).

Although killings, suicides and other extremes cannot be ever justified, this particular Amy Bishop case seems to have been preprogrammed by the disastrous situation in the modern academia as a whole - and - obviously - in the UAH in particular.

The main concern here, in my opinion, ought to be trying to prevent an avalanche of similar cases all over the world - and thus said, I consider the present discussion forum the perfect first step in the rightest direction, a kind of the "self-cleansing" for the modern academia ...

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov

Dear BeBe@Huntsville (comment #114),

many thanks, you the TRUE insider, so that your opinion and engagement are absolutely indispensable.

Our thoughts and prayers are surely with those families who have lost their loved ones, with those who are still balancing on the fatal verge ...

This unspeakably terrible case is NOT about some particular deficiences of UAH.

It's rather a reflection of a general devastating situation in academia - which equally pertains all the universities + research institutions over the world - to more or less high degree, of course).

The system of "research grants", especially as concerns the Life Sciences, has definitely outlived its usefulness. It's grown to be the hotbed of the "academic schmuck", those who are striving solely for their own social success by recklessly exploiting "their workhorses", the "toilers", who are the True Scientists. The latter are damned to remain in this "vicious cycle", getting socially marginalized and, as the tragic UAH case has shown, being sometimes driven into horrible, brutal madness ...

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov

... Sorry, something has gone wrong with my previous submission (#133), please find the correct version:

Dear BeBe@Huntsville (comment #114),

many thanks, you are the TRUE insider, so that your opinion and engagement are absolutely indispensable !

Our thoughts and prayers are surely with those families who have lost their loved ones, with those who are still balancing on the fatal verge ...

Look, this unspeakably terrible case is NOT about some particular deficiences of UAH.

It's rather a reflection of a general devastating situation in academia, which equally pertains to all the universities + research institutions over the world, to higher or lesser degree, of course.

The system of "research grants", "tenures", "tenure-tracks", "quota-hires" etc., especially as concerns the Life Sciences, has definitely outlived its usefulness. It's grown to be a hotbed of the "academic schmuck", who infiltrate all the decision-making, steering, funding-control positions with increasing frequency. These "schmucks" are striving solely for their own social success by recklessly exploiting "their workhorses", the "toilers", who are the True Scientists. Being nothing else but "toilers", they are damned to remain in this "vicious cycle", getting socially marginalized and, as the tragic UAH case has shown, being sometimes driven into horrible, brutal madness ...

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov

Dear colleagues and non-colleagues,

to my mind, it's totally fundamentally wrong to look for "stars" in the science ! It is here that a great temptation of delusion/self-delusion begins.

Scientific research is not sports. In the latter, everybody has to carry out one and the same sequence of exercises, so that the results can easily be evaluated according to commonly accepted criteria, like time, distance etc.

As for the research activity, can you clearly define what exactly its outcome is ? Very often you carry out very expensive and bizarre experiments, you write sophisticated theories, you run large-scale years-long computer simulations to obtain just the only answer - "the phenomenon we were studying is sheer impossible".

In such a case - have you rightfully spent money you have got for your research ?

Sometimes it is absolutely impossible (even for keen professionals in the field) to clearly evaluate definite degree of usefulness some particular theory or experiment might be possessed of - years and years must elapse before the damned "informational barrier" could be overcome ...

Especially misleading is the common system in academia, where everybody's trying to determine who is "star" and who is "not star" just by counting the number of publications - or by checking who has papers in "Science", "Nature", "Angewandte Chemie", "JACS" or likewise. There may be a sole paper which is ground-breaking, but hundreds of scam papers. The mentioned "big" journals are frequently publishing scam, every specialist knows this very well.

Every True Scientist is a star in him/herself, True Scientists are different from each other and from non-scientists !

Therefore I completely agree with Zorean (cf. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=57209&o=3&r…) that "as a society what we need to do is to learn to embrace and help people who are "different" or who are greatly and emotionally tied to certain outcomes/situations."

But how to achieve this ideal state of affairs - is a big problem ...

And now let us try to consider this whole dreadful story from a quite different standpoint - namely, not from "inside", but from "outside".

I guess, in this particular case, BOTH Amy Bishop AND the UAH administration bear the responsibility. However, it is extremely difficult to determine - without a fair and detailed investigation into this case - the exact ratio of these responsibilities ...

Please note also another aspect. When denying tenure, the responsible administrators follow THEIR OWN logics and are fully persuaded by THEIR OWN train of thoughts.

That such an "administrative" logics is sometimes at odds with the conventional human one is correct. But it is exactly here that the true "blind alley" starts ...

On the other hand, Amy Bishop - as every human being - has her own logics and her own train of thoughts ... Now, the two "trains of thoughts" have violently collided - there are very clear casualties !

The both sides: Dr. Bishop and the UAH administrators have surely the right to drive their own trains of thoughts. But there must be a fair "roadmap" for these both trains, not to induce violent collisions like that horrific tragedy of the week ago ...

Again, we come to a conclusion that the modern academic system doesn't provide - at least, for the people like Amy Bishop - the fair "roadmap" !

It is impossible to place people into a permanent "struggle for the survival" !

It is sheer impossible to play with "everything" or "nothing", this play becomes a pure sadism, in the long run. This means, I would like to estimate the UAH administrators as (potential) sadists. And - as a consequence - I would like to estimate the unlucky "quota hires", "tenure-tracks", "postdocs" etc. as (potential) masochists.

A couple "sadist-masochist" seems to be stable, but in fact it could exhibit a steady functioning only if the system is closed ...

But the system is open (Thank Goodness !). And exactly this fact renders the system "sadist-masochist" intrinsically unstable.

One of the definitions of unstable systems tells us that if a system exhibits exceedingly huge reaction in response to a tiny external stimulus, it may be qualified as 'unstable' ...

Look, this is but exactly, what we have seen last week at UAH !

Apart from the terrible tragedy of all those who was involved into this violent drama, there is a definite clear-cut conclusion:
The modern academic system is vicious, it is corrupt - because of its intrinsic instability.

This state of affairs MUST somehow be changed ! Otherwise, we'll witness other similar collisions all around the world !

@28:

One could describe the academic world as overly "tolerant", as this writer feels. However, in academia, outside ideas are not generally welcome. On most campuses, there is an "easy road", politically, and a "hard road". Most professors and students try to believe in the ideas that constitute the "easy road". This enables them to get good grades and move their careers forward. This IS academia today.

This is such a barrel of useless generalization that it might as well be a barrel of warm saliva. Everything depends on what, where, and whom you're talking about. Specifics matter, damn it.

@19: "...So, in light of Amy's excellent research record, and her not-so-nice personality, I am left wondering..."

Her research record is average, at best. There are no high-In our Department tenure would have been very unlikely with her publication record -- unless there was evidence Bishop was a truly exceptional teacher, which she apparently was not.

Whoops. That last should have started "@37," not @19.

@110: "Amy Bishop was a brilliant woman."

I'm getting a little bit tired of this shit.

No, she wasn't.

I honestly think that people are throwing this term around because (1) they don't know a lot of genuinely brilliant women or (2) they don't have very high standards for brilliance.

It is an insult to genuinely brilliant scientists like Joan Steitz and Ada Yonath and Gertrude Elion and Grace Hopper and Rosalind Franklin and Christine Nusslein-Vollhard and Liz Blackburn (and, and, and...) to call this homicidal mediocrity of a woman "brilliant." She wasn't.

@William Wallace: stop drooling on yourself. It is unbecoming.

@114: "Finally, while most seem to be arguing that UAHuntsville is not a top tier academic institution (an assertion that many locals including myself disagree with)"

Those of us who have said that UAH is not a top-tier research school are correct. That does NOT mean that it is not academically superb; it means only that UAH professors are not expected to produce research and procure grants at the same rate as professors at, say, UAB or U Michigan or Yale.

Spiny Norman's comments:

(#136): "This is such a barrel of useless generalization that it might as well be a barrel of warm saliva. Everything depends on what, where, and whom you're talking about. Specifics matter, damn it."

Dear Spiny, here is a discussion forum for the specialists and insiders - generalizations are absolutely natural here, and, in fact, very welcome ... Bloggers and Commentors here know tons of specifics, but revealing names & addresses (a propos, very well known to everybody here !) is a definite sign of bad taste.

(#137) "Her research record is average, at best. There are no high-In our Department tenure would have been very unlikely with her publication record -- unless there was evidence Bishop was a truly exceptional teacher, which she apparently was not."

Dear Spiny, scientific research isn't sports ! Moreover, are you a professional in neurobiology ? Have you statistically analyzed the students' ratings of Amy Bishop's teaching activity ?

(#139) "@110: "Amy Bishop was a brilliant woman."
I'm getting a little bit tired of this shit.
No, she wasn't." ... "...to call this homicidal mediocrity of a woman "brilliant." She wasn't."

Dear Spiny, did you know Amy Bishop personally ? If so, for how long ?

(#141) "Those of us who have said that UAH is not a top-tier research school are correct. That does NOT mean that it is not academically superb; it means only that UAH professors are not expected to produce research and procure grants at the same rate as professors at, say, UAB or U Michigan or Yale."

Dear Spiny, the true scientific research is not "produced", and "procuring grants" has nothing to do with science - it is a (very primitive form of) management, accounting, etc.
Further, it is a very difficult problem to decide who is "academically superb" and who is not. Finally, EVERY True Scientist is a kind of jewel - and "academic schmuck" was, is and remains to be just "schmuck".

Spiny, it is pretty clear you don't understand Dr Bishop's work. When one does not understand something it is impossible to evaluate it. Barbara McClintock had similar problems. She wrote:

âOver the years I have found that it is difficult if not impossible to bring to consciousness of another person the nature of his tacit assumptions when, by some special experiences, I have been made aware of them. This became painfully evident to me in my attempts during the 1950s to convince geneticists that the action of genes had to be and was controlled. It is now equally painful to recognize the fixity of assumptions that many persons hold on the nature of controlling elements in maize and the manners of their operation. One must await the right time for conceptual change.â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock

This is the problem in trying to evaluate science at the cutting edge. When the scientists who are the gate keepers in journals, in conferences, in funding, and in tenure don't understand something (and actively block it), how can someone advance the field when everyone else is holding it back?

What Dr McClintock describes is what Thomas Kuhn talks about in his book on the nature of scientific revolutions. Ordinary scientists do what he calls ordinary science, that is science done within the scientific paradigms they understand. When those scientific paradigms are wrong, they need to be changed. But changing paradigms is not something that ordinary scientists are capable of doing (that is the definition of an ordinary scientist).

@daedalus2u,

I am adequately informed, and I disagree with you. I hope that you understand that two well-informed people can disagree.

I've read some of Bishop's papers. They range from average-good to truly poor. (The last one, coauthored with three of her kids and with her 12-year-old daughter as lead author, is a truly awful piece of dreck that I would be ashamed to list on my own CV; we are, after all, judged by our worst, as well as our best, papers.)

Since you seem to think that I don't know anything about the history or philosophy of science, I should point out that I've also read a number of McClintock's papers (difficult going, but she was obviously anything but a mediocre scientist) and I've read Fox-Keller's biography of her. I've also read both of Kuhn's major books at least twice (and a fair amount of work by other, philosophers of of science; I'm more of a Popper fan, though).

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

Evgeni,

you seem to be systematically misreading what I have written. Let's try again.

1. Asking that people actually talk about specifics does not mean that I was asking for names or places or dates. When a generalization becomes too broad, it loses its utility to explain anything at all. Read the post I was replying to @28. It makes useless generalizations, and I said so

2. "Research is not sports". That is true. I was not counting publications; I was actually looking at her papers. Not one of them appears to be in any way exceptional.

If you disagree, then let's talk about the actual work. The papers are published. Which experiments do you think are path-breaking? Which represent exciting departures rather than incremental extensions of other scientists' work? Which interpretations? This is a case where there is absolutely no point to talking in generalities, since the specifics are right there, part of the archived scientific record.

3. About scientific brilliance. Most of the people who have been talking about Bishop's so-called brilliance have been talking about her scientific achievements. Again, those are documented in her own papers. I do not need to have known her personally to say that if she did not publish brilliant papers she was probably not a brilliant scientist. My standard of comparison is both to scientists that I know personally, including Nobel and Lasker laureates, and to scientists who I know solely through their published papers.

4. Scientific research absolutely is produced, just as works of art or music or literature or philosophy are produced. All these things are products of human effort, and struggle, and imagination.

Perhaps this is not the way you see it, but I suspect that any difference is purely semantic -- unless you think that science simply pops into the aether, fully-formed?

5. About grants, and research universities. Every experimental paper has a section entitled "Materials and Methods."

If you can't procure the materials, there are no experiments. It really is that simple. To do experiments in biological research, one must pay for reagents, culture media, microscopes, incubators, etc. All of these things are expensive. Someone has to pay. Peter Mitchell, for example, did it by being independently wealthy. Scientists who are not independently wealthy have had to find other benefactors. This was true for every experimental scientist from Aristotle on.

Now, what was my point about grants? It was NOT that UAH is a "worse" school than the large research universities. It was that as an institution oriented toward undergrad teaching, there is less research activity at a place like UAH than one would see at a place like Rockefeller University or UC Berkeley. This is indisputable, if only because the professors at UAH spend much more of their time in class, and have commensurately less time to dedicate to original research. That is not in any way worse, it is merely different.

Whoops. Pasted the wrong link for Peter Mitchell. Here's the right link.

I want to add one other thing about Kuhn: most people who allude to his work (this includes most scientists who allude to his work) have never actually read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and do not actually understand what his arguments were.

Subsequent work in the history and philosophy of science have made it abundantly clear that Kuhn's simple dichotomy between normal science and paradigm shifts is -- at best -- a serious oversimplification of how science actually progresses. Yes, things that look like paradigm shifts (in the Kuhnian sense) occasionally occur. Mitchell's chemiosmotic hypothesis is my second-favorite example in biology (the work of Darwin and Wallace is my favorite, of course).

But just as often, perhaps more often, good ideas are not opposed. In these periods "normal science" often progresses with breathtaking speed and intense competition and collaboration.

To pick but one example: the Nobel-winning work of Weischaus and Nusslein-Vollhard on developmental genetics was embraced immediately across many fields in biology as the tremendous advance that it was. The Watson-Crick model for DNA structure is another good example. It was immediately seen for the advance that it was. Both of these were genuinely anti-Kuhnian paradigm shifts.

On the one hand, I feel for Dr. Bishop, having been horribly discriminated against as a female scientist. However, it is our own responsibility to maintain our mental health. When Dr. Bishop was court ordered to get anger management therapy, she did not. Her husband claimed that she did not need it. But wasn't he there when she hit another woman in public and said "I am Dr. Amy Bishop"? He thought it was blown out of proportion? I beg to differ. What I see is a woman who was book smart but lacked all semblance of an emotional IQ above infantile level.
That being said, I agree with Dr. Vyssotsky in that management of universities should be supportive of faculty and not ignore them. I have begged my president, provost, dean and chairman for support and to stop the discrimination and abuse, and not only have I been ignored, I have been retaliated against. Luckily I have maintained my sanity, but do not trust anyone at the university. For someone like Dr. Bishop, her personality disorder got the better of her. Vigilence and compassion are in order at universities that want to nurture their faculty so that those faculty can be productive in a stress free environment.

@beentherebutdidntdothat,

Toxic work environments suck, wherever you find them. I'm truly sorry to hear that you've landed in one; my advice is to do whatever you can to get into a better setting. Not everywhere is the same and from what you say, most places are in fact better.

Also, agreed that Vyssotsky's comment @130 is wonderfully perceptive. Managers like that are few and far between; it is a useful goal to find work in a place where you work for honorable people.

It is not, however, clear to me that Amy Bishop could have been happy and productive in any work environment.

Dear Spiny (#145), thank you for your detailed response - I really enjoy your being my discussion counterpart !

Now to your points:

1) #28 is absolutely rightful and appropriate generalization. I'm witnessing these "easy roads" and "hard roads" practically everywhere all around the world during all my 27-years-long career. I myself belong to those who goes "hard roads".

2) Maybe. I have no comment here, for I am a molecular biophysicist. Yes, I have been involved into the research on neuro-degenerative disorders some 10 years ago - but at the molecular level. Here you'd better apply to DAEDALUS2U who's a definite professional in the field.

3) "... if she did not publish brilliant papers she was probably not a brilliant scientist." The word "probably" is completely suitable here. To be eligible to say "mediocrity" to somebody, you have to know this somebody personally for a long enough time. If you just read the papers by somebody, then you may express your opinion on the papers only, without going over to the personality of the author. But you are entitled to draw tentative conclusions on the whole set of the "oevres", if you feel that you are professional enough in the field. This is just the conventional scientific etiquette, nothing new.

A bit more to the story, just a short lyrical intermezzo: Not all the Nobel Prize Winners nowadays really deserve to be viewed as "benchmarks". The common practice to look for a Nobel Prize Winner every year without fail has drastically impeded the value and prestige of the Nobel Prize.

4) Yes, I agree - the difference is purely semantic.

5) Without money - no research, I agree. But the problem of the modern academic society is that "money-making" has devolved into a separate, independent activity. It is truly difficult to combine both "money-making" and the very research. I have never seen examples when somebody could successfully combine these two types of activity. As a result such academic posts as decision-making, steering, funding-control are frequently infiltrated by "schmuck", who are striving solely for their success in the society - at any price - without being even a shadow of a specialist in their respective fields. At the same time, the True Researchers, who do nothing but research itself, fall into fatal dependence on the "schmuck". The latter starts then to be playing with the destinies and fates of the former, using all these "tenure rules", using their power to award grants to whom they want etc.

In all the universities I know this is done more or less according to the above-mentioned scheme. As for the UAH, I am not sure - have never had connections with them. I hope the careful police investigation into Amy Bishop case will reveal all the details of this horrible tragedy.

6) I am not so versed in the philosophy of science as you, so that I'm unable to continue this part of discussion.

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov

This has really been a fantastic discussion. I'm wondering if any of you had a chance to look at this article by Gina Kolata in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/23bish.html

It's short and largely dismissive of Bishop's research record, particularly her work in NO, but did not discuss her funding.

Abel @ 151. I think that asking whether the research record of an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville would be sufficient for tenure at Columbia's medical school is rather stupid.* However, answering the question-as-asked is even stupider.

*Which for Kolata, is par for the course.

Re: NYTimes article
If she was so unqualified for tenure, then why was one of the slain professors voting in her favor?
But, assuming the professor was judging the situation poorly, then why do colleges let people persist in trying for tenure when it ought to have been clear it's not in the cards? Because academia never tells you when you're being used. It's up to you to figure it out. And if you don't, all the more justification for them exploiting you, as you have identified yourself as a dummy.
While there may be some truth to this, it is perverse to systematically capitalize on a thing like that!
Full professors often complain that the colleges use too many adjuncts, causing slippage in academic freedom, downward pressure on their salaries, and poorer teaching (this one is aguable). If the tenured people would have higher course loads, fewer adjuncts could be used.
Tenure is fairly unpopular among the lay public, Some of them suspect that the purpose of tenure is lavish salaries and light workloads. Are they partly correct?
Does academic freedom mean that you can teach the way you know that you must, even if it makes you unpopular, or does it also mean you can afford to be unpopular with the majority of the general population, extendedly?
If the hierarchy/conditions/salary of academic labor were to be reformed so it looked less like a pyramid scheme, then people like Bishop (competent, not exceptional) might be content with just a decent job.

"If she was so unqualified for tenure, then why was one of the slain professors voting in her favor?"

Um, because different people have different opinions?

"But, assuming the professor was judging the situation poorly, then why do colleges let people persist in trying for tenure when it ought to have been clear it's not in the cards?"

Um, because it would be asinine to jettison what little regularized process *does* exist for tenure decisions, and it would amount to making the tenure decision even earlier, with even less basis for knowing whether a given person is a good candidate for tenure?

"Because academia never tells you when you're being used. It's up to you to figure it out."

Fortunately, things are completely different in the private sector.

"And if you don't, all the more justification for them exploiting you, as you have identified yourself as a dummy. While there may be some truth to this, it is perverse to systematically capitalize on a thing like that!"

Fortunately, you have the alternative of working at Wal-Mart, whose management would never engage in such practices.

"Full professors often complain that the colleges use too many adjuncts, causing slippage in academic freedom, downward pressure on their salaries, and poorer teaching (this one is aguable). If the tenured people would have higher course loads, fewer adjuncts could be used."

Such a simple explanation. I am so glad that I'm only imagining that I teach in excess of 1800 student hours a year, with help from a single TA, while maintaining a significant research program.

"Tenure is fairly unpopular among the lay public, Some of them suspect that the purpose of tenure is lavish salaries and light workloads."

Some of them also suspect that cyrstals can heal what ails you, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Colonel Sanders puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly.

"Are they partly correct?"

About the chemical in the chicken?

"Does academic freedom mean that you can teach the way you know that you must, even if it makes you unpopular, or does it also mean you can afford to be unpopular with the majority of the general population, extendedly?"

I can't speak for other fields, but here we were talking about scientists, and most people in the United States admire scientists. There's data on this point, ya know. (Scientists like data.)

"If the hierarchy/conditions/salary of academic labor were to be reformed so it looked less like a pyramid scheme, then people like Bishop (competent, not exceptional) might be content with just a decent job."

That last sentence provides a succinct explanation of why it was necessary for Bishop to start punching a random woman at an iHop who had made the error of taking thelast booster seat, while repeatedly screaming "I am Dr. Amy Bishop!" It also explains why it was necessary for her to level a shotgun at her brother's chest and pull the trigger. It also explains why there are scores of cases exactly like Amy Bishop's across the United States, every year.

Dear Abel, the NYT article you are referring to is apparently well conceived but rather awkwardly written.

1. In fact, there are no clear and commonly accepted criteria to conlusively estimate the significance of any research work. Indeed, the number of publications ? There might be only one "hidden jewel" and thousand "pieces of scam". May perhaps the number of papers in "big" journals ? Every honest researcher knows that they also frequently publish tons of scam. Number of citations & related criteria ? The paper may be cited just "en passant", without analysis and using the ideas/results, or the paper may be severely criticized - should we really take into account the latter two types of scitations ?

2. Not seldom it's really difficult even for the finest and most renowned professionals to estimate the significance of a research thread in their field - just due to the damned "informational barrier".

3. The modern research is highly specialized, and if I hear "Professor in biophysics" - I have to spend an appreciable time to refine the term biophysics (biophysics of proteins, biophysics of nucleic acids, biophysics of saccharides etc.) - very frequently a fine specialist in protein folding can't estimate the significance of a work done on DNA. But both DNA and proteins are studied in molecular biophysics.

To sum up, what is my point ? Estimating scientific research - and therefore academic achievements - is a very turbid and extremely swampy undertaking.

That exactly this fuzzy and "spooky" activity is forming the basis of the "tenure decisions", where destinies and fates of living people are at stake, is absolutely devastating, to my mind.

Those who've taken in the tenure denials are rarely going berserk or going postal, like Amy Bishop. But not seldom this kind of capital defeat ends up in heart infarctions, cerebral haemorrhages, depressions, suicides ...

From the "external" viewpoint (the viewpoint of the rest of society) - so what, tenure denial ? Fiddlesticks ! There are much more serious tragedies, right ?

But from the "insider" standpoint - it is the total Out, it is a terrible catastrophe, it is disaster ... Not everyone has healthy enough nervous system to cope with the disaster. Does it mean that we have to humiliate, to discard such victims ? Wouldn't neglecting them be just kicking somebody who is already on the floor ?

That the rest of society has virtually no understanding and no excuse for this "insider horror" only amplifies the moral tortures of the "academic victims" ...

It is not a pure coincidence that these "tenure decisions" have devolved into the sadistic instrument used by the academic "schmuck" to play bad jokes with the True Scientists, whereas the latter tend even to be masochistic in their desperate addiction to their research work ...

On the "Psychology Today" forum devoted to the paper by Dr. van Wormer (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crimes-violence/201002/amy-bishop-a…) user Carmen, who seems to be one of the victims of the modern academic society, has very insightfully compared this "sadistic-masochistic" attitude with the well-known "Stockholm syndrome".

I guess, this parallel is very rightful. This is where the whole academic psychopathology begins ...

"Um, because it would be asinine to jettison what little regularized process *does* exist for tenure decisions, and it would amount to making the tenure decision even earlier, with even less basis for knowing whether a given person is a good candidate for tenure?"

I was thinking more like this: suppose you have a person trying to get a master's degree in musical performance at a good conservatory. If the person's GPA in performance related courses slips below 3.0 he may be forced to withdraw. This can happen a year or two before the senior recital. This keeps unqualified or insufficiently motivated people from from going the distance, only to be traumatized by an unsatisfactory senior recital.
Makes sense for everybody.

"Fortunately, things are completely different in the private sector."

Haha. This reminds me of John Kenneth Galbraith saying "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's just the opposite." If you're considering the state university, which may be stringing along tenure candidates to whom it does not expect to give tenure to, or adjuncts who are getting...well, you know.

"Fortunately, you have the alternative of working at Wal-Mart, whose management would never engage in such practices."

Sure, but if you're looking at the psychology today article about the trauma of tenure denial, then it might behoove us to figure out how to curtail some of the more extreme instances of career-induced trauma. Or else be less surprised when an unbalanced person like Dr. Bishop lashes out.

"Such a simple explanation. I am so glad that I'm only imagining that I teach in excess of 1800 student hours a year, with help from a single TA, while maintaining a significant research program."

Congratulations for all you're accomplishing and I didn't mean to offend you. I know a tenured college professor who boasts "I get full time pay for a part time job."
You have an anecdote/example and so do I. Neither qualifies as data.

"Some of them also suspect that cyrstals can heal what ails you, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Colonel Sanders puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly."
"About the chemical in the chicken?"

The point is there has been a slippage in the public's opinion of tenure recently. I just read an article about it. I'll try to find it. I find it interesting. What if the public is stupid, but even a dull witted lay person has a fair idea about what's wrong with the tenure system? What would that mean?
Actually certain conservatives are interested in this because they feel that colleges and tenure are a stronghold of liberal influence, especially if they are trying to shut out conservative intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell. And Obama has galvanized them. It's interesting. I'm certainly not saying I want them to take over.

"That last sentence provides a succinct explanation of why it was necessary for Bishop to start punching a random woman at an iHop who had made the error of taking thelast booster seat, while repeatedly screaming "I am Dr. Amy Bishop!" It also explains why it was necessary for her to level a shotgun at her brother's chest and pull the trigger. It also explains why there are scores of cases exactly like Amy Bishop's across the United States, every year."

If you took all of the mentally unbalanced people out of our workforce, I think our GDP would decline noticeably.

"Fortunately, things are completely different in the private sector."

So why does this matter? Because if your private sector employer, i.e. Wal-Mart, or Dupont, exploits you, you are paying taxes to a government that considers it your responsibility to avoid exploitative transactions. Whereas, if you teach at a state-run university that exploits you, you are paying taxes to the state so they will have the means to exploit you. This part is compulsory.

Evgeni and Steven's comments are penetrating, although I obviously disagree with some aspects of what they've written above.

Evgeni's comments on the assessment of scientific performance are particularly trenchant. It's a tough problem, and I certainly do not know how to fix it. For me the acid test is this: if I read one paper by a given scientist, does it make me want to spend the time to read another one by the same person? I do know that the paper of my own that I like best is by far the most highly cited, but my second-favorite has not gotten the notice that it should have. No accounting for taste, I guess!

My problem with the tenure system is that at most places it is up-or-out. That is, if you don't have tenure by the end of your sixth year, many universities are compelled to fire you. So my problem is not with tenure per se, but with the necessarily severe consequences of not getting it.

This is where I see a huge problem. I would probably be willing to jettison the tenure system just to destroy the up-or-out requirement. Of course, this very requirement exists at the behest of the very professional guild that "represents" me, the American Association of University Professors. Tenure doesn't mean much to me because I pay at least half of my salary from grants. If the grants go away for a long time, it hardly matters whether I have tenure; I would have to choose between my mortgage and dinner, and I would therefore have to seriously consider a different line of work.

Up-or-out is, in a way, the opposite of the problem that concerns Steven, that universities "string along" people on the tenure track. In fact, the main argument advanced in favor of "up-or-out" is that it limits a university's ability to string people along.

In any case my experience, which is in biological science, is that *most* departments go out of their way to do the right things. The overwhelming desire is to: (1) do the smallest number of job searches possible, because they are horribly time-, energy-, and $-intensive for those who run the searches; and (2) to hire people who will succeed, so as to optimize (1). This is how a good Department, or a good institution, is run.

There are, of course, places that hire more people than they plan to tenure, and allow those hired to battle it out. These tend to be places that *think* they are elite (some are, though not for this reason, and some are not, and are engaging in self-deception).

Certain departments are notorious for this execrable practice, and if you're a postdoc looking for a position, I'd say that it is incumbent on you to ask around before you accept a job in such a department. You can tell a great deal about a place simply by talking to the junior faculty. One place I interviewed had five assistant professors, and four of them were manifestly miserable; when I returned a few years later for a visit, only the happy one had been promoted, and the rest were gone. I would have left science before joining that group. This bears on some of Steven's points. Different places are different. Some are decent, some awful. And plenty of elite Departments are also decent ones. UCSF Biochemistry-Biophysics, for example, is one of the best in its field, anywhere in the world, has a tenure rate in excess of 80%.

I think that in this context it's important to note that Amy Bishop was NOT an adjunct or a visiting professor. She was solidly on the tenure track, in a Department where my guess is that tenure rates are very high, and one has to pretty much blow it to not get tenure. Publishing a paper with three of your kids as coauthor (and your 12-year-old daughter in the lead), might not be enough to do it, but it might suggest a pattern of strange behavior. Of course, we don't have her tenure dossier or personnel file, but from what we now know about other prior and subsequent acts, it is not hard, at all, to imagine that there were many other good reasons to not tenure her. There's no evidence that she was systematically exploited or mistreated. It's possible, of course. But I think that for many people she's a kind of inkblot in which they see themselves.

Regarding Steven's post @157, I'm not sure I get the point. Is Steven looking only at State Schools, like UAH or UCLA, or is he thinking about private schools like USC or Notre Dame as well?

Dear Spiny (#158), many thanks for presenting your standpoint in detail.

The difference between what you and me would like to express is purely semantic again ! The "up-or-out" principle you discuss, which I would rather coin as "all-or-nothing", is exactly what bothers me as well.

I have spent practically all of my professional life in the regime you're spending yours (except for the initial 7 years of my career in the former USSR). Fortunately, I've very early recognized that all these damned "quota-hires", "tenure-tracks" etc. are just traps for gullible folks, who cannot help but desperately hope they'll definitely reach the Holy Grail at the "end of tunnel". I suspect, this sounds like where Amy Bishop was situated as well ... I feel regret for such guys, because this is a sort of typical "tunnel vision" syndrome. Indeed, the only profiteers in this field are "academic schmucks", that is, parasites who just use and peruse the fruits of the research done by others solely to increase their own social recognition. When researchers start to be somehow unnecessary or - oh, my Goodness ! - they start to be spiteful or petulant (for the fully understandble reasons, actually !) - they are cruelly thrown away by the "schmucks". And this is how and where the "tenure decision" is frequently used !

I know several heroes (no irony at all !) like you, dear Spiny, who buoy up themselves with a considerable number of grants.

Please do not misunderstand me - I am not wishing you this kind of continuation of your story - but, please, remember always that awarding grants is firmly in the hands of "schmuck". Look: one close colleague of mine whom I know personally for a long time (I will not disclose the specifics) was doing well with his grants during several years. But then the "schmuck" (a very definite person !) has successfully arranged for closing virtually all the grant sources for him, because of some personal problem between them ... That was a terrific lesson for me ! And there are lots of such stories all over the world !

Besides, there is a big general problem - the priorities of scientific research practically in all areas are slowly, but visibly, changing during approximately each decade. The active professional life of a typical researcher adds up to several decades. The flexibility and sharpness of the reaction is usually impeded with the age ... Can you follow my point ?

As for me, I hope I've found the optimum solution to this drastic problem: since about 1 year I am on a permanent, non-administrative position in industry and holding honorary positions in academia in several places all over the world. I am delighted and happy to be not more on the university or research institution payrolls, guys ! Now I can fully enjoy the real taste of independent, impassionated research ...

Sure, everybody chooses his/her own way, but the problem is that the modern academia cannot offer a real multitude of the ways ...

As concerns Steven's post (#157) and your reaction to it - I am not sure that the formal auspices under which this or that university/research institution is functioning play a central role - the people populating these institutions, the over-all moral spirit created by these people - this is the only aspect which matters and counts ...

What does post #157 mean? It's not exclusively about tenure, but since you asked:
It's one thing to say "if you don't care for the exploitative practices of academia, you can work in retail, or for a company, where you'll likely encounter the same thing.
(Government is under no obligation to prevent exploitation under capitalism.)
But it's another thing to say "if you don't care for the exploitative practices in private colleges, you can opt to teach in a state run unversity, where the exploitation is even more pronounced."
(The government should not be in the business of producing exploitation.)
I realize "exploitation" may be in the eye of the beholder. It certainly cannot be a "proven fact." On the other hand, it is not so often disputed.
Some of the practices in academia are more than "poorly run departments," as Spiny characterizes. They are harmful policies carried out by people with unbecoming motives.

Spiney #147, I mostly agree with you about Kuhn, and that the idea of a paradigm shift is mostly overused. There are degrees of this, but in hindsight the progression of science always looks linear and progressive. This is the property of how science history is written about, not about how science is done in real time.

A good example is Barbara McClintock. She discovered transposition and received the 1983 Nobel Prize for it for research she did in the 1940's. She stopped publishing that work in the 1950's because people did not understand it, and their lack of understanding was distracting them from her other work.

If her work had become accepted in the 1940's, it would have been a paradigm shift. That it wasn't accepted until the 1970's allowed time for the paradigms in the field to shift so that it wasn't. It fit into the paradigms in the 1970's, it didn't fit in the 1940's.

Watson-Crick wasn't a Kuhnian paradigm shift. No paradigms had to be abandoned or changed for it to be adopted. In the 1940's, the idea that genes could control their own expression via mechanisms like transposition was not capable of being considered. If Barbara McClintock had only been working on transposition, her career would have ended in the 1950's. She likely would not have been able to sustain herself using work that no one else accepted.

Would Barbara McClintock have been able to get tenure in 1950 based on her work in transposition in the 1940's? Probably not. No one understood it, no one thought it was any good.

The damage that these practices cause is not small. The damage is mostly invisible because it is the loss of productivity, the loss of work not done, discoveries not made, progress not having happened, treatments not being developed.

There was some work done on selective breeding of chickens to maximize egg production. When chickens in a hen house were selected for individual productivity (the chickens with the most eggs being selected for the next generation); perversely, the productivity of the entire hen house declined over time.

A hen could be the âmost productiveâ hen, either by increasing her own egg production, or by reducing the egg production of her house-mates. Selecting the individuals that produced the most eggs didn't maximize egg production of the whole house, it selected for individuals who sabotaged the productivity of their house-mates. It selected (in Evgeni's terms) for schmucks.

That is what our current funding hyper-competition is doing, selecting for schmucks.

Dear Daedalus2u,

Thank for your very apt example with hens and chickens !

I agree for 100% - the whole system of "research grants", "tenures", "tenure-tracks", "quota-hires" has outlived its usefulness and must be repaired. No question here !

The question is - what could be suggested as a viable alternative ? I am thinking on this all the time, but still have no interesting proposal.

Because any competition requires referees - and who will be the referees ?

The conclusion by Delyagin in his paper translated by me and posted on SCIENCEBLOG.COM was - we have most probably to wait till the mankind will be forced to somehow refurbish its "cognitive instruments" ... Well, this is just what the world's history suggests ... Any other interesting suggestions ?

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov (aka Donquixote5)

Evgeni, the chicken example is discussed in this very nice blog on evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/2009/11/truth_and_reconciliation_for_…

I'm checking this site out again even though some of the discussion seems misses the point in some posts. A.B. is a murderer who tragically got down to our school and killed Dr. Gopi Podila, Dr Maria Ragland Davis and Dr. Adriel Johnson. I find it interesting that her husband seems to be now saying that there are no credible witnesses because "they were all against her and had a grudge against her." I would assume so, especially the ones in the room who were being shot at.

The question should be, "Should Harvard be liable for releasing a murderer (1986 murder of brother) and someone who is potentially dangerous (1993 pipe bomb suspect to adviser) to an unsuspecting population?" I'm sure she got rave reviews even after she got fired from Harvard. Why didn't someone at Harvard warn someone down here that she was a time bomb waiting to happen? They could have had the courtesy to do it after they got rid of her. She also lied about still working at Harvard for 2 years after she was fired and working at UA, which I guess is a better school since they are known for football. UAH should have checked this inconsistency a little closer; except, no arrests or murders exist in her records.

A.B. was dangerous 24 years ago and "her continuously getting off despite her bad behavior" (to quote a prominent local attorney) only contributed to her mindset that murder an okay reaction for not getting what she wanted. I've stopped following the news about her because the more I learn, the more toxic I find this individual.

Could DHR, the police, or anybody have stopped this senseless violence? Surely her husband could tell that something was off with A.B. The question now is - is her husband an accomplice? What did he know and when about her getting a gun? Usually there are controls in families, a conscience that will click somewhere. No, her mother got her off, presumably because "my baby didn't mean to kill her brother" and I don't want to "lose" another child. Well, Mrs. B., I believe you lost your daughter when you let her go home without an investigation; some of Dr. Gopi Podila, Dr Maria Ragland Davis and Dr. Adriel Johnson's blood is on your hands. Husband, most likely, knows of her vile temper, but takes her shooting to the range. Hummmm, something is just off.

Also, because she and so many of you underestimate the quality of work down here, she fixated on her on deficiency because, "How dare this substandard school reject me...I went to Harvard..." When it was the prestigious name that really is about the only thing that got her in the door. It got her in the door, but was not even enough to make up for everything else. She sorely underestimated UAHuntsvile and sorely overestimated herself. Yes, it jabbed at her ego so much; anger/hate consumed her.

Was OJ guilty of Nicole and Ronald Goldman's murders? Should he still be able to play football? Maybe this might bring it down to what it is all about.

But then again, A.B. was doing such great NO research that could save so many lives. Well, maybe her research could be used on Dr. Gopi Podila, Dr Maria Ragland Davis and Dr. Adriel Johnson, who are dead, or Dr. Leahy, who is still in critical condition and getting reconstructive surgery to put his face back together. Maybe NO treatments could bring them back to life and restore the holes in their head - now that would be brilliant.

No, A.B. is not that; thank you Spiny. Please, she ain't no Barbara McClintock. A.B. will be remembered in history for one thing.

Murder.

Dear BeBe,

your anger is absolutely understandable and rightful. There is never an excuse for any murder, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families and colleagues of those innocent people who fatally suffered from this rampage !

But, I am sorry, you are mixing up several issues here.

1. Amy Bishop's personality. How this terrible crime could take place is not yet clear. This will be, I hope, carefully investigated by police and psychiatrists.

There is an excellent account on Amy Bishop here:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/21/ambi…

Many witnesses tell their stories, the whole picture turns out to be very consistent, and I personally could not see from what I have read over there, that she was "a devil of a woman". Instead, the story seems to be much more complicated than you suggest.

2. The quality of Amy Bishop's work. Yes, I agree that with her absurd and violent actions she will be remembered only as a murderer. But after a considerable time will elapse - and all the emotions will evaporate - her work will be re-read - and nobody knows how it will be estimated in the future ... Scientific research is well known to be extremely difficult to estimate.

3. Drawbacks of the UAH administrative system and of the modern academia as a whole. If Amy Bishop was so well known as a "difficult case", why the UAH administration was keeping silence all the time she was working there ? She had to be either sent to some anger management courses or likewise - and if no more measures could be taken to normalize her behaviour - she should have been fired. In another vein, this Internet site is discussing the general nature of the tenure decisions - this common practice also seems to have many essential flaws in itself.

Finally, once again, I sincerely hope that this particular horrible case will be investigated from many standpoints and in full detail. And our task, to my mind, ought to consist in learning from this tragedy and doing all our best to prevent similar drastic outliers in the future.

Respectfully yours,

Evgeni B Starikov

The chicken and egg theory mentioned in #161 is very interesting. I would like to know what would have happened if the experiment were done differently. In scenario 1: the actual selection criteria were subjective rather than based on the stated âegg productionâ criteria. In scenario 2: the hen was either fed or not fed; the selection process determining which hen will receive food is totally not understood and canât be rationalized. I have observed that in a top 40 university, people get promoted without one senior authorship research paper, while others with sufficient high-quality papers get kicked out. Does scenario 2 sounds familiar to you? NIH grant is highly competitive to the majority of researchers, and the payline is as low as 1%, while for a small group of people, the payline is 100%.

Quest, the scenerio I mentioned isn't a "theory", it is data. They did the experiment and that is what they measured. The conclusion is that by focussing on individual selection based on individual productivity, chickens were able to "game" the system and "succeed" at being the most productive by tearing all the other chickens down.

This is the problem with any selection process. Any selection process using any metric for selection will also select for gaming the system. The harder and more stringent the selection criteria, the greater the selection for gaming the system. The more transparent a process is, the less oportunity there is for gaming the system.

Daedalus2u,
I agree with the data. At least in this experimental system the hens appear to be given the same living conditions. We may be able to design metrics to reduce the opportunities for gaming the system. However, I am more concerned with what will happen to the system if hens were differentially treated.

RE: "Should Harvard be liable for releasing a murderer (1986 murder of brother) and someone who is potentially dangerous (1993 pipe bomb suspect to adviser) to an unsuspecting population?"
NO, not liable: "murder" of her brother would have been considered, at the time, an unsubstantiated accusation.
Pipe bomb accusation: innocent until proven guilty.
Harvard didn't "release" Bishop unless they were either her legal guardians or holding her captive.
In addition I think there's a law against speaking or acting in such a way that is intended to interfere with the free exchange of goods or services between two independent parties.
If anyone asked Harvard for a letter of recommendation, then they would have been within their rights to say anything they knew or believed about Bishop. What happened there, one may wonder?
Certainly everyone, including everyone at Harvard, is devastated by the horrible events.
Bishop's husband can say what he wants. Good luck to him.

Then again you generally don't ask for a letter of recommendation from someone unless you expect a positive one.

I totally agree with Steven, you generally do not request a recommendation letter unless its a good one! Thanks for this, I love the blog and it was a great post. :)

Why would anyone request a letter of recommendation unless if it was a good one? Of course you always try to get the best ones first, that make you look as best as you can.

How much should you know outside of your field?

terrasig — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:02:02 +0000

How much should you know outside of your field?

I'm a bit under the weather today but I wanted to at least share with you an interesting career development consideration pointed out by the always-excellent medicinal chemist blogger, Derek Lowe at In the Pipeline.

In his post, What Should Non-Chemists Know About Medicinal Chemistry, Anyway?, Derek posits:

Here's a topic that I was discussing with some colleagues not too long ago: how much do we need to know about each other's specialties, anyway? I'm assuming that the answer is "more than nothing", although if someone wants to make the zilch case, I'd be interested in hearing it done.

A nice comment thread has developed there. Lowe writes from the perspective of a chemist in a pharmaceutical company but I believe that his considerations extend to academic research as well, especially with the increased emphasis on interdisciplinary and translational research.

I consider myself fortunate to have been trained in pharmacology when "true" pharmacology departments were more abundant (i.e., not just a bunch of in vitro biochemists). Having to interact with chemists, stop-flow enzyme kineticists, physiologists using in vivo and organ bath systems, and physicians with research laboratories, I feel that I can be somewhat conversant on a variety of issues outside my immediate research area. Being able to explain the chemistry of glucuronidation sites or the clinical pharmacology relevance of high plasma protein drug binding are obvious extensions of what I should know. I've also learned to recognize when it may not be appropriate to ask a chemist colleague for more than a milligram or two of a new compound.

But knowledge beyond that, I think, is even more important for my research program and department. I tell students that you never know where you will end up working and a breadth of knowledge is important to develop even while pursuing the myopic drilldown of PhD dissertation research. Particularly if one ends up in a drug company, you will have to interact often with team members across the drug development pipeline and many go/no-go decisions will be made because of limitations outside your area, no matter how novel your pharmacological target may be. And yes, it is a problem in trying to make a drug out of a compound that only dissolves in DMSO.

So I'll throw open Derek's question to those of you in academia: How much chemistry do you expect biologists to know or how much biology should we expect chemists to know? Some of it is simple courtesy and helps develop mutual respect among research colleagues. But some of my colleagues think that the wider you can think, the more likely it is for your research program to make greater impact. (I can't find it right now but I recall Brown and Goldstein holding forth somewhere on how a strong basis in chemistry is essential for physician-scientists). There's no one right answer and I am certain there is no consensus, and I feel that the need for breadth will vary based on how far along one is in one's career.

But in your area, how much do you expect yourself and your trainees to know in areas afield?

terrasig Thu, 01/21/2010 - 06:02

Tags

career development

The Working Scientist

This is not a straightforward question. As a medicinal chemist, I feel an obligation to understand the biology behind what I am doing, and I am broadly trained (including Pharmacology from a real Pharmacology Dept.!). I do not expect as much in return from the biologist collaborator; I don't expect them to understand synthesis or characterization, but I do expect them to appreciate structure and understand what is and is not feasible (I could say this about my physical chemistry collaborators too). However, my laboratory has a history of doing nearly everything ourselves, including synthetic methodology development, natural product total synthesis, analog design, in vitro cell-based cytotoxicity, fermentation, DNA binding studies of naturally occurring cross-linking agents, and (in collaboration) detailed molecular modeling of the binding and bonding of agents to DNA. The one thing we've never done is animal studies.

As a chemist, I am biased, believing that biologists, pharmacologists, physicians etc., should understand structure and have an appreciation for organic chemistry. Not many do. Then again, I am probably one of the few scientists who has trained an M.D./Ph.D. student in organic/medicinal chemistry (they no longer allow chemistry as an option for the Ph.D. degree).

Just some thoughts, off the cuff.

Rob

Your man at Uncertain Principles had a similar thread on quantum physics. Although more aimed at the public than academia. I think.

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/01/four_things_everybody_should…

Oh man, the issue to drugs only dissolving in DMSO hits so close to home with me! I swear, essentially all the drugs I test cannot be dissolved in water.

Industrial chemist here... I worked for years in a large industrial chemical plant but because of my role with customers I learned a fair bit about pulp and paper, some about mining, quite a bit about polymer manufacturing and applications, and some about pollution control technology and process control technology.
Regrettably I know next to nothing about biology, but my daughter is a graduate biologist, so we help one another out.
My concerns are around the fact that a lot of HS science teachers have no real knowledge or experience about the many practical applications of the science they are teaching.
I volunteer at my local HS in their science classes and try to open some eyes about why this is useful and why that is a key concept and what that is used for.

Here's my two cents someone who has been firmly entrenched between the two camps for as long as I've been doing science.

Biologists should know enough chemistry to:

1. Not start snoring/freak out when they see a chemical structure in a poster or presentation. All those letters and shapes on signaling network posters represent chemical structures; although you don't need to know them all by heart, you should be able to discuss them comfortably.

2. Understand why certain functionalities are or are not used. For instance, using chloro to replace methyl b/c of drug metabolism concerns.

Chemists should know enough biology to:

1. Not start snoring/freak out when they see a signaling network, cell assay, or animal study. This is where your compounds work (or not) through chemical interactions (refer to #1 for biologists). Having a bit of knowledge of this helps you make better compounds.
2. Understand the output and the utility of assays being used to test their compounds. What does that IC50/EC50 mean? Why are there discrepancies b/t assays w/ purified protein vs. cells vs. in vivo? (I would note that this is one every scientist regardless of training should be doing).

There is so much more to say, but I'm trying to refrain from putting a blog post here on Abel's blog :)

I have a friend who is a family physician MD who attended pharmacy school because he wanted a better understanding/knowledge base of the subject than he was getting from medical school.

More is usually better. How much is enough? To paraphrase a J. P. Morgan, if you have to ask then you don't know enough outside of your field.

In short, "depends".

It gets to a point where people have to touch on so many other connected disciplines that they can't hope to know much about them all, so have to pick and choose a bit.

I'm a (structural) computational biologist. I could argue that more of all of these are needed from biology in general, but not any one person: chemistry, physics, statistics, mathematics, bioinformatics, and different "levels" and areas of biology.

In practice I suspect most people lean to what meshes with their particular research problems so in the end my answer is: everyone should do basic undergrad biochemistry, obviously, but beyond that, "depends".

A quick answer to how much should you know outside your field is "A lot", least if you're in some of the sciences.

As a wildlife biologist, who also teaches first and 2nd year biology courses as well as first year chemistry, I see biology and chemistry (and other disciplines) almost like a colour gradient where one colour imperceptibly turns into another colour. The difference between the two colours are obvious on the opposite edges, but so much harder to spot in the middle parts.

As a student we took 2 undergrad standard chem courses, then organic chem, followed by biochem in our 3rd or 4th year. These were the required courses for anyone wanting to graduate with a BSc in biology.

Since there is so much overlap I think a biologist who doesn't understand basic chemistry is severely handicapped, either working in his/her own field, or when listening/reading other studies (e.g. understanding how isotopes in bird feathers indicate where the birds have been feeding; or understanding how and why pH changes, how proton pumps operate, how glycolysis occurs--if you understand how various molecules are split, reform or are changed, it enhances understanding of many pathways (metabolic pathways, photosynthesis, chemosynthesis)).

Other disciplines we may need to know depend on our fields of study. To some extent we need a whole gamut of biologies (ecology, evolution, limnology, invert and vert zoology, botany, molecular and cell biology, some marine biology etc), experimental design and biostatistics (enough stats to know when to call in a real expert), some basic atmospheric physics and understanding of climatology (so we can understand how a changing climate is affecting, or will be affecting, an ecosystem or particular organism and associated webs within that ecosystem), and things like oceanography (if you're working with marine organisms), geology (evolution, paleontological work), volcanism (if you're studying life at thermal pools or ocean vents).

Plus there's a smattering of anthropology (for when you're working with First Nation peoples in a far northern community), some mechanical skills (for when your equipment breaks down in the middle of nowhere), and some survival skills (weather too bad for helicopter to pick you up, trapped in a sudden blizzard, fall into cold water). Hmm, also might need some knowledge of the law (different Acts, regulations, treaties and how they are applied).

My biased view is that if someone doesn't have an understanding of other disciplines outside of their own, then what are they doing in the sciences in the first place? Being in the sciences usually means you went in because you had a driving curiosity about things, and once you began to understand your own field it naturally leads to other fields, and that curiosity, that need to know, will almost force you to learn more about other disciplines (sometimes even well outside your own field--e.g. for me, astronomy and planetary science--in case they ever find life on another planet, I'm all ready to be an xenobiologist :-).

#scio10 Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Session: Engaging Underrepresented Groups in Online Science Media

terrasig — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:10:57 +0000

#scio10 Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Session: Engaging Underrepresented Groups in Online Science Media

Next weekend at ScienceOnline2010, I'll be co-moderating a session on encouraging scientists and science trainees from underrepresented groups to participate in social media. I will be working with Damond Nollan, a social media specialist and Web Services Manager at North Carolina Central University (NCCU). Damond is the author of the aptly-titled blog, In The Mind of Damond Nollan. The whys and hows are what we hope to discuss in the outline below.

The reason for calling this the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Session stems from the fact that this conference has been held for the last four years over the MLK holiday weekend. It's a practical time of year, just after the beginning of spring semester but before things get too crazy, the crappy January weather in North Carolina gives us great hotel rates and encourages people to stay inside and engage at the conference, and the Monday holiday allows for greater travel flexibility and cheaper airfares.

But the conference timing may keep some attendees away in their hometowns participating in local MLK activities. Therefore, we are introducing this session to celebrate the principles of Dr King in the context of online science communication: promoting social justice and eliminating racism in areas ranging from healthcare to scientific career paths, giving opportunity to those often left out of the conversation. In my case, that conversation involves increasing the diversity of the biomedical science community.

A longstanding example of the dominant demographic in science communication is the cadre of bloggers in the ScienceBlogs network and the repeatedly missed opportunities to increase diversity in this network. I announced last month my intentions to use this page and my white maleness to give greater voice here to that of underrepresented groups.

The conference is being held in Research Triangle Park, NC, part of the county of Durham, home to Duke University, North Carolina Central University, and Durham Technical Community College. Dr. King had ties to Durham and visited here several times as shown here from a photo shot on February 16, 1960 on West Main Street. On his immediate left is the Rev. Douglas Moore. The civil rights activist Moore, who now lives in Washington, DC, was the leader of the 1957 Royal Ice Cream sit-in where he led six African American students in protest to use the white entrance of a local business and request service at the counter. This event preceded the more famous Greensboro Woolworth sit-ins by two-and-a-half years. I had the rare pleasure of visiting with Rev. Moore a few weeks ago at the dedication of the Royal Ice Cream Sit-In historical landmark that I wrote about here. It was simply amazing to shake hands with him and chat for about five minutes with someone who worked with Dr. King. The source of the photograph, Gary Kuebke of the historic preservation blog, Endangered Durham, has a superb discussion of the Royal Ice Cream Sit-In here.

We plan to take a different angle from the Casting a Wider Net session being led by Anne Jefferson, although we are sure to have overlap - not a bad thing, IMHO.

How do we cultivate emerging science writers from underrepresented groups to promote science, for example, in areas of health disparities (i.e., diabetes, substance abuse, prostate cancer) and in providing opportunities to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers.

First things first, of course. Locally in Durham, North Carolina, efforts are underway through the non-profit Kramden Institute to start by making newly-refurbished computers available to honors students in underserved school districts as a model for what can be done nationally. Working in my community has opened my eyes to the fact that a large swath of our population only has access to internet, or computers for that matter, at the local public library. Before we can even get to discussing social media, we have to bridge the digital divide and get computers and reasonably priced internet access into the households of all low-income families, regardless of their racial or ethnic bakcgrounds.

Any advice, comments or ideas are welcome from all readers, not just attendees, especially if you engage with underrepresented groups in your respective line of online or offline work. Here are a few ideas to start:

Why would underrepresented individuals want to get involved with science blogging and social media in the first place?

My feeling is that this is a two-way street. First, I see many students and postdocs benefiting from the advice and community of professionals outside their home institutions via online interactions. Particularly in blogging and blog comments, the playing field seems more even and the advice given to trainees by more established scientists is not influenced by institutional self-interests or other constraints as might occur in seeking advice in one's own department. I see many benefit to science blogging and Twitter interactions that serve the student. Those from underrepresented groups who are not currently engaged in this community can benefit greatly from these interactions.

On the flipside, trainees from underrepresented groups might serve as examples and role models to others. DNLee's Urban Science Adventures is a perfect example. This outstanding graduate student took it upon herself to volunteer at last year's conference together with acmegirl to then present a session and launch the Diversity in Science Blog Carnival. Peruse her archives and you will see that DNLee is a tireless promoter of activities, scholarships, and training opportunities for underrepresented groups.

How could we make it easier to introduce young underrepresented individuals in to science blogging?

I recently had an exchange about this issue with Dr. Marybeth Gasman from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Gasman is a nationally-leading expert on African American higher education and has led project on the role of HBCUs in increasing the representation of black women in the STEM fields. She is currently PI of an NIH MORE grant to prepare postdoctoral fellows for education careers at minority-serving institutions. Dr. Gasman's view is that students will write about science on blogs but they need leadership to direct them toward the platforms to do so.

Blogging 101 sessions like those run locally by Bora Zivkovic and Anton Zuiker are great. These sessions are run at ScienceOnline and at local libraries where attendees launch a blog in roughly an hour. The question is how to get these sessions to science students in underrepresented demographics.

One way this has been done at NCCU is in their Office of Orientation & First-Year Experience. While not science-based, the associate director of the program encouraged a small group of freshman to draft blogs to document their first year at the university and aggregated them on the program website. A follow-up workshop by social media maven Ginny Skalski served to reinforce the blogging skills the students initially learned. While only a few students have stuck with it, a university-based portal to overcome the energy of activation is one enabling step.

That leads us to the next consideration:

How could we do this in the context of a university learning environment?

This is one of the primary reasons that I wanted to have Damond Nollan be part of this discussion. Damond is not a scientist but he is the leader of Web services at an HBCU who is also active in local social media. Following a brainstorming meeting we had prior to the holidays with a couple of other folks across campus, Damond has put together a university social media interest group under the umbrella of the widely-known Social Media Club movement. In fact, Damond learned with there is a "edu" component of this initiative.

Damond and I are fortunate to be at a HBCU with a growing population of other first-generation college students from Hispanic and Native American backgrounds. Our goal is to have brown-bag meetings across campus to pull people out of the woodwork, and bring some students with them, who might be interested in joining the online dialogue. A leader from our Center for University Teaching and Learning is another early adopter (although he still doesn't see the value of Twitter) and is helping our professors incorporate blogs and Twitter into the classroom to improve networking and writtern communication skills.

This part of our session might overlap with that of Casting A Wider Net but I've found that these conferences seem to do well by having two related sessions on two different days to foster discussion, further brainstorming, and action.

This is my current stream of consciousness but we welcome your comments below on any of these issues, whether you are attending ScienceOnline or not.

Alternatively, drop some comments on the session wiki if you are attending.

terrasig Sun, 01/10/2010 - 15:10

Tags

Underrepresented Groups

Categories

Education

The effort by the Office of Orientation & First-Year Experience to encourage freshmen to blog their college experiences was a good way to expose the students to blogging platforms (they used Blogger) and to practice their writing skills. If students are learning to blog, chances are they're proud of their site and want to tell their classmates, roommates, etc. about it. By spreading the word about their blogs, hopefully they are piquing interest among fellow students, which could help increase interest in blogging.

I think brown bag lunches are a good idea of helping spread the word and generate interest. Having professors incorporate blogs and Twitter into their classrooms is a logical step toward generating interest. What if they took it a step further and invited professionals who are using these networks in their fields to generate business, improve customer service and communicate with their audience?

I wish you and Damond the best of luck in your efforts. Please let me know if I can help!

Ginny, thanks so much - the first part of your comment reminded me that a student blogger was really jazzed when she was giving a campus tour and a prospective student knew her face from the blog.

Your point about pulling in people outside of academia per se is a great one. You coming over here, for example, gave our students exposure to a pro who is not necessarily in education.

We are really grateful for how wired you are in our community and dedicated to using new media to build community.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention to readers that you are the (relatively) new social media director for one of the world's leading companies in LED technology, Cree. Among the many things she does in their marketing department, Ginny writes their blog, Cree LED Revolution. Compact fluorescent technology is so "naughts"; all the kool 2010 kids are going LED.

I came into reading science blogs out of a love for science publications and magazines, and I think that a lot of other students may have the same interest but may not be aware that such a vibrant and helpful community of science communicators exists online. I think that creating a culture of interacting with students through blogging and other online social media would be very helpful in rousing up some interest in the field in general. Encouraging students to use blogs and Twitter early in their collegiate career is a good way to start them early on being engaged in the world of science communication. Perhaps this could be done by incorporating online interaction or blogging into an official course for undergraduates (and/or graduate sutdents!).

Four for Pharmboy: Thank you and a mission modification

terrasig — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:02:09 +0000

Four for Pharmboy: Thank you and a mission modification

The Preamble

Four years ago today, I wrote my first post in the blogosphere over at the old Blogger version of Terra Sigillata. The post, entitled, "A Humble PharmBoy Begins to Sow," set out my mission to be an objective source for information on natural health remedies and drugs that come from nature, whether used as single agent prescription drugs or as botanical mixtures and supplements.

I read blogs for about six months before setting off on my own, primarily because I wanted to be sure my efforts were not redundant with others. Because I am academic and paid by a combination of federal research and state educational funds, I feel that I can provide an objective forum for discussing news and developments on natural products that is not driven by a need to sell a product.

While I do not write every day, I hope that I have succeeded in approaching that goal. I thank you for coming by to read, participate in the comments, and refer us to other blogs, your colleagues, and your friends and families. It has been a delight to meet many of you and grow to call you my friends and colleagues. I still get a particular charge out of being called "Abel" in person, especially when the person addressing me knows my real name nonetheless.

I command thee: Delurk!

I have been very fortunate this year to see an uptick in the number of regular readers that I believe may have been stimulated by our presence on Twitter. I'd like to get a feel for who you are and why you are here because I always like to serve the community who takes time out of their busy schedules to see what pixels I've scribbled on this electronic papyrus.

As my colleague and blog mentor, Orac, did the other day for his fifth anniversary, I wish to ask those of you who read to delurk and drop a note in the comments to share 1) your general background, 2) why you read, and 3) what other stuff you'd like to hear from us. I know you are out there, so I thank you in advance for sticking your head up, saying hello, and going back to lurking. In fact, you may find that commenting is kind of fun and may be something you'd like to do more often.

Since you are here, you already know my answer to #1 and why I write.

But here's my answer to #3 and how I would like to move forward with this blog in the coming year:

On being a white, American male at ScienceBlogs

It is no secret amongst my readers, and evidenced by the charcoal sketch of my likeness in the Profile section to the upper left and my detailed biography, that I am a bespectacled, goateed, and somewhat graying white male. I am, therefore, a representative of the most abundant and privileged demographic in the biomedical sciences. As such, I have always endeavored to work in support of those not like me, those who may have not had the advantages that I underestimated for so many years.

My work to date has primarily involved the promotion of women in science and technology and I have been fortunate in my career to have been trained by and involved in the training of women scientists.

However, some of you may know, or have noticed from trends in my content, that I have joined an academic institution where I am a minority faculty member. It is an experience entirely consistent with my early days of working in minority career development in pharmacy that now gives me an opportunity to broaden my impact in the basic sciences. (From a perspective of personal growth, it is also an experience I wish I could share with every one of my white male colleagues.)

Being invited to ScienceBlogs in June, 2006, by editor Katherine Sharpe was a great honor because it gave me the opportunity to reach the majority of you, my current readers. The ScienceBlogs network is a superb and highly-visible platform for discussing issues central to the global scientific enterprise.

But in exchanges with many of my colleagues both within and outside the network, a common theme is that we fear this platform has been disproportionately white and US-centric.

I would go so far as to say that it is an embarrassment that ScienceBlogs™ does not have more diversity and has not taken the lead in cultivating voices from the scientific community that are unlike mine.

I cannot do anything about being blogging from the United States or being a US citizen. However, I can do something about giving greater voice on this platform to people who are not like me.

"Let the word go forth from this time and place..."

Therefore, I wish to make this the blog's mission for 2010:

Terra Sigillata will broaden its focus area to become an open platform for scientific and career development issues specific to underrepresented or underserved minority groups as described in the US by the National Institutes of Health: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans/Alaska Natives who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment, Hawaiian Natives and natives of the U.S. Pacific Islands, persons with disabilities, and underserved groups such as disadvantaged rural Whites or other low-income groups.

I actively encourage interested parties to submit to me items of interest, research findings, fellowship program announcements, news from minority institutions and student organizations, essays - anything that others feel would give greater exposure to individual and group efforts in the sciences on behalf of those who have not historically had substantial representation in the sciences or, more precisely, are not currently represented across the ScienceBlogs network.

Bottom line: If you aren't seeing it in the scientific blogosphere, I want it seen here.

We don't have huge traffic at this blog but the real estate on the front page of ScienceBlogs can easily bring in four-digit pageviews daily. I suspect that if we start addressing issues of underrepresented groups, other bloggers may pick up on our posts about your projects and other activities.

So, I hope that you will help me in this mission during my fifth year of blogging.

I refuse to allow being a white male to hold me back.

terrasig Tue, 12/15/2009 - 08:02

Tags

Blogging community

career development

hbcu

Love for Terra Sig readers

mentoring

personal

Underrepresented Groups

Women in science and medicine

Categories

Technology

Congratulations on four years of excellent blogging. I've been reading for three of them and I look forward to your next four!

You already know who I am and why I read but I'll just re-emphasize that I am certainly in your core audience. I appreciate discussions of natural products pharmacology and, heck, real pharmacology of any stripe. Don't lose that stuff, we're not bored yet!

I'm a pseudo-lurker. I'll echo what DrugMonkey said. Keep doing the pharmacology stuff. I love it.

I'm a science educator and any resource I have that assists me in combating ignorance and pseudoscience is welcomed and encouraged.

About your mission for 2009. The three most important teachers and mentors I have had in my schooling were all women (From calculus to organic chemistry to Ph.D. advisor). I can assure you, I would not be where I am and I would not be the person I am without the influence of those most wonderful and intelligent people. I have three daughters who I hope have the option to do whatever they want to do. I am thankful for all of the women that have gone ahead and removed road blocks (someday all of them) so my daughters can reach their dreams. So, yeah, I appreciate your mission. Even though I am also "a representative of the most abundant and privileged demographic" in the sciences.
Cheers

Mostly lurker, irregular reader of your blog. Although you know me because of twitter to an extent you wouldn't if I were just a lurking reader. While your academic pharmacological posts sail over my head because chemistry has always been the science topic I'm most weak at, I really enjoy posts like the one on witches and broomsticks. :-)

I admire your positions on various social justice issues greatly, and how consistently you advocate for them. I also love the fact the you are a musician. If I ever meet you in person in a group, I'm sure I'd be one of those putting you on the spot with a song request. Hope you keep your guitar handy :-)

While your post on your dad was touching, the one live-blogging your vasectomy was pretty hilarious while being educational.

You're an all around awesome human being. Keep up the blogging goodness, and good luck with the admirable goal for 2010!

One field that relates to your enhanced mission is the world of historical uses of medicinal herbs by indigenous populations. I am ignorant of much of this knowledge, but remember listening to old-timers back in the hills talk about it when I was a little one (a long time ago.)
The process of going out down by the creek and pulling up something to cure your ills has a rustic quality to it. Could you blog about any reference materials on this subject?
I also enjoy reading your blogs very much. Keep up the good work.

I lurk and have only recently commented and then started lurking again. I am so appreciative of your posts. I learn so much. I'm an ex-church worker, turned alcoholic who quit her Master's degree with three credits to go because the drinking and the dying kind of got in the way. Now, I work for a surgeon (hence, my fascination with drugs) and part time in the field of addiction counseling (hence, my fascination with drugs.)

I get so much more from reading your posts than I do from just reading medical journals. Because even though you don't really have a face - you engage with me as a human being, you're not just words on the page. Thank you for blogging and I can't wait to read more! Reading blogs like yours make me more convinced that I belong back in graduate school.

Congrats, Pharmboy and mazel tov.

Abel, it's nice to know you're still here and kickin'!

Mostly I lurk & read in RSS feed.

I can't remember how I found your blog but I think it was at least 3 years ago or even closer to the beginning.

I'm interested in natural remedies especially debunking the "wonders" of natural remedies in CAM.

Increasing women & POC in STEM (including medicine) is also an interest of mine.

Happy anniversary and congratulations! I don't lurk (you can't shut me up, can you?), and I am completely "out" online. I applaud your resolution for the next year. I look forward to more great stuff.
You go, PharmBoy!

Happy anniversary and congrats on your blogging activity.
I'v been following as a lurker from the orther side of the Atlantic for a while, partly because of my field of expertise (phytotherapy and ethnobotany) but mostly because of the slant you give to your posts. I have most appreciated the interest you showed for minority and gender issues in science, and hope you'll keep up with the good job.
One subject on which I am very keen and that is, IMHO, going to become a fertile ground of ethic research is that of urban ethnobotany: turning our gaze from the more "romanticised" study of ethnic communities in the distant fields, to the pressing reality of immigrant communities on our cities and to the transformations their plant knowledge and use undergoes (cfr. the works of Balick, Pieroni, etc.).

Another lurker here :) Don't take it personally; I have been lurking for a while at few ScienceBlogs and only recently started commenting (and you're right, it is kinda fun). I am now a postdoc and a biochemist by training. There was a strong emphasis on toxicology and pharmacology at my grad institute, though, and I enjoy the pharmacology posts. I look forward to hearing more from you on issues of diversity, as well.

Long-time reader and lurker, occasional commenter here; I think I started reading your blog because of your posts on Colorado history and culture (we share some connections to that region). I'm a researcher and anatomy/neuroscience instructor in medical and dental school courses at an HSI, and so I share your interests in encouraging diversity of participants and voices in science and science education. I really appreciate your unique perspectives at ScienceBlogs, and look forward to reading many, many more of your posts on diversity and minority education issues.

Looking forward to the next four :)

Congrats on the 4th anniversary... from another greying member of the same academic demographic! The demographic "pie chart" is pretty similar where I am (UK) to the US version, I guess - although we are certainly seeing more women in academic posts, and my Univ now has a woman scientist as Deputy Principal (or equivalent).

Anyway, second what DrugMonkey said. Often wish I could follow your example and blog more about actual, like, science, but the need to vent/rant often overrides.

Congratulations, Abel. Why do I read? Because you're writing from a unique perspective. If I knew what to suggest you write about, you wouldn't be unique. Surprise me.

Congratulations! My story is typical of the people we lose in science. I am ABD, population genetics, but returned home to help take care of my family. I muddled through a few years as a project manager for a national tissue registry and medical communication firm before finding a passion for informal science. After a decade in science museums, I recently returned to academics where I write grants and increasingly serve as resident "STEMMologist" (thanks for the new word). I also coordinate a few grant programs and do little teaching, some internships, and a lot of facilitating communication/collaboration ("stealth professional development" per my dean). I've been reading Sb for a long time, but rarely have much to add. I come here because you all remind me why I love science - you're smart and funny - and I think those are two qualities that can bring us together regardless of background.

Hello there Abel! Look at that, my only 'blogspring' 4 years old already. *sniff* Though I shuttered my own blog long ago and don't read yours as often as I'd like, I definitely keep tabs on you via twitter. I go round and round with myself about whether to start a new blog with a new focus but don't think I'd keep it up very long.

Keep up the good work, I think your goal for the new year is admirable. Women and POC need more allies in places of power (so to speak) such as yourself.

(BotanicalGirl)

I'm an undergrad microbiology student who's been going to school half-time while working full-time (in a diabetes lab), looking to finally graduate in the spring after 7 years. :( Not certain what I'd like to do most when I graduate - my grades aren't very competitive, but I'd like to do either basic science research or vet school... can't decide. If I can't get into vet or grad school, I'll work up to taking the firefighter exam and do that instead.

I started out on scienceblogs reading Pharyngula; these days I mostly only have time for Orac, though I've been trying to make time for others. I stumbled upon TerraSig when looking for some information about pharmacognosy for a friend whose daughter wanted to go to school for 'herbal medicine'. Now that the semester is out, I'll happily have time to start following more blogs again, including yours.

I'm pretty happy with the selection of topics to read about on scienceblogs. I'm also very gratified that there are voices like yours supporting demographic minorities in science. Thank you!

Happy Blogoversary!

Why do I read TS? Why does one read any blog? Because it provides something that no other place does: unique topics given in a unique voice. There is stuff here every week that cannot be found anywhere else on the planet. Oh, and wine...

I refuse to allow being a white male to hold me back.

Love you, Abel. :) Happy blogoversary.

Congrats Pharmboy, I've only been following your blog for about two years and would echo Coturnix's comment above.

congrats and keep up the good work!!!

Abel, you rock!

To delurk: I'm Dr.AA, recently minted Ph.D. in sub-sub-field of biology. I read your blog for the great writing and to hear an advocate's voice - my current working environment provides little in this department.

Looking forward to many more years of reading here - great job and keep it up.

Enjoy your blog. Congrats on four years of blogging.

Hi Abel,

At your insistence and in commemoration of your fourth year, I'll respond:

1) I'm a Sr. undergraduate in chemistry and mathematics. My capstone project is assessing the properties of nanoparticles functionalized by antisense oligonucleotides. Most of my research experience is in physical chemistry and I've applied to several graduate schools in that area - I'm awaiting replies!

2) I started reading after Orac gave you link love in Jan. '06. I like to learn things about fields I'm not studying, because I often get bogged down in the minute details of my own stuff. Plus, your perspective is educational just by itself.

3) What I love are critiques or peer-review of published works. Heck, seeing seminal papers and their discussion is often very enjoyable.

Very Best,

Chris

1. I'm a massage therapist, fighting the alt. med stupidity on the front lines every day. I have a degree in English and an honors diploma in massage.

2. I read several of the science blogs daily and you're on the list. I can't remember when I started, but I enjoyed your style.

Our blogs are almost exactly the same age.

3. I mostly enjoy fisking of poor research or, because my training is lacking in statistics and study design, I enjoy explanations of why a particular study is well done and why.

/delurk
/lurk

Abel: You were one of the first blogs I started following, and it's still on my go-to list daily. Your work has inspired others to speak up. Keep up the great work.

Congrats on 4 years!
Well I guess I'm a minority if we're speaking of American white males... I'm a 1st year surgical intern from Mexico, with interests in oncology; I really enjoyed your post about HeLa cells. I'll be sure to keep up and not lurk so much.

This is a another Chris who lurks here. Hi!

Oh, and this Chris likes this part of your blog:

My work to date has primarily involved the promotion of women in science and technology and I have been fortunate in my career to have been trained by and involved in the training of women scientists.

Hi Abel

I read your blog most days and I have a special fondness for your scientific explanation of naturally derived molecules that we can use as drugs.

I can see what you're doing with your 2010 mission but it will have the effect of making your blog entirely US-centric.

Lafayette, we are here !
or something.
Keep up the good work!

First, de-semi-lurking to say, Happy Blogiversary!

Now, on to the test questions:
1) your general background I was born a poor black child, in a log cabin I helped my father build...okay, that was not entirely true. In fact, it was more or less completely false. I would even go so far as to say, a total lie. Female, white, fifties, some college (but a voracious reader). The degree I didn't finish was in biology, which won out over astronomy because the college I went to didn't offer it, and I was far too timid to fare alone into the unknown. Scifi geek, history & archaeology buff, serious D&D player, inordinately fond of tentacles. Says it all, really.

2) why you read I've got too much time on my hands at work, a vicarious-science monkey on my back, and access to a computer. I surf the Scienceblogoverse, and stop in here daily in the course of my travels, as I have since the day one of your sciblings linked to one of your blog entries. You have successfully caught and held my attention, and now you're stuck with me until and unless you become boring---which I see no symptoms of, yet.

3) what other stuff you'd like to hear from us. You're doing good; keep doing it. Add whatever suits you. As long as you don't become boring, or distressingly teabaggy or religious, I'm along for the ride.

Guess I'm a lurker. I post on other blogs, but don't think I've posted here...mainly because I spend more time 'listening' than 'talking' when I'm learning items outside my area of expertise. To answer your questions:

1) General Background: Wildlife biologist/ecologist, involved in research usually on small mammals, migratory birds, stress hormones in those populations, arctic and sub-arctic plant nutrient studies; also sessional professor teaching a variety of biology courses, ecology, genetics, chemistry to first and second-year undergrads when I'm in the mood to stay indoors over winter rather than freeze half to death doing winter field work on some high arctic mammal that doesn't know enough to get in out of the cold. Also former career as a social worker dealing with juvenile delinquents (young offenders, some were drug addicts).

2) Why I read: To gain knowledge, to understand, to expand my boundaries. What you blog about sometimes ties in with so many aspects of what I do so I drop by about once a week to soak up what you've written.

3) what other stuff you'd like to hear from us: I really don't know. Write about what interests you, and your interest in the subject may be contagious and I'll become interested in something I didn't even think about before. Science-blogs are avenues of exploration. You never know what blog post will catch your fancy and pull you along into the maelstrom.

Congratulations, and happy bloggaversary!

I started reading you relatively recently, and I enjoy your writing style & perspective immensely.

And now, if there were any justice, the gods of the blogosphere would reward you with a Martin Steve Earle Signature M-21 to replace that Taylor of yours...

Stumbled on your blog before you moved here, asked a question and we figured out that you worked with my spouse- small world.

You write good stuff, so I read!! Sometimes I comment, sometimes I lurk. I particularly appreciate the stuff you write debunking news stories that overstate what can be said from in-vitro and in-vivo cancer studies and plaster links to your blog all over cancer support boards when you do this.

Thanks

Congrats, man! You're one day ahead of me!

Delurking now. ABD Plant Biology, MS Biology, BS Industrial Engineering -- time spent as part time adjuct at both Community Colleges and University levels. Left academics to help family with end of life care for grandfather. Choice made easier by deeply disfunctional lab and department. Now tech in a clinical lab area. God, I love health insurance! Lurk at work to cure bordom waiting for tissue to frozen section or slides to stain. Thanks to you and all your sci-blings esp when your tag lines let me filter what will get past the Big Brother work-place controls. Love it when pathology and botany meet.

And yes,I would be female. And yes, only after I joined the "pink collar" work force did my father say he was proud of me. I'm older than you might think -late attempt to bloom. And oh how I love health insurance -- and therefore my job.

A great many thanks to the first 12 of you who commented in before I tweeted today and was retweeted by many of you on the occasion of this birth - afterbirth, if you will.

#1 DrugMonkey - I know who you are indeed but I still look forward to getting to know you in meatspace someday. I really appreciate the support of you and all the other neuropeeps, not just for reading but for also referring our posts and drawing others over to join the conversation.

#2 Chemgeek - Fabulous to have a fellow homebrewer (me, formerly though) and honest-to-goodness chemist among this gathering. And yes, being the father of little women simply encourages us in the pursuit of equality. Not a bad thing. Especially if they learn to homebrew. It's biochemistry, right? And pharmacology, too.

#3 arvind - If you are a lurker then you are the most active lurker I know. I really appreciate your pointing out your favorite posts as they are some of mine as well! But be sure to come and ask questions if the science posts are over your head. This is supposed to also be a place for general science ed so jump in from time to time. I say "musician" but, honestly, I'm more a guy who plays guitar and bass with other musicians. What I hope to do someday is to go for a run with you and Mrs Arvind. Be well, and thank you.

#4 Roger - Are you *my* Roger Austin? If so, thanks for hunting me down. If not, thank you for hunting me down. The PharmKid has actually learned more than I about going down to the river and picking some medicinal plants. Lots of folk history of such here in NC and her nature camp counselors have shared a lot with her. That'll be a future project: to translate the truth behind some of these folk stories. Thanks for the suggestion.

Yes, I promise to respond to each and every one of you - Thank you for reading and writing. It's a pleasure to see my old friends and to make new ones.

Hi there Abel,
I first met you near the (delicious) sweet potato beer being served up by FullSteam at the spring tweetup at Bronto, and have popped in to your blog on occasion ever since. I probably see more of you on twitter than on this blog. I have enjoyed your tweets on many topics and came across the book Killing Bono because of your coverage of the U2 conference. I love in particular your local social justice connections. Best wishes with the new mission- I hope to find ways to contribute to its success.
cheers,
Mary

Hi Abel,
I found Terra Sig about a year ago through science blogs and science-based medicine. I grew up in northern Arizona and developed an interest in edible and medicinal herbs under the influence of parents and friends who were foresters, botanists and biologists. Living on the border of the Navajo and Hopi reservations also helped. I will keep my eyes and ears open in relation to your mission, and if you need anything from this area investigated, let me know.

Hi Abel,

I'm not a new reader here but I haven't visited you blog in the last year except for the post about squalene which did help me craft a good answer on vaccination on a forum so I wish to thanks you for that.

Happy blogiversary :)

Congratulations!

Who am I? A Canadian university student. (Arts, not Sciences.) Irregular reader and mostly a lurker.

Why do I read? Usually it's 'cause I clicked on an interesting-looking link to one of your articles. Or I just check in to see what's new.

What else do I want to see here? Can't think of anything offhand, sorry.

...More congratulations! Four years is pretty darn good for a blog, no? Especially a science- and news-based sort of blog, as opposed to your basic what's-going-on-in-my-life-right-now sort of blog. Keep up the good work!

Hi,
I've been lurking for about a year and a half. I teach English at two community colleges in California, and I often point my students toward your blog and those of your sciblings.
Science blogs in general and Terra Sigilata are excellent examples of well-written essays, and a good source of information to rebut some of the nonsense floating around college campuses.

/delurks
[Ouch! Quit it Orac!]

An electrical engineer working in IT (I really wanted to build trains - welcome to the job market).

Why pharmacy? I've always loved the progression from inorganic to organic chemistry, and then on to biochem and the effects of 'stuff' on animals then to the effects on humans. Where is the disctinction between a poison and a drug? So how do they work anyway?

I dunno. I think all the pharms out there do (or ought to) know.

Can I ask for a few more, um, technically-oriented posts?

Bring back the Phriday Phermentable!

/relurks

I don't read the blog daily, but I read everything on it. Usually I drop by once or twice a week, but sometimes less.

Now, as for your questions:

1) your general background
Danish/Australian IT consultant living in Copenhagen. Pro-science in all aspects.

2) why you read
I like your take on, especially, medical issues, and your good fight against pseudo-science and pseudo-medicine.

3) what other stuff you'd like to hear from us
Your mission statement sounds interesting, but I would definitely like you to continue fighting against homeopathy and other woo.

Congratulations on your anniversary.

I am a low-level college administrator, responsible for emerging technologies software development. I read your blog to gather ammunition to use in my own tiny campaign against pseudo-science. You do a fine job, providing that ammunition. Thank you and keep up the good work!

I refuse to cease lurking, ever!

...oh, crap. This is how I ended posting on a messageboard for 5 years...

Never again!

I'm a first time reader to this blog, coming via link from Orac. While pharmacology is not a big interest, I have had contact with the NIH efforts to promote scientific careers for minorities.

I worked at a small women's HBCU for a year at the beginning of the decade putting together a database of MARC graduates for tracking purposes. The program director mailed a survey to the MARC alumni asking about where they have gone on to train and what they have accomplished since finishing the MARC program. Aside from those students who went on to successfully complete medical school, only one graduate actually went on to earn a Ph.D. The rest dropped out of school somewhere between the first year of graduate school and post master's degree. Aside from monetary issues, which were compelling, the most common complaint was social isolation. Whether this arose from the culture of scientific graduate work or from being a minority in science work was not clear. The immediate response of the faculty at the college was to discount social isolation as a reason for attrition. "If they can't take it, they don't belong!" A significant reason for the failure of their program (they were in serious danger of losing funding) was staring them in the face and all they could say was, "That's not important!" Clearly it was important enough to several very promising scholars that they chose not to pursue full academic training. My point is this: Social support is important for the success of some minority students. The tendency to overlook this need may contribute to the dismal number of minority Ph.Dâs.

Congratulations! Here's to four more!

I am a dedicated lurker for about two years now, scientist/management in biotech. Why I read: you're a good writer, and I like your rational take on the topics on which you post. I particularly like your posts on drugs of abuse, having worked on the research side of the field many years ago.

Who: lurker, social science PhD working in higher ed admin, with a family member who has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (I think I found you through one of Anjou's links).
Why: Good writing, excellent information that helps me better understand pharmacology and research (which has directly impacted us, since my family member's current remission is due to recent innovations in radiolabeled immunotherapy) and explain it to friends and relatives who are pushing all kinds of pseudoscience woo at us. Oh, and I like wine, too :-)
What: What you've been doing is terrific; I applaud the new direction you propose as well.

I follow you on twitter and read your blog occasionally. I am just a regular person who is interested in getting reliable information about drugs and natural cures. It gives me the facts I need to combat woo and misinformation.

I work as a medical technologist in a hospital based clinical laboratory. I'm interested in many science and medical topics and I'd like to see you expand to any topic you wish to expound upon.

More thank-you!

#5 k8 - Way to go! Congratulations on sticking it out and making lemonade out of lemons. Even if you don't go back to finish the master's, it sounds as though you have a very enriching life. I know that recovery can be hell; not sure if you've read my eulogy to my Dad but alcoholism runs strong and deep in my family. Also, as you know, many natural products are among are most frequently abused drugs. So, while I'm not a neuropharmacologist, I like to write about psychoactive substances and substance abuse and dependence as honest-to-goodness pathophysiology. I really love your spirit and blog tagline, "I used to be drunk all the time. Now, there's really no excuse for the crazy." And thank you so much for the nice comments on the writing style. We try our best to make it personal and real.

#6 Dr. Brain - Many thanks and keep coming back to comment.

#7 Katherine Sharpe - THE Katherine Sharpe! Thank you, thank you, thank you for inviting me here on my birthday in 2006. While I have technical mentors for the blog, you were the first person in real journalism who gave me a shot. I am so happy for you with all of your new projects and employment and I will be sure to follow your new blog.

#8 Liz Ditz - Hi Liz, I see you so much on Twitter that it seems odd to talk to you here. Thank you for all the great referrals and for all of your support in vaccination education. I particularly appreciated your exhaustive blog round-up of dialogue on Amy Wallace's Paul Offit article in Wired. And thank you for sharing in the effort to enhance opportunities for women and people of color in our respective fields.

#9 Pascale - Always great to see you, Dr. Lane. I am also a huge fan of the kidney and am always blown away each time I teach renal excretion in my intro to drug action lectures. And yes, even though it's not Thanksgiving, I am still thankful that I can pee!

#10 Marco Valussi - Thank you for checking in across the ocean. I'm delighted to learn of your ethnobotany interests. You raise a good point about an area I know very little: urban pharmacognosy. Yes, while the rainforests are romantic, there has to be intense biological competition aongst plants and microorganisms in urban areas. That's a really good suggestion for future investigation and education!

#11 Biochem Belle - It's great to learn of you as well and your excellent blog on being a postdoc. I think I learned of you via comments at DrugMonkey or nearby. I originally trained in toxicology and look forward both to reading more of your blog and getting you involved in discussions here.

#12 Barn Owl - Ah yes, my dear Barn Owl; it has indeed been a long time. Thank you for reminding me of our mutual love for Colorado. I sometimes hesitate to talk about local stuff or fondness for places I've lived but many of us train in so many different places that there's always bound to be more interest in hyperlocal things than one might think. Thank you for your endorsement and for jumping in to discuss so often.

#13 Sheril - Hey neighbor - you need to come to my office and go through my plethora of pharmacology texts for your book. I'm here, sadly, through the holidays.

#14 Dr Aust - Great to see you, sir - I also follow you on Twitter. Yes, we will continue with science-y posts
but feel free to rant any time you wish.

#15 - Stephanie Z - Great to meet you last year at ScienceOnline, albeit briefly. Yup, I'll continue to pull topics out of thin air - thanks for being unique yourself.

#16 Peggy - Hello, Peggy, and thank you so much for your kind and generous comments both here and on Twitter. I am honored and hope I can keep up with your expectations. Thank you for mentioning STEMM and making it easier to me to talk about "STEM, and medicine, and allied health professions." Yours is indeed a typical story but I am glad that your science background has put you into an environment where you are making huge contributions! What a fabulous way to make a great impact at your institution and wherever your trainees end up - I love "stealth professional development."

GOATS ON FIRE

Congratulations! I too am a (rather infrequent) lurker, albeit my visits here have become more frequent since I started twittering and came across many a worthwhile RT with your twitter name attached. And I also write a small blog (or two) when I have time in between teaching and research. Coming up soon on the third anniversary of my blog Reconciliation Ecology shortly!

Oh, and might I add that I am a non-white (male) science blogger? One who wouldn't mind being asked to join this collective if you folks at SB are serious about adding some color and perhaps a perspective from the global south too! :-)

I am a documentary filmmaker from Canada with no science background whatsoever, but a double dose of curiousity about a lot of science-y subjects. I came across your blog while spellunking around the 'net for a project concept, and was very impressed with your writing style and you've had a several posts that have piqued my interest - not necessarily about what I was originally looking for, either. I've been lurking away every so often ever since.

Just keep writing about what interests you. And congratulations on your anniversary!

Congrats!

1. Former Christian, discovered the joys of science and skepticism just over a year ago and haven't looked back! I have a modest blog where I write about skeptical things that interest me, and try to broaden my knowledge by doing that.

2. I read your blog and other scienceblogs to learn, obviously, but also to try to make up for all of the lost time I spent thinking that science was boring and of no interest or consequence to me. I learn so much from blogs like yours, not only information, but also about the experience of being a scientist and the scientific method (which is in reality so much more exciting than the way I learned the method in school).

3. Keep doing what you're doing!

Congrats Abel!

I just started reading your blog--not always as regularly as I'd like, but I enjoy it. You've probably surmised most of this from my tweets, but I'm a postdoc at Columbia University in New York. I specialize in using NMR to study protein dynamics. I spent several years doing vaccine research/development as well.

I applaud you on your expanded focus. I have made it a goal to mentor minority students and have found it to be incredibly rewarding.

I'm also female, from rural Nebraska, and am a bit of a sports nut. :)

Hoping to get my own blog going in the new year. Until then, catch you in the twitterverse!

Cheers,
Michelle

Undergraduate student studying neurobiology. Frequently a curmudgeon. Am an atheist. Frequently fascinated by pharmacology.

I have not found a better place on the internet to read about the latest science.

I have a B.A. Anthropology and I've been a Science geek all my life. I'm interested in Ethnomedicine and the "alternative" medicine scene as a cultural phenomenon. I'm 46 and over the years my Alternative friends have subjected me to everything from Bach Flower remedies to herbal concoctions pounded into beeswax paste, but I'm still here and healthy anyhow.

I've been reading your blog for about three years. I very much enjoy your informed voice and your ability to speak clearly on subjects that seem to make a lot of people incapable of rational thought (like vaccinations).

My dad was Eastern Shoshone and I very much approve of your expanded mission statement. I do hope you'll also keep fighting the good fight against the modern versions of Patent Medicines and other dubious things.

Thanks for all that you write here!

Congrats on the 'versary. Looking forward to sharing a beer with you at SciO10!

I have a business admin degree and work as a software developer on a open source project. Always been fascinated by science. I'm disturbed by pseudoscience and the harm it can cause people who rely on it instead of evidence based medicine. As a minority female in a male dominated profession, I appreciate your expanded scope.

Junior TT faculty in physiology as well as being a rather bitter and sarcastic blogger. I am a regular reader but don't tend to comment often because your stuff is always right on the money. I thought the guy wearing the funny hat and playing the guitar was pretty cool, too.

I suppose I'm a semi-lurker though I have commented on a couple of things in the past.

I first came to find your blog when I read on Pharyngula about your live-blogging experiment during your Vasectomy. I thought that such a brave, brave man would be worth following and I subsequently subscribed to your RSS feed.

I read most of your posts via Bloglines but do come and read the odd one or two that take my particular fancy on your website. I'm not a scientist (I'm a software tester for a telecomms firm) but I enjoy reading about the sciences. Also wine.

I've learned a lot about pharmacologically-related stuff here and I hope to continue to learn new things for a while to come now. I love Scienceblogs for this - it's humanising the presentation of scientific ideas.

Congrats on 4 years!

Dave

Hello. I am delurking late because I'm an irregular reader. Merry Thingummy and all that.

I'm a lurker and erratic reader, too, but then, I was only recently introduced to your blog. I'm not a scientist, nor do I have any scientific or medical training. My interest in scientific subjects was ignited by watching the "Mr. Wizard" television show (this gives you an idea that I ain't young...) and my interest in science has never waned since. Congratulations on your fourth year of writing this interesting blog and may your interest never wane, either!

greetings Abel and happy 4th blogoversary!

for the sake of adding another comment to your excellent blog, here i am! you already know that i'm a fellow pharmacologist, interested in toxicology and natural products pharm/tox but looking at some different applications. just wanted to leave a note of encouragement and say keep up the good work, friend!

Still getting back to all of y'all. Thank you very much for continuing to write in!

#17 Melissa/BotanicalGirl - Wow! If you look back at my first post, you will indeed see that I am your blog spawn! So great to hear from you and, yes, lovely to follow you on Twitter. Congratulations on your marriage and job. You must get back to blogging. While I don't think you do botany any longer, you always had a great voice and I know several people who'd be happy to see you back.

#18 smaller - Thank you for reading and congratulations on finishing the semester. You probably already know that microbes (bacteria and fungi) have given rise to many natural product therapeutics, including the statins and a great many antibiotics and anticancer drugs. Good luck in your decision in what to do and be sure to read other blogs here and elsewhere. I had a pharmacy students who was also a paramedic so firefighting sounds cool. But if your grades aren't that good and you want to do vet school or grad school, try and get some research experience while you are an undergrad.

#19 Greg - Thanks for the kind words and thank you for linking to me throughout the year. All the best to you and Amanda on her master's and your new baby!

#20 Coturnix - Thank you, Bora, for being among the first big name bloggers to link to me in the lean days. You continue to be a mentor, wonderful friend, and are always generous with praise and links. You're a good egg, brother. Happy Hanukkah!

#21 C.E. - You are too kind; I'm glad that you seized upon that line. For others in this thread, you really should do yourself a favor and bookmark Candid Engineer. She does a terrific job day in and day out of capturing the postdoc life with great straight-up advice, a great attitude, takes no crap from asshats, and is most deserving of an tenure-track faculty position very soon. She rocks.

#22 Paul Browne - Hey! Great to learn that you are a reader - what a nice surprise. Paul runs Speaking of Research, a campus-oriented blog that supports the lifesaving research conducted by researchers whose work requires the use of laboratory animals. Paul's site is designed to combat the animal rights extremism and terrorism against researchers whose lives are dedicated to improving human health and relieving human suffering by the most responsible and humane use of laboratory animal models.

#23 Thank you, ana!

#24 ambivalent academic - Great to see you, Dr. AA! Yes, Doctor AA - congratulations on your defense!

#25 Marilyn Mann - Thanks, Marilyn!

#26 Chris - WOW! Reading since Jan 2006? That's basically my entire blog life. Haven't scared you away yet? Good luck with the grad school applications - hope we haven't scarred you or led you astray. I'll definitely do some more peer-reviewed papers; I've slacked off lately.

#27 BigHeathenMike - A beloved Canadian! Thank you for all you do to fight the antivaccination death march. Doesn't matter when you started reading; I'm glad you still do. You know, for some reason I was just thinking I was in need of a good, deep-tissue massage.

#28 NoAstronomer - Thanks for the brief delurk!

#29 PharmacistScott - No, Scott, thank *you* for being a vocal pharmacist and taking so much effort to support your profession with science-based information. I don't see as many pharmacists in the blogosphere as, say, physicians. So, as a former pharmacy prof, I'm so glad that you started Science-Based Pharmacy. Keep up the great work, beloved Canadian!

I'm not a scientist. I have an undergrad degree in Anthropology and am interested in the intersection of science and culture--especially the way that culture influences epidemiology.

Thanks for your blog!

Happy Blogiversary, Abel.

1) you already know who I am, anyone else can figure it out from my blog if they want to

2) I come here for the physiology/pharmacology and diversity related content

3) just keep up the good work!

I have a couple of friends with more melanin and less testosterone than the scientific promotion process seems to prefer, so I'll be sure to point 'em here in light of your renewed focus on diversity.

#30 Alejandro - We are very fortunate to have readers like you from the Mexican medical community. I'm so glad that you enjoyed the HeLa post and I encourage you to get Rebecca Skloot's book on Henrietta Lacks when it is released on 2 febrero. I'm sure you know that while amazon.mx does not exist, amazon.com will ship the book to Mexico.

#31/32 Chris - Hey, it's been a pleasure to work with you behind the scenes on other projects. You might also be very interested in my recent post on Dr. Nora Volkow.

#33 antipodean - I will certainly continue to write about naturally-derived drugs - I'm glad you enjoy those posts. A new facet on diversity, I hope, will not make us too US-centric as issues of race and diversity exist in the scientific community in other countries as well. For example, I spoke recently of Guadeloupe-French footballer Lilian Thurman's fight against racism from the Sarkozy administration. If you know of such issues internationally, please do send them to me. This is a world blog!

#34 DLC - Well, I hope you are not uttering "Lafayette, we are here," at my tomb. But yes, I truly appreciate the gesture, your continued reading, and active commenting. btw, I just learned that while the quote is oft attributed for Gen. John Pershing, he noted in his autobiography that the words were spoken instead by Col. Charles Stanton.

Hi Abel,

I only occasionally visit, esp. now I have my own blog to babysit...

I'm interested in the disabilities side of what you're proposing. I wrote a post about some parts of this about a month ago, prompted by a post Isis wrote (see link on my name).

One point I mention in it is that disabilities are less often raised, as most people writing seem focused on ethnic background or gender.

It doesn't seem right to be offering a caution seeing as you've been blogging for a while now, but just a thought: be careful about how issues span international borders.

As a very silly example, apparently people from the USA complained about the to them racial tone of an TV advertisement in Australia, featuring a well-known (white) Australian cricketer looking awkward and glum surrounded by cheering West African supporters. It seems that some from the USA took it to mean that the guy was awkward and glum because he was surrounded by "blacks". Any Australian (the intended audience of the advert) or New Zealander would instantly know the actual subtext: he was awkward and glum because he was faced with watching the Australian team losing to the West Indian team while being surrounded by their supporters innocently rubbing it in by cheering madly... nothing to do with "race" at all...

This example is a silly one, I know, but I wanted to give an overly light example that's off-topic as such to avoid kicking up a fuss in the wrong place.

(FWIW, I've had a nearly identical experience involving watching NZ lose to Pakistan at the 50-over World Cup many years ago. It's a great story, but this isn't the place for it.)

No need to reply to this, I'm guessing you're might have to take back the idea of replying to each and every person judging by how the list is growing faster than your responses... :-)

Now I wish my own readers would kindly delurk...

Grant (also sometimes 'BioinfoTools')

Tips from the top: Mentoring is really, super important to help people succeed.

sciencewoman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:19:15 +0000

Tips from the top: Mentoring is really, super important to help people succeed.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend a talk by Gail Cassell, a member of the National Academies' Institute of Medicine, and one of the authors of the NAS report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Dr. Cassell is currently Vice President of Infectious Diseases for Eli Lilly. She was previously the chair of the Department of Microbiology at the University of Alabama Schools of Medicine and Dentistry at Birmingham.

Dr. Cassell has also done a great deal of thinking about the importance of mentoring, networking, and professional development opportunities in academia and industry. Here are some snippets of what she had to say in the opening part of her remarks, advice for navigating the new environment faced by junior scientists:

â¢There is no substitute for tenaciousness and perseverance.
â¢Always be open to new opportunities.
â¢Treat your colleagues well.
â¢Establish integrity of institutions. What you do is important, but how you do it is more important.

Dr. Cassell also talked about the characteristics of a good mentor, qualities that included accessibility, empathy, honesty, savvy, humility (most important), consistency, open-mindedness, and understanding of the current/new research/academic/professional environment. Mentors should be providing networking opportunities, offering moral support, and encouraging creative thinking. In turn, good mentees are proactive, probing, gracious, and humble in accepting critical feedback.

Of course, you are not going to meet all of your mentoring needs in a single relationship, so Cassell suggests to never let go of old mentors, establish both official and informal mentors and also find a set of confidants. She urges mentees to keep meetings professional.

Cassell also spoke about the differences in the way mentoring and professional development occurs in industry versus academia. She thinks they used to be quite different, but maybe not so much anymore. In her view, strengths in industry include: constant feedback and peer review; objective [and clearly defined?] performance measures; yearly development plans, treating human capital as the greatest asset; considering the sum of team and individual performance in evaluating success; and doing good succession planning. She talked about specific programs aimed at supporting scientists at Eli Lilly, including a women's network, on-site childcare, generous maternity leave, job sharing, flex time, remote sites of work, and a VP of Diversity. By the time she was done, I was almost ready to ask for a job application.

Dr. Cassell suggested that to make mentoring meaningful is to make it part of the institution's culture. To do that, it needs to be factored into performance evaluations, because the organization needs to put its money where its mouth is. She told us that bad mentors at Lilly get sent to "charm school." In my mind, this making mentoring part of the institutional culture, by rewarding good mentoring, is one of the biggest challenges to mentoring programs aimed at young faculty at universities. Most universities already place low value on service, and if mentoring is just one tiny component of a low value activity, then there's little way to provide incentives and rewards to good mentors. Of course, some would argue that seeing junior faculty succeed is its own reward. But over the course of busy work days, weeks, semesters, years... is that enough of a reward to actually motivate senior faculty to devote significant time and energy to mentoring those climbing the tenure ladder? Or will it only be enough to provide a twinge of regret when some young faculty are denied tenure?

sciencewoman Tue, 11/17/2009 - 16:19

Tags

career development

mentorship

mentors

National Academy of Science

professional development

Great post! I have been junior faculty for a few years now, and just manage to recruit my first grad student. I was also recently assigned as a mentor to a few people more junior to me in the department. Even though I have always had strong opinions about what makes a good mentor (partly as a result of some toxic mentoring I unfortunately experienced), I am now feeling totally overwhelmed and inadequate. This mentoring business is really hard! So I appreciate the post.

(I also love the idea of mentoring charm school, though I wonder how the people who need it are identified. I have never dared report my miserable experiences with some of my mentors).

I'm recently tenured, and while I agree with all of what was said, I don't have any problem with doing those things. I LIKE mentoring, being supportive, leading by example, etc. My mentoring problems have to do with "How long do I let you spin wheels?" and "Now that you've missed three deadlines in a row on your proposal, am I doing you any favors by not showing mild displeasure?" and " You know, people that are going to end up successful in science like to work in the lab for more than three hours a day" and "We've done this together ten times - you need to take the responsibility to learn it for yourself" and "Where have you been the past month and a half?"

Part of mentoring is also deciding that a mentee is not making it. Sometimes firing a mentee is the best thing you can do for them. Sometimes firing a mentee now is the best thing that you can do for the company or agency or school that will eventually have to fire them if you don't now. And while yes, some people are late bloomers or slow to warm or what have you, the reality is that some people seem more enamored of the IDEA of being a scientist than actually being a scientist. Some people want to accumulate credentials more than they want to work. Some people are pursuing avenues they aren't suited for out of momentum or a desire to please parents or to get out of some bad situation, etc. Some people need to take care of drinking or drug or mental health issues. For whatever reason, they aren't ready for the kind of mentoring you are describing, the rewarding kind of mentoring.

That unrewarding-but necessary part of the mentoring is what I need help with.

Thanks for sharing, SciWo! I love the idea of "charm school", though without an incentive to actually do good mentoring, I'm afraid it wouldn't help so much...

Ask sciencewomen: If I'm happy with an MS, should I get a PhD?

sciencewoman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:30:27 +0000

Ask sciencewomen: If I'm happy with an MS, should I get a PhD?

From the mailbag:

I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years I've been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all it's a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side can't figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what I'm already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.

So on to the concrete questions:

What doors does a PhD open up aside from running a lab and teaching?

What can I do without a PhD?

How does one generally go about choosing a PhD project (assuming I do decide to get one)? The answer I generally get for this last one is to read about the research that other labs are doing and that I will "know it when I see it." But given the large number of labs at even a modest sized university, this is a very daunting task.

Dear _____,

Wow. Great questions. I think the first paragraph really contains the meat of the matter: if you are happy where you are, should you get a PhD just to prove you can?

No.

You sound happy. I have friends with MS degrees with jobs like the one you describe, and they are happy 8+ years on. As you say, you've found a sweet gig where you can see yourself staying. Why put yourself through the economic and academic hardship of a PhD, just to prove to a nebulous someone that you can do it? The scientific culture is also about macho masochism and no matter what you do, there will always be someone who is doing more...better...faster than you. So if you are happy, stay put.

But.

You are asking. Which means you are thinking about it. Maybe you are happy where you are...but you are the one who really wants something more than your current sweet gig for the next 30 years. We are conditioned through school to always be climbing upward and I think it can be disconcerting to find yourself in a job where there aren't obvious opportunities for advancement.

So.

I'd spend some real time reflecting on what you really want from your life and career and exploring the various options you have with an MS if you decide to move on from your current position. I'm a geoscientist, not a bio-med type, so I really can't help you with specifics. (That's my duck around your question on "What can I do without a PhD?")

If...

you do decide to pursue a PhD, make sure that you and your advisor are clear about your non-academic career plans and that he or she is supportive of you. One place to start with searching out alternative careers is with books like "A PhD Is Not Enough" and with "The Alternative Scientist" blog and those of its contributors. Katie at Minor Revisions writes a wonderful candid and metaphor-filled look at life in a bio-related industry job.

Yes.

Your friends are right. Read, ask around, attend conferences until you find the specific field that really, really excites you. You are going to need that excitement to get through ~5 years of the most frustrating and thrilling work you've ever done. But, maybe your friends didn't tell you this....you need to find an advisor whose mentoring style works for you. Is she hands-on or hard to track down? Does she expect 80 hour weeks 52 weeks per year? Are her students happy? Are her graduates successful in getting the sort of jobs you want to get when you are done?

Readers, what say you?

sciencewoman Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:30

Tags

ask sciencewomen

career development

earning that PhD

choosing a PhD program

Graduate School

terminal MS

I can sympathize with this person's question. I have a master's plus 7 years experience, 5 of which are in a great job that could very well be a life-long career if I want. I spent the other 2 years trying for a Ph.D. and ended up getting burned out. It's hard to make yourself care about academia long enough to get the Ph.D. if you don't want an Ivory Tower career.

Having said that, not a day goes by that I don't think about how I'll finish the doctorate because with it comes greater respect of peers and opportunities for advancement. My advice is that the earlier you get the Ph.D. the better because the rest of life (marriage, kids, etc.) won't get in the way. However, start too early (like right out of college), and you'll be too green to know what you really want.

What we need is a Ph.D. that is more determinate in scope and length more like professional degrees (JD, MD, etc.) so that people know if they put in the time and effort they'll earn the degree. As it stands now, each person's experience is highly variable and very dependent on the advisor/department/program/university. If you don't make the right choices in the beginning of a PhD program, all the hard work in the world might not be enough to guarantee success. Good luck!

I have a job where a PhD is required, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. That much said, if I had not had a burning drive to be in the field I'm in, that requirement alone would not have helped me stay motivated in the six years it took to go from bachelors to PhD. What's more, had I known the job opportunities in my field that ARE available to masters-level folks (mostly operational work, and at lower pay, but with job security and some research opportunities), I might have made a different choice in life.

I also discovered very quickly after graduation that my PhD only got my foot in the door, and that my career wasn't going to go anywhere without some serious work on my part. So unless you think the PhD is going to open a door that you just can't wedge open any other way...I'm not sure it's the right path for you.

What we need is a Ph.D. that is more determinate in scope and length more like professional degrees (JD, MD, etc.) so that people know if they put in the time and effort they'll earn the degree.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHQAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To answer the original question, if you are happy being a lab manager/tech, and don't feel a burning desire to independently pursue your own research program, then there is absolutely no reason to get a PhD.

A Ph.D. degree does not open a lot of doors, but not having one closes a lot of them in scientific fields. This is especially true in research.
One choice may be to stay in lab management, get all the certifications, and maybe get a MBA rather than a higher science degree.

I (engineering rather than science, non-academic job) am currently resisting the "typical" types of training in my field as I don't want to be pushed up to manager level once I get them. I'd be wary of getting it (for whatever reason) and then being pushed into an area of work that you don't like. However I don't know what doors will close without a PhD.

I have been asked this question more than once. I have a PhD in Math and have many friends with great educations short of a PhD. My answer is usually; "If you want to do original research and do not already feel capable doing it, get a PhD." At least in my field a Masters is enough for anything short of research and if you can already do research it doesn't matter what you have. Hope this helps.

Respect comes from within. It doesn't come from getting a higher degree. Do not get a PhD just because you think that more people will respect you or that the prevailing academic (or whatever) culture seems to think it's what you should do. I can't tell you how many times it's the really sharp technician with the experience and skill--not the PhD with the mediocre brain--who is truly valued in the laboratory. A PhD is no indicator of intelligence or character or even fortitude. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what it indicates, and I have one. It is a credential, opening up some teaching and some research positions at least in biology, but it also closes a few doors because many folks see the PhD as "over qualified". In and of itself the PhD does not make you a good scientist or a good professor. It also doesn't seem to come with any pay grade increases either, by the way. I got mine because I wanted to teach at a liberal arts college, and I knew it was a credential I would need. The PhD was necessary but not sufficient; my passion and skill as a teacher was absolutely essential as well. If you have a passion for a career in which the PhD is a required or highly valued credential, get one. If not, don't.

Just my two cents, based on my own experience:

I earned a life sciences masters through a BS/MS and worked for two years as a technician before going back for a PhD. I mainly did it because I wanted more potential for career advancement. I'm still not set on a final career path (I'm in my second year of the PhD... average time to completion in my program is 5.5 years, so I have a while), but I do know that graduates from my program have gone on to work in law (consulting for firms that do patent/IP for biotech and pharmaceutical companies), journal editing/publishing, non-journal science writing (popular press, medical writing), public policy, and higher ed administration, in addition to the more 'traditional' careers in academic or industry research. There are career seminars for graduate students at my university where people who work in a variety of fields come in to talk about their jobs and explain what they do and how they got there. I find them very interesting, although, I still am not really sure what I want to do when I get out of here...

As for choosing a PhD project, most life science PhD programs require several lab rotations before one chooses an adviser. I had no idea what I wanted to do when I started, beyond a general interest in cellular and molecular neuroscience. I worked in three different labs for a couple of months each, learning about the research and getting to know the lab members, before making up my mind about which lab I wanted to join. My now-adviser talked to me about several potential projects that the lab could support, and I expressed interest in one topic that will be the focus of my dissertation research. I think as long as you can find an institution that seems to be doing lots of potentially interesting things, you'll have options. I went with the lab that felt like a good match for both my scientific interests and my personality, and I'm happy there.

My friends in industry say that an MS opens up a fair number of possibilities to conduct independent research and earn decent pay, so a PhD is not strictly necessary in that sphere. In general, the sort of depressing trend seems to be that because there are lots of life science PhDs floating around, employers can just demand a PhD for any position, even one that doesn't actually make use of one's PhD training. It sucks. If you are an outstanding candidate and make a great impression, it's possible to get hired without meeting those arbitrary criteria, but I do think the extra degree can make it easier to get your foot in the door. Whether that nebulous future benefit is worth the extra aggravation for five years is up to you.

Given the stated parameters, I wouldn't get a Ph.D. If you are doing research and getting your name on papers, then pretty much any job except professor is open to you. Your lab management skills will ALWAYS be valuable.

If you find yourself really driven to explore a certain question in way more depth, maybe you would consider getting your Ph. D. But it doesn't sound like that is what is driving your right now. Grad school is long, long, long, and you need to be passionate about it when you are starting out.

i have a PhD from a top university and a postdoc from an excellent institution and have been unable to find a job for years. i am nearly always "the second choice" for academic positions and i am "overqualified" for everything else. so i struggle to stay alive by working as a pet care provider. it is humiliating beyond description to have a PhD and the passion to give up everything i've ever had to land an academic position only to find myself working nonstop doing something i did as an 8-year-old. to add injury to insult, i am attempting to deal with huge financial debts (medical bills, rent, utilities, food) due to my inability to earn enough to support myself.

i understand about seeking to "improve" oneself, but my advice is to "improve" yourself by doing something else altogether (conservation law, business, working at big pharma, etc).

academics will destroy your life and your dreams.

Here in the UK we have the option of a PhD earned in the course of your job. Eg if you have made major contributions to several papers, you could submit them with a intro and some text to make it all hang together and earn a PhD. Alternatively you can start new work in your job and write that up as you go along. Does this option not exist in the US?

Also, here in the UK, you start a PhD and you know that you will be finished in 4 years, max. If it takes you more than 4 years, you fail. I think this is a far superior system to that in the US which seems to go on forever...

An MS plus extensive lab experience, as you have, will qualify you for many jobs, including much of what Laura mentioned (science journalism, patent law). So the only reason to get a PhD is if you're looking for a job that specifically requires one, like a PI or PUI teacher--which as you say you have no interest in. Unless you can point to a specific career goal that requires a PhD, don't do it.

If said possible Doctorate holder is a female, I say stop. Check out the data here at the NSF (most notably Table H16 and beyond). If you're happy with your job, stay with it. You'll be better off long term.

(All this coming from someone who left a PhD program with a masters and then went to another PhD program, so yeah...)

Don't do it. If you already have research projects you like, you are doing the most enjoyable bit of a doctorate and missing out on all the dross - nitpickery, backstabbery and deadline-stress. I wish I had your job.

My practical side can't figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what I'm already doing.

There are often loopholes around the paycut if you plan on doing your PhD at the same institution where you are a super-tech. I have known several individuals who were super-techs for years at R1 institutions who then did a PhD in the same lab or a closely aligned lab, but made 3,4, or 5 times what their PhD "classmates" made, and were excellent and productive graduate students developing their own research interests. After their PhD (3-5 years), some of them stayed in the their originating lab as senior scientists who were developing their own projects, while others went on to do 'traditional' post-docs at other institutions.

Some may say that doing is PhD in your originating lab gives you a lower quality of training, and doesn't do you a service in the long term.

OTOH, get yours. Starting a PhD from scratch a new institution won't give you the option of a $60k stipend instead of the $26K the other students are getting.

A PhD is useful, but not necessary, for doing research. For example, in geosciences one of the top 20 most cited active researchers never finished his. He just got sidetracked writing (hundreds of) papers.

So I would agree with number 6.

NO-DO NOT GET A DOCTORATE.

A Ph.D. is an academic educational experience, not a career experience. Use the masters and move laterally within industry. There are lots of niches for people with science backgrounds to work in marketing, business, management, quality assurance, regulatory affairs -- none of which absolutely require a Ph.D. The skills you get in industry will be effectively more valuable than the academic skills you'll acquire with a Ph.D. Sure there are Ph.D.'s in industry, but there's a limited use for the skills they bring.

Once you have your Ph.D. everyone scrutinizes why you aren't seeking a faculty position, you become "overqualified" for many positions, and doubts your sincerity for wanting to get off the academic track. You'll have problems getting your foot in the door to a more stable job.

There are lots of things a Ph.D. can do aside from running a lab and teaching. For a starter, check out http://www.whatcanyoubewithaphd.net/program/

However, A Ph.D. will not help with improving your self-esteem if you can't see beyond the three letters after your name. You have to ask whether you enjoy doing what a Ph.D. trains you to do. Otherwise, after you get your Ph.D., you will realize that there are other people who get more even respect, M.D., J.D., President of the US, your plumber, etc.

Besides being miserable, you won't be a good Ph.D. anyway if you don't truly love what it is. If money is what you are after, Ph.D. is definitely the wrong thing to get.

Do not bother getting a PhD; they are next to useless and you won't recoup salary for the years spent laboring for your doctorate and post-doc.

The enormous influx of foreign faculty, grad students and post-docs from abroad have ensured oversupply of advance-degreed applicants for almost all jobs. Employers will readily employ a newly degreed, green-carded foreign male who will work cheaply over a woman who *may* take a break to have children or relocate for a spouse.

If you think the job market is tight at the lower echelons of advanced education, wait until you have a PhD paper in hand, then try to find a suitable job.

Without a PhD, you are going to hit a definite glass ceiling if you want to be doing your own research, have your own projects, etc. There are jobs, no matter how much experience you have, that you won't be considered for without a PhD. I have known cases where a candidate was being specifically and actively recruited for a job (because of their experience, publications, etc) and later dropped because they didn't have a PhD. The candidates weren't hiding anything, it was once the committee/hiring manager got a copy of the cv, it was "Oh, no PhD. We need to find someone else." I've seen this happen in academia, insustry and at least one research foundation.

One of the most-respected scientists I ever met did not have a PhD.

That didn't stop Trudy Elion from winning the Nobel Prize.

There's also Marty St. Clair, who did ground-breaking work on AZT resistance with "no more" than a bachelor's degree (and a whole lot of bright, and a farm-full of llamas).

If in my limited circle of acquaintance, I can find two highly accomplished women who did not need a PhD to succeed, I think that qualifies as evidence that such a thing is not required.

You should want to get the degree for the knowledge/expertise you'll gain, not for the alleged financial rewards. Cuz, truth be told, those might not be worth the effort.

My spouse faced this question 25 years ago and choose to stick with a MS. He was lobbied heavily to complete the PhD - the number of terminal degrees an institution gives out influences their fundraising abilities - but felt that pushing ahead would overqualify him for the jobs he loves: fieldwork and technical support, interspersed with data analysis.

This has turned out to be a wise decision, with one caveat. He has been able to continue in research, while maintaining a good family life and pursuing other interests. OTOH, some of his colleagues struggled for quite a while to find suitable positions, and ended up with workloads that forced them to focus exclusively on their careers.

The caveat is that as we approach 50, he sees that his position will not last more than five more years, so we are now contemplating what the next move might be. It's a little scary to think of starting a new career path at 55, but who knows what will happen.

OTOH, you run the very real risk of spending 4 years in the program only to come out with no degree (just the experience). The impression I get from American colleagues who have done PhDs in the UK is that programs like this give you much less feedback along the way about how you're doing. Generally US programs will tell you much earlier in the process if they think you're on the road to failure, so you will have spent only a couple of years in the program before leaving, rather than getting to the bitter end and only then finding out that you didn't make it.

Both systems work for some people, but you have to know what you're getting into.

I am working on my own project without having a PhD. and thatâs OK, but I cannot go any further and I have to put other peopleâs names forward who do have PhDâs on any grant applications I write.
If you want the PhD, go early, the longer you put it off the harder it gets to justify in economic and career terms.
It becomes a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If you do not have a PhD your career options are definitely limited. If you quit and go do a PhD you will likely never recover the loss of income, unless you are very good or very lucky.
One other option, many of my smarter friends have done, is to move into a different field like medicine or patent law were the rewards are much more assured.

To add another argument AGAINST getting a PhD... having a PhD may close as many doors as it opens. I finished my PhD just as the economy tanked, and despite 10 years of lab tech experience, both in and out of grad school, I cannot get a job as a lab tech. Why pay a PhD to do what a MS can do? Entry-level positions in careers that are alternatives to the academic track are also closed to me.

I would say, if you have job stability and satisfaction, DON'T LEAVE YOUR CURRENT JOB IN THIS ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. If you get canned due to lack of funding, then going back to school is a great option to unemployment.

"GrrlScientist" #10 Perhaps a quick brush up on grammar and writing skills might help with the job hunt :)

With regards to 'is a PhD worth it' - For me, a PhD was well worth the extra two years. But the key is to get the right research topic, one that you won't be 'piped at the post' on. Also make sure its one that is fun (or at least of interest to you)!

Try and stick to the minimum time scale requirements, anything else is a waste!

I spent the other 2 years trying for a Ph.D. and ended up getting burned out.

Same here, except it took a little longer for me to burn out, and I never ever got a decent salary - I went directly from Ms to PhD.

I was really passionate about what I was doing. I spent all my time working on it, talking about it, thinking about it. Then, quite gradually, after seeing many of my collegues who were research professionals get fired after the decrease in funding, I lost all interest in my field - I can't even bother to read organic chemistry papers anymore. I am at a point where I never want to work in chemistry ever again, or in anything related, be it close or far. Actually, for a long time, nothing at all interested me.

My family and friends don't really understand what happened to me : my mother presses me to get a job I don't want, one of my friends thinks she can bring back my interest in research, not understanding my need to get out of a situation where I most probably will have to work low-paid jobs just to survive, my advisor probably thinks I'm just having one of those girly mood swings. Actually, I don't think that somebody who's never had a burn-out/depression can really understand what happened to me.

Basically, I feel like I've been ripped off : it's all work and no reward. Nobody is there to give you a break - your advisor just has to hire fresh meat (lots of foreign grad students are there to work for almost nothing day and night and week-ends too) if you burn out. So he pushes and pushes until the end, or until you crack.

When my avisor stopped paying me, that was the last straw. I had to work two minimum-wage jobs. I got angry and bitter, which at least got me out of depression.

Now I'm learning computer science, so I can at least, you know, get paid for my work.

So no, don't get involved in a PhD (it's a trap !!! ;), especially if you already have a career you like and a decent pay.

I have a PhD. Do not think about getting it. It opens no doors. Go for a professional degree like JD or Computer science or Pharmacy.

Only get a PhD if you want it.

Then, you must go to a top school. Ask to visit before you apply, and talk to some students. I applied to a school because of a certain professor, and when I visited he looked really sick (he was) and I didn't want to be stranded if anything happened to him, so I went elsewhere. (Later, he recovered and I post-doc'd with him.)

You need to find a professor who has been tenured for at least 5 years and still has several post-docs, in addition to students. With your background and MS, you should be able to get the degree in 3 years; but it will still take a long time to recover financially.

As a US academic (not a US or UK citizen, with US schooling and a UK BS and PhD), I truly prefer the UK system. I believe it requires the student to take much more responsibility for their learning and to plan things out (with the support of the adviser) so that work gets accomplished in a timely fashion. Yes, research is unpredictable, as is life, and the 4th year of what should be a 3-year PhD allows the flexibility necessary. At my UK institution, there was a well-defined feedback point after one year where the student could say "It's been real, but this research thing just isn't for me" or the adviser could say "you're not cutting it and you seem completely disinterested in actual research". Student and advisor could part ways. The system seemed to work. The advantage I see in the US system is that you have more time to publish if you're doing 5+ years. I started publishing rapidly just as all my work came together near the end of my PhD. Had I not hung around as a postdoc for a short period, I would not have yielded as many publications as my US counterparts who had more time as students. But I never would have even started a PhD if I was looking at 5 years...

PhD is not a degree you get after an MA or MS, it's a completely different kind of commitment. It's a research degree. In the sciences and quantitative social sciences, you can go years beyond your PhD, still in training as a postdoc. It's not for everyone and there is utterly nothing wrong with not putting yourself through a hard and often grueling process. Really good programs are also extremely competitive.

It's helpful to remember that academia comes out of the monastic tradition, and it certainly is feudal. Who your mentors and teachers are matter a great deal in where you end up. Academic life looks easier that it is; it's hard on people and it's particularly hard on women and minorities.

The only reason to pursue a PhD is because you want to. It won't go away. If you are going to do it, go to the best program you can.

DO NOT GET IT. You sound like the poster child for the person who should not get a Ph.D:

1. Currently you have a "sweet gig" in a super-down economy, one that you want to continue with.

2. feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. Worst. Reason. Ever.

3. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach. Final nail in the coffin. You might just as well get your electrician's licensure, it will be similarly helpful for your future interests.

Don't you dare think about it. It's the Ultimate Economic Sideliner in this country, taking you out commission for minimum 5 years, but really more like 7. You'll be older and much bitterer when you get out, and significantly poorer than you would have been had you not done it.

What doors does a PhD open up aside from running a lab and teaching?

A foaming can of years-long existential angst.

What can I do without a PhD?

You do realize that like 99% of the U.S. workforce doesn't have a Ph.D. and yet 90% of them are working anyway, right? With your masters and experience you could transition into working for a pharm company, a science start-up, medical writing, maybe consulting. You could start your own business. You could change interests and focus.

Just don't take yourself out of the real career action with The Curse of The Three Letters.

It's true that some jobs require a phd, but there are as many or more jobs that a phd holder could not get. Lab manager is one of them. Far more tech jobs get advertised than faculty jobs! And crossover fields like law or science writing or education or whatever typically do not require a Phd, a ms + 7 yrs experience is more than enough. The phd will only be worthwhile if you are passionate about doing your own research. Barring that, I think you have a greater diversity of opportunities as a MS holder. Also, if you ever want to go back tp school for some other field, it's easier to justify with a ms than with a phd, I think most admissions committees would be suspicious of an applicant who already has a terminal degree.

Today, The Chronicle. Tomorrow, The World! A Scientist's Guide to Academic Etiquette by Female Science Professor

terrasig — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:02:10 +0000

Today, The Chronicle. Tomorrow, The World! A Scientist's Guide to Academic Etiquette by Female Science Professor

I was just going through my unread Twitter stream from yesterday and found a link to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, "A Scientist's Guide to Academic Etiquette," with a tagline about scientists lacking in social skills.

Recognizing the truth in that statement, I fired up the post to the very pleasant surprise of learning that the author is none other than the Grande Dame of the science blogging community, Female Science Professor.

Female Science Professor is the pseudonym of a professor in the physical sciences at a large research university who blogs under that moniker and writes monthly for our Catalyst column. Her blog is http://science-professor.blogspot.com.

An aside: I really like the term moniker instead of the pejorative pseudonym or the pompous nom de plume or, worse, nom de blog.

Oh, wait - what's that in my profile? Nom de plume?

So, one might think that FSP's first point would be not to be a pompous ass. Well, not exactly, although several points cover that ground.

Here's a little background:

In the years that I have been blogging, I have written about some of the situations in which we academics are impolite to each other, and offered suggestions for how we might get along better. I started numbering the examples, at first with randomly assigned, absurdly high numbers, as if they were items in a long nonexistent document called "FSP's Guide to Academic Etiquette." Eventually I collected all of those scenarios together and gave them real numbers. I hereby share my existing list, with the addition of some new items.

A cursory glance shows that this is by no means a comprehensive list of all the things one might want or need to know to navigate the academic world. Furthermore, some of these tips are more useful than others, some are more serious than others, and more than a few focus on the extremes of academic behavior. All of them are based on actual experiences.

A couple of my favorites:

24. For advisers: Don't assume that a student or postdoc lacks ambition just because they don't want to be a professor at a big research university.

10. For students and postdocs: If you are paid a salary, you should do the work.

21. For people introducing a speaker: Before the talk, ask speakers if they have a preference about what is said during their introduction. Some people won't, but some may have preferences about what to mention (dates, places, awards, crimes).

There are only 16 comments so far but I strongly expect that to grow.

I need to think of a few. This could be fun:

For students and colleagues: If you interrupt me during my increasingly infrequent time in the lab to ask for advice about a method, don't then challenge or criticize me on my suggestion. Look it up your own damn self. Similarly, don't ask the question of a female lab member, smirk, and then turn to a male lab member and say, "Yeah, you wouldn't do it that way, would you?"

For interviewers and colleagues: If you went to an Ivy League or other school you think is better than ours, you needn't preface statements with, "when I was at BigBlatheryU. . ." Extra points deducted if you actually didn't earn a degree there but still have to say you "were there." Your insecurity will show and your colleagues will make up drinking games about how often or how early in a discussion you bring up the topic.

For students and postdocs: If someone in the lab is having more success than you, don't sabotage their work by spiking all of their stock solutions with EDTA. Yes, this has happened.

For trainees: Pay more attention to your own work and less time complaining to/about others. That "slimy bastard postdoc" might very soon end up to be your NIH SRO (scientific review officer) or PO (program officer).

For all: Your field is actually a very small world. People talk.
As they say at McSorley's: Be good or be gone.

Do you have any of your own suggestions?

Read "A Scientist's Guide to Academic Etiquette" here.

terrasig Wed, 11/11/2009 - 23:02

Tags

Categories

Do you have any of your own suggestions?

Yeah: a half-dozen light and a half-dozen dark!

To professors:
(1) Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
(2) Even if you sincerely believe in its non-existence, there are better ways how to tell the interested students than 'You shouldn't waste time with that crap', or at least not in front of a full classroom.
(3) If you still do it, then, after someone presents at least halfway decent paper on the problem in whose existence you hadn't believed openly and depreciatingly, kindly keep a low profile and refrain from exclaiming Oh but that's self-evident, it's been known for years and I myself dabbled in that many years ago.

To whoever decides what is a publication: I hear in other universities, textbooks are considered publications, too. Not in ours; disputable but I can live with it, at least I've published real pretty books with wide readership unlike many of the faculty. I would however prefer if the decision was mouthed in other words than 'you should do some real, serious work'.

To students:
(1) Complaining that I don't deserve that cool and sexy scholarship for some interdisciplinary thingy, giving the argument that I'm arrogant because I haven't gone for a beer with you once, and that I'm a damn nerd who messes with useless crap outside our primary field of study makes a fool of you, not me.
(2) I may know a few languages but that doesn't mean that I will translate 150 pages for you overnight for a box of candies. Whining that we're fellow students won't help you, sorry, and spreading the word about my greed won't help either.

CPP! FTMFW!!!

I ordered that very round for me and Brother Orac during our McSorley's visit in summer 2006, a month after I joined ScienceBlogs. Orac looked at me sideways when I made the order but most folks don't realize they're only half-pints.

@Liisa: I remember when the first PCR paper came out and some of my profs pooh-poohed it saying that anyone could've thought of that.