Pages

Broader Impacts R Us

If you are a female PI on a proposal that requires text about "Broader Impacts" (to use the NSF term), which may include the extent to which the proposed research activities increase (broaden) the participation of underrepresented groups, and if you are a member of an underrepresented group in your field, do you explicitly mention in the proposal that you are a broader impact?

Or, if this fact is obvious, do you not mention it and focus instead only on other examples of how your research will fulfill the Broader Impacts criteria?

I get asked about this a lot.

Last year I wrote about how I got blasted by one proposal reviewer who was extremely disgusted by my inclusion, at the end of a list of all my proposed research's broader impacts, that the project would support the research of a female scientist. I don't even know why I mentioned such an obvious fact; I was mostly just being systematic about going through the possibilities.

The NSF program officer put a line through these hostile reviewer comments and said they were ignored, but the overall review, including that reviewer's ranking, was considered. It was the only negative review but it was enough to sink the proposal out of the fundable range.

That was an extreme example, but I have seen cases in which male PIs who write about how they will involve female students in their research get higher marks for broader impacts than female PIs who are broader impacts. Some program officers view as inappropriate the criticism that female PIs are using their gender as a grant-getting tactic, but if one or more reviewers knock their ranking down a notch (or two) in anger about female-PIs-as-broader-impacts, the overall consequences for a proposal can be dire.

Of course there is more to "broader impacts" than involvement of underrepresented groups. And female PIs have to do more than just be passive "broader impacts". As is the case for any PI on an NSF proposal, we need organized and serious plans that recognize the importance of educating and training students and postdocs, that enhance connections with industry or government agencies, that promote the communication of scientific results to the public, and/or that benefit society in any of a number of other important ways. In my research, a significant broader impact typically also involves my close collaborations with international colleagues and students.

I am on board with all that.

I am curious, however, as to whether female PIs (or other members of underrepresented groups) deliberately mention/don't mention themselves as a broader impact. Owing to the lack of women in my field, I seldom review proposals by other women, so I don't know what others typically do. I now leave it off my list of broader impacts in proposals because (1) it's obvious and (2) it might be a magnet for the hostile women-have-an-unfair-advantage reviewers.
Read More >>

Inflammation, cancer, and NF-κB

Cancer isn't a single disease, and there are many possible things that can "cause" even a single type of cancer. However, a lot of things basically work in the same general way to promote cancer. One way that's been long suspected though poorly understood is tangled up in the process of inflammation.

At the very center of this story is a transcription factor called NF-κB. It's perhaps best known for its role in inflammation. But we discussed it in connection with cancer over two years ago, here. Since NF-κB is a transcription factor it affects the expression of many genes. Consequently, it's involved in many other biological phenomena, a few of which have been discussed here, here, and here.

Let's review some of the characteristics shared by most forms of cancer. One frequently cited summary, due to Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg, names six "hallmarks of cancer" – self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to growth-inhibitory signals, evasion of apoptosis, limitless replicative potential, sustained angiogenesis, and tissue invasion and metastasis. It turns out that inflammation and NF-κB can affect most of these hallmarks, but we'll eventually focus on the role NF-κB plays in inhibition of apoptosis (programmed cell death).

Before we get into details, let's go over the way that cancer typically develops. Each of the hallmarks represents a failure in one or more parts of the machinery of cells to properly regulate the cell's life cycle. The bad thing about cancer, of course, is that a certain group of cells – which might all be descendants of a single aberrant cell – begins to grow and proliferate in an unregulated way. Eventually large numbers of unregulated cells will cease to function as required in the organ where they reside – the brain, the liver, breast tissue, or whatever. Instead they will acquire the ability to migrate and take up residence in places where they continue to proliferate and then disrupt the proper function of whatever organ they wind up in. This is metastasis, and it is usually fatal to the animal in which it occurs.

The cell's machinery is ultimately controlled by the way specific genes of the cell's DNA are expressed to produce proteins. So the reason a cell initially becomes improperly regulated is usually the occurrence of fresh damage to the cell's DNA. It's true that problematic DNA mutations can be inherited from parents, such as the well-known breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Signifcantly, the normal function of both these genes, when not mutated, is to produce proteins whose job is to detect and/or repair DNA damage or to arrest cell proliferation if DNA damage is detected but can't be repaired. So mutated versions of these genes do not exactly "cause" cancer themselves, since some mutation to other genes that actively induce excessive cell proliferation is also required. The potential for cancer may simply remains latent for awhile in cells with mutated genes, regardless of whether the mutation was inherited or occurred much later in life.

But eventually uncorrected DNA damage will occur and affect genes that do induce excessive proliferation. Metastatic cancer eventually results, regardless of whether the first harmful mutations occur in genes that induce proliferation or genes that help regulate proliferation. Cells that contain such mutations divide more frequently and outcompete for resources cells that are functioning properly. So a Darwinian evolutionary scenario arises in which cells that are working "correctly" lose out to cells that become better "adapted" to the job of simply replicating themselves.

The point of this general discussion about cancer is to help clarify what it means to say that something "causes" cancer. In reality, there's never a single event that is the "cause". A number of things have to go wrong before some population of cells with similar defects is numerous enough to outcompete properly functioning cells and to go on to acquire further defects when the mechanisms that normally protect against damage themselves begin to fail.

There appear to be several ways in which NF-κB can contribute to the development of cancer, but one of the least surprising ways is the fact that NF-κB is able to inhibit apoptosis. This ability is not accidental. Most likely it is properly there to enable proliferation of immune system cells in the presence of an infection, as indicated by inflammatory signals.

To return to our main topic, inflammation is a thoroughly normal part of the immune system's operation. NF-κB plays an important part in the inflammatory process. But in simply doing their jobs, these things can, under the right conditions when other cellular mechanisms befome defective, also contribute to the development and progress of cancer.

Normally, the ability of NF-κB to inhibit apoptosis doesn't present a risk of cancer because NF-κB is regulated by other proteins, as we'll discuss later. However, if there are gene mutations that affect NF-κB regulatory proteins, the "safety catch" mechanism may be compromised, and apoptosis may be inhibited when it shouldn't be. Such a problem is more likely to occur when inflammation is present, since then the "safety catch" is already partly disabled.

Another mechanism that keeps NF-κB inhibition of apoptosis in check is the existence of pro-apoptotic proteins such as p53. (We've discussed p53 a number of times before, most recently here, where new research about the anti-cancer properties of p53 is described.) Such proteins are normally subject to regulation themselves, and they become available and active only when needed, such as when DNA damage is detected. However, when one of these proteins has itself been compromised by a gene mutation, inflammation and resultant NF-κB activity can inappropriately inhibit apoptosis, because pro-apoptotic factors are weakened or sidelined.

As it turns out, according to recent research, among the ways that p53 promotes apoptosis is by direct interference with NF-κB's ability to inhibit apoptosis. Further, certain mutations of the p53 gene can remove p53's pro-apoptotic ability, allowing inflammation and NF-κB to contribute to development of cancer. (See here. We'll discuss that in a separate article.)

The high-level view of all this is that cells exist continually in a state of balance between opposing possibilities. Pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic mechanisms are not only regulated independently, but they also keep each other in check. But when mutations in any number of possible genes upset the balance, otherwise normal and useful mechanisms can lead to cancer.

Now let's go a little deeper into the subject of various factors that actively contribute to cancer, starting with DNA damage – mutations. The class of things that cause mutations comprises factors such as carcinogenic chemicals, reactive oxygen species ("free radicals"), ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation (e. g. x-rays, radon gas), and some types of viruses. DNA is also at risk of damage every time a cell divides, because mechanisms that copy DNA and verify the copy during division aren't perfect. So old age alone, when DNA has been damaged in various types of cells that have divided too often, can also be a cause of cancer. Dangerous gene mutations can also be inherited, as already noted.

Mutations in genes that code for proteins that directly or indirectly promote cell division are, logically enough, one source of increased cancer risk. A mutation in some gene affecting a constituent of NF-κB would be an example here if, say, the mutation rendered NF-κB less subject to regulation by the proteins that normally regulate it. And as noted, mutations in genes for proteins that detect or repair DNA damage, or simply inhibit cell division when DNA damage exists, would also raise cancer risk. In both cases, the amount of risk also depends on environmental conditions, such as any that could cause inflammation. Mutations in many other genes can also affect cancer risk, when such genes are involved in angiogenesis or cell motility, for example.

Although a wide variety of DNA mutations can raise cancer risk, they may not be sufficient by themselves to actually initiate the development of cancer, because nature has provided cells with many defensive safety mechanisms. On the other hand, mutations aren't always necessary either. There are various external factors that might initiate cancer development even in the absence of DNA damage.

Frequently, it could be an infectious agent like a virus that stimulates excessive cell division. It's quite natural to expect some types of viruses to do this, because such viruses depend on a cell's normal DNA replication machinery to replicate virus DNA as well as cellular DNA. A virus that can easily co-opt the replication machinery has an evolutionary advantage. Especially if the virus can also override normal protective mechanisms, by inhibiting tumor-suppressing proteins like p53. All viruses bring along their own DNA or RNA, which may have evolved specifically because they disable anti-cancer mechanisms. Although virus genetic material is imported from outside, it acts like harmful gene mutations.

Viral replication strategies differ widely among different types of viruses, and certain of these strategies are especially conducive to cancer development. HPV, the human papilloma virus, which is responsible for cervical and anal cancers (among others) is an especially good example. Among the proteins that make up HPV are two, called E6 and E7, each of which promotes cell proliferation in its own way.

E6 is able to suppress the important anti-proliferation protein p53, which manages signals of DNA damage to take appropriate action, such as apoptosis or suspension of the cell cycle. E7 affects the protein pRb, which normally suppresses the cell cycle by binding to a transcription factor known as E2F. When E7 binds to pRb, E2F is released and can go on to advance the cell cycle, which then causes replication of HPV as well as unwanted cell division.

However, what HPV does isn't the only way that an infectious agent such as a virus can promote cancer. Infectious agents also activate the body's immune system to produce an inflammatory response. This inflammation itself can be a cause of cancer. Briefly stated, inflammation causes NF-κB to be activated in order to cause expression of genes that help invoke other immune system components to fight the infection. But NF-κB also has a side-effect of suppressing apoptosis, and as noted above, that is one of the "hallmarks" of cancer.

A connection between inflammation and cancer was suspected over 100 years ago by scientists like Rudolf Virchow. But only rather recently has solid evidence for the connection been found. A good example is Helicobacter pylori bacterial infections associated with stomach cancer (as well as stomach ulcers). A more recent example is an apparent link between inflammation, due to infection caused by the protozoan Trichomonas vaginalis, and prostate cancer. (See here.) Epidemiological evidence suggests that underlying infections and inflammation are associated with 15-20% of all cancer deaths.

There seem to be a number of factors that explain the connection. NF-κB seems to be one of the most important factors, though not the only one. It doesn't work only by suppression of apoptosis either. Promotion of angiogenesis, among other things, also seems to be involved. But most likely we still don't have a very complete understanding of the connection.

It's especially important to understand the connection, because infections aren't the only cause of inflammation. Other suspected causes of inflammation include stress and obesity. Understanding how obesity might promote cancer is obviously of no small importance. There is even evidence that depression may cause inflammation (see here), so that it could also lead to cancer.

In what follows, we're going to encounter various proteins and protein complexes that interact with each other in cell signaling pathways. Often this interaction takes the form that protein A inhibits the activity of protein B; while protein B inhibits the activity of protein C. The net effect is that protein A enhances the activity of protein C, and hence promotes any process that protein C assists in. Or if protein C inhibits some process, protein A will probably do likewise. This complexity can be very confusing, but it's also pretty common, so we just have to deal with it. In fact, the complexity of processes associated with cancer (and much other biology as well) is an important lesson in all of this.

Let's first consider the process of inflammation that occurs "upstream" from NF-κB and activates it. Inflammation refers to the whole process that occurs in a state of hightened immune system activity, due to physiological stress, oxidative stress, infection, or whatever. The outwards signs of inflammation include redness and swelling. There is a beneficial effect of inflammatory activity, of course, in (hopefully) destroying pathogens. But there are harmful side effects as well, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, a variety of autoimmune diseases, and... cancer.

Many environmental stimuli lead to inflammation and so can cause NF-κB to be activated. Among these stimuli are stress, free radicals, ultraviolet irradiation, oxidized LDL (cholesterol), products of necrotic cell death, and bacterial or viral antigens.

Infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses contain proteins that act as antigens. These antigens are recognized by various cell-surface receptors, especially the kind known as Toll-like receptors (TLRs). Binding by appropriate proteins or antigens ("ligands") to such receptors is sufficient to activate NF-κB, in a manner we'll describe in a moment.

Antigens also bind to and stimulate cells of the immune system to produce various chemical signals such as cytokines, chemokines, and other proteins in order to regulate the immune system response to infection. Among the types of immune system cells that do this are mast cells, dendritic cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, macrophages, and various other lymphocytes. Inflammatory cytokines can also cause activation of NF-κB.

The crucial effect of inflammation for our purposes now is the fact that it activates NF-κB. It's worth noting how this process works. NF-κB is a protein complex consisting of five protein subunits, not a single protein. These subunits are RelA (also known as p65), c-Rel, RelB, p50, and p52. Complexes of these subunits normally circulate outside the cell nucleus, but they are bound to other proteins called IκBs ("inhibitors of NF-κBs") that prevent the complexes from entering the cell nucleus where they could act as transcription factors.

When an inflammatory signal binds to an appropriate cell surface receptor, signals are sent that activate kinases of a family called IKK (IκB kinase). An IKK protein phosphorylates IκBs, which in turn causes them to become unbound from NF-κB and then be destroyed by cellular proteasomes. This frees up NF-κB complexes so that they can enter the cell nucleus and affect the transcription of many genes.

The benefit of an inhibited form of NF-κB existing in the cytoplasm outside the nucleus is that it can be quickly enabled to enter the nucleus and start gene transcription when the need arises. This allows NF-κB to function as a "rapid-acting" transcription factor, without any delays caused by having to wait for the constituent proteins to be synthesized. Here's a diagram that summarizes this process. (Similar considerations apply to p53. The protein is produced and is found in the cytoplasm before it's needed, but kept from activity while bound to another protein, Mdm2.)

The next issue is what happens downstream from the inflammation-initiated activity of NF-κB in the nucleus. Since NF-κB can assist in the transcription of many different genes, the effect of its activation strongly depends on what type of cell it occurs in. Undoubtedly, there's a whole lot we don't yet know about all the affected genes and resulting downstream effects. As far as the immune response – in which NF-κB plays such an important role – is concerned, one effect involves production of cytokines for signaling to other immune system cells.

A second effect is stimulation of cell proliferation. That's generally a good thing if the cell is, for example, a B cell that mediates the part of the immune respose by manufacturing antibodies. But it can also be a bad thing when excessive proliferation of B cells leads to autoimmune diseases, leukemias, or lymphomas. NF-κB stimulates proliferation by enhancing expression of cell cycle proteins like cyclin D1.

However, there's also a third type of effect of NF-κB activity – inhibition of apoptosis. This is especially significant for cancer, because apoptosis is crucial for many natural anti-cancer cellular defenses. In particular, apoptosis is the normal response to severe, uncorrectable DNA damage. It's also the typical way that chemotherapy is able to kill tumor cells. Interference with normal apoptosis makes cancer both more likely to occur, and more difficult to treat.

Exactly how does NF-κB activity inhibit apoptosis? This has been studied, and the answer seems to be that NF-κB inhibits certain enzymes called caspases that are central to apoptosis.

There are even further suspected side effects of NF-κB activity which can play a big role in cancer. One of these is promotion of angiogenesis – production of blood vessels that can supply nutrients to solid tumors. Another is elevated expression of enzymes that promote metastasis.

Observe that the discussion here has been largely theoretical. We haven't described actual experimental research that supports the generalizations. There is some recent research already mentioned that fills this gap. It's especially interesting in the way it exposes a direct connection between NF-κB and p53. But we must leave description of that research for another article, coming very soon.

Further reading:

Nuclear factor-κB in cancer development and progression – May 2006 Nature review article

Tags: ,
Read More >>

Going To Those Lengths

So far I am only about 70 pages into the book by Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present, but I've already decided to get another copy of it for my mother for Christmas.

Although I am not accustomed to comparing some of my male colleagues to John F. Kennedy, this passage felt very familiar (and made me laugh out loud):

.. the publisher Katharine Graham recounted how the president had once demanded to know why Adlai Stevenson, the balding, chubby United Nations ambassador, was regarded as so attractive by his many female friends. Told that it was because Stevenson actually listened with interest to what women had to say, the president responded, according to Graham, "Well, I don't say you're wrong, but I'm not sure I can go to those lengths."
Read More >>

Ms Pilgrim

Not long ago, whilst traveling, I read The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell. I didn't read it for any particular seasonal reason, but by coincidence I read it close to the US Thanksgiving holiday (today).

Towards the end of the book, after telling numerous stories of the relentless and often violent struggles among many different people of many different origins and faiths, Vowell visits a historical site in Rhode Island and contemplates a plaque that contains the names of men who signed a pledge related to the founding of the little proto-state. One of the names on the plaque is that of the husband of Anne Hutchinson, who was herself left off the plaque despite her having been pivotal in the founding of Rhode Island.

Vowell disapproves of this omission, as she similarly disapproves of Boston Puritan hero-person John Winthrop's distaste for having to argue with a mere female, just before he exiles Hutchinson and her family to Rhode Island. Vowell contemplates the unfairness of Hutchinson's gender having kept her from "pursuing her calling".

She does this contemplating in part in a "women's healing garden" near the park/plaque commemorating the men who signed the pledge. She admits that the words "women's healing garden" give her a feeling of "feminist dread". I kind of agree with her general point about women's healing gardens, if not her choice of words, but then Vowell continues with this:

A potential male magazine subscriber is given the choice of one title, "Mr.", but a female magazine subscriber is given three choices, thereby requiring a woman to inform perfect strangers in the mailroom at Newsweek or Conde Naste exactly what kind of woman she is. She is either male property (Mrs.), wannabee male property (Miss), or man-hating harpy (Ms.).

Well, I don't really like the Miss/Mrs/Ms thing either, and I am of course aware of the association of Ms with feminism, but do many women really equate Ms with "man-hating harpy" in the same way that they equate feminism with man-hatred (as has been much discussed lately, here and elsewhere)? As in, they'd even rather use Miss than Ms because of what they think (or fear) Ms might imply?

And how much does our choice of title indicate "exactly what kind of woman" we are? Perhaps quite a lot, though we may disagree about the connotations of "Ms".

There was an interesting piece in The New York Times a month or so ago detailing the history of Ms and tracing its origin back over 100 years ago to a need for a respectful way to address women of unknown marital status. That's all it is and that's all it needs to be.

So what's the problem? Do we need to start all over with a 4th mode of address for people who fear the meaning of Ms? I think (hope) not.

Ms is clever: it is short, it is convenient, and it refers in a simple way to someone who is female. It is very useful for women like me who are married but who aren't Mrs Husbandname.

When I fill out a form, I leave those Miss/Mrs/Ms check boxes blank whenever possible. I don't really see the point of selecting a preferred mode of address in most of the circumstances in which the information is requested. Do I need mail to be addressed to me by anything other than my name? Sometimes this means I am assigned Mr by default, but in many cases it just means that I get things addressed to me as firstname lastname.

I select Dr (if available) in cases in which I may have to interact with a real person. I discovered the utility of the Dr title years ago in the specific context of interacting with airline and medical personnel. I have found that it increases the chances that I will be treated in a polite and respectful way, although I think that it is unfortunate that the title makes as much difference as it does.

But: If I have to choose among Miss/Mrs/Ms, I definitely choose Ms, even if doing so implies that I am a mythological creature who snatches food from men being punished by Zeus. In this particular case, I am willing to take that risk.

Happy Thanksgiving.
Read More >>

You Choose

This is another example in the continuing saga of Choosing Excellent Grad Students. Of course, prospective grad students go through a similar guessing game when trying to choose an excellent adviser. On both sides of the experience there are people who are wondering:

Is there a foolproof way to tell in advance who will be a good [student/adviser]?

The answer, at least for me, has always been no, but choose we must, using the few clues with which we are provided. For some advisers and students, these clues start with an e-mail.

This leads to the perpetual questions: How much should potential advisers read into these e-mails, some/many of which display a level of cluelessness that is both understandable and alarming? How much should applicants read into the response/lack of response of a potential adviser?

EXAMPLE: Let's assume that e-mail content may be a significant indicator of the work habits of a student. Which of these students would you accept if you had to choose only one of them?

Student 1's e-mail to a potential adviser contains the following:

If you have papers that you could send to me, I would like to read them to get a sense for what you have been working on.

Student 2's e-mail to a potential adviser contains the following:

I recently read your papers on X and Y and think that I would be very interested in pursuing research related to these topics because [succinct explanation].

If I were in a nice, generous mood, as happens from time to time, I would assume that Student 1 is trying to show me that he/she is interested in my work and is trying to display initiative by expressing a willingness to read my papers. I would factor in the possibility of inadequate advising or inexperience in online search techniques and journal article acquisition. I might also assume that Student 1 doesn't have online access to the relevant journals (perhaps he/she has already graduated) and didn't think that was relevant information to provide. Some of these correspondents use their gmail or whatever addresses even if they are students, so the lack of an edu email address is not particularly meaningful. I may know that their gmail name is angelkissyboo or lemurhead, but I may not know their current academic/employment status (but that's another topic).

Yes, I know that some readers identify with the clueless and are cynical and suspicious of the clued-in. What if Student 2 is merely an obsequious politically-astute operator who is trying to impress me by writing what he/she knows I want to hear and Student 1 is a sincere-but-naive person who, with the right nurturing, will blossom into a creative and productive graduate student?

That may well be, but Student 2 took the initiative to read some journal articles and Student 1 is asking me to do things for him/her. If you had to choose only one of these two students (a not entirely realistic scenario) and had no information other than these email messages and what is typically in an application file (a somewhat realistic scenario), would you choose Student 1 or Student 2?

If both have excellent academic records, they will both have opportunities for graduate research, so I am not talking about giving one a chance and destroying the other's hopes and dreams. I am, however, using this real-life example to highlight the fact that we as advisers have to make choices based on limited and/or flawed information. So what do we do?

If I really had no other information on which to base my decision, even knowing (from experience) that either of these students could be an excellent or dismal student for all I know and can predict, I would choose Student 2.
Read More >>

Origin of Species celebrates 150 years of publication

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its
several powers having been originally breathed into
a few forms or into one: and that while this planet
has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved.

— Charles Darwin in the The Origin of Species

On this day in 1859, Charles Darwin most compelling (and the most important thesis in biological sciences) was published. The book sold out on the first day. The controversial, yet enlightening book about how life - vegetable, animal, and human - has come to be and exist in the state and form that it is in - has informed the academy, inspired creative experiments, and shocked the general public beyond belief. Then and now.

Evolution. Natural Selection. Sexual Selection. Variation. Change over time. Nature.


Throughout the year, the scientific community has been celebrating many science initiatives, but not the least of which is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth on February 12th and now the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Origin of Species.

Man, just like Kayne to interupt and not let Charles Darwin enjoy the celebration.

Related posts:
Understanding Evolution - summary of the concept at the University of California - Berkeley Evolution website
Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, Just Like You! - an intro to Charles Darwin & birthday post by me
Alfred Russel Wallace - wikipedia summary, to get an understanding of the Kanye joke.
Lives of the Saints of Science: Darwin - by Thus Spake Zuska who offers a critique of Darwin the man

Read More >>

Open Door Policy

Isn't it time for another poll? I think it is time for another poll. What I would like to know in today's poll is this:

Do you, my faculty readers, have any particular policies or preferences re. having your office door open or closed when meeting with students? For example:
  • no policy (door can be open or closed, it doesn't matter),
  • door always open when meeting with students (because.. why?),
  • door always open when meeting with students of a particular gender (presumably different from yours),
  • door always closed (e.g. to allow uninterrupted conversation)
  • other
Non-academics can answer, too, using whatever scenario is most realistic for your own situation.

And you, my student readers, I wonder whether:
  • you prefer that the office door be open or closed when meeting with a professor,
  • the gender of the professor matters in your preference re. the door,
  • you have a particular preference depending on other characteristics of the professor (e.g., you are fine with a closed door for visits to certain professor offices but want the door open for visits to others),
  • it bothers you if a professor has a different policy for female vs. male students,
  • you even notice and/or care whether a professor has a policy about door position with respect to student visitors
I don't have a policy. My office door is often open just because I prefer it that way. This of course results in lots of interruptions and even interruptions of interruptions, but I still prefer an open door.

When I was a grad student, most professors kept their doors closed. I wish some of them had had an open door policy when meeting with students. Even when I felt nervous about meeting alone with a particular professor, I never asked him if the door could stay open. Instead, I would tell one or more of my friends where I was going and ask them to knock on that professor's door after 5-10 minutes. This system worked quite well. This anecdote leads me to my final question of the day:
  • Would you/did you ever ask someone if the door could stay open while you met in that person's office?
Read More >>

Educate to Innovate: Promoting Science and Math Education

President Obama is scheduled to announce a campaign to enlist companies and nonprofit groups to spend money, time and volunteer effort to encourage students, especially in middle and high school, to pursue science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The campaign - "Educate to Innovate" will primarily focus on informal education opportunities such as after-school activities, mentoring opportunities with scientists and researchers, plus quality science and math promotion television. So far, Elmo and Big Bird have signed up and the MacArthur Foundation is sweetening the pot to encourage video game designers to create educational gaming software. In addition to Sesame Street and many professional science societies signing on, big media outlets and stepping in also, donating money, equipment, and television time.

Is it me or does this sound like President Obama tried to scoop the upcoming edition of Diversity in Science Carnival -
Broad Impacts II: Programs to promote STEM Diversity among K-12 students and general audiences?

Well, maybe not a scoop, but that sure is great timing. You all know how much I love theme-related carnivals. I'll take Obama's move as his official endorsement of the awesomeness of the science outreach and overall interest in participating in the upcoming DiS Carnival. When the official announcement comes out, I'll assume that White House is submitting that post to the upcoming carnival. I know they have their hands full so I'll submit it for them.

Read the entire news story published in the Science section of the New York Times. White House Plans Campaign to Promote Science and Math Education, November 22, 2009.



**********UPDATE****************UPDATE**************

President Obama Launches "Educate to Innovate" Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (Stem) Education
Nationwide effort includes over $260 million in public-private investments to move American students to the top of the packin science and math achievement over the next decade.


From the White House Office of the Press Secretary, Official Press Release:

President Obama today launched the “Educate to Innovate” campaign, a nationwide effort to help reach the administration’s goal of moving American students from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math achievement over the next decade.

Speaking to key leaders of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) community and local students, President Obama announced a series of high-powered partnerships involving leading companies, foundations, non-profits, and science and engineering societies dedicated to motivating and inspiring young people across America to excel in science and math.

Among the initiatives announced by the President are:
  • Five public-private partnerships that harness the power of media, interactive games, hands-on learning, and 100,000 volunteers to reach more than 10 million students over the next four years, inspiring them to be the next generation of makers, discoverers, and innovators. These partnerships represent a combined commitment of over $260 million in financial and in-kind support.

  • An annual science fair at the White House, showcasing the student winners of national competitions in areas such as science, technology, and robotics.

President Obama has identified three overarching priorities for STEM education:

  1. increasing STEM literacy so all students can think critically in science, math, engineering and technology;

  2. improving the quality of math and science teaching so American students are no longer outperformed by those in other nations; and

  3. expanding STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including women and minorities.

Okay Mr. President and Secretary Duncan, I take this as your official submission to the upcoming Diversity in Science Carnival.

Read More >>

Family Event Productivity Loss

One of the interesting aspects of the recent Center for American Progress report, Staying Competitive: Patching America's Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences, is the recommendation that funding agencies and/or universities provide supplementary funds to "offset family event productivity loss". This recommendation is distinct from those about providing family leave benefits to graduate students and researchers. In this specific case, these supplementary funds would go to the principal investigator of a grant that pays the salary of a person having a "family event" and would therefore (in theory) make PIs less reluctant to hire researchers (e.g., women) who might have such an event (e.g., a baby).

Last summer I wrote about some of the issues for PIs re. paying the salary of someone who has a family leave. The new report addresses some of these issues with the recommendation that PIs receive supplementary funding to cover family leave for their researchers.

I like this idea because it might create a more family-friendly environment for early career researchers: students and postdocs and other research scientists, female and male. I like that it attempts to reduce the problem for PIs who, however well-meaning and supportive, may be harmed by a situation in which grant funds are paid to someone who needs a leave of absence and who is therefore not actively working on the grant's research for a while.

But I wonder how this would work. If I am supervising a graduate student or postdoc who is doing research related to a grant of which I am the PI, and that student or postdoc needs to take time off for a "family event" that will reduce or obliterate their ability to do that research, what would I do with supplementary funding?

Despite the dire world economic crisis, there doesn't seem to be a pool of unemployed or part-time scientists with the necessary training such that they could parachute into a project with a few month's notice, keep the project going for a few/6/more months and then hand the research back over to the returning grad or postdoc to pick up exactly where their substitute left off. Even if such highly-qualified and flexible researchers existed, this scenario wouldn't work for many reasons, including the fact that it involves the undesirable situation in which someone is hired to do some of the thesis or postdoctoral research of someone else.

In a few cases, though, it might work, depending on the project and the stage of the project during the leave. I can imagine some situations in which I could pay a graduate student to do some prep work or certain kinds of analyses, thus moving the project along but not complicating the situation.

In many cases, however, if I were handed the equivalent of the salary of a researcher who takes a leave of absence, the best I could do is extend the length of the project so that the work would get done when the researcher returned, just not in the original time frame of the work plan. That wouldn't help if the research involved time-sensitive activities, but it would help other projects, especially if the extension were no more than 3-6 months.

Are there other possibilities?

If you are a PI, how would you use supplemental funding to deal with a temporary suspension of a research project (or part of a project) during a researcher's "family event"?
Read More >>

Diversity in Science Carnival #4 – Increasing Diversity among the college ranks

Exactly one year ago, I laid the roots to the Diversity in Science Carnival, but I did not know it. As I was beginning to assemble this edition, I found myself typing words, phrases and sentiments that were all too familiar.
Something about the state and statistics of under-represented minorities in STEM - “The very large racial Ph.D. gap in the natural sciences is striking when we examine black Ph.D. awards in specific disciplines”.

I soon remembered that I had written about this topic; and this is where this edition of DiS Carnival: Examining STEM Diversity and Broad Impacts at the College Level and beyond – will begin: Increasing Diversity in the Sciences.


Did you know that Hispanics/Latinos currently comprise just over 5% of the professional STEM workforce, although their proportion of US residents is around 12%? In Si se puede - Hispanics and STEM, Liz of STEM-ology frames the topic as multi-national issue. Both the United States and Mexico need to address this matter in order to increase the number of Latinos in the STEM pipeline – on both sides of the border.

What can be done to attract more women in science? Well, let’s ask the 4 women who earned the most prestigious award in science – the Nobel Prize. In Advice from Four Nobel Prize Winners, Roberta of Growing with Science Blog summarizes their recommendations published in Science Magazine via the Association for Women in Science (AWIS). AWIS, by the way, is a champion of STEM diversity and outreach to all, particularly for women and girls.




(l) Carol W. Greider -Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009
(r) Elizabeth H. Blackburn - Nobel Prize in Physiology
Photos care of Gerbil, Licensed by Attribution Share Alike 3.0



Related to that, the Smithsonian’s Blog – Surprising Science - shares with us that Girls CAN do Math (Duh). Despite the long tradition of girls shying away from math and science, there is no biological evidence that girls are incapable of performing well in these subjects.


Mentorship and praise matter – to all people. Some organizations promote diversity by highlighting the achievements of individuals (and organizations) that share science with broader audiences. In particular the American Institute of Biological Sciences recognizes diversity in the biological sciences with awards to individuals and institutions who promote diversity, written by yours truly.

Raising the profile of minority scientists or institutions that support them is one of the goals of a panel I and Anne Jefferson of Highly Allochthonous will lead at ScienceOnline 2010. “In the United States, we have a diversity problem in the geosciences. Less than 5% of BS degrees in geosciences go to minorities, contrasting with ~15% in science and engineering as a whole.” In Casting a Wider Net: Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences, she introduces us to the NSF –OEDG program (Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences).

Speaking of the NSF, the National Science Foundation is perhaps the most important benefactor for science diversity. They provide the financial means for scientists and engineers to do research and teach. In Increasing STEM Diversity with Funding Opportunities, I share a host of funding resources that specifically geared to students from underrepresented groups.


However, Kim Hannula of All of My Faults are Stress Related gets to the heart of the matter - What experiences bring minority students into the geosciences - and what ones drive them away? We can spout numbers, send students to meetings, and dole out big bucks; but the truth is we’ve got to figure out what is it about STEM that attracts or sours some people. Until we’re brave enough to have these conversations, our collective efforts to diversify STEM fields will be less effective.
*********************

Join us next month as we further explore this topic of STEM Diversity and Broad Impacts II: Pre-college and Programs for general audiences. Please prepare and submit your posts about successful, ambitious and inspiring diversity programs for youth and general audiences such as after-school programs, summer institutes, and citizen science programs sponsored by museums and universities.
Submission Deadline: December 21st. Submit here.
Carnival Post date: December 27th
Hosted by:
STEM-ology
Read More >>

Why Don't I Just Quit My Day Job

Sorry for the obnoxious title, but I get a lot of requests via my FSP email. I don't want to discourage people from emailing me: sometimes there are very interesting and important things that come my way via my FSP email, and I try to answer some.

BUT: I don't have time to answer all of the emails, and I don't have the inclination to answer some of them. In real life, I always answer emails. If I weren't (semi)anonymous, I would probably feel more pressure to answer all emails, so chalk up non-answering-of-all-emails as another benefit of anonymity.

Here is an example of an email I am not answering, however much I might sympathize with the situation of the person writing it. Perhaps someone else can be more helpful than I can be with this; perhaps someone who is closer to the caring-for-an-infant stage of life than I am and/or who has a bit more time than I do right now and/or who doesn't find this email quite so.. exigeant?

I would really like to know details of how you managed your schedule (balanced your professional work and your life with baby and husband and fit in exercise etc) when you had your baby years ago. .. I would particularly appreciate specific examples especially of day-to-day and/or typical week activities, including grant writing, teaching, writing papers, advising students/post-docs, managing it to make it to the gym, taking care of a needy baby, etc. .. specific examples and ideas would be most appreciated. I would also really appreciate a personal reply.
Read More >>

More Co-Advice

Yesterday I attempted to cover a few topics relevant to being co-advised and being a co-adviser. Today's continuation of the general topic of co-advising explores some of these topics further from the point of view of the co-adviser. As science and engineering -- and perhaps other fields of which I know little -- become more inter-multi-transdisciplinary and co-advising becomes more common, it is important for faculty to be aware of the benefits and risks of co-advising with certain people.

Therefore, in an attempt to further evaluate factors involved in a decision about whether to co-advise, I asked the FSP Editorial Board:

Would you co-advise with [insert name of 'difficult' colleagues]?

Answer: No.

But: In one case, an attempt at co-advising with a Very Difficult Colleague was made and, perhaps not surprisingly, was very difficult. In this case, however, being co-advised helped the student a lot because at least one adviser was a reasonable, nice person. The functional co-adviser was glad to have helped the student, a smart and hard-working person, and so paused a bit before answering my question.

Hence my follow-up question:

Would you co-advise with [difficult colleague] if the student was really really really great and you were fairly sure that he/she was well informed about the likely challenges of working with Difficult Colleague?

Answer: Still no.

With this additional question I was trying to assess whether it was ever worth it to co-advise with a rather difficult colleague. It seems that it may not be worth it, ever.

I feel the same way as my colleagues, and would not knowingly agree to co-advise with someone who was known for being impossible. As described yesterday in the post and in the comments, co-advising can be a burden rather than a positive experience if the advisers aren't compatible, especially if the student gets caught in the middle of conflicts.

If at all possible, it's best if everyone involved has some information about the others so as to make an informed choice. I once ignored such common-sense advice and agreed to co-advise a student in an engineering department. I hardly knew the professor with whom I agreed to co-advise, but he seemed quite pleasant, his research was fascinating to me, we had a great project, and I had the funding.

I was lucky in that the other co-adviser and I turned out to work very well together. The student, however, was rather passive and seemed to prefer a low level of research activity, and soon flamed out, blaming both of us advisers for not providing enough advising structure and attention. I thought that the weekly meetings the three of us had together might be considered as providing structure and attention, along with our many individual conversations and meetings, but alas, it was deemed insufficient.

This brings me to the topic of co-advising failures and how to (try to) prevent them. I think in some cases, such as the one I just described, students who are not particularly (pro)active about their research will struggle whether they are co- or mono-advised.

The most problematic cases directly related to the co-advising situation can be classified as:

(1) co-adviser-caused problems: co-advisers who loathe each other or are competitive with each other, who don't communicate with each other, or who have vastly different expectations (which they may or may not communicate) and/or degree of accessibility or interest in the project; or co-advisers who each expect the others to provide funding for the student, resulting in a fundless student.

(2) co-advised-caused problems: students who wait for their various advisers to take the initiative and help them; students who play co-advisers off against each other, thus annoying their advisers and, in extreme cases, losing the trust and respect of their advisers.

I mention here some of the perils and pitfalls, but I have found that co-advising has no more (and perhaps fewer) problems than mono-advising and, if the co-advisers are collegial, the advising adventure becomes very interesting for everyone involved.
Read More >>

Co-Advice

By popular demand (= 3 recent mail requests), my thoughts on co-advising, a topic I have only touched on obliquely before (as far as I can remember, anyway):

One of the obvious benefits for a co-advised student is to have a somewhat high level of interaction with two (or more) professors who can help the student's research, each in a different way. But is that ideal ever attained? How does it work?

My views are mostly from the point of view of the co-adviser rather than as the co-advised. I was briefly co-advised at the beginning of my grad school years, but one professor (let's call him "the sane one") was my main adviser and the other (let's call him "the insane one") was fortunately not so much in control of my destiny. If the insane one had been my sole adviser, I might have quit grad school, or at least left that particular one.

On a few occasions when problems with the insane adviser were particularly severe, I discussed the situation with the sane adviser. He mostly gave me lame advice, but when it really counted (e.g., in an exam), he made sure I was treated fairly.

That's an example in which working with more than one professor can be a somewhat negative experience (it increases your chances of interacting with a difficult person), but as long as one adviser is a reasonable person, you're better off than if you have a single insane adviser.

That's a rather gloomy view of co-advising, so let me hasten to say that as a professor, I have had excellent experiences with co-advising, and I think many of my students have enjoyed being co-advised as well. I co-advised as an assistant professor, but I also made sure to advise some students as sole adviser, because I knew that my department(s) valued this. My co-advising has increased in recent years because I have compatible colleagues with whom I enjoy co-advising.

I think that my co-advising experiences have mostly been successful (says me) in large part because I co-advise with compatible colleagues. I think the experience of being co-advised is enhanced if the co-advisers get along with each other and perhaps even collaborate with each other. This isn't necessary, but it helps create a more interactive research environment for everyone.

For research that is highly interdisciplinary, it can be useful to have multiple advisers in different fields, but if one of your advisers is in another department somewhere else on (or off) campus, it might be a good idea to work out a specific plan for interacting with that adviser; e.g. attend group meetings, take a class, schedule some individual meetings. Also, find out your advisers' research expectations; don't assume that all will have the same ones.

When I co-advise students within my department, both advisers have equal status as advisers. I have, however, co-advised students in other departments with colleagues in those other departments, and in that case the other adviser is the de facto 'main' adviser, although we have equal status on the forms.

There are many possible variations in co-advising relationships, with the main factors being the compatibility of the advisers with each other and with the student (i.e., personality factors), the advising styles and expectations of the advisers, and the student's willingness to take some initiative (but not too much; see below) in communicating with multiple advisers. I think these factors are more important than whether the advisers are in the same or different fields/departments and whether one adviser has more responsibility than another.

The fact that I only co-advise with compatible colleagues doesn't mean that we all have the same approach to advising or that we have the exact same type and level of interaction with our students. In fact, more than one of my co-advised students has said, with respect to a particular colleague with whom I have co-advised, that they wish they could "average" our personalities into one ideal adviser instead of being driven somewhat crazy by our different personalities.

In this case, our students are not saying that one of us is a good adviser and one of us is a bad adviser, but instead that we both have positive and negative advising habits and characteristics and that they wish they could experience mostly the positive aspects and avoid the negative ones in each of us. I sympathize with that, but I can also put a positive spin on it by telling them (and myself) that they are learning important people-interaction skills that might serve them well in their careers.

I think that some of our co-advised students have learned to optimize their interactions with us, going to one or the other depending on their mood/needs. In some cases, our students ask us both the same question and then choose the answer they like better, kind of like asking mom and dad a question and choosing the preferred answer. This is (mostly) fine with me because, despite my differences in personality and advising style compared to my colleague, we are seldom in major disagreement about significant issues related to our students.

At one extreme, students may 'fall through the cracks' between or among advisers. Perhaps each adviser thinks/expects the other(s) to be taking care of their co-advised student, but no one is. Obviously there needs to be good communication among the group, such as might be accomplished during a group meeting of advisers and student to make sure that everyone is in agreement about expectations, priorities, and time lines.

The reason I added "mostly" in an earlier statement is because I recall one student who overdid the ask-both-advisers thing. One of the benefits for a professor of being a co-adviser is that you share the time/work of advising. If a student asks both of you the exact same thing all the time and asks you both to do the same thing so as to choose the preferred result, that is not a good use of our time, especially if we have quite a few advisees.

At some point with this particular student, my colleague and I figured out that he was taking the ask-them-both thing to an extreme. I asked the student to try to reduce redundant effort as much as possible and to use the ask-them-both approach for questions/issues that would benefit from different points of view or for document-editing that really required comments from both of us at the same time. He didn't change anything, so the next time he gave us both something to edit that really only one of us needed to see at the time, my colleague and I sat down together and wrote identical word-for-word edits in exactly the same places with the same pen on each of our copies of the short document. Did the student notice? No, he did not. He was pleased that both his advisers were in such good agreement. He never did stop this habit, but his advisers learned to coordinate with each other so as not to duplicate effort when this was not necessary.

But I digress.

Those students who have previously expressed a wish to average the personalities and advising styles of my colleague and me have said that, once it was over and the degree obtained, they were glad for the experience of working with us both, despite some of the challenges.

There are many different views on co-advising in different academic disciplines and even within different departments of the same academic disciplines. Some may encourage co-advising, some may discourage it. Some may not allow assistant professors to advise a PhD student alone, some may think less of an assistant professor who has not advised a PhD student alone. And so on.

I think co-advising is a good thing, though it needs to be appropriate for a particular student's research and career goals. It's up to professors and students alike to do what they can to make it work well for everyone involved, but when it does work well, I think everyone benefits.

(There will be more on this general topic tomorrow, I think)
Read More >>

Increasing STEM Diversity with Funding Opportunities

The best way for an institution to promote diversity among the scholars involved in STEM is to put their money where their mouths are. Funding outreach programs, research and educational opportunities, scholarships, and travel to conference is the most effective way to attract and retain a diverse body to STEM. I have been personally fortunate, nay, blessed to have had an ample amount of funding for my graduate education and dissertation research.

In this post I will share the funding resources I am familiar with that are designed to increase access to STEM to students from underrepresented groups.

The National Science Foundation funds the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program. AGEP is a network of universities dedicated to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities obtaining graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics by proving multi-year fellowships along with ample funds for research and attending conferences. Much of my doctorate education has been funded by NSF-AGEP.

Ford Foundation Fellowship Program seeks to increase the diversity of the nation’s college and university faculties by increasing their ethnic and racial diversity, to maximize the educational benefits of diversity, and to increase the number of professors who can and will use diversity as a resource for enriching the education of all students. They offer pre-doctoral, dissertation, and post-doctoral fellowships to support scholars with tuition, research funding, and stipend/salary.

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) offers fellowships to minorities seeing PhDs in STEM who later intend to become college professors. SREB offers two awards, a pre-doctoral award and a dissertation year award to cover tuition, research funding and a stipend.

The UNCF•Merck Science Initiative awards scholarships and fellowships to African-American students in science and biomedical research. This program provides tuition, research funding, and stipend/salary to its scholars.

State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Environmental Education Scholarship Program for students from underrepresented groups pursuing a bachelor’s or master’s degree in an environmental course of study. Applications are due June 1 of each year.

NSF Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowship – though the National Science Foundation is re-organizing its divisions and awards, there are still providing research grants to postdoctoral candidates. These fellowships support training and research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics

Attending scientific conferences also offer opportunities to recruit promising students to STEM fields. Now, many professional societies offer scholarships to attend these meetings and offer great mentoring and networking opportunities to students.

The Compact for Faculty Diversity is a coalition of organizations such as SREB, NSF-AGEP, and others; each year they host the Institute on Teaching and Mentoring. This four-day conference has become the largest gathering of minority doctoral scholars in the country and provides scholars with the skills necessary to succeed in graduate study and to prepare them for success as faculty members at colleges and universities.

The Animal Behavior Society, my professional society, has long been a champion of diversity at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels. The society offers three types of awards for students to attend its annual international meeting.
1. Charles H. Turner Program covers registration, travel and lodging and hosts a special mentoring workshops for undergraduate participation at the annual Society meetings
2. The Diversity Grant covers registration fees for graduate students attending the annual ABS Meeting, with the goal of broadening the minority and ethnic representation
3. Latin American Travel Awards are intended to encourage greater participation of Latin American researchers in ABS meetings, by helping to defray the costs of international travel, housing and/or meals at meetings.

The Society of Wetland Scientists offers a full travel award to undergraduate students to attend its annual meeting. The Diversity Program Undergraduate Mentoring Awards is in its 7th year and has been well received by the students who have participated. The award represents a great opportunity to participate in a professional meeting and benefit from a formal mentoring program. To attend the June 27 – July 2, 2010 meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, students must complete an application, due December 4, 2009.

SEEDS (Strategies for Ecology Education, Diversity and Sustainability: Diverse People for a Diverse Science) is an education program of the Ecological Society of America. Its mission is to diversify and advance the profession of ecology through opportunities that stimulate and nurture the interest of underrepresented students. Focused at the undergraduate level, opportunities sponsored by the program include student field trips, undergraduate research fellowships, ESA Annual Meeting travel awards, and campus ecology chapters.

The Dr. John P. Rier Jr. Biology Student Travel Fund provides money to cover travel expenses to students presenting research at professional meetings and for those who need to travel to conduct their research. I have been a recipient of this award twice and these funds come in handy, especially attending expensive international conferences.
Read More >>

Sticker Shock

Many grants come with 'indirect costs' (a.k.a. 'overhead') calculated into their budgets.

I understand why grants have indirect costs; i.e., the money that a university needs to help the grant-funded research to occur. IDC supposedly helps pay for the lights in our offices that are in buildings with climate control and support staff who help us do our research. IDC pays for the libraries that provide resources we need to do research. And so on. IDC pays for all those background costs (but not postage and maybe not photocopying, depending on which accountant is controlling access to the photocopier).

IDC rates at many universities are 50 ± 5%, but significantly higher rates are not unknown. It is not unusual for more than half of a grant to go to the university, not the researcher.

I sometimes wonder why NSF proposals don't report our direct costs as 'the' total on the cover page rather than having the total of direct + indirect costs being the most visible number on the proposal. Is not the total direct costs the relevant number for figuring out how much of the grant will be spent directly on research activities? The IDC rate, whether high or low, is something the university negotiates with the funding agency; the PI is responsible only for the coming up with a budget of direct costs (and some of those are mandated as well).

I wonder if sometimes reviewers balk at the high total of a grant proposal, despite knowing that they should divide the number on the cover page by 2 (or 3).

When writing collaborative proposals, my collaborators and I typically figure out whose university has the lowest IDC rate and then we shift more of the research expenses to that university, thus maximizing our collective grant resources.

Once a grant is funded, I am happy to report the total direct + indirect costs, as that number reflects what is being awarded to the university.

IDC as a concept is simple but in practice it is strange. Why does my university collect IDC on things like my travel to conferences or expenses related to scientific research done in/by another lab at another university? And then there is the IDC tax on fringe benefits, including for summer salary. Perhaps IDC calculations would start to get as complicated as figuring out income taxes, but I wish there were more IDC-free budget items.

All of this adds up to a lot of money. I know that universities need it and presumably are spending it well on essential things like light and heat and libraries, but as the cost of doing research goes up (e.g., travel, analytical costs, salaries of grad students and postdocs), it's hard not to look at the grant budget total and wish that more of that total was for direct research costs.
Read More >>

American Institute of Biological Sciences recognizes diversity in the biological sciences

Earlier this year I received an award from the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). AIBS is a scientific society of life science educators and researchers, K-12 teachers and college professors, dedicated to sharing biological discovery and knowledge. AIBS recognized and promoted the achievements of underrepresented minorities, including persons with disabilities, in the biological sciences. The students are competitively selected to be part of the AIBS Diversity Scholars program. This year, I was selected as the 2009 Diversity Scholar, the last one it seems.

Though the Diversity Scholars Award has ended, AIBS continues to administer the AIBS Diversity Leadership Awards Program which recognizes institutional programs that recruit and retain underrepresented minorities in the biological sciences. This is a bigger bang for the buck recognition. Both of these programs are examples of STEM Diversity initiatives done right. Long before the NSF mandates of Broader Impact – another important STEM Diversity Initiative – AIBS always carried the banner of broader impact. Through professional development opportunities, it’s journals and public programs, AIBS serves those interested in sharing science – K-12 educators, general public and informal science institutions, and college professors and researchers.

AIBS is the flagship of science outreach for the life science.

AIBS Education resources - lesson plans, activities, activities and career info.
ActionBioscience.org - a free-access bilingual Web site that focuses on topical issues in biodiversity, the environment, evolution, biotechnology, genomics, new frontiers, and education.
BioScience - peer-review journalproviding overviews of current biological research and education.

The Year of Science is a 12 monthe celebration of how science works, why science matters, and who scientists are. Led by participants in the COPUS network, learn more about the process of science at Understanding Science.org.

Though a short-lived program, the AIBS Diversity Scholars Award is an awesome achievement for a junior scientist. Our scientific achievements, as well as our work to broaden participation in science to others, are recognized very early in our careers. I was, and still am, quite honored to have been nominated by my professional science society – the Animal Behavior Society – for my service to the organization and to the discipline and then later selected among a pool of equally qualified candidates across the biological science spectrum.

Receiving my award from Susan Musante, AIBS Education Office Staff, at the 2009 AIBS Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.

Press release announcing me winning the award: FirstScience News AIBS recognizes diversity in the biological sciences

Read More >>

Advice I Got

The recent post on "Kidlessness" elicted quite a few comments, some of which reminded me of a bit of comforting advice I got from another FSP years ago when I was sort of freaking out about the impending birth of my daughter.

I had absolutely no interest in babies; I thought they were ugly and I had no idea how to take care of one. I had had some traumatic experiences helping out (not by choice) at a local preschool when I was a teenager. I confided my fears to this colleague, who had two kids.

My colleague said "All babies are scary and gross. Except your own." She said she was profoundly uninterested in babies etc., but she loved hers intensely and was fascinated by them from the start. This was immensely comforting.

And prophetic. I couldn't believe it when I saw my daughter for the first time. She was beautiful. How lucky I was to have one of the only cute and fascinating babies on the planet. A few years later, looking at her baby pictures, I realized that she was as hideous as every other baby. Yes I know, some people think babies are cute -- I encountered quite a few of these people and was both grateful for them and alarmed by them -- but I have never thought this about babies, except for one particular one, more than 10 years ago.

I think the biochemical effect that makes us think our own babies are cute and interesting is probably quite useful in general for the continuation of the species.

All this is to say that you don't have to think all babies are cute and wonderful to have a very happy experience with one of your own.

I turned out not to be quite as extreme as my FSP friend. Once my daughter was born, I didn't think all other babies/kids were weird and gross. At whatever age my daughter has been, the other kids her age have been kind of interesting to me. It's fascinating to watch them growing and learning new things. A different, older FSP once told me that every age (of her daughter) has been her favorite. That has definitely been true for me as well.

When I had anxieties about parenthood, it was important for me to be able to talk to these other FSPs. I had been reluctant to talk about my worries with most other people, except a few of my closest friends (who mostly expressed shock that I was going to be a mother; this was not entirely helpful). I worried that my lack of maternal instincts (or at least my belief that I lacked them) would be seen as monstrous in the specific context of being about to have a baby. I felt comfortable talking to these other FSPs, however, perhaps because we shared an atypical experience as women -- that of being FSPs.

(At the time, I only knew well 1 MSP who had been actively involved in raising his kids and had a wife with a career. We often chatted about family-career issues and that was great, but mostly we talked about practical things.)

Now that I am an older FSP, I am perfectly happy to talk about what it was like for me to do my professor job while pregnant (and very ill) or while taking care of an infant (and changing universities) -- perhaps this information can be useful or comforting to others -- but I must say that I loathe it when people assume that I will want to hear their graphic pregnancy/childbirth stories just because I am (1) female, and (2) a mother.

Perhaps that is hypocritical because I once sought out FSPs specifically to talk about baby-related issues, but I think that there is a difference between the type of conversation I had with some FSPs and conversations in which someone (male or female) revels in the intimate details of pregnancy and childbirth: for me, the former is mentoring, the latter is TMI.
Read More >>