My PhD adviser was elected to the National Academy of Sciences yesterday. Not only does his membership recognize his accomplishments throughout his career, but it also acknowledges the work of those who helped him get there. My dissertation and publications are part of that package, but also the ideas we discussed that shaped the following grant and the next graduate student's project. In a sense my own worth is being recognized too.
His inclusion in the NAS has an even broader impact in my opinion. It is proof that someone can successfully move from industry to academia. My adviser spent many years working at a company, but he was able to move to a university because he never stopped publishing. Good papers are indeed a key to success. I joined his lab shortly after his move and his name was one other scientists recognized, even though he was not in a big name school. His membership to the NAS also shows that good science can be done outside the top 5 best ranked universities in the country.
Good ideas, hard work, publications. Recognition will come if there is something to recognize.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
The big puzzle
I was trying to think of what made me decide to be a scientist, and I just drew a blank. I do not ever remember having big ambitions; just a feeling that I could contribute to solving a piece of the puzzle. I always thought that life - the big picture - was a puzzle that could be solved a piece at a time as long as there were enough people willing to try.
In my opinion that is what scientists do: they figure things out, they learn about the unknown and make them known. For me it is not about the prizes or the recognition, but the small discoveries that help advance the process. The small triumphs of finding a piece that was not there before, or removing one that was placed wrong.
Throughout the last fifteen years I have been one of the scientist working on this project. I have been contributing little pieces to different parts of the big puzzle; albeit enjoying the challenges much more than the frustrations.The actual pieces have been very diverse, but I am sure they will all fit together at some point. Maybe it will not be in my lifetime, but one day I am certain they will.
In my opinion that is what scientists do: they figure things out, they learn about the unknown and make them known. For me it is not about the prizes or the recognition, but the small discoveries that help advance the process. The small triumphs of finding a piece that was not there before, or removing one that was placed wrong.
Throughout the last fifteen years I have been one of the scientist working on this project. I have been contributing little pieces to different parts of the big puzzle; albeit enjoying the challenges much more than the frustrations.The actual pieces have been very diverse, but I am sure they will all fit together at some point. Maybe it will not be in my lifetime, but one day I am certain they will.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Career Seminar
While attending a Gordon conference last June, I was approached by a graduate student and invited to give a seminar at their institution. However, I was not invited to give a science talk, but a career talk. Apparently, doing research at a non-profit organization is a career path with which not many people are familiar. To be honest, I never considered it until I was offered this position...
Even though I was very familiar with research when I started my graduate studies, I was never doubtful that I would follow the academic path. All the discussions I had with other students always referred to the age long debate between academia and industry. Hence, I was naively convinced that if I wanted to do basic science instead of having my research dictated by stakeholders, navigating through the academic pipeline was my only option. For me, alternatives comprised choosing between small or large settings -- such as teaching colleges and R01 Universities. The doubt was always the ratio between teaching and research.
Somewhere during my graduate studies, I realized that the scientific universe was not so black and white. I became aware of government laboratories and research institutes, both linked and independent from academic institutions. Not to mention start-up companies -- in contrast to large corporations whose name are easy to recognize. As I was set on bench science, I never investigated any of the alternative careers in law, business or journalism. However, it was not until my postdoc options started waning -- mostly due to family constraints -- that I started questioning my true options. And when I thought my options were truly dim, a new path arose from an unforeseen quarter: a non-profit research center.
When I thought of non-profits, the image that came to my mind was humanitarian organizations and NGOs -- not laboratory research. After investigating the topic, I realized that large research institutes such as Scripps fall under this category. I also became aware not only that there are several large institutes spread around the country, but that there are also small ones whose names are mostly unknown. Nevertheless, the parallel in the for-profit world is very clear: big companies started out as small companies -- and there are many small start-up companies out there.
Hence, I am heading out this week to tell a group of graduate students and postdocs that there are small non-profit research centers out there. Places where one can do a postdoc or even find a more long-term position. Places where you can do science at a more independent level, as long as you can bring in funding for your research -- which is also true in academia. It is not a career that would suit many people, as it requires independence and self-motivation in high levels and comprises a degree of isolation. Nonetheless, it is worth including as a career option and students should know we exist.
Even though I was very familiar with research when I started my graduate studies, I was never doubtful that I would follow the academic path. All the discussions I had with other students always referred to the age long debate between academia and industry. Hence, I was naively convinced that if I wanted to do basic science instead of having my research dictated by stakeholders, navigating through the academic pipeline was my only option. For me, alternatives comprised choosing between small or large settings -- such as teaching colleges and R01 Universities. The doubt was always the ratio between teaching and research.
Somewhere during my graduate studies, I realized that the scientific universe was not so black and white. I became aware of government laboratories and research institutes, both linked and independent from academic institutions. Not to mention start-up companies -- in contrast to large corporations whose name are easy to recognize. As I was set on bench science, I never investigated any of the alternative careers in law, business or journalism. However, it was not until my postdoc options started waning -- mostly due to family constraints -- that I started questioning my true options. And when I thought my options were truly dim, a new path arose from an unforeseen quarter: a non-profit research center.
When I thought of non-profits, the image that came to my mind was humanitarian organizations and NGOs -- not laboratory research. After investigating the topic, I realized that large research institutes such as Scripps fall under this category. I also became aware not only that there are several large institutes spread around the country, but that there are also small ones whose names are mostly unknown. Nevertheless, the parallel in the for-profit world is very clear: big companies started out as small companies -- and there are many small start-up companies out there.
Hence, I am heading out this week to tell a group of graduate students and postdocs that there are small non-profit research centers out there. Places where one can do a postdoc or even find a more long-term position. Places where you can do science at a more independent level, as long as you can bring in funding for your research -- which is also true in academia. It is not a career that would suit many people, as it requires independence and self-motivation in high levels and comprises a degree of isolation. Nonetheless, it is worth including as a career option and students should know we exist.
Monday, October 18, 2010
DonorsChoose.org
Have you ever visited DonorsChoose.org? It is a wonderful charity that connects donors with classroom teachers in need. I just created a Science Bloggers for Students Page to help support low-income science and math classrooms. And I am inviting you to help support this project.
The average public school teacher spends $500 - $700 on classroom supplies out of his/her own pocket, and many students still go without critical supplies they need to learn. The way this website works is by teachers posting requests (microscopes, DNA kits, field trips to the zoo), and anyone can help fund them. Many companies and foundations help sponsor these projects by doubling the amount given by donors!
More than 50 science bloggers have joined together for a month to help fund science projects on DonorsChoose.org. In the first week alone almost $15,000 were donated, which will help more than nine thousand students! There is even a competition going on to see which blogger can bring the most donations. I know I am a small fish, but every dollar counts. You can visit my Science Bloggers for Students Page to make a donation. I have chosen projects that I would like to see funded, but feel free to browse around for projects that you find important.
Thanks in advance for your support!
The average public school teacher spends $500 - $700 on classroom supplies out of his/her own pocket, and many students still go without critical supplies they need to learn. The way this website works is by teachers posting requests (microscopes, DNA kits, field trips to the zoo), and anyone can help fund them. Many companies and foundations help sponsor these projects by doubling the amount given by donors!
More than 50 science bloggers have joined together for a month to help fund science projects on DonorsChoose.org. In the first week alone almost $15,000 were donated, which will help more than nine thousand students! There is even a competition going on to see which blogger can bring the most donations. I know I am a small fish, but every dollar counts. You can visit my Science Bloggers for Students Page to make a donation. I have chosen projects that I would like to see funded, but feel free to browse around for projects that you find important.
Thanks in advance for your support!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
And then one day it's done...
The genetic/biochemical screen, I mean. The screen that has consumed my working hours throughout this past year. The screen that was supposed to be high-throughput but was not. The screen that made me, for the first time in my life, consider abandoning science. I was on the verge of trading the lab for a scrapbook store - despite the odds of opening any sort of business in this tanked economy and the fact that I have never worked in a store in my life. I was feeling truly desperate this summer.
I am not an "-omics" person, I am a mechanism person. I never liked the large-scale experiments that try to list all the players in the game. I prefer to look at a player and seek out its role and how it plays the game. But when you are looking at pathways you need players, and you cannot just rely on what others have found. Sometimes you just need to go fishing or you will only eat someone else's fried fish.
As much as I tried this past year to focus on the light at the end of the tunnel - the candidates that should come out of this screen - the work itself distressed me. Even though the pilot studies gave me candidates and I knew I would be getting a lot of possible players from the screen. Even though the majority of the screen was accomplished in six months. Even though I had help from my technician.
After a lot of pondering I think I discovered what my aversion to this screen was. Yes, it was tedious doing the same experiments week after week, but I have done boring experiments before - there is not much excitement in Michaelis-Menten curves. Boring was not the problem. I believe my exasperation was due to the lack of perfection; the fact that I knew I was missing things.
Screens are sloppy by nature, even the best-planed ones. It is unfathomable to test each of the 6000 mutants individually, in triplicate experiments with at least three data points each - that I can do for the however many candidates I get from the screen. In a screen you throw a net and pull out what gets caught. It is not perfect; it is extensive but not exhaustive. And there is a limited amount of time and money one can spend on the first step before moving to the next - interesting - phase.
I never thought I would say I hated anything, let alone something at work, until now. I am positive I never want to do another screen in my life, but I know there is another one that should be started next year. We even got a shiny new toy for it. I just have to hope that my sanity will survive it..
I am not an "-omics" person, I am a mechanism person. I never liked the large-scale experiments that try to list all the players in the game. I prefer to look at a player and seek out its role and how it plays the game. But when you are looking at pathways you need players, and you cannot just rely on what others have found. Sometimes you just need to go fishing or you will only eat someone else's fried fish.
As much as I tried this past year to focus on the light at the end of the tunnel - the candidates that should come out of this screen - the work itself distressed me. Even though the pilot studies gave me candidates and I knew I would be getting a lot of possible players from the screen. Even though the majority of the screen was accomplished in six months. Even though I had help from my technician.
After a lot of pondering I think I discovered what my aversion to this screen was. Yes, it was tedious doing the same experiments week after week, but I have done boring experiments before - there is not much excitement in Michaelis-Menten curves. Boring was not the problem. I believe my exasperation was due to the lack of perfection; the fact that I knew I was missing things.
Screens are sloppy by nature, even the best-planed ones. It is unfathomable to test each of the 6000 mutants individually, in triplicate experiments with at least three data points each - that I can do for the however many candidates I get from the screen. In a screen you throw a net and pull out what gets caught. It is not perfect; it is extensive but not exhaustive. And there is a limited amount of time and money one can spend on the first step before moving to the next - interesting - phase.
I never thought I would say I hated anything, let alone something at work, until now. I am positive I never want to do another screen in my life, but I know there is another one that should be started next year. We even got a shiny new toy for it. I just have to hope that my sanity will survive it..
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Organic & Natural
Maybe I am biased, but somehow the word "organic" does not inspire me to think wholesome food thoughts. Maybe it is because of those months I spent in organic lab... Anyway, what I really do not understand is why organic has been equated with healthy to the point of all other foods being called unhealthy. I do agree that some of the more widely consumed foods are indeed bad for you - even without watching Super Size Me. I also understand that large quantities of chemicals are indeed used in conventional agriculture as pesticides and herbicides, which might not be very appetizing or healthy. And I will not deny that I am a proponent of genetic engineering as a solution to many agriculture problems. Nevertheless, I feel that this health food movement reminds me of the vegan craze I was exposed to in college. Even though I am not an avid meat-eater, I still favored a more balanced diet.
My main concerns with the organic label are exactly what they are advertising as better. I worry about the shelf-life and after-opened life time because of the lack of preservatives. I know how easily (and fast) my cell culture media gets contaminated - even in the fridge - if my sterile technique is not as careful as it should be. Unfortunately there is no biosafety cabinet in my kitchen... The lack of pesticides spark my suspicions, especially where fungi are concerned. Aflatoxins are the first things that comes to my mind when I see packages of organic nuts or grains. Advertisements for lack of pesticides in produce that do not have the organic label are even more disconcerting, as I know that phosphite fertilizers used in large quantities will have a fungicide effect - because it is toxic! And as it is not a pesticide per se, its use is not regulated as such. However, there are indeed some products that I prefer to buy organic. Yogurt for instance, even though it has nothing to do with the fact that it is organic but because it is the only kind available made with whole milk. I just make sure I pay attention to the sell by dates.
Another major concern I have with organic farming is the "free-ride" factor. Janet D. Stemwedel at Adventures in Science and Ethics has a great post on why by not vaccinating your children you are counting on the protection gained from the vaccinated population - and this only works if only a few cases are exempt. I think the same can be said for organic farming. As long as more than 95% of the farming area is using pesticides, there is a general protection that can be correlated to herd immunity. However, once that threshold is met, we might notice an increase in food poisoning. Then again, considering that only the top 5% of the population can probably afford organic food, we might be far from reaching that point.
The main argument here is not whether there should be an organic option, but that organic farming is not sustainable. It cannot be done in large scale and it depends on the pesticide use of its neighbors. The more I think about this, the more I understand the reluctance towards genetically modified foods. If indeed one can engineer resistance to major pests and pesticide use goes down, then this herd immunity will disappear. The farmers most affected by this will be the ones conforming to organic standards. However, this is not an argument we hear in the media - most of the discussions center on what is natural. As most people do not know where their food comes from or why it tastes the way it does, this argument seems to be valid enough. Yet food is not natural at all. On the other hand, snake poison is natural, but I would not want it in my food.
Modern crops were domesticated for consumption, and most of the preferred varieties are mutants. Corn (maize) does not resemble at all its wild ancestor teosinte, and sweet corn has mutations that prevent it from turning sugar into starch. Conventional breeding has taken advantages of naturally occurring mutations, but has also developed new varieties by crossing established crops with wild relatives. Wild tomato is poisonous, but it has been used to improve the crop by crossing it to edible varieties. As far as I know, the selection of favorable varieties involves looks, shelf-life during transport to consumers and how it tasted to the farmer. I do not think safety concerns are as stringent for new varieties as they are for transgenic crops, where the effect of the inserted gene needs to be assessed with respect to undesired changes to the plant. When you cross two plants their entire genomes are mixed, hence you cannot attribute the phenotype change to a particular gene without extensive analysis.
I do not believe there is much out there that is truly natural, whether it is at the major supermarket or the farmers market. Humankind has imposed its will on food, mainly to grantee its own survival. Maybe I am a skeptic, but the health food craze scares me a bit. I stick with fresh produce and cook from scratch because I believe it is better - but mostly because I can afford it and I take the time to put in the effort. I stay away from artificial flavorings and sweeteners mostly because they make me sick. I try not to be instigated by advertisement; fat-free candy still has way to much sugar, and sugar-free does not mean it is not sweetened. If you favor organic labeled food, go ahead and splurge for them - but I will find it very hypocritical if you pair an organic meal with a diet soda.
My main concerns with the organic label are exactly what they are advertising as better. I worry about the shelf-life and after-opened life time because of the lack of preservatives. I know how easily (and fast) my cell culture media gets contaminated - even in the fridge - if my sterile technique is not as careful as it should be. Unfortunately there is no biosafety cabinet in my kitchen... The lack of pesticides spark my suspicions, especially where fungi are concerned. Aflatoxins are the first things that comes to my mind when I see packages of organic nuts or grains. Advertisements for lack of pesticides in produce that do not have the organic label are even more disconcerting, as I know that phosphite fertilizers used in large quantities will have a fungicide effect - because it is toxic! And as it is not a pesticide per se, its use is not regulated as such. However, there are indeed some products that I prefer to buy organic. Yogurt for instance, even though it has nothing to do with the fact that it is organic but because it is the only kind available made with whole milk. I just make sure I pay attention to the sell by dates.
Another major concern I have with organic farming is the "free-ride" factor. Janet D. Stemwedel at Adventures in Science and Ethics has a great post on why by not vaccinating your children you are counting on the protection gained from the vaccinated population - and this only works if only a few cases are exempt. I think the same can be said for organic farming. As long as more than 95% of the farming area is using pesticides, there is a general protection that can be correlated to herd immunity. However, once that threshold is met, we might notice an increase in food poisoning. Then again, considering that only the top 5% of the population can probably afford organic food, we might be far from reaching that point.
The main argument here is not whether there should be an organic option, but that organic farming is not sustainable. It cannot be done in large scale and it depends on the pesticide use of its neighbors. The more I think about this, the more I understand the reluctance towards genetically modified foods. If indeed one can engineer resistance to major pests and pesticide use goes down, then this herd immunity will disappear. The farmers most affected by this will be the ones conforming to organic standards. However, this is not an argument we hear in the media - most of the discussions center on what is natural. As most people do not know where their food comes from or why it tastes the way it does, this argument seems to be valid enough. Yet food is not natural at all. On the other hand, snake poison is natural, but I would not want it in my food.
Modern crops were domesticated for consumption, and most of the preferred varieties are mutants. Corn (maize) does not resemble at all its wild ancestor teosinte, and sweet corn has mutations that prevent it from turning sugar into starch. Conventional breeding has taken advantages of naturally occurring mutations, but has also developed new varieties by crossing established crops with wild relatives. Wild tomato is poisonous, but it has been used to improve the crop by crossing it to edible varieties. As far as I know, the selection of favorable varieties involves looks, shelf-life during transport to consumers and how it tasted to the farmer. I do not think safety concerns are as stringent for new varieties as they are for transgenic crops, where the effect of the inserted gene needs to be assessed with respect to undesired changes to the plant. When you cross two plants their entire genomes are mixed, hence you cannot attribute the phenotype change to a particular gene without extensive analysis.
I do not believe there is much out there that is truly natural, whether it is at the major supermarket or the farmers market. Humankind has imposed its will on food, mainly to grantee its own survival. Maybe I am a skeptic, but the health food craze scares me a bit. I stick with fresh produce and cook from scratch because I believe it is better - but mostly because I can afford it and I take the time to put in the effort. I stay away from artificial flavorings and sweeteners mostly because they make me sick. I try not to be instigated by advertisement; fat-free candy still has way to much sugar, and sugar-free does not mean it is not sweetened. If you favor organic labeled food, go ahead and splurge for them - but I will find it very hypocritical if you pair an organic meal with a diet soda.
Friday, June 5, 2009
What do you know?
Kathleen V. Kudlinski has a great set of books about science and scientists. My 3 year old received "Boy, Were We Wrong About Dinosaurs!" as a gift from my in-laws and we enjoyed it so much that I bought "Boy, Were We Wrong About the Solar System" to add to our library. These are the kinds of books that show children that science is fun. Moreover, they portray scientists as young people, women & men, having fun with their work. They also expose kids to the scientific method and how what you know depends on how you interpret the data. Both books address how scientists reinterpret data and adapt their models to incorporate new data. The only things set in stone are the actual fossils...
One cannot understand science without taking into account the scientific method. An observation leads to a hypothesis. Experiments are performed to test this hypothesis and the data either supports it or not. The hypothesis is valid if it doesn't crumble under pressure. Once the data gathered starts forming a picture, one can propose a model. Any new data will be incorporated into the model or will lead to a reevaluation. With enough experiments giving it strength, a theory can be proposed. In science there is no such thing as "just a theory". All these scientific terms are strictly defined, but somehow not clearly defined to most people.
The misuse of the word "theory" irritates me incredibly, especially when one is trying to convey science to the general public. With so many theories right and left, no one will pay attention to the real ones. I am impressed that scientific journalism in major newspapers is not held to more stringent copy editing, nor major novel writers. Dan Brown's Deception Point was particularly aggravating because it portrayed a group of top notch scientists discussing data and assumptions. The first time one of them said "my theory is..." they should have been shot down with a "you mean hypothesis, right?". He missed a great opportunity to set a good example...
Apart from the faux pas on scientific terminology, Dan Brown's book was pretty good. It reminded me about how data interpretation can be founded on assumptions. And those assumptions might be incorrect or biased. A lot of what we know is based on assumptions, which, if shown to be incorrect, will lead to a reevaluation of the data that was interpreted based on those assumptions. Proof, truth... these are words that express absolutes. It is a lot easier to prove something wrong than to say it is right.
Part of my passion for science has always been the ever changing body of knowledge - the new discoveries, the reinterpretation of what we thought we knew. One of my favorite quotes, which really defined science for me, is from the movie Men in Black (1997):
I can guarantee that you will know you were wrong about something...
One cannot understand science without taking into account the scientific method. An observation leads to a hypothesis. Experiments are performed to test this hypothesis and the data either supports it or not. The hypothesis is valid if it doesn't crumble under pressure. Once the data gathered starts forming a picture, one can propose a model. Any new data will be incorporated into the model or will lead to a reevaluation. With enough experiments giving it strength, a theory can be proposed. In science there is no such thing as "just a theory". All these scientific terms are strictly defined, but somehow not clearly defined to most people.
The misuse of the word "theory" irritates me incredibly, especially when one is trying to convey science to the general public. With so many theories right and left, no one will pay attention to the real ones. I am impressed that scientific journalism in major newspapers is not held to more stringent copy editing, nor major novel writers. Dan Brown's Deception Point was particularly aggravating because it portrayed a group of top notch scientists discussing data and assumptions. The first time one of them said "my theory is..." they should have been shot down with a "you mean hypothesis, right?". He missed a great opportunity to set a good example...
Apart from the faux pas on scientific terminology, Dan Brown's book was pretty good. It reminded me about how data interpretation can be founded on assumptions. And those assumptions might be incorrect or biased. A lot of what we know is based on assumptions, which, if shown to be incorrect, will lead to a reevaluation of the data that was interpreted based on those assumptions. Proof, truth... these are words that express absolutes. It is a lot easier to prove something wrong than to say it is right.
Part of my passion for science has always been the ever changing body of knowledge - the new discoveries, the reinterpretation of what we thought we knew. One of my favorite quotes, which really defined science for me, is from the movie Men in Black (1997):
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe.
500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat
...
Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.
I can guarantee that you will know you were wrong about something...
Monday, December 22, 2008
Falling in love, again.
The first time I fell in love with a project was during an undergraduate internship. I had interned in four other labs before, so I knew that it was the one. Still, it was not at the institution I had planned to attend, so after two internships at this lab I decided to try out the other institution before taking the big step and committing to the Ph.D. thing. In the end I chose love over prestige.
Part of me wished I could have continued working on that project after I graduated, even though I know I had to move on. There are so many loose ends that I wish I could wrap up. So many unanswered questions that I wish to address. I keep trying to go back and pick up where I left off, but it keeps meandering away. In the end I have not enjoyed my two postdocs as much as I ought, I keep thinking about the project I cannot work on.
A few weeks ago I was approached by a professor who is leaving my current department and asked if I would like to work on his new grant. He is still seeking approval from the funding agency to transfer this grant to another institution here in town. As I read through the proposal, I keep getting more and more interested in the project and this new job opportunity that is still not quite real. While I was musing out loud about trying not to get too excited about this homeless project that might not materialize, my colleague asked me if I was trying not to fall in love... If only I could...
It has been so long since I have fallen in love with a project that I thought I had found and lost the love of my life. But now I am confused... Maybe that was not it, maybe this new project is it. Or maybe I am trying too hard to forget the old project and am building up hopes that will not live up to their expectations. Have I healed from a heartbreak or am I headed for another? Why do I get so attached?
Maybe I should watch Drew Berrymore's Ever After movie again. Da Vinci had some good advice for the prince when he started rambling about how to tell who was the love of his life... something like "snap out of it".
Part of me wished I could have continued working on that project after I graduated, even though I know I had to move on. There are so many loose ends that I wish I could wrap up. So many unanswered questions that I wish to address. I keep trying to go back and pick up where I left off, but it keeps meandering away. In the end I have not enjoyed my two postdocs as much as I ought, I keep thinking about the project I cannot work on.
A few weeks ago I was approached by a professor who is leaving my current department and asked if I would like to work on his new grant. He is still seeking approval from the funding agency to transfer this grant to another institution here in town. As I read through the proposal, I keep getting more and more interested in the project and this new job opportunity that is still not quite real. While I was musing out loud about trying not to get too excited about this homeless project that might not materialize, my colleague asked me if I was trying not to fall in love... If only I could...
It has been so long since I have fallen in love with a project that I thought I had found and lost the love of my life. But now I am confused... Maybe that was not it, maybe this new project is it. Or maybe I am trying too hard to forget the old project and am building up hopes that will not live up to their expectations. Have I healed from a heartbreak or am I headed for another? Why do I get so attached?
Maybe I should watch Drew Berrymore's Ever After movie again. Da Vinci had some good advice for the prince when he started rambling about how to tell who was the love of his life... something like "snap out of it".
Monday, August 4, 2008
Why Not Math?
A few years ago I started a community on Orkut called Women in Science. This past month one of the members was asking why are there more women in biological sciences and not so many in physics and math. It got me thinking about why I chose biology...
It would be easy to say that I chose biology because of my dad, who is a biologist, but I don't think that is true. I was interested in science since my early years, while my brothers were not. We were all exposed to a researcher's life and got to spend some odd days in my dad's lab. I didn't grow up with the "mad scientist" image. There are also many scientists in my family, one could even say it's "genetics." Maybe, but there is always the nurture vs. nature conundrum...
Part of my career choice was probably due to the good (and bad) teachers I had in grade school. I had 3 wonderful math teachers (all women by the way) and, if asked, I would have said math was my favorite subject. I had a great biology teacher my first year of high school, but the other ones were just OK. My physics teachers were not inspiring at all, neither were the chemistry ones. Can I really say that one teacher changed my life? I don't think so... I had great physics and chemistry professors in college, but by then I was already set on plant biology. In college, one of my physics professors even tried to talk me into switching majors, but all I could see in physics was the math. I hated the question 'Does this answer make sense to you?', I never had the insight for it.
When I was choosing my college major, I thought of math too. However, I didn't know what to do with it. I knew what the actual work in biology was, but I was not exposed to what a mathematician actually did. All I could see was math teachers, and that was not what I wanted to become. I should add to the "nurture" list the fact that I was able to experience working in a biology lab very early. My high school was part of an outreach program that placed students into research labs one afternoon a week for a year. When I heard about it, my reaction was 'why not? I like biology...' I ended up in a molecular biology lab, under renovations at the time. Not the best placement, and most of what I did there was reading not experiments. But I loved it! Interestingly, I loved the actual lab, not the subject they were researching. Afterwards, in high school still, I did a one-week summer program called Light and plants. And that got me hooked. From then on I knew I wanted to study plants.
My first reaction to the 'Why not math?' question was that it was too abstract. It wasn't a question of what could I do, but what I wanted to do. Now that I thought about it some more, I don't think that is true. I think my biggest problem with math was that it was too easy. It wasn't challenging enough, all I had to do was solve the problems. And there was always a right answer, you just had to find it. Maybe if I had gotten deeper into math things would have been different... What led me into biology was all the unanswered questions, all the random puzzle pieces that don't quite fit together. And that what you think you know today might not be true tomorrow...
It would be easy to say that I chose biology because of my dad, who is a biologist, but I don't think that is true. I was interested in science since my early years, while my brothers were not. We were all exposed to a researcher's life and got to spend some odd days in my dad's lab. I didn't grow up with the "mad scientist" image. There are also many scientists in my family, one could even say it's "genetics." Maybe, but there is always the nurture vs. nature conundrum...
Part of my career choice was probably due to the good (and bad) teachers I had in grade school. I had 3 wonderful math teachers (all women by the way) and, if asked, I would have said math was my favorite subject. I had a great biology teacher my first year of high school, but the other ones were just OK. My physics teachers were not inspiring at all, neither were the chemistry ones. Can I really say that one teacher changed my life? I don't think so... I had great physics and chemistry professors in college, but by then I was already set on plant biology. In college, one of my physics professors even tried to talk me into switching majors, but all I could see in physics was the math. I hated the question 'Does this answer make sense to you?', I never had the insight for it.
When I was choosing my college major, I thought of math too. However, I didn't know what to do with it. I knew what the actual work in biology was, but I was not exposed to what a mathematician actually did. All I could see was math teachers, and that was not what I wanted to become. I should add to the "nurture" list the fact that I was able to experience working in a biology lab very early. My high school was part of an outreach program that placed students into research labs one afternoon a week for a year. When I heard about it, my reaction was 'why not? I like biology...' I ended up in a molecular biology lab, under renovations at the time. Not the best placement, and most of what I did there was reading not experiments. But I loved it! Interestingly, I loved the actual lab, not the subject they were researching. Afterwards, in high school still, I did a one-week summer program called Light and plants. And that got me hooked. From then on I knew I wanted to study plants.
My first reaction to the 'Why not math?' question was that it was too abstract. It wasn't a question of what could I do, but what I wanted to do. Now that I thought about it some more, I don't think that is true. I think my biggest problem with math was that it was too easy. It wasn't challenging enough, all I had to do was solve the problems. And there was always a right answer, you just had to find it. Maybe if I had gotten deeper into math things would have been different... What led me into biology was all the unanswered questions, all the random puzzle pieces that don't quite fit together. And that what you think you know today might not be true tomorrow...
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Stuck here? Not really.
The Nature Jobs Prospects in v. 45, 17 Jan 2008 (p. 369) seems to emphasize relocation as a key contribution to a successful post doctoral experience. As a scientist who decided to remain at the same institution where I got my PhD, in order to accommodate family and work goals, I respectfully disagree.
At the end of my PhD on ethylene signal transduction, it was clear to me that I wanted to keep studying the receptor's biochemical properties. However, leaving town would certainly jeopardize my personal life. As my PhD advisor put it 'You're stuck here'. Of course I disagreed with him at the time. I even asked him who, in the world, I should go work with that was doing what I wanted to do. He came up with someone in Japan, maybe. What I told him was that I needed the tools to do what I wanted, and there should be competent people at this institution from whom I could learn. I wasn't bluffing...
Instead of seeking a postdoc in plant biology, I instead focused on what I needed to learn to be successful in that field when I got back into it. My first objective was to further my knowledge in enzymology. I was able to find a postdoc in the Dept. of Chemistry that worked on mechanistic enzymology of oxalate decarboxylases. My second postdoc has been dedicated towards learning membrane biology techniques. I'm studying glucose transporters in a mammalian cell culture system.
I have been in three different departments, in three different colleges. I was a graduate student in a lab with five postdocs, where each question was greeted with five different answers. I was the only postdoc in a lab with eight students, each wanting 2-3 answers to a single question. ('What if it doesn't work?') I have experienced conditions of high and low funding. I have gained insight into lab management and university politics beyond my expectations. I had two sons, one at each postdoc, and was exposed to issues that affect most women in science. (Pregnancy, maternity leave - how many experiments can I realistically plan for the next 12 weeks?)
I wonder sometimes whether I would have learned more if I had moved to a different institution. My advice to graduate students is always to focus on what you want to learn, not where you want to go. I have been able to broaden my horizons without leaving town. Will it help me get a real job? I hope so!
At the end of my PhD on ethylene signal transduction, it was clear to me that I wanted to keep studying the receptor's biochemical properties. However, leaving town would certainly jeopardize my personal life. As my PhD advisor put it 'You're stuck here'. Of course I disagreed with him at the time. I even asked him who, in the world, I should go work with that was doing what I wanted to do. He came up with someone in Japan, maybe. What I told him was that I needed the tools to do what I wanted, and there should be competent people at this institution from whom I could learn. I wasn't bluffing...
Instead of seeking a postdoc in plant biology, I instead focused on what I needed to learn to be successful in that field when I got back into it. My first objective was to further my knowledge in enzymology. I was able to find a postdoc in the Dept. of Chemistry that worked on mechanistic enzymology of oxalate decarboxylases. My second postdoc has been dedicated towards learning membrane biology techniques. I'm studying glucose transporters in a mammalian cell culture system.
I have been in three different departments, in three different colleges. I was a graduate student in a lab with five postdocs, where each question was greeted with five different answers. I was the only postdoc in a lab with eight students, each wanting 2-3 answers to a single question. ('What if it doesn't work?') I have experienced conditions of high and low funding. I have gained insight into lab management and university politics beyond my expectations. I had two sons, one at each postdoc, and was exposed to issues that affect most women in science. (Pregnancy, maternity leave - how many experiments can I realistically plan for the next 12 weeks?)
I wonder sometimes whether I would have learned more if I had moved to a different institution. My advice to graduate students is always to focus on what you want to learn, not where you want to go. I have been able to broaden my horizons without leaving town. Will it help me get a real job? I hope so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)