Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

Who is the fairest of us all? Now that is a loaded question... Have you seen how many definitions of "fair" there are in the dictionary? Moreover, even if what we see in the mirror is fair, our judgment may not be. We seem to constantly compare ourselves to some ideal or another, and lo and behold we do not quite measure up. Once in a while I try to discuss this with Ihctap, but all she does is roll her eyes at me. Hence, I took my wondering to the blog wide world and I got a Scientiae Carnival out of it...

Indeed, there are women out there that face the mirror with confidence. Field Notes has been seeing many physical changes in her mirror, but these changes do not seem to affect her true identity. Pat at Fairer Science hopes she still is who she thinks she is. Academic at Journeys of an Academic knows she is following the right dream by the sparkling eyes she sees in the mirror. Kate at Academic Ecology hopes that leaving her twenties behind will not impair her self image or her ideals. Despite here stress, EcoGeoFemme at The Happy Scientist sees determination when she looks in the mirror and gears up to defend her dissertation. JaneB has a thorough description on how she sees herself up at her place. She seems to have a clear idea of who she is, for better or worse. The Ethical Paleontologist also has a very detailed portrait of the woman who looks back at her, even though she points out how strained their relationship is:

We are worse than best friends with our criticism of each other. Sometimes when I catch her gaze she looks absolutely repulsed by my body. In turn, I spot every lump and bump (although I also notice that the bitch always looks pretty damn good in the bedroom - if only she would look as good in the shop windows as I walk past).

As it happens, taking a fair look at oneself is harder than just looking in the mirror. Leigh at The Path Forward says that she purposefully hides her true self behind a protective image. Maria at Speech and Science sees her reflection in two opposing mirrors and ponders which one is telling the truth. Professor in Training has a difficult time reconciling the differences between what she perceives to what others around her see. Indie PhD pointed out that she tried to face herself at least three times before she decided "to stick to a list for now" due to too much baggage. Alas, even the Goddess seems to be having trouble...

Perfection seems to be a holy grail, sought but not found. Volcanista points out that one can eventually outgrow their teenage issues with the mirror:

If we’re talking body image, I’m past most or all of the issues I had as a girl and teen, the issues that most or all teenage girls have with thinking their bodies have problems because they don’t fit the beauty ideal. So physically, I generally like what I see, though everyone has their bad days when they notice all the little imperfections, and I’m no exception to that.

But that does not mean we are not trying to see how we measure up to other ideals. Career, family, society in general... Fia over at Academia and Me wrote that she has been trying to figure out who she is. A scientist? A mother? Adventurous? Zen? However, she never seems to measure up to her own standards. Karina at Ruminations of an Aspiring Ecologist is proud of who she has become, but she still believes she is not quite there. ScienceWoman tries to be realistic as she assesses her progress towards tenure, but she seems to look more at what is lacking than at what she has. DamnGoodTechnician feels inadequate because she sets the bar too high, even though she knows she is being unfair to herself:

Am I being fair to myself in doing this? Of course not. But does anyone see themselves fairly? I can't imagine that they do. My problem here is that I never measure myself against my peers, and instead I find someone who's better at whatever-it-is, and set them as the bar for competency. My comparisons are always against the postdocs or lab heads, and never against another tech. Essentially, I've come up with an invisible ruler to measure myself against. I can't see this ruler, and neither can anyone else, but this doesn't stop me from authoritatively saying, "Nope, I fell short again. See? Can't you see this line here? I totally missed it."

Are we just striving for personal growth, wanting to be better day after day? Or are we truly setting ourselves up for guilt and failure by unreasonable criticism? Are we being fair to ourselves? Melissa over at Confused at a Higher Level thinks it is "the lack of well-worn paths and the variety of personal perspectives upon looking in the mirror that makes the larger picture so difficult to discern." I think Jenny from A Natural Scientist would agree... She says she does not recognize the woman she sees in the mirror, as her life choices have taken her in such an unexpected direction. There is no right or wrong path to take, and how to proceed is not taught in a class or written in a book. I think Kylie from PodBlack Cat has an important point (I am purposely quoting out of her context of religious skepticism):

To assume that ‘teach X will automatically lead Y’ in this case, to me, leaves out other factors. The quality of teaching, the environment of the school, the home environment, the socio-economic status of the student, the pressure from peers and culture, even role-models… I’m just not confident that it’s as easy as ‘here’s a website’ or ‘here’s a book’.

Maybe we need more role models - Pat from Fairer Science points out that some subfields of science (and drag racing) are still lacking women. Maybe we need less guilt - Alice from Sciencewomen would probably second that, while she tells you how hard it is to be your own subject matter. Or maybe this is what blogging is all about - Kim over at All of My Faults Are Stress Related pointed out that bloggers might be looking for an outlet more than an audience. Mirror, mirror, on the web... As you look at yourself and interpret the image, I hope you interpret yours fairly!

Dear Ihctap,

As I glanced at you this morning and reminded you to brush your hair, it hit me how crazy our life has become. When I tried to mention it to you, you just rolled your eyes and continued brushing your teeth. You seem to do this to me a lot nowadays - the rolling of the eyes bit. I notice it at the gym, while I try to lose this pregnancy belly that annoys me to no end. I notice it when I try to hide in the bathroom, to get some peace and quiet at the end of the day while chaos breaks out between dinner and bedtime.

Gone are the days when we had time for ourselves - time to play, time to chat. Now I hardly have time to greet you, and some days I wonder if you are still there. Some days I miss you more, miss the time we spent together when we were little. Growing up, you were the one who was always there for me, regardless of where we moved. The girl in the mirror... In our teens we commiserated together when the rest of the world didn't get it. You always understood me, and never told me I wasn't acting my age... even when you pointed out I didn't look it. You used to roll your eyes back then too... (Remember when we were out shopping and the shop assistant would try to tell me things would fit better in a few years when I turned 15? I was 15!)

We've been through so much together! Moving back and forth over the equator, living with family and without. You still insinuate that I don't look old enough to be who I am, or do what I do - and I sure don't think you have aged much either. But we really did make it through college and grad school. We've been hopping from postdoc to postdoc for the last few years in order to keep doing research. And, somehow, that other part of life caught up with us in the meantime... and we managed to integrate it to the scientist's life that we thought could define us by itself.

A scientist, a wife, a mother - you amaze me on a daily basis... I watch your kids playing with my kids, I see your family smiling at mine. I know you will always be there for me, no mater how crazy life turns out to be. You'll keep me focused and heading forward. And when I wonder how I got to this place and time, you'll roll your eyes at me. But if I ever ask you if this is the life I want, please point out the obvious: If I had the choice, I would travel the exact same road again - hindsight and all...

Love,
Patchi

Ihctap & Patchi - best friends

Not an expert

I have changed fields three times since I defended my Ph.D. five years ago. All three changes were pretty drastic - different organisms and subject matter - as far as biochemistry will allow. My major incentive was the new techniques I was setting out to learn. I wanted to expand my tool kit and be able to tackle a problem in different ways. However, deep down, my options were limited by the fact that I did not want to move away from my family. I have learned more than I probably would have if I had moved, but after these five years I am lacking research I can call my own.

When I defended my dissertation on a particular plant family of kinases, I thought of myself as an expert in the field. I was ready to challenge the current model and show the world they needed to think outside the box. I knew the current literature but I could not see my advancement in that field without external input. There were many questions to be answered that required techniques that I needed to learn. Tools that very few other experts in the field were actually using.

In my search for practical knowledge I moved to an enzymology lab in which I worked on a metabolic enzyme from bacteria and it's relative from fungus. The enzyme itself was not fascinating to me - maybe because I'm not a chemist - but I learned enough kinetics and structure analysis to open my mind to the possibilities. It was daunting to think of how much I still needed to learn to be able to do what I wanted to do! However, money was short and I had to move on...

My rescue raft was a membrane biology lab, working with mammalian cell cultures. A whole new world... Hence, I immersed in the literature to become familiar with my new proteinaceous best friends and where they lived. I noticed that the learning process became easier with experience, and I managed to feel confident that I knew what I was doing - but not really an expert. Maybe if that postdoc opportunity had lasted longer I would have really gotten into it, but once again money dried up and I had to look for greener pastures.

Once again I find myself scrambling to get familiar with a completely different subject and the literature seems overwhelming at times. Now I'm working with yeast and hormones and unfamiliar second messengers. Who knows how long it will take to feel comfortable in this new environment? Expertise is far, far in the future... I know there is a lot to learn, but I also know that with effort, a day at a time, I will. I might even become an expert if I stay in this field long enough. It did take me almost six years for that Ph.D. after all...

Often enough I browse the literature of my Ph.D. field, and even though it is not foreign to me I know that I am not an expert there anymore. I might still instigate the current experts to expand their horizon, but I have not delved deep into the most recent publications to question the current assumptions. Free-time is lacking, with family and all, and hobbies are hobbies. There are many other things at which I am not an expert... some I care, and some I do not. Time will tell which of those status I change.

Joining the club

Better yet, Science Scouts. I figured I earned some badges through the years, so here are the ones I'm proud of:

The “talking science” badge was easy to get. I probably deserve a level 2 for marrying a scientist and talking science at meals & at bedtime... but then with kids and all I might be getting a little rusty.





As my PhD training was in Plant Molecular Biology, I can definitely say that the “plant kingdom rules!”.






Plant biology certainly has perks that most scientists don't appreciate. The “I’ve eaten what I study” badge comes from some very tasty green tomatoes.




But just because you can eat your model system doesn't mean your science will actually improve it. I've earned the “I’ve done science with no conceivable practical application” badge. Lots of fun, but very hard to sell to funding agencies... they don't quite buy the maybe.



I got the “I’m pretty confident around an open flame” badge recently, after setting the flow hood on fire twice and flaming my gloves once.





I fully deserve my “cloner” badge. And for my name on some high impact publications, I might even clone YFG for you...



Then, here are the ones I might have been better off without:


I got the “broken heart for science” badge for not being able to finish my PhD in under a year and move to Paris... I'm definitely better off without him.




The “what I do for science dictates my having to wash my hands before I use the toilet” badge. But that should be the least of my worries...

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):

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...

In sickness and in health

As I pop the first dose of the antibiotics I'm taking for a sinus infection, I wonder should I have called in sick? I am obviously not very productive, my sinus pain is killing me, and I can hardly focus. But at the same time it is not debilitating enough that I can't putter around the lab and get some things ordered or sorted out. It's not the flu, any of them, and I don't think I'm more contagious today than I have been all week. Should I have stayed home all week?

Given that I started my new job in April and I'm leaving on a pre-planned vacation this Sunday, I think my leave allotment is mostly spent. Not to mention the days I had to stay home with the kids when they caught this bug. How did you think I got it in the first place? Of course they didn't catch it together, one was out two days one week, the other a day a week later. And a week after that Mom started sniffling. My version didn't come with the fever they had (which is why they couldn't go to daycare) but it didn't leave after three days either.

I guess my own personal sick leave policy is the same as the kids' daycare: fever, vomit, diarrhea. If I'm feeling extra lousy I'll leave early and take a nap before the end-of-the-day family chaos begins. Most of the time I'll work through it, especially when I need to take healthy days off to take care of sick kids. Which is probably why my colds linger longer and this one got a bit nasty...