Hello PhD

Two scientists walk into a bar. One steps on stage and delivers ten minutes of raucously funny stand-up comedy.  The other enjoys an evening of laughter as enterprising STEM professionals share their science.

Scientists doing stand-up may sound like a joke, but it’s actually the latest innovation in science communication.

Weird Al Einstein

Begun in 2016, The Peer Revue is a program designed to make scientific research accessible by making it funny.

This week, we talk with Niki Spahich, one of the co-creators of The Peer Revue, about how the idea began and what it’s like to turn scientists into comedians.

The process starts with a workshop to train STEM professionals in the basics of joke writing and story telling.  They pair with practicing comedians to review their material and work on timing and delivery.  Once they’ve developed a routine, they get to step on stage in front of a live audience to deliver their set.

Most get laughs, but they all get the chance to share their work with a broad audience.  Making cutting-edge research accessible to people outside the lab is certainly no laughing matter.

Worst Dissertation Project Ever

Every day since February 24, 1988, someone in Richard Lenski’s lab has seeded the same 12 Escherichia coli cultures into new media to shake overnight.  A new Nature paper describes the genetic evolution of these bacteria over the last 68,000 generations.

Aren’t you glad you weren’t the grad student tasked with a 30-year dissertation project?

Also in this episode, Daniel and Josh travel to Mystery Brewing in Hillsborough, NC to sample the hard-to-find Dromgoole Pumpkin Ale.  It’s made with whole pumpkin pies, but will its fall flavors register on tastebuds already saturated with Pumpkin Spiced Everything?  Tune in to find out!

 

 

 

As a graduate student, Joel Schwartz developed an immunofluorescence assay for neurotransmitter transport. To quantify his results, he needed to circle the cells in each image so the computer could measure the intensity.

By the time he graduated, Joel had circled over 10 million individual cells.

Over the years, Joel discovered a better way: he taught computers to do the repetitive, complex, and confounding parts of data analysis.

And now he trains other scientists to do the same.

Datum If You’ve Got ‘Em

A typical research lab churns out hundreds of different kinds of data in any given year.  There are Western blot bands, gene sequences, patient surveys, micrographs, mass spectra, and myriad other images, spreadsheets and documents.

All of this data must be analyzed, but it’s often a painful process for the researcher. Opening multiple spreadsheets, ‘cleaning up’ missing or erroneous values, and manipulating thousands of rows to form meaningful groups can take hours or days.

We recognize these as repetitive tasks that a computer could do, but not every scientist has the skills to leverage those resources.  What is a biologist to do?

The answer may be: ‘learn to code.’  Tech-savvy scientists can use online resources to learn the basics of programming in languages like Python and R. This approach is great because it’s self-paced and can fit within your existing lab schedule.  But it can be frustrating when you hit the limits of your understanding, or you try to debug your code without help.

For those who could use a bit more guidance, data analytics bootcamps are great way to race up the learning curve in a few short weeks.

Joel Schwartz, PhD is an instructor at the LEVEL program at Northeastern University, where he provides hands-on experience in data analysis and computer programming.

This week, we ask Joel how learning to code can help bench scientists turn their data into papers even faster. He tells us how he’s using these skills in his own work on autism assessment and how the next big scientific questions may be elucidated by computers.

Cry It Out

As any parent will tell you, kids don’t come with an instruction manual.  And if they did, they’d probably have chewed, torn, or burned it to ashes before you got the chance to read it.

Instead, raising a child in the modern age means hearing competing bad advice from other parents and the internet.  The sheer volume of terrible ideas can overwhelm even the most earnest of caregivers.

Enter Parentifact.org, the Politifact of… um… parenting facts. We review the great new resource so you can sleep easier at night.

That is, as soon as Jr. stops waking you up every forty-seven minutes.

And if he doesn’t stop screaming, you may want to help yourself to an Octoberfest Beer from Bell’s Brewing in Comstock, MI.  It’s only available for a limited time, and just in time for our IPA-free fall.  Cheers!

Uncertainty is a defining feature of postdoctoral training:

* Q: Is a postdoc a student or an employee? (A: Neither. Both?)

* Q: Should you continue in your PhD research field, or try something new?  (A: Yes)

* Q: How are you supposed to find a job while you’re ALSO doing research and writing papers? (A: Pray that the Career-Fairy leaves one under your lab notebook while you’re at seminar.)

* Q: How long should a postdoctoral fellowship take? (A: Now you’re just being mean!)

Getting There

To help us understand the zeitgeist of postdoctoral training, in 2015 we interviewed eight postdocs at different universities and life stages.  Some were finishing up, others were just getting started.  We learned what they loved (“The freedom to pursue an intellectual passion.”) and what they hated (“The salary!”) about this career stage, and what they planned to do with their degrees.

Well, it’s been a full two years since that original interview, and many things have changed.  We caught up with seven of the original interviewees to ask some new questions.

This week on the show, we find out ‘where are they now?’ and more importantly, what steps they took to progress in their careers.  Their experience may help you take the next step on your own career path.

South Paws

Plus, we explore the murky and often unsettling depths of feline behavior. Specifically, some researchers argue that members of Felis silvestris catus not only exhibit right- and left-handedness, but that it’s gender specific!

Is this a #catfact, or #fakenews?  Test your own kitty companions and let us know on Twitter @hellophd.

We also try out the elusive Baked Goods Hoppy Pale Ale from Clown Shoes Brewing in Ipswich, MA.

Like its clown namesake, this beer makes you feel a little uncomfortable when you first see it, but you’ll be glad you gave it a chance.

Unlike its clown namesake, it won’t try to murder you when your back is turned.

At least I don’t think so.

Hmm, now where did that can get to….  I’m sure I set it down right over….

If you’re an academic scientist, applying for an industry job is a bit like traveling to a foreign country.

First, there is paperwork.

Will they accept your Curriculum Vitae as is, or do you need to crunch it down into a résumé? And how on earth do you get through the screening software that filters through the 1000+ applications?

Next, there’s the language barrier.

You’ll need to communicate your qualifications in an interview that may last just a few minutes.  You might describe a key experiment you designed with six controls and twelve replicates, but what the interviewer needs to hear is that you have experience in ‘quality control and quality assurance.’ Don’t expect them to make the translation.

Last, there can be culture shock when you actually get the job and start to work. There are aspects of your academic training that you will need to un-learn if you want to be successful. You can either begin the job with a sensitivity to these new cultural norms, or you can learn them the hard way…

This week, we talk with a scientist who acts as travel guide for academics who want to make the leap into industry.

“Scientists are leaders…”

Randall Ribaudo has experience on both sides of the bench.  A PhD immunologist, Dr. Ribaudo began his career as an academic scientist and PI at the National Cancer Institute.  Through connections he made as a researcher, he went on to a series of industry jobs, including five years at Celera Genomics where he wore many hats from academic liaison to product manager.

His unique experiences in both academia and industry led him to his current role at SciPhD, and his insights could make your own transition easier.

In our interview, Dr. Ribaudo answered some of the burning questions that may be on YOUR mind:

* How are industry labs different from my university lab? Will I like that work style?

* How do I write a resume that will get noticed?

* Every job listing seems to require three years of prior experience. How am I supposed to get that if they won’t hire me?

* I already know I want to work in industry – what can I do as a grad student or postdoc to get myself ready?

Even if you’re on the tenure track, you’ll want to listen closely to Dr. Ribaudo’s advice for improving academic labs. His industry experience with team building, project management, and strategic planning have direct parallels in the university laboratory.

For more insights, you can check out a handful of free videos from SciPhD or see if one of the Onsite Training Programs is available in your area.  You can also reach Dr. Ribaudo directly via the website or on Twitter @SciPhD.

 

For more episodes on building better teams in the lab, check out:

056: Team Up for Speedier Science

077: Google discovers five keys to a productive lab

The Early Squirrel Gets The Bean

Hey – remember the GRE?  Sadly, so do we.

But this week, Josh shares some good news about two major universities that have dropped their GRE requirement.  Both the Michigan Program in Biomedical Science and Berkeley Molecular Cell Biology h...

Maybe you’re in love with science, but you just can’t imagine your life as a PI.  And maybe you’ve had a string of experiments fail and you’re just ready to put the entire ‘lab thing’ behind you.

You have a choice – you could leave academia and try to find your way in industry, publishing or some other career. Or you could try to revive your research in the hope that lab life will eventually improve.

But how do you know which choice is right for you?

What happens if you make a mistake?

Uncharted Territory

Knowing when to leave academia is a perilous choice. After all, your colleagues and mentors will tell you that there’s no turning back and that you’re throwing away an amazing career in an academic lab.  You’ll regret it!

And yet, people survive and thrive in the transition every day – they just don’t always talk about it.

The Recovering Academic Podcast is here to break that silence.  The hosts, Amanda Welch (@LadyScientist),  Cleyde Helena (@Doctor_PMS), and Ian Street (@IHStreet) share their real-time experiences with transitioning out of the lab and into careers from publishing to sales.

This week, we talk with the Recovering Academics about the tell-tale signs that it’s time for you to abandon the faculty track in favor of an ‘alternative career.’

It’s never an easy decision to leave academia, but it also doesn’t have to be fraught with fear and regret. Taking stock of your skills, goals, and options early is the best way to ensure you have somewhere safe to land when you finally decide to make the leap.

For more help on this topic, check out HelloPhD Episode 027 The Road More Travelled: Stepping Off of the Tenure Track.

Wayfinding

In the true spirit of science, we share a beer with our new friends Amanda, Cleyde, and Ian.  It’s the Unfiltered Sculpin Extra-Hopped India Pale Ale from Ballast Point Brewing Company.  Though it’s one of their limited edition beers, we were able to locate it in no fewer than four different cities so that we could raise a glass on this week’s show.

Find some for yourself before it’s gone!

Google is data-obsessed, so it should come as no surprise that the company sought to apply its analytical expertise inside the organization.

In an endeavor dubbed “Project Aristotle,” Google sought to answer a vexing question: What factors are important for a successful, productive team?

Their findings may have profound impacts not just at Google, but in a lab near you…

Hi, My Name is Norm

Google’s HR department approached the problem with an eye toward data:

Over two years we conducted 200+ interviews with Googlers (our employees) and looked at more than 250 attributes of 180+ active Google teams. We were pretty confident that we’d find the perfect mix of individual traits and skills necessary for a stellar team — take one Rhodes Scholar, two extroverts, one engineer who rocks at AngularJS, and a PhD. Voila. Dream team assembled, right?

What they found surprised them.  It wasn’t the backgrounds or individual talents of team members that made the difference.  They found that teams with a similar mix of individuals could perform in vastly different ways.

Instead, it was the team’s culture and accepted norms that helped to predict their success.

The five key features are revealed in five questions you can ask about your team:

Can we count on each other to do high quality work on time?

Are goals, roles, and execution plans on our team clear?

Are we working on something that is personally important for each of us?

Do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters?

Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?

This week on the show, we unpack these critical features of a high-performing team, and relate them to the research lab environment.

We tell you how to assess a new lab before you join, and how to make improvements if you’re already committed to a lab that is underperforming.

Sunshine and Sarcasm

This week, Science in the News brings us three stories in rapid succession.

First, it’s almost time for the solar eclipse to pass over North America. You still have time to get (the right) goggles and find a spot to watch the show.  As usual, NASA has you covered.

Next, we hear about how some researchers are trying to teach computers about sarcasm.  Hey.  Great idea guys.  That’s going to be SOOOOO useful. Said no one ever.

And a Coal Museum in Kentucky finds that solar panels might actually be a useful and affordable energy source.  Who would’ve guessed?

We sample a special ethanol that is bargain priced for the inner grad-student in all of us.  It’s the Boatswain Double IPA (Twin Screw Steamer) from Rhinelander Brewing Company and sold by Trader Joe’s for just $4.99 for a six-pack!

Is this the best beer ever?  No.  But is this the best tasting beer you can get at this price?  Almost certainly, yes.

Last, but not least: concrete.  They just don’t make it like they used to.

Applying to grad school means making a series of difficult decisions: university location, reputation, lifestyle, and program.

But do you need to pick out a specific research topic before filing an application? Is it better to nail down a project and lab before you apply, or is it okay to keep your options open?

Listener April writes:

Hi Josh and Dan –

I recently found your podcast and am really enjoying it! I am planning to apply to social psychology PhD programs later this year (to hopefully start fall of 2018), and I’m already taking notes as I listen to you guys.

Anyways, my question is — How specific do your research interests need to be when applying? Also, how closely do your research interests need to align with potential faculty advisers? I realize that social psychology programs are probably quite different from the “harder” science programs you’re familiar with, but I assume that this issue spans across all fields.

I’m worried that if I’m too specific, I’ll box myself out from potential advisers; but I also don’t want to be too general and appear unfocused. Do you have any tips?

Of course we have opinions!  We share them this week, including advice on how to avoid the very common mistake of being TOO focused when applying to school.

Toddle with a Bottle

Hello PhD turned 2 years old this week, and to celebrate we break into the Blanton’s Single Barrel Bourbon Whiskey from Buffalo Trace Distillery in Frankfort KY.  

As a single barrel bourbon, no two batches are alike, so if our sample sounds nice to you, be sure to check out Barrel 59 from Warehouse H.  We’ve got bottle number 107!

Science in the News covers the incredible shrinking kilogram.  It’s a serious problem for science, but one with a seriously scientific solution!

We also learn the etymology of Agkistrodon contortrix, or the copperhead snake.  If you can see its fishhook teeth, you’re definitely too close!

 

It’s inevitable.  At some point in your research career, you’re going to get that sinking feeling.

Your experiments will all fail, your PI will get on your case about finishing that paper, and your graduation date will drift maddeningly out of reach.

So what can you do when your research starts to drag you down?

Coming Up for Air

This week on the show, we share some practical advice from the Academic Mental Health Collective on ways graduate students can get going when the going gets tough.

Stress, anxiety, and depression are inevitable in your graduate training. At least they were for us!

At the same time, these painful emotions can be a valuable signal that it’s time to step back, take stock of your situation, and ask for help.  There are resources on, and off, campus to help you through the hard times.

By thinking ahead, you’ll meet your training challenges with a tactical plan and a team of supporters to help you through. It does get better, we promise!

The Check is in the Mail

Science in the News brings us the story of a New York court’s $15 million judgement against Sci Hub, the online research paper pirate ship.  We explore the legal and moral implications of the action, and make bold predictions about the future of scientific publishing.

If you’re interested in the history of academic publishing and how we got into this quagmire in the first place, we highly recommend Stephen Buranyi’s Guardian piece titled: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

We also celebrate the beginning of summer by breaking our IPA fast. We’re drinking the Nectar IPA from Humboldt Brewing Company. This golden beauty has a sweet start and a bitter finish, sort of like my first marriage!*

(*Yes, this is a total lie, but the setup was perfect and impossible to resist.  Sort of like my first marriage!**)

(**Okay, I’m done.)

On May 2nd, NIH Director Francis Collins announced a plan to limit the total amount of grant funding awarded to an individual investigator or lab.

According to Collins, “the distribution of NIH grant funding is highly skewed, with 10 percent of NIH-funded investigators receiving over 40 percent of NIH funding.”

The funding proposal would limit an individual lab to the equivalent of 3 RO1-sized grants, and free up an additional 1600 funding opportunities that could go to early and mid-career scientists.

On June 8th, the plan was scrapped…

Addressing the 90%

This week on the show, we cover the contentious and somewhat confusing reversal of Collins’ plan to spur innovation by spreading around the money.

Did the plan change due to criticism from the labs with the deepest pockets? Or was there evidence to support the replacement plan that earmarks money for early-career scientists?

At the heart of this issue, we discuss whether basic research would benefit from a shift in investment strategy.

Do science and innovation advance faster when the ‘best’ labs get all the money, or is there value in making many smaller bets?

Tell us what YOU think in the comments below.

Everybeer

Some beers sing with complex aromas, malty bitterness, and just-right effervescence.  And then there’s brown ales.

This week, we sampled the Legend Brown Ale from Legend Brewing in Richmond, VA.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great beer.  Very tasty.  It just tastes like every other brown ale ever.  If you sneakily replaced the contents of this bottle with some other brown ale, I promise no one would notice.

I don’t know whether that makes us beer snobs or beer newbies.  Either way, we’re just counting down the days before we get back on our IPA kick…

 

 

Is your lab is filled with compassionate, positive individuals who offer nurturing support and gentle guidance to help you achieve your full potential as a scientist?

We didn’t think so.

While you may encounter a handful of Positive Pollyannas throughout your career, you’re also likely to run into a few Negative Nancys. Rather than encouraging you to keep trying when an experiment fails, they’ll take every opportunity to throw shade on your emerging research project.

Everyone’s A Critic

This week, we heard from Amygdala (not her real name…), who was getting nothing but discouragement from one of the postdocs in her lab.  She writes:

There is a postdoc in my lab who is tangentially involved in the project that I’m working on. This postdoc has extremely negative views regarding the project. This negative view spans from the amount of time it takes to train animals on this task to the variable results that we get with each animal, etc. While I agree about some points that this postdoc is making and that there is always room from improvement, it’s hard for me to not get down about this project. I’m the one directly training the animals and obtaining the results. Given that training animals takes 6 days a week and at least four hours each day, I’m trying to remain positive and not think that I’ve wasted all of this time. My PI and the postdoc whose project this is remain positive and encouraging. However, the tangentially-involved postdoc is someone who I interact more frequently with.

This is a very long-winded way of asking: How does one remain positive regarding their own project while still showing respect to other people’s views regarding the project? And is it appropriate for people to comment negatively on other people’s projects?

We address her concerns and offer some (hopefully) helpful advice for dealing with negativity from your lab mates.

Cloudy Waters

For Science in the News, Josh celebrates Healthy and Safe Swimming Week with a story about Cryptosporidium in pool water.  It’s a serious water-borne illness that you can prevent by not drinking where you swim.

Or you can get YOUR test strips today!

We also try an unfiltered sour beer from Sierra Nevada.  It’s the Otra Vez Gose-Style Ale brewed with cactus and grapefruit.  

Since the trendy flavors have shifted from intensely bitter IPAs to intensely sour Goses, we predict the next big hit will be beers that taste like cigarette butts and cat urine!

And soon after that, the hipsters will complain about those flavors being ‘mainstream.’ Sigh…