Definitely.

Check out #WhatShouldWeCallGradSchool because it's awesome.

On Imposters and Feeling Like You're 'Not Enough'

Here's a great little post from an awesome blogger, SciCurious, about the "Impostor Syndrome." In summary, it's the idea that we/people are really just 'faking it' when they succeed and/or only highlight their successes without openly admitting or talking of their failures. It can lead to a disastrous way of working and living in that some people never feel like they're doing enough or are 'good enough,' and are not deserving of their job/title/anything.

Sci highlights the need for a more transparent culture in science (especially in Academia), where flaws and failures are discussed as openly as successes and accolades. I agree in that it would be wonderful to be respected and commended for failing and trying again (and again, and again, and again...)-- not just for succeeding.

A despondent rant

This is nothing new, but no less true. No less significant. Perhaps it's so devastating because it's not new. Because my entire experience in grad school has been an uphill battle, one where I continuously plummet back down the mountain and have to retrace my path. Do it again, except while battered and bruised.

Throughout my career here, my successes seem few and far between. They are shrouded in the myriad (often unexplainable) failures. And by this, they are rendered insignificant and forgettable. My confidence in my capabilities as a lab-based scientist has waned. Experiments work and fail with the changing of the tides or, perhaps, by something more random. Repeating experiments to confirm results and to complete the requisite n = 3 only results in having the third inexplicably fail. Was it a bad day for the cells? My incompetence? Wrathful lab gods? I'm unsure.

My list of experiments to be completed in order to finish my degree is plentiful. It wouldn't seem so impossible, however, if experiments worked when I did them. If I was able obtain usable data from 3 experiments the first 3 times I did the experiment, instead of accumulating them within 20 times of repeating the same. Unfortunately for me, this is not an exaggeration.

Do you know how much more I could have completed, how many other new things I could have done in this time, if the experiments had just yielded appropriate results after 5 times instead of 20? Do you know that I could be finishing this degree this summer instead of staring down a long tunnel that may or may not end by the Spring of 2013? Do you know how much anxiety, stress, and disparaging comments could have been avoided had these experiments worked, had the positive controls read positively, and the data obtained in a timely manner?

I think I'd be much happier. I think I'd feel like this was worth it. I think I might have the will and desire to come work everyday to finish this degree. Maybe I wouldn't feel like my day to day life is useless, a waste of time. I wouldn't spend hours, days, and weeks completing an experiment to ultimately determine it failed. I wouldn't be looking at the same "to-do" list I have had up for months, wondering why barely anything is crossed off when I know I've been working constantly. Maybe then I wouldn't feel like a failure.

The Dose Makes the Poison, Redux

I recently finished reading "The Poisoner's Handbook" by Deborah Blum. The stories of murder and corruption in Prohibition-era New York makes for an enthralling way to introduce the science of poisons to the masses. More importantly for me, however, is that this book is a journey into the beginnings of forensic toxicology and a testament to the increasing need for public health welfare (both then and now).

The protagonist is a public health crusader in the form of New York's first legitimate Chief Medical Examiner, Charles Norris. Norris also fought tirelessly against corrupt government bodies of the Tammany Hall era. Sadly, the same struggles are faced by scientists today: Science and scientists are constantly undermined in the public sphere by government officials trying to push their own agendas and pander to their corporate backers. Fear and emotion-based arguments (as opposed to fact-based) are used to discredit scientific work, most of which are made by those who are not at all qualified to comment on its validity. Most lawyers and politicians do not have the skills required to correctly critique scientific data, just like I, as a scientist, wouldn't be able to adequately critique other technical jobs, such as that of a surgeon or mechanic.

Regardless, by the end of the 1920's, forensic toxicology gained recognition as a validated science that proved useful in law enforcement. Additionally, certain chemicals started to be regulated and banned from use, thanks in large part to Norris and the work of his meticulous toxicologist, Alexander Gettler. In the wake of Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Gettler's type A personality and devotion to sound science is not only understood but admired. After all, Mr. White's fastidious adherence to protocol produces the best product out there; the same can be said for Gettler's exacting methods used to inform some of the earliest, canonical studies on carbon monoxide toxicity as well as levels of ethanol intoxication. Not only did it produce the best results, but his repeated testing reiterated the certainty behind his results-- a hard case to argue against when used as evidence in court or to push for policy change.

Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Breaking Bad, Season 4

Here are a couple notable take-away points from this deliciously informative novel that reads like a murder mystery:

1. Quit trying to poison people. Many failed to get away with it in the 1920's and today's modern instruments are exponentially more sensitive and accurate in identifying extraneous toxic substances in the body.

2. Regulation is important! Yes, government-sponsored, scientifically sound regulations that monitor and decipher levels of toxic substances in our food, consumer products, and environment. Without them, something like wood alcohol (aka methanol, methyl alcohol, CH3OH) would be an acceptable additive to drinking alcohol (ethyl alcohol). Of course, this is only a problem if you are averse to going blind or subjecting to an early, unpredictable death after having a few at the bar.

3. For those of us in Public Health: Don't give up. It's exhausting and you can't do it alone, but it is possible to influence policy change down the line. Engaging the public and informing them to the dangers of environmental chemicals is essential to any real change ever happening. So, when you have some time out of the lab (?), be sure to work on those communication skills.

MadLabRat, PhC

Some wonderful news from the past week: I passed my Oral/General Exam!

This was a huge relief and a great feeling. I'm so happy it's over. I'm now officially a PhD Candidate. The last 4 years? I guess slave, underpaid worker, or plain old graduate student was the appropriate title. I celebrated with some good food, better friends, awesome Girlfriend, and some karaoke.

Fig. 1

As for the exam itself, it went well overall. I had prepared and practiced my presentation profusely, and I believe it paid off. I received several compliments on the layout of my data and project aims in its accessibility to the audience. Always a good thing to hear. Advice from this experience #1: A clear presentation (bullet points and plentiful images) allows you to successfully communicate your ideas to a broad audience and prevents confusion. This last point may seem obvious, but in academia, even the slightest bit of confusion may offend certain professors' sensibilities, resulting in angry ape-like behavior (see Fig. 1).

My committee was a bit more aggressive in  dwelling on certain aspects of my project, aspects I didn't expect to be the focus of discussion. That was another major take-away point for me here, and for anyone preparing for such an exam (where anything is fair game for the panel to ask/discuss)-- you really never know what points will flip the switch in certain people's minds and lead them to focus on something specific. This is why it's important to think carefully about how you say things, what you choose to say, and perhaps, to get to know your committee members a bit better before the exam. I am definitely guilty of not engaging them sooner in this process, but I'm not going to get into the reasons for that here.

Even though I felt I had some sort of answer or talking point about anything that was mentioned, in some ways, I felt I somehow came up a little short in my committee's eyes. I'm honestly unsure how accurate my personal assessment of this situation is, seeing as I did pass after all. But for me, if it's not A's across the board with a glowing record of achievement (which you don't often receive in grad school), it's obviously a failure. Maybe my best advice, then, is to steer clear of the PhD track if you're a perfectionist at heart.

General Exam Crazyness

It's coming! My Oral Exam is rapidly approaching-- February 10th!

Needless to say, things have been insanely busy. Really. Most days involve waking up to babbling Baby Girl at 7:00am and it doesn't stop til I hit the pillow again that night. Even so, I am making a lot of progress and being productive, which feels great. Proposal is written, revised, and sent out to the committee. This was a ton of work but I've admittedly learned a lot through this whole process of reading and digesting literature. If there is anything to be said about this whole stressful endeavor is that preparing for this exam is incredibly useful (unlike the written exam we work our asses off after our second year, full of knowledge that most of us never use afterwards). Lab work is often routine and monotonous; it's easy to feel like you're not really an 'expert' in anything besides pipetting. In reading so much of the current (and past) literature, I feel like I finally have some ownership over these content areas. Plus, my thesis is now about 2/3 written.

Currently, I'm working on my presentation and analyzing some more experiments I completed a couple weeks ago. I am genuinely interested and -gasp!- excited about the results. They've proven useful for my presentation thus far, so that's a plus.

Woo! Almost there. Seriously cannot wait for this to be over.

Jet lag

Any tips for re-adjusting an infant to their normal time zone after 2 weeks on the East coast (3 hrs ahead of Seattle)?



Any other suggestions?

Baby Girl's been having a tough time of it. She unintentionally adjusted to the East coast schedule; by the time we left she was going to bed around 8PM. Now, she's exhausted by 4:30/5:00 PM here and waking up at strange, frequent intervals. For C and I, this means waking up twice before the final wake up call around 6:30 AM... I feel like we're back to the first month all over again! Exhausting. Hopefully, she'll catch up soon....

I'm Tired and It's Only January 3rd

Happy new year! I hope 2012 is looking bright for everyone, I wish you all good things in the new year.

So far, 2012 is looking to be busy exciting. On the agenda: I have my General Exam scheduled for February 10th! I'm happy to finally have that on the calendar. I've met with each of my committee members individually and have mostly positive vibes coming from them, which is great. Something the whole process did make blatantly clear, however, is that I really should have started meeting with them a whole lot sooner (meaning at least a year before I did...). Outside input-- separate from your advisor-- has proven to be incredibly valuable for both my project and my psyche.

Sadly, for many of us in my program, engaging your committee in your project construction is this nice fairy-tale idea that is not actually encouraged. If anything, one gets the feeling that it's frowned upon until you have a clearer idea of your project.. more "preliminary" data... in my type of lab work, however, by the time you have this data, half your project is completed. Kind of negates the whole idea of having other bright minds contribute to the formation of your project and ability to give you feedback on your PROPOSAL... you know, prosed work? At this stage, it's no longer proposed; it's done. And there's really not a whole lot of time left to change your approach to address concerns from committee members. Perhaps we, as grad students, could be "more proactive," but it seems that even when students try to push, unless your PI is on board and supportive, it's futile.

Anyway, ranting aside, it's scheduled and I can't wait for it to be over! January is looking super busy with experiments and proposal writing/studying for the exam. SOT comes around again in mid March in San Francisco (woo!). The most exciting news: an abstract was accepted for a poster at an international conference in Paris in May!! I'm on a mission to find funding to support my travel, I'm optimistic that I'll finagle something. I've been aiming to go to an international conference, and this one is perfect-- it focuses on environmental stressors in the origins of disease. Plus, it's in Paris :) Wish me luck!