Vicious Cycle

Like politics, research funding, and most everything else, life in the lab seems to run on a cycle. All of the visuals that come to mind-- a pendulum swinging left to right, the peaks and troughs of sinusoidal waves (or a roller coaster, for the less geeky)-- accurately describe the highs and lows of life. Sadly, the commonality of such patterns doesn't make the lows any easier to bear, nor the highs any more lasting.

Things were going well in the lab, and I guess overall, still are. Unfortunately for my sanity, there are still a few outlier experiments that should be working and aren't. And, as in the past, I have no idea why. This is the vicious cycle of lab research: knowing something is wrong but not knowing what it is, which makes it impossible to fix, and ultimately dooms you to repeat the mistakes. Until, perhaps, something magically changes. (Laugh if you will, but it's still the only explanation I have for my experiments beginning to work correctly back in March.)

I feel like a broken record saying all this, but it's so head-slamming-against-the-wall frustrating that I can't help but vent about it. Positive vibes are welcome these days, send them with care to the angry little lab rat.

I feel you, cat.

...Annnnd We're Back.

I've been back from my Christmas break for a couple weeks now and have been trying to hit the ground running in high gear, with an optimistic attitude towards my work. At least, that was the initial intent. I know exactly what needs to get done between now and the beginning of March (primarily in preparation for the annual Society of Toxicology meeting-- in DC this year!), and I'm trying, desperately, to start moving on those things. Of course, like always (it seems), no matter how hard I try to be proactive, forward thinking, and prepared, things NEVER seem to work like they are supposed to. And please, spare me the "metaphor for life" because this is not life-- it's Science! It's SUPPOSED to be a controlled environment where you can manipulate variables for scientific purposes. Liars.

Read: Despondent: adj, de·spon·dent [ di spóndənt ]

1. Extremely unhappy and discouraged

*Warning* Lab ranting ahead::: 
So far, the microscope I use to photograph and thus analyze all of my cells for the most important part of my project, is broken. The guy in charge cannot figure it out and it has since been 'sent out' to be repaired. Trying to stay ahead of the game, I decided to find another way to get my work done. So, I found another micrscope center to use, was trained to use it, and now... am waiting to simply be put on a list in order to sign up to use said microscope... I cannot tell you how frustrating this is.

I've also started a new assay for a different aspect of my project, one that promises to be more consistent and reliable than the dreaded ROS assay. The downside is it invovles a 12-hour treatment, which there is really no good way to go about. I was in the lab around 8:30pm last night making a buffer, and even such a seemingly simple task-- putting different things together in a tube-- somehow failed. A particularly pesky reagent (SDS) failed to dissolve appropriately once combined with other stuff. After some failed attempts to change the pH, I remade a simplified version of the buffer and had some success. Overall, I'm pretty sure the buffer was not good and the samples will likely be a waste. But, at 11pm, you stop caring about such things, and you just go home.

Now, with that said, I am still, somehow, trying to be optimistic about this being a better, more productive year in the lab. Mostly because it just has to be. I'm in a sink-or-swim type of stage in my career here. Or, at least, that's the way I see it. This goes beyond the semi-unrealistic expectations of my advisor and well into my own expectations for myself... expectations I am currently not meeting. And that is what is truly depressing.

Hbar/2

It's been a pretty boring week here in the lab.  The upside to this is getting to listen to the awesomeness of "The XX" station on Pandora.  The Xx - "Islands"

Other than the week being boring, it's been relatively unproductive, much to my chagrin. Some cells I had to image ended up looking pretty shitty, if existent at all.  This is frustrating on many levels. For one, these experiments take about 2 weeks each, and (why don't we ever say "for two"?) also because I am actually really curious to know the results of these experiments.  Their results could be potentially exciting and make me -gasp!- want to do more experiments!  Imagine that... interest in my work.

Aside from this being a pretty normal occurrence-- things not really working-- I really have a hard time deciphering when experiments "don't work" (meaning something legitimately goes wrong: conditions were unfavorable, etc) or when I did something wrong.  This uncertainty is maddening because unless it's an obvious mistake or blatant contamination of the cells, it's very difficult to tell if I'm truly just a 'bad' lab scientist or these assays/protocols are imperfect.  While there's an excellent chance the latter is true (as most human-made things are far from perfect), I can't help but feel like I am doing something wrong or not seeing something that I could and should change.  If I can't figure it out, then I can't change it, and I keep repeating the same mistakes. 

How is this cycle productive?  I don't know if it makes me feel better or worse that this is a seemingly normal feeling for most lab-based graduate students.....

See:

and

The not-so-veiled reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the title of this post is because I feel like that principle comes up in life a whole lot. My interest in quantum mechanics sprouts from a great professor of physical chemistry back at UMass, and for a love of the duality of electrons (or anything). Perhaps that's a Gemini thing.

Anyway, without delving into details, the principle says it is impossible to simultaneously determine certain pairs of physical properties to a high degree of acuity. There is a limit to how certain you can be of these two things (momentum and position of a particle/wave, in PChem) at any given time. While this is not really what we're talking about on a macro scale, with life or experiments, I feel it's relatable. I often feel like it's impossible for me to know much with a high degree of certainty.  I'm skeptical and somewhat doubtful of everything, as I'm someone who likes to analyze everything.  There are times when this is a good thing; scientific progress, for instance, requires these traits. And then there are times when it's disastrous-- like when I'm too doubtful of myself.

So, how much doubt is healthy skepticism, leaving room for analysis/improvement..and how much is just flat out hazardous to one's sanity and respectable self-assurance?