Mutiny!

I sense an impending mutiny in my group... Hmmmph.

My group has one post-doc, one graduate student, and two rotating graduate students that may soon join the group (or not). The post-doc and graduate student seem happy. The rotating students, less so. We have group meetings every other week, and individual meetings every week. During group meeting a rotating student presented their work and made some comment about how they didn't understand the big picture and how all their data was 'bad.' Then my graduate student told me that they had been discussing this and they weren't sure where the project was headed. (In truth, I'm not sure either. I want to get preliminary data on a broad set of systems so that we can select the best system to methodically study). Looking at the problem broadly translates into a lack of focus from the rotating student's point of view. I think the student wants me to tell them step by step what they should be doing, but I don't want to hold them by the hand.

So what if their data looks 'bad'! They're first-year students - I don't expect an opera from a first year student, and I tell them this. But they are still disappointed that they aren't getting beautiful data. Would they get beautiful data with a different adviser? Probably not.

Both rotating students are great, and I want them to join my lab. But right now, they might not be interested because I appear unfocused. Maybe the rotating students are less happy because they are first year students trying to balance lab work and class work? I don't demand that they work in the lab all the time, and I tell them that their classes are #1, but they still spend a crazy amount of time in the lab. And I admit that I am somewhat unfocused. I have a little kid at home, I am chronically tired, I need funding so I'm always writing and not experimenting, and so on.

I was always frustrated with my old adviser because she seemed so unfocused and scatterbrained, but I get it now. I think I'm just like her...

Lessons from a Review Panel

I sat on an NSF review panel recently, and I learned more in those two days than I would ever learned from a mentor. I wish I could have done this before I ever sat down to write my first proposal. So here are my random thoughts:

1. About 1/4 of submitted proposals are not formatted and/or contain blatant spelling errors. Don't do that.

2. If you have preliminary data then, present in a graphic that is readable (8pt font is dumb). Explain how you obtained the preliminary data, and what it suggests. About 75% of proposals showed data that was blurry or impossible to read, and then never explained what it was. I could have faxed in a picture of my butt to achieve the same effect.

3. Explicitly write, "The intellectual merit is..." and "The broader impact is..."

4. Have a hypothesis, a plan to test the hypothesis, and possible outcomes of the tests. Some proposals have no hypotheses!! Instead, they just show all their illegible preliminary work and say, "Look I did some stuff now give me more money!" That doesn't work.

5. If you are going to use materials or chemicals, list them and explain why you chose them. For example, to write "I will use nanoparticles" is not enough. Instead write "I will use gold nanoparticles because X, Y, and Z."

6. Timeline (optional). I found that the best proposals had a timeline for their experiments and analysis. Maybe that is just a coincidence, but it seems that people who had the organization to write a timeline were also organized enough to write a coherent proposal.

7. If you are writing a collaborative proposal, make sure that your collaborator OK's it. Some collaborative proposals were full of embarrassingly wrong statements, so it was clear that the collaborator did not read it. Also, it is helpful to write out who will be doing what. A timeline would be helpful.

8. Acronyms. If you must use an acronym, define it the first time that you use it. Do not use acronyms used only in your lab and nowhere else. Do not invent a new acronym for something that already has a widely-used acronym. I would rather avoid acronyms altogether, but with a 15 page limit space is at a premium.

9. Omission of competitors or recent papers. To omit conflicting or competing work from your literature review is a no-no. It makes the writer appear either ignorant or untrustworthy. It is better to acknowledge other's work and then write about how yours is better.

10. Luv your program director. If you are turd to the program director, then they will tell the review panel. If your proposal was on the line and everyone knows you are a turd, then asta la vista.

Shoes

Dang - everyone is putting pictures of shoes on their blogs. So let's talk shoes.

My podiatrist said that I would never wear heels again because of my autoimmune disease. Well phhhhbth in her face cuz I feel great, I bought some heels, and wore them for an entire day. These are Sofft brand, so they're really comfortable. Here they are:

One Day - Three Rejections

It's just one of those days, OK? So leave me alone!

My white paper was rejected on the basis that there was no money in the program anymore for anyone. A collaborative proposal I was on got rejected for whatever reasons. And my first manuscript was rejected by high impact factor journal.

The two proposal rejections don't sting so much. If a program has no money, then the rejection isn't personal. And if a rejected proposal is collaborative, then the feelings of rejection are spread out over the four co PI's.

As for the manuscript, I'm mixed. The high IF editor called another editor at a middle IF journal, and they agreed to transfer our paper down the chain. So it's good news because we already have a respectable "home" for our resubmission. Sigh.

Is it too early for gin?

First Manuscript

Our lab's first manuscript is written and about one day away from submission to a high impact journal. It is very exciting to be so close to sending it off because it is a milestone for the lab. Publishing makes us a "real" lab. I think the work belongs in this journal or another one that is a notch down the ladder on impact factor. My colleague asked me, "Why submit to the higher-level journal when its chances of being rejected are higher? Doesn't that waste time?" It only wastes time if it is rejected. And if it doesn't get past the editors, then we find out in about a week, so not much time is wasted. If it goes out to review, and is rejected, then months could be wasted - so yes, there is some risk. I am so used to rejection now that I am OK with its possibility (and likelihood).

Wish us success and lots of luck!

Second Try

I plan on re-submitting a proposal soon, and this is my first stab at resubmissions. The original proposal was declined because "it was just an extension of my graduate work" and "it would not have a commercial impact." WTF!!! I thought we were talking about basic science here! And my work is totally different from my PhD adviser's work! Yes, we are still in the same subfield but we are working on totally different systems, applications, and I can now make this cool buzzword thingy that makes it truly unique.

Ok Ok. So I didn't *explicitly* say how I was different, I didn't explicitly write how it was novel, or how it advanced fundamental knowledge. And I think I was too bent on application, so the "commercial impact" comment was probably warranted.

I talked with the program officer at length (which was actually fun!), and he gave me some great tips. I hope that this go-round is better.

P.S. The original proposal was completed while I was in labor with Sparky, so cut me some slack here!

Mr. JP found Sparky in the bathroom with one hand in the toilet and the other in the trashcan.