Silence speaks

I typically don’t write about politics (for lack of a better word) here (though I am a little less successful on Twitter). It is simply not my schtick and does not particularly fit with style or content here.

Today I’m making an exception. Initially I said little because I know that the marriage equality views of my followers on Twitter align with my own. But a fellow blogger made me realize that silence speaks as loudly as words. A fast food company may have become the flashpoint of controversy, but really the issue is way bigger than that.

I grew up with a very conservative Christian denomination. Though it never came up much in sermons (at least as far as I recall), I grew up “knowing” that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of God.

However, this denomination was also not a mainstream, evangelical church. The members of the small church I attended were absolutely adamant about the separation of Church and State. I don’t mean that in the way the Christian Right seems to see it these days – “Stay out of our churches… but pass our laws.” This church understood the history of religious, or at least Christian, persecution across centuries, and they recognized that it was very often at the hands of other Christians. The church members I knew were very much opposed to any laws founded in religious doctrine, to the point of opposing Blue laws. And I embraced that philosophy, as well. No matter what my religion had to say on a matter, I believed that we, as a society, had no right to force those doctrines onto others through legislation. So long as another human being was not being harmed, I was opposed to any laws that would prohibit a person’s choice, even though I might not agree with it.

Then I left that church, not long after high school. It was not the result of some crazy or dramatic scene. I just was no longer connected to it. I still carried imprints of some beliefs. I had friends who I knew to be gay, but their sexual orientation didn’t bother me. I didn’t get it, but I didn’t think it was really any of my business.

Then I went to grad school. And somehow or other, I ended up in another very conservative church, though this one was more mainstream and definitely evangelical, and I was part of that church the entire time I was in grad school. There were some very good things about that connection – and what I really mean is, there were some very kind people who provided a support system that I needed at that time. However, a very curious thing happened. The teachings of my childhood faith and my reformation faith collided. Most of the denominations’ core beliefs were the same, or at least very similar: creation, crucifixion, resurrection, second coming… But the doctrines were quite different, sometimes vastly. I read a lot of the Bible as a kid and teen. Plus a high school friend and college roommate was a member of yet another conservative non-evangelical denomination, and over the years, we’d had many civil discussions of what our respective faiths taught. Some things just were not jiving.

I became increasingly uncomfortable with some things I had been taught as a child and with things church leaders were touting as Biblical Truth. My personal views became more liberal. At least that’s what most of the congregants would have called them; I consider them fair and logical. Though my stances changed, the solution finally crystallized one day, I’m not entirely sure when. Perhaps it was the day I sat silently fuming in the chapel while the minister railed against the government giving sin (I don’t recall whether he was commenting on abortion or marriage equality at the time) in a cloak of legality. Their doctrines concerning the morality of other persons’ behavior had nothing to do with the Bible. Oh, yes, they could cite a list of verses to back up their beliefs… then they would ignore a passage two pages over, explaining how that one was wiped out by the New Covenant or a dream an apostle had while the other remained in play because of some parable or (oft out-of-context) words of Jesus or a disciple. But it wasn’t really about the Bible. It was about enforcing the dictates of an individual or select group. It was about what the founders and succeeding leaders – by and large, heteronormative white men – believed to be “righteous living, read, their way of life. But it went beyond that – in most cases, it became about controlling, manipulating, and even oppressing groups they considered inferior. Many will argue, “We don’t believe ourselves superior. I love all of God’s creations, just as Jesus does. But God abhors ________.” It’s the “hate the sin, love the sinner” pulpit, which conveniently ostracizes individuals unlike themselves, persons they deem suspicious, whether it’s someone who is homosexual, a teen pregnant outside of wedlock, a woman who has an abortion, a group of Muslims wanting to build a mosque… I find it a great and nearly inconceivable irony that someone who so readily judges, condemns, and attempts to make legal the punishment and oppression of others cries foul when another opposes that publicly voiced opinion.

This is not an attack against Christianity. It is simply a reflection of my journey, how I came to realize that my bigotry was illogical and unsustainable.

I know many wonderful, caring Christians who accept people for who they are and who are supportive of women’s and LGBT rights. I also know there are non-Christians who are cling to their prejudices as tightly as ultra-conservative religious groups do. This isn’t even about Right vs. Left, as I have discovered some of my otherwise very right-wing friends and family members are as appalled by the opposition to marriage equality as I am.

The current argument is not really about a company and a CEO’s personal opinions made public. The anger and disappointment over an “Appreciation Day” for a fast food company’s political forays derived from the pride people took in lining up to support an organization that is actively giving money to strip U.S. citizens of their rights. The participants are either ignorant of (or simply ignoring) this fact, or they are so attached to their bigotry that they are willing to throw civil rights out the window – as long as it suits their purposes at least. It is particularly galling to that the same people are screaming about their freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which remain intact.

Meanwhile, the rights of the some folks are under attack. I keep using the phrases “marriage equality” and “civil rights”, not “gay marriage” or “gay rights”, because this is about equality. It’s about consenting adults being able to make a public and legally recognized commitment to one another and being able to partake in the same benefits (and burdens) as anyone else. It’s about being able to openly express love for your chosen partner without fear of losing their job* or being degraded. It’s about being able to build a caring, supportive family without someone lobbying that you should not be a parent because of the sex of your partner. We memorize the preamble to our Declaration of Independence as students, we read that “all men are created equal…” And then we learn that, throughout our history, some have been more equal than others. Who we count as equals as a country, through laws and actions, has changed over the last hundred years. We need to keep that change going.

In most cases, I have about as much chance of convincing someone that their justification for discrimination is wrong as they have of convincing me that their justification is valid, i.e. a snowball’s chance in hell. That does not mean that I just sit silently as “friends” and family spout their bigoted viewpoints.

I apologize for my past bigotry. But I am also sorry for the times since that I have listened and quietly fumed at the hatred and disgust espoused by those around me, instead of speaking up.

The time for silence has passed. It’s time to stand up and speak out.

*No, as far as I know, this hasn’t happened at CFA (although the company has been sued by employees fired on alleged gender and religious discrimination). But it is completely legal in over half the United States to fire someone solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Posted in diversity, family | Tagged , | 2 Comments

More money, more jobs, and other fairy tale dreams

Postdoc salaries and benefits are something of a perennial topic in the scientific community. It’s no secret that postdocs would like to make more money and get better benefits, whether in the form of better health insurance or actually starting a retirement fund. I don’t think it’s something for which we should be faulted; after all, who wouldn’t like more cash or high quality healthcare at low out-of-pocket expenses.

In June*, Slate Hive was crowdsourcing ideas the United States could recruit and retain more** scientists. “Someone with a PhD currently serving my sentence as a postdoc for an undetermined amount of time” suggests that, to maintain and advance American scientific innovation, we need to clear the logjam of postdocs. To demonstrate the problem, the postdoc writes:

… we have more PhDs than ever before, and in an arms race to be the most competitive faculty candidate, there’s a new postdoc slave labor where appointments last upwards of another DECADE after the PhD (which are taking longer and longer as well) before applying for faculty appointments… we have a record number of PhDs in the sciences and engineering, but the jobs are not waiting for them to fill! Too many times have I seen 35 or 40 AMAZING postdocs compete for one faculty position, at a local state university!

The prisoner postdoc proposes:

Double the NIH funding budget, double post-doc salary, invest money to create formal training programs for an interdisciplinary PhD of science and politics/education/journalism, and provide enough funding to break the publish-or-perish mentality that stifles scientific growth and instead caters to whatever grant is written on the “hot topic” of the day.

tl;dr – So many postdocs, so few faculty positions. The system is broken. What to do? Throw more money at it!

Everyone, from the humble grad student to the PI on high, has contrived some great idea to fix the system. But they all require cash, generated either by miraculous influx of funds or by major cuts to the current workforce. This is the reality of what we are asking. Trainees want to create more jobs for PhDs, so the latter approach is counterproductive. Yet the former is highly improbable… at best. Closer to truth, it’s a fairytale dream in this era.  To pretend otherwise shows inherent disregard for and/or ignorance of the system and climate in which we operate today.

The postdoc workforce has expanded substantially over the past 3 decades (see graph below from Sally Rockey’s post on the postdoc workforce). At the same time, the cost to support a trainee continues to creep up – annual salary increases based on experience, plus annual cost-of-living increases, and some universities increasing the fringe benefit rates for postdocs. I have worked in medical school-affiliated organizations that at the very least recommend and sometimes essentially mandate paying postdocs according to the NRSA scale, which currently ranges ranges from $39,264 for a new PhD to $54,180 for a very senior postdoc (7+ years). I don’t know how common this is, but for the sake of argument, we’ll say that this is not out of the ordinary and that the average salary is $45,000. Based on a brief survey of the top search hits for ‘postdoc fringe benefit rate’, 25 to 30% of salary seems to be a typical rate, though they can run much higher. If we assume a fringe rate of 27%, then that’s about $57,000 to support one postdoc. Doubling postdoc salaries, even without increasing fringe benefits, would push that value over $100,000 a year.

Meanwhile, the purchasing power of the research grant dollar has declined, yet the modular budget cap (currently $250,000) hasn’t changed. Since the end of the NIH budget doubling, budget appropriations for NIH haven’t even kept pace with inflation. Just how far behind inflation is the NIH budget? I clipped the graph below from a Congressional Research Service report [PDF download], which shows previous budgets in terms of 2012 dollars. I made a few annotations to illustrate my point. The graph includes the FY2012 budget request; the final budget settled at $30.6B. If we track back, we find a comparable budget in … 2002. That’s right – a decade ago, in the latter half of the NIH doubling phase.

Across NIH, the success rate for the primary research funding mechanism (R01) is 15% for new submissions, just over 30% for renewals. Already many labs are struggling to stay afloat. Some labs are scaling down, whereas some PIs are cutting their own salaries so they can support their personnel and research. Considering plans for the next fiscal year, the budget will be essentially flat – at best. That’s provided Congress can come to an agreement on deficit reduction in the next few months. If they fail (and with the most polarized Congress in a century, it’s quite possible they will), the Budget Control Act will invoke automatic sequestration of federal budgets, effective Jan. 2, 2013. Most non-defense budgets, including NIH, could be cut by nearly 8%. That would slide us back to about the middle of the doubling era and could mean 20 to 25% fewer awards.

And yet… we still continue to campaign for larger salaries for postdocs, a position that is supposed to be a short-term, training appointment. I think, by and large, these arguments are born out of frustration with the system and without consideration for the broader consequences of such demands. I know that there are bad experiences and exploitative PIs, but I also think this is the exception not the norm. We cannot live extravagantly, but I wager that most of us are making a living wage (by which I mean we can pay the bills and eat). That’s not to say there are no challenges, especially for those who are starting families during at this career stage. There are ways that institutions and individual PIs can improve the postdoc experience; some require more money than others. If we want to have a serious conversation about the state of biomedical research training and potential solutions to improve it, if we don’t want the people supporting our training to dismiss our concerns and ideas out of hand, then we need look beyond ourselves and think about the impact of the changes we’re advocating through the lens of the funding reality.

——————–

* I know this is forever in internet time, but I’ve been otherwise occupied.

** This has been discussed in several forums lately, but here is Derek Lowe’s takedown of the assertion that more scientists are needed.

Posted in biomedical workforce, budget, grants, money, politics in science, postdoc life, troubles of science | 25 Comments

Wherefore [Or rather, where] art thou, Biochembelle?

Life is always busy…

The past six weeks have been a little more so than usual – starting with a move of residence. It was a local move (same job, different apartment), but as probably all of you know, while distance adds many complications, any move creates chaos: culling, packing, moving from point A to point B, unpacking, arranging, getting one’s bearings… And meanwhile, I’ve been dealing with the experiment from hell (Why won’t you just work the way you’re supposed to? [whimpering in corner])

It takes a little time to settle into a routine, new or old. I’m getting there. There are a couple of nearly completed posts in the hopper, and many more things I want to write about when I find time. Thanks to all you patient readers who continue coming back even when I’m sporadic in posting 🙂

Posted in blogging | 4 Comments

The oversupply fallacy

For the love of all that is good and reasonable, please, everyone, stop using the percentage of scientists becoming research faculty as a measure of PhD oversupply.

If there are too many PhDs, then there will be more scientists than there are faculty positions. This much is true.

But…

This is not the same as saying:
Because programs are producing more PhDs than there are faculty positions, we must have an oversupply problem. This can be false.

Are “we” training too many PhDs? Maybe, maybe not. There is much more to be said on the issue. I just needed to get this out of my system until I find the time to write the rest.

Posted in attitudes, biomedical workforce, career decisions, troubles of science | 6 Comments

Guest post on science & communication

I’m back at the Scientopia Guest Blog with a post about putting KISS to work with scientists and communication.

Posted in blogging | 1 Comment