Shock Week

Posted on October 10, 2010 by biochembelle

NobelAs you’re probably aware (unless you’ve been living under a rock), the Nobel Prize announcements were made last week, with the Prize in Economic Sciences being revealed tomorrow. Of course, it seems we can’t make it through Nobel Week without some amount of controversy, and this year was no exception. Please note that given the inflammatory nature of some comments, respondents only agreed to be quoted anonymously. Also be sure to check out the fine coverage by other bloggers by clicking through the links here.

Bob O’H of This Scientific Life provides excellent synopses of the dissension created by the first two Prize announcements.  Confidence in the Committees’ decisions was shaken from the start, as the Nobel Prize in Molecular Biology was awarded to Robert Edwards for a medical breakthrough, in vitro fertilization.

The controversy continued on Tuesday as the Nobel Prize in Physics recognized chemistry, for the isolation and characterization of graphene. Adding to spectators’ dismay over the prize, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov isolated graphene only 6 years ago during their ‘Friday evening experiments’ using pencil lead and ordinary sticky tape. “It’s the bloody Nobel Prize, not MacGyver,” one anonymous scientist proclaimed. “What’s the point of all the late nights in the lab and the millions in grant monies spent, if it doesn’t buy you a medal?” Some felt that it was unfair that Geim should receive a second high profile award, after being honored with an Ig Nobel prize for levitating frogs a mere 10 years ago. In the words of one spectator, “The committee has set a dreadful precedent.” Others have expressed concern about one of Geim’s previous co-authors, H. A. M. S. ter Tisha. One physicist commented, “There’s something about his beady little eyes that unsettles me. I wouldn’t trust Tisha further than I could throw him. Admittedly, I might be able to toss him quite far given his rather small stature… Well, anyway, if I don’t trust one co-author, it casts a shadow on the other.”

After two questionable Prizes, many hoped the ruckus would end there, but they were doomed for disappointment as the Prize in Biochemistry also went to chemistry, in this case Richard Heck, Ei-Ichi Negishi, and Akira Suzuki for their work on palladium-catalyzed carbon cross couplings. “Sure, the title read Prize in Chemistry, but everyone knows that they mean Chemistry in Biology,” responded one professor of chemical biological chemistry and biochemistry. “I don’t know what the Committee was thinking, awarding it to organic synthetic chemists.” Casting a further pall over the Prize in Chemistry was the revelation that Lisa Simpson’s prediction for the Prize—Kenkichi Sonogashiri who also developed a palladium-catalyzed coupling reaction–fell disturbingly close to reality. This has led to claims that Fox Broadcasting Corporation might have unduly influenced this year’s award. One analyst remarked, “Of course, Lisa’s pick and the Committee’s selection were not identical. That would be too obvious. However, the same class of reactions were chosen by both. Coincidence? I think not. I cannot imagine what hidden agenda Fox and the writers of the show are trying to push, but I think we should assume it’s not good.”

With all the hostility surrounding this year’s prizes, the Committees may indeed fare better next year by adopting the reality show selection model, as reported by Jonathan Eisen. At the very least, they should get higher TV ratings and might even bring in enough advertising revenue to swell the size of the prize.

Posted in attitudes, biomedical research, science fun | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Blogging with substance-which substance, we won’t say

Posted on October 10, 2010 by biochembelle

The substance could be coffee. Or something stronger. I’m not telling.

A couple of days ago, Jason Goldman of The Thoughtful Animal tagged me in a little meme purportedly started by The Blogfather Bora. This meme is short, and the rules simple:

1. Sum up your blogging motivation, philosophy and experience in exactly 10 words.

2. Tag 10 other blogs to perpetuate the meme.

 

My blogging philosophy

Keeping self and spouse sane whilst muddling through postdoc life.

I’m tagging:

Candid Engineer in Academia

dr_leigh of the path forward

Prof-like Substance

Prof in Training

Inktopia

Eugenie at There’s a War Under My Bed

Unbalanced Reaction

Ambivalent Academic

Odyssey of Pondering Blather

Damn Good Technician

Hmm. Looks like I need to finish my blogroll, since some of these lovelies aren’t in the sidebar. I’ll see to that during my quiet rebellion of not working weekends.

Anyway, post a link in the comments to your 10-word philosophy/motivation, and even if I didn’t tag you officially, go forth and meme and post your links here 🙂

Posted in blogging, meme, motivation | Tagged | 4 Comments

Storytime

Posted on October 6, 2010 by biochembelle

There’s always a running joke amongst benchmonkeys that goes something like, “If this whole science thing doesn’t work out, then I’ll…”

  • Open a coffee shop in Hawaii
  • Run a restaurant/bakery
  • Start a combination icecream/cocktail truck (that will make stops at all area research institutes)
  • Run for Congress
  • Work for the FBI/CIA/NSA

Such commentaries are born out of long-held dreams, hobbies, or unexpected skills acquired during our careers, among other things. What’s my thing? I would be a writer.

For many, writing is tantamount to torture. Not for me. I love to tell stories. Reality, fiction. Science, adventure, drama. Short, long. An audience of one or 100. It doesn’t really matter. I tell stories as much to enrich and satisfy myself as I do to inform or entertain others.

It’s something that started at a young age, though I didn’t realize it then. And to an extent, my brother is partly to blame. I was a ravenous reader, and the sort who places herself in the story, experiencing it, not just observing it from the outside. When we were kids, my brother and I would create and enact scenes of ongoing stories (often Star Trek inspired spin offs, and for that, I blame my dad who basically had us hooked from birth). At one point, my brother even wrote a script that the three of us (dad, bro, and myself) read… dramatically… with distinct voices for each character. (Explains a little something about me, perhaps? Wink) I think that was the first time that I ever considered writing because I wanted to, not because I had a class assignment. And I did just that. In high school, I started writing stories (or typing them, as the case may be). I fell in love with writing. By nature, I am rather quiet and reserved. I tend to internalize emotions. But for some reason, I found that I could pour an immense amount of emotion into a page. Much like reading, I put much of myself into the story, even if the story itself was far different from my life. Often I wrote them for an audience of one (myself) or with the intention of only sharing them with a few friends. Occasionally I would co-opt my creative writing for a class.

Somewhere along the way, I found that I could even take pleasure in writing about someone else’s work, in telling someone else’s story, in connecting seemingly disparate findings. Finding the thread that connects or unravels a list of points is as much a part of telling a story as creating a new one. Even when the process is difficult, frustrating, maybe even painful (at least, mentally), there is something amazing and beautiful about turning dry, disconnected information into a lively, cohesive narrative.

Writing and science are where my passion lies. I am fortunate that these two often come together. If you took away science, I could subsist on writing. If you took away the writing and the creative process that goes with it, I would be hard-pressed to subsist on science alone. And I suspect that is something that will direct my career path in the years to come.

Posted in do what you love, motivation, passion, writing | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Yay, science!

Posted on October 4, 2010 by biochembelle

That pretty much sums up how I feel after the first week in my new postdoc lab. Despite spending the week in orientations, doing online training, and reading papers for my new project, I’m pumped up about science again. It is a wonderful feeling. Here are a few highlights of the week:

  • The institutional environment is quite different–a research hospital as opposed to a university department. So far it seems pretty good, but there’s much to learn about the system.
  • The lab is very small (for my field, at least)–less than 5 people, counting the PI–and so far quite friendly.
  • We all (postdoc, PI, and myself) seem to be on the same page about my involvement in the projects and future authorship. My project is going to take advantage of methods the postdoc is using and involve setting up new methods. There will be overlap in methods and theme for our projects, but we’ll be approaching it from different sides and probably target unique questions along the way.
  • I have received more career mentoring in a week than I did in over a year at my last place.
  • I will, for the first time ever, being taking home (slightly) more earnings than I did as a grad student. It’s about damn time.
  • The other postdoc is super fit. She often goes for a run or hits the gym across the street for an hour or so in the afternoons and has invited me to tag along. This will definitely provide more motivation for me to amp up and stick to my workout schedule.
  • The PI is a huge Yankees fan, which according to Dr. Becca, scores about a hundred points in his favor.
  • The lab has some kick ass instrumentation–like SnapID, Typhoon imaging system, new or upgraded fluorescence microscopes–with some substantial pieces being installed just before my arrival.
  • My commute is longer but only involves hopping on a train close to my apartment and cruising along for about 30 to 45 minutes. It’s actually been kind of nice because it gives me time to read or write without other distractions–like TV, internet, housework…
  • From what I’ve gathered from the postdoc and the PI, unlike some people I’ve encountered, the PI is not obsessed with face time. He takes the view that if you’re not taking care of yourself and your family, then you’re probably going to be miserable, and that misery can, and most likely will, affect your work in the lab.
  • Benefits are quite good. I’m still able to afford a decent health plan for Paramed and me, plus a vision plan, to boot. My employer also offers life insurance. They pay for 1x salary policy and then employees can opt for more. It’s a good thing, but it’s weird to discuss with your significant other how much you should take out so they’ll be OK in the event of your death.

The first week was good, but I’m looking forward to digging into some real research this week!

Posted in motivation, science satisfaction | 7 Comments

Repost: What’s in a name?

Posted on October 2, 2010 by biochembelle

For the October Scientiae Carnival, podblack asked bloggers to think about how things have changed or stayed the same in STEM since we started out and what we see for the future. I started out less than 10 years ago. Yet in that time, I’ve seen considerable dissension and contention about how certain fields are defined. Here’s something I posted on the topic last year. With the Nobel Prize announcements just around the corner, it seems even more appropriate.

————————————–

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Thus says Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Admittedly, it is possibly one of the most overused quotes of Shakespeare, but in a way (albeit, perhaps a strange and slightly creepy way), it basically sums up my view on the continuing debate of how we define chemistry, biology, and everything in between.

Although this has subject has been a matter of discussion for quite a long time, it has become the center of rather heated debate since the announcement of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The row has been highlighted in a number of blogs and journal editorials including this one in ACS Chemical Biology (a hat tip to Brent Stockwell for the tweeted link). Essentially some folks feel that understanding ribosome structure and function is not Chemistry at all, and it’s certainly not the first time in recent years that the Chemistry Prize was awarded for elucidation of molecular functions/interactions of cell-derived molecule These folks feel that the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry are being “stolen” by biology. Of course, this is really about ruffled feathers and the debate over what “real chemistry” is.

In my opinion, if you’re looking at how atoms and molecules behave, bond, and interact, then it’s chemistry–whether it’s propylene or a P450. Ergo, biochemistry (or chemical biology or biological chemistry or whatever else you want to call it) is chemistry. For that matter, a lot of toxicology and pharmacology are chemistry. Compartmentalization of core sciences (with reference to research) is becoming increasingly difficult–and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There is a continuous spectrum of work running from chemistry to biology to physics. To impose arbitrary divisions between these disciplines and between subfields of these disciplines implies that science is a static thing. It isn’t!

Science is a changing, moving, dynamic entity. Admittedly my “world view” of chemistry has been shaped–and some might argue, skewed–by the environments in which I’ve studied and trained. My undergraduate study was in a “Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry”, and even though my degree says B.S. in Biochemistry, there was a strong emphasis on the core chemistry curriculum. This is probably why I chose to apply to graduate programs in chemistry departments that were strongholds for biochemistry. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry, but my graduate work focused on protein chemistry and enzyme kinetics. There was honestly little division between chemistry and bio-related studies at PSU. This was perhaps aided by the fact that the medical school campus–home to formal departments of biochemistry and pharmacology–adjoined the arts and sciences campus–home to formal departments of chemistry, physics, and biology. The alliance was further promoted by inter-/multi-disciplinary programs, centers, and institutes for structural biology, biophysics, and chemical biology (to name a few) that brought together investigators from the medical school and A&S. There was no sense of animosity that a chemistry professor was doing “too much” biology or that a pharmacology professor was doing “too much” chemistry. I daresay, most of them would be hard pressed to define where chemistry (or physics) ends and biology begins.

There is a dark side to the integration of biology, chemistry, and physics. Some have developed the attitude that if there is no biological application, then the work is unimportant. Poppycock! That is utter nonsense. Much of our understanding of the mechanisms by which enzymes act was originally based on analogies to well-characterized chemical reactions. We must take care not to stray into this form of scientific elitism.

Chemistry, biology, physics… We cannot disregard the foundations for our interdisciplinary work. Nor should we attempt to segregate those branches of study that have successfully integrated these core sciences. Our disciplines have evolved an interdependence and, thus far, have thrived in it. There many exciting discoveries yet to come, which would be impossible in the absence of collaboration and integration.

Posted in attitudes, Scientiae carnival | Tagged , | 1 Comment