Today and yesterday were crazy experiment days. In my lab, we tend to have experiments 3-4 times a month (when we're at speed) which each last from 20 to 50 hours. One student doesn't stay the entire time, for ones longer than a day, but the three main grad students in the lab trade off who is testing or monitoring. So, this week an experiment started yesterday in which another student was primary experimenter. I came in early to do some of the "prep work." Then he "tested" and "changed settings" from ~10 am yesterday until ~5 am today. I came back in at 4am and followed him with testing until we ended the experiment after 11 this morning. It is a fairly efficient model, which allows multiple students to get data - for me this was mainly a dry run for a specific future experiment. I learned a thing or two, which was sufficient. The problem is that the sleep schedule is really messed up. Getting up 3 hours early put me in a funk this afternoon, so I came home to nap...to recover a bit before an intramural volleyball game this evening. I hate napping as I always wake up groggy. It looks like it takes me 30-45 minutes to really wake up, as I feel fairly decent now. Putting in my contacts should seal the deal.
In the meantime, there were several very interesting blog posts today. A post on Poverty and the Brain at the Frontal Cortex was enlightening. The ties between mental stimulation of a child and their intellectual prowess aren't surprising, I guess. The need to constantly provide input to a kid is something I want to remember (and focus on) when I've got kids of my own.
I like watching TED videos when they are posted to the TEDBlog. A new one today talked about using "play" for creative thinking. As I think that I am personally not an innovative person (partially the grad-school self-doubt syndrome, I know), some of the things to keep in mind struck me. I know that I have a sense of self-editing when I think. Like Tim Brown suggests - I need to limit doing that and spend more time just writing down random ideas. A colleague in my lab (semi-"wise old man") talks about coming up with at least one idea a week, only a few of which pan out. I think he is a good innovator and probably follows this principle.
And, finally, Professor in Training talked about preliminary data requirements for new investigators. The points discussed struck home things my advisor has said about the need for preliminary data being CRITICAL. I also find it odd that filing for grant applications apparently wants you to have performed the studies you want money for, to show that they are feasible. Then, if/when you get funded you are expected to finish the study so that it is publishable. It is a strange vicious cycle where you have to have data before getting $$, but getting data requires $$...most likely from already obtained grants on previous or other research. I wonder what the expectations are for R21 grants, which are for exploratory studies that "may not" have preliminary data. While I'm finishing up my PhD studies, I'm going to try and take every opportunity to try a few things in other people's experiments, to add to my repertoire of "preliminary data" while keeping in mind the above points about innovation/critical thinking.
Interesting....and thought provoking...time for volleyball...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey - thanks for the link. Applying for grants is indeed one of the most frustrating things I've ever seen as it's difficult to get a tenure track position without independent funding (I was very lucky) ... you often can't apply for independent funding without a TT or research track position ... you can't get funding without preliminary data ... and unless you have access to funds, you can't get preliminary data. Aaaaaargh.
FYI - check out PhysioProf's take on applying for R21s.
Thanks for the comments and the pointer to the R21 commentary.
We pretty much came to the same conclusion about applying for a R21. It was an initial thought for post-doc funding for me if I stay at the same institution - I've got a couple of research ideas but minimal preliminary data, so the R21 seemed like the best "R" mechanism given the timeframe. But, my advisor pointed out the lack of training aspects and that I wouldn't get as much credit on a R21. So, I'm hoping to apply for a F32 (probably higher chance of getting but lower chance of filing a good app by 12/8) and a K01 (lower chance of getting since applicable ICs don't like pre-doc applicants, but this is best mechanism for career). I'm not overly optimistic about filing given time constraints and that I'm trying to work on other writing while my advisor is turning around his own grant due in a few weeks and has a tendency to micromanage writing. We'll see....at least we won't be wasting time on a R21.
Having an academic tenure-track position appeals to me for many reasons. The biggest thing that may change my mind, which I've said all along, is dealing with the whole grant process....
If you're looking to do a postdoc I would probably suggest a couple of things:
(1) aim to do a postdoc at a different school from where you got/are getting your PhD as it will broaden your horizons immeasurably;
(2) look for a postdoc in an area that you are interested in but will provide further opportunities/experience as you don't want to spend your postdoc time doing more of the same as you did for your thesis work;
(3) find a postdoc mentor that will be a good mentor as well as a good future colleague;
(4) a postdoc fellowship is probably your best bet for funding as independent grants like the R21 won't have your name on them, even if you write the whole thing (I wrote a grant for my PhD advisor when I was a grad student that got funded but my name isn't on it at all);
(5) if you're within a year of submitting your thesis, start looking around for a postdoc NOW!
I agree with you on all points. Before arriving at this institution I had every intention of moving on to a new place for a postdoc after finishing. I suck at networking and have done best by forcing myself into new situations: different locations for my BS and MS followed by several years in industry before coming here. Along that thread, and thanks to talks I gave a recent conferences, I have several contacts including an open invite to visit and give a talk at an excellent program with a young, vibrant, successful, well-liked professor. He seemed to do all but give a job offer, which was probably helped by my advisor being a friend. I know I can also get a similar visit/talk at another excellent place in my home state.
I like to keep my options open and there are a couple of reasons for considering staying here. First off, I am a bit into a relationship that probably needs at least one-two years before she'd be willing to leave the area (assuming it lasts that long). That will probably force my hand.
Secondly, I am at probably the best or one of the best centers for my research area - the resources and colleagues are phenomenal. Aside from being able to expand my network somewhere else, pretty much every type of thing in my research area is done here. While the focus of the post-doc fellowships/grants we are working on is for a parallel clinical problem as my PhD work (thus providing a little bit of variance) and is at a different hospital with a new (for me) MD, we've already talked about me being involved with other research groups here doing work unrelated to my PhD. And, there's talk between my advisor and the one who has invited me about sharing my time (not completely out of left field as our institutions are within several hours drive). So, while staying here isn't the normal path, here I can get training that is perhaps unparalleled by other locations in my discpline.
My challenge will be making sure that my advisor keeps an open mind about my plans. Some of his talk has sounded like an assumption of my staying...which isn't a bad thing as it reflects a positive impression of me...I just don't like the assumption part as much.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Post a Comment