an academic medicine weblog
Sorry–it’s been a slow week for new content on mudphudder’s blog. This has been a really busy week and I’m halfway home now. I’ll write put some new material up this weekend and ask that you bare with me for the next two days. It should be smooth sailing from there on out.
For now, if you haven’t already done so, please check out Praxis #6 Blog Carnival (my previous entry).
I received very few submissions for this edition of the Praxis blog carnival. Actually, I don’t want to sugar coat it by saying there were “very few”…there was actually only one post submission by Dr. Shock. Another reader submitted his entire blog URL, but that doesn’t really count because blog carnivals are collections of individual posts (regardless, I went to his site to find an article, and one of his posts appears below). The whole experience was sad, actually. I contacted Martin (at The Lay Scientist), who started Praxis, to tell him about the dearth of article submissions. He assured me that this happens often with new blog carnivals, and the best thing that I could do to keep Praxis going was to hunt down a few articles myself. It wasn’t exactly what I had in mind when I decided to host, but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes, right?
The theme for my edition was inspired by the chorus of the song, “Ooh La La,” by The Faces and Rod Stewart. If you’re not familiar with the song, the chorus lyrics are: “I wish that I knew what I know now / When I was younger. / I wish that I knew what I know now / When I was stronger.” So, on my hunt for articles, I looked for posts that would actually teach a graduate student, young scientist or academic a few things that they may not know at this specific time in their lives or careers.
Dr. Shock - You can learn something new everyday on this blog…but how about one thing that I wish I knew when I was younger? Maybe just how freakin’ good chocolate is for your health! I would have ate so much more. Anyone have any Chunky bars?
A Blog Around The Clock - A post about the interplay of politics, money and the power of the people. It’s called, “Who Has Power?” Now, tell me you didn’t wish you knew the answer to that when you were younger (and when you were stronger).
Incoherent Mimicry - Mi teaches us that we should let loose every once in awhile. She shares some interesting studies that show having a healthy social life may actually be beneficial to our health. Perhaps this post will inspire some people to put their work aside on a Friday or Saturday night to spend some time with friends.
Comrade PhysioProf - A short post reminding us not to believe everything we read or hear in the media…more specifically, that any analogy between newspapers and universities in their quest for facts and truth is…well…how should I put it? F-ing ridiculous.
The Mad Scientist - I would bet most scientists would learn more from this post than from a whole month’s worth of Nature journals. This medical student blogger says she wishes she knew how to dance when she was 15. Now that she’s older (24…she’s really getting up there), she’s sharing with us just exactly how to bust a move on the dance floor. I don’t know about you, but I’m bookmarking this one…I mean, how many scientists do you know who don’t look like complete tools on the dance floor (if they even get out on the dance floor)?
Leeat Granek, Ph.D. - A touching article about the true meaning of love by Dr. Granek at The Huffington Post entitled, “Everything I Know About Love I Learned From My Parents.” A beautiful lesson in love that you’re never too old to learn.
Acadamnit - Gives prospective grad students (or one in particular) a few pointers on applying to graduate programs.
Medaholic - (For the medical students out there) Shows us that “Studying Can Be Fun”–what? Did I read that right?
Lastly, Dan at DailyMeds has a list of important things to take the time to do this year. I say it’s not just a list, but timeless advice–words of wisdom–for the young and the old.
Next edition of Praxis will be up at the home of its founder at The Lay Scientist on March 15.
What determines authorship on a scientific journal article? Who knows? After a PhD and 4 years in medical school, I apparenty don’t know. A friend of mine who is a graduate student was recently approached about including someone on his paper as an author–if that person had done anything at all remotely contributing to the paper. This was asked as a favor to the person who was to be added as an author. My buddy was pretty steamed about it. Understandably so, too. You give your life, your heart and soul to a project then finish it and are asked to list some random person as an author because it would be nice for that person. Are you kidding me???
There is an amazing difference between what qualifies as an authorship-level contribution across institutions, labs/PIs and even students. I was talking to another buddy of mine about this over the past weekend. We both know a few people (at all levels: graduate student, post-doc, faculty) who have a mad crazy number of publications on their C.V.s by having an “in” with the right people. An “in” referring to sub-significant level work leading to authorship. I hate that shit. I hate that shit because it didn’t happen to me. Sour grapes. We know graduate students who have gotten several first author papers like this even though others have done significantly more work than them (they know who they are). Even worse, in the last 6 years I have heard some considerably more egregious requests for authorship (which I will list some other time for fun). Why doesn’t anyone make ridiculous requests for me to be included as an author on papers I did no work on?
There have been a number of published “consensus” statements on what comprises authorship-level work including the description listed on page 2 of http://www.icmje.org/icmje.pdf. But the only consensus in my opinion is that if everyone followed these guidelines, then most papers would probably have 3 authors tops. I, in the past, have advocated including others (who may not meet such high standards of work contribution) on papers in order to foster collaboration and cementing scientific relationships.
However, I wholeheartedly disagree with what happened to my buddy. So I’m not sure how to reconcile this feeling with my previously expressed opinions. I think the main point may be that it sucks to be told by someone who has been barely involved in your work to include a person, who doesn’t deserve it, as an author. Because, at the end of the day when I have included technically unqualified authors (usually younger graduate students), others who contributed significantly on that paper had to deal with my decision. So I guess I’m getting to a much deeper level (of bullshit?), that only those who have given the most love to the project have the moral authority to pull B.S. like adding unqualified authors. Something about that sounds like a lot of bullshit to me but I’m sticking with it for now. I will, however, hand it my buddy who has always been consistent in his belief that only those who have contributed significantly to a paper should be included as an author.
So there you have it. You can either look at it as black and white like my buddy, or you can look at it as black and white with many shades of bullshit in between, like the mudphudder.
So, I will be hosting Praxis No. 6, which will go up next Sunday, February 15. For those of you who aren’t familiar, the Praxis Blog Carnival is about the academic life. Topics in the past have ranged from basic advice on studies and careers to life lessons on the academic path.
Since I am hosting this edition, it turns out that I get to pick the theme. As someone who’s made it through a few (I should say very few) stages on the way to a career in academics, I feel some duty to share my experiences so that others may gain some insight from my mistakes and occasional good judgment.
While I can only pass down my experiences to graduate students and medical students, I think that people at all stages in academia (no matter how advanced) could benefit from hearing about what others have gone through–lessons that wouldn’t have otherwise been totally obvious.
Therefore, my theme for Praxis No. 6 is the chorus of the song “Ooh La La” by Rod Stewart:
“I wish that I knew what I know now
When I was younger.
I wish that I knew what I know now
When I was stronger.”
That is one good song! Use it as inspiration in any way to write about life in academia. All are welcome to submit but please submit your entries by Friday, February 13 to me at mudphudder@gmail.com (please include “Praxis” in the email title so I know what it is for). It would be great if you would stick to the theme, but I will include posts on other topics as well.
In some–if not many–graduate programs, you have no say over who is on your oral board (a.k.a. qualifier) committee. Some graduate school programs don’t even tell you who is on your committee until you walk into the room on the day of your exam. Painful.
But if you have the option to choose who is on your committee, plain and simple pick the people who will take it the easiest on you. Sounds so obvious, right? From my perspective, the oral board exam maybe very sensitive in picking out the flunkies who couldn’t possibly make it through graduate school but the oral boards are unfortunately not very specific. That is, I know an unexpectedly high number of smart graduate students who did not unconditionally pass on their first time–usually because they made the wrong choices for committee members or because they were so dedicated to their research that they blew off studying for the board exam. The oral boards are hard; you can be asked about pretty much anything the committee members feel like asking–so why not make it as easy as possible for yourself? I knew one guy who wanted to make it “challenging,” so that he would feel like he really “earned it.” That was probably one of stupidest things I’ve ever heard. If you’re the kind of person who wants a challenge, then you are probably not the kind of person that the oral board exam is meant to weed out. So get grip, pick easy committee members and go back to your research. What is more likely to happen is that your advisor will suggest someone who is not easy, or even worse, has a reputation for being a hard ass. I was talking to a friend of mine recently, and she finds herself in this situation. If you find yourself in this situation, do and say anything that you have to convince your advisor otherwise. And if it comes down to it, forget convincing, just tell your advisor that you’ve chosen Professor So-and-So instead. Choosing hard ass oral board exam committee members is like having one strike against you before you even go to the plate. Why would you do that to yourself?
Some obvious ways to recognize good committee members:
What I sincerely hope doesn’t happen is for people to send comments taking the moral high ground about how it builds character to have a difficult oral board exam. That’s ridiculous. The oral board exam is meant to weed out flunkies. For the rest of you who work hard, just get through it and go back to your research. That’s it. To appease the moral authority, I will say that studying for my oral board exam was actually a great experience, though painful. There will actually be no other time in your research careers where you can take a month off and study/reinforce all of the principles of science, biology, whatever that you are supposed to know. It’s amazing and I urge all of you to take advantage of that month. BUT, do not make the actual exam harder on you than it has to be. Find any means possible to weasel out of making it harder than it has to be. Spend your time worrying about your research, not obscure facts about a biochemical pathway that you will remember until exactly 30 seconds after your exam is over.
In our graduate program, every year one person would receive a conditional pass, which meant that the person did not actually pass but had to do some kind of remediation. Basically, that person’s ass was at the mercy of the committee chair-person. (Last I checked, it had been a good 6 or 7 years since someone failed outright and was kicked out of graduate school). Anyway, forget about make-ups, you DO NOT want to be that guy–the remedial graduate student. You know, the one who has to explain to all of his classmates why he didn’t exactly pass but will pass after doing the thing for the guy who wants him to read the twelve original articles on the experiment that showed that thing and then present a report to the other guy who… Blah blah blah, by then I’ve already pinned you as the class dunce. Don’t be that guy. If you make educated decisions about your committee and this still happens to you, then it sucks to be you but there was nothing else that could have been done–and yes, I have seen it happen. But, if you pick hard committee members and this happens to you, don’t say that the Mudphudder didn’t give ample warning. I’ve seen many a good graduate student go under the train just by making poor choices for oral board committee members–don’t be one of them.
A reader left the following comment on a recent post on intellectual property rights as a grad student:
Hey Mudphudder,
I was wondering if you have any opinions on intellectual property, specifically from the vantage point of a graduate student…
When I started with my department, one of the orientation meetings emphasized the university’s controlling stake in EVERYTHING that may be produced or derived from peon graduate students during their tenure. That’s all fine and good (the uni gets a big cut compared to the PI), but they neglected to discuss whether there are any baseline expectations that grad students can count on if their work is patented, etc. One project that I’ve been developing with my PI for two years (mouse breedings/homemade protein production/vaccinations) may have finally generated a novel gene product that would be utilized by my PI in a clinial trial. Given that he already has a few previous patents, I’m guessing that he would move to patent this discovery as well. If we are indeed so lucky, I would hope to be included as a partial owner/stakeholder. Really, though, I have no idea what to expect. Given all the leg-work, troubleshooting, and hundreds of hours contributed from my end (with zero contriubtions from other grad students, post-docs, or technicians), it would be hard to see this whisked away from me. Your entry on work-sharing vs. author-sharing was funny, but it left me wondering - do graduate students have rights beyond the good graces of their PI? Are there academic or, dare I say, legal precedents for conflicts over ownership? My worst fear is that the academic hierarchy has jurisdiction to crush those on the bottom rung….
(Does this qualify as the record longest post on your blog?)
There are sleazeballs in academics who steal from others because they can’t think of good ideas or do good work themselves. If it happens to you, it sucks. There is always recourse–the question is whether you want to take it or not. When someone on your level or more junior does it to you, it is a lot easier to take action. But when your beef is with someone who is higher on the totem pole than you are, it’s not so easy. With that said, let’s get to your situation. More »
"He's a producer"
You know me. I can see you eyeing me as the P.I. gives me a tour of the lab. The P.I.? Yeah–that’s the individual slobbering at the thought of my joining the lab. That’s right…you know who I am. I’m a producer. I don’t talk much–I let my work ethic do the talking–but when I do talk, true I often speak with an accent. I often take the shape of an international graduate student or post-doc but in truth I am a machine–made of twisted steel–sent back in time to rock your lab’s world. Don’t confuse me with my twin: the one-year-post-doc, who works as hard as I do, except towards getting a visa/green card/U.S. citizenship rather than lab work.
I sweat, eat, and breathe lab work. I’ve already finished 2 experiments by the time you stumble in at 11:00 in ”the morning” with your Starbucks mocha frappacino in-hand, and I’m still here when you leave for the evening. Lunch?!?!? What’s lunch? I’m even here when you come running back in the middle of the night because you left your PCR plate sitting out. Yes, I am the new standard in working hard around here. Remember how you could put off an experiment that your advisor asked about for a week or two because everyone else did the same? Those days are over. That’s not going to fly anymore Because I have those experiments done before you can even find your lab notebook under that pile of papers, catalogues, exposed films, reagents and half-eaten pack of powdered donuts on your desk.
But despite the fact that I make you look bad, you do love me. Yes, deep down you do. I’m a nice guy. I always have a smile on my face, and there’s really nothing bad about me. See?!?!! You can’t make an argument against that. And really, I don’t actively try to make you look bad. I really don’t! I work hard. You, on the other hand, work occasionally. You see: we just disagree on that one point and that’s not too bad. At least you have another person who knows nothing about college basketball for the lab NCAA March Madness pool: I pick the University of Alabama at Huntsville to win it all–the “Chargers”–they sound like winners.
So, brush the dust off your lab bench and pipetmen, put a smile on your face and get back to work–I mean real work, not just holding a Pipetman in your hand while talking to the person in the bay across from you. That’s right–there’s a new sheriff in town. I’m a producer.
* * * * *
Everyone who’s spent some time in the lab knows what I’m talking about: the producer. I ask my buddies in the lab about new people who’ve joined since I’ve left, and when I hear, “he’s a producer,” that’s all that needs to be said. I wish I had been a producer during graduate school. Instead, I was the guy with a pack of half-eaten powdered donuts on my desk in the lab. So sad…
Or can you?
So every clinical department at academic medical centers around the country wants to hire physician-scientists. Physician-scientist? You do research? Hired. And that’s great–could be much worse–as the job market is quite good for any physician who also wants to do research. But, there are still a lot of obstacles in the way of becoming a successful physician-scientist, most notably: funding and how to balance clinical vs. research time in order to generate one’s salary. One complaint I’ve heard from almost every academic physician who also does research is regarding the departmental pressure to increase clinical responsibilities. This is particularly true in clinical departments whose physicians usually generate a lot of revenue (e.g. some surgical fields, dermatology, radiation oncology) through clinical practice. Often, junior faculty are hired as “physician-scientists” with a favorable research to clinical time split (e.g. 80:20%) but are very quickly sucked into increasing clinical activities from various soures of departmental pressure. The problem is that whenever money is involved in the equation, it will usually be at the expense of research since clinical work is much more likely to bring in the $$$ than a research grant. Sure everyone comes in with “protected time” but soon the phone calls start coming in from colleagues who want X, Y, or Z, including taking on new patients and of course all of the follow-up that comes with them as well. This scenario seems to be particularly true for physician-scientists in the surgical fields who may feel a lot of pressure up-front to take as many surgical cases as possible.
As I am just now starting to think about choosing jobs and balancing clinical with research responsibilities, many established people in my field have been warning me of the difficulty in getting significant research done. With calls coming in to see this patient or that one and your department chair on top of it all pushing you to bring in revenue for the department, I’ve been told that it is near impossible to have substantial research time. Now obviously, this is true to varying degrees depending on what field of medicine you practice. But for me, these pressures are particularly true.
So as I sit for my residency interviews and get some love for being a mudphudder and for having a research track record, in light of everything I’ve heard from practicing physician-scientists I can’t help but wonder what it is that clinical departments really want. Actually, no–I think I do know what they want–they want it all–a physician who brings in tons of clinical volume and revenue and at the same does important research too–regardless of whether it is realistic or not.
Which is why I offer this reality check to the ones on top–you can’t have it all.
Being a successful physician-scientist (not just publishing a lot of case reports and review articles) is hard (I can probably count on one hand the number of practicing physicians who are either in HHMI or the NAS) and requires not only a lot of luck but also finding the right balance of clinical:research responsibilities that is independent of the agendas of others.
So to those of you who are going through this right now, I say good luck. And for those of you who have gone through it and/or have insight into the process (e.g. avoiding common pitfalls), please share this insight with us!
It’s the new year, and no doubt some of you are starting to prepare for your first USMLE exam. It is also the age of the internet, and while buying USMLE prep books will always be part of the drill, these days looking for USMLE study resources online isn’t unusual. The hard part, though, is googling the right keywords and then sifting through all the junk and finding the few useful USMLE websites that exist. Doing this takes time (trust me, I remember from when I had to do it). I thought I would put together a few (free) useful USMLE resources that I’ve found online that might help any upcoming USMLE test-takers out there.
Get some USMLE practice via Twitter
Those of you who have not signed up for a Twitter account, you may want to think about doing so if only for the free USMLE prep questions you can get delivered to your Twitter online account or to you via Text message. Some users who are sending out USMLE prep updates include: usmlemd and firstaidteam. Once you sign-up for your account, click on their Twitter account links and choose to “follow” them. It’s worth noting, as well, that usmlemd is also the individual who runs http://usmlemd.wordpress.com/, which is a USMLE prep site in blog format and a good resource to peruse.
One is the loneliest number…Need a USMLE study buddy?
This site lets you post requests for a USMLE study partner or browse through requests to locate a study buddy for yourself. Requests are organized by USMLE Step 1, 2, 3 test takers. Each student requesting a study partner, lists their location, exam date, and email address. Some students also list specific preferences (ie. female partner).
Where’s the beef? Here it is! Links to FREE USMLE questions & Qbanks
http://www.mommd.com/usmletestsampler.shtml
60 practice questions provided by Kaplan Test Prep organized into 10 question blocks. Be sure to click on the links at the top of each section (for example, Questions 41 - 50) to be taken to the full text of those questions (and their answers).
Janky website, but lots of free practice questions. Downside: you have to register and login to access most of it. Also includes a QBank called Tommy’s Concepts with over 700 questions and answers.
http://www.testprepreview.com/usmle_practice.htm
A link heavy page, but skip down to the bottom of the page to where it says “Self-Assessment Modules.” Questions are grouped into 20 different subject matters, and each subject matter contains 20 questions. Bam, 400 free practice USMLE questions right there.
http://www.lww.com/medstudent/usmle/
Lippincott offers a free 350-question practice test for USMLE Step 1. Even though it’s free, you have to register as a user on LWW.com to be able to take the practice test. You can opt to take the test in either review or test mode. You can also choose to take the test all at once or 50 questions at a time.
Free Step 1 questions written by students who took the test. Explanations are linked to wikipedia for more info. Features include qbank, comparing your results to other test-takers, creating personalized tests and flagging questions.
A reader and fellow mudphudder left this comment on my recent post on when I was dis’ed by a PI back when I was looking for a PhD lab:
So I read your latest post about getting snubbed by a PI (my worst nightmare.) I’m in the process of shopping for a rotation this summer. I’m an M2 now. I did one rotation prior to MS1 and one between MS1 and MS2. The first PI is bananas, the second one retired unexpectedly. So I gotta make the next one count. I have a few viable options. They all have R01’s so I’m not too worried about funding. One is doing research on the olfactory bulb, and since I plan to apply to ENT, this feels like a good option for me. However, this person has a teeny-tiny lab and publishes in middle-of-the-road journals. The main reason I am considering working there is because it’s ENT-related. Since my school has a small ENT department with no residency program, I feel like my app needs a shot in the arm that this could provide. I think I would be happy there also. Another guy is doing research that I think is absolutely incredible. I think about it and read about it just for yahoos. His publishing record hasn’t been great but he claims to have 3 manuscripts in the works. There are two other labs I am also interested in (sorry this is getting long but I have almost zero mentoring in my program). One is a small lab with an amazing PI that I get along really well with and I think would be a really good mentor. The research, however, isn’t particularly exciting to me, but perhaps that could change (?) Another lab is run by a well-know PI (in his field) using fancy-pants techniques that said he could get me out in 3 years unless I “really stunk.” Again, research topic is just “eh” to me. Any advice at all is appreciated! Also, not sure what you’re applying to, but since I’m interested in surgical subspecialties (namely ENT), I’m wondering if my research topic will matter at all to programs. No one has matched into ENT from my school in 15 years and the department is excited that I’m interested but kind of out of the loop about match stuff. Thanks so much for reading this beast of a message.
I feel for your situation. I knew another mudphudder who had a bad first lab rotation, the PI of his second rotation was world famous and then retired during this guy’s rotation. This mudphudder finally found a third lab to do a rotation in and where he was very happy. Moreover, the PI told him that he wasn’t retiring, moving, etc–i.e. that nothing was going to change. So this mudphudder joined the lab and six months later this mudphudder found out from a third party that his PI was moving to another university on the other side of the country. After all he had been through, this mudphudder ultimately ended up moving a few months into his PhD–spent the next few months doing nothing while his lab got settled at this new university and ultimately has ended up on the 9, maybe 10 year track. Which brings me to point #1: Don’t completely believe anything a PI tells you. Sorry–no offense to the PIs reading this post. But the bottom line is that if a PI has the opportunity to do something beneficial for his/her career, it will get done regardless of a graduate student’s or postdoc’s inconvenience. You know, education and all. Such an inconvenience! No one can reasonably argue the counter-argument. I make this point to get you thinking about the PI who told you that you would graduate in 3 years unless you “really stunk.” Let’s ignore for now the pathologic implications of the ”really stunk” part. Will that PI give you the 3 year deal in writing? Of course not. That PI may have a track record for putting out graduate students in 3 years, which makes it more likely that it will happen to you, but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen to you either. If it’s not in writing, it’s not guaranteed. Especially if you are a student who has no recourse against a mightier PI.
Okay, now moving on to the subject of your PhD. First of all, ENT is a competitive residency to get, so I can understand the fact that you are taking that into consideration. But, in my opinion, the point of a PhD is to learn how to become a good researcher who can independently generate scientific questions and then figure out how to solve them in a systematic, organized way. Which brings me to point #2: For the purposes of your future in academia, I would argue that the subject of your PhD will make very very little impact. Many people I know who finished a PhD and then went on to a postdoc and later a faculty job did not follow in the steps of their graduate work. In fact, I think people who do their training in a completely different field and then take those skills to their ultimate career field have the potential to make much more impact. You may be thinking that doing an ENT-related PhD will help your chances for getting into an ENT residency. I don’t know if that is completely true. I think it probably helps a little but I don’t think that the pros significantly outweigh the cons, so I would put this consideration way down on your list of factors to consider. As a mudphudder you will be competitive regardless. If you are additionally motivated, you should take advantage of knowing what you want to do and do some little ENT-related clinical studies on the side during graduate school. Just make it clear that you are doing those projects in order to learn more about the field and that you will be doing the work on the side (i.e. your thesis work takes precedence during graduate school). But, if you stick with it, I bet you’ll land 3 or 4 ENT papers on top of your graduate school work just by doing that. Heck–I started doing clinical research on the side after I returned to wards (I’m talking during my surgery clerkship for example) and I’ll end up with a solid 5 clinical papers–4 first author out of it. So consider that possibility as well.
Point #3: In my opinion, you gotta be passionate about your graduate school research. That’s the only thing that got me through some dark times when nothing was working and it felt like no one on earth cared about my project except for me. I used to think about my work all the time–at the gym, watching T.V., etc. I really loved thinking about that problem, and I believed in the importance of it. In hindsight, if I hadn’t believed in what I was working on, it would have been really, really, really hard to put up with some of the stuff I put up with during graduate school. I’ve known people who pick labs just because of the lab and not necessarily the research. I think that’s a reasonable way of making your decision as well. But all of those people either ended up hitting it big or being really, really, really depressed. Think about it–if your project works out in a big-time lab then you’re the bomb. But if your project doesn’t work out in such a huge lab, you are likely to be forgotten, left behind and then you are stuck trying to work really, really hard on a project you feel “eh” on. The ideal would be if you can find a project in that super awesome lab that you are passionate about. (But always work on a project that your PI cares about–I wrote all about this before). Related to this, publication record is also a good metric to look at when evaluating possible thesis labs. If the lab published 1 paper per year and the first author of that paper is always a postdoc, then that may not be a very graduate student-friendly environment. I think as long as the PI is publishing good quality work frequently that is authored by graduate students, then that’s great. Of course Science papers may be better than Journal of Neuroscience papers, but it’s for you to decide how high to rank that factor in your decision making process.
To get back to finding lab rotations, I would not rule out doing a fourth rotation. Try talking to your graduate program director or MD/PhD program director about doing 2 shorter lab rotations if you want to explore two more labs. The point of a lab rotation is more to get a feel for the lab, the people and the work environment than to get substantial lab work done. You can argue that those objectives can be met in a shorter (e.g. 8wks, maybe 6wks if you want to push it) period of time. It is better to have some choices at the end of the day than it is to pick one lab and feel like you have to join it regardless of how the rotation works out. Also, always confirm beforehand that the PIs would have space for you to join the lab if you wanted to at the end of all of your rotations. That will save you a wasted rotation, but I make no guarantees…
This was a long post but this is an important process and decision–something that you will have to live with for the next 4-5 years (on average) of your life. I’ve made a some mistakes and some good (at least from my perspective) decisions along the way and have watched others do the same. I tried to draw from these experiences and I hope that at least some of this helps you.
I was reminded of a funny story today. One piece of advice that was passed on to me and that I pass on to younger students is that when you are looking to engage a P.I. about doing a rotation in their lab, specifically indicate that you would like to meet with them ONLY IF they have a space open in the lab for a rotating student during your desired time period. I have known a lot of students–mostly for purposes of graduate school lab rotations–who have not specified this and then end up wasting an hour of their time. I, on the other hand, have always specified this space requirement in my emails to P.I.s and this strategy has saved me a lot of time. Except for once.
mudphudder got smacked down
It was during first year of medical school and I was trying to line up a lab rotation for during the summer (for those who aren’t familiar: most mudphudders do graduate school lab rotations during the summer between first and second year of medical school to save some time). It was probably a little late to be just starting to look into labs–ahem… it was definitely a little late. But to be honest, at our institution mudphudders are sought by P.I.s–whether right or wrong–and I was definitely taking that to heart in my nonchalance. (I was young… What can I say?) So any way, after lectures and lab one afternoon, I went to see a P.I. who had indicated in his email to me that there was space in his lab for a graduate student rotation over that summer. A little background–this guy is very well known at our institution and a member of some very prestigious organizations; also a bit wierd but that could be my lingering resentment–you’ll see. So I went to talk to him and we talked for an hour. I indicated that my research background from experiences in college was not in his area of research but that I was willing to work hard and learn. And after an hour of conversation, he looked at me and said: “Yeeeaahh, I don’t think we room in the lab this summer for another student. But maybe next summer.”
I think there was like a three second silence where I just sat there staring at him. In my head: HE TOLD ME THERE WAS SPACE IN HIS EMAIL. Now of course, there were several possibilities: 1) he made a mistake in his email; 2) there was space but one of his major grants fell through and he could no longer support a graduate student for the summer; or 3) mudphudder just got REJECTED. So obviously, mudphudder definitely got rejected.
That was cold. Freezing even. And I was ticked. Of course I knew what had happened and of course he knew that I knew what had happened. Well, I politely thanked him for his time and even sent a nice “thank you” email when I got home that night. Later that summer I talked to a technician working in that P.I.’s lab who indicated that they were indeed looking for graduate students as there was definitely room. This person also wanted to know why I asked… Cold. Just cold.
Seven years later, I’m still not completely over it. I mean, how do you NOT take that personally? Right? Of course, these days, I mostly laugh my head off thinking about it–but still…
I will officially wrap up my holiday season today with the last installment in my “season of giving” posts. And what better gift to give an authority figure and clinical role model than your innocence. Yes! Give it up! Now, while what I refer to may be derisively called by some (such as ME), “getting my idea ripped off by faculty member who I went to for help in developing it,” others (such as the faculty member who ripped off my idea) would call it “giving a special piece of yourself to someone you look up to.”
So I used to believe in the complete purity and goodness of those in academia–the ivory tower: scholars, I said, who strive to educate. I gave those beliefs along with my innocence to the faculty member who ripped off my idea. Without getting into too much detail, about six years ago I had an idea for–let’s call it–a “scholarly enterprise.” So I took this idea to one of our medical school faculty, a junior faculty member who was excited to help me (after discussion with a more senior faculty member who was quite helpful but didn’t have the time to help me). “That’s a great idea!” The next time I met with him, he told me that he had met and talked to someone else about this “scholarly enterprise” and found a way to turn it into a serious “money-making enterprise.” He told me that he and this new collaborator might be meeting at place X at time Y, but that he would confirm it by email with me. So time went by, drawing closer to time Y, so I sent this faculty an email without reply. So when time Y arrived, I decided to go to place X just in case the meeting was going on. As it turns out, the meeting was in fact happening and I was greeted with, “Oh, you’re here.” Indeed, I was there. Except that I wasn’t. The conversation went back and forth between Faculty Mentor and the collaborator–on and on about how to transform the “scholarly enterprise” to “major money-making enterprise.” Eventually the meeting was over–I think I was talked to about twice (once to assure me that they would allow me to be involved)–and I was left wondering what had happened. The last thing I heard at the meeting was, “I’ll email you when we’re going to meet again.” Indeed. And yet, no emails.
I still see Faculty Mentor around the hospital every once in a while and exchange pleasantries. And sometimes he’ll ask, “So what’s going with your research…” And it strikes fear in my heart: what he wants to steal my research ideas now? Over the years I’ve come to learn from various people in-the-know that this individual does a lot of unethical things, in particular for money (Yeah, Bud–if you’re reading this–I know what you’ve done. Probably the least of it too).
So what is the lesson of this story? Easy, don’t trust anyone–especially if you are young and low on the totum pole. If you are a student, forget about it. You will get crushed like a bug and who’s gonna know about it? Seems cynical, but I just showed you it can happen. I had no recourse. What good would it do anyway? I took a good idea (really good, in my opinion) to a faculty member to help me develop it but my idea was ripped off and bastardized to maximize the revenue that could be made off of it. I still remember that last meeting and how excited this guy was with his collaborator about how much money they would make. And what is left of the Mudphudder? Well, I plan on eventually going through with my idea. I don’t know if I’ll really have the time again to do it, but I’ll try. Also, if and when the bastardized version of my idea makes it to the market (if it already hasn’t), it’ll make it harder on me, but I’ll take a shot at it anyway.
But at least Faculty Mentor has given me the gift of life-long emotional scars. However, this is not a problem specific to or more rampant at my institution or your institution. It’s all over. It’s a fact of academics–yes, I’ve met and spoken with people from all over with similar experiences. But, I don’t honestly believe that most people in academics are like that. In fact, probably 99% aren’t (that may be generous) but you just don’t know who the sleazeballs are. In hindsight, there is no way I could have known. So now, whenever I have a good idea, I either keep it to myself, waiting for the time that I become a faculty member with at least some recourse if someone tries to rip me off. If and when I do say something about it, I only talk to a select few who I trust and even then, I protect myself.
If you have no recourse against someone who could steal your idea and if there is no reason besides “ethics” for someone to not steal your idea, then I would recommend that you think twice before you share anything with anyone. Unless of course, it is the season of giving and you are in a giving mood…
The draw of translational research and the desire of many graduate students to gain some clinical exposure and to have opportunities to do research with tangible clinical impact has caused academic institutions around the country to address these objectives by designing graduate programs with a focus on translational research. I’ve known a number of people who have gone through these programs and all have been very satisfied with their training. The primary differences between these programs and more specific, traditional Ph.D. graduate training programs (e.g. “the graduate program in biochemistry”) are the faculty comprising available mentors as well as program-specific course requirements and offerings. Whereas in more traditional graduate programs there are more opportunities to research the biological sciences at a more basic level (e.g. studying the structure and function of a specialized protein), translational research-focused graduate programs tend to include faculty members whose work has greater immediate clinical impact (e.g. studying biomarkers or pharmacology). Moreover, course offerings through translational research-focused graduate programs have specific focus on exposing students to clinical problems and disease processes, for example through pathophysiology, pathology and pharmacology courses. Even more unique are some courses offered by a few programs that give graduate students the opportunity to go out into the wards and see patients firsthand. I personally think that the clinical exposure in these programs should really be extended to all graduate programs in the biological sciences. Maybe it’s my own personal bias, but I think all research in the biological sciences, whether in the short term or long term, should offer some benefit to patient care. And at the very least, I think clinical exposure for graduate students (or anyone) just offers more motivation and inspiration for doing research.
Anyway, for those who are interested in translational research, these programs go far in fostering that interest through many opportunities that don’t otherwise exist in full at the more traditional graduate training programs in the biological sciences. For some personal stories of people who have gone through these programs and a list of translational research-focused graduate programs across the country, check out this article on Science online.
It’s amazing how there are such dramatic differences in the mindset/attitude/tone of clinical departments from one medical center. You can walk into one department and find generally welcoming, laid back faculty (as laid back as possible in academia, I guess) and then into another department and find generally tense, sardonic faculty. I’m so used to the people who work at my institution who, I can now say with some level of information, are generally warm and laid back. It’s been a bit of a shock meeting some of the more not-so-welcoming people in the field. Over the course of the last 8 days of traveling–from one coast to another–I have been interviewing for residency positions and have met a lot of faculty. Mostly really cool, which makes me that much more excited about the future.
But in contrast to every other program I have interviewed at, at one program the first question of my interview day was “Why should we accept you ?–what makes you better than everyone else?” Not a good way (in my opinion) to start off an interview. You know, I suppose that’s not too bad for medical-type interviews, but I think at the stage of residency I would have expected more substantiative questions about me personally rather than having me try to out-do the other applicants. Competition is a part of academia and in particular medical training. We compete to get into top medical schools. We compete to get into top residency programs. We compete to get the top fellowships. And yes, we compete to see who can remember the most lines from the movie Top Gun in the O.R. But, this attitude by faculty of promoting competition between trainees is at best counter-productive. All it generates is a dog-eat-dog environment and no collegiality. And when I am sitting in a room of residency applicants–people who will be my future colleagues–the last thing I want is to start off by actively talking myself up in comparison to them.
Well, to this question I responded that I thought everyone who was interviewing on that day was special, worked hard and had unique qualities that would be of value to the program–and that I would not talk about why I am better than everyone else but would be happy to tell the interviewer about myself. I don’t know if that was a good or bad move but quite frankly, with all of the craziness (1,2) of last week, I wasn’t in the mood for it. Mudphudder–out.
So my favorite knock against me by a residency interviewer so far was within the last 1.5 weeks when I gave a response to an interviewer’s question to which the interviewer responded in a derisive tone, “Didn’t I read that on a fortune cookie? Well, your answer was much cheesier than the fortune cookie.”
The best part is that I was being serious with my answer. Gotta love obnoxious interviewers. Has anyone out there gotten any obnoxious/toxic comments during medical school, graduate school or residency interviews? It’s always nice to share a good laugh about these kinds of things.
A survey of 837 clinical department chairs conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in 2005 reported that approximately two-thirds of department had junior faculty openings with more than half of those unable to fill their job openings. So good news–the job market for md/phds and physician-scientists is excellent as there is a surplus of job openings for clinicians who also want to do research.
So why is it then that with 110 MD/PhD programs across the country in addition to MDs who decide to pursue research career, that so many of these junior faculty jobs go unfilled? From the standpoint of junior physician-scientists there are two primary reasons:
The lure of private practice and industry arising from both monetary and time rewards are constant. However, despite the number of academic job openings, physician-scientists are also faced with the challenge of finding the right fit with regards to research focus, departmental support, protected research time as well as the right balance of clinical and research opportunities/responsibilities.
Check out this “Issues and Perspectives” in Science Careers for several personal experiences of junior faculty physician-scientists around the country.
Purpose
To encourage medical students to address nontechnical topics in medicine, Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society instituted this competition to recognize and reward excellent and thoughtful student compositions.
Prizes
$2000 first, $750 second, $500 third, and honorable mention awards of $250 each. Prizes will be paid after the receipt of required documentation (see Requirements for Winning Essays, below).
Eligibility
Authors must be enrolled at medical schools with active chapters (Class of 2009 or later), but need not be members of. Only one entry may be submitted by an author.
Dates
Entries must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2009, and sent by first-class mail, express mail, or by courier. Winners will be announced about May 1, 2009.
Requirements
1. Essays must be written while the student is in medical school, must be the work of a single author, and must represent original work.2. The essay may be on any nontechnical subject related to medicine, including ethics, history, education, philosophy, and policy. Well-referenced, scholarly fiction is an acceptable genre.3. The manuscript must not exceed 15 double-spaced pages of 12-point type with minimum 1-inch margins.4. Unique references, numbered consecutively, are limited to 20. (Reference citation of web sites is not acceptable unless a site is the sole source of the information or has official academic credentials. Examples of acceptable sites are official government web pages such as that of the National Institutes of Health.)5. The paper must not have been offered to or published by any other journal and must be submitted to The Pharos, the official publication of, which has the right of first refusal.6. Four stapled single-sided sets of the essay (pages typed and numbered, with author’s name and essay title on each page; no covers or binders) and a single sheet with the author’s full name, address, phone number, e-mail, name of medical school and year of graduation, and essay title should be sent to:Alpha Omega Alpha Student Essay Competition525 Middlefield Road, Suite 130Menlo Park, California 94025.7. Essays not conforming to the instructions will be returned.8. A committee of the editorial board of The Pharos will review the essays and select thewinners. Judging will be on the basis of originality, scholarship, style and composition, and relevance.
Requirements for Winning Essays
When notified that they have received an award, authors of all winning papers must provide documentation of references in photocopy as follows: title pages of all books cited; the first and last pages of book chapters cited; the table of contents of the particular issue of the journal in which a cited article appeared; all quotations, from the primary sources, including page numbers. The author’s Social Security number will be required for payment of the award.
Errata
Authors may present their essays at national meetings. Papers not accepted for The Pharos but published elsewhere should include the following acknowledgment: Submitted as an entry in the 2009 Alpha Omega Alpha Student Essay Competition.
More information:
Contact Managing EditorDebbie Lancaster at (650) 329-0291 ord.lancaster@alphaomegaalpha.org.Examples of several winning student essays, reference style information, and optional forms are on AOA’s web site: www.alphaomegaalpha.org/programs/StudentEssayAwards.htm.
Still interested? Here’s the official entry form: (pdf).
Want more medical school funding opportunities, medical school grants and scholarships? Check out the searchable database of medical student funding / medical student awards.
So I just had another residency interview yesterday. Not too bad, mostly conversational in nature. Unfortunately, there were many interviews packed into a relatively short period of time so the scheduling made for short exchanges. One interviewer asked me, “what are three things that you are proud of?”
I never know quite how to answer that question. Note that this interviewer had in front of him a complete summary of my academic records, achievements and CV. So it is still early in the mudphudder’s blog but, so you know, I am not someone who sits around thinking about what I am proud of. I’m not sure, but I think I would be a little weary of someone who did. Am I looking at this question the wrong way? Again, I don’t know.
And now having been asked that question with the possibility of hearing it again, I still hesitate to think about it. I’m not sure if I care. As I told my interviewer, I’m proud that I’m sitting in that office interviewing for residency. I’m proud that I’ve made it through college, medical school and graduate school relatively successfully–having achieved more than some and less than others–without any regret and with my primary objectives at all stages met. And most importantly, I am proud of my personal life and connections–with family and friends–that I have built and maintained over the years. All of the rest are small details.
Boom!!! That’s the sound of the mudphudder dropping the bomb on that question! I think…
In all seriousness though, I’m still not sure what this interviewer was looking for. At the very least, I hope I revealed a little about myself with that answer…
You are starting in a lab and deciding on a project to work on. If you will be in the lab for an extended period of time, say >1 year, or if you are a graduate student, sometimes there is a temptation to work on something really interesting related to the field in which the thesis advisor works in, without much consideration of the advisor’s most immediate interests. Even if your advisor tells you th
at it is okay and he/she is willing to devote time to learning about that particular topic, don’t do it. Do NOT fall into that trap. PIs are great when you are joining the lab, and they often have every intention of following through on the promise to learn about your interests. BUT, (surprise surprise) PIs are too busy with grants to keep the lab afloat and other already established projects in the lab to learn about some new topic in their field because of a new graduate student. Unless there is some obvious benefit for the PI—and I mean that there is some connection or natural progression from a previously established project in the lab which promises near certain success—do not get baited into starting a completely brand new project for which the PI has no expertise (even if it is within the PI’s field) or current interest.
Here is why: inevitably, the PI will no longer have the time or energy and in the worst case, money, to support you and your project. There will be a time when you will run into logistical problems outside of your control and the PI will just not have the time, energy or desire to help. There will be problems with the research–technical problems and directions in which to take your research–that the PI will not be able to help you with.
All of this is not to say there aren’t situations were it could be wise to start down a new avenue of research in your thesis lab. One advantage is certainly that you wouldn’t be competing with anyone in the lab. In general, choosing such a project is usually a high risk, high reward enterprise. So, if you are one of the people who is successful, it will be worth it. However, this is certainly not the most conservative approach and despite a potentially high impact paper, I don’t know if it’s worth risking your training (which is exactly what will happen if you are stuck in a project that your PI cannot/will not advise you on and there’s a reason why a graduate student is called “student” and not assistant professor).
I’ve known a few talented graduate students who joined the labs of well-known PIs and then chose projects that were in the field of the PI but not within their PIs’ realm of expertise. Every one of those students functionally ended up going through their PhDs without an advisor–only a funding source. In the meanwhile, their labmates were in and out of the PIs’ office getting regular advice and mentoring. Not a good situation.
Therefore, I leave you with this message: if you are joining a lab to do research, work on something the PI is interested in. Don’t say the Mudphudder didn’t warn you…
A meeting with one of my clinical mentors yesterday got me thinking about the importance of mentorship in general and, in particular, the importance of mentorship in medical school, which now has me thinking about good mentorship in graduate school.
Graduate school (PhD training) is unique amongst other doctoral training in that the mentor (thesis advisor) plays a central role in one’s training (at least theoretically… see one of my previous posts)–in fact, one’s training is from the mentor very much like a traditional apprenticeship. So practically, what are we looking for in mentorship from a thesis advisor? I think that a thesis advisor guides or teaches you:
and finally, the thesis advisor is someone who will promote you and help you get to the next level (e.g. postdoc, faculty job or industry). Disclaimer: of course, these functions of a devoted mentor in graduate school are predicated on the assumption of an equally devoted graduate student. I do not believe that it is at all reasonable or fair to expect a thesis advisor to be devoted to a student who does not take his/her graduate studies seriously.
Anyway, I will group these: #1-3 as how to do good science; #4 & 5 as how to develop good communication skills whether it is related to a paper, editorial or conference; #6-8 as dealing with B.S. in academia and the last point is just looking out and caring for your career.
I’ve never been a big fan of advisors who hold their student’s hand through a PhD. In some respects, graduate school should be a trial by fire. I think mistakes are some of the most valuable learning tools ever. And when your career is riding on how you continue after mistakes, you’d better believe that you will take something–a learning point–away from every mistake. But there is a fine line 
between letting a graduate student learn through self-directed learning and neglect. I’ve seen advisors who “guide” their students with gentle nudges here and there when the student is veering off onto an ill-advised course. In contrast, I’ve seen advisors who let their students flounder about for years on fishing expeditions that ultimately yield nothing. I think the ideal is an advisor who let’s you do your thing for reasonable stretches of time (e.g. a month or longer) and then checks in on your progress, but is available in the meantime to talk if you need it. What you absolutely do not want in graduate school is an advisor who welcomes you to the lab and then stops by to see you four years later to see what you have been up to. I think that completely defeats the purpose of graduate school. The reason I harp on this point is because to learn how to do good science, you can either re-invent the wheel and do it entirely on your own–hopefully it doesn’t take you too long–or you can pick up some of tips from your advisor, who is the pro. It’s really about a solution to your scientific problem, but more so how the solution is arrived at that matters most. I remember listening to my advisor at some lab meetings giving advice to people on how to progress with their projects and really thinking about how he would come up with his suggestions and the underlying objectives he was getting at. He was almost always right, but I think his students got more out of the reasoning for his suggestions than the actual solutions to their problems.
Communicating one’s research to the world is extremely important. Science is not done in a vacuum and we obviously seek answers to certain questions because someone cares about it. Otherwise, one’s research would just be an exercise in mental masturbation. On a more practical level, career promotion, recognition and funding all come through one’s ability to communicate one’s results and the importance of those results. Writing a scientific manuscript is not an easy task, but gets easier and easier with experience. However, organization, clarity of thought and expression as well as more subtle issues like citing the proper references and people are not easy skills to master in scientific writing. A lot of these skills can come from the thesis advisor. I have worked with scientists who fall into one of two categories: either they write the whole thing for you (sometimes with you sitting there in the room) or they will tear your manuscript up with “track changes” on in your Microsoft Word document file with suggestions like “more in-depth discussion here” or “good place to make this point” or “not necessary–take this sentence out”, etc. I think I got very little out of my writing experiences where I sat in the room and watched a PI re-write a 25 page draft of my manuscript. In contrast, after going over my manuscript for the 10th time (c’mon–give me a break already–it was my first one!), you’d better believe I had learned a set of skills that I wouldn’t forget for the next one.
Finally, how to communicate your work also depends on who the audience is. Yes, yes, this is quite obvious, but actually, much harder than (at least I) expected. After being in the lab for so long and so much, it is easy to forget that not everyone speaks with the same scientific jargon. Moreover, there is clearly a spectrum of understanding from the lay-person all the way to the PI who works down the hall on thing else. Learning how to clearly communicate your work and, again, it’s significance to all of these people is an important skill that comes from the opportunities the advisor gives and then offers guidance on.
Academia is a rude-awakening for many graduate students. I think many people go into graduate school to do work with the potential of making novel findings of significance and perhaps making impact on the lives of others. It is an admirable goal, which by its virtue also brings to mind a collegial and ethical atmosphere, conducive for collaboration towards a greater good: everyone working together to better mankind. And then, you get to graduate school and need someone to do a small task—but critical to your work—which will take about 10 minutes of their time. Sure that person will do it, but not unless you promise to list them as an author on your paper—and all subsequent papers that arise from your use of that information. For 10 minutes of work?!? Does this person know that I and the other authors have put in about 2 years of work? Does this person even care? If someone has you in a tight spot, they will likely squeeze you for 100X more than what you are asking for. Then you request information from a publically funded open-access database, but the caretakers of the database (who are specifically paid to do this) will put you through the ringer with paper work then have you wait about 9 months for a 5 minute database search, unless you repeatedly tell them how great they are and then list them as an author on your paper for doing their job. Again, are you serious? Serious as a heart attack.
Yes we are all working together for a common good but the means towards that end are sometimes questionable, and sometimes plain and simply unethical. Academia is filled with egos and people who are (like you and me) struggling to make it. This is an absolutely inescapable fact, which happens at every institution. These conditions necessitate frequent stroking of egos, to a sometimes disgusting extent, and then getting taken advantage of when you are most vulnerable—and this is the best case scenario. And as a graduate student, you are the most vulnerable. I found these aspects of academia in graduate school really tough to swallow. Same is true for others I have talked to. The problem is that, as a graduate student (in truth at most levels of academia as well), you have no recourse. I stress this point because it is hard not to become cynical and disillusioned—and over time, to become the same as those people. This is where an advisor’s guidance can be really helpful. For one, a graduate student’s adjustment to these aspects of academia can be greatly facilitated by an advisor, who can help you to navigate these somewhat touchy areas, and when necessary, take over for you. Moreover, these aspects of academia exist—it is a fact—so why not learn about and hear about them? I’ve found over the years that the more I learn about all of the ethically “questionable” problems that others have had to deal with, the better that I am prepared for these problems when I encounter them. And certainly, I believe that a mentor has an important role in giving their graduate students straight-up, honest advise this aspect of academia.
I wrote about this with regard to medical student mentorship a couple of days, and it is really no different in graduate school. At such an early stage of training, one needs as many opportunities to flourish as possible. This comes through opportunities to participate in different projects at authorship level, within the lab and through external collaborations as well. Presentations are another great way that advisors promote graduate student development. There are some labs where the advisor, when invited to give a talk, will ask a student in the lab working on that subject to give the talk instead. These are really golden opportunities that show your academic community of peers and colleagues that your advisor thinks highly enough of you to send you in his/her place. I have known a few graduate students with such advisors, and they are all the better off for it—before finishing their PhDs, they already have established name recognition and respect in their fields. And clearly, there are other ways through which a thesis advisor can give a graduate student opportunities to shine but I will not dwell further on this topic. Finally, a graduate student needs an advisor who will write a stellar letter of recommendation, talk to colleagues and make calls when the time comes to find a post-doc, apply for faculty jobs or a job in industry. I think this is a fairly obvious point, but it should not be assumed that last two points are automatically obvious to all advisors.
Okay, before I continue, I will reiterate that what I described above are qualities to look for in devoted graduate school mentorship (i.e. a thesis advisor) with the assumption of an equally devoted graduate student. I would not join a lab expecting these kinds of mentorship qualities without putting in 110% effort. However, if one is giving 110%, the most one can do is try to find a situation in which that effort is maximally repaid in mentorship.
I hope that some of the points above will have been helpful in thinking about what is and isn’t important to you out of a thesis advisor. The best resource for finding out how well a PI has provided mentorship in the past is obviously the PI’s graduate students. As you look for labs, look at past and current graduate students. Look at their publication records on PubMed. Ask the PI if and where these students did post-docs and where these past students ended up taking employment (e.g. academia–tenure track faculty posts–or industry, etc). Read some of the lab’s past papers. Ask past and current students how much the PI meets with them and provides guidance. And see how easily past students have moved on to postdocs or jobs and how active the PI was in process. These questions and others will hopefully help you find the PI most likely to give you everything you need out of graduate school.
Just came back from an hour-long coffee break with one of my mentors in my medical field of choice, in which I am currently applying for residency positions. When I think about the factors that lead me to head down the various paths that I have traveled, so much of it has been due to the mentorship that I received. Good mentorship is so key! Finding someone who has the right personality, attitude, and work habits to jibe with your own and at the same time is both sympathetic to your situation and generous with opportunities to get name out there.
It’s weird but in hindsight, people just find each other. I think the key is to just talk
to as many people as you can and eventually you’ll bump into like-minded people. I’ve been blessed (and I really mean blessed–academics can be so vicious sometimes) to have three faculty members (one of whom is at another university) who have all, in different ways, mentored me through graduate school and medical school–in research and on the wards. It is interesting that all three are young, junior faculty members. Perhaps that is as much a reflection of my own tendencies as it is of theirs.
At this point in my career, I just want to produce as much meaningful research in my field as possible and to learn as much as possible. So I guess it’s not too surprising that I met all three through various research projects–either approaching them or by being approached to collaborate on one project that has turned into multiple with each. I think working with someone on a research project really tells you a lot about them: their personality type (easy going or uptight), their level of commitment to their work, their commitment to teaching (accessibility–can you go and knock on their door? how long does it take for that person to return your emails?) as well as more personal qualities (goal-oriented, picky, lacksadaisical, punctual, detail-oriented, generous, open-minded, stubborn, etc). Usually, by the end of one paper, you can tell if this is someone who you can work with/interact with in the long term and if this is someone who will guide you in your training.
For people early in their careers (e.g. me), I think you gotta figure out how to get your name out there as much as possible through publications and national presentations in order to develop some name recognition in your field. At the same time, I think this is the time where we need to figure out how to balance “life” (e.g. family life, “you”, etc) with work. I think a good mentor can give you so much insight into how to do this or at least how to figure it out for yourself.
Finally, a good mentor lifts you up and nurtures your career by giving you opportunities. There are a lot of people out there who would love nothing more than for you to do work for them and then take all of the credit. Believe me I know. I’ve been there. It’s pretty rotten when the choice is either to give you an opportunity or to just pass it up all together and the latter is chosen. But, despite my bad experiences, I honestly believe there are people out there who are committed not only to their own careers, but also to mentoring others as well–who are committed to your success (isn’t that a crazy concept given what many of us have experienced?)–who see it as a part of the tradition of academia. The people who I work with now are constantly giving me the chance to present at national conferences, are signing me up as an official reviewer at scientific journals and continue to involve me in collaborations. And I really, really appreciate.
My bad experiences have often at the time motivated me to go at it (i.e. academics) alone. But, from what I’ve seen, that’s a path few make it through in academics. I think you gotta keep trying, keep talking to different people, keep working with different people and when you find those few who are really committed to mentoring you, it really makes it all worth it.
But that’s just my opinion…
If you are interested in pursuing training or a career in academic medicine in Europe, here is some information I recently received:
Are you interested in the European job market? Do you want to pursue a PhD, a post-doc, an academic or a professional career on the other side of the ocean? We invite you to join us at the 13th European Career Fair (ECF) in Cambridge, MA, the largest career fair of its kind.
Get started!
submit your resume today, by registering online for the ECF2009 at www.euro-career.com.
Deadline for resume submission has been extended to Wednesday, Dec 10th 2008. Resumes need to be prepared in PDF format.
The 13th European Career Fair in short
Why should you attend?
More information
For a list of employers that participated in previous European Career Fairs, or more detailed information go to the website:
http://www.euro-career.com
It’s happened to me and it’s probably happened to you. I was talking to a buddy of mine today who has been having a heck of a time with a manuscript review. The unreasonable manuscript review. Yes, it can be a very touchy subject and a bad review can cut you deep. But have you ever had a reviewer who wants you to demonstrate some additional step that is waaaaaay beyond the quality scale of that journal–i.e. you’re thinking, if I could do that, I’d be submitting this article to Nature or Science rather than this journal? Those kinds of reviews really get to me because there is really nothing you can. I was discussing this with my buddy today, and he really has no options. His manuscript has been in review for almost a year now and he can spend another 4 months working on satisfying this insatiable reviewer, but what will he have to show. (1) If he can’t do it–experimental limitations make it unlikely that this is even doable–then has lost 4 months where the paper could be in review at another journal. (2) if he does get it done and the paper gets accepted at this journal, he will have lost a Nature Medicine quality article to a second tier journal.
This happened to me on review for a manuscript to a journal one notch under Nature Medicine where if I could do what the reviewer demanded, I’d have won the Nobel prize. But what to do? You can’t tell a reviewer that their demand is too good for that journal. I ultimately had to submit to another journal. I’m afraid that my buddy will have to do similarly.
I suspect that these types of reviews happen when competitors review the manuscript. I don’t think the quality of articles in most journals is any secret so it is generally quite obvious when reviewers ask for ridiculous things. Actually, I received some ridiculous reviews on another manuscript, which the editor luckily ignored and when the manuscript was published, the reviewers were revealed and it was indeed a competitor who was making the ridiculous reviews. In my buddy’s case, he submitted to a specialty journal where the editor-in-chief is one of his competitors and left a specific note in his reviews stating that he needed to do X.
If anyone has suggestions on how to reply to such types of reviews, please let me know.
There are now over 100 grants, scholarships, fellowships for research (or just for you!) for medical students, graduate students, postdocs, residents, clinical fellows and investigators now on my funding opportunities page. On the way to two hundred!
Today is the 20th World AIDS Day and it is astounding how much and how quickly our clinical knowledge of HIV management has increased since 20 years ago. Treatment guidelines and recommendations are continuously updated as we learn more–this impacts clinical patient care from both the physicians’ side as well as the patients’. Below, I have listed some useful, clinically related links to online HIV resources for patient care, physician training or anyone who wants to learn more about the clinical aspects of HIV infection. Please let me know if you find any of these particularly useful!
| Resource | url | Resource description |
| AIDS Education and Training Center (AETC) on HIV | www.aids-ed.org | Training resources, slide sets, self-study and more on HIV |
| AETC | www.aids-ed.org/aidsetc?page=cm-00-00 | Clinical manual for management of the HIV-infected adult |
| International Training and Education Center on HIV | www.go2itech.org | International AETC with training material |
| HIV Insite | www.hivinsite.org | Knowledge base, drug interactions, global country profiles and more |
| Medscape HIV/AIDS | www.medscape.com/hiv | News, conference coverage, reviews, CME and more |
| VA National HIV/AIDS Program | www.hiv.va.gov | Information for providers and patients |
| Clinical Care Options | www.clinicaloptions.com | Reviews, CME, and conference summaries |
| The National HIV/AIDS Clinicians’ Consultation Center | www.ucsf.edu/hivcntr | AETC clinical resource, contact information for national warm line (a National HIV Telephone Consultation Service), PEPline (National Clinicians’ Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline) and the National Perinatal HIV Consultation and Referral Service |
So you’ve decided to do research and are wondering what to do it in.
Two pointers that I picked up during graduate school are:
1) do research in something you are passionate about
and
2) do research in something that is important to the lay-person.
Okay, so where do I get this from? I ended up choosing my PhD topic because I found myself thinking about the topic at all hours of the day–watching T.V., at the gym, etc. This served me extremely well. When you are in a long-term research project, you are bound to hit bumps in the road. And grad school can be one awfully bumpy ride. People talk about the peaks and valleys but in four years I can count the number of peaks on one hand. What kept me going through all of the valleys was my belief in the question I was trying to answer. Finishing the PhD was secondary. Sure you could power yourself through the hard times of research and the dark times of graduate school without necessarily having a great deal of passion for the research (e.g. some people choose a research lab only because of the PI). And depending on what you get out of research, it may be worth it. But I for one have seen too many good people leave/finish graduate school (or their research term) quite bitter and angry with the scientific process. I didn’t understand why or how that could be until I went through it myself. The one thing that kept me from heading down that dark path was the fact that I loved my project and believed in it (even though sometimes it felt like no one else did).
Work on something that lay-people will understand and appreciate. I don’t think this is critical like what I mentioned above (so don’t send me angry emails about it) and I offer this point more so as a consideration and a shout out to an old friend. This point is important on two levels. When I was a first year medical student, I hung out with a much older MD/PhD student in our program. He was a really smart guy, quite talented and successful in the lab. But, his research centered around how the two ends of a protein (no one had ever heard) interacted with each other. He won many awards but lamented that he could not talk to his parents or even friends in different scientific fields about his work. He once said that if you cannot tell your parents what you do in under 5 sentences, then that is a problem. At the time I thought that this was not a valid argument–there are many important problems, which need to be solved that aren’t well known to most others. But as I have thought about it over the last 6 years or so, I can see his point on some level. For one, research funding in a lot of ways depends on getting lay-people (i.e. the taxpayers) to appreciate what you do. On another level, perhaps it is a part of our natural tendency to work on translational research (i.e. research that clinical implications), which would, of course, have importance to the lay-person. Now that I have written it down, I suspect that this may have been a big reason for my friend’s feelings. As a physician, physician-scientist, or scientist with a desire to make a clinical impact, it is difficult to reconcile one’s career goals (helping patients) with research that has very little chance to make any clinical impact anytime soon–especially if no one even understands the work. I don’t know. I don’t think this is critical (so again, please don’t leave me angry emails/comments), but it is something to consider.
gotta have the passion
December 1 will be the 20th World AIDS Day. Take some time to think about the fact that over 30 million people are infected with HIV worldwide–as well as the tragic extent of the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 2/3rds of the world’s HIV+ population live and 2/3rds of AIDS-related deaths occur.
For more information and resources, check out:
And for those interested, here are links to the first two articles published describing the clinical entity AIDS in the December 10, 1981 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:
Neither article is available online at nejm.org, so refer to your local medical library but it’ll be well worth the effort. These articles make for an amazing read and it can be quite eerie–putting yourself in the shoes of the authors who were writing these case reports and then thinking about the extent to which HIV has since spread.
Funding opportunities for medical students, graduate students, post-docs, residents, clinical fellows and investigators are now up and searchable. I will be adding many more in the coming weeks–all with direct links to the actual grant applications and/or information urls.
Still working on making it more user friendly, but it is use-able for now.
To go to work or not to go to work? That is the question. The ultimate dilemma. Of course, if you are in the medical field, there is no question–you’re either on or off. But if you are in the lab, do you go in for that quick experiment before your thanksgiving day meal?
I mean, it is a university holiday. But as one world-reknowned faculty member at our institution told someone I know who tried to use that reasoning to put off an experiment: “they don’t lock the doors.” They don’t lock the doors indeed.
Happy thanksgiving to everyone!
