Superficiality in science

[Preface: I am aware that common courtesy is an integral aspect of a functional and polite society. I just wanted to rant a bit.]

Why do you say "we" when you mean "me"? Is it to make me feel like this is a team activity? You don't need to bother. I know that the protocol you mention following "we should" is what I will be doing. Without your assistance. I'd rather you just come right out and say that, instead of force me to smile and nod and play along with the superficiality.

And while we're being honest, if you ask me to do something, I take it as a request, meaning that I have the option to decline/refuse. I won't simply say yes because I'm a grad student and have no authority. If, however, I can't decline/refuse because the request is actually a command, then don't ask me. Tell me. Why give the impression of options -- that my opinion matters -- when it isn't a factor in the decision?

Public perception of science

I read an article today that said 84% of the general public believes science has had a positive impact on society and has made life easier for most people. [And that is despite the fact that 36% of those surveyed said that science conflicted with their religious beliefs!] Scientists were listed 3rd, below military personnel and teachers, in terms of overall contribution to society.

The vast majority of scientists, however, feel that the public's lack of scientific knowledge is a major problem and that the media is to blame. Scientists also differ from the general public in the belief in or acceptance of the theory of evolution (87 vs. 32%) and global warming (84 vs. 49%). 

Not surprisingly, those who believe in creationism -- that humans existed in their present form since the beginning -- are more likely to hold a negative view of science and scientists.

The article does reference the Bush administration's refusal to publish reports that conflicted with their point-of-view, but I'll have to look more into that. Science should be considered valuable regardless if it supports or doesn't support a given hypotheses. Science is about learning, and sometimes the best lessons are those that don't turn out as expected.

The article also has a link to a quiz with 12 questions to test your knowledge of science. [I can't tell if the quiz is designed to test general topics or more complex ones.] I'm happy to report I got a perfect score.

-------

Public praises science; scientists fault public, media

http://people-press.org/report/528/

The science knowledge quiz

http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/

Academia and Motherhood - Why the two are not mutually exclusive.

A blog I frequent had a link to an article titled "The Academic-Motherhood Handicap". It outlined practices and expectations that are out in the open, but seldom internalized by women pursuing a science career in academia. The requirements to gain tenure are immense, so it makes sense that the dedication in its pursuit must be intense. Departments value those who put in long office hours, rake in large grants, publish umpteen journal articles, and push out numerous graduate students. But the time required to achieve these feats has to come from somewhere, and often that is one's social or family life. 

Imagine the difficulty then in being a woman in science, who wants to have a family and knows the biological clock is waning, but who also knows that the decision to get pregnant could (and probably will) hinder or derail her career. To spend almost 20 years in school to obtain a Ph.D. diploma, only to be sequestered as an adjunct faculty member -- forever underpaid and under-appreciated for the degree you hold. I know this is a fate that awaits many women in science because for every successful man receiving an award for his outstanding achievements, stands a woman who gave up her career to raise the children and manage the home.

For the full article, click here.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Academic-Motherhood/64073/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en

Profile pictures

It's amazing how something as simple as taking a picture of yourself can bring out anxieties, feelings of inadequacy, and concern for how your friends/family/network/strangers will view you. I suppose part of the reasoning lies in how we view ourselves, and the way we cope with our limitations -- perceived or actual. We try to select images that showcase the best version of ourselves. This is especially true of online dating websites like eHarmony or Match.com. Humans are a visual species and the desire to form a relationship -- platonic or sexual -- is initiated by appearance. But what I didn't realize is that what constitutes the "best profile picture" depends a lot on your gender. This blog analyzed over 7,000 profile pictures to see how eye contact, facial expression, background, etc. impact the interest you receive from the other gender. The results are somewhat unexpected!

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/

Barbie's next career

A fellow woman in science recently posted in her blog that Mattel is letting the public vote for which career the iconic Barbie doll toy should have next.  Your choices are: environmentalist, surgeon, architect, news anchor and computer engineer.  I'm partial to computer engineer because (1)  news anchor seems so cliche and (2) I'm not sure if environmentalist is this the same as environmental scientist or if Mattel will use this as a platform for a Barbie who is green and hyperaware of her carbon footprint.  Regardless of your preference, go vote!

Go forth and vote!

http://www.barbie.com/vote/

The original blog post can be found at:

http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2010/01/barbie_the_computer_scientist.php

Prelims

I believe science has some fundamental flaws. Why else would an instrument of progress continue to perpetuate archaic practices like academic hazing? I understand some professors believe in the "value" of preliminary exams -- that science requires lifelong learning. Other professors may believe the experience helps you to think on your feet. But if preliminary exams were so crucial to success, why aren't they standardized? The Bar Exam is. The Medical Licensing Exam is. And while every doctoral student is working on one specific aspect of one specific project, the degree is the same for all members of the same department. So why are the preliminary exams so variable? Why is one student put through hell and another has the faculty planning a celebration before the exam is over? Scientists are suppose to be hyper-aware of bias and make every attempt to minimize it. I'm starting to worry that science is more of a "do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do" type of discipline. How else can I justify the demoralization of students as a means to measure progress in the program?

Science personality test

In 2005, The Science Advisory Board developed a personality test for scientists. It was published in Science, Nature, and a plethora of other journals. Although the personality test has since been removed from the TSAB website, I thought the breakdown of archetypal researchers merited a few cynical comments from a graduate student point of view.

Leader: When others follow, you lead [to the bar or events with free food]. During lab meetings, you suggest off-the-wall experiments that cause your labmates to roll their eyes and ignore you. Your PI applauds your creativity, but will claim your ideas as his own in grants and departmental functions. Your confidence in yourself will be crushed during prelims.

Explorer: You enjoy new terrain (non-research buildings) and adventures (undergrad parties). During lab meetings, you plan your next vacation while simultaneously reading the news. Your labmates think you're lazy, but you do just enough work to not get reprimanded. Your attitude: If it isn't broken, don't fix it.  

Organizer: You come to lab meetings with a list of updates and questions. You are frustrated that fellow graduate students take advantage of your generosity. Your PI treats you like the lab manager, but without the better pay or benefits. You debate whether you should've been a stay-at-home mom.

Enthusiast: You love science. Your workweek excels 40 hours by Wednesday and you never take vacation. During lab meetings, you're updating your lab notebook and planning out tomorrow's set of experiments. Your PI thinks your the model graduate student and loves giving you side projects. Watch out though -- You'll be burned out by the end of your 2nd year.