Sooooooo Tiiiiiiirrrrrrreeeeedddd

I think I actually nodded off at my desk just now. I am exhausted and becoming more so thinking about the weekend of wonderfulness work that I have ahead of me.

Why so tired? Lack of sleep for one. While I have not pulled the 1-4am worryfest for the last couple of nights, I am still catching up on my deficit.

Also, I think I forgot to have lunch. Yep, pretty sure. Yay, reactive hypoglycemia!

Also, I had an interview this morning. I think it went pretty well. It was kind of overwhelming though. The projects are interesting but rather complicated and it was a lot to take in. The interview was pretty positive, but I am now feeling strangely deflated about it. I'm not sure what that means. I'm not going to bother thinking about it until I've got at least half my usual brain wattage back. Right now it feels like someone's borrowed it to power a small household appliance. I just ripped off that analogy from a favorite book (Cath? are you reading it yet?). That is very unoriginal of me, but it is so very very apt, and I am so very very tired.

Brief Respite

[AA will be writing this post in the third person, because it is largely an uninteresting post, and since AA rarely writes in the third person, she thinks that will spice it up a bit. She does not plan on making a habit of this third person thing so don't get used to it.]

Funk defeated!

AA made some progress in trouble-shooting her problems with FavoriteAntibody recently, and cannot progress further until the scope becomes available again (over the weekend). Since she will be working all weekend, she has elected to take her weekend respite today (Thursday).

At the time of writing, AA is in her pajamas, enjoying a lunch of leftover homemade enchiladas in mole sauce, and drinking a Scotland Yard. She swam over a mile this morning at 6:30am, and looks forward to a short nap later this afternoon.

While she has declared today an observed weekend, AA is nonetheless working. She has done some polishing of the Results and Methods sections of her ManuBeast, and will resume reading select papers from a potential post-doc lab (at which she will interview tomorrow) once she has finished her enchiladas. So far, they are quite interesting (the papers, that is - the enchiladas are less interesting since she is now eating them for the third day in a row, but still delicious). She has complied a list of questions about the papers, as well as a future project that she could pitch to the PI. (She's done some snooping recently and hears that the PI likes pitches for future projects. Cha-ching!)

She will likely go to the lab later this evening (when her parking card works) to run a gel and give BH a ride home, because it is too damn hot for the 2.5 mile sweatfest bike ride if one doesn't have to (besides, she already got her exercise today). Incidentally, AA is also rather enjoying the fact that she does not have helmet-hair today.

Maybe later she will make some bread and some red lentil soup that can wait in the crockpot until dinner, because she and BH are broke till payday, and there ain't much but fruit in the fridge.

That is all for now. AA wants to get back to her papers.

A Troubleshooting Tale

This post is for Physioprof, because he loves this shit. The rest of you will most likely find it to be terminally boring. Fair warning.

The problem:

BullshitExperiment requires final validation using FavoriteAntibody. Recent attempts to use FavoriteAntibody on tissue prepared in such manner as for BullshitExperiment have resulted in no signal from FavoriteAntibody either on experimental tissue or positive controls. Oh crap.

The hypotheses:

1. FavoriteAntibody is failing because it's old.
2. The problem is not with FavoriteAntibody but with secondaries.
3. There is a fatal flaw in BullshitExperiment which causes cells not to express FavoriteAntigen.

Strategy #1:

To address hypothesis #1, I used the same protocol as I do for FavoriteAntibody, but used LabCommunalAntibody as the primary instead. LabCommunalAntibody is also usually very good, is used with consistent success by several other lab members, is raised in the same host species as FavoriteAntibody, and detects cells in my tissue of interest (though different cells than those which label with FavoriteAntibody).

Result #1:

No signal with LabCommunalAntibody (Uh-oh).

Conclusion #1:

While this does not tell me for sure that FavoriteAntibody is old and no longer useful, it is unlikely that both FavoriteAntibody and LabCommunalAntibody are both facing the same fate. This result suggests that the problem is more likely to be with the secondaries or a fatal flaw in the experiment.

Strategy #2:

Apply FavoriteAntibody to positive control tissue in 3 groups. Each group will contain 4 slides (3 with primary antibody incubation and 1 without). Each group will be incubated in a different secondary: goat anti-rabbit 488, goat anti-rabbit 546, donkey anti-rabbit 546. FavoriteAntibody is raised in rabbit and I frequently use it for double-labeling, so I have had success with all of these secondary antibodies in the past.

Result #2:

1. goat anti-rabbit 488 - strong signal, no background, no signal without primary
2. goat anti-rabbit 546 - strong signal, no background, no signal without primary
3. donkey anti-rabbit 546 - inconsistent signal (some slides show some cells with comparable signals to other secondaries but other cells with weak signal, some slides show uniformly weak signal), no background, no signal without primary

Conclusion #2:

Donkey anti-rabbit 546 gives inconsistent label on my tissue of interest when used with FavoriteAntibody. Goat is where it's at, yo! This indicates that my previous problems may have been attributable to use of the donkey secondary but does not yet eliminate the possibility that there is a fatal flaw in BullshitExperiment which causes cells not to express FavoriteAntigen.

Strategy #3:

Apply FavoriteAntibody (with goat secondary!!) to experimental tissue of interest, as well as to age-matched controls (sham manipulation), and to positive control tissue that has given me good signal in Strategy #2.

Results/Conclusions #3:

I'll let you know.

Even if I get the label to work in BullshitExperiment, this will not alleviate the general bullshit issues with this experiment, like the fact that negative results will be inconclusive. But if I get all this done before meeting with GrAdvisor I have a much stronger case for dropping BullshitExperiment from the ManuBeast, and the added bonus of not having lost faith in my FavoriteAntibody, which will be used for many upcoming experiments. Baby steps.

Funk

Yep, I'm in one. I'm in the midst of trouble-shooting whatever the hell went wrong with my FavoriteAntibody. Final step of BullshitExperiment requires use of FavoriteAntibody. FavoriteAntibody seems to have recently given up the ghost.

In some ways, this is excruciatingly depressing. Finishing BullshitExperiment will allow me to finish the draft of the ManuBeast for submission.

In some ways, it might be a relief. Not finishing BullshitExperiment might mean not putting it in the ManuBeast. I think that this might be a better option since the BullshitExperiment is well, bullshit. Trouble is, GrAdvisor lllluuuurrrrvvvvs this experiment. I hate it. A positive result would be potentially interesting but exceedingly unlikely. A negative result will be utterly inconclusive. Like I said, bullshit. I have explained this to GrAdvisor several times now but it just goes in one ear and out the other. "Hmmm, I think I see what you're saying," he says. "I'll think some more on it." Then the next time I see him, "How are things progressing on BullshitExperiment?" Grrrr.

I'd like to drop BullshitExperiment altogether but I know I won't be able to without a fight. So I am planning one last-ditch attempt to get interpretable results from it, after which (assuming the likely event of uninterpretable results), I will propose to GrAdvisor that we submit the ManuBeast without it. This will leave fewer holes for reviewers to stick their fingers in, but it will also mean that the ManuBeast will be more likely to be rejected without review from TopNotchJournal, which has gained the unfortunate reputation of rejecting papers based on our ClassicalUnsexyTechnique. Then again, with the BullshitExperiment (which is hardly the central finding of the paper), this manuscript has the distinct possibility of turning into Swiss cheese in the hands of reviewers if they choose to focus on the BullshitExperiment rather than the ones that do lead to the central finding, so I'm not sure which scenario presents the least likely for rejection possibility.

In short, learning when to keep trying and when to throw in the towel on a tricky experiment is a skill I've not yet mastered. Learning how to convince GrAdvisor that we should/should not throw in the towel is something I'm still working on too.

I could include results from PotentiallyInterestingObservation (which I had hoped to turn into a "short report"), but it will take some time to chase down the results from PIO, delaying ManuBeast submission even further if we combine them with the ManuBeast. And I'd really like those results to stand alone.

Blech. I've blogged about this before. Several times in fact. At least it feels as if I have. Sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record. All that crap has been running circles in my head for the last several nights. I have spent the hours between 1 and 4am for the past three nights thinking about this crap and not making any progress towards conclusion. The sleep deficit has not been good for my demeanor.

I need to shake this funk before Friday so I can be excited for my next post-doc interview. For my last few interviews, it seemed that ManuBeast submission was just around the corner, so it was pretty easy to be enthusiastic about my own work and the possibility of starting on something new. Right now, I don't feel particularly interested in either. Nor are my auto-pep-talks effective. Come on AA. Time to get back on the pony and ride. Science isn't always this crappy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Ugh.

Damn

As a cost-cutting measure in these difficult financial times, my current place of employment has decided that it would be economical to outsource our custodial services to an independent contractor. Up until now, the custodial staff were employees of MegaResearchInstitute, where I would not be surprised to learn that they may have been paid slightly more than the industry standards, and where I know they received insurance coverage and a pension plan. MRI is letting them go so they can hire the services of another company whose employees work for slightly less. MRI won't be responsible for their benefits.

The woman that cleans our lab in the evenings has emptied our trash cans and mopped our floors for the last 28 years. She's been taking care of the labs in this department as long as I've been alive. She had planned to work here another 2 years and then retire with the full pension plan. Now she'll have to settle with a partial. She says she'll be fine - she's been able to save some (I am so impressed by this as I've done a particularly poor job of the same on my student stipend), but she worries about some of her colleagues who have not been here so long. It's tough to get a job these days.

She's always been quick to ask how things are going when we're working late at the bench, and she's been known to share a clandestine cookie from the secret lab stash after hours when no one's looking. She tells us that we work too hard, that we should go home and get some sleep. We agree with her, but tell her that she could say the same about herself. She brought my labmate flowers one Valentine's Day when labmate was feeling particularly lonely. She (and all her colleagues) will be missed.

Book Meme

Eugenie tagged me with the "Book Meme". Good thing, because my brain needs an oil change and there was no way I was going to come up with some fresh blog fodder for you without causing the engine to seize. The rules are thus: list 15 books that you can come up with in 15 minutes that have "stuck with you". I don't often play by the rules, so I see no reason to start now. I've listed my >15 books (in a couple of different categories) that have "stuck with me". It took me considerably longer than 15 minutes to do so.

Children's Books:

1. His Dark Materials (Trilogy) - Phillip Pullman - (The Amber Spyglass movie is crap in comparison.) I actually didn't read this series as a child - I think the first time was when I was about 15 or 16 (at which point I think I was more of a young adult)...and I've read it several times over since then. It did then and still does appeal to my inner scientist and general pain in the ass. Question everything and don't let other people determine your ethics for you based on "I said so".
   
2. Lord of the Rings (Trilogy) - J.R.R. Tolkein - for the obvious reasons I think.
   
3. Where the Wild Things Are - Maurice Sendak - I wanted to be Max as a child. Actually I just wanted his pajamas. And I love love love the illustrations, and the verbal imagery: "they rolled their terrible eyes, and gnashed their terrible teeth!". I remember going to see The Nutcracker by the Pacific Northwest Ballet as a little kid. I never liked the story, but was utterly enchanted by the set (designed by Sendak), especially the Christmas tree that grew out of the stage. He also did the costume design - the seven-headed Rat King gave me nightmares for years - excellent!
4. Ronia The Robber's Daughter - Astrid Lindgren - Was kind of "meh" on Pippi Longstocking but I loved this book because the protagonist was a little girl who was exactly not like most other little girls in children's books. She was a little hellion raised by a band of robbers, and she basically spent her time traipsing about the woods on her pony getting up to no good. She befriends the son of a rival robbers' band, and in Romeo & Juliet fashion they defy the family rivalry and remain fast friends, even moving out and setting up their own camp in the woods. But they don't fall in love as I recall and they both remain little terrors right through the story. No moralizing (except to the parents). Wonderful.
5. We Were Tired of Living in House - Liesel Moak Scorpen (author), Doris Burn (illustrator). The illustrations in newer editions are just crap in comparison to the original. Kids get sick of being told what to do, so they move out to their own place (are we detecting a theme here? All things considered, my parents were pretty awesome, I just had a wicked independent streak). Of course, various inclement weather forces them to move on to other abodes, and each time they take something with them from their previous home. "....and a frog who was a particular friend...." I think my mom saved this book for me in hopes that I'll give it *my* kids someday. Methinks it's some sort of bribe in exchange for grandkids. Mom, I can buy it on amazon.
6. The Harry Potter series - J.K. Rowling - It's all been said before.
7. The Baron in the Trees - Italo Calvino - This isn't really children's book, but I suspect I would have liked it just as much if I'd read it as a kid.
   

Philosophy/Mythology/Literature:

1. The Hero With a Thousand Faces - Joseph Campbell - This book sticks with me not as the book itself, but as a sort of tour guide through my high school Literary Backgrounds course. This class was the reason I became a Philosophy major. It was taught by a crotchety and occasionally creepy old dude who cursed a lot and treated his students like adults (a rarity). He insisted that we be suspicious of any viewpoint that was handed to us on a platter - that people (and good authors) lie about their agenda so you have to dig a little deeper to figure out what's really going on, that the hard things are the ones worth doing, and that being intellectually lazy means missing out on the Real Deal (also working themes from Hero).
   
2. Fear and Trembling - Soren Kierkegaard - This work was pivotal for me. Read it for my Existentialism class in college, and suddenly I "got it" about belief/faith. I was raised in a religious household, but with a big heaping healthy dose of critical thinking. I tried really hard to "believe" but never felt like I pulled it off. Kierkegaard spelled out why. Belief is informed by your experiences and perceptions of reality, but requires at some point a "leap of faith" or a conscious decision to accept cognitive dissonance, to hold two opposing realities simultaneously as truths...sort of like Schroedinger's cat, which is something I "get" intellectually, but it is much more difficult to wrap my head around in practice. It was this book that showed me why I couldn't do it, and it was a tremendous relief.
   
3. Dynamics of Faith and The Courage To Be - Paul Tillich - Yeah, that's two books, so sue me. Part counterpoint to Kierkegaard, part "Yeah, existentialism is tough - suck it up! Oh, and if you do, it's pretty awesome!"
   
4. Republic - Plato - Perhaps it's a bit cliche but the Allegory of the Cave is still true. Our experience informs our perception of reality. Changing it is scary.
   
5. The Trial - Franz Kafka - Alternate Title: AA's Initiation into Academic Science. The first time I read this book (pre-initiation into academic science) I thought it was miserable and terrifying. I still think it's miserable and terrifying. I mean WTF? Why? What the hell is wrong with you Franz? And then I joined the ranks of academic science and I felt just like Franz. I am clearly on trial here, but no one can/will tell me what for exactly or how I am supposed to go about defending myself. Soldiering on in the face of absurdity can feel like a pretty lonely position, but it's not a unique experience.
   

Fiction (I'm going to be lazy on this section - I'm not telling you why these ones stuck with me - I suggest you go read them and see what you get out of it):

1. A Trip to the Stars - Nicholas Christopher
2. Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates - Tom Robbins
3. You Shall Know Our Velocity! - Dave Eggers
4. The Stone Raft - Jose Saramago
5. Balthasar and Blimunda - Jose Saramago
   

I like Cath's tagging method. She tagged anyone who's ever fallen off a sailboat. I tag anyone who's ever fallen off a horse.

Some days I want to kick Science in the teeth

I am in an abusive relationship with Science. No, really.

My love affair with Science began like all love affairs do - attraction, infatuation, thinking that everything is just perfect. Science was charming and exciting and fulfilled my every desire. It even surprised me, gave me nice things data, made me want to spend more and more of my time with it.

Then just when I was hooked, things took a sinister turn. Science dealt me a low blow. All the things that I loved about Science suddenly weren't there. The bottom fell out. The Science I knew and loved was replaced by a monster, who made promises about fantastic data and shiny publications, and then turned around and gave me failed experiments. Science told me all kinds of rotten things about myself and made me think that I didn't deserve any better. My self-esteem suffered and I thought about leaving, but my identity was so entangled in this relationship that I didn't think I could.

Then, just when I was ready to throw in the towel, things changed again. Oh, I'm so sorry, said Science. I've been such an ass. I've treated you so badly. I didn't mean it. I swear. Things will be different from now on. And they were...for a while. Experiments worked. New projects flourished. Everything was peachy.

And now I'm in the downward swing again. I've been through enough of these by now to recognize the pattern for what it is. I know if I threaten to leave that Science will come running back and apologize yet again. And I will take it back.

Science is a master manipulator. We've become unhealthily co-dependent. I know this, and I stay anyway.

Another Open Letter

To the construction workers outside my bedroom window:

I don't know which one of you thought it would be a good idea to start banging on large metal I-beams with crowbars at the ass-crack of dawn this morning. It wasn't. WTF are you even doing? You're clearly not attaching anything to the I-beams. That would require a proper hammer, or possibly some power tools. You're neither trying nor succeeding in changing the shape of said I-beams either by pounding on them with crowbars. You're just casually meandering around beating on a large piece of metal in no systematic pattern for no apparent reason. Seriously people, this can't be necessary. You should probably know that I also have a crowbar, and that if this happens again at tomorrow's ass-crack of dawn I will not hesitate to use it. I don't think those hardhats will afford you much protection.

I hope you rot,
AA

An Open Letter

Dear Favorite Antibody,

Do you know why you are my favorite antibody? Because you work. Every time. I can put on you any tissue, in all permutations of blocking solution, and you always, without fail, give me clean clear bright signal, and no background to speak of. I brag about you in the lab whenever I do immunos. Did you know that? I praise your consistency to my colleagues, and I tell them all the time how much better you are than any other antibody that I have ever had.

Until today. Today you didn't work. No signal. None. What gives?

Whatever it is, I hope you get it sorted out soon. I really miss those images we used to do together.

XOXO
-AA

Alas, I've jumped into the fray

I've been trying to avoid the atheism v. religion showdown that's been going on around these parts of late, in part because I don't think that anyone's ever going to arrive at a consensus on this issue, and it often seems that the discussion becomes circular. Also in part because I tend not to have very strong opinions on how others ought to think about these things. I have very strong opinions about how *I* think about these things, but I don't necessarily believe that everyone else should agree with me. So I've just not been participating in this discussion. Then Samia put up a great post about how we are in general too quick to characterize a Muslim woman as an oppressed victim of her religion. (Go read, I'll wait.) This brought things back into the realm of feminism, which I am much more comfortable discussing. I'm responding here to some of her points/questions because in so doing we have diverged from the issue at hand somewhat and I don't want to derail the discussion at hers.

First, I think it's important to try to understand/empathize and sometimes it's easier to do if you can find an experience through which to relate to this dehumanizing of an entire group of people for the purposes of furthering a particular agenda. So I'll relate some of my experiences that allow me to sort of "get" the total suckitude of being characterized as some sort of brain-washed victim of one's culture/religion/upbringing.

I'm an agnostic ex-Catholic and a scientist, and I feel like I catch it from both sides sometimes. Though I am not a "believer" nor a practicing Catholic I still hold onto some of the recognizably "Catholic" traditions which are not just religious but inextricably linked to the culture and heritage of my family and ancestors. So I get some griping from my family for "giving up my faith for science" and flak from other scientists/atheists/feminists for not denouncing *everything* and still taking part in the "religious" stuff that is culturally and familially important to me. Everyone else seems to think they know what's best for me and they're all at conflict. It's as if my choices, my considered decisions, and my autonomy are not even considered in the critique. (For those of you who are now just itching to disabuse me of my delusions: Yes, I am fully aware that the Catholic Church pulls a whole helluva a lot of cheap punches, which is why I have chosen not to be a member of the Church, though there were other choices I could have made in response. I also know a lot of individual Catholics who are compassionate, reasonable, and intelligent people. My family members being a few of them. Which is why it chaps my hide when people run around screaming that all religious folk are irrational wing-nuts with a political agenda that they'd like to shove down everyone's throat. That's as much of an apologist as I'm ever going to be.) But I'm going to shut up about that now, because this post is not just about me - that was all just to say that the dehumanizing of women who are making a *choice* about their faith and practices really struck a nerve with me. It is denying their autonomy, which is precisely what all these well-meaning folks who have set out to liberate these women from their oppressive religion and culture say they want to give back to them.

Enough about that. What follows is a response to Samia, along with a lot of other thoughts that have been rattling around in my head regarding the conflict between scientists/atheists/feminists and mainstream religion in this country.

Certainly the attitude in some blog circles will differ, especially since so many of the most prominent science bloggers identify as atheist (in my experience, a few atheist bloggers who constantly write about religion qualify as some of the Most Annoying People in the World).

WORD! Yeah, the science blogosphere is hardly representative of US culture in general, which is why I think that your characterization of white Christians in your original post generally holds true. As I said in my comment, being white and identifying as Christian in this country is the norm, and it is regarded as a choice (consider that choosing not to participate in Christianity can open you up to all kinds of evangelist and conversion efforts - "choose the straight and narrow path" and all that), and the right choice at that by most of the general public. Things are different in the science blogging community - being atheist is the norm, and is considered the reasonable, rational, and therefore *right* decision within that community. Everyone's got an opinion on how everyone else ought to think/believe or not think/believe or relate to religion/belief/religious people and their way is always the right way.

I'm curious about the trend you mentioned, mostly because I haven't observed it myself. So it's more common to call out a female Christian scientist than a male one?

I don't know exactly - in my impression there are more female science bloggers who are openly religious than male science bloggers who are openly religious. It *seems* to me that both catch the same kind of "how can you be a decent scientist if you believe in a deity? (which science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of)" types of trolling. It also *seems* to me that the women get more comments which imply that the reader is writing off their intelligence, whereas the men get more of an attempt to engage in reasonable discussion argument (however annoying that might be). Of course, my sample size (esp. for the men) is quite small so these are only my impressions. "Data" =/= plural of "anecdote" and all that.

Is it because people expect women to react more negatively to patriarchal values?

I think that people expect women (especially those who identify as feminists) to reject a patriarchal system (i.e., most major religions) in its entirety because it's easy to look at a religion or religious organization and say, "See how it treats men and women differently? See how it is oppressive to women? You can choose to participate or not, so why don't you leave?" While that all may be true, what these people are not accounting for is that we don't completely opt out of a lot of other patriarchal systems (like our society in general, or hell, academic science) partly because we can't without becoming hermits, and partly because there are some things that we actually like about those systems (science? our careers? our relationships with other people?) which we choose not to reject in their entirety. And this is the point that most people don't get. NOTHING is black and white, and people can relate to all kinds of things in non-absolute ways. Just because one person wants exactly nothing to do with anything remotely religious, doesn't mean that another cannot embrace some practices, beliefs, celebrations, rituals, or cultural aspects of a given religion, while at the same time, choosing not to participate in those aspects that are unappealing or which they find to be personally oppressive. (Yeah, I know all about the all-or-nothing clauses in a lot of evangelical Christian churches. But they can't see into your head, so how can they possibly know what each and every member of their flock really believes? Hell, I spent most of my youth professing to believe a whole load of stuff that I never did. Everyone bought it. I just got tired of pretending.)

Also, it's very very difficult to make a distinction between some things being a part of one's *culture* v. one's *religion*. Sometimes it's both.

(Sidebar: I think that the view of Islam in this country is so black-and-white/all-or-nothing because most Americans have been fed a lot of bullshit propaganda about Islam in hopes that we might feel better about bombing the fuck out of some Middle Eastern countries so as to liberate the poor Muslims from their oppression. Which is no excuse for accepting this at face value and remaining ignorant, but there it is. Does oppression occur under Islam? Yes it does, and it's wrong, but that's certainly not exclusive to Islam, and the oppression is not solely attributable to religion - race, class, gender and all the usual suspects come into play as well. Are all Muslim women oppressed? I can't speak for all Muslim women - maybe we should ask them.)

Maybe it's just that we generally feel freer to criticize female life decisions/circumstances/opinions?

Yup. This. Because we all know that women are irrational by nature so we need to help the poor girls arrive at some reason, dontcha know.

Aren't most scientists in the States Christians anyway?

I haven't taken a poll, but I really don't think so. It would not surprise me to learn that of all the scientists worldwide who are also Christians, most would be in the US. However, I do NOT think that most scientists in the US are Christians, which is probably part of the reason why there is SOOOOOOOO much antagonism between the religious right and the "intellectual elite" in this country - scientists are painted broadly as a bunch of heathens who are not to be trusted (probably because most of us are, and most of the non-scientist public in this country professes to be Christian, and evangelical at that). However, some geographic locations (the South?) probably contain a higher percentage of scientists who are Christians (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) than other parts of the country, and if you ever attended/got your biology degree from a college with religious affiliations (as I did, and no, neither Intelligent Design nor Young Earth Creationism could be found in the syllabi), it would be easy to get the false impression that most scientists are also Christians. But geography and affiliations all skew the mean. It's also interesting for me to note that of my scientific colleagues who are open about their Christian faith, only one is white. The others hail from Korea, China, and Taiwan.

This isn't really religion-related, but it's kind of natural that people are more logical and clearheaded in some areas of life than others. Just look at how many otherwise intelligent scientists have issues with women+/POC/cultural literacy/the entire subject of gender identity! I'm actually in the process of writing a complaint to my department. "Intelligent" or not, some of those people are straight-up dumbasses.

This. Yes. Exactly. Which is why I really wish people would get off the train when they find themselves starting to rail on scientists and/or feminists who also *choose* to participate in a religion that non-participants deem as patriarchal/oppressive/irrational/choose your favorite pejorative. Religion really ain't my thang. So for the most part I don't play. But at the same time, I respect the fact that I have made that choice for myself, and that others are free to choose differently. The sum of my life experiences are a large part of how I've arrived at this choice, and I don't expect others with different experiences to arrive at the same conclusions that I have. Who am I to criticize their choices, or turn them into a poster child for my agenda?

Things that Annoy Me

1. People who don't clearly state their expectations, and are yet mysteriously dissatisfied when you do not meet the expectations that are publicly posted so deep in the cavernous recesses of their brains that they can't even find them.
2. People who can't remember that you informed them, and they approved of, critical mission #324, and are therefore incensed that you initiated critical mission #324 without their permission.
3. People who believe that the way they do things is the only acceptable and obviously best way to do things...if it weren't, they wouldn't do it that way (duh), ergo, you should conform instantly.
4. People who...well, really, just people.
   

!@($*^%*(#(!*@&#Y*(%~!()*&%$BI!@!!!!!11111

Motherfucking contamination in the plates of my last motherfucking replicate!!!!

SONOFABITCH!!!

Thankfully only in one well. Throwing that one out. This bring my samples size dangerously low, but still usable if all those samples make it through processing in one piece.

If they don't, so help me, some heads are gonna roll!!!11!!!

I don't know whose heads, but there will be some skull bowling upon my return. Fuck!!

AA biffs off for a bit

Folks, I know you've all been missing me terribly lately. I can hear you clamoring in my inbox.

Actually, no, that's not true. I don't have pages of messages from desperate fans. I assume that's because you all have your own life. So do I, which means I probably wouldn't have time to get to all that imaginary fan mail anyway. So it's all for the best really.

Anywhooo, the blog fodder has been particularly lame of late. It's because in real life, things are blowing up!! Not literally of course, but damn people - I've been busy. A good kind of busy - lots getting done and that kind of forward momentum is gold. On the other hand, that kind of momentum can only be sustained for so long...at least until someone gets that perpteual motion machine finished. What I'm trying to say is that I need a break from it all so I can come back fresh to the bench and fresh to the blog.

So in order to spare you any more boring posts, I'm going to give a quick update for those of you keeping score at home, and then I'm taking off for a week or so to go do something fun and important and completely unrelated to science. Here goes:

1. Things are really coming together on my little collaborative project - I think it's really starting to build itself into a nice little paper and I continue to be delighted with the working relationship I've developed with my collaborator.
   
2. The ManuBeast continues to be a beast. I have what I hope to be the very last and final experiment running right now, which I will analyze upon return from my brief hiatus and bust ass to get the sumbitch submitted this month - wish me luck.
3. I have had some post-doc interviews that have gone largely well. One lab I rather like and I expect an offer from them any time now. Another lab I really like rather a lot, but am waiting with bated breath to hear about funding. More interviews to come.
4. I've been collecting samples for my potentially-interesting-observation-that-might-become-a-short-report, but no time to analyze them yet since the ManuBeast is Priority A #1 at the moment. I hope that by having all these samples waiting and ready to go in freezer I will be able to take a concerted crack at this observation as soon as the ManuBeast gets sent out for review. Fingers crossed.
5. New Technology project is also going full speed ahead, in spite of all the business with the ManuBeast, thanks in large part to a remarkably talented and capable undergrad who's been working with me. (Summer students are often a big time suck, and occasionally rewarding. This one has been a unique experience for me. All those times I've said I could get twice as much done in half the time if only I had another pair of hands? Well, now I've got them and I'm pleased to find that my prediction is true.) Technology development is a new experience for me so I'm not sure how to package this one for publication yet, but we've got a few more bridges to cross before we have enough to get a feel for this yet.

So yeah, that's the scoop. Talk at you next week.

Stream of consciousness

Muuurrrghghgh. Saturday. Hateful hateful experiment. Last replicate? It fucking better well be. Friend's birthday party? Maybe. I hope so. I should go. I'm not sure I want to go. I think that makes me kind of a shitty friend. Socializing can be really draining though. I like it but it takes a lot of energy (I'm an introvert, so sue me). So does this fucking experiment - I'm not sure how much I'll have left when this is done. Party starts in 15 minutes. I'll be late no matter what. Friend throws big loud fun parties with lots of people and good booze. Excellent booze. Mmmmm, booze. We'll see if this headache erupts into a full-blown migraine by the time I finish this motherfucking replicate. I have to come back at midnight. Fuck. Jesus H. Christ this is a hateful experiment. I was so hyper-productive earlier this week. I got so much shit done. I worked stooooopid late most days and (incredibly) had lots to show for it. Too bad that momentum couldn't carry through the weekend. Momentum is good, but I knew it was going to bite me in the ass. Sleep deficit catches up eventually. It always does. Why the fuck do I always end up doing this hateful experiment on the weekends? I think those mice arrange it this way just to spite me. Fair enough really. I probably would do the same if I were them. I hate this fucking experiment. This better be the last fucking replicate. I said that for the last three replicates I think. Shit. My head hurts.

Lying motherfucker

I really don't know why I torture myself like this. I guess it's because I care about the health care system in this country. A lot. So I subscribe to updates from Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), because although he is NOT on the committee for health care reform, he sure seems to have an awful lot to say about it. Health care is a big industry in the state of Texas, which is home to the largest medical center in the country, possibly in the world (of course it is, it's Texas!) so I guess he's got a bit of a vested interest. Here's the latest load of crap (emphases mine):

Also back in Texas I continued my health care outreach tour across the state. In San Antonio, I met with Texans who are working hard to provide affordable care to uninsured and medically underserved individuals at Centro Med, a new Federally Qualified Health Center (FHCQ [sic]). Centro Med and other FHCQs provide preventative care alternatives and work to reduce emergency room overcrowding to low-income individuals who wouldn’t otherwise have access. Another innovative means of meeting the health care needs of underserved individuals can be found in Project Access Dallas (PAD). During my visit to Christ’s Family Clinic at Preston Road Church of Christ, I heard about PAD’s network of volunteer physicians, partnering hospitals, community charity health clinics, and ancillary partners who volunteer to care for working poor and low-income patients. These are the kinds of solutions that can drive successful reform of our health care system.

Really!?!? THIS is the kind of solution you are gunning for - providing care to those who can't afford it by NOT PAYING the people who are willing to provide it???? I mean, it's great that there are big-hearted doctors and clinics out there who realize that health care is not a privilege but a right. And it's great that they are willing to give that care free of cost to people who can't pay for it under the current fucked up system. But Senator, this is a band-aid on a fucking tumor. It is not going to fix the problem of people not being able to pay for their medical care. Not remotely. And just we're clear on the definition of reform:

"1 a: to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses; 2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action; 3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways".

Reading comprehension OK there, sir?

You are proposing that the solution is to continue to depend on the goodwill and limited resources of people who can give a few hours here and there for free. This is neither a solution nor a reform (see above). And may I just point out that relying on the volunteerism of people who are ordinarily paid handsomely (and rightly so in this case) for their services seems a little counter-capitalist...aren't you supposed to be a Republican? So who is paying for the care that the volunteers are providing anyway? Sure, the doctors may be donating their time (time is money, especially when you could use it to see paying patients), but there is a significant cost stemming from consumables like bandages, needles, vacutubes, diagnostic fees when they send samples to labs, not to mention medical waste disposal. This care is not actually free. There is a cost being incurred somewhere - just not in your wallet, I guess.

I think it's pretty safe to conclude at this point that Senator Cornyn is either a moron or an assclown.

But wait, there's more:

In Houston, I was honored to be joined by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John McCain to hear from Texans at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center about their concerns with accessing affordable care, and their ideas for how Congress should move forward with health care reform. M.D. Anderson is one of the top centers for cancer care in the nation. Health reform must preserve access to quality care like this in America and prevent the poor outcomes that cancer patients face in countries with socialized medicine.

Before we get into the meat of this: yes, it would be good to preserve this kind of quality care. However, I am failing to make the logical leap with you to the implied conclusion that moving to a system in which everyone can get care would necessitate the decline of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the quality of care it provides. Please show your work, or you won't get credit for this answer.

Oh, and WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY ALL REPUBLICANS GETTING TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT THIS!?!?!? Where are the Democrats? Do they not care, or were they not invited?

OK, now that I've got that off my chest, let's get to the point here. Cancer is not the only condition faced by the under-privileged that requires medical attention, but since you brought it up, let's talk about cancer. If you're going to make the claim that cancer patients face poorer outcomes in countries with socialized medicine than they do here in the good old US of A, then you're going to have to cite your sources or we're going to think that you're making shit up. Here are mine. A comparison of statistics compiled by the National Cancer Institute and Cancer Research UK (OMG! socialists!) finds LOWER MORTALITY for cancer patients in the UK (177 deaths/100,00 people) as compared to the US (>200 deaths/100,00 people) once they've been diagnosed. (For the record, that amounts to a 13% worse mortality rate in the US.) Huh. Poorer outcomes under socialized medicine you say? Senator, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. It doesn't change the facts. (Moron, assclown or liar?) Those numbers are solidly reporting a poorer outcome under NON-socialized medicine. And it's worse than it looks!

I would like to point out that the only patients included in the US statistic for comparison are those who could afford to see a doctor for diagnosis or treatment in the first place - cuz if they haven't seen a doctor, they're not a patient. If all those afflicted non-patients in the US were included that mortality rate would mushroom faster than the A-bomb detonation, Senator. Since the statistics are reported as patients seen by a doctor or hospital, we have no idea how many are out there who are never diagnosed, who die of these diseases because they can't afford to pay for a diagnosis, let alone treatment. Some of them do eventually see a doctor and are included in these statistics, but because they couldn't afford it, they've waited until it's so bad that they can't afford NOT to see a doctor and find out that if they had caught it sooner it wouldn't be terminal. (Gee, do you suppose that's what might be pushing our mortality rate up so high when it is already under-reported?) Or they find out that they have a treatable cancer, but that they can't actually afford the treatment, so they are forced to choose between bankrupting themselves and their families, or dying from this disease unnecessarily. That, Senator, is not just a poor outcome. It's a great big steaming fucking pile of downright shitty outcomes, and you should be ashamed to stand there and say that this volunteer cheer-leading you've got going on is an acceptable "solution". Senator, that's a "solution" for this problem like a teaspoon is a shovel for all the manure in a feedlot.

Maybe I'm being a little hasty with the numbers though. You see, we actually do have some idea of how many there are in this terrible situation. The number of people who die from treatable cancer (I'd say that's a pretty poor outcome right there) because they did not have access to health care is NOT ZERO. And there is some non-zero number of people who die from other not-cancer-but-still-treatable-diseases for the same reason. That number is unacceptable. We need to change things to make sure that number is zero. Your "solution", which is to keep on slapping volunteer band-aids on this problem is not ever, no, never going to make that happen.

Wake the fuck up.

What do you think you're going to find here?

Ah, what the hell?

I've been avoiding most of the Who are you, what are you doing here and why do you keep looking at me? meme a la DrugMonkey that's been going around. Mostly because I comment on all of the blogs that I read and they can come here to find out all that I'm willing to divulge about myself. Most of those bloggers "know" who I am via my blog or my comments on theirs so I haven't felt compelled to comment on their meme posts redundantly.

And then it occurred to me: they know who I am, but I don't necessarily know who all of my readers are. (It also occurred to me that I've been running a little thin on blog fodder since things have been getting stupidly busy and sometimes unbloggable in real life - since I've got nothing interesting to say lately, I'm copping out and hoping that my readers do.)

So, folks, tell me about yourself. Even if you've never commented before. Especially if you've never commented before. I get a helluvalot more traffic than comments and it has to be coming from somewhere. You might as well stop lurking - I already know you're there (!!!) .

1. Who are you?
2. How'd you get here?
3. What did you think you'd find here?
4. What compelled you to hang around?
5. What else is interesting about you?

Foiled again!

To Do List:

1. Collect/screen first critical data set for paper #2. Equipment down.
2. Prepare for post-doc interview #2. Interview rescheduled.
3. Set up final run of sample set infinity. If set up today, data must be collected while out of town.
4. Le sigh.
   
5. Acquire super-human capacity to be in two places at once. That, or that thing Superman does where he gets the earth to rewind so he can have a redo.
   
6. Shake fist at thesis gods.
   

Fun and Frivolity on Trafalgar Square

Check out the silliness.

The fourth plinth in Trafalgar has been allocated by lottery to a bunch or regular (and maybe not-so regular) folks to do what they want with it for an hour. I think this is genius. Particularly since the idea for doing so was apparently chosen by a committee of artsy-fartsy type people from a whole bunch of other artsy-fartsy proposals about what to put up there. In this case, the winning artist proposed to turn over the plinth to the populace. And so, instead of a single piece that passers-by love, hate, or ignore for 100 days, you get a new "piece" every hour. And every "performer" conceives and has total control over their own time. Art for and from the masses.

The link is a live feed. At the time of this posting the plinth occupant is dressed as a masked bird and holding a sign that says, "Feed the Pigeon". That's pigeon, singular. Ha.

Dumbfuckery

The heat index here is still over 100 degrees F, and our AC is running 24/7 just to keep the house under 85. It's doing a very efficient job of cooling the attic thanks to the squirrels who have found their way in and filched all the duct insulation for their nests. Because the whole apparatus is working so hard between the excessive heat and the extra burden of cooling the uninsulated attic space, the bearings on the fan are about to go as well. We've known about this problem since April as have the AC repair guys, who as the landlady tells it, neglected to inform her of all these issues - I have my doubts about that. In any case, we are having a problem applying sufficient motivation to the landlady to get this shit taken care of. Three hundred dollars per month in electric bills and family of squirrels quite literally cooling their heels in the attic are sufficient motivation for me.

I just called our landlady about it...again. She said she's out of town and will "do her best" to reach the AC repair guys. She's giving me all kinds of different stories about what's going on. She said she spoke to "that man that [I] live with" (I assume she means BH) and told *him* that they'd be out this past weekend. Of course, she didn't and they weren't and I told her so (seriously? you don't think he and I communicate about this stuff?), and she back-pedaled to say that she didn't expect them to be working on a holiday weekend (duh). Then she told me that the handyman said they were here last week - I guess they might have been, though the handyman didn't seem to think so when I talked to him - if they were they certainly haven't fixed anything.

She's giving me all kinds of lip about "if I had known about this sooner I could have done a better job of taking care of it because now I'm out of town" - which is bullshit because she's known about it for two weeks now (or maybe two months if you believe the repair guys). I'd like to tell her so, but she hangs up the phone before I can actually give her all the information she needs to get this shit done in the first place (like making sure that we deal with all three problems at once - ducts, fan bearings, and squirrel eviction) so we don't have to get them to come out several times to replace new ducts yet again...which is precisely what will happen if the squirrels are allowed to continue to make use of them.

She just called back to say that they'd be out this afternoon, and I asked for their number so I don't have to continue to use her as a (completely incompetent or downright deceitful) messenger in regards to the three epic tasks with which they will be charged...but - get this - she says that she doesn't have their number. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE COMING TODAY IF YOU DIDN'T JUST CALL THEM TO SCHEDULE THAT!!?!?

The handyman says he'll send them over to ours once they're done at the neighbor's. I'm at work and I've got shit to do here, but I'm tempted to go home and make sure this gets done properly AND TODAY because it seems like just about everybody is trying to weasel out of this shit, and if it goes on for much longer the whole unit is going to die and we'll cook DangerDog alive in the house.

Thoughts?

I am building up a 45min interview talk from my 12min conference talk that I gave several months ago. That 12min talk was exceedingly difficult to produce (how the fuck do you compress 4 years of work into 12min!?!?!), but I managed to pull it off and as you may recall, that talk went really friggin' well.

How did I do it? As simply as possible: I laid out the brief intro which centered around the question I was asking and why it was important, along with the hypothesis of course. Then I laid out the data in a logical order that allowed my audience to proceed from Point A (observation that led to the hypothesis) to Point B (conclusion) in as few steps as possible, making no logical leaps, with just enough extra to clarify a few points that required it.

I got a lot of compliments on this talk, including "your work is very elegant." I love elegant. I did not previously aspire to elegance - I thought it was perhaps too lofty a goal for a bumbling grad student. However, I am just delighted to know that some people think I have achieved it.

Now, in expanding this talk to 45min, I am faced with a dilemma regarding the elegance of my conference talk: how do I expand this talk and still retain it's elegance?

In some ways this is easy. The lab I am interviewing at works in a very different system from my own, so there is a LOT of extra introduction that I've put in so that everyone has enough information to understand the logical points of experimentation to follow. I've otherwise maintained the general format: Point A to Point B in as few simple steps as possible.

One suggestion I received after giving a practice talk was to include more data - the idea being that the potential post-doc PI will be impressed with how much stuff I can do/have done. I have more data (to be sure!), but I am not sure that throwing more data into the talk for the sake of impressing them with quantity is the best course of action. I feel like it will throw elegance out the window. I would rather impress with quality. I'm thinking that I'll include some more of my own data as illustrations/proofs of principle in order to flesh out my explanations of experimental procedures, rather than try to go off on too many tangents about "hey look what else I can do!" I don't want people to miss the point.

On the other hand, I do have some very flashy looking data that might fit into the second part of my talk which doesn't yet have elegant conclusions, but focuses on on-going work. While these data do not help the audience arrive at my conclusions elegantly, they do demonstrate that some of the technology I'm developing in my system is applicable to this lab's system. The technology in their system is not really new (it's use there prompted adaptation to my system), but not a lot of people are using it. I'm pretty sure that this lab doesn't currently use it - they haven't published any papers with it yet. However, it's a skill that I have in hand which has already been shown to be effective in their system. Do I show these data as a digression from my own system in my talk? Even though it doesn't add to my own conclusions? It's feels a little like showing off (ugh), but then that's a good thing in an interview right?