Blog Category Academics

Interesting to see the P-value crisis has made it to the New Yorker. It is indeed time to rethink the way we employ the iconic measure of the "success" of an experiment.  I have literally had postdocs in the lab come to my office and tell me that a given experiment "failed" because the P-value was 0.051. That is not the appropriate way to approach science. In another case, a postdoc came to me with the results of a multivariate model.  The overall model statistics were relatively weak, so he considered the experiment to be non-informative.  However, an inspection of the loadings plot showed that all of the identified metabolites came from the same enzymatic pathway. This article reports that "In medicine, a study of forty-nine of the most cited medical publications from 1990 to 2003 found that the conclusions of sixteen per cent were contradicted by subsequent studies." So how do we deal with this brave new world in which P-values no longer light the way? We move forward with common sense, biochemical knowledge, replication, validation and most importantly, the courage to question our findings. 

To shift a bit from the doom and gloom of the previous posts - this article highlights the value of a scientific education. So while the career prospects in academics are few - the training received along the way is applicable to a range of careers. This article makes the very important point that the skills acquired during a scientific education will provide value throughout a lifetime.  Scientists are highly trained individuals who have a unique skillset that is marketable.  It is therefore all the more important that PhDs and postdocs are trained in non-academic careers - and provided with advice on how to use their unique talents in a range of different careers.  After all, the current reality is that a career outside of academics is no longer an "alternative career" for most people.  The fact is that the vast majority of scientists will leave academics for satisfying and fruitful careers in a range of jobs - and we should stop pretending otherwise.

As a member of a dual career couple, childcare is an issue near and dear to my heart (and career). The web is filled with a multitude of articles soul searching as to why there is a dearth of women in academics. While the answers to that issue are certainly complex, childcare is clearly an important component of that equation. Simply put - if a conference does not offer childcare, it is not possible for both my wife and I to attend. We are therefore forced to make a difficult choice on who gets to attend the conference - including all of the important networking, meetings, and self-promotion that happens at a conference. Whose career should advance?  And who should stay home with the kids? I therefore find it unfathomable when major scientific conferences do not offer childcare. It should be a requirement that EVERY major conference offers childcare - and there should be travel grants available to offset the fees of childcare. The American Thoraic Society (ATS) has been very good about making childcare available at their annual meetings. Unfortunately, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) - while claiming to support family values and dual career couples - did not make childcare available for the 2017 Milano meeting, and it will not be available for the Paris meeting in 2018. I therefore question their commitment to supporting dual career couples. It is ironic that "family friendly Europe" cannot provide childcare, but the USA can. If the scientific community wants to support women as well as dual career couples, then it is time to ensure that childcare is available at conferences.

There has been much soul-serarching at KI regarding the Maccchiarini case.  However, it is unclear if anything has truly been learned. The drive towards "exellence" at all costs still permeates the research environment.  Publish first.  Publish best.  What is clear is that innocent people have lost their lives and no one has taken real responsibility for the events that created this monstrosity.  Academic science needs to perform some serious introspection to determine our way forward.  In a world that demands profits from academic endeavors, where every grant needs a business model, and those who publish fastest are the winners - we are loosing something.  The serendipity of science that leads to that eureka moment is being sacraficed.  In its wake, we are left with a world in which the realm of scientific discovery is sadly diminished.

These days you have to ask yourself - is it really worth it? Why do you want an academic career? I spend most of my time trying to convince prospective students and postdoc to not continue in academics. There are lots of wonderful jobs in the world - and most of them will treat you with infinitely more respect than academics. However, for those individuals who insist on moving forward into academics - there is hope. There are jobs out there for the motivated, determined - and the lucky.

This article highlights a distrubing global trend.  The merging of market capaitalization with academics.  It is not longer acceptable to be an academic pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge.  Every EU grant demands a section on the market impact of the reserach.  How will the proposed experiments lead to a marketable product?  What is the business plan for the project intellectual property?  What type of return on the investment can be expected over what time frame?  The line between venture capitalists and funding agencies is merging - to the detriment of discovery science. The closing line of this article makes a powerful point - "The point of study is to create a civilisation worth saving."  The world has lost sight of that - and we are all poorer.

Continued efforts to destroy the quest for knowledge.  It is disturbing that the world is turning its back on science.  Discovery brings out the best of humanity - making the world a better place for everyone.  Shortsighted attempts to stifle science will make us all poorer. 

Academics is certainly not an easy career choice - and a post-doctoral position is a bit like trial by fire. It is obvious that everyone who does a postdoc will not be able to have a research career (in either academics or industry). It is just another sign that the acdemic system is broken.  If you choose to do a postdoctoral stint, it is smart to be clear on the reasons for doing so - and your subsequent career options....