A splash of color in the lab...

I love color in the lab. It is such a satisfying feeling to know that the small quantity of liquid you just added to a tube really got in there! When isotopes began to be made with a touch of bright pink, it made my day :-)  But it really has been a journey.

I'm old enough to have actually extracted DNA from a cesium chloride column by sucking the thin pink band out of the middle of the tube!  Kits are for newbies. You aren't really a molecular biologist until you've stuck your own finger with a needle that just passed though cesium chloride and ethidium bromine-coated DNA. Ah, the good old days:

SM Carr & OM Griffiths.1987. Biochem Genet 25:385-390

Today's kids take for granted all kinds of color indicators. They've been spoiled thanks to the array of colorful proteins made possible by "borrowing" from jellyfish DNA:                 

 Aequorea victoria jellyfish. Image credit:Steven Haddock.  

As fun as they are, colors in science aren't just a visual guilty pleasure, they are a confirmation that something has worked.  Something has changed from its original, boring, non-colored state. That we have altered nature and made her our bitch.  So I am thrilled by this new development from a group at Stanford.                                                                                                                                                                              

 Bonnet, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University, worked with graduate student Pakpoom Subsoontorn and assistant professor Drew Endy, PhD, to reapply natural enzymes adapted from bacteria to flip specific sequences of DNA back and forth at will. All three scientists work in the Department of Bioengineering, a joint effort of the School of Engineeringand the School of Medicine. 


In practical terms, they have devised the genetic equivalent of a binary digit — a “bit” in data parlance. “Essentially, if the DNA section points in one direction, it’s a zero. If it points the other way, it’s a one,” Subsoontorn explained.

Binary Code, e coli style:

Red or green bacteria. Depending on which way they swing...

The possibility of harnessing bacteria to encode binary data is exciting. The clever use of color by a bunch of guys is almost as newsworthy. But what I really want is a way to know when the enzyme I paid $200 for is really no longer active. Green for It's All Good. Red for Buy A New One (when the expiration date is still good but someone doesn't understand the purpose of an ice bucket. Or ice.). Think of the money that could be saved if you took the guess work out of restriction digests, ligase reactions and PCR! And haven't you had this silent conversation with yourself while standing at the open freezer door?:

"Hm. Expired. But is it really expired or is it a ploy by the Company to make us buy a new one? Ordering one will take 2 days... I don't want to come in the weekend... Fuck it. I'm using it. If it doesn't work, I'll blame the new student." 

      

You know you have. So let's get these technologies together and make bacteria that signal when enzymes no longer work!  And can we use this technology to bring a bit more style to the lab? Who needs blue/white selection when we could do a nice black and hot pink combo? How about a nice warm coral for transfected cells to contrast with the soft yellow of medium?  Everyone loves to label their own things, can we use bacteria to lay down personal biofilms? Prints are in this season, could we work on a nice floral pattern? A zebra print? How about a paisley? 

Color in the lab is great, I really do love it. But style? Style would be right up there with a fundable score on a first submission.     

    

More science parody videos!

So I new the Lady Gaga Parody was out there....but who knew there were others?  This is a great link! Enjoy:

http://www.bioexpress.com/divinity-cart/cms/needalaugh/Videos/1.html

I think this is my favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID6KY1QBR5s&feature=related

Doing Science Backwards and in High Heels: "Promotes a culture of hazing"

Doing Science Backwards and in High Heels: "Promotes a culture of hazing"

"Promotes a culture of hazing"

I was forwarded an article by a friend titled, "Sink or Swim" by the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity founder and CEO, Kerry Ann Rockquemore.  First - who knew there was actually a center for faculty development and diversity?!?  And second, why am I just hearing about this now?!? (waiting anxiously for  final word on tenure and promotion to come down from on high...tap..tap..tap...).

We all know the background.  The climb toward tenure is shrouded in mystery, the poorly marked path changes with no notice, and there are frequent, unexpected hurdles that everyone has to figure out how to overcome on their own.  Senior faculty view their own progress toward tenure as having been miserable, thus if younger faculty can't suffer through the same misery, they don't deserve to be here. Sink or Swim.

Kerry Ann's article makes a convincing argument that the old "sink or swim" model of early faculty years is simply bad business. From Kerry Ann: 

Sink or swim is... "inefficient because it takes time and energy away from actually doing the jobs they were hired to do. It's ineffective because whether people are good at navigating organizational structures and politics has little relationship to the quality of their research and teaching. Sink or swim also fails the most basic cost-benefit analysis because the time, energy and resources required to replace a faculty member who may have been a great researcher but failed the test of "figuring things out" far exceeds the cost of providing new faculty with mentoring and support they need. And it is organizationally unhealthy because it sustains a hazing culture where people respond to their own painful initiation experiences by reproducing them on others."

That last part really got me. It sustains a culture of hazing.

The damage to me has been done. My P&T journey is at an end one way or the other because Sink or Swim culminates in  Up or Out.  But now that I am a mentor - Am I reproducing the same culture on my trainees?  It's sort of like bad parenting.  How do you break negative patterns and stop passing on the damage to your own kids?

More important still, how do we change the academic culture away from a model where Sink or Swim arbitrarily whittles down the faculty ranks to one where a deliberate decision in made to invest in people?

Check out NCFF . It seems like a great place to start.

Why even God could not get tenure

I have now seen this on several sites and wanted to bring it here.  Enjoy!

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn’t pub­lished in a ref­er­eed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6. It may be true that he cre­ated the world, but what has he done since then?
7. The sci­en­tific com­mu­nity has had a hard time repli­cat­ing his results.
8. He never applied to the ethics board for per­mis­sion to use human subjects.
9. When one exper­i­ment went awry he tried to cover it by drown­ing his subjects.
10. When sub­jects didn’t behave as pre­dicted, he deleted them from the sample.
11. He rarely came to class, just told stu­dents to read the book.
12. Some say he had his son teach the class.
13. He expelled his first two stu­dents for learning.
14. Although there were only 10 require­ments, most of his stu­dents failed his tests.
15. His office hours were infre­quent and often held on lim­ited access moun­tain tops.
16. He has no record of work­ing well with colleagues.
17. He won't come into the lab on Sundays

I hear Florida is nice this time of year...

We all know the sad statistics about women in sciences.  While we ladies are going to school and getting our degrees at almost the same rate of the guys, our career progression looks like this:

Instead of like this:

  



Women account for 48% of graduates, 43% of Asst Profs, 37% of Assoc Profs, 22% of Full Profs, 19% of Division / Section Chiefs, 13% of Chairs, and 13% of Deans.

Another interesting trend is the "graying" of science.  Today, the average age of an NIH PI is 51 compared to 39 in 1980.  But in reality, the graying really refers to white males.  Over 1/3 of male researchers are over the age of 55; less than 20% of women that age remain in academia. The data is quite similar when you look at racial diversity. 1/3 of white scientists (ie: male) are over 55 while only 17% of non-white scientists can qualify for AARP.    

This combination of increased age and decreased diversity leads to academic research leadership teams that look like this:

And this:

And this:

Lot's of Important People have weight in with Very Important Ideas about this.  Understandably, many focused on babies and motherhood.  Or, even worse, aptitude <<shudder>>.  However, I have a different theory.  It's all about life after science. Or, rather, the lack thereof for many academic researchers. 

Since there are generally no proscribed retirement ages in University settings and the NIH appears to be happy to reward the silver-haired set, there is simply no reason for academic researchers to give up the pipets.  According to the US census bureau, the average age of retirement in the US is 62.  For most professionals, that means it is time to start taking extended vacations in South Florida.  But for scientists? The 50s and 60s are the  peak funding years from NIH funding. Why leave when the party is still going?? 

So...what to do....what to do.... I know! How about a simple thing like incentivize retirement?  Give people a reason to move on.  A pension, a retirement fund, benefits, whatever. Make it worth their while to LEAVE! 

But first you want evidence that my plan will work?  How about this:

  

 Or this?

The CDC and the NSF.  Two organizations that offer employees old-fashioned pensions with retirement ages between 55 and 65. And people take them (and retire to academia....but I digress). 

I propose that a direct result of incentivizing retirement is more upword mobility for younger and more diverse scientists.

These two organizations also demonstrate that there is no lack of diverse talent to fill these leadership roles. 

Another group that seems to be able to find a range of scientists to fill their missions?

Now that's some rock-star science.

Scientist.

One for us. Enjoy: