Posts

March 03, 2015

+
5:52 PM | The plot thickens...
for those of you poor souls who do not understand Twitter. like PP. @joe_hill the plot thickens... pic.twitter.com/2XwxgRrQ9H — Liz Shattler (@LizShattler) March 3, 2015
+
5:37 PM | Neuroscientists: Start Electing Advocates
The following is a guest post from Namaste. Ish. Previously known as the bluebird of happiness, My T. Chondria. Stuff happened. The kitten walked away. Deal with it. WANTED: Outspoken advocates for neuroscience research who is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, call Congress Critters out on the current implosion of science funding and […]
+
4:00 PM | The Journal of Neuroscience needs to explain the author ban
I agree with the following Twitter comment @drugmonkeyblog @virginiahughes @TomAvril1 JNeuro is scientifically irresponsible & undermines own actions by not disclosing reasons. — Michael Hendricks (@MHendr1cks) March 3, 2015 Insofar as it calls for the Editorial Board of the Journal of Neuroscience to explain why it banned three authors from future submissions. As I said […]
+
12:37 AM | For anyone sick of all the jackclammery of their profession today. You know who you are.
No summary available for this post.

March 02, 2015

+
6:55 PM | The Journal Ban Hammer: Nastier implications
There is one thing that concerns me about the Journal of Neuroscience banning three authors from future submission in the wake of a paper retraction. One reason you might seek to get harsh with some authors is if they have a track record of corrigenda and errata supplied to correct mistakes in their papers. This […]
+
6:15 PM | Banning authors once a paper is retracted from the journal?
A post at Retraction Watch alerts us to to a paper retraction at the Journal of Neuroscience. The J Neuro notice on this paper reads: The Journal of Neuroscience has received notification of an investigation by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, which supports the journal's findings of data misrepresentation in […]

February 27, 2015

+
4:11 PM | Is your NIH PO a little....grouchy?
Another one, paraphrased from multiple correspondents: Dear DM: is it just me or are all the POs getting increasingly grouchy and unhelpful? A. Reader I am not certain, since I hardly have a representative sample. But I'd say no, this is probably just a bad run for you. When encouraging you to interact with your Program […]

February 26, 2015

+
9:37 PM | Funded Science Q&A – Matthias Piesche on Crowdfunding Cancer Research
  This post presents an interview with Dr. Matthias Piesche, a Denmark-based biomedical scientist who is currently crowdfunding a cancer research project that could lead to new immunotherapies for melanoma and other types of cancer. Oncology is one of the hottest areas for science crowdfunding,... The post Funded Science Q&A – Matthias Piesche on Crowdfunding Cancer Research appeared first on Funded Science.
+
7:56 PM | What would you ask Sally Rockey?
Apparently Sally Rockey, NIH Deputy Director in charge of the Office of Extramural Research is on some sort of University tour because I have received several queries lately that go something like this: Dear Drugmonky: Sally Rockey will be visiting our University soon and I have the opportunity to ask a question or two if […]
+
4:48 AM | Sustaining NIH funding then and now: 58% as many Type 2 awards in FY2014
Datahound has a cool new analysis posted on the distribution of competing continuation R01/R37 awards (Type 2 in NIH grant parlance). There is one thing that I noticed that makes for a nice simple soundbite to go along with your other explanations to the willfully blind old guard about how much harder the NIH grant […]

February 25, 2015

+
8:10 PM | Nature is not at all serious about double blind peer review
The announcement for the policy is here. Before I get into this, it would be a good thing if the review of scientific manuscripts could be entirely blind. Meaning the authors do not know who is editing or reviewing their paper- the latter is almost always true already - and that the editors and reviewers […]

February 24, 2015

+
2:08 PM | A lesson on Supplemental Materials
What happens when you bury data in supplemental figures b/c reviewers ask for it? Another lab publishes a primary paper on same topic. — chemstructbio (@chemstructbio) February 24, 2015 Good! That's my response. It is fantastic if someone can publish a paper on stuff that was essentially hidden in the Supplementary Materials of some other […]

February 23, 2015

+
10:59 PM | Brian Williams, Bill O'Reilly and the RealProblemTM with the alleged profession of journalism
Brian Williams' evolving story.. "We". "Our". "in front of us". "all four of our low-flying Chinook took fire" Bill O'Reilly's alleged war journalism story has been covered by David Corn who details how O'Reilly uses terms like "active war zone", "combat situation" and "I've been there". What really chaps my hide is not that Brian […]
+
6:24 PM | Patricia Arquette, Privilege and the Oppression Olympics
I was watching the Oscars last night when Patricia Arquette busted out some equal-pay feminism in her acceptance speech. "To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights," Arquette said, her voice intensifying. "It is our time to have wage equality once […]

February 20, 2015

+
11:17 PM | NIH clumsily tries to .. [something] ... for grant reviewers
I noticed a funny one in the NIH Guide notices today. NOT-OD-15-035 Reinforcing Service to the Biomedical Research Community Yes, yes. I see. "Reinforcement" of a behavior like "Service to the Biomedical Research Community" means increasing the strength or probability of the behavior. So yes, that's good. What are they trying to do here? Purpose […]
+
8:50 PM | Poll: graduate student applicant standards
What are your program's standards for GRE percentiles and GPA? That is, what would be the minimum score that would be essentially unremarkable, and require no other compensating attributes, to justify an invitation to interview?
+
4:20 PM | Thought of the Day
I think I have received at least four NIH grants on the topic of "how in the heck is there very little science done on this entirely obvious (to me) idea?". Now before you get all excited I also have an impressive and extensive collection of triaged summary statements saying "Yeeaaaaah, nobody cares about that […]
+
4:14 PM | If you care about the Emeritus NIH Grant...
...you need to take action on the official form. Click through and get that done.

February 18, 2015

+
11:16 PM | All-Male Tetrahedron Prize for Creativity: an illustration of the climate for women in synthetic chemistry
Looking down the list of past winners of the Tetrahedron Prize for Creativity, I see NO WOMEN. Only men. This is simultaneously astonishing and totally unsurprising to me given that the description of the prize is this: The Tetrahedron Prize for Creativity in Organic Chemistry was established in 1980 by the Executive Board of Editors […]

February 17, 2015

+
7:16 PM | "We've seen it all before, this is just a cyclical downturn for the NIH funding"
Popular thought. But it is nonsense. A close collaborator was recently experiencing this common denial trope from one of the more established type of scientists. The thinking is that "...sure, things are tough for younger scientists right now but hey, things have been tough before. It's all just a cycle and oh, stop complaining kiddos. […]
+
6:15 PM | Generational privilege under the NIH system in one easy video
Another key bit of information to which I frequently refer when describing generational privilege is depicted in this video from the NIH. Facts matter.
+
6:12 PM | Repost: More data on historical success rates for NIH grants
Our recent discussion of topics related to the Emeritus Award being considered by the NIH powers that be has been robust. I, of course, have been reminding one of the target demographic scientists that she and her generation have had a pretty good run under the NIH system. It seemed like a good moment to […]

February 11, 2015

+
7:39 PM | A tiny bias goes a long way when it comes to grant review
From ScienceInsider: Now, a new computer simulation explores just how sensitive the process might be to bias and randomness. Its answer: very. Small biases can have big consequences, concludes Eugene Day, a health care systems engineer at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in Research Policy. He found that bias that skews scores by just 3% […]
+
4:10 PM | Thought of the Day
I hate when I review grant proposals that are good, but clearly have been made pedestrian and conservative through the school of hard knocks. There is so much awesome that could be done by these people. It is so clear to me what the really high impact version of this grant should look like. (Not […]

February 10, 2015

+
9:51 PM | Thought of the Day
Those of you who know me personally know that I am totally forthcoming about all the lucky duck stuff* that has happened to me when it comes to the arc of my career. I do this in part so that I remind myself not to be one of these old farts who thinks he deserves […]

February 09, 2015

+
10:07 PM | Perspectives from senior scientists on the Emeritus award discussion
Tthe comments just keep coming over at RockTalking. 8581+ year old guy: In 2012-13 my NIH renewal proposal with 4 specific aims was turned down 2X by the GM, NCSD Panel, with 35%+ priority scores. ...I appealed the grant reviews to the GM Council and they awarded the grant to me for 3 years at […]

February 05, 2015

+
4:50 PM | Closeout funding
Within the past thre years or so I had a Program Officer mention the idea of "closeout funding" to me. One of my top few flabbergasting moments as an extramural scientist. It referred, of course, to them using program discretion to give a softer landing to one of their favored long-time PIs who had failed […]

February 04, 2015

+
5:46 PM | Wow, the NIH seeks input on an amazing new initiative!
From NOT-OD-15-064 we learn: The strategies for sustaining a vibrant biomedical research enterprise are complex and multi-faceted.  NIH strives to support not only the biomedical research workforce, but to support the foundation of research programs that our workforce has created.  An important issue for NIH is the long term success  for the research we support.  […]
1
28 Results