Friday Funnies: Holiday Vacation Edition

Happy Holidays from C2C!
For your enjoyment, one of my favorite PHD Comics:

Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences Symposium

The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences Symposium is being held today at UCSF. The prize recognizes excellence in the field of Life Sciences. In its first year, the foundation awarded 11 prizes across the Life Science field including Cornelia Bargmann, David Botstein, Lewis C. Cantley, Hans Cleavers, Titia de Lange, Eric Lander, Napoleone Ferrara, Charles L. Sawyers, Bert Vogelstein, Robert A. Weinberg and Shinya Yamanaka. 

Today, UCSF is honoring the recipients of the 2013 prize with an all-day symposium. They event will highlight the fields of cancer, genetics, neurobiology and stem cell research. Awardees from last year will discuss recent advances in these fields with a special focus on big ideas in human health and disease. In addition, Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann will moderate a panel of the 2014 award winners. 

For those who can't make it to UCSF today or who were unable to get tickets, here is a link for the live stream:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/breakthrough-prize-in-life-sciences-awards-special-symposium



Update:

The 2014 Breakthrough Prizes were announced last night at NASA's Ames Research Center. The laureates will join last year's winners in the selection and judging of future prize winners. The 6 winners for 2014 include:

• Mahlon DeLong (Emory University)--for pioneering work in the treatment of Parkinson's Disease
• Richard Lifton (Yale University)--for identifying genetic determinants that lead to hypertension
• Michael Hall (University of Basel) --for the discovery of the enzyme TOR
• Alexander Varshavsky (CalTech)--for the study of intracellular protein degradation
• James Allison (UT Anderson Cancer Center)--for the development of immunotherapy treatments for cancer
• Robert Langer (MIT)--for the development of controlled drug-release systems and biomaterials

QBC Retreat 2013

My program and several other graduate programs in the Quantitative Biosciences Consortium (QBC) just returned from our annual retreat to Asilomar in Pacific Grove, CA. While there we heard talks from both students and professors, enjoyed humorous skits performed by the second years, and despite the chilly temperatures people braved walks on the beach during conference breaks. 

I feel as though I am sometimes in a chemistry bubble, so it was great to see the research interests of students in other programs. I myself presented at one of the poster sessions. The people who stopped by my poster had lots of positive feedback and suggestions for experiments.  I'm not sure how much time I will have to begin things before the holidays, but I'm excited to try some of these new directions come January! 

Parasite Tales for Every Occasion

My friend Louise G. was published on The Toast!  You can read her column on parasites here.

Bay Area Science Festival Wrap-Up

The Bay Area Science Festival is a 10-day event organized by UCSF, UCSF's Science and Health Education Partnership, and a number of other co-sponsors. The main goal of the event is to bring science and science education to the public--though lectures, debates, workshops and a number of other activities throughout the Bay Area. This is the 3rd year the Festival is being held, and like the previous two years, I found time to volunteer at some of the interactive science booths on the "Discover Day" at AT&T Park. 

Look at that awesome selfie where I shamelessly promote the Twin Cities

Last year I was involved with "Cabbage Juice Chemistry" booth. Essentially, using cabbbage juice as a handy pH indicator for various household items and asking children to predict if something was acidic or alkaline. This year, I was trained on the "Joint and Bone Models" booth. In our activity, we wanted to demonstrate the importance and complexity of our hands. To demonstrate this, we would slowly impair a child's ability to grasp and write by taping their fingers together with masking tape. The most drastic impairment, many children found, was the loss of their opposable thumb. After the exercise, many of them eagerly postulated why their thumb allowed them to do certain tasks that a pet cat or dog might not be able to accomplish. 

I find that I don't think about the loss of my thumb very often. Yet after volunteering with this booth and seeing some of the models, I am becoming increasingly grateful for my opposable digit. Especially considering that many tasks I perform in the lab, such as pipetting, would be extremely difficult without my thumb. (Although, if the thatsnothowyoupipet Tumblr is any indication, I'm sure I could find a creative way to transfer liquids). 

Aside from volunteering, I was also able to attend a few of the events myself. One of the last events of the festival takes place tomorrow evening. Astronaut Chris Hadfield is speaking at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA. For those of you who don't know Col. Hadfield, he did a cover of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" that received over 10 million views in the first few days it was posted (I've included it below for your viewing enjoyment). 

Guess whose trivia team took first place and won tickets to the event?

Politics and Science: Climate Change

About a year ago, Hurricane Sandy hit land. The East Coast of the US was brutally damaged and we are still suffering physical and economic scars in many places. Let's be honest here, climate change is real. Scientists have published hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on topics and issues related to climate change. The scientific community reached a consensus long ago and the majority of the scientific societies and world governments have official positions an action plans to reduce the effect of human activities on climate. 

Although the problems of climate change are generally seen as being resolved by these scientific bodies, disputes are still prevalent in popular media. Climate change is being manipulated by politicians to promote their own agendas. 

The Rachel Maddow Show had a great segment tonight juxtaposing the efforts of New York meteorologists and transit workers in barricading the NYC subway with a proposed climate change bill in Nebraska.

It pains me to see some politicians swayed by a small minority of dissidents. Or that some are choosing to ignore scientific reports in favor of a more, shall we say theological argument. And while you are certainly entitled to your religious views, please keep them out of my politics. 

Friday Funnies: Fail Edition

Friday Funnies: Fail edition!

1) That's not how you pipette
A collection of amusing movie and television scenes with some rather creative pipetting styles.  My favorite is the guy trying to pipette without a tip.

2) Fail Lab
Scientists dissect the best of the 'epic fail' videos and reveal hidden lessons on science topics such as evolution, pyrotechnics, or electricity. Episode one is below.

3) #Overlyhonestmethods

The equivalent of PostSecret for scientists. The hashtag lets you report less-than-stellar lab practices that would never, under any circumstances, end up in a publication. Some are weird, some are scary, but almost all of them are amusing. 

The Culture of Women in Science: A Dialogue

I'm sure a number of people have read the NY Times article published last week on Women in the Sciences. If you haven't seen it, here is a link to the original article. Go ahead, I'll wait if you need to read it. 

Now that everyone is on the same page, I want to take a few minutes to address some of the points it brings up about motivation and the culture of science. When I first saw this article posted, I was more than a bit skeptical. I was expecting another of the generic pieces that seem to appear once a year about women and minorities (or the lack thereof) in the sciences--pieces that mean well but never really advance the dialogue. There is certainly some of that in the article, but one of the things that stuck with me was this quote:

"As so many studies have demonstrated, success in math and the hard sciences, far from being a matter of gender, is almost entirely dependent on culture--a culture that teaches girls math isn't cool and no one will date them if they excel in physics; a culture in which professors rarely encourage their female students to continue on for advanced degrees; a culture in which success in graduate school is a matter of isolation, competition and ridiculously long hours in the lab; a culture in which female scientists are hired less frequently than men, earn less money and are allotted fewer resources."

GMP over at Academic Jungle had similar sentiments about a month ago:

"You constantly work against the background noise of "You don't belong here. You should not be doing this. This is no place for you." This is a tremendous overhead in terms of sheer energy, motivation, and perseverance that one has to put in just to get up in the morning to do the work. Trust me, women in male-dominated disciplines don't have the issue of lack of motivation; just the fact that they are there and haven't fled is a testament to their tenacity, which, if we could somehow measure it, we would find few men could rival. But much of it must continuously be used on fighting this negative background, which men really don't have to do. Men are not constantly communicated that they are constitutionally unable or unworthy to do their work, assumed incompetent until proven otherwise; for men, in contrast, competence is assumed."

This constant feedback, or as the article describes it, "all the little kicks that women get," can start to wear on you. And this feedback starts early:

As a 9 year old at summer camp, I signed up for a week-long activity where you learned about gears, wires, motors--this was all basic stuff, but at the end of the week everyone built a small battery-powered car. I was the only girl. Whenever I asked a question, the teacher would sigh or make a small quip about how "a woman's mind" worked. When my male peers asked nearly identical questions 5 minutes later, they were praised for their intuitive thinking. In 6th grade, a classmate and I placed into a math class with older students. When we arrived at the first class, the teacher greeted my classmate warmly and pointed him to an empty desk along the side of the room. The teacher then turned to me and asked, "Who are you? What are you doing here?" In high school, I was once accused of cheating on a science test because I performed basic algebra and unit conversions in my head. Never mind that the person I allegedly copied from received an 80%--I scored 98%.

How do we fight bias? How do we fight the idea that women are not as good as men in STEM disciplines? On an individual level, many women are part of the "ignore-the-naysayers-and-keep-at-it" school of thought. I will be the first to admit that I used this strategy in middle school and high school. Yet the drawback of ignoring naysayers is that it doesn't address the root of the problem--sexism is inherent in the structure of the system. Thus, we return to the age-old question:

How do we get more girls/women to stick with science?

There is little doubt in my mind that the structure of the field needs to change. It's not only about encouraging women to remain in research, but instead actively facilitating our stay. I've listed a few starting points for this structural overhaul. This is by no means an exhaustive list of ways that we can encourage women to remain in the sciences. Nor is this list intended as things that only women should be doing. In order to make progress--real change--the scientific community must come together to address these concerns.

1) Call people out on their behavior

This is perhaps the most important point and why I've chosen to list it first. Both men and women (yes, we are not immune) can show biases against women in the sciences. Don't believe me? There was a study by Moss-Racusin et al. published in PNAS last September whereby science faculty from research universities rated application materials of a student for a lab manager position. Despite identical resume qualifications (and a randomly assigned male or female name for the student) faculty participants rated the male applicants as "more hire-able" than the female applicants and offered the fictional 'John' a greater starting salary. Both male and female faculty members did this. To start making changes, we need to address personal and departmental biases. 

A) Start with your own behavior and biases:

Don't assume incompetence until proven otherwise. Don't assume women at scientific conferences are just "along for the ride." Don't assume a women is dumb if she asks a question in class or a seminar. Don't generalize if someone makes a mistake (See the xckd below): 

B) Recognize the biases of others: All of the statements in the paragraph above also apply here. In short never assume anything. Draw attention to these people. My personal favorite: Academic Men Explain Things to Me. This website deals with an all too common problem in STEM fields: mansplaining. Recognizing bias is only the first half of the battle. If you do encounter mansplaining, discrimination or sexism, how should you respond? 1) Cite Facts: Women earned over 50% of the bachelors degrees in chemistry last year. 2) Question their position: What makes you say that? Do you think that's really the case? In some instances, the discriminators are just repeating something another person said. When asked to stop and really confront the position, they may change their tune. If not, refer back to point #1 and cite facts. 3) Respond directly: I don't think about women that way. OR Would you have said [statement] if I was male? OR  I take offense at [statement]. That was sexist. Tell people why their comments were sexist. Ask for what you want and don't want to be said. Will some people react poorly to being confronted directly? Yes, but when others are unwilling to honor requests about how we prefer to be treated, it is not our problem for speaking out, their behavior is the real problem.

2) Promote women scientists
Besides Marie Curie, how many historic women scientists can you name? What about current women in science fields? Who was the most recent woman to win a Nobel Prize for physics, chemistry or medicine? (Hint: no women in 2013). The sad fact is that we hear a great amount about the accomplishments of men. Female scientists often face discrimination or outright denial of their contributions; their work attributed to male scientists. Some notable examples from the 20th century include Rosalind Franklin (the structure of DNA) Lise Meitner (nuclear fission) and Marietta Blau (high energy particle physics). Don't forget to include the contributions of these and other women when teaching in your field. Their contributions are no less important to our understanding of nature.

Rosalind Franklin

When nominating or selecting people for awards, don't limit your field to only contributions by male scientists. Nobody wants to be the "token woman" and I'm not suggesting a quota system. But we need more awards to be distributed like the MacArthur "Genius" awards (11 of the 24 awards went to women this year), instead of like the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Fellows (2 of the 33 Fellows). I need to believe that women are doing cutting-edge research that is just as interesting as their male counterparts...if only someone would allow them into the spotlight.

3) Mentor in whatever capacity you are able to do so.

As an undergraduate, I was involved in Macalester's Women in Science and Math student organization. I was able to see first-hand the impact mentor/mentee relationships had on encouraging women to remain in STEM fields. Again, this is not intended to be something that only women can do. Women shouldn't have an obligation to mentor every single female student in a department. While women might be in a position to share unique perspective about being female scientists, I speak from personal experience when I say that some of the best advice I have ever received has been from male professors. Every little bit of time helps. Whatever capacity you wish to mentor--be it taking a student for the summer or offering to read someones application essays--all it takes to be a mentor is a willingness to contribute positively (8). This relates directly back to issues of culture and feedback. Mentoring shows women that someone is encouraging them, that someone "has their back," someone feels that they are not only allowed to be here with the guys, but that they deserve to be here.

Will it be challenging to change the face of science? Yes. Is it a worthy fight? Yes! Women are in academia to stay. So rather than trying to maintain the "old boys club" isn't it about time we change the paradigm that women shouldn't be in science?

Acknowledgements:
Special thanks to Naomi Y. and Louise G. for their helpful discussions and editing prowess.

References:
1) Eileen Pollack, "Why are there still so few women in science?"The New York Times. Published Online 3 Oct. 2013. 
2) GMP "What Impostor Syndrome is About." Academic Jungle. Web. 25 Aug. 2013. 
3) FemaleScienceProfessor "She Would Not Wish This on Her Nieces." FemaleScienceProfessor. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. 
4) Moss-Racusin et al. "Scientific faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2012. 109(41) 16474. 
5) xkcd "How It Works." http://xkcd.com/385/
6) Academic Men Explain Things to Me. Tumblr. http://mainsplained.tumblr.com/
7) Abigail Golden. "MacArthur's Genius Women: A look at the 11 female innovators recognized this year." Women in the World. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. 
8) Suggestions of ways to be a mentor:

    a) The NeXXT Scholars Program, which I wrote about in a previous post, is always looking for women to mentor.
    b) Volunteer at a local elementary/middle school as a tutor.
    c) Invite a high school or undergraduate student into your lab to do summer research.
    d) Offer to read college/grad school applications. Or when the time comes, offer to read drafts of scientific manuscripts.
    e) Take younger students out for ice cream or coffee, and let them ask questions about your life
    f)...and many more! There are hundreds of ways to mentor someone. 

If grad school doesn't work out...

PhDs by the numbers: (1)

7 PhDs awarded for every 1 faculty position

25% of biological science PhDs have a tenure-track position within 5 years of degree completion

70% of PhD students pursue postdoctoral training

50% of PhD students require 7 years (or more) to complete their degrees

33% of students who start a PhD program never finish

So what's a grad student to do? Jorge Cham gives a bit of humor to the depressing job outlook:

Before starting a PhD program ask yourself: Do you really need/want a PhD? (Let's be honest, the graph above is pretty grim.) If you decide to go ahead, make sure you develop skills that will allow you to leave academia if it becomes necessary to do so in the future. 

References:
1) Shillebeechx, M. et al. "The missing piece to changing the university culture." Nature Biotechnology 2013, 31 938-941. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2706
2) Jorge Cham "The Plans" PhD Comics. Published on the Web 2012. 

Friday Funnies

When a non-scientist offers me experimental advice:

Paleontologist Kristi Curry Rogers

Kristi Curry Rogers, Associate Professor at Macalester College,

speaking on MPR in 2011 (Photo Credit: Tim Nelson)

Listen to Curry Rogers segment from Minnesota Public Radio as she discusses her on-going fossil research in Montana. (Originally aired 9-19-2013).

Try this link if the above audio doesn't work.

Advice for your first-year of graduate education

As part of bootcamp, our program typically hosts a BBQ, where the first-years can meet older students, get advice regarding labs and classes, that sort of thing. And as one of the student directors of bootcamp this year, I was thinking about advice that I could offer--that I wish I might have known when entering grad school.

This post is a modified version of an email I sent to one of my friends congratulating her on her graduation from Macalester and offering advice for her first year of chemistry graduate school. Names and places have been removed for privacy, but the advice is largely the same. I've included some gifs and added comments where necessary to explain some of my thoughts. Some of the advice is meant to be humorous, but much of it is serious and potentially applicable to older students. 

1) Never be embarrassed to attend a seminar just for the free coffee/cookies/pizza/beer. 
You might discover a field or project you never even knew existed.

2) NOBODY uses Comic Sans on their posters or power points. 
Corollary: Nobody uses papyrus either.

3) Make sure you treat administrative staff with the utmost respect.

These people know all of the ins-and-outs of the system. They can make your time in grad school easier, or they can make it much more challenging. Your choice. 

Corollary: Make friends with the admin assistants that have candy.

4) Advice from my Labmates: Don't F*** s*** up. And when you do, make sure you're learned something.

It's not a matter of if--trust me, you will screw up. One of the professors at UCSF gives the same speech to all the new students on the first day: "95% of what you do on a daily basis is fail. It's the 5%, it's when things work, that's when the magic happens!" 

5) Don't relate your self-worth to whether your experiment is successful or not.
See #4 above. To quote the biochemist Allan Wilson, "If everyone whose experiments failed stopped doing science, there wouldn't be any science."

6) Don't forget to enjoy your time there and laugh a bit. 
WhatShouldWeCallGradSchool
PhD Comics
The Hermitage

Corollary: Make sure you have outside hobbies/interests/friends beyond grad school.

We know you love your subject--or you wouldn't be here. But everyone needs a break now and again, no matter how awesome it is. Go surfing, go dancing, play soccer, play video games--whatever helps you clear your head. 

7) Remember to think about your mental/emotional health when joining a lab. 

A lab environment that works well for one student may not be work another student. If your program does lab rotations during the first year, pay attention while you are rotating. How do people get along in the lab? What kind of work-life balance is there? Some people like more social labs, while other just prefer to come and get their work done. What is the science like? Is this topic something you will enjoy for the next 4-6 years? How available would you like your advisor to be? Generally, younger professors will be more accessible, but might lack some of the funding of more established professors. Conversely, joining a well-established lab might mean that you rarely see your advisor, as they are often very busy. Ask advice from multiple people before you settle on a choice. Again, what works for some people might not work for others. 

Corollary: Pick the advisor, not the project. 

8) NEVER be afraid to ask for help.

You are a first-year. Nobody expects you to be an expert on the research and/or the methodology in a particular group. Ask professors, ask older students, ask postdocs, ask your classmates--chances are somebody at your university knows how to do what you need. 

Corollary: There is no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to research. 

As Isaac Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureak' but 'That's funny...'"

Corollary: If someone gives you papers to read, read them. Don't just skim the abstract and think you know what is happening. 

Corollary: Know WHO to ask for help.

Certain people are much better at giving advice or explaining experimental methods than others. You don't want this to happen:

9) Grad School is Hard

You will spend the first year feeling like an impostor, not really sure why you were let into the school in the first place. You are convinced that at any moment, they're going to find out exactly how little you know. This is normal--and trust me, you are not the only one in your class who feels like this. Many people in my class were convinced that they were "the dumb one" that somehow snuck into graduate school. They brought you there for a reason. If you feel stuck, just listen to Neil's advice:

10) Enjoy it!

Welcome to grad school! We all like to complain from time to time when experiments aren't working, but honestly, I still can't believe someone is giving me money to research a topic I love. So...have great conversations with classmates and leaders in the field, travel to conferences in different countries, experiment with new ideas, enjoy your flexible work schedule, eat good food at department functions....the list goes on!

Friday Funnies

When I think I can explain my results...

...and then a new experiment crushes my theory.

Science Education Fail

Reason #836 why America needs to get-it-together regarding science education.  Nobody wants their breakfast cereal to be an excellent source of Iridium*



*Thanks to Izzy T. for the heads-up photography. 
Although most iridium compounds are insoluble, and therefore difficult for the body to absorb, finely divided iridium powder may ignite in the air. 

Tired? Stressed? The Cure is Camping!

Photo Credit: C.Fitzsimmons. Henry Coe State Park, CA

Spending time outside is a great way to unwind for many people. Research has shown that in addition to the physical benefits of participating in outdoor sports, there are also numerous psychological benefits, such as reduced stress, and increased ability to focus. But what about sleep?

Many people living in large, urban centers are exposed to artificial light. While nobody can deny the importance of artificial light in our society, these artificial lights can also impact the quality of sleep and disrupt internal circadian rhythms--which tell our bodies when to prepare for sleep and when to return to wakefulness. The ability to control our exposure to light has expanded the hours we work far beyond our natural internal clock. Yet exactly how much this clock has been effected was unknown. 

A recent report in Current Biology (1) aimed to address just that. The report by Wright et al. compared the effects of a normal daily, electrical-light environment to a week of exposure to only natural lighting.

In the first part of the study, they measured the light exposure and internal circadian timing of 8 participants as they went about daily routines (including school/work, social activities, and self-selected sleep schedules.) This was measured with wrist monitors that recorded the intensity of the light, and the participants activity. Following the week of "typical" light exposure, the scientists took the volunteers on a week-long backpacking trip in the Colorado Rockies.  The only light the group was exposed to during this time was natural lighting, namely sunlight, moonlight, and campfire light (no flashlights, no smart phones, etc). 

When they compared the circadian rhythms between the electrical-lighting and natural-lighting stages of the experiment, they discovered a few interesting things. The participants were exposed to approximately 4 times more light on the backpacking trip as compared to the level of light exposure during their typical week. Their results also showed that the timing of the circadian clock shifted ~2 hours earlier although the total amount of time they slept remained about the same. 

Wright and his team also looked at melatonin, a hormone that helps regulate our sleep-wake cycle. Melatonin rises before sleep and decreases throughout the night until after wake time. During the electric-light stage of the experiments, the participants melatonin levels were still high several hours after they awoke, indicating they were out of sync with the circadian clock. This melatonin paradox has been reported before and feelings of sleepiness or lower cognitive performance may be a consequence of spending time in electrically-lighted environments. However, after exposure to natural light, the melatonin offset shifted to approximately 50 min prior to wake time. This suggests that if circadian timing is aligned with the natural light-dark cycle in nature, the low point in brain arousal would move to before the end of the sleep cycle--making it easier to wake up in the morning. 

This study is just the beginning, and Wright et al agree that they would like to conduct a follow-up study with subjects of different ages and different cultures, as well as those participants that may have sleep difficulties. In an article for the BBC (2), Wright spoke about the some of the results of the study and offered advice for applying these principles to everyday life: "Start your day off with a walk outside. At night reduce lights in the house, dim computer and electronic devices."

Obviously I would love to go camping every weekend, but most jobs rarely afford you the freedom to do that.  In the meantime, I will settle for morning jogs along the bay and reading novels (*cough* I mean, scientific papers) before I go to sleep.

References:

1) Wright et al. "Entrainment of the Human Circadian Clock to the Natural Light-Dark Cycle." Current Biology 2013,  doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.039

2) McGrath, Matt. "Carry on Camping--Can a week under canvas reset our body clocks?" BBC News Science and Environment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23530408. (Accessed 8 August 2013). 

Physics + Game of Thrones = WIN

Students from the Albert Einstein Institute created a handful of Game of Thrones inspired sigils (complete with house words). They pay tribute to some of the most exciting physics and astronomy projects.

Cosmos - A Spacetime Odyssey

"A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars--billions upon billions of stars." 

                 --Carl Sagan, Cosmos, chapter 1, page 3.

Carl Sagan on the set of Cosmos. 

Cosmos: A Personal Voyage is a thirteen-part television series presented by the famous astrophysicist Carl Sagan. It originally aired in the fall of 1980, and covered a wide range of scientific topics including the Big Bang theory and the origin of life on earth, stars formation and star death, and the search for extraterrestrial life. The program was notable for its groundbreaking special effects and fantastic musical score. Cosmos was awarded both a Primetime Emmy and a Peabody award in 1981 (1). It has been broadcast in over 60 countries, translated into numerous languages, and remains one of the most widely watched PBS programs in the world (2). 

In August 2011, a remake of the show was announced. Scheduled to appear in the spring of 2014, it will be broadcast on both Fox and National Geographic. The show will be narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, will be one of the executive producers. 

Astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium Neil deGrasse Tyson

Tyson and Druyan's new series will contain new material, as well as updated versions of topics from the original 1980 series. However, their goal is not simply to create a sequel, but rather a program that "issues forth from the times in which we are making it, so that it matters to those who is this emergent 21st century audience" (3).

In an interview with Big Picture Science, Tyson describes his hopes for the new series:

"The task for the next generation of Cosmos is a little bit different because 

I don't need to teach you textbook science. There's a lot of textbook science in 

the original Cosmos, but that's not what you remember the most. What most 

people who remember the original series remember most is the effort to 

present science in a way that has meaning to you that can influence your 

conduct as a citizen of the nation and of the world--especially of the world" (3).

I'm looking forward to the new series next spring. Not only are networks bringing science to Primetime, but if this show is anything like the original, I hope that it will fill people with wonder and awe as they recognize the tiny corner of the universe we inhabit...and how very much scientists still don't know. And with that, I'll leave you with the trailer (tell me this show will not be amazing!) 

References:

1) IMDb "Awards for Cosmos" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081846/awards. Accessed 3 Aug. 2013. 

2) Cosmo Learning Astronomy. http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/cosmos/ Accessed 3 Aug. 2013. 

3) "Seth's Cabinet of Wonders" Big Picture Science.  http://radio.seti.org/blog/2012/03/big-picture-science-seths-cabinet-of-wonders/ Acessed 3 Aug. 2013. 

Friday Funnies

When I attempt to explain my assay results to my PI:

NeXXT Scholars Program

As an undergraduate, I was involved with Macalester's Women in Science and Math student organization. One of our goals was to create a network of both Macalester community members and science alumna to support women majoring in math and science. So when I received an email the other week about the NeXXT Program, sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, I was excited to learn about a new opportunity to be involved in academic mentoring for the next generation. 

For the second year in a row, the US State Department, in collaboration with the New York Academy of Sciences, is sponsoring the NeXXT Scholars Program. This program aims to increase opportunities in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields for women in both the US and countries with predominantly Muslim populations. 

The Academy has paired with over 30 women's colleges in the United States to match incoming freshmen women pursuing a bachelors degree in a STEM academic field with an international counterpart. In addition to networking with each other and other NeXXT Scholars, both students are also paired individually with an established mentor in their field.

The mentor (a graduate student, postdoctoral scholar, or working professional) assists the scholar with career development, networking, and locating both research and skill building opportunities. Not only are the scholars able to serve as international ambassadors, but this program also helps them build skills they will need to become leaders in the respective fields. 

I am writing all of this because the NeXXT community is currently looking for female STEM professionals (particularly graduate students and postdocs). If this is something that is interesting to you, I highly encourage you to apply. The link for the mentor application can be found here. 

I chose to submit a mentor application for the NeXXT program, not only because I feel it's important to promote women in scientific fields, but also because I've had such positive experiences in a mentee role*.  Speaking from personal experiences, this type of relationship is invaluable. Not only have my mentors provided feedback on things related to science (coaching powerpoint presentations, acting as a sounding board for unusual experimental results, reading drafts of proposals, etc.) but many of them have also given me fantastic life advice. The most recent individual who took time to mentor me grew up in a similarly sized hometown and (like me) went to a liberal arts institution before attending graduate school in the Bay Area. When asked, he was always genuinely happy to offer advice on any topic, and having someone with a similar background certainly made my transition into graduate school much easier. I hope in time that I can provide the same level of encouragement to the next generation. 

*Though I was not involved in the NeXXT program as an undergraduate, I benefited from several fantastic mentors  during the course of my bachelors degree.  

June Updates

My apologies for the diminished frequency of updates As was hinted by my previous post, I recently (and successfully) undertook the oral qualifying exam at my university. Needless to say, the process of writing the proposal and studying for the exam left very little time for other things last month. 

I hope that I can now return to my usual updates of 2-3x per week. On the plus side, all of my studying has giving me some great ideas for new posts. 

Hoping to have some new content out by the end of the week, until then, please enjoy the following article about the Art of Science.

Friday Funnies: A Handy Guide to the Oral Qualifying Exam

The first-year of grad school was good...

...but now it's your second year of the program. Know what that means?

It's time for Oral Qualifying Exams*!!

It's time to hit the books...

...and try to make sense of it all.

And don't forget the most important part: typing the research proposal...

...getting feedback from your advisor on your latest draft...

...and then writing some more.

Most days you finishing studying and just want to relax.

Your advisor is constantly asking if you are ready...

...but your classmates know the real response.

The morning of your exam arrives.

They start you off with something easy, like a derivation.

Sometimes you get a question right...

...and sometimes the questions are really off-topic.

Before you know it two hours have passed and the committee must deliberate.

The deliberation goes on for what feels like hours.

They call you back in, and you're trying to keep it cool.

Your initial reaction to "You passed!"

...which quickly transitions into a desire to hug the committee.

And when your labmates ask how you want to celebrate:

Congratulations!

(Just think, only another 3-4 years until you face the firing squad again.)**

* The Oral Qualifying Exam (aka orals/comps/quals/prelims) is an exam taken in either your second or third year (depending on the university) that determines if you are ready to conduct independent research. Though the specifics vary between schools, typically the exam consists of writing and defending an original research proposal before a committee of faculty members. Passing the exam allows a student to "advance to candidacy" or enter the research and thesis writing phase of a doctoral program.

**For those schools that have a thesis defense. 

Special thanks to creative consultant louiseg @ jeezlouiseg