I've been working so much lately that I have literally run myself into the ground. The physical and mental exhaustion is causing me to feel punch drunk. In fact my vision is blurring while I'm writing this, while I'm waiting for my western to finish incubating in secondary. I'd love to take a day or two off but I want to keep up the positive momentum that I've got going. I don't want to take a day off and fuck up my research mojo right now.
That said, I'm going to have to take some semblance of a break soon. I may not be at my limit right now but I'm quickly approaching it. Just need to make it to the weekend...
Sorry for the rambling
While I'm running some Westerns here are some tunes to enjoy.
Jake Bugg "Lightning Bolt" (for some reason I find this hipster palatable)
Stony looping Macklemore and Ryan Lewis's "Can't Hold Us" (very creative use of real time looping)
Daniel Park "You Say Hello, I Say Herrow (The Asian Song)"
So I'm really looking into a particular lab for a postdoc, one that I am fairly familiar with. Before I contact the PI, I am brushing up on some of their most recent publications. The question is how far back do I dig? My thought is that since I am familiar with what they do, I'll go back and read what they've published in the last three years as this is the most relevant to what's going on in the lab. Also I've pulled any review from the lab in the last 5 years, while some may no longer be topical, I want to get their slant or perspective on how they see the field.
So dear readership (n=4), how far back would you recommend me going in the paper pile?
A recent opinion piece at CNN about Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy (Article here) had a few errors and had some issues with it. But what was most confusing was wording that mislead the reader to believe that most of the non-familial breast cancer patients did not have BRCA1/2 genes, instead of stating that they did not have mutations in those genes. I was actually kind of surprised when both the author and the article responded to me quite quickly.
Bravo CNN for fixing the inaccuracies but boo to the clinician who wrote the paper with the errors in it.
Since recruitment season is coming to a close for most of us (not our lazy asses) I wanted to see how everyone's efforts went with attracting new students to your programs. Our results have been tepid at best but this doesn't reflect a lack of effort on our part. In fact I would say we poured in a ton of efforts and brought in more students for interviews than we have ever. Despite all this we are getting recruitment numbers that are in line with when we are lazy and didn't give two shits. Some of the problem is the format of our recruitment and interviewing process but I think that is being discussed in-house and should change (hopefully) soon.
So folks, how did it go this year? Did you see the numbers you wanted to? I know with the funding situation it's getting tight, but did you get as many as you wanted and what was your thoughts on the quality of the applicants?