Our lab is in the predicament that we have a glut of papers that need to go out in order to get as many accepted or in press before a grant deadline. I literally have a color-coded excel sheet open on my computer right now listing manuscripts, there various states of doneness (in preparation, review, revision, etc), and target journals. I'm working with the bosses to push another manuscript out the door before revisions come back for another. I guess this is a good problem to have but it would have been better that we didn't sit on these papers building up a huge backlog. I'm 100% certain I'm going to take it on the chin with doing multiple revisions at the same time. But on the plus side, I need papers. So yay papers! I hope my bosses have a healthy amount of funds banked away for all these publication fees, its going to get pricey.
Archive for the 'Postdoc' category
I'm currently not able to spend a lot of time in lab (booo!) and stuck at my desk working on papers (yay!!!!). Papers good right? Yeah but too many manuscripts are coalescing at once. I'm staring at four drafts of papers from me (2 first authorships, 2 co-authorships) and I'm looking at my excel sheet and I have two more to write.
I'm super happy with all the work I've been doing but I'm not going to lie this is daunting as hell. I want to get at least two of the papers out the door in the next week and a half or lets face it, they won't be going out until early January.
I'm currently drafting up a fellowship proposal to hopefully cover the cost of my dumbass doing science for the next year or so. I'd like to think I have a compelling idea that fits within the programatic priorities of this funding group and I think they'd agree since I made it through the initial triage that cut out about 2/3rds of the preproposals.
Now I have the (mis)fortune of writing the full proposal and I'm grappling with how much prelim data to show. I've got about four pages in which to really detail my science and am experiencing some consternation about how much prelim data to include.
So dear readership (the two of you) and everyone else that clicked on this thinking it would be a Drugmonkey post written with at least some thought to quality (jokes on you assholes), how much prelim data do you put in your grant proposals? A small figure or two? Model figures?
Is anyone using an ELN system for their lab. I've been looking at a few, Evernote in particular, to help me keep my multiple projects organized? Didn't know if you found a helpful system or what difficulties you had in implementing this?
So now that I'm ensconced in my new position as a postdoc, I felt it was time to talk about the post Ph.D. Transition. The last few months of my Ph.D. program felt like a wild ride. It also felt so far removed from the rest of my experiences in grad school.
1. Thesis Writing: I wrote the thesibeast in about a month and a half of full time writing, followed by a round of making edits with the boss before submitting to my committee. What really helped was developing a solid outline and sticking to a writing schedule. Otherwise I would have fallen apart. I also learn that while I work best in the lab in the morning, my most productive writing occurred between 8pm and 2am. Nights were spent writing, just getting thoughts to paper and leaving placeholders, no worries about editing. Mornings and the rest of the day were better spent doing routine editing or working on figures.
One other huge benefit during the thesis writing was enlisting a really good editor who dissected it line by line pointing out issue. It is humbling to have some just ripped though your stuff and have so much red ink on it that it looks like a prison knife fight took place over my thesis. But it was good, it made me realize where I need to clean up my writing and how to make me a better writer and communicator of ideas.
2. The Defense: I'd like to say that I spent a lot of time honing a well-crafted and beautiful presentation, but I didn't. I spent 30 minutes putting it together and my boss spent 5 minutes reviewing it with me the day before my public seminar. There were no practice presentations, no run throughs with trusted friends and lab mates, none of that shit! I had already given a similar evolving talk on multiple postdoc interviews (more of this later) so it wasn't much work or effort to give the talk.
The public seminar went really well and then came the room. This had been filling me with fear and dread. Not because I thought it was going to go like 12 rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson, but because I never really knew anything about the whole closed door meeting. My boss was tied up before the seminar so I couldn't ask them what was standard operating procedure for this so I went to another professor. Their question to me was how did you enjoy your qualifying exam, it would be like that. I nodded my head and feigned pleasure at their response saying that the qualifying exam was a pleasant experience. This dear reader, was a bald face lie. My experience with the qualifying exam was tantamount to sandpapering the asshole of an alligator in a telephone booth and the exam was chaired by the professor who I had sought advice from. This same person came to apologize to me the week following my exam about how rough they went on me. I'd like to say I remember a lot of the details from this event but I guess we tend to repress the most painful of memories.
But my time in the room with the committee post-public seminar was brief (~45 minutes), the committee had minimal edits to my thesis (most of these came from my boss). Most of the discussion centered around clarifying things that I had written about and then talking about future directions of the project, even though I wouldn't be there to do them. I amended portions of my thesis that caused any confusion to be much more explicit so whoever (read no one) picked it up to read it would have an easier time understanding it.
It took all told about a week and a half to finish all of the edits and get it into final format to be submitted to the graduate school. And because it had a good chunk of preliminary data I had to go through channels to embargo its publication on Digital Commons for at least one year to give us time to publish the data.
3. What's next: Okay, so you are about to get or just got a Ph.D., what the fuck are you going to do for that? That's a very personal question that we all have to answer our own self. For me I knew I wanted to do a postdoc in order to expand my knowledge base and skill sets. About 5 months prior to my defense I sent out enquiry packets to prospective labs for postdoctoral positions. This was timed as the main publication of my thesis was set to come out a month later. My first interview occurred a week before the publication went live, so everything was happening really fast and was a bit exciting and nerve wracking.
I feel that part of my success at getting postdoc interviews was crafting a nice application packet that included a personalized cover letter, cv, and copy of my in press manuscript. The email was also personalized and literally every person I sent it to, I got a response from whether it be an invitation for an interview or a sorry I'm out of money. Even the folks who didn't have space or money told me to check back later or suggested someone else to contact.
Interviews...I had all kinds of interviews...less than 24 hours on site, three days there, skype interviews, phone interviews, you name it, I did it. Dinner with the PI, dinner with the grad students, nice PIs, standoffish PIs that try to elicit a response from you, it was like Patty Hearst in the bank video...all a blur. But I was there. My suggestions for interviews are to make sure you have enough cap space on your credit cards as some places made me pick up my accommodations and then I would get reimbursed or other places would pay. Everyone I met I always asked them the same few questions: what makes their lab different from any other lab, what frustrates you about their lab, and if you could change one thing about your lab what would it be. Its interesting to see the spectrum of answers that come from techs, students, postdocs, and even the PI. It also provides insight if everyone says the same thing is a problem then it probably is a real problem.
If you want to chat more about the postdoc interview process and how and why I selected the lab that I did, shoot me and message or email and we can chat in a more private manner.
3. Ramblin' Man...This is the really tough part, when do you put the pipets down, pack your shit, and hug your friends. For me the decision was easy. I got my main paper out and one co authorship out. Other future stories that I was developing were proceeding with some progress and could be capably handled by other members of the lab that I had trained. I decided jump shit approximately one month after my defense so that I could start my postdoc. This was due in part to the fact that my previous lab was going through a period of funding troubles, so one less mouth to feed at the table, means you can feed the rest of the mouths for that much longer. The good news is a grant came through for the lab, spurned by some of my work and contributions.
I think the main reason that I bugged out quickly after the defense was that we had a glut of papers that still needed to get out. Those papers would take close to at least one year before anything else of mine may come out. So to quote the Allman Brothers "When its time for leavin', I hope you understand, that I was born a ramblin' man."
4. FNG. I'm still the FNG and the stench has yet to wear off. Making the long move and starting the postdoc was exciting but brought with it a whole new set of frustrations: orientations, trainings, byzantine rules of supplies and procurement, etc. The lab is good and I'm making good data (which I'm happy about) but not at the pace that I want (which I'm not happy about). But overall things are looking up and my new master, at least for the time being, seems to be pleased with me. I'm adjusting to the differing mentoring styles and how this PI likes to conduct individual progress and laboratory meetings compared to my old PI.
The folks in the lab are great about teaching me new techniques and in return I'm showing them things from my bag of tricks, so its been great. I'm still less than four months in the lab but I feel like I have yet to be able to turn it up to 11.
So in conclusion, the transition has been interesting and is still ongoing. I'll post more as time allows. Feel free to leave feed back about your own journeys and transitions from post graduate school. Maybe this will help someone out or at least bore them into fitful sleep if the Ambien has yet to kick in.
I found a great lab with good folks, great ideas, and stable funding. I'll be starting there soon and sent out my unfortunate Dear John letter's to the labs that I didn't choose. I felt bad about all but one of them, the outlier was a major douche and a bit of nasty bastard to even his own people. Science is hard enough, I don't want to have to worry about someone's mood swings.
So far my postdoc search has been quite pleasant to say the least. Everyone I have contacted has gotten back to me and even if they didn't have a spot in their lab, they are recommending good folks who do or are telling me their future timelines when they could pick someone up. I've even got a few interviews lined up.
Time to pull out the ole suit and shine up the shoes and take my act on the road...
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?
How close to the end of your graduate career should you be looking for a postdoc and when have most folks usually secured a position by. A year before graduation, a month before?
We recently interviewed a postdoctoral candidate for our lab and rejected the chap for more than a few reasons:
-No papers. Not a big deal but when combined with everything else, it doesn't help.
-No enthusiasm for anything that we do in the lab. The dumpsterbaby reportedly checked his iPhone while speaking to one of the senior technicians in the lab and what we do and what the culture of the lab is like.
-Didn't really care to talk science at all during the interview process. If I wanted to make small take, I'd have talk to someone more interesting.
-Forgetting to read some of the most recent papers from the lab. Ding ding ding, this is the kiss of death. We no longer work on redacted, that was like 10 years ago and what the boss got tenure on, we've changed topics. Hopefully you would have noticed this.
-Not disclosing pertinent information on your CV.
He was a nice guy but lets face it, we are in a business that doesn't put a premium on nice guys, just folks that have their act together and will get the job done. When you interview you have to have your proverbial shit together and be well read on what your potential lab does. Also its not a good thing when your CV has huge gaps in it that seem to be filled in on your LinkedIn profile. Consistency is the key.