This explains a lot

I guess I can kiss my chances of getting a "Science" paper goodbye! I agree whole heartedly with the last few paragraphs:-]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18beer.html?ex=1363492800&en=2165a9e06e5b6965&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook

Enjoy!

I thought once was enough

Larry disclosed to us yesterday that we basically have no more money in the lab. I guess this wasn't the biggest shock to me, because we've always been short of money, but it came as a blow nonetheless. He further informed me and Emilia that we're going to have to write a(nother) fellowship application to fund our stipends. My fellowship with the Children's Tumor Foundation ends in June, and after that Larry won't be able to support us - at least not without a lot of pressure and nasty emails from the OSU research foundation. Another option for us would be to teach, at which point our program would support us, but who wants to teach when they're trying to write their dissertation??!! (Not to mention how much time it would take away from labwork.) So I thought that my CTF grant was going to be enough for me - not only a great addition to my CV, but also a great way to keep Larry afloat. As it turns out, it won't be enough. Okay, no big deal right? I've written three grants to date, so this should be a cinch. The only problem is that there is a stipulation in the eligibility requirements that all applicants/awardees have to have a GPA of at least 3.6 in their graduate career. What the HELL!!??!! Who gives a damn about GPA anymore?? Not that mine (or Emilia's for that matter) is that shabby - we're both at about 3.3-3.4 - but apparently now we won't be eligible to even apply. What makes this worse, is that it puts even more pressure on me to find something because Emilia and Zhirong can't apply for just about any grant funding because they're not US citizens. Being the only US citizen in the lab, that means that I'm pretty much required to keep looking and writing until I get something funded.

This is not what I was expecting to learn yesterday.

We are also now required to meet with Larry to discuss the scope of our projects, and sack any projects that aren't producing fast-paced data, or aren't the most field-moving. That likely means that I'll have to stop working on my TEC1 project which deals with the embryonic defect we see in our mice. While the project was really interesting, it's not producing enough data to justify continued attention - at least that's what I'm expecting Larry to say. The good news is that it'll allow me more time to focus on the tumor study, but there's a problem there too. We have to weed out the most important experiments to work on and be sure that anything we do is absolutely necessary to the project. Not that we don't normally do this, but it'll be harder to justify experiments that might give interesting/unexpected results if we can't afford to just try it out. Sometimes that's what research is all about - trying something out just to see if it works. If it doesn't, well then move on to another idea. Now we just have to think and plan a lot more about exactly what needs to happen. It's good for us to do, but an added difficulty in the equation if you're always concerned about asking to spend money that isn't there.

Let's all thank the republicans. ...Assholes.

This is all a result of NIH funding being slashed. What people don't realize is that not only is the NIH not funding as many new projects, they aren't funding their old projects to the extent that they were when the grants were initiated. This means that whatever they promised Larry four years ago is not what they're able to give him now. The government slashed NIH's budget which means they don't have enough money to even pay the people what they promised. It's not the NIH's fault per se, it's the government and the people who vote to keep scientific research on the back burner. Well, I hope those people don't ever get cancer, alzheimer's, or any other metabolic or genetic disease because as a result of their neglegence and greed we won't be able to help find a cure for them. Then again, maybe I do wish for them to get sick; it might help them change their mind.

I'm still waiting for my acceptance letter to the French Culinary Institute. I wonder why it hasn't come yet...

PCR is a beautiful thing

Yes, I'm a science nerd. We're all well aware of that at this point, I'm sure. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to post the following link that directs you to a lovely song paying tribute to PCR. (That's "polymerase chain reaction" for those of you who are unfamiliar with the acronym. It's a method of amplifying DNA. That's "deoxyribonucleic acid" for those of you who... okay, now I'm just starting to sound like a smart-ass!)

http://bio-rad.cnpg.com/lsca/videos/ScientistsForBetterPCR/

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do... The melody is currently stuck in my head, along with a nerdy smile stuck on my face:)

Because it matters to ME!!

PLEASE REPOST WHEREVER APPROPRIATE!!

I just wanted to plea for anyone and everyone who is voting to take into account the impact that the scientific community will take in the upcoming presidential election. As a direct result of the current administration scientific research has taken a very hard hit over the past 8 years, and particularly within the last 4. Now, my research on the candidates is very slim as of yet, however I wanted to point out that at least one candidate is striving to help out us struggling lovers of science! Hillary Clinton's web page (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3566) describes the kind of changes she would enforce for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Defense (DOD) with respect to replenishing, and in most cases increasing, the funding that was stripped during the Bush administration. My favorite part is how she plans to rescind Bush's bill banning stem cells due to ethical reasons. Anyone who knows me well should know how seriously I take the stem cell issue. Anyone educated enough to vote FOR stem cell research knows that there really is nothing unethical about growing cells that are found in each and EVERYone of us! Not to mention, every time a baby is born, stem cells from the ubilical cord are thrown away. My question to the "no" voters: why is it unethical to take stem cells from a piece of tissue that is otherwise discarded??? Stem cells will never EVER become people. Our technology has not progressed far enough for that to happen, and if it did THEN we can mandate that the steps necessary to generate humans from stem cells is indeed unethical!!

Bear in mind, this is NOT, I repeat NOT, my political plug for Hillary Clinton. I am merely making a point here, and begging that people think about how scientists will be affected in the upcoming election. I have not fully researched the stances of the other candidates regarding this issue - however I certainly plan to do so! (For a synopsis on candidate viewpoints, see below)

I, myself, have seen first hand the affects the Bush administration has had on the scientific community. There is very little money available to us to do research academically. My lab alone has lost two people in the last year to lack of funding. Smaller labs, like the one I'm in, are struggling to compete with larger labs for funding - and the fight has been harder and harder ever since the NIH budget was slashed.

Please keep us science nerds in mind when you go to vote this year! If anyone has comments, questions, or concerns about what I've written here PLEASE do not hesitate to email me. I'm happy to hear other opinions on this matter. However, I do ask they your comments be intelligable and/or at least somewhat educated - I won't have much patience for someone on a bible-beating kick.

All the best,
Georgette N. Jones
Graduate Student in the Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology Graduate Program
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

I found this synopsis of the presidential candidate's stances for research should they be elected into office. Enjoy!! (So far, I'm liking Obama and Clinton the best!)

Science research policies of 2008 presidential candidates New York, NY, Jan. 3—As the unseasonably early presidential campaign approaches its first round of caucuses, BioTechniques summarizes the top candidates' announced positions on federal funding for science (with a sidelong look at positions on embryonic stem cell research). In alphabetical order, they say:

Hillary Clinton, Democrat
Scientific Research: Clinton proposes to "renew the nation's commitment to research; help create the premier science, engineering, technology and mathematics workforce; and upgrade our innovation infrastructure." Her plan includes the following points: • "Increase the basic research budgets 50% over 10 years at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Defense Department."
• "Increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years."
• "Direct the federal agencies to award prizes in order to accomplish specific innovation goals."
• "Triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by 33 percent."
• "Overhaul the R&E [Research and Experimentation] tax credit to make the U.S. a more attractive location for high-paying jobs." (Source: Clinton's Innovation page)
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Clinton proposes to sign an Executive Order that: "Rescinds President Bush's ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research and promotes stem cell research that complies with the highest ethical standards." (Source: Clinton's "Ending the War on Science" press release)

John Edwards, Democrat
Scientific Research: Edwards proposes to "recharge America's competitiveness through improvements in infrastructure today and investments in research and education that will pay off tomorrow." His plan includes:
• "Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent."
• "Increase spending on basic research at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health..." (Source: Edward's Innovation page)
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Edwards proposes to "lift the stifling restrictions that President Bush imposed and provide additional federal funding for responsible embryonic stem cell research." (Source: Washington Post's Edward's profile)

Rudy Giuliani, Republican
Scientific Research: No available statements.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Giuliani states, "As long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning... there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds." (Source: Washington Post's Giuliani profile).

Mike Huckabee, Republican
Scientific Research: No available statements.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Huckabee is "opposed to research on embryonic stem cells." (Source: Huckabee's Sanctity of Life page)

John McCain, Republican
Scientific Research: McCain proposes to "make permanent the research and development (R&D) tax credit to keep America competitive and provide a stable environment for entrepreneurs." (Source: McCain's Tax page)
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: McCain states, "I support a public policy that balances the moral concerns of those opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research with the sense of moral imperative of taxpayers who support such research. I support the increase of funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. (Source: Washington Post's McCain profile)

Barack Obama, Democrat
Scientific Research: Obama proposes to change "the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology." His plan includes the following points:
• "Doubling federal funding for basic research."
• "Make the Research and Development tax credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when making decisions to invest in domestic R&D over multi-year time frames." (Source: Obama's Economy page)
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Obama states that he is "a proud supporter of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The president was wrong to veto it, and I will make sure that it is finally signed into law when I'm president." (Source: Washington Post's Obama profile)

Mitt Romney, Republican
Scientific Research: No available statement.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Romney states, "I support federal funding for such so-called alternative methods like altered nuclear transfer and direct reprogramming. I oppose cloning and think the practice of creating human embryos for the purposes of research should be banned." (Source: Washington Post's Romney profile)

Fred D. Thompson, Republican
Scientific Research: No available statement.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: "I support adult stem cell research. I oppose embryonic stem cell research and human cloning." (Source: Washington Post's Thompson profile)

For more information about the candidates' science policies, see Popular Mechanics' science and technology guide to the 2008 presidential election called "Geek the Vote 2008" or the Huffington Post's article "U.S. Presidential Candidates' Health Care Plans: Scientific and Medical Research Proposals," which provides annotated comparison charts.

Science Nerd Joke

One day, a scientist was crossing a road when a frog called out to him and said, "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess". He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.

The frog spoke up again and said, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week." The scientist took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.

The frog then cried out, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a princess, I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want." Again the scientist took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.

Finally, the frog asked, "What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess; I'll stay with you for a week and do anything you want. Why won't you kiss me?" The scientist said, "Look. I'm a scientist. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog? Now that's cool."

A new can of worms

Just when I thought I'd get to submit my paper for publication, we opened a new can of worms. Last week I went to our collaborator's lab to do a couple of experiments dealing with measuring the activity of certain proteins in our tumors. As it turns out, the results were very striking and unique! Because of this, and the recent publication of some other studies dealing with our protein in the context of a novel pathway for tumorigenesis, we've decided to pursue the findings. Larry's thoughts are two-fold: we could either publish what we have now (my preference) or do these few more experiments to nail down a mechanism and make one giant paper out of it. I think he's kind of leaning towards publishing now and then making a second paper with mechanism data, but it's hard for me to tell for sure.

I'll keep you posted!