From the NIGMS Strategic Plan site:
NIGMS has a long-standing commitment to research training and biomedical workforce development. As science, the conduct of research, and workforce needs evolve, we want to be sure that our training and career development activities most effectively meet current needs and anticipate emerging opportunities, and that they contribute to building a highly capable, diverse biomedical research workforce. To this end, we are engaged in a strategic planning process to examine our existing activities and articulate strategies to help us build and sustain the workforce that the nation needs for improving health and global competitiveness.We are seeking broad input for this planning effort from university and college faculty members and administrators, current and former predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees, industry representatives, representatives of professional and scientific organizations, and other interested parties.
From March 2 to April 21, 2010, you may give us your input on our Web site in response to the series of questions below. These submissions will be completely anonymous.
1. What constitutes "success" in biomedical research training from the perspectives of an individual trainee, an institution, and society?
2. What can NIGMS do to encourage an optimal balance of breadth and depth in research training?
3. What can NIGMS do to encourage an appropriate balance between research productivity and successful outcomes for the mentor's trainees?
4. What can NIGMS do through its training programs to promote and encourage greater diversity in the biomedical research workforce?
5. Recognizing that students have different career goals and interests, should NIGMS encourage greater flexibility in training, and if so, how?
6. What should NIGMS do to ensure that institutions monitor, measure, and continuously improve the quality of their training efforts?
7. Do you have other comments or recommendations regarding NIGMS-sponsored training?
Jobs
Education
Comments
I'm really not crazy about the term "disgruntledocs." I can't tell here if you are using it playfully or not. Is this a term originated by and used by postdocs themselves, or is it something faculty and other folks with more job security have come up with for postdocs? (I ask as a faculty member myself.)
Posted by: Kate | March 4, 2010 3:01 PM
As a superpostdoc I have no problem with the label- actually I kind of like it. Postdocs are like soldiers, if they aren't whinging they're probably dead.
Who cares who coined the term? It works very well.
Could we operationally define it as postdocs who spend most of their time whinging about lack of career progression and have submitted
Posted by: antipodean | March 4, 2010 3:21 PM
Having said that...
There are loads of legitimate reasons to be a disgruntledoc from time to time.
DM. What should we call PIs when summary statements come back?
Posted by: antipodean | March 4, 2010 3:27 PM
What should we call PIs when summary statements come back?
WATB, of course. (unless it is me, then "poor, well justified victim of the system")
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 4, 2010 6:20 PM
I personally love the term "disgruntledoc". Although I am no longer a postdoc, I do not want to commit to gruntledom. Being gruntled is just so....well like a CBF tea party.
Posted by: BugDoc | March 4, 2010 11:00 PM
DM: Thanks for posting this! We are looking forward to receiving candid and thoughtful comments that will help us as we move forward with this important strategic planning effort.
Posted by: Jeremy Berg | March 5, 2010 10:17 AM
What can NIGMS do to encourage an appropriate balance between research productivity and successful outcomes for the mentor's trainees?
This is an interesting question. The implication seems to be that NIGMS thinks research productivity for the mentor is counterproductive for the career outcomes of the mentor's trainees. I wonder what makes them think that?
Posted by: whimple | March 5, 2010 11:07 AM
Wimple,
My reading is different. I think that "apropriate balance" implies that both research productivity and trainee's career outcome ought to be balanced pointing to the reality that imbalance in either side is neither good for the mentor or the trainee. I assume that an important part of the picture is the trainee being trained in how to be a mentor (being productive). Sorry for words redundancy.
Posted by: anonymous | March 5, 2010 11:49 AM
Maybe an unfortunate wording of the question? Unclear if they are asking about the mentor's productivity or the trainee's. A good question either way. And the core issue is the trainee's balance of bench jockery to other careerist activities, right?
Who is the target here- the merely clueless mentor or the more assertively selfish mentor? The firmer can be handled with education but the latter is going to require the stick....
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 12:13 PM
Who is the target here- the merely clueless mentor or the more assertively selfish mentor? The firmer can be handled with education but the latter is going to require the stick....
How can you do it with a stick? Maybe it could be handled with a carrot. For example, the biosketch or budget justification (if the budget includes money for postdoc or student salaries) might contain a brief description of previous trainee outcomes (or brief training plan), and these could be taken into account during review.
In other words, if an applicant asks for money to pay postdocs and/or grad students, then the applicant's success rate in training and placing postdocs and/or grad students should be considered.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2010 2:12 PM
That reminds me, Joe. There's a lot here that I am uncertain on but the training environment section of training grant app is not obliged to be comprehensive from what I can tell. IME, the goal is to put one's best foot forward on a voluntary basis. The PIs tend to include whatever training statistics that they think makes them look good.
The trouble is that it is entirely possible to simply omit all the trainees who make the PI look bad. There is no obligation to list each and every person who spent some minimal amount of time under nominal supervision of the PI. So for every postdoc who went on to a faculty job at HighFalutinU there could be 6, 12 or 20 who did not. Yet those people would be invisible to the grant process...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 3:13 PM
R01s are not training grants... The NIH doesn't care what happens to the staff that carries out the project, only that they can reasonably carry out the project within the relevant time interval. Is NIGMS implying they do care what happens to personnel listed on R01 budgets, or is this just about training grants?
Posted by: whimple | March 5, 2010 3:50 PM
R01s are not training grants... The NIH doesn't care what happens to the staff that carries out the project, only that they can reasonably carry out the project within the relevant time interval.
I suppose NIH could try to become more like NSF, and pay more attention to (or claim to pay more attention to) the trainees involved in the research. However, it seems that while NSF makes you write a lot and say a lot about how much you care about trainees and the advancement of scientific knowledge among the population and workforce development and diversity and broader impacts and education and outreach and curriculum development and so forth, the reality is that NSF-funded research groups still run the gamut in terms of how well-mentored trainees are, how involved the group leaders actually are in education, etc. etc. Just having people say nice things does not mean that they'll do nice things.
And, let's face it, while NSF makes everyone write a broader impact statement, and talks a lot about how important it is, everyone I've ever heard from who has been on an NSF panel says that as long as a reasonable case can be made on the broader impact front, the review process focuses almost entirely on the research, i.e. intellectual merit. Yeah, yeah, there's probably some grant that was at the borderline and it got bumped over the hurdle because the PI is going to develop some awesome demonstrations and have her students do those demos with her at a summer science camp for under-privileged youth and then do a super-awesome dissemination effort or whatever. But the reality is that most projects have more modest broader impacts and get funded anyhow, because the science cleared the hurdle instead of falling on the borderline.
If you ask me whether funding agencies should care about outcomes for trainees involved in a project, the answer is "Of course." If you ask me how to translate that caring into concrete steps that actually amount to something other than writing more reports and saying nice things, I have no clue. These problems may not be unsolvable, but they certainly aren't easy.
Posted by: Alex | March 5, 2010 4:55 PM
This is a false distinction whimple. The NIH devotes considerable amounts of attention and resources to the training mission. The overt and implicit rationale is that they are concerned about who will be carrying out the projects in the immediate and long term future.
And although they may not make the connection overtly, if a large chunk of the work on their funded R01s is being conducted by "trainees" then they have an interest in the immediate situation of those key contributors to their research mission.
Something in the larger superstructural vein that I have pointed out before-
If you have 5 R01s under the direction of 1 PI, you *have* to have reasonably senior scientists of subPI status doing a lot of the work of directing the project. Have to. The question for me is whether you might get better productivity out of that grant by handing PIship over to that junior person, letting her transition, and try to make a go of it. I assert that the motivational value of making that first grant work is tremendous. The per-grant$$ published paper productivity of someone who has one award over many awards is better. The only objection, that of critical mass, can be overturned by re-alignment local collaboration, independence and other such considerations.
IME when negotiating a change in PI effort that is sometimes necessary when new grants are awarded, a big component of that negotiation is telling NIH that you have some awesomez postdoc who is basically able to run the whole show anyway so the fact that PI effort is being reduced to 10% or lower is no big deal. One thing NIH ICs could do is to start converting awards to multiPI awards and insist that the more jr person be the first-named PI.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 4:56 PM
You guys are raising a very good point in terms of defining success for both PI and trainee. The point is how many trainees/postdocs have been placed successfully in the market place as a result of a training grant. That is a very relevant measure of success (for a training grant, by definition). Of course, it should be also consider meritorious in evaluating R01 success (different nature though)
Posted by: Retired | March 5, 2010 4:59 PM
I agree that that's the traditional view, whimple. But I think NIGMS is now acknowledging that R01 awards actually do two things: 1) provide resources for doing science, and 2) support people learning how to do science.
They explicitly note the importance of #2, and place it in context, with the phrase "biomedical workforce development."
They want short-term scientific productivity, but not at the long-term expense of making science so miserable that no one wants to do it.
But they don't explicitly state how these two things should be weighted, or whether they can be balanced at all. Which is what I think NIGMS question #3 is getting at...
3. What can NIGMS do to encourage an appropriate balance between research productivity and successful outcomes for the mentor's trainees?
As noted above, this implies that maximum research productivity is antithetical to good training.
Is it?
Personally, I don't think unproductive labs tend to provide good training. It's like going to Zimbabwe for a master's degree in economics. The hard part of evaluating productive labs is separating the effects of screening and size from actual good training. Many successful PIs seem to come from big productive labs. But is that because those labs are great places to learn how to become a successful PI, or is it because those big famous labs are simply big and chose their members from loads of great applicants? As suggested above, an actual success rate, along with more required details in training grants, would help with this.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2010 5:05 PM
IME when negotiating a change in PI effort that is sometimes necessary when new grants are awarded, a big component of that negotiation is telling NIH that you have some awesomez postdoc who is basically able to run the whole show anyway so the fact that PI effort is being reduced to 10% or lower is no big deal. One thing NIH ICs could do is to start converting awards to multiPI awards and insist that the more jr person be the first-named PI.
More to the point, the number of awards per individual PI could be capped. If Dr. BigShot wants to grow his research program, he must recruit junior PIs who 'share his vision' ;) and help them get awards.
Which is not so different from how it often seems to work in Europe.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2010 5:12 PM
Many successful PIs seem to come from big productive labs. But is that because those labs are great places to learn how to become a successful PI, or is it because those big famous labs are simply big and chose their members from loads of great applicants?
Or is it because the 2-3 GlamourPub first authorships that are considerably easier to attain in "big productive labs" are the threshold required to make the interviewing short-list?
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 5:14 PM
Well, yea, of course DM. But experience publishing in GlamourMags might also be considered 'good training'.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2010 5:29 PM
pfagh. Training that comes with a high probability of GlamourPub consists of learning to deploy the latest greatest effortful and preferably expensive/exclusive technique or two on some random biological target du jour. that and fending off the claims of the other three postdocs doing the exact same thing with slightly different fancy techniques in the authorship position battle. In rare cases learning to manipulate the PI that you are about to be scooped so s/he will throw a few more trainees' labor under the wheels of your GlamourPub (this is generally unnecessary because mostly the GlamourPI is already all over that action and is likely manipulating all the trainees with rumoured scoopage all the freaking time).
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 6:05 PM
Evidence, please.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 5, 2010 6:13 PM
many rounds of study section, my man. apples to apples meaning people who are roughly in the same field, doing roughly the same sort of work and publishing roughly in the same journals.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 5, 2010 7:00 PM
Evidence, please.
You're asking the wrong person for this evidence. CSR should be able to provide this data given suitable metrics for productivity (or even unsuitable metrics). I believe CSR isn't doing these studies because CSR is afraid of/doesn't want to know the answer.
Posted by: whimple | March 5, 2010 8:34 PM
I'm asking the person who made the claim. And it's good that we now know that the "evidence" for the broad claim is one single person's observation of a vanishingly small number of grants relative to the entire population of NIH grants and all in a particular subfield.
It's unfortunate that we don't have any real evidence one way or the other, as I suspect the answer would be very interesting. It would also be very important to control for variables like the total percent of PI salary being paid by NIH grants versus other sources. Examples of how this can matter a lot include the fact that a medical school faculty member with a single R01 is likely to have 50% effort (and thus 50% salary on that grant). The same PI with three R01s is likely to have 25% effort on each grant, i.e., only half the salary burden on the budget. For a modular R01 this is a very large difference, and can mean an entire additional post-doc or grad student on each grant.
My own wild-ass guess is different from DM's wild-ass guess about this. I suspect that the relationship between grant dollars and paper-productivity is non-monotonic, with the peak lying somewhere between two and three maximal modular R01 budget's worth (i.e., between $500,000 and $750,000 direct costs).
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 6, 2010 6:46 AM
This would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it?
Posted by: whimple | March 6, 2010 9:30 AM
According to the evidence I've seen, which was some graph in some 'newsy' journal (Science/Nature), CPP is correct. Papers published per dollar increases to a peak, and then begins to fall off. I think the peak is about 1.5 R01s, though.
This sort of makes sense. If you haven't got any money, you can't hire people and get stuff done. But people tend to get careless with too much money, or labs that have a lot of money also have it out of necessity, because their 'overhead' costs are higher (e.g. they work in some sucky leech-like med school or institute which makes every PI pay his own salary and charges user fees for flushing the toilet.)
The problem with these metrics, however, is that it is impossible to define 'productivity'. Maybe DM has his impression because he is just counting pubs. We all know he's not a big fan of GlamourMag, so in his mind Cell = J. Neurophysiol. But getting published in Cell often takes big data sets and expensive molecular approaches, whereas J. Neurophysiol papers can be considerably cheaper. We can argue all day about whether the world could survive best without Cell or J. Neurophysiol, and have our argument devolve into twisted battles over citation index, but the point remains. A paper is not a paper is not a paper. And none of that may be a very good representation of 'productivity'. After all, getting back to the point of this post (and thread), is a PI productive who has not published much but has produced loads of highly successful scientific offspring? The answer to that is the answer to NIGMS's question #3.
Posted by: Joe | March 6, 2010 11:16 AM
Let me provide some clarification regarding question #3. Research productivity is clearly important for the trainee (and the mentor). But sometimes research productivity and broader training goals are in conflict. Suppose a graduate student is working hard on his or her research project, but has the opportunity to take a substantial course that is not directly relevant to the project but could an important component of training for future activities. Can and should NIGMS take a position to try to influence the resolution of this conflict. We were not thinking so much about training in an environment with little research productivity but strengths in other aspects of training although this does raise some interesting questions.
Posted by: Jeremy Berg | March 6, 2010 2:08 PM
Jeremy, do you know if any entity within NIH has ever undertaken an analysis of "productivity per grant dollar" as a function of the total amount of funding controlled by the PI? I am aware that NIGMS has a policy of not providing additional funding to what it deems "well-funded" PIs. Is this policy based on considerations of efficiency (i.e., diminshing marginal value of additional funding), or on equity (i.e., spread the wealth)?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 6, 2010 2:19 PM
I do not know of any formal studies of the type you describe although some informal studies have been done with no clear result. The NIGMS well-funded investigator policy has several purposes and is often misunderstood. See http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Application/NAGMSCouncilGuidelines.htm for the policy. If a competing renewal comes in from a well-funded investigator (defined as investigator having more than $750K per year direct cost support from all sources), then it is treated in the same manner as any other application. If an application for a new grant comes from a well-funded investigator, then the default is not to fund it regardless of score unless program staff and council agree that the application represents something quite distinct from other research ongoing in the laboratory and involves something perceived as being of high value in the context of the overall NIGMS portfolio. A fair number of such new proposals are funded (although we often negotiate budget reductions fairly aggressively). Thus, the primary function of the policy is to make sure that decisions about providing additional funds to a well-funded laboratory are made in a disciplined manner with full awareness of the context. The policy addresses both the the considerations raised in #28 in that funding research similar to work underway in a well-funded laboratory seems less likely to provide something a great marginal value and the funds could be used to support strong applications from other laboratories for which the grant could have a large impact (certainly in the present climate).
Posted by: Jeremy Berg | March 6, 2010 3:54 PM
the funds could be used to support strong applications from other laboratories for which the grant could have a large impact
Given the sort of interest in reinforcing the scientist pipeline in the future you have strongly implied in this RFI, you should probably go a step farther. You should ask that *even if* the impact of the 4th R01 might be equal or even better in UltraSaurusLab, is it a better long term strategy to save a 4th yr Asst Prof from the chopping block or letting a n00b transition?
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 6, 2010 4:41 PM
Can and should NIGMS take a position to try to influence the resolution of this conflict. We were not thinking so much about training in an environment with little research productivity but strengths in other aspects of training
Yes, of course but there is no easy way that I can see to do this. Because you need to recall that the big problem is the bad mentor who does not already agree that additional training is better than yet more bench jockery. There are very few ways you can force the matter without it biting the trainee in the behind. All the rights and encouragement and ability to spend fellowship funds in the world aren't going to fix a PI who takes a dim view of the postdoc who takes a summer course in TechniqueX or, gasp, teaches a class at the local community college.
This is why I advocate more structural sticks that turn into carrots. Evaluation of outcome of all trainees is the starting point. Then denying training grant funds (Institutional and individual!) if the lab has a crap track record of placing postdocs into permanent career track jobs, TT at R1 Uni or otherwise.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 6, 2010 4:50 PM
Joe and CPP-
You will recall that I mentioned *5* R01s in my initial comment. Also that I am fully on record as saying 2 R01s are really the target for even a modest laboratory. Finally, I was referring to comparing like-to-like when it comes to subfield and publication types.
Now, if we are comparing apples to oranges, sure, it takes a boatload of money to have a 40 postdoc operation that guarantees GlamourPubs a few times a year, year in year out. I still say there is a tremendous amount of taxpayer funded, good data that never sees the light of day because of how the GlamourGame works. Shitty for the postdoc who labors 5 yrs for one shot at first author and 5 middle author fights. I simply reject that this is a better way to do science. I'd rather more of the data be published in incremental fashion. There would be earlier step-off points for other labs, better replication, less time wasted falling into the same traps the competing lab fought past, less disgruntled postdocs, etc, etc. The current system is a colossal waste of taxpayer funds- all in the service of Glamour, it has *nothing* to do with whether the same findings will be made. Everything to do with stupid ego games.
pfagh.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 6, 2010 5:00 PM
I hear people say this all the time, but I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that this supposed "colossal waste" exists.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 6, 2010 5:12 PM
I hear people say this all the time, but I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that this supposed "colossal waste" exists.
So, is there evidence that current system is operating efficiently? With an NIH budget over $30G you might think the evidence that this cash was not being wasted would be ready-to-hand. Again, this is CSR's fault/responsibility to determine whether or not this is the case. CSR has a very large interest in not doing these studies because they might get the answer that yes, there has in fact been "colossal waste". The mega-winners under the current system likewise have a very strong incentive to ensure that things stay just as they are.
Dr. Berg, it's well-known that the NIH funds projects rather than people. Why/how do you want to go messing with that?
Posted by: whimple | March 6, 2010 5:37 PM
Suppose a graduate student is working hard on his or her research project, but has the opportunity to take a substantial course that is not directly relevant to the project but could an important component of training for future activities. Can and should NIGMS take a position to try to influence the resolution of this conflict.
NIGMS should not reward 'flaking out'. I think the student needs to first follow through on the research project. Then, and only then, should she pursue her long-term training goals, which is best done by joining a lab more aligned with her newfound interests. To help with this, NIGMS doesn't need to do anything except continue to provide fellowships to students with a record of accomplishment and interest in doing exciting science in the appropriate environment. That phrase, 'appropriate environment', is key. If the research goals of the trainee and trainer are aligned, then training and lab productivity are least likely to be at odds. If the goals of trainer and trainee are not aligned, then things will never work out, no matter what NIGMS does. In this case, the trainee needs to move labs.
And not that the trainee and trainer interests can sometimes be not aligned for reasons that are not obvious. And good administrators can make more of a difference than new policies. For example...
My first postdoctoral supervisor turned out to be a jerk. He lied on his grant applications, lied in his papers, and showed undue favoritism to the grad student he was having sex with (he basically put her name on every paper whether she did anything or not, and made her first author on every project the tech did. She is now a research prof in his lab, and the practice continues. Yes, he was married the whole time). He tried to pressure me into 'disregarding' data not consistent with his hypothesis, and told me explicitly to use information I learned from a friend to try to unfairly scoop my friend's lab. I told him no to all this, of course, and one night he said "Do it or I'll find someone who can". I told him he was welcome to, and he seemed happy to see me go until two days later we learned my fellowship had been awarded. He took me out to dinner, begged me for three hours to stay in the lab. He told me I'd have to give up my fellowship and would never get another job if he could help it. Which was fine with me at the time. I told him no fellowship was worth it. The funny thing was, the next day this jerky PI called the PO (without my knowledge) to inform him that I was quitting his lab but wanted to turn my fellowship over to the lab. What a nutcase! I happened to overhear this and later called the PO, who told me that the fellowship was awarded to me, that moving labs sometimes is necessary, and not to worry too much about it. I had to write a new proposal for the new postdoc position I subsequently lined up (with a PI in the same university who knew me already and thought the jerky PI was crazy anyway), and provide a written explanation for why my training and research goals were better served in the new lab, but it was all relatively administrative and painless. Thanks to a decent SRO.
Now I am reasonably successful (associate prof at a major research university, with a very good record of productivity). Not as successful as my jerky first supervisor who currently has 3 R01s and sits on the study section that my proposals keep going to lately, but successful enough. My consolation is that at least what my lab does I believe in. I can't think of a single paper that my jerky ex-supervisor has published that has had all the major conclusions hold up to scrutiny. And the ex-grad student he's been jamming for years doesn't look as good as she used to either.
So I guess my advice is for NIGMS to not worry about new expensive policies to promote training. Just pay the SROs and POs more so you can recruit and retain the good ones. And let them keep listening.
Posted by: Joe | March 6, 2010 5:47 PM
Dude, why would you think it is the role of CSR--whose mandate is limited to coordinating peer review of individual grant applications--to determine whether there is waste? (I also don't see why you think it should be CSR that determines the "efficiency" of incremental grant dollars awarded to well-funded labs.) I don't see what these things have to do with peer review of particular applications. The appropriate loci for these activities would be Institutes and/or the Office of the Director.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 6, 2010 5:48 PM
Fine. Where's the Director's data then?
Posted by: whimple | March 6, 2010 6:44 PM
There is no data. Call the fucking Director and complain to him. You're starting to sound like fucking Shitlin.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 6, 2010 7:16 PM
I don't have hard data but I think the part of the waste is maintaining the outdated and inefficient "science in research universities" model. The targeted "scientific institute" system IMHO eliminates a lot of ills. To support this notion, I am cautiously betting that Max Planck Institutes' "bang for the buck" output is higher than HHMI's output (although, as usual, it is not trivial to quantify and there are all kind of biases possible). As of few years ago, MPS spent ~$0.7B/year on all of its biology/biomedicine. Europe in general has a lot less of the "a PI and a bunch of temps" approach and I remember reading that as of few years ago an average European paper started to have higher IF than the average one from the USA. One objection to this notion would be that huge amount of NIH money is spend on its intramural research and on most fronts NIH is not doing nearly as good a job (? - actually, I don't know that), but I'd argue that one can't view NIH as entirely separate entity uncorrupted by the outside rot.
Posted by: DK | March 6, 2010 10:49 PM
Call the fucking Director and complain to him.
No, this is Obama's job, not mine. The "complaints" usually take the form of lack of enthusiasm for NIH budget increases. Really, I'm surprised there isn't a formal system of independent oversight to ensure that the NIH's substantial budget is well-spent. This is particularly so since the NIH's budget is discretionary spending. If the budget cutters really want to go nuts, the NIH is one of the few targets that is a) big enough to be be worth going after, and b) actually go-afterable.
Posted by: whimple | March 7, 2010 12:32 AM
Whimple,
This is worth looking at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/331/7510/192.pdf
You have to compute the citation rate (citations per $bn/ papers per $bn) yourself, but doing so is also worthwhile.
Posted by: Joe | March 7, 2010 10:57 AM
US roolz! Europe droolz!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 7, 2010 11:19 AM
Postdocs are like soldiers, if they aren't whinging they're probably dead."
Did your PI greet you with the following speech, too?
"If you ladies leave my lab, if you survive training, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of death praying for war. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human fucking beings. You are nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit. Because I am hard you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless. And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved lab. Do you maggots understand that?"
Posted by: DSKS | March 9, 2010 11:12 AM
Thanks for the link Joe, interesting data.
Maybe on average PP, but there are several EU countries that are more efficient (citations/$bn) than the US.
Did I miss a scaling factor, or does it really take a billion dollars to generate a couple of thousand citations?
Posted by: bob | March 9, 2010 2:02 PM
DSKS
They don't even look down on antipodeans around here. As long as you get the work done whilst whingeing.
"Oh that's right,
PrivatePostdoc Pyle, don't make any fucking effort to get to the top of the fucking obstacle. IfGodDirector of the NIH would have wanted you up there he would have miracled your ass up there by now, wouldn't he?"Posted by: antipodean | March 9, 2010 3:29 PM