ScienceCareers to postdocs: Think happy thoughts!

(by Dr Becca) Jul 22 2014

Quite a week for ScienceCareers, eh? After their editor or whatever doubled down on his sentiment that moral indignation over the objectification of an oppressed group on his magazine's cover was just so BORING (tweets now deleted, can't imagine why), we now get this: "Happy Thoughts May Help Postdocs Handle Stress."

Are you for actual serious with this?? The article describes a new study--and I use this word lightly because it's based on a one-time survey of 200 postdocs--that found less anxiety and depression in folks who self-reported more frequent positive emotions. So, not only do we have a clear correlation vs. causation issue here - who can say that it was the positive emotions that prevented the development of clinical symptoms and not vice versa - but it belittles the many real stressful problems that postdocs face that cannot simply be "thought" away.

The real money quote is this:  "When we suggest that people need more positive emotions in their lives, I know it sounds kind of frou-frou, but it’s actually a very simple practice.” OK. a) I don't think you know what frou-frou means (frilly or ornamented, not fluffy or insubstantial, which is what you probably mean and you'd be right). b) No, it is not simple. Postdocs have personal, financial, and professional stresses on a daily basis. They are busy as fuck. To suggest that watching a sit-com or going for a run can change that reality not only presumes they have time for something like that, but has very strong undertones of "stop complaining and just change your attitude."  This is a dangerous message to convey to a population of people who are already worried about being smart enough, published enough, networked enough...now they have to worry they're just not happy enough? Uh, yeah, they're probably not happy enough. But it's not because they aren't caught up on the latest season of Veep

One final note - this isn't really a new idea at all. People have been trying to convince us that thinking about being happy will make work less stressful for almost 80 years (White et al, 1937)!


 

10 responses so far

The Kentucky Bourbon Trail is not an actual trail

(by Dr Becca) Jul 03 2014

Last week, J and I returned from a much needed getaway in a red mustang convertible. We spent the weekend cruising the beautiful landscape of eastern Kentucky, stopping occasionally to sample a delightful local spirit or two, and then took back roads all the way home to NJC. It was a great road trip. America the Beautiful, etc.

If you enjoy 1) whiskey; 2) learning things; and 3) seeing beautiful rolling hills and horses, I highly recommend a visit to Bourbon County, KY, in a mustang convertible if possible. In preparation for your trip, here are some things that might be good for you to know:

1. The Kentucky Bourbon Trail is not an actual trail, it is a marketing concept. If you're imagining that there's some 5-mile stretch of winding Kentucky road somewhere that would allow you to zig-zag from distillery to distillery in an afternoon, you're highly mistaken in your imagination. In reality, there are two primary clumps of distilleries - one in Frankfort, and the other in Bardstown - about 45 min apart from each other (I suppose "Kentucky Bourbon Clumps" did not quite pass muster with focus groups). Moreover, the KBT officially consists of only 8 distilleries that collectively produce most of the American whiskeys you've probably heard of. However, there are plenty of smaller craft distilleries in the area as well, and some larger distilleries, like Buffalo Trace, that for whatever reason are not officially linked to the KBT.

The yeast room at Four Roses

2. It is pretty much impossible to get drunk (or even driving impaired) while visiting the distilleries. Probably one of the first things you'd think when planning a trip to the KBT is, OMG all that bourbon! How will we get around? Should we hire a party bus or something? But you needn't worry. They have it all figured out already. First, you can't go to a distillery, do a tasting, and leave - you have to take a tour, which lasts anywhere from maybe 30 min to an hour. The tasting comes at the end, and you'll get maybe 2-3 TINY tastes, so that all in all for one distillery you've probably had a total of 1/2 an oz of liquor, max, which is a third of a shot. Then you have to do it all again at the next distillery, which is a minimum 15 min drive away plus waiting for the next tour to start, so you're looking at around at least 1.5 hours in between very small amounts of alcohol. Relatedly, you will probably get to fewer distilleries in a day than you imagine. We did 3 the first day and 2 the second.

3. Visit a mix of large and small distilleries. Distilleries come in all shapes and sizes, and the five-and-a-half we went to each gave us a different experience. I say "and a half" because we tried to go to Woodford, the Lexus of Distilleries, but it was swarming with people and had over an hour wait for tours, so we bailed and went to Four Roses instead. The "Hard Hat Tour" at Buffalo Trace was by far the most informative about the whiskey-making process, and is great if you really want to see everything and get a kick out of cool old industrial stuff (like me). They also do this cool trick with their White Dog where you rub it on your hands a couple of times and smell the different elements each time it's exposed to the air. Wild Turkey has a brand new facility that completely lacked character and their tour was kind of boring, but their gorgeous new visitor center somewhat made up for it (see pic below).

View up to the "Angel's Loft" or something at Wild Turkey.

 

4. For tasting, the small distilleries are way better. We had this vision that at all the distilleries we'd get to taste some rare new thing that was fresh out of the barrels, but at most of the big distilleries it was like, "here's a taste of our most widely available product." Yawn. In contrast, the small distilleries delivered. The Willett distillery, which makes Rowan's Creek, one of the best bourbons on the planet, was our favorite. Our tour group was small and our guide seemed genuinely happy that we were there. They also have the most stunning still I think I've ever seen (pic below). And as a bonus, we got to taste their hot off the presses 2-year rye, which was easily the best thing we drank all weekend. It's not sold anywhere, and we took home two bottles. We also visited Limestone Branch, a one-building operation so new their bourbon hasn't even aged the requisite 2 years yet, but we had a great visit with the distillers, who were super down-to-earth and shared their "Sugar Shine" line of spirits with us.

The gorgeous still at Willett, inspiration for their bottle shape.

All in all, a truly awesome trip.  And now, alas, back to science.

3 responses so far

Fuck "descriptive"

(by Dr Becca) Jun 13 2014

It's been a shitty few weeks. After a gazillion paper rejections and two funding "fuck you"s, all whilst working to make a June grant deadline, I do not have the energy to write my full on manifesto right now. But I would absolutely love it if someone could post in the comments a compelling argument for why "descriptive" is considered an a priori flaw in scientific inquiry. Isn't all science descriptive?

If you have ever uttered (or written) the words "You have to have a hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong," then what you are saying is that it is valuable to know the outcome of the experiment being proposed regardless of what that outcome is. And if that's the case, then why does there need to be a hypothesis in the first place? Why is it not enough to say, "I want to see what happens to X when an animal does Y" or "I want to know how groups A and B are different on measure C"?

A hypothesis is supposed to be an educated guess, right? But if there's no data out there to base that guess off of, what's the point of making something up?

45 responses so far

Does a "services rendered" model apply in academia?

(by Dr Becca) Apr 10 2014

So this is in response to a bit of a kerfuffle that, as far as I can tell, started with Dr24hours on twitter Tuesday night, picked up again Wednesday morning, and resulted in a  post over on his very worthwhile blog Infactorium called "Unpaid Work in Academia."  It concerns the exceptionally common scenario in which a trainee--be it an undergrad, grad student, or post-doc--moves on to the next phase of her career before every last data point she collected has been published. But it should be published, and so who's going to do the work to make that happen? In a nutshell, 24's argument is that if said trainee is somehow forced to write up all remaining manuscripts after she is no longer receiving a paycheck from the PI who supervised the research in question, then that trainee is being exploited.

I have a number of different thoughts about this.

First of all, yes. Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do and that isn't required by a contract that they've signed. But let's talk for a second about the plausibility of being forced to write a manuscript. The only way I can imagine that this is something that actually happens in academia is if former PI threatens not to write any letters of recommendation for the trainee until the papers are in and published. That is a super shitty thing to do as a PI, and personally, I do not see this approach working well for either party in the long run.

But my primary question is, who needs to be blackmailed into writing up their own work?

I take issue with 24's implication that manuscript preparation is something you do for your PI, like a service rendered. While technically, yes, the legal tender direct deposited into your checking account each month is loosely related to the fact that you show up to pipette every day, and your PI is the closest thing to a boss you have, this work is also yours. Every time your name appears on a paper, all those western blots and recordings and dose-response curves define who you are as a scientist. To be clear, I am not arguing that these things are rewards or currency or take the place of real money. But they are important nonetheless, and they are not things that you simply give to your PI in exchange for US dollars, either. These things are a part of your narrative, and if your goal is to stay in academia, your narrative needs to have a bunch of papers in it. You should want these papers to be published, and care about them representing your work in the best way possible.

The question of whether you should be paid to work on these papers after you've formally started a new job is an interesting one, and I'm not sure there's a clear answer. If your job while in PI's lab was to carry out a project, was writing the manuscript a part of that job (meaning it was your responsibility to get it done while employed), or do you consider your salary/stipend to be payment only for whatever you happened to get done during your official employment? Because with the exception of technicians, academic positions are not hourly, so how do we define what counts as "above and beyond?" Grad students, post-docs, and PIs work (a lot of) non-traditional hours. Putting aside the issue of whether stipends and salaries should be higher in general, where do you draw the line? Should we be demanding time-and-a-half for any work we do outside of business hours? Should we put a monetary value on every assay and ANOVA? Some of my best science ideas have come to me during spin class (seriously, I have no idea why) - can I ask my university to reimburse my gym membership? Who do I charge for my time spent writing peer reviews?

My point is this: for better or for worse, what constitutes "work" in academia is nebulous (especially re: the concept of "percent effort" on grants, but that is another topic for another day), but if you're planning on staying, it is in your best interest to get yours done (it is also in your best interest to have a conversation with your PI on mutual expectations). Whether you push to get it done before your paycheck stops or do it after (while you are technically on another time clock) doesn't change the total amount of work you do or the amount of money you will earn for it, because that is simply not the pay structure of academic science.

(As an aside, I'll share this: I wrapped up all my post-doc publications before starting my TT job, and was then criticized in my first departmental review for not publishing anything, which could have only happened by writing up leftover post-doc data. So it is sometimes in your best interest to actively "save" some things to work on during transition times).

If, on the other hand, you are leaving academia, you have to be OK with leaving your work behind, too. Tell your former PI "Sorry, this isn't my work anymore. Give it to someone else." If your PI threatens to withhold LoRs if you don't do it, then that PI is most certainly a dick. Can't argue there. But it is also not worth buckling to your shitty PI's demands in order to get that LoR--you have to let it go. You have a new job and new supervisors who will write you LoRs in the future, and unless you were literally chained to the bench for the last few years,  you should know some other senior academic folks who could write an LoR in place of your PI.

Like in many other areas of life, I think there's a healthy dose of good faith to the way academic relationships work. I would never use my position of power to blackmail trainees into doing their work, but I also hope that they will work hard because they care about what they do. If they don't, I would much rather they just hand it off anyway - it's most likely best for everyone.

35 responses so far

Yep, it's hard - a guest post from iGrrrl

(by Dr Becca) Apr 03 2014

I love when excellent blogging leads to more excellent blogging, and I don't even have to do any of the blogging myself! Inspired by the amazing Potnia Theron's thoughtful post on the relationship between rejection and depression in academia, the brilliant and wise iGrrl had some thoughts of her own, which she has graciously put into sentence form for all of us. This is important stuff, folks. Read.

****

I had previously worked as a tech at the school where I matriculated, and one of my former PI's collaborators came up to me at the 'welcome new grad students' reception with a Why are you here? expression on his face. When I told him I was entering the neuroscience program, he said, "Ah! Getting your union card, I see." He was so right about the end product, but the process? When we're long past it, it's like childbirth: you forget how bad it is.

Being a student again was a shock. I'd gone back for my PhD at 30 after a peripatetic early adulthood. The intensity of that first year, the sense of how high the stakes were, of being molded into something very new and different, can be easily forgotten. I hated the more senior students who dismissively said, "It's fine, you'll get through it." I figured they'd just forgotten, like childbirth. I swore on a stack of Stryer; Kandel, Schwartz & Jessel; and all those journal articles I'd photocopied to read for class that when the next crop of grad students came in, I wouldn't feed them that dismissive line. I would tell them the truth: First year of grad school sucks, and is hard. Plenty of them thanked me for it, for recognizing that what they were going through was insane and hard.

And that's true, but the rest of graduate training is hard, too. I won't argue for a kinder, gentler PhD program. To survive in academic science, you have to learn to be in charge of your own education, to realize that you will be judged harshly for the rest of your career (grant review sheets, anyone?), etc., but you also have to find ways to deal with the self doubt and depression. It may be that not everyone experiences it, but most admit to experiencing some level of both after their second beer.

We joke that the only praise in academe is the absence of criticism, and that feeds into the problem that smart, competent people often have, which I'll call the anti-Dunning-Kruger effect. True Imposter Syndrome is the more extreme example of this, but it's that constant feeling that you're not measuring up, but you're not exactly sure what the standards are, or that they are unobtainable. There is no better way to for smart people to get depressed and self-doubting, and when the culture is that your work is your life and your self, research setbacks have an outsized impact. This changes with time and perspective, as Potnia Theron recently blogged, but when you're in the middle of it, well, let's just say that most of us deal with cortisol excess.

I spent years in grad school where I was angry all the time. The anger was a mask for depression. Lab work did not go well my first three years, and I had to switch projects. Having to throw away all of that work = life = self was infuriating and depressing. I started looking for other avenues to get any kind of positive feedback, so I developed on-line relationships in a tech community and wrote a terrible novel*, but those activities were 'distractions' from research. The combination of oblique comments from others and my own self scorn (born of buying into the work = life = self) just made everything worse.

I would never have finished my PhD if I hadn't taken two weeks completely off, visiting friends who were not scientists, learning to scuba dive, and hiking Oregon mountains. I went back with a sense of perspective that work was work, that the love of science was a part of my self, but not the whole thing. I was reminded of the world outside the hermetic bubble of graduate training, and that perspective allowed me to get out from under the anger and depression, buckle down, and get my union card.

*After writing a novel, writing a dissertation wasn't scary. So, no, I don't consider it a wasted effort w/r/t my time in grad school.

14 responses so far

Does it matter what your Ph.D. is in?

(by Dr Becca) Mar 17 2014

My Ph.D. is in Neurobiology. But when I applied to grad school, I applied to both neuro and psych programs, not really giving much thought to what my diploma would read a few years down the line. As it turned out, I was accepted to several neuro programs and zero psych programs, so my fate was sealed early on. But would it have made a difference in my career trajectory?

My general feeling is that there's quite a bit of overlap among the life sciences. In grad school, it was not at all uncommon for a single lab to have grad students from multiple programs -neuro, pharmacology, molecular bio, etc. Friends from my grad program have gone on to faculty positions in various departments as well. But despite the seeming flexibility of a Ph.D. in biomedical science, I see a lot of hand-wringing these days in applicants over whether they should get a degree in X vs. Y. Obviously, coursework will vary from program to program. But after that, how you define yourself as a scientist is up to you and the research you do through your graduate and postdoctoral work. To me, that factors far more into whether a search committee considers you a good fit than the official field listed on your degree.

Thoughts?

28 responses so far

Very competitious*

(by Dr Becca) Mar 06 2014

I have a very clear memory of one of my postdoc lab's post-SfN debriefings--all of us bleary-eyed, with piles of coffee-stained, semi-legible notes in front of us (this was before iPads, can you IMAGINE???). We went around the table, each informing our PI (who had obviously been too busy hob-nobbing to see talks or posters) about the exciting things we'd learned. The thing that struck me at this particular meeting was the student who said, "well, there are a lot of people studying [broad trendy thing that she'd only recently become interested in], which is BAD."

But is that actually bad? I mean, I get it, nobody wants to be scooped. But are there not enough research questions about broad trendy thing to go around? If you realize that some people are already working on the basics of a hot new topic, maybe this is your chance to jump ahead and do the cool stuff! Get a little creative, right?

I realize this isn't everyone's attitude - some people love competition. The secrecy, the anxiety, burning the midnight oil to ensure that they are first to publish the Big Story. But as a new-ish PI, I don't have the time (the tenure clock ticks louder every damn day), the money, or the person-power to get into these kinds of races and risk losing. I would rather spend my time thinking of new questions to answer.

One of my grade school teachers had us do an exercise in which we had to imagine we were alone in a room with nothing but a paper clip. She had us write down 10 things we could do with the paper clip. Then 10 more, then 10 more. As you might imagine, the last set was far more creative and interesting than the first - demonstrating to us that our brains are capable of nearly bottomless ideas, when they're forced to keep thinking.

There's an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few months, as I've tried to envision a way to get my grants funded by more than just NIMH. I've been pretty excited about it, as it would represent a real new line of research for me and the lab, and the plan has been to submit an R21 for the June deadline. I knew that in a general sense, it was a bit of a hot topic, but I think I didn't realize quite how SMOKING HOT it was until recently, and I'll admit, my heart sank a little when it hit me how many groups that are bigger and richer than mine are working on similar questions with similar approaches. Waaaaah, I am not as original as I thought!

But then I said to myself, self, is that all you're capable of? If you feel this ruins your whole plan, perhaps you're not meant to branch in this direction after all. Stop moping, and work your way down the idea list, which is only going to get more interesting and awesome. Science is the paperclip exercise, on repeat forever. If you think you're out of ideas, I'd say it's time to turn over the reins.

*I realize this is not an actual word, but for some reason when my brain thought of the word "competition" it made me think of Stevie Wonder's "Superstition," and there you have it. I kind of like it, actually.

9 responses so far

Convince me to submit an NSF CAREER proposal

(by Dr Becca) Feb 27 2014

I'm quite serious - beyond general "diversify your portfolio" and "cast a wide net" -type waxing, why would I spend the time writing a grant proposal that would require learning a new funding system, developing a "broader impacts" plan, carefully re-crafting my research narrative to be compellingly non-health-related (which it undeniably is), all for less money, when I could just write another R01?

14 responses so far

You're in!

(by Dr Becca) Feb 20 2014

How often, in this job, do you get to genuinely make another person feel happy? Though I like to imagine that my trainees are dancing on rainbows for a week after I give them a compliment, something tells me such a response is relatively rare. But there's one time I know I get to make someone's day, and that's when I call to let them know they've been accepted to graduate school.

Of course, the debate of whether we should continue to create new PhD candidates rages on. But just for today, let's feel the happy feels, and remember what it was like to get that call.

I was in my apartment getting ready to go to my job at Starbucks, when the Swatch Phone rang.

Pretty sure it was this one.

It was my soon-to-be thesis advisor, telling me I was being offered a position in the neuroscience program at [Classy Institution]. I was in total shock. I do not remember the conversation very much at all (I really hope I said thank you), but I do remember that after hanging up, I got on my bike and rode the fastest I've ever ridden down the giant hill to the swanky neighborhood where my Starbucks was, and burst in shouting, "I AM GOING TO GRADUATE SCHOOL!!!!" It was one of the best days ever.

Your turn - I know you've got some good stories, so share in the comments!

43 responses so far

2014: Pork, papers, and preliminary data

(by Dr Becca) Jan 07 2014

It all started when I forgot the slaw. This amazing slaw* that I'd deliberately made in advance of our holiday trip so the flavors would have time to develop, I left in the fridge at home. The forehead slap that ensued when I finally remembered was likely heard across the tri-state area. Once we got to NY we made new slaw for our fish tacos, and I cheered myself up by thinking of how REALLY developed the flavors would be in the first slaw when we returned. Back home, I did a little pre-blizzard shopping (no, not just bread and milk), wondering what would keep us going if we needed to stay indoors for a few days as subzero temps descended, and that also you could eat with slaw. The answer was clear: pork.

Do you know how cheap pork shoulder is? It is very affordable. I got an 8-lb shoulder for I think $12, and we've now had 5 meals and still have leftovers. Would you like to see all the things we made? They were all amazing.

First we slow cooked the pork shoulder. With a little help from my brilliant sister in-law, I adapted Alton Brown's recipe**. It's technically for smoking, but it works like a dream in the crockpot as well.

Before:

 

 

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.30.38 PM

After 8 hrs:

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.31.04 PM

I am so serious, this is the best thing I've ever made in the slow cooker EVARRRRRR. Ridiculously tender, falling off the bone with the slightest touch, and just perfectly juicy and NOOMMMMMMM.

The first night, we made carnitas. We had some in the classic style  (below - corn tortillas, chopped onion, cilantro, and lime), and some with the incredible slaw (flour tortillas, not shown).

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.31.23 PM

The next night, we made BBQ pork pizza using this recipe*** for the dough because Roberta's pizza is amazing. I am embarrassed to say that I forgot to take a picture, but I think you know what pizza looks like, right? We used BBQ sauce instead of tomato, and put the pork on top of the cheese. After it was cooked, we put the slaw on it and it was all kinds of good.

The next morning, I woke up and thought for a second about eating a yogurt until I remembered that I had everything I needed to have a pulled pork breakfast sandwich! Sorry yogurt, another day. I fried an egg and laid it on top of some pulled pork, which I put on top of the slaw, which I put on a potato roll, which are the best rolls. A dash of BBQ sauce for good measure.

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.31.44 PM

Cooped up in the house for 3 days now, J and I made great use of our Netflix subscription. One show we've really been enjoying is PBS's Mind of a Chef with David Chang, who takes you all over the world to learn about all kinds of crazy food things, and teaches you how to make a bunch yummy things yourself, too. It is both entertaining and educational. The first episode is all about ramen, and once I get ramen on my mind, it is quite hard to get it off. So that night I made ramen. In his cookbook, the recipe for Chang's ramen broth is SEVENTEEN PAGES LONG and requires multiple shopping trips to exotic food stores. One day I'll attempt it, but this was not that day.  I improvised with what I had, and what could be easily gotten nearby.**** It was awesome anyway. Especially that slow-cooked egg, ho-lee cooooowwwww.

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.32.28 PM

 

The next night, we were still feeling Chang fever, so we made Bo ssam, which is basically lettuce wraps of slow-cooked pork shoulder and fancy accoutrements. Even though we didn't have everything to make the sauces exactly right*****, these lettuce wraps OMG, just some of the most interesting and delicious flavor combinations ever. The scallion-ginger sauce****** will make you cry, it's so good.

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 9.32.50 PM

Alas, the happy porky days are over, and today I had to go back to the office. But I'm not too bummed - in fact, I'm pretty sure 2014 is going to kick ass. First and foremost, the lab's very first legit research paper is IN PRESS, BABY! At like, a really good journal. I am at long last a last author! And the other authors are my awesome grad student and my awesome tech. We are officially independent. Two more manuscripts are just awaiting some final bits of data and will hopefully be submitted in the next couple of months. Yay papers!

Second, I'm getting back into grant gear,  planning out how to keep this ship afloat. This is my last ESI year - I must get an R01. My first R01 submission got a solid score, but definitely needs some prelim data from a new technique before it can go back in.This could take a while, but my PO advised me to take my time and make sure that we can convince the reviewers (and ourselves!) that we're capable of the work. In the meantime, my goal is to submit a new proposal for the Feb deadline that builds on the data we collected from the R21 project, and for June - test the waters of a new IC, which means more prelim data. Yay preliminary data! Yay taking the lab in exciting new directions!

And of course, yay for the slow-cooked pork that kicked things off! Cooking notes below.

* I pretty much always use Greek yogurt in place of sour cream.
** In the brine, I used 10 oz of salt instead of 12, and it was definitely as salty as I would have wanted it, and I like things pretty salty. You could probably even go lower if you wanted. I also used brown sugar instead of molasses because that's what I had, and I noticed no difference. For the rub, I used pre-ground coriander and cumin and didn't have any fennel. I used chipotle chili powder instead of regular. Add some water and cider vinegar to the crockpot so that things don't burn, and some chopped onions because they will taste amazing. I seriously think you'd have to try really hard to make this pork taste bad. Save the juices (see below).
***I used all-purpose flour instead of pizza flour and active dry yeast instead of bakers' (aka fresh - use this awesome yeast conversion calculator) and it probably wasn't quite as mind-blowingly amazing as I think it would have been had I had the right stuff, but it was still easily the best pizza dough I've made and WAY better than what you get in the grocery store pre-made.
****I mixed equal parts homemade beef stock and chicken stock that I had in the freezer, and added a few heaping spoonfuls of the gelatinized juices that were left over from the slow cooker to give it a little porkiness. I also added a dash of sesame oil and soy sauce to give it a little more of an Asian flavor, and then a hearty squirt of Sriracha. Just make it taste like you want it to taste!
*****I didn't have the special Korean pastes to make the Ssam sauce, but I googled around for some of the paste components, and made a sauce with finely minced garlic and scallions, sriracha, sesame oil, honey, and then grapeseed oil and sherry vinegar like it says in the NYT recipe. I have no idea if it tasted anything like it was supposed to, but it tasted pretty fucking awesome.
******You may be looking at the recipe and saying to yourself, how can I call this a "sauce" when it is a very large amount of chopped things with a very small amount of liquid? But trust me - let it sit for 10-15 min and then something magical happens. It still may not be the consistency of what you would normally call "sauce," but it is out of this world nonetheless.

 

 

3 responses so far

Older posts »