I threw up a lot first trimester.  After all sorts of stuff.  Coming into second trimester (and weaning off metformin-- I have PCOS and insulin resistance, which means I have an increased chance of miscarriage first trimester and gestational diabetes third trimester, especially if I eat refined grains or sugars), one thing still makes me throw up.

Wheat.

I'll eat something with wheat in it, purposefully or not.  (Oh, Tempura... Oh, Worcestershire sauce...How you wound me.)  Then an hour or two later, I will empty the contents of my stomach.  I will repeat the process after the next meal no matter what I ate for that second meal.  I will spend the next day or two feeling queasy depending on how much wheat I ingested.

I hate this.

The internet tells me it could be two things.  I could have a wheat allergy or I could have celiac (wheat intolerance is less likely).  Both can be triggered by pregnancy.  If it is an allergy, it might go away.  If it is celiac, I am stuck with it for life.  If it is an allergy, according to the 'net, it could become life-threatening by suddenly causing me to be unable to breathe (so I should carry around allergy meds just in case).  If celiac, it could hurt the baby's growth if I'm not careful.

I brought my inability to eat wheat up at the doctor's appointment and she was all, "Just don't eat wheat"... and I'm like, Lady, it could be an allergy and could go away or it could be celiac, and celiac is pretty serious.  So basically she was no help.  (This was one of many reasons I switched back to my original doctor the next day, despite doctor #1's overbooked schedule.)

The internet suggested a test to me to see if it is more likely to be celiac or an allergy (since throwing up is a symptom of either, and it doesn't stay down long enough to present other symptoms).  Apparently rye has gluten in it, so you can't eat it if you're celiac but you can eat it if you're allergic.  So I ate some rye wasa wafers and was fine, so hopefully the internet is right and it's an allergy that will go away in a few months (because insulin resistance + celiac = misery).  Of course, I'm a bit sick of rye wasa wafers from overdoing it on them even before the anti-wheat stuff popped up.

I LOVE Indian food.  I love lentil flour.  I love papadam and pakora and methu vada and some of the dosa.  One of our admin assistants told me there's an Indian place in the city that does gluten-free lentil noodles-- man I wish I could try those.  I was loving sushi (cooked or veggie only) until the tempura mistake.  Also sweet potato is on my "ugh" list because a lot of things just don't taste good anymore once you've tried them the other direction.  I'm getting a bit tired of brown rice cakes and a bit tired of oatmeal (recall, I can't eat refined grains because of glycemic load... so there are a lot of corn, rice, and potato options that are closed to me).  We keep a pot of cooked quinoa or brown rice in the fridge at all times.  Sometimes I'll use beans in place of noodles.  While the family enjoys spaghetti... I pretend I'm in a different part of Italy.

Last time around I was unable to eat wheat for a while, but it was combined with my inability to keep *anything* except fruit down.  So it wasn't just the wheat.  And it went away by now, I think.  (My memory is kind of fuzzy at this point, but I think it stopped shortly after 2nd trimester started.  Definitely after I'd gotten off Metformin.)

So... not much point to this post (in fact, we debated letting it go up while we're cross-posting at Scientopia as it is not particularly academic!), but I'm feeling sorry for myself!  I could do wheat-free OR insulin resistant, but doing both SUCKS exponentially.  And I am so glad a good Indian place came to town last year so I can eat there at least once a week.

Associate Professor Carl L. Hart, Ph.D. (PubMed; Department Website; ResearchCrossroads Profile) of the Psychology and Psychiatry Departments of Columbia University conducts research on several drugs of abuse with concentrations on cannabis and methamphetamine. In his studies he uses human subjects to determine many critical aspects of the effects of recreational and abused drugs including acute and lasting toxicities as well as dependence. Dr. Hart is also a contributing member of the New York State Psychiatric Institute Division on Substance Abuse.
In his academic research role, Professor Hart works within the highly respected and very well known Substance Use Research Center of Columbia University where he directs both the Methamphetamine Research Laboratory (Meth R01 Abstract) and the Residential Laboratory. The blurb for this latter will give you a good flavor for the workaday of Dr. Hart's work:

The residential laboratory, designed for continuous observation of human behavior over extended periods of time, provides a controlled environment with the flexibility to establish a range of behaviors, and the ability to monitor simultaneously many individual and social behavior patterns. This laboratory is equipped with a closed circuit television and audio system encompassing each individual chamber for surveillance and measurement purposes, and to provide continuous monitoring for the participant's protection. We believe that this relatively naturalistic environment can best meet the challenge of modeling the workplace to predict the interaction between drug use and workplace variables. Because our participants live in our laboratory with minimal outside contact, we are able to evaluate multiple aspects of the effects of drugs on workplace productivity in the same individuals.

If you review his publications on PubMed you will note that Dr. Hart has contributed to quite a number of studies evaluating possible therapeutic medications for helping with cessation of substance use, has evaluated the effects of many of the more-common drugs of abuse on "shift work" related parameters and investigated potential lasting cognitive effects of sustained use of cannabis, stimulants and alcohol. In short, he has worked on what I think of as all the main areas of health interest when it comes to recreational drugs- What are the long term risks to cognitive function? What are the acute effects? How do we help the drug dependent to stop using? If you are readers of my occasional musing on drug abuse topics you will quite rightly conclude that I find Professor Hart's papers to be must-reads because his work focuses on the real-world issues that are ultimately of greatest importance. Animal research on basic principles is fine and all but research on the various human drug-using subpopulations is both the launching pad and backstop for nonhuman studies.
Professor Hart is also author of an excellent introductory text on drug abuse, suitable for undergraduate instruction (I have used a prior edition myself). Drugs, Society and Human Behavior is currently in the 13th edition (Publisher; Amazon) which lists Dr. Hart as the first author. This text was originally developed by Charles Ksir (Prof. Hart's graduate advisor) and Oakley Ray (RIP) and the authorship over recent editions would suggest that Professor Hart has now taken over primary responsibility for subsequent editions of this book. As the publisher website notes:

In addition to his substantial research responsibilities, Dr. Hart teaches an undergraduate Drugs and Behavior course and was recently awarded Columbia University's highest teaching award.

Having seen Dr. Hart give a few research presentations over the years I can certainly believe this latter, he is quite a dynamic speaker. Well, perhaps not dynamic exactly...more like a commanding speaker. I doubt anyone is falling asleep in the back of the lecture hall.
As a final note, it looks very much from the research Google-fu as if Professor Hart is a person who embodies many of the realities of modern research careers as I detail them on this blog. He appears to have joined the Columbia group as a postdoc, gained a faculty appointment and worked his way through to tenure at a fairly elite University. Along the way he took over responsibility for some of the larger research group's core operations (including becoming PI of the R01 award and successfully renewing it), launched his own domain of concentration (with R01 funding) within a highly collaborative group, published some great papers, won teaching awards and took over responsibility for subsequent editions of a highly popular and excellent undergraduate text book. And that is just the public record. It is unimaginable that he would have arrived at his current career position without a lot of hidden service reviewing papers and grants, doing committee work for his University, etc.
In short, one of those very smart and dedicated individuals who is working for you, the US taxpayer, to do some GoodThings for public health. Thank you Professor Hart.

I'm at Scientific American blogs today discussing a recent paper recording mouse songs, and using them to find kinship patterns among mice. You can even listen to the mice sing to the their ladies! CUTE! Head over and check it out.

Its the sweet victories like today that make all the hard work, sacrifice, and obstacles worth it.  If you'll excuse me I'm going to go dance an Irish jig now.

This song and bad acting ruined the movie Top Gun for me.

The Sazerac is like the Old Fashioned's sassy cousin, and it's served in a rocks glass without any ice. You'll need:

3 oz rye whiskey
splash of absinthe
sugar cube
Peychaud's bitters or Bitter Truth Creole Bitters
lemon twist

Chill the whiskey on ice in a shaker--stick it in the freezer while you prepare everything else. Pour a bit of absinthe into the glass, swirl it around, and dump it (into your mouth if you want).  Add a sugar cube to the glass, and douse it with a few good shakes of bitters. Muddle the sugar and bitters until the cube is completely broken up, and then strain the whiskey in. Drop in a large lemon twist that you've twisted backwards to release the oils, and enjoy!

Notice the beautiful pink tint? That's the Peychaud's. Yum!

We grew up Catholic, so obviously we grew up with the underlying philosophy that a lot of things that are good for you are painful. "It builds character," my mother would say anytime I'd complain. "Yes, just think of all the years I'm burning off of Purgatory," I would reply.

There was also that Midwestern Protestant stoicism telling us what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger. We're not sure how much we believe it, but it is in our blood pushing us ever onward.

That's not the message we hear coming out of the coasts, the NYTimes, the mommy forums... That message is that if kids don't like something, they shouldn't have to do it. Schools shouldn't give homework. Kids shouldn't do extra-curriculars they don't like (or at all!). Tiger Moms are horrible people. Five year olds should be red-shirted so they can play in the dirt another year before starting school. Kids need to play, not learn. Why do kids need to read? (But... but... my kid LOVES reading/learning/math.) I think Cloud said it best when she talked about adults projecting that they wished they had lots of free time on their kids (and, as a corollary, that they don't like math). The Rousseau dream-child concept is still hard at work.

(Somehow when it comes to a gifted kid being bored, then they really need to learn to be bored... it's ok to force a kid to be bored but not ok to force a kid to do activities.)

I did swimming lessons for 7 years, but didn't want to quit. I had to do piano lessons for 9 years. I'm glad I wasn't allowed to quit. I did Ballet lessons for 5 years. I wish I'd been allowed to quit a lot earlier. I did Catholic Sunday School or CCD until I was in 4th grade, despite constant complaining. I'm not sure if I wish I'd been allowed to quit sooner or not, considering I switched religions and went of my own volition once no longer forced to be Catholic.

Growing up there were many things I was forced to do I wish I didn't have to do, and many things I'm glad I was forced to do, knowing what I do now. Younger me isn't a great predictor of older me's preferences, and who knows if parents are better or not. Hopefully they're a little better.

So: Bottom line: We think that sometimes it's ok for kids to do things in their best interest even if they don't wannnna. We still wish we hadn't had to go to public school. Blech.

Grumpeteers? Your thoughts?

• Do not quote anything you can paraphrase in 1 sentence
• A quote should "do" at least 2 things in your piece

I usually end up quoting based on the first point; I am unable to boil the thought down any further. Besides, it's so easy to cut-paste-link in a blog! Makes me wonder why any of us bother to do anything but quote online...

Then this post hit my twitterstream. Now, I could paraphrase these large block quotes in a sentence (Indiana representative links Girl Scouts to Planned Parenthood and left-wing subversion), but it just doesn't convey the actual sense of lunacy. One of the block quotes follows:

A Fort Wayne lawmaker has refused to sign on to a resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts, calling the group a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.

Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, sent a letter to his fellow House Republicans on Saturday explaining why he would be the only member in the House not to endorse the nonbinding resolution.

He said he did some web-based research and found allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, allows transgender females to join and encourages sex.

Morris also said the fact that First Lady Michelle Obama is honorary president "should give each of us reason to pause before our individual and collective endorsement of the organization."

Go read the whole post at Maddow.

So I guess we can add one more time to use the quote and not paraphrase:

• When the readers need to hear the exact words to believe it

- The topic and quality matter less than the authors. I have handled a bunch of papers now that are seemingly similar in content and quality. The major difference between them has been the author list: Some have prominent* names on them and some do not. But finding reviewers for the latter category is like pulling teeth, while locating them for the former is not. I assume that people are more willing to spend their time reviewing for those they see as producing good work. If the author list is unremarkable, people figure their time is better spent elsewhere.

- Don't believe the project number of papers you will handle. I've been doing this for two months and have already handled what the editor told me would be my likely annual allotment. Just come a little closer, this won't hurt a bit....

- Ignoring a review request is a shitty thing to do. Everyone is busy. We get that. And sometimes you just happen to have more on your plate than normal and can't take a review. This is why you have a "no thanks" option. Use it. Don't leave the AE sitting around waiting for a response. Inevitably, the second I give up on someone and invite a couple more, everyone suddenly agrees to review. If I wait, the original person never gets back to me. Just make a choice.

- If you work in a specialized subfield and won't review papers in that subfield, who will? Twice I have gotten papers on a topic that severely limited my potential reviewer list. I contacted the extent of the qualified people that I was aware of and all of them declined. Oooookaaaaay, now what? Who's going to review your papers when you send them in?

- Getting rejected without review is better than dragging the process out. I know it sucks to get the letter rejecting the paper you sent into a journal you like. And without review! How dare that AE! Well, the thing is that your time just got saved. Rather than going through the whole review process, only to have the manuscript spit out the other end, you can now reformat and send somewhere else. Not ideal, but the better of two bad options.

- If you sit on reviews, you lose the right to complain about time in review. Self explanatory, really.

I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of right this second, but the main point is that reviewing is about the community. Like it or not, we are the vehicle that drives the speed of publication.

*In the field of interest for the journal, that is.

More importantly the CUP notes that their website tracks "millions" of hits to their Abstract pages which turn away otherwise empty handed.

I'm no genius but the iTunes experience would seem to provide a simple path for publishers. Drop the price point (for full access, mind you) until the market responds. Maybe that is £3.99, maybe £0.99 or maybe even less. I don't know but there is very likely a nominal rate that gets those millions who are currently turning away to pay for the article.

Or maybe the Netflix model would work better. Again, the cost is going to have to be reasonable. I read a lot of Elsevier content but still the barrier has to be low. £50.00 per year for (real) access to *every* journal? I might even do that just to cover my browsing when I don't want to wrangle with VPN and proxy servers.

One of the interesting things to arise in this recent round of OpenAccess discussion, in my mind anyway, is the role OD science blogging. Especially the Researchblogging.org style which focuses on explicating, you guessed it, research articles. What great advertising for publishers! Free product shilling from a small but generally dedicated class of folks.

Even Ed Yong may not be able to write purty enough to get the casual reader to part with £3.99. But to part with £0.25? Maybe that would be possible.