Extra Credit

Dec 16 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers], [Information&Communication]

My favorite comic of all time

Last year at Science Online 2011, as we discussed the role of blogging in scientific outreach, the topic of academic "credit" for blogging arose. Mostly junior participants lamented that blogging would never be taken seriously until full professors had it on their CVs.

I went back and added a section of online activities to my own CV. As one of those full professors, I felt it was the least I could do.

Earlier this week Kate Clancy wrote about her upcoming 3-year review, including the difficulty the committee will have discussing her blog:

It doesn’t help that “blog” doesn’t sound very academic (oh, if only I had thought to call this the Context and Variation Monograph). And it doesn’t help that this writing isn’t just for scholars, but for everybody. That’s not because non-blogging academics don’t see the point of interacting with the public, but because this particular way of doing it is so strange to them. This isn’t a radio interview, or a book, or a talk at the local library, but a style of writing where the jargon is not academic but from the internet. We talk in ALL CAPS, we use emoticons and use extra exclamation points!!1!!1

WhizBANG! Letters...hmmmm...

She goes on to outline the virtues of blogging for a junior faculty member, including building networks, public outreach, improved writing skills, and even (gasp!) scholarship. I suspect a number of us bloggers do not really get our thoughts organized until we write them down (that's why there is a huge whiteboard in my office), and playing with a new idea in cyberspace can generate valuable feedback from a great audience. Blogging about academic works increases the audience substantially; I hope that mainstream journals can eventually embrace this robust discussion as part of the post-publication review of work.

So back to January. As a full prof, my CV did not really get examined by anyone last spring. This week I found out that I have to undergo tenure review for my new employer, and my CV must be completely rearranged. I prepared a draft, including my posts for Scientific American and Biocareers as non-refereed publications, complete with hyperlinks. I also listed my project, Academic Women for Equality Now, as an "Other" activity. [Yes, this blog got left off, mostly because it includes any shiny thing that catches my eye, especially shoes. I cannot classify my thoughts on fashion, including bottle sweaters, as any sort of academic activity.]

Our departmental reviewer got back to me with a bunch of red pixels, none of which landed on these posts. She told me to put AWEnow into my national service section. No comments about these being inappropriate activities for academic credit.

I still have work to do on my packet before it goes to full review. There is still a chance that someone will snub my online work, but so far, so good.

Anyone else out there counting their online efforts as academic work?

Share

4 responses so far

Blog Buzz

Sep 15 2011 Published by under General Health

I found Information is Beautiful in the directory of feeds available for the Pulse aggregator for iPad. If you have not been to this site, click through now. It features beautiful graphical information on a variety of topics.

Click for source

My favorite at the moment? Is The HPV Vaccine Safe? Using clear graphics that even a republican can understand, the latest data on the risks of the vaccine versus fatality from cervical cancer are illustrated. 

Lots of entertaining and enlightening displays of visual data can be found on the site.

So what are you waiting for? Go and read!

Share

One response so far

What I'm Reading: Where Good Ideas Come From

Oct 12 2010 Published by under Professionalism, What I'm Reading

Last week a couple of reviews brought Steven Johnson's new book to my attention, so I downloaded it. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation deserves a post, and I'm only about a third of the way through it. The book brings together a lot of ideas about innovation and supports or debunks them. Sudden inspiration? Not so much- most paradigm shifts build slowly in the mind. Only in retrospective telling of the tale do "a-ha" moments occur. When appropriate synapses suddenly get together and form the thought, the thinker is often doing something else entirely. Walking, working other jobs, and dreaming may all allow our brains to mix chaotic ideas and "suddenly" form the "next big thing."

When does most laboratory innovation occur? From hidden camera studies, lab meetings are the most fruitful time. The interplay of perspectives between people provides the right level of disorganization to make the thoughts flow. Being a solo scientist at the bench provides far few insights. Cities provide more innovation than small towns, and open areas in buildings encourage more idea flow than isolated offices or cubicles.

I had previously heard of the concept of "The Adjacent Possible" before, but it was not called this term. What does this mean? Innovation depends on the next step. Once tools have been developed, that next step becomes inevitable, even though it may seem like a paradigm-shifting innovation at the time. Something that is one small step farther away remains out of reach; even though we can think it, the tools and connections are not adjacent yet.

Reading this book provides an entertaining counterpoint to the thoughts of St. Kern, Martyr of Baltimore. He bemoans the lack of passion to pursue evening and weekend work in cancer research. Johnson's book would suggest that the "down time" Kern dismisses may be more important to the creative process than more time at the bench. Indeed, many of the 36 people he found in his last survey of an almost empty building may have been generating data, but not the "discovery." The innovation, the creation tends to come about during interactions with others. Someone may finish the experiment on Saturday, but the meaning, the eureka moment, is more likely to occur at the next lab meeting.

This book is a great read, and I may find more to say as I peruse more of it. If you haven't picked it up yet, you should.

Share

No responses yet

More Thoughts on St. Kern

Oct 05 2010 Published by under Professionalism, [Science in Society]

Burning scientific passion

By now most of you know about Scott Kern, the martyr of Baltimore, and the kerfluffle he caused last week. My colleagues here at Scientopia (I do have to single out the wonderful Drugmonkey post) and elsewhere have taken on his message, and I have enjoyed the shenanigans on twitter (#K3RN3D). Of course, I consider it hypocritical that he admits to attending football games during his training in Ann Arbor in this bio; I mean, where was his passion then?

Passion is a key component of the scientific process, but creativity is just as important. Looking at the world or a problem in a new way leads to the really important discoveries.

Last week I wrote a short essay for an unrelated activity; they asked, "What gives you your creative jolt?"

Living well provides the most important stimulation. Walking outdoors, listening to music, and reading novels may all provide that spark of curiosity that leads me in a new direction. Cooking can also clear my brain and allow important synapses to find each other. I also find my online interactions provide a new peer group that stimulates me. We tweet and blog together, providing comments and fodder for the next post.

I never know from where my next important idea will spring; it is important to stay active and experience life to its fullest.

Some of my best biomedical ideas came to me while I was working out or reading a novel or watching a movie. We all need periods to recharge and allow our brains to associate new things. One could make the case that cancer might be cured faster if we made its scientists take a break outside on gorgeous fall days. Or even go to football games. Then I heard this morning's story on the Nobel Prize in Physics and the discovery of graphene. These scientists have a tradition of "crazy experiments" on Friday afternoons, one of which involved cellophane tape across a block of graphite. That goofy activity led to the creation of this wonder-material with a multitude of potential uses.

They may not have cured cancer, but they have discovered something incredible! At least in part because they had goof-around time!

Who?

Of course, I also wonder what the editors had in mind when they published this inflammatory piece. Could this be a call for visibility? I mean, Cancer Biology & Therapy is not one of my top 10 journals, but then I have chosen a different path in medicine. It's a young publication with an Impact Factor (flawed as this measurement can be) of 2.71. Cancer Research is 7.54, while the glamour mags score in the 30's. Could this be an attempt on the part of the editors to drive traffic and name recognition for their publication?

Or am I just getting cynical?

My husband worked for a mentor as "passionate" as Kern once, a man who said he really didn't remember much about his children between their births and graduation from college. A man who held his weekly lab meeting at 5pm on Fridays. A man who drove my husband out of science and into the clinic. I wonder how many capable, creative people have left the world of research because of this demand for "passion?" And how many patients they might have cured.

Image of fire courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Share

4 responses so far

Bad Behavior has blocked 363 access attempts in the last 7 days.