After some conversations with a trainee, I've recognized at least 7 "academic phenotypes" based on underlying core professional goals.
A thread, aimed primarily at junior researchers learning to navigate the academic world.
Take-home: know your phenotype, know your superiors'.
Phenotype -> core goal:
Politician -> power
Performer -> fame/pubs
Pragmatist -> things that work
Inquirer -> knowledge/insight
Idealist -> a better world
Epicurean -> pleasure/time off
Humanist -> relationship
We are all each of these to some extent. But more some than others.
Step 1: Recognize your (actual & ideal) phenotype by asking yourself which goals you would sacrifice for others.
Ex.: would you delay promotion to achieve an ideal?
Be honest w yourself about which phenotypes you (a) are, (b) want to be.
(PS All phenotypes prioritize family.)
Step 2: Look at your mentors/bosses (real and potential), ask yourself what their phenotypes are.
You can get (imperfect) insight from a CV.
Dean -> politician
Prolific writer -> performer
Pet projects? -> idealist
Coding packages? -> pragmatist
Lots of trainees -> humanist
etc
Step 3: Align yourself with superiors who exemplify your ideal phenotypes.
Like it or not, you will take on some habits of your mentors/bosses. No mentor is perfect, but if you work closely w those who approach your ideal, you'll be a better person (and future mentor) for it.
Step 4: When Step 3 isn't possible, align yourself w/ superiors who share your real phenotypes.
You will work best with (and understand) those who share your values. Ex.: if you want to publish but your boss likes to take time off (or vice versa), you'll be frustrated.
Step 5: Interact w/ superiors as their phenotype, not yours.
If you must work w/ different phenotypes (and you must), recognize it. Ex: Don't interact w/ a politician hoping they will be your friend - you will be disappointed. Help them achieve power, and they will reward you.
Step 6: When you are a mentor yourself, recognize your trainees' phenotypes.
Help your trainees become who they want to be, not who you want them to be. Ex: if you are an inquirer but your trainee is a pragmatist, help them find "engineering" rather than "pure science" projects.
To summarize:
- Know your (real & ideal) phenotypes.
- Work w/ people who represent your ideal phenotypes 1st, real phenotypes 2nd.
- When working w/ people who are neither, treat them as who they are, not as who you want them to be.
- Model this when you are a mentor yourself.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This may be controversial, but here's a thread on 5 problems I see with the #JohnSnowMemorandum.
I agree with the concept, but am worried about the message it sends.
I sympathize w/ those who have signed, submit this in the spirit of scientific debate.
First, I am no fan of surrender (aka "herd immunity") strategy articulated in #GreatBarringtonDeclaration. "Those...not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal" suggests vulnerable & non-vulnerable can be (a) identified & (b) kept apart. Both fallacies.
Second, full disclosure, I have a personal stake - an immediate family member has been in the hospital for months, with no visitation due to COVID restrictions. My pandemic life is not OK.
After sitting in study section last week reviewing proposals for K-series career development awards, thought I'd list my top 5 reasons why such proposals fail. (Not linked to any one submission.)
Junior scientists who might be interested in applying - avoid these pitfalls!!
1. The primary mentor(s) never read the proposal in detail.
Many applications have clear holes in logic that no mentor would let through.
Give your mentors enough time to review your proposal, and steer away from mentors who will not spend the time to offer you comments.
2. The candidate is not quite ready.
Reviewers like to see upward trajectory and (if K22/K99) near-independence.
Be strategic about when you apply. Not a bad idea to put in an initial submission before major papers come out, so you look like a "rising star" on resubmission.
It's tough to compose science-related tweets when a family member is hurting.
But here's a quick thread on 5 things I've tried at work to keep myself strong enough to support someone very special to me.
Keeping in mind that everyone's story is different and equally meaningful...
1. Put "self-care time" on the calendar.
It's easy to get caught up in my own thoughts and waste time as a result. But if I'm intentional about blocking specific times for self-care, I spend that time doing things (exercise, online bridge w/ my mom) that actually rejuvenate me.
2. Focus on others' projects.
I usually block time for writing/big-picture thinking. But when I'm low emotionally, I don't use that time well. Even if I feel like $#!+, I will show up for meetings and not let others' projects down. Which in turn helps me feel better about myself.
Another lesson for the COVID response from the TB world:
"Have we reached herd immunity?" is the wrong question.
If, by "herd immunity", we mean Rt<1, then we achieved herd immunity for TB a decade ago. And yet, 1.4 million people still die of TB every year.
What's the fallacy? There are two: 1. Herd immunity isn't a magic threshold to cross. A decline in cases doesn't mean a rapid decline, nor that the current case count is acceptable. Just as for TB, millions of people could still die of COVID after "achieving" herd immunity.
2. Many factors contribute to Rt<1; immunity is only one. If we ease the TB response, deaths will rise. Saying "we've achieved herd immunity to TB" is therefore problematic. Same for COVID: when herd immunity is reached, if we stop distancing, wearing masks, etc, people will die.
If there were 5 take-home messages for the public regarding the epidemiology of the pandemic, what would they be? I've taken a stab below, but would welcome others' thoughts. While it's important to get the details right, it's also important not to lose the forest for the trees.
1. We're less than halfway through.
Even in the best-case scenario of an effective and safe vaccine available in a few months, it will take much longer to distribute, deliver, and change public opinion.
2. We can't just go back to normal.
Even if herd immunity is starting to have an effect, this effect is being maintained by behavior change - no large gatherings, wearing masks, social distancing, etc. If contact patterns return to pre-pandemic levels, it will be deadly.
A quick thread on 3 challenges I face in balancing roles as the leader of a (scientific) team. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, but sometimes feel it's worth just writing these thoughts down. It's hard to be both a leader and a human being sometimes...like tonight...
1. Mentor vs example
As a mentor, I want to be as responsive to the needs of team members - meaning a short turnaround for emails, paperwork, manuscript drafts, etc. But as an example to others, I don't want everyone to think "success" requires working 24/7.
2. Cheerleader vs emotionally open
Positive energy on the team generally starts with me - it's one of the roles of a leader. But when my own emotions dip into a depressive state, I think it's more effective to be open than to bottle those thoughts up. I find it hard to do both.