Career Development Activities

Greetings everyone!
Thank you for your emailed contributions!!!

Below is a list of the all the courses, workshops, conferences, and seminars that we came up with together. Feel free to look through the list and pick activities that would best support your career development plans. If you think of any more opportunities, email me and I’ll add them to the list! :)

On campus seminars

On campus courses and workshops in grant writing, scientific management, and bioethics

Off campus courses and workshops in grant writing, scientific management, and bioethics

On campus academic classes

Conferences

Writing routine check in -- Week 1

How time flies! It’s already been one week since the writing routine workshop!!! I hope everyone is writing more and trying out new writing routine components. I asked the workshop attendees how they are doing and these are the responses I’ve received thus far.

Dr. Eun Young Choi
Writing project: K01 (as a part of the Grant Writing Bootcamp)

1. Over the past week, has your writing increased? 
Yes, but I'd say due to taking the bootcamp course and having to write for each week's assignment.

2. Have you tried any new writing techniques this past week? If so, which one did you try and how did it work for you?  
Yes. I wanted to have a clean desk, so I cleaned my desk. I think it helped. My original plan of going to the library early morning to write was too ambitious and didn't work. I also created time for writing, but it actually spilled over for more hours... so it doesn't feel like I have a regular writing routine, but rather working on homework for the Proposal Bootcamp.

3. What will you do this week to help accomplish your writing goal?
I think I'm already doing a decent job meeting my writing goals as part of the Bootcamp.
—>Response: You are truly an inspiration! I want to write more like you! I think it’s great that writing has become like homework, that way you hold yourself accountable and complete your grant application components. Nice job and keep it up!

Yan Min
Writing project: Finish my F31 by the last week of November and another paper by the end of October —> Wow, ambitious! I like it!

1. Over the past week, has your writing increased?  
I think I get less frustrated when I am writing, also I writes more than I usually do. 

2. Have you tried any new writing techniques this past week? If so, which one did you try and how did it work for you?
Yes, I try not to edit while I am writing, it works like a charm for the first round of writing… somehow still painful for the second round… I end up rewriting everything… do you have any tips?
—>Response: You know, this is a tough one. I myself have written whole pages of text and then when I re-read through it at the end of the day (or even at the end of my writing session), I want to toss the whole thing in the trash because it is not eloquent or is not able to successfully capture what I am trying to say. I think it’s difficult, but with each edit you have to try and find something that you like or something that you think could work and improve on it. Slowly, by editing or re-writing, it will evolve into something slightly less repulsive… and then when you cannot fix it by yourself anymore, you can ask others to read it for more feedback — often these things need a fresh set of eyes. It’s a painful process, but a necessary one that at the end will not only help your writing, but also help you understand how to better communicate your science to others.

3. What will you do this week to help accomplish your writing goal?
This week I am wrapping up my specific aims and biosketch for the F31. I will also have a first draft of significance and innovation for the F31 completed as well. Then I am going to outline the results part of the paper.
—>Response: Sounds like a great plan! Keep it up!

Dr. Harini Iyer
Writing project: K99

1. Over the past week, has your writing increased? 
Ugh, I have been terrible. I have been reading some more background material and I also have a journal club this week. At least I am presenting a paper that is the basis for my aims 2 and 3.

2. What will you do this week to help accomplish your writing goal?
I intend to start this weekend and hope to have more positive comments for you next week.
—>Response: No worries. I had a very busy week too and plan to get back to writing next week as well! You got this!

Dr. Jennifer Kong
Writing project: Paper Draft

1. Over the past week, has your writing increased? 
Gahhhh… No, it’s actually decreased!!! A week of travel and preparation for a talk has destroyed my writing time.

2. What will you do this week to help accomplish your writing goal?
On a positive note, I did have to prepare figures for my talk — so, with figures in hand, next week I plan to start tackling the results section! Goal #1: Outline the results to better see the skeleton of the paper. Goal #2: Start to write the introduction to address how I will frame the paper.

Components of a great writing routine

Developing a great writing routine that works for you requires a lot of trial and error. In the recent “Developing Writing Rituals and Routines for Academic Success” workshop we collectively came up with this long list of things that we do to maximize our writing productivity. I highly encourage you to try to incorporate some of these strategies into your personal writing routine! In the comments below share what you have found works best for you.

Components of a great writing routine

  1. Define a writing time. For most people, writing in the early morning works best for them, when they are awake and feeling fresh. However, for others evening writing works best, after the kids are asleep and the work emails have subsided.

  2. Tidying up your writing area. For some people, the first step to writing is cleaning up their writing area. Obviously, don’t let the cleaning process itself be a distraction, but set yourself up for writing success by creating an environment that allows you to write productively.

  3. Eradicate distractions. Major distractions shared during the workshop include cell phones and the internet (some people start reading papers and never stop). Among workshop participants, techniques to minimize distractions varied widely. Among the techniques shared: put down your cell phone, turn off your cell phone, save and then close all of the windows in your internet browser, and the most extreme… turn off your WiFi router.

  4. Music vs silence. Some people require absolute silence when writing. Other people write best while listening to music. For me, I listen to Final Fantasy battle music… It sounds ridiculous, and I haven’t played Final Fantasy in years, but something about the pace of the music keeps me awake and the lack of words keep me from getting distracted. I know other people that write best while listening to EDM.

  5. When you are stuck, go for a walk. Again, don’t let the exercise distract you from the actual writing... don’t go for a walk and abandon your writing! However, sometimes getting up and moving around (i.e. taking a break) can help your come up with new good ideas or simply break up long writing sessions.

  6. Exercise! For many people, exercise and writing go hand in hand. Some people come up with their best ideas while jogging. Try it out!

  7. Treat yourself! After you write a substantial amount text or write for a substantial amount of time, reward yourself with a snack, a drink, or some fun internet time (my personal internet treat is Buzzfeed or Facebook).

  8. Gamify your writing. Keep track of how many words you write each day and try to write as much or more each subsequent day. Gamify the situation by challenging yourself to match or beat your daily writing score. An alternative is to use a program/app like Habitica, which tries to encourage good habits and increase productivity using a role-player game format.

  9. Use productivity apps. When writing my own grant, one thing that really helped me was a Pomodoro Timer App. The Pomodoro Technique promotes the idea of focused uninterrupted writing for 25 minutes, followed by a 5 minute break, and then an additional 25 minutes of writing, followed by an additional 5 minute break, and onward… until you are done with your writing task. Some apps allow you to adjust the time for work, if you feel like you cannot focus for the full 25 minutes, or alternatively want to extend your focus time for more than 25 minutes.

  10. Non-science writing before science writing. One workshop participant “warmed up” by writing about non-science topics prior to writing about science. I’m personally going to try this, since I love writing for this blog, but dread writing my paper.

  11. Read to inspire. Other workshop participants noted that they like to read an inspiring paper or grant before they get started with their writing. I love this idea too! Just don’t get stuck in an endless cycle of reading papers that prevents you from writing.

  12. Write now, edit later. Write freely and then edit (or add citations) later.

  13. Form a Ulysses Pact/Contract. I learned about the concept of a Ulysses Pact from a workshop participant. The long story, Ulysses wanted to hear the song of the Sirens, so while the rest of his crew stuffed their ears with wax, Ulysses had his crew tie him to the mast of the ship and promise not to release him. A Ulysses pact is thus a strategy that acknowledges we are human and thus will likely cave to temptation, so in preparation for failing we create a condition that encourages us to “stay the course.” This could be as simple as telling friends that we are starting a writing routine, and then ask these fiends to ask us about the writing routine in the future to make sure we stick with it.

  14. Write with others. Similarly, you can form a writing team. Commit to a time and place to write together. Alternatively, check in with each other to make sure everyone is adhering to weekly writing practices. Encourage each other to “stay the course.”

  15. Force yourself to write by creating artificial deadlines. Promise to send a draft to a friend or your PI and adhere to this promise. This is very similar to forming a Ulysses Pact. By promising you will send a draft to others, you are more likely to complete the writing task.

  16. Quiet that inner negative voice. After you write, don’t get discouraged and toss out what you just wrote. First, acknowledge that you are writing a first draft and it won’t be perfect from the very beginning. Second, figure out exactly what you don’t like about it and work to make it better. Third, seek feedback from others if you cannot figure out what you don’t like about what you wrote (sometimes you just need a set of fresh eyes).

  17. Coffee? Tea? Sparkling water? Wine? To write sometimes people need a stimulant. Caffeine in the form of coffee and tea can help. The ritual of preparing a cup of coffee or tea can also function as trigger to start the writing process. One workshop participant writes while drinking sparkling water in a wine glass. While you probably shouldn’t drink too much while writing, some participants also noted that a little wine helped them to write freely (especially when starting a new writing project).

  18. Break it down. Break up your large (seemingly impossible) writing task into smaller accomplishable pieces.

  19. Build writing bridges. At the end of your writing time, make a note about what you want to write next. This will not only help you get started writing again, but will excite you to continue.

  20. Tie yourself to your desk. While not literal, make yourself sit there and write. If you are having a bad writing day, try to write something that you find easier to approach… like your materials and methods (for a paper) or your personal statement (for a grant).

  21. Get out of the lab. On par with the topic of avoiding distractions, for me it is absolutely necessary that I get out of the lab when I write. Between people asking me stuff and the desire to do small tasks (like running a PCR) while writing, I cannot get any productive writing accomplished in lab.

  22. Snack writing. Acknowledge that you cannot set aside large swaths of time for writing and begin writing in small snack-like pieces. Write while eating lunch. Write down notes while waiting for a spin or a reaction to occur.

  23. Outline it! If you don’t know where to start, begin with an rough outline and gradually begin to expand on areas until you have a coherent first draft.

Did we miss something? If you have any other writing suggestions, please include them in the comments below!

How to develop daily writing rituals and routines for academic success

“Just write a first draft and then edit it. Don’t be too much of a perfectionist at the start. For grants, always remember to focus on what is the most important thing to do next. We can do lots of stuff but that isn’t good enough. Always remind the reader why this is the most important next thing to do.”

— Dr. Suzanne Pfeffer (Chair of the Stanford Biochemistry Department)

Hello, my name is Jennifer and I am a chronic writing procrastinator…
In my academic life, grant application deadlines and all-nighters have always gone hand in hand. Thus, when given the opportunity to design a workshop for the grant writing academy, I decided to do one on the topic of writing rituals and routines. My goal is to initiate good writing habits in both myself and others. Together, let’s become productive and prolific writers.

My four simple academic writing truths

  1. Writing is important! We need to write to get grants. We need to write to publish papers. We need to write to communicate our science to others. Yet, for many scientists (myself included) we only write when we are forced to.

  2. Writing is something we need to do frequently! Writing is just as important as experiments – so, just as we run experiments everyday, we also need to write everyday.

  3. Writing is difficult! There is no “magic solution” to writing faster or better, but writing more frequently can help.

  4. Great writers don’t necessarily write better or faster. Great writers just write more, get feedback, and relentlessly edit what they have.

Workshop overview (if you didn’t attend the workshop, try to work through all these steps for yourself at home)

  • Step 1: Through a class writing exercise, we collectively came to the conclusion that scientific writing is difficult for everyone. We all have writing projects we want to complete and valid reasons why we don’t start or finish these projects.

  • Step 2: Identify one writing project that you want to complete now.

    • For members of the workshop, this writing project included: grants, papers, revisions, and committee proposals.

  • Step 3: Identify your “writing myth.” Think very hard and be honest with yourself, why have you not started writing yet or what is stopping you from finishing?

    • For members of the workshop, these writing myths included:

      • I am just too busy to write

      • I need to do more experiments before I can write my paper

      • I need to do more research before I can properly I address reviewer comments

      • I need to read more before I start writing, my thoughts are dumb

      • I have lots of ideas but I don’t know how to begin writing them down

      • Whenever I write, it is just terrible and I delete it all

      • I just get too distracted with other things to write productively

  • Step 4: Dispel your writing myth. Work honestly with yourself to determine why your writing myth is not true. The only way to overcome a writing myth obstructing your way is to dissolve it with truth. Note — if you can’t solve your writing myth on your own, it really helps to talk it out with others.

    • For members of the workshop, they dispelled their writing myths with the following truths:

      • I am busy, but completing this writing project is a top priority and I need to make time for working on it. My writing time is sacred and I will not give that time to others.

      • Before I do more experiments, I should write down what I have to better identify what I need.

      • Before I read more, I should write down what I know to better understand what I don’t know. In writing my paper (i.e. introduction), I can amend my citations later.

      • Before I read more, I should take all my ideas and build an outline to help organize my thoughts.

      • This is just a first draft, it doesn’t have to be perfect. It’s easier to get feedback and fix a first draft than to fix no draft.

  • Step 5: Begin developing a writing routine. How much time will you commit to writing each week? Where will you write? How will you stay productive while you write?

    • Example: I will write 1 hour/day for 4 days/week. I will write in the library, because I know I write better in quiet environments. I will “treat myself” with a snack after each page I write.
      Note: If you have a pending deadline, you will need to increase the amount of time you commit to writing. Remember, your writing time is sacred, protect this time!

  • Step 6: Set yourself up for success by breaking down your larger writing goal into smaller sub-goals.

    • Instead of writing with the goal of completing an entire paper, break the task down.
      Sub-goal #1: Create a outline of your results.
      Sub-goal #2: Create a first draft of the introduction.
      Sub-goal #3: Start writing out the results.
      Sub-goal #4: Write up the conclusion.
      As you adhere to your writing routine and use this increased writing time to accomplish your sub-goals you will see your progress and this will propel you to keep going!!! Remember, you got this!

  • Step 7: Build accountability. When it comes to writing, tell everyone that you are starting a writing routine and promise people drafts to keep you on task.

    • When it comes to a writing routine, the most difficult part is sticking with it. Thus, an important component of the writing routine process is to build accountability. For example, start a writing group with others, so you can ask each other how your writing is going. Tell your PI and friends that you will be sending them drafts of your writing, this way you will not only get feedback on your writing, but by promising drafts to others you will create artificial (early) deadlines for yourself and be more likely to complete writing tasks. Stick with it!

Final thoughts

Academic writing is really difficult. When you really think about it, when we are asked to write a research paper or dissertation it seems like an impossible task. A research paper or dissertation is years of our life (in the form of experiments) and decades of research (in the form of background literature) that has been distilled down into a single hyper-condensed document though which we try to communicate to others how we have extended the boundaries of the known scientific world. Research grants are also huge undertakings… as they are an attempt to craft an air-tight and compelling case for doing revolutionary research that will better humankind. In conclusion, when you really think about what we are asked to write about, it is clear that academic writing is not easy and it is healthy to acknowledge that even successful academics struggle to get a first draft down on paper — so, don’t be too hard on yourself if you struggle with this. Establishing a writing routine will not guarantee a Nature paper or a good score on a NIH grant. However, a writing routine will help to build a better writing foundation and to become successful in academics we must all build stronger relationships with writing.

,

Five things I learned in my academic job search that might help you too

,

“Chin up; you’re awesome.”

Hi everyone!

I’m Hannah, an evolutionary ecologist and self-proclaimed “amateur immunologist” who studies bats (the flying mammals, not brown adipose tissue or basophil activation tests). I am currently enjoying what my friend refers to as my “lame duck postdoc”. I applied for faculty jobs last fall (2018) and was lucky enough to be offered a position as an Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Tulane University. I start in summer 2020 and am rapidly bouncing between feelings of excitement, confidence that I have good ideas that I’m eager to pursue, and confusion about why anyone (me included) thought this was a good idea.

I wanted to share some thoughts about the faculty application process in case it is helpful to anyone out there going through the job search. Full disclosure: I am an N of 1 and only actually applied to four schools so feel free to take what’s helpful and disregard the rest.

So without further ado, five things I learned in my academic job search that might help you too:

1. Apply before you’re ready. It’s tempting to say “Oh, I’ll apply after I get this paper out.” Or “I’m not competitive right now.” You may not have the same CV as other candidates but chances are you underestimate how great you are and you don’t know what the committee is looking for (see point 5). Putting together your research statement and other materials is a great way to help you focus on your goals and clarify what you can and should be doing now to make sure you’re set up for the professor you want to be. And once you’ve written all that down, why not send it in? Worst case scenario, you have greater clarity and a full draft of materials to go to next year. Plus, it’s a lot less stressful to apply for faculty positions when you don’t feel like you’re being pushed off the cliff at the end of your postdoc and any given job posting usually only comes up once.

2. Only apply to places you’d actually want to go to. This might be kind of obvious but you’re applying to an institution that will be your home for the next six years and maybe your career. You may not know before applying whether you would want to be there and that’s fine but if you know you would absolutely never live in a cold place, don’t apply to the University of Minnesota. It’s much harder to say no to a school if it’s your only offer, making it more likely you’ll end up in a situation that’s not right for you. (I do know people who have said no to places that weren’t right for them, though, only to end up at a great place for them the year later so if this is you, be strong and trust your gut!)

3. Be flexible but focused in your research statement. Everyone has many more interests than they will describe in their research statement. If you’re like me, you find most things interesting and you have a lot of ideas. It’s important to show your future school that you’re flexible and broadly interested but you know what your first and second priorities are. I structured my research proposal to outline two main research arcs, devoting roughly a page to each and structuring the page as I would a summary of a grant proposal. I then alluded to other interesting threads I might continue as they related to previous work or as potential future directions for the two main research foci.

4. Act like a colleague. This is a good approach to take even when you are a graduate student or a postdoc, but especially as a prospective faculty member. This encompasses two main things. First, be confident in your goals, strengths and what you can add to the department. Treat your potential future colleagues as peers, not superiors. And second, be the person you would want to work with – make it clear that you will be collaborative, helpful, and generally someone people want to be around.

5. No one (usually not even the search committee) knows exactly what the search committee is looking for/you’re awesome. Usually job searches are posted under some broad category (e.g. biologist) or slightly less broad category (e.g. microbial ecologist). A lot of people could fit the job criteria well and often the committee may have preferences that aren’t in the job description. A lot of times the committees don’t know what they’re looking for until they see the candidates. You can be the absolute best researcher to ever live on the subject of G-protein coupled receptors. It’s not going to matter at all if what the department really wants is someone who works on butterfly behavior. The sad fact is that everybody who gets a faculty job is qualified and not everyone who is qualified gets a job. So, know whether or not your first (or second or third) search is successful is not really a comment on you. For the record, three of the schools I applied to wanted nothing to do with me (two never even bothered to send me a formal rejection) and the fourth one hired me. Chin up; you’re awesome.

K99 checklist and page breakdown strategies

Generate a K99 Checklist

Your final K99 application will be very long and attacking it all at once can be overwhelming. So, let’s break it down. First, I would highly recommend making a checklist of all the items you will need to write and/or collect from others. Below is a list I generated from the NIH Grants and Funding website. I’ve italicized items that you should request sooner rather than later, since you will need to ask others for these materials. Note, most of the people I know wrote their own letters of support, but I will hopefully cover this in a later post.

  • Project Summary/Abstract (30 lines of text)

  • Project Narrative (3 sentences)

  • Introduction to Resubmission/Revision (1 page — only necessary for second submissions)

  • Candidate Information and Goals for Career Development and Research Strategy (12 pages)

  • Specific Aims (1 page)

  • Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (1 page)

  • Plans and Statements from Mentor and Co-Mentor (6 pages)

  • Letters of Support from Collaborators, Contributors, and Consultants (6 pages)

  • Description of the Institutional Environment (1 page)

  • Institutional Commitment to the Candidate’s Research Career Development (1 page — at most universities you need to put in a request for this).

  • Biographical Sketch (5 pages)

How should I breakdown the 12 page “Candidate Information” and “Goals for Career Development and Research Strategy” section?

This is a great question I recently received from a Grant Writing Bootcamper. As you can see from the page limits above, the K99 is strange in that the Candidate Information and Research Strategy are lumped together, yet there are no clear instructions regarding how to split this section apart. Good news, I don’t think there is one right answer. Bad news, giving more space to one component (i.e. your personal statement) obviously takes away from the other (i.e. your research statement).

For my own K99 application, I placed more emphasis on the research strategy, committing only 3 pages to the candidate information section and the remaining 9 pages to the research strategy. My reasoning — this is the only area where you have the opportunity to actually showcase your research, so pack it full of data/figures to really make a strong case for feasibility. Initially my candidate information component was 4 pages, but I cut it down to 3 pages with careful editing and the incorporation of a detailed timeline/timetable at the end (I’ve included mine below for reference). I would highly recommend making a detailed timeline/timetable as they provide a really easy, visual way to pack in lots of information without taking up too much space.

Here is my breakdown in more detail:

Component 1: Candidate Information and Goals for Career Development (3 pages total)
Here it is important to identify what you will learn and how you will go about learning during the K99 (training phase) to achieve goals in your R00 (independent phase).

  • Candidate’s Background (~1 page)

  • Career Goals and Objectives (~0.75 pages)

  • Candidate’s Plan for Career Development/Training Activities During Award Period (~1.25 pages)

    • Sub-paragraph #1: New or Enhanced Research Skills and Knowledge

    • Sub paragraph #2: Career Development

    • Sub paragraph #3: Timeline and Evaluation

Here is the actual career timeline/timetable I included in my application. I write about these events in my text, but the timeline really allows you to “pack in” the information and organize it to highlight both career development goals (the things …

Here is the actual career timeline/timetable I included in my application. I write about these events in my text, but the timeline really allows you to “pack in” the information and organize it to highlight both career development goals (the things you want to do during your R00) and the training activities you will complete to achieve these goals (the training you plan to do in .

Component 2: Research Strategy (9 pages total)
Remember, the research plan must also cater to both phases of the award (K99 and R00).

  • Significance (~0.75 pages)

  • Innovation (~0.25 pages)

  • Approach (8 pages)
    This is the meat of the research component of your application. My general recipe for each section:

    • State the Aim (example: Aim 1, 2, 3)

    • Preliminary Studies for the Aim — evidence of current and past research.

    • State the Sub-Aim (example: 1A, 1B, 1C… etc)

    • Sub-Aim Body — detailed rationale and experimental approach

    • Sub-Aim anticipated results, interpretation, and follow-up

    • Sub-Aim potential pitfalls and alternative strategies

  • I also ended this section with a similar timeline/timetable… but one illustrating when I plan to do and complete the various Aims and Sub-Aims.

Final thoughts. I know this is a lot and I will try to go into each section with more detail as the Grant Writing Class moves along. But, hope this helps a little to get started! As always, if you have any questions either leave a comment below or contact me directly and I’ll do my best to address them.

As always, Happy Writing :)

How to become a secure leader

“How can you ensure that you give something of value to each of your team members, such that they will want you to lead them?”

It is slightly after 8 PM. I just finished a FaceTime call with my dad, who is staying in Taiwan until the country’s elections in January. He said something profound that I would like to share: If a leader is bringing no value to her team — if her team members collectively have the skills that she does — then if her nature permits it she will attempt to exert authority, with authority being her sole contribution to the team.

In addition to teams with leaders who add little value, diverse teams, teams whose members differ in characteristic greatly from the leader, are more prone to their leaders seeking to control the team. The small team that I described in an earlier post I expect became more homogenous after I left the group. Undoubtedly my ex-boss searched for a replacement for me who was as different from me as possible. After all, she had not understood how to use me as an employee. Given our tense relationship, very likely she also looked for someone whom she could better control, having regarded me as disrespectful.

My earlier post explained how to avoid facing the conundrum that my ex-boss did: First appreciate who your people are and then think about how to lead them. But how do you not become a leader who adds little benefit your team? How can you ensure that you give something of value to each of your team members, which would stoke their desire for you to lead them? My answer, which came to me spontaneously while I wrote this post and therefore will need further elaboration both by you and by me: Make your mind as versatile as you can.

The minds of the most secure leaders whom I know are supple. These individuals identify with people who are very unlike themselves. Even if these leaders lack skills that their team members have — indeed, this should be the case! — they understand how to harness the skills in order to accomplish objectives. These leaders do not say “I” and “my” when talking about their work. Instead, they say “we” and “our.” These leaders do not say, “Did they just go around me?” They have the confidence to compliment your work.

Recognizing good leadership is something that you as the students and postdocs of Stanford Biochemistry already know how to do. The idea of cultivating the mind, however, reminded me of the following post that I wrote for Stanford Duck Beta before the website became standuck.com. If you agree with the advice, then you could give it to members of your future teams.

Here is the former professor, addressing someone’s comment about not feeling special at Stanford. “To me, being special is not about outperforming others. If we focus here on the mind, what matters is thinking ‘well.’ And EVERYONE can learn this. Some people might have more computing power or flashes of brilliance, but that does not diminish what the rest of us have — especially considering that every mind is UNIQUE. Find mentors who say things that are insightful to you. Learn from these people.”

 

How to make the most of your postdoc

Working abroad gives you diversity in approaching a way to solve a problem. “If everybody in the room speaks the same and writes the same and approaches the problem the same, then you’re only going to have one solution.” — John Kelly


Camilla Kao
My father made me aware of this article, “How to make the most of your postdoc,” published by Chemical & Engineering News on September 9. The article is written in terms of the chemical sciences, but the advice is general.

The sections of the article are entitled “Picking the postdoc that’s right for you,” “Plan for what comes after your postdoc,” “Develop your soft skills,” “Don’t isolate yourself,” “Consider atypical postdocs,” and “Should you do a second postdoc?” This article is located in the Careers Section of the journal along with many other articles for postdocs. There is also a category of articles for graduate students. A quick browsing of that category revealed articles entitled “For grad students and postdocs, mental health begins with faculty” and “How to combat imposter syndrome.”

“In a postdoc you really have to take time out for yourself and prioritize the things you need for your career. It’s just as important as your research.” — Carolyn Ladd


Jennifer Kong
I’m so happy that Cammy shared this article with me. As a postdoc, that doesn’t have a whole lot more time to “make the most of it,” I think this article actually provides solid advice for postdocs that are at many places in their career.

The graduate student to postdoc transition
A few weeks ago I came across this article, “The autopilot postdoc,” posted on the Nature Jobs Blog. I wasn’t a huge fan of the article — and I think to a certain extent it’s because I self identify a bit as an autopilot postdoc. Let me explain… the article “The autopilot postdoc” paints a bleak picture of postdoc life through the story of Thomas, an individual that spent eight years doing a postdoc, came to realize academia was not for him, and ended up taking a detoured path into patent law. While it is true that (1) many postdocs feel like a source of cheap research labor for a university and (2) postdoc life does at times feel like some strange netherworld/purgatory between graduate school and a real career/job, I don’t think it has to be that way… This article “How to make the most of your postdoc” really emphasizes on making good, conscious postdoc choices by encouraging graduate students to choose postdocs that will help them achieve their larger goals, like expanding their skill sets. When the goal is to improve yourself (and not getting a tenure-track faculty position at a top tier research institution), then the training you receive as a postdoc seems a lot more versatile.

The postdoc to post-postdoc transition
The article, “How to make the most of your postdoc,” dedicates one paragraph to how to plan for life after your postdoc. Too short? Yes, but there are good reminders here like taking time out of your research to prepare for your career and to treat your postdoc like a training position (which means moving on after five years).

Overall a great read with lots of excellent links to other intriguing topics. Thanks for sharing this with us Cammy!!!

Regarding leading a team

“First appreciate who your people are.
Then think about how to lead them.”

Most of you during your career will end up managing people. If I were young again, I would too, and I did manage people — a lab — for seven years. There are many things to know in order to manage a group effectively. You will learn a lot by watching the successes and mistakes of other supervisors as well as experiencing your own. Ideally your mistakes, while lessons will be learned best this way, will cause minimal harm and be corrected quickly.

Many of us have experienced at least one person in a supervisory role who failed to appreciate what we had to contribute to our job. The supervisor did not comprehend who we were, but was focused only on supervising — on being followed. We did not feel good, but we did not clearly understand why. This situation caused problems ranging from demotivation to disrespect to animosity. If you find yourself with such a supervisor, you will need to remove yourself from the situation eventually, if the circumstance cannot be fixed. However, this post aims to help you when you are on the other side: how to avoid unintentionally becoming the supervisor who tries to lead before appreciating who she has as a team.

During their training, most scientists do not take leadership training courses. The bits and pieces of information that I have overheard about these courses, however, seem to focus more on “hard” skills such as time management and efficient organizational processes. Perhaps the “soft” skill that I am discussing is taught as well, but is hard to learn. Regardless, as you might agree, the mistake proliferates among supervisors. Many, if not most, supervisors think first about “leading” before evaluating their team. What do I mean by “evaluate”?

When reentering the workforce in 2016 after a ten-year hiatus, then being a former professor at the age of 46, I was able to secure only an entry-level position at Stanford that was advertised to students just graduating from college. A person with more confidence than I had would likely have been able to jump into a higher position (to “sell himself” as a very valuable commodity — note that I use the male pronoun). But my illness had impaired me seriously for many years, such that I did not trust myself with high-level responsibilities in a company. Extremely lucky when a health and safety supervisor in the School of Engineering (not in EH&S) hired me, I found myself soon (because this supervisor left) with a new boss who had no idea what to do with me. When she was hired, immediately I knew that she never would have hired me. This did not feel good.

I happened to have much more education than she did, although that did not matter with respect to other people whom I met during this time. This new boss of mine was only capable of imagining me in her likeness — and to me her likeness was not particularly visionary — and she encouraged me to take many courses in health and safety in order to become licensed in the field. During my short time employed with her, I felt an opportunity lost to connect her team to academics in a new way, because I came from the latter community. When I left this position, a mentor who had observed what had transpired commented about my boss, “She did not do a good job taking advantage of what you had to offer.” He said as well, “You needed to get out of the situation, because ultimately an employee needs to respect her boss.”

When you become a supervisor, be sure to think about who your employees are as individuals.  Do not think about your employees (only) according to their titles.

Different employees with the same title will do their jobs differently, doing their jobs well and making unique contributions. Acknowledge this wonderful phenomenon. THEN think about how to lead your team.

Exerting authority will be effective when you truly comprehend the value that comes from the unique paths that your employees take through life.

How to find and contact your NIH program officer

Program who? What is a program officer?

“In a nutshell, and from the NIGMS perspective, [program officers] advise applicants and grantees, make funding recommendations, oversee the progress of funded grants, encourage scientific opportunities, and help develop NIH policy.” — Marion Zatz

Your program officer can become one of your strongest advocates in the NIH grant application process. So, it’s important to contact one (the correct one) early in the game.

Your three best friends in the NIH grant process

  1. Scientific Review Officer: Upon receipt of your application, this individual makes sure that your grant is complete (i.e. that all the components are turned in), organizes the study sections, and makes sure that your grant is assigned to the appropriate study section. This is your primary NIH contact before your grant is reviewed by the study section.
    When to contact your review officer? To discuss your review assignment, to request permission to submit additional or amended materials, and to discuss review concerns.

  2. Program Officer: Once your grant gets scored and a summary statement is prepared, the application goes into the hands of the program officer. The program officer is very, very powerful. The scores and summaries provided by the study section are in reality only recommendations/assessments provided by the academic community. At the end of the review process, the program officer reads these recommendations and makes the final grant funding decisions — incorporating together the score, reviews, and the ability of the grant to address the mission of the institute. This is why it’s important to contact your program officer and make sure that your proposal is a good match for the institute.
    When to contact your program officer? To help you identify which grant/funding opportunity to apply for, to verify that your proposal fits within the mission of the institute, to discuss whether your research is considered a clinical trial, and to discuss the outcome of a grant (i.e. to discuss your score and comments).

  3. Grants Management Officials: After your grant gets a thumbs up from the program officer, you are assigned a grants management official. This person helps you set up your grant by making sure that you have all the proper documentation submitted. In my case, to actually green light the K99 I needed to submit to my grants management official an updated IACUC approval (i.e. animal documentation) and proof that I had terminated a grant that I was previously on. My grants management official also helped me move forward my start date from the beginning of the cycle to the end of the cycle.
    When to contact your grants management official? To help you with any financial or grants administration issues.

How to find your program officer

Finding your program officer is a surprisingly difficult task… I love the NIH, but each institute has their own directory and often times the directories are difficult to navigate. Below are three methods that you can use to find your program officer. As a test, I just used these methods to find my program officer and based on how easy it was I ranked the methods from best/easiest to worst/unsuccessful.

  1. Grant writing academy method (Best!): I learned this strategy from the Stanford Grant Writing Academy. It’s a bit more work, but it got me directly to the correct person (yay!).
    What to do: Look up or download the current Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the grant you want to apply for, scroll down and click on “Section VII: Agency Contacts,” then click on “Table of IC-Specific Information, Requirements, and Staff Contacts,” scroll down to your institute, and contact the “Scientific Program Contact.” Note, there may be a few program contacts available, so pick the division contact that is most applicable to your proposal.

  2. Google (Meh): After you figure out your grant and institute, with a little time, Google can work. I just typed in “Program Officer, K99, NIGMS” into Google and did not immediately locate my Program Officer. If this is the method you use, do not fret. When I first tried to contact my program officer, I accidentally contacted the wrong one! Thankfully, this other program officer kindly forwarded my email to the appropriate program officer. In short, the people at the NIH are generally very nice and helpful, just be kind and courteous in return and you will eventually get to where you need to be.

  3. NIH RePORTER Matchmaker (Worst): This came recommended online, so I thought I would give it a try. While this method was able to match me up with the correct institute, my program officer was not on the list (at all). I think if there was a way to make this grant specific, then it might work. Maybe I’m using it wrong? Feel free to check it out.
    What to do: Go to the NIH RePORTER Matchmaker website, type in text that is relevant to your proposal (for example, I pasted in the first two paragraphs of my specific aims), click on “Similar Program Officials.” Done.

When to contact your program officer?

Early!!! I would highly recommend contacting your program officer after you write your specific aims — and hopefully many months before your application is due. In my experience, the program officer gets back to you within about a week with one of four responses:
(1) Excitement about your proposal — Congratulations! You’ve successfully leaped over the first hurdle, you may proceed to write the rest of the grant now.
(2) General enthusiasm, but with suggestions or concerns — Make your program officer happy. Revise your proposal and make sure that you incorporate the appropriate changes.
(3) Informs you that your proposal is not within the mission of the institute — Contact another program officer to see if your proposal does indeed fit better with another institute. Alternatively, make major revisions to your proposal and check in again with your program officer.
(4) Informs you that you are ineligible for the grant you are applying for and suggest others — Thankfully I have not received this response (yet?), but it is definitely a possibility. In this case figure out what other grants you can apply for. There are many grants available outside of the NIH system.

Note, after the review process is over, I would also recommend contacting your program officer to discuss your score and comments in your summary statement… but, more on this later.

What to say to your program officer?

Program officers receive many, many emails a day. So, compose your specific aims inquiry concisely with all the relevant information: Name, reason you are contacting them, your years in the lab (so that they can assess your grant eligibility), the grant you are applying for, and the cycle you are applying for. Many people also recommend that you provide a phone number to allow for multiple avenues of contact. And be polite!

Below is the first email I wrote to my program officer (when I was initially thinking about applying for an F32). In retrospect, I think it could have been shorter, but I received a quick email response, so it got the job done. I italicized all the important information. Feel free to use this as a template for your own emails.

Hi Dr. XXXX,
My name is Jennifer, I am a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University and just completed my first year in the lab. I am currently preparing a F32 NRSA application for the December 8th submission deadline.  I am interested in learning if my proposal goals are relevant to the mission of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. I have attached my specific aims to this email for your review. However, if it would be easier to briefly discuss this matter of relevance over the phone, please let me know when it would be convenient to contact you.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, Jennifer
Postdoctoral Fellow
Email here
Phone number here

References

  • Marion Zatz. 2011. A view from the NIH bridge: perspectives of a program officer. Molecular Biology of the Cell 22(15): 2661–2663. PMCID: PMC3145542. PMID: 21799136.

Carol Gross

“Find three mentors and meet with them once a month.” — Carol Gross

4:15 PM. I just finished filming the training video that required me to learn how to use makeup. The filming went better than I expected. I know what it feels like to be an assistant professor, and I am scary when angry. M y face scowls like my dad’s. The woman who will edit the film, who knew nothing about me, said, “She has the perfect presence. It feels as if she’s done this before.” You will be able to judge my performance for yourself, because it will be available on YouTube…

The video will be part of a series (by the SoM) for faculty mentoring faculty. For me, I identify by knowing firsthand how hard it can be for junior faculty to obtain mentoring from senior faculty. When an assistant professor from 2000 until 2006, I faced two struggles: The senior faculty were so busy that I felt terrible taking up their time to mentor me. Second — and this situation might have been particular to my field — the mentors who enthusiastically supported me worked in research areas very different than mine, e.g., one mentor was a fluid mechanician. (I worked in a chemical engineering department.)

My experience as an assistant professor was fraught. In 2002, I attended the Microbial Stress Response Gordon Conference in Newport, RI. There while socializing with Amy Gehring, a young fellow Streptomyces researcher, we happened upon Carol Gross. Carol Gross asked me, “How is it going?” Immediately I knew that she understood my predicament — that I had no clue how to run my lab — and I began to cry. She said firmly, “Find three mentors and meet with them once a month.”

17 years later, maybe Carol Gross would add more to this rule. But I put her advice from long ago as my first post on Jenn Kong’s website so that you who aspire to be faculty — or who aspire to do anything challenging but hopefully rewarding — can know about the rule.

How to make a submission timeline for NIH grant applications

When should you submit an NIH grant?
Spoiler alert — it’s a lot sooner than you think.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I applied for a K99 I did not feel ready at all. I wanted to publish more, I wanted to collect more preliminary data, I wanted more time to create my committee, and I wanted more time to write. In short, if you don’t feel like you’re ready to write a K99 (or a F31… or a F32… or a K01), that’s normal. However, time is a luxury that we do not have in academics. Recently, the NIH has shortened the application window for many grants. The predoctoral and postdoctoral clock is always ticking and (if you truly want to apply for a NIH grant) you need to generate a submission timeline to determine when to submit your first application so that you have the opportunity to submit a revised application.

Let’s do the submission math together.

Task #1: Find out the eligibility criteria for your grant.
Determine your eligibility sooner rather than later, because you may be surprised by how little time you have. As I mentioned above, within the last 5 years the eligibility window for many NIH grants has become shorter. The NIH notes that they did this to minimize long (7-8 year) graduate studies and postdoc hires. On a positive note, especially for F31 and F32 training grants, there is less emphasis placed on preliminary data. On a negative note, it's really easy to miss the application window. Eligibility is grant and institute specific, so read the eligibility criteria very carefully and when in doubt contact a program officer.

Eligibility is quite variable…
NIGMS (F31): Within the first 3 years of graduate training (1-2 years of support).
NINDS (F31): Within the first 6 years of graduate training (1-3 years of support).
NINDS (F32): 12 months prior to joining a postdoctoral lab to within the first 12 months of starting in a postdoctoral lab.
NIGMS and NINDS (K99): Within the first four years of postdoctoral training.
*Recently, I learned that with proper documentation, it is possible to “stop the clock” on your postdoctoral time due to an official leave of absence due to situations that include illness, parental leave, or other family situations.*

Task #2: Determine your start date.
For graduate students this is fairly simple, it’s the month/year you began graduate school. However, for postdocs the start date can be tricky… from what I understand the postdoc clock usually begins the month/year your degree was conferred (a date documented by your university). For example, I received my PhD from UCLA. Although I did my oral defense in February, I did not submit my dissertation until later in May. My conferral date (as documented by the university) reflects the later May dissertation date. In short, this is sometimes a tough date to figure out. If in doubt, check with your PhD institute to see what they have on record and check with the NIH institute to make sure that your start date is correct and that you are eligible to apply.

Task #3: Math
Eligibility: I wanted to apply for a K99 (NIGMS), which means I must apply within my first four years as a postdoc.
Start date: May/2015 (provided with documentation from my university).

When do I become a 4th year postdoc and thus no longer eligible to apply for a K99? Math: May/2015 + 4 years = May 2019

Task #4: More math to work in time for a revision
Last date to submit a revised grant: If I want to submit before May 2019, then my last date to submit a revised grant is March 12, 2019.
Date to submit the first grant: Knowing that it takes one grant cycle to receive and scores and comments, then the latest I can submit a new K99 application is June 12, 2018.

Additional notes… the review process takes a lot longer than you think.
I know what you’re thinking… does it really take a whole cycle to get your scores and comments back? From my experience, my firm answer to this is — YES! I adhered to the math above and submitted my new K99 in June/2018 (for the June 12th deadline in cycle 2). I did not receive a score until early December/2018 and did not receive comments until early January/2019… well past the November 12th (cycle 3) revision deadline. Thankfully, I received a good score and did not need to resubmit. If I did need to resubmit, I feel that even the March 12th (cycle 1) deadline would have been very tight, but manageable.

So in summary, work out your submission timeline early to earn that sweet, sweet revision if you need it.

Happy writing.

What to do before you start writing a NIH grant

The NIH is made up of 27 institutes… there are multiple F-awards and K-awards. Choose wisely.

My sad, but not really that sad, story
Three years ago I attended Stanford University’s Grant Writing Academy Boot Camp. Over the period of a few weeks, I developed an interesting research project, wrote up my specific aims for an F32 Postdoctoral Fellowship, received critical feedback from my peers, made thoughtful corrections, and then (with my specific aims in hand) prepared to contact my program officer.

Pop quiz, what did I do wrong? Think… What was the one critical step I failed to do before I started writing???

Answer…
I forgot to carefully read the guidelines of the fellowship!!! Each institute sets their own guidelines and, while there are many similarities, there are also a few critical differences. For example, for some institutes a postdoc must apply for an F32 within the first year of joining the lab. Thus, at the ripe postdoctoral age of 1 year+2 months, I was academically too old to apply. After contacting a few other program officers, from institutes where I was still eligible to apply, I discovered that the project I had proposed was beyond the scope/mission of those institutes. After initially trying to fight it, in the end I reassessed my project and started over… annoying, but not the end of the world. Moral of the story — read very carefully, do your research first, and find NIH grants that you are eligible for before you start writing.

Resources to help you get started


Task #1: Pick an institute.
Here is a link to a list and description of the many NIH institutes. After looking through the list you may have one of two thoughts…

(i) “Wow, my proposal could go to multiple institutes.” Congratulations! Some institutes, like NCI (National Cancer Institute), give funding preference to applicants with primary sponsors that have a cancer related R01… so look into these preferences and see if you can take advantage of any of them. In addition, do a little research and look at the different funding rates of the different institutes. The success rate of one institute may be higher than the other… in which case (obviously) apply to the one that has the higher success rate (duh). Any little bit helps.
(ii) “Uh oh, my proposal doesn’t really address the mission of any institute.” No worries. In this case check out this handy website, NIH RePORTER (NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools). Under the query tab, type in a few key words that pertain to your research and it will present you with all the NIH funded grants that also share these key words, provide you with an abstract of the research, and most importantly reveal that institute that funded this research. An alternative resource is the NIH RePORTER mathchmaker tab. Using this function, you can copy and paste in a significant portion of your specific aims and it will provide you with either a list of similar NIH funded projects or a list of program officers that oversee this research. Yes, you may need to rethink your research a bit to make sure it falls within the mission of the institute, but this tool provides solutions regarding where you should start.

Task #2: Pick a fellowship.
There are two main groups of fellowships that predocs and postdocs apply to: F-awards and K-awards.

F-Awards: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) for Individual Fellows. Most predocs apply for the F31 and postdocs apply for the F32. However, there are other very interesting F-awards out there, like the F99, a predoc to postdoc transition award that I just learned about from the NIH website.

K-Awards:  Research Career Development Awards
More or less these awards bridge the end of your postdoc and the beginning of your independent lab. As a result, these are considered transition awards (i.e. the training plan you write for these is very different from the F-awards, a topic I will hopefully discuss later). Most postdocs apply for the Pathway to Independence Award (K99).

Task #3: Make a timeline
Both the F-awards and K-awards have a unique set of three due dates each year for new applications and renewed/resubmitted/revised applications. Make a timeline and make sure you include the following:

(i) Your eligibility for the particular grant and institute you are applying to. Remember, most institutes “start the postdoc clock” once you get your PhD degree, not when you start in the lab. So, make sure you have the correct start date!
(ii) Time to reapply. Remember, if you apply in cycle 1 (aka. the first date), then you will not get your comments back in time to resubmit something meaningful in cycle 2, thus your next available date for resubmitting is actually cycle 3. You need to take this all into account when you make the initial submission… which is probably much earlier than you think.

Phew… that’s was a lot. Hope this helps.
Happy writing and researching!





How to structure your specific aims

“The specific aims should provide a conceptual framework of your proposal, so it’s a perfect roadmap as you write the rest of your proposal…equally important, your specific aims document must empower the reviewers with all the necessary information to fund your project… the specific aims document is one of the most important documents of your proposal”

— Dr. Crystal Botham

If you don’t have a lot time and want to quickly learn the details of how to technically write and structure your specific aims, then I would definitely recommend watching “Writing your specific aims” by Dr. Crystal Botham available on Stanford University’s Grant Writing Academy website. The video is a short 12 minutes and efficiently guides you through the process. As always, I’ve included some of my notes below.

Dr. Botham beautifully breaks down the Specific Aims writing process, dividing the task of writing this very important document into four digestible pieces. A majority of the video is spent describing in detail what each of these four sections should contain and how these sections can be written up by addressing a small set of questions.

Section #1: Introduction of the large overlying problem
Questions — Is the research question important? Is there an important gap in your field that is holding your field back?
Content — The introduction must grab the attention of the reviewers and directly address the mission of the funding source. This section also includes a large overlying problem in the form of a knowledge gap or unmet needs statement.

Section #2: Introduction of the sub-problem
Question — What is the overall goal of your proposal?
Content — This second paragraph is like a funnel, where you transition from the big knowledge gap (that you presented in the first paragraph, above) to the specific aims (that you will present in the third paragraph, below). This second paragraph will introduce the sub-problem, a component of the larger overlying problem that the applicant will propose to solve in their grant.

Section #3: Specific Aims
Question — What will specifically be done?
Content — This is the specific aims. Dr. Botham notes that the applicant should include broad aims that are achievable regardless of how the hypothesis tests. This section should also briefly include the methods that will be used to test the hypothesis.

Section #4: Conclusion and payoff
Question — What is the expected outcome and impact of the proposed work?
Content — A brief, but well written conclusion that addresses the expected payoff of the project. Dr. Botham mentions that the conclusion should again address the mission of the funding agency and directly address what the return on the investment (aka. the applicant) will bring to the funding agency.

All in all a great formula for writing your Specific Aims.
For additional resources, check out the Grant Writing Academy website.
Happy writing.

How to mentally support PhDs

“For PhD students, our work becomes closely aligned with our self-worth, and we take failures hard. We need to be resilient, and as we struggle to learn academic resilience, we need our friends and family to understand that what we are feeling isn’t just normal ‘job’ stress, and respond to our requests for support accordingly.”

— Kate Samardzic

I recently came across this amazing article, “What I wish my friends and family knew about my PhD,” by Kate Samardzic in Nature’s Career Column.

While written from the prospective of a graduate student, I think the story she tells really resonates with both predocs and postdocs. Personally, I am very lucky that I always had a very supportive mother to lean on in graduate school. However, I think equally important for my mental sanity was a strong support group of fellow grad students and postdocs (aka. my lab mates) that helped me get through the many pitfalls, hurdles, and challenges that come with graduate school. At the end, the author offers up a few solid pieces of advice for friends and family to best support PhD candidates, pieces of advice that I think we should all keep in mind as we strive to support our fellow lab mates and peers.

Greetings from an optimistic postdoc!

Happy birthday to me! 

I recently turned 4 years old… in postdoc years.  I honestly don’t know how to feel about this.  I definitely feel older? Yet, I am still surprisingly optimistic about science and academia.  Some days I think I “took the blue pill” long ago (Matrix reference) — the blue pill by the way is the one that keeps you asleep and unaware, providing organic power to the machine overlords for all your living days… so, perhaps a better metaphor than I initially intended… *wink*

Anywhooooo… as I reach the completion of my postdoc (2 more years and counting) and contemplate a transition to assistant professorship, I find myself wanting to provide some hope, knowledge, advice, or simply a listening space to other grad students and postdocs.  Like so many things in life, this is an experiment. I hope this is a resource that others find useful to affirm that science is cool and research is fun, but yes, the process that is the academic path is often both physically and mentally exhausting and we really need to support each other through it.   

P.S.  I sincerely hope this is not all be one big distraction to avoid working on my paper.  Sigh… productive procrastination...