Stipends: A waste of funding?

A little while ago the subject of teaching assignments came up among some colleagues (as it is wont to do).  Specifically, we were discussing which PIs had habits of sticking their students on repeated teaching assignments and which PIs didn't have their students teach unless they really wanted to.

I was a little surprised that one of the very well-funded synthesis groups here had an abundance of TAs. One of the students (him/herself a TA) explained it thus: "We don't like to waste money on paying people." The point was that they viewed grant money as primarily for supplies and fancy instrumentation. For instance, they'd shelled out quite a bit of cash recently for some fancy chromatography and microscopy equipment.

It was an interesting perspective, and I'm not sure what to think of the philosophy.

I've seen PIs before who tended to put students on TA quite frequently -- for their entire PhD, in many cases. But those have typically been groups with little-to-no funding, where available grant money wouldn't even cover a meager grad student stipend.

I've also seen well-funded PIs who limit their students to two semesters of teaching (or whatever the departmental requirement happened to be), regardless of external fellowships available to the individuals in their lab. In those cases, a large portion of the available grant money is devoted to stipend/tuition expenses.

So a lab that has plenty of cash that it needs to burn and decides to burn it by buying valuable (but not essential) upgrades--that's different.

It might be a subdiscipline thing. I suspect that "hard" synthesis groups -- methodology and total synthesis -- tend to rely more on a TA culture (perhaps the funding situation is less predictable here?). In contrast, most biologically-oriented organic groups seem to find the funding (from training grants and other sources) to keep their lab RA-based. Additionally, some grants have specifications.

Even so--can personnel costs be considered a "waste"? The word I would suggest is "investment." But it might be because I think a well-trained, happy chemist with decent instrumentation/supplies is more valuable than a slightly nicer MPLC.

Reading assignments, vol. 4

The following are some interesting topics and posts from the last week or so. A lot of links, but they're pretty good.

Online education (i.e. MOOCs)

• At the Chronicle of Higher Education, George Washington University Dean Doug Guthrie criticizes Coursera, a for-profit company that partners with universities to offer massive online open courses (MOOCs). Guthrie insists that Coursera is a fad; "thoughtful interactions" do not occur; and educators are frequently creating a crowd, not a community. It's a valid point; online education has promise but very often falls short, even with the best of intentions. See also this other criticism/analysis of MOOCs.   While we're at it, if you really want to read more about MOOCs check out this year-in-review about MOOCs.
• In the midst of the recent surge in MOOC popularity, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is running an online Intermediate Organic Chemistry course, taught by educational specialist Michael Evans and Dr. Jeff Moore.
• Dayna Catropa and Margaret Andrews compare MOOCs to MOCCs (midsized online closed courses), predicting that MOCCs will replace MOOCs, as they provide an opportunity to monetize the online experience and deliver it to smaller groups.

Public health

• Antibiotic resistance is a serious public health concern, but a potential new class of antibiotics that take advantage of the dependence of certain pathogens on the thioredoxin system is displaying promise against MRSA, drug-resistant TB, etc. Malaria is also notoriously drug-resistant, and this press release details a surprisingly simple whole-plant antimalarial strategy that may be effective and cost-effecient. This stands in contrast to the widespread practice of synthetic, pure drugs.
• While we're on the subject of antibiotics, Katherine Harmon at ScientificAmerican writes on recent findings that amoxicillin is not only overprescribed but is ineffective compared to a placebo for most of its common applications. Add another one to the "no, seriously, stop giving out antibiotics like candy" file.
• Antibiotic use in agriculture is controversial, and Maryn McKenna at WiredScience writes on the FDA's reluctance to compel companies to disclose farm antibiotic use. On a related note, The Pump Handle criticizes a recent USDA decision to "modernize" poultry inspection; the author says that the new guidelines, which aim to speed up the inspection process, would threaten food safety.
• Personalized medicine has gotten a lot of recent attention as a strategy for fighting disease (particularly cancer). The general strategy is to target therapeutics based on a patient's genome. However, personalized medicine has its skeptics, and a commentary by Sharon Begley examines recent evidence that this approach may never be effective.

Scientific communication

• Terminology and jargon is integral to scientific communication and has traditionally been an obstacle to deaf and hearing-impaired people. Douglas Quenqua writes about crowdsourcing-oriented efforts at creating a sign language scientific lexicon.
• Both Chemjobber and Derek Lowe comment on a perplexing press release about Parabon's drug delivery technology that sounds more like a Michael Crichton novel. The press release's author has responded, as well, with a degree of consternation at the press release's negative reception. I think this exchange really highlights some concerning issues about scientific communication to a broad audience.
• University librarian Barbara Fister comments on how undergraduates struggle to learn how to do literature-based research. She posits that how we frame/present the task influences a student's perception of their own ability to complete it (just call it Finding Stuff Out). It's an interesting read; the philosophy is familiar to me from when I tutored writing. I think we can draw some parallels to how we teach scientific thinking and how the public perceives scientific writing.
• At ScientificAmerican, Khalil Cassimally lists some good practical guides for developing science journalists. There's about 11 of them listed; read and bookmark them! On a related note, see this post by Khalil about how science writers keep their notes organized.
• Chemist Phil Davis has listed his 17-years-deceased PhD adviser as a co-author on a paper. While it's good to give credit where it's due, don't all authors have to consent to publish? This just generally seems weird given the elapsed time.

The F word (funding)

• At the Chronicle of Higher Education, Indiana University president Michael A. McRobbie warns that the fiscal cliff may spell out serious damage to research universities. He makes the case that this would be perilous to the economy, as research drives innovation in engineering/manufacturing.
• The United States is not the only place where scientists are feeling the squeeze of a scant funding environment. Nature gives an account of Spanish scientists who protested their government's reductions in science funding (39% drop since 2009).

Scientific philosophy

• On HuffingtonPost, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake writes a commentary on the arrogance of modern science, criticizing materialism and insisting that dogmatic thinking is "crippling" modern science. I disagree with most of what he says; it's overly dramatic, simplistic, and feels like it's pandering to the pseudoscientist crowd (as well as an advertisement for the author's new book). But it's worth reading; is this a pervasive viewpoint?
• For the philosophically inclined, read this. (tl;dr = is science tool-driven or idea-driven??).

Other

• B.R.S.M. has a good post examining a recent essay by Kappe in Angewandte regarding "non-thermal microwave effects" (spoiler: they probably don't exist). See also a simultaneous piece by Tom W. Phillips over at A Chemical Education.
• A criticism on reaction norm about feeble efforts by departments to insist they're preparing students for "alternative careers". The author states that departments and faculty are not in touch with or interested in actually preparing students for non-traditional careers.
• P.Z. Myers gives an account of a saddening (and infuriating) case of a biologist illegally baiting and killing an aging jaguar, then covering it up.
• Really cool guest post at Scicurious about the basics and history of X-ray crystallography.
• STEM education has gotten a lot of attention and advocacy recently, but Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe touts the arts as essential to fueling creativity and cross-fertilizing other skillsets.
• Deirde Lockwood, a chemical oceanography graduate student discusses the increasing time-to-degree for chemists at CENtral Science. She thinks four years is too short, and limiting programs to shorter periods of time would breed easier projects and softer chemists.
• Ronald Breslow dancing to Gangnam Style? Yes, please.

Reading assignments, vol. 3

Some reads from the internet are below. I should have some organic synthesis-oriented post(s) on here this coming week, so for anyone who likes organotrifluoroborates: stay tuned.

Three themes for this week, as discussed below.

Research in practice:

• Quintus at Chemistry Blog comments on the Seven Deadly Sins of Science recently published in an essay in Angewandte Chem. Int. Ed. These should be familiar, and I think they're more common than some people would like to believe. Though I disagree with the blogger and author views that self-plagiarism is not a thing. It is a thing and it's bad. 
• In response to John Ioannidis's recent Nature commentary about conformity and grant funding, Orac at Respectful Insolence has some things to say; he doesn't completely agree with the assertions. Worth reading for anyone who deals with NIH grants or the scarcity of grants in general.
• A really fascinating piece by Christina Agapakis at Scientific American about aesthetics and sensory presentation in science. Not usually a topic we're taught.
• A commentary by David Matthews (not that one) notes that labs with a strong international presence are more productive and more heavily cited.

Science and the public:

• Via Talk Nerdy to Me, a good video commenting on anti-science politicians, including the House Science Committee. One of my favorite topics, so watch it.
• Karen Kashmanian (a dean at the WPI) recommends that science (and access to science via technology) be formally deemed a human right.
• Rebecca Harrington comments on a UC Berkeley study on the dialogue surrounding environmentalism. The rhetoric used to promote environmental protection (i.e. the wording, not necessarily the factual arguments) is critical in shifting conservatives toward environmentalism. Should be of interest to those fighting denialism.
• An excellent post on Slate about the public's perception of conservation and ecology. Turns out white tigers are inbred mutants, and their breeding causes harm to animals as well as depletion of valuable resources otherwise useful for conservation. It's an important read for any scientist or conservationist.

Graduate chemical education:

• Chemjobber points out that now even the higher-ups in ACS are acknowledging that there are way too many chemistry PhDs. In a separate post, other surprising assertions by the ACS leadership are noted.
• An opinion piece by Stacey Patton at the Chronicle of Higher Education (posted also to HuffingtonPost) discusses the combination of student debt and poor employment prospects in the context of graduate school (more geared toward humanities but this applies to science to a degree). She and others recommend that graduate programs warn prospective students and offer guidance.
• A commentary by science writer and Earth science professor Scott K. Johnson makes the case for a different model of science education in order to better teach critical thinking to science and non-science students alike. He argues against the current (failed) paradigm that thinking abilities come as a byproduct (side product?) when you teach the basics. He's right.

Other

• Greg Laden points out the convergence of a fake study and a real study on the conclusion that Fox News viewers are, on average, unintelligent. 
• Because See Arr Oh likes odd things in chemistry, there's a post on Just Like Cooking about the use of Sweet 'n Low in an Org. Lett. procedure. At least it found a use in chemistry, because it tastes gross.
• A brief New Scientist interview with Tom Knight about synthetic biology. On a somewhat related note, see this Scientific American post about complexity in science/engineering.
• Derek Lowe (In the Pipeline) points out a scientist angry to the point of legally claiming defamation over not being awarded the Nobel Prize.
• Chemists generally know about the helium shortage (better learn to do NMR without magnets!). Here's a piece that talks about it on Starts With a Bang.

How's the cure for AIDS coming?

Adam Ruben, contributor of the column Experimental Error for some little journal called Science as well as author of the book Surviving Your Stupid, Stupid Decision to Go to Grad School, has posted this column about triviality in research. It's worth reading, both because it's funny and also because the frustration of "why am I doing this?" is common. It's common at smaller graduate departments, for sure, but even at the Big Universities where they solve Big Problems, there's lots of boring work. And the triviality leads grad students and onlookers to question why we're doing what we are. From the column:

"We’re accused of wasting money, wasting time. Spending 15 years on compounds that no human will ever likely inject or ingest. Studying the dusty corners of the universe but neglecting the bigger picture. Bear DNA. Shrimp on treadmills. The mating habits of screwworms. Writing our obscure little papers in our obscure little journals, blind to the fact that our research will only elucidate the trivial, or, even worse, the obvious. 

Now that the question has been asked, I see this attitude everywhere. Comedians say things like: “This week, scientists at Johns Hopkins University published a study proving that straight men enjoy looking at breasts. Do we really need a study for that?” Or Jay Leno’s snarky reply to research he deems unimportant: “Scientists at UCLA announced they have developed a unicycle for squirrels. Hey guys—how’s that cure for AIDS coming?” 

And that’s where I feel conflicted. Because a part of me acknowledges, sensibly, that a squirrel unicycle is a waste of time and money (though probably darn cute). But another part gets mad, wanting to yell at the TV, “We’re not all working on cures for AIDS, dumbass!” 

Then the first part asks the second part, “Um … why aren’t you?” 

Our kneejerk reflex—and also the usual response of scientific authorities when confronted with a claim that some bit of research is trivial—is to counter that our accuser just doesn’t understand how science works. What if every scientist had been forced to justify his or her wacky-sounding research? 

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek: “Well, I’m looking through pieces of glass at thin slices of cork.” 

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek’s Backwards and Anachronistic Uncle Who Likes AM Talk Radio and Reruns of 7th Heaven: “Hey Antonie, how’s that cure for bodily humor imbalance in black bile coming?”"

The comments from Jay Leno types he points out remind me of Eric Cantor's YouCut Citizen Review (or as it might be better called, Eric Cantor's Intellectual Crime against Humanity). It's a definite problem in science--the idea that taxpayers, as the source of funding, are also the best ones to judge if research is worthwhile. Are they? (Spoiler: no, they aren't).

Anyhow, read the column. And read his other stuff. It's good.