lewin

I love animals (I'm actually playing fetch with my kitten as I type this). I also believe animal research is necessary. It's likely that at some point my collaborators will be testing the (potentially life-saving) compounds I'm developing in animals.

It's a long, LONG and involved process to get a study approved. There's a detailed review to make sure there's NO WAY the research can be performed without the use of animal subjects. The review board will ask why you can't do it in vitro or in flatworms; if you make it past that stage they move to zebrafish, mice... primates are used for research when nothing else will do (and in fact there is no primate research at many universities). Once it's been established that an animal study is necessary, there's a detailed process they go through to plan harm reduction.

As Eigen mentioned, there's also no way you could order a lab mouse "just because." Sure, you could call up the Jackson Laboratory, but they'd refuse to sell to you. They deal directly with the university's animal welfare officer; he's the only one who can place the order, and he must be there when the animals arrive. He's also the one who supervises the implementation of the detailed plan for their welfare, including enrichment activities (yes, even for mice).

When you say "this research," you're talking about something vague and amorphous. This is not scientists hurting animals for giggles. I'm talking about concrete, discrete research projects, investigating compounds or procedures that we have good reason to believe may treat cancer, reduce permanent damage from traumatic brain injury, or otherwise improve quality of life for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people (and animals, for that matter - animal research has led to many advances in veterinary medicine). I'm not saying that the process is ideal, or even always done properly. Obviously (as with everything else in life) there are deviations and times when things aren't done as they should be, but a blanket ban on animal testing/random acts of sabotage aren't the answers.

I wish there was another way. I really do. But sometimes, animal testing is all we've got.

Just out of curiosity, what is your point in posting in this thread? You don't know what the research is, and you have yet to post anything that I would consider constructive, rather resorting to offhand comments.

If we want to study, say, the effects of a new compound on wound healing, or said compounds ability to drive off infection, it will become necessary to study it in an environment that involves actual wounds.

In an academic setting IRB approval will be necessary for any research to take place, and one of the primary things the IRB looks at is necessity of the research, and all possible methods of minimizing the trauma to the animals. Case in point, the research here takes place with the animals under heavy sedation.

Maybe instead of just questioning other points, you could follow the example of Interb and TakeruK and post your opinions on the matter?



Also, I'd love to see some explanation behind what makes vivisection a multi-billion dollar industry.

I assumed that you knew the group worked with animals prior to joining, so something must have convinced you that the research progress is worth it. To me, it sounds like a lot of pros (funding, research you like..etc.) vs one con (ethical principles), especially if you were already able to justify it to yourself.

I don't think the weapons aspect is such a big deal. Of course, I'm assuming that the research have applications outside of military use. Think about all the military implications of the Haber process, and yet it revolutionized the world when it was developed.

I also don't want to sound preachy or like a immoral jerk, but this post might sound that way!

I do not believe there is an absolute right or wrong. I think everyone should make decisions based on their own interpretation of what is right and wrong. That is, just because you (or I, or anyone) believes that X is right, or X is wrong doesn't mean that X is actually right or wrong, it's just right or wrong to you or me. In your shoes, I would feel that the project you described would be against my personal code of ethics and I wouldn't pursue it. However, if you did not feel this way and if doing it makes you happy then that's great for you, go ahead!

As scientists and researchers, I don't think that we have the authority to decide what is right or wrong for the world. I don' think anyone has this authority. The scientist's job is to seek out knowledge. However, we do have the authority to personally decide what is right or wrong for ourselves. So, while I would definitely distance myself from a project as you described, it is because I am personally uncomfortable with it. I wish that kind of research would not happen. But I do not think that it is right for me to impose my ethical code on others, because it is part of my own ethical code to respect the autonomy of others to determine for themselves what is right or wrong (for themselves, but I don't think one's right to follow their own ethical code should be allowed to supercede other people's rights).

What I am saying is that you need to do what makes YOU happy. intrib makes very good points and their words should be used to consider both sides. It sounds like everyone here, including you, is against doing this kind of research, so stand up for what you believe in. But if you had actually felt that this kind of research was okay with you and you would be happier having a funded program than not doing any science at all, then stand up for what you believe in. "Everyone has a price" is a cynical way to view it, but I think it's true. I believe myself to be someone who have mostly made decisions according to my own ethical code, but I can see myself compromising my ethical code if the "price" is high enough (it would have to be something much more valuable than money though, e.g. my family).

Wow. I really hope you don't end up doing this.

To elaborate a bit on this (because I agree with the sentiment if not the format), every job is hard. My grad school colleagues have spouses with "real" jobs who find the grad school complaining really tiresome because their jobs are hard too: unrealistic bosses' expectations, keeping up with ratebusters, long hours, irritating coworkers, competing for raises and promotions, etc. "There is nothing new under the sun..." as the good book says. To succeed in any field requires hard work, ability, and some luck. Your friends might not seem sympathetic because they have the same problems to worry about but with less job security and flexibility. At some point you need to learn how to self-soothe on the day-to-day stuff, and only look for support with the big problems. Me, I drink.*





*Kidding.

Look where profs (esp. assistant profs) earned their terminal degree.

Look. First of all, you need to stop comparing her situation to your own. That's exactly what she is doing, and you don't seem to like it when it's done to you. She seems to think (perhaps incorrectly) that it's better to be apart for extended periods of time than having a constant on-again off-again relationship. I've done long distance and I know it's difficult but I can imagine that the constant and frequent shift in intensities is also no fun in a relationship. Either way, there is no one solution that fits all and you need to stop envying her for her situation, just as you'd like her to stop envying yours.

Same point goes for the sex issue - is she supposed to not have sex with her boyfriend when he visits just because you don't get frequent visits of your own? There is no sensible way to interpret her actions as rude towards you in that regard. The noise issue, on the other hand, is a real problem and I think you should address it. The way to do that is to have a polite conversation where you explain that you're a light sleeper and that she kept you up the other night, along with the remedies that you suggested in your post. At the same time, on your end, you should get your ipod fixed (or leave your computer on, or whatever else works) so you're not completely dependent on her actions, since she doesn't sound like the most considerate person and that's likely not going to change - at least not very quickly. Remember, moving away from home and becoming an independent adult is a process and not a smooth transition.

Careful. Don't ask for anything you can find online (including psycinfo) or you'll look lazy, dumb, or inconsiderate.

Other people addressed some other aspects of the situation, which I tend to agree with. This sounds more like a bad relationship than a bad advisor.

The one point I wanted to make here is that you seem to be a little bit confused about the notion of advising. Yes, it's your work, but it directly reflects on your advisor if she lets it leave from under her hands and be published or submitted as a graduate thesis with her blessing. If she has concerns about your work, she can and should bring them up and insist that you fix the problems. If the relationship is healthy, you should be able to discuss the issues with her and agree on a course of action. You should understand why she asks you to make certain changes and you should be able to communicate any reservations you may have. Mind you, you might not always agree and in that case, it may just be that you have to do things her way because the buck stops with her and not with you, so to speak.

Given your description of not meeting your advisor's expectations for work times and taking the work seriously, and for needing a different kind of mentoring than she is giving you (i.e., more positive criticism), I think that your relationship is probably not the best. Since you're three years in and it sounds like you are close to finishing the degree, I would argue that it's a more reasonable course of action to do your best to manage the situation and get out of it with the degree, rather than start over with a new advisor - even if it means you have to compromise on some things.

I generally wouldn't email them unless I had a genuine question. Usually they list that on the website so that they aren't bombarded by prospective students, and some professors don't like being emailed ahead of time. The main thing to know is that they're taking a student. If you genuinely like their research, apply, and they will review your application come December.

lewin00--yeah, I'm already thinking about that.

The car is a difficult situation, especially as winter sets in (I mean, it's just kind of mean to ask her to walk in the cold). I can tune her out for the ten minutes it takes to walk to the car and drive home.

As for the other situation... yes, I have stood my ground. So today I told her that I haven't done the readings and don't plan to until early next week. I asked her if she had talked to the professor and her advisor. I tell her I don't know as much as others (which is certainly true), and refer her to others.

I don't know. I try to be a good person and help others when I can.

To add to the chorus, I also find that wine makes the marking go down easier; course reading too. Anything that's mindless. Writing and lab work, however, take coffee.

Participants are usually assured of their confidentiality and it would be a serious breech of that trust if your RA friend disclosed sensitive health information about a participant to his coaches. I really, really hope that didn't happen. If I were the player and lost my scholarship because of that, I would take my consent form where it says "your responses will be kept confidential", march over to a lawyer, and sue their asses.


....other examples, I have none.

I'm intuiting that people have different definitions of "exclusion" and I'm curious about that. Grad school is less like undergrad and more like a workplace. Some people might want to take that relationship social but others don't and I don't think that's exclusionary. You can be professional and collaborative without being exclusionary. I'm probably jumping to conclusions but when I read "happy and bubbly" I picture the people who drop by my office and want to visit for an hour while I'm trying to work. Same with wanting to talk about cats instead of studies. I have much love for cats too, but maybe people talk about studies while they're at work because they want to be productive. I try to save that stuff for outside the office.

Here's a somewhat hyperbolic claim: Once you're a grown up there's no such thing as social exclusion (see Geek Social Fallacies 1 and 5). There are people I don't like and I don't invite them to parties. There are people who do weird research or who might require too much handholding and we don't collaborate. That is not exclusionary. Grad school doesn't come with an obligation to be friends with anyone or work with anyone. (That said, my dearest friends in the world, some of whom are also collaborators, are grad school friends.)

Limited exception to above: It's rude to flaunt it (e.g., throw party, talk about it in front of the uninvited person) but that's outside the bounds of normal behaviour; here I assume that grown ups act politely.

I'm intuiting that people have different definitions of "exclusion" and I'm curious about that. Grad school is less like undergrad and more like a workplace. Some people might want to take that relationship social but others don't and I don't think that's exclusionary. You can be professional and collaborative without being exclusionary. I'm probably jumping to conclusions but when I read "happy and bubbly" I picture the people who drop by my office and want to visit for an hour while I'm trying to work. Same with wanting to talk about cats instead of studies. I have much love for cats too, but maybe people talk about studies while they're at work because they want to be productive. I try to save that stuff for outside the office.

Here's a somewhat hyperbolic claim: Once you're a grown up there's no such thing as social exclusion (see Geek Social Fallacies 1 and 5). There are people I don't like and I don't invite them to parties. There are people who do weird research or who might require too much handholding and we don't collaborate. That is not exclusionary. Grad school doesn't come with an obligation to be friends with anyone or work with anyone. (That said, my dearest friends in the world, some of whom are also collaborators, are grad school friends.)

Limited exception to above: It's rude to flaunt it (e.g., throw party, talk about it in front of the uninvited person) but that's outside the bounds of normal behaviour; here I assume that grown ups act politely.

I'm intuiting that people have different definitions of "exclusion" and I'm curious about that. Grad school is less like undergrad and more like a workplace. Some people might want to take that relationship social but others don't and I don't think that's exclusionary. You can be professional and collaborative without being exclusionary. I'm probably jumping to conclusions but when I read "happy and bubbly" I picture the people who drop by my office and want to visit for an hour while I'm trying to work. Same with wanting to talk about cats instead of studies. I have much love for cats too, but maybe people talk about studies while they're at work because they want to be productive. I try to save that stuff for outside the office.

Here's a somewhat hyperbolic claim: Once you're a grown up there's no such thing as social exclusion (see Geek Social Fallacies 1 and 5). There are people I don't like and I don't invite them to parties. There are people who do weird research or who might require too much handholding and we don't collaborate. That is not exclusionary. Grad school doesn't come with an obligation to be friends with anyone or work with anyone. (That said, my dearest friends in the world, some of whom are also collaborators, are grad school friends.)

Limited exception to above: It's rude to flaunt it (e.g., throw party, talk about it in front of the uninvited person) but that's outside the bounds of normal behaviour; here I assume that grown ups act politely.

^ Socks and belt are key. I recently made my boyfriend replace his green Moosehead beer belt with a nice brown leather one, he's a working professional now. And white socks with nice shoes just look terrible.

I'm intuiting that people have different definitions of "exclusion" and I'm curious about that. Grad school is less like undergrad and more like a workplace. Some people might want to take that relationship social but others don't and I don't think that's exclusionary. You can be professional and collaborative without being exclusionary. I'm probably jumping to conclusions but when I read "happy and bubbly" I picture the people who drop by my office and want to visit for an hour while I'm trying to work. Same with wanting to talk about cats instead of studies. I have much love for cats too, but maybe people talk about studies while they're at work because they want to be productive. I try to save that stuff for outside the office.

Here's a somewhat hyperbolic claim: Once you're a grown up there's no such thing as social exclusion (see Geek Social Fallacies 1 and 5). There are people I don't like and I don't invite them to parties. There are people who do weird research or who might require too much handholding and we don't collaborate. That is not exclusionary. Grad school doesn't come with an obligation to be friends with anyone or work with anyone. (That said, my dearest friends in the world, some of whom are also collaborators, are grad school friends.)

Limited exception to above: It's rude to flaunt it (e.g., throw party, talk about it in front of the uninvited person) but that's outside the bounds of normal behaviour; here I assume that grown ups act politely.

If the textbooks are not missing pages or otherwise defective/damaged in a way that wasn't apparent when you sold them, I don't see why you should even bother responding. The fact that she doesn't want the textbook anymore is in no way your responsibility.

You have a scholarship that specifically pays application fees? That's intriguing. Though also consider the time involved; it's better to customize 10 great applications than half-ass 25. (If you have time and money to do 25 great ones, more power to you.) My own strategy was 3 dream schools, 5 realistic ones I'd still love to attend, and 3 that I'd attend but weren't great fits.

To elaborate a bit on this (because I agree with the sentiment if not the format), every job is hard. My grad school colleagues have spouses with "real" jobs who find the grad school complaining really tiresome because their jobs are hard too: unrealistic bosses' expectations, keeping up with ratebusters, long hours, irritating coworkers, competing for raises and promotions, etc. "There is nothing new under the sun..." as the good book says. To succeed in any field requires hard work, ability, and some luck. Your friends might not seem sympathetic because they have the same problems to worry about but with less job security and flexibility. At some point you need to learn how to self-soothe on the day-to-day stuff, and only look for support with the big problems. Me, I drink.*





*Kidding.

To elaborate a bit on this (because I agree with the sentiment if not the format), every job is hard. My grad school colleagues have spouses with "real" jobs who find the grad school complaining really tiresome because their jobs are hard too: unrealistic bosses' expectations, keeping up with ratebusters, long hours, irritating coworkers, competing for raises and promotions, etc. "There is nothing new under the sun..." as the good book says. To succeed in any field requires hard work, ability, and some luck. Your friends might not seem sympathetic because they have the same problems to worry about but with less job security and flexibility. At some point you need to learn how to self-soothe on the day-to-day stuff, and only look for support with the big problems. Me, I drink.*





*Kidding.

A 'title' will come after the project is determined. A 'topic' is a whole other giant bubbly kettle of fish... (wait, bubbling fish in a kettle is horrible!) ...back to the topic.

I don't think we can come up with a topic for you. This is something that you, along with your supervisor, should come up with. However, we can offer you some steps to forming an interesting and needed question.

The first step would be to do a broad search of the literature in the area you are interested in. Since you're proposing a HUGE area, the first step would be to narrow it down to a sub-focus of Israel-Palestine conflict...is there something specific about this topic that you're interested in? Political climate? Economic impact? Longterm health impact? etc...What about this topic interests you. Once you narrow down that area, it's time to do a more specific literature search. Look for articles that have done research in the area, and focus in on what they are saying are the gaps. Reading 5-7 articles and looking at the limitations and future recommendation sections will help you see where more work needs to be done!

I would try and generate 2-3 potential thesis topics and present them to your advisor. This will allow you to get their opinion on the most reasonable and realistic project!

I'm confused. Do you want a title or a topic? A title would come pretty easily once you know what your project is about. Other people can't really give you a topic, especially in grad school. Part of the advanced degree is the ability to come up with a good question or perspective. Read lots of papers that are similar to what you have in mind, and see what they talk about. Does this spark any ideas for you?