lrlrlrlrlr

I am writing a review article with 2 others in my lab. The review is an invited review my PI told us about. The PI said we can split it into 3 parts and each write our section. The thing that concerns me is, there was no discussion of authorship. The PI will probably be last, but I don't know what will happen with the 3 of us. One person is one of the PI's favorites. This person already has 4 first author papers in the lab and has only been a member for 2 years. Everyone else in the lab things the PI will make this person first author again. I don't have any first author papers and would like to be first for this since I'm finishing my PhD and need it more than the other person. In past situations of people writing papers in the lab, the PI decided the authors before submission and didn't say anything to them before submission, and a few people have gotten very upset about their positions. My question is how should this have been handled? Is it the PI's responsibility to say who will be first second etc. before we started writing? Should I say something?

I wish I had a saying. I'm no senior person...just a grad student. A bunch of us don't like the long frequent lab meetings. We've tried suggesting different formats like shorter or less frequent meetings but the PI said No. People fall asleep in them or just stare into space. There are only a couple of people who talk a lot in the meetings and enjoy them. The other day, I couldn't take it any longer after 1 hour and got so restless. But I think it's partially an issue with me because I cannot sit still and I just hate sitting. I have restless leg syndrome and need to be moving around a lot.

Sounds like you guys have better setups than my group. Some people have tried to make suggestions, such as shortening the meetings, having them less often, but the PI won't budge. I think if we had a big group meeting once a week for one hour MAXIMUM, it would be bearable. I am not a senior person, so I have no control over the meetings. I'm just a grad student. The only thing I can control is how I run my meeting. When I present, I make sure everything I show will take less than an hour. I try to present clear slides and give good background and focus on a particular aspect of my project for the meeting. I don't cram in every result of like 3 different projects (several people do this and it's terrible). I don't want to waste peoples' time. So for now that's the best I could do. Some people have told me they like how I give my presentations, so I guess I'm doing ok at trying to make it a not so dreadful experience on my turn.. I still really dislike lab meetings. Some of us have actually started skipping them every now and then, or leaving them early or coming into them late because we have more important things to do. I am glad I have started doing this too, because I have gotten so much more work done and more data (a big plus for when it's my turn to present). And I finish all my work by a reasonable time, so I can leave not too late and maintain my fitness goals. It's time I take control of my PhD, and set my own time to do what I need to get done in order to finish by my completion point, and I have decided not to waste my time sitting for 4 hours per week in stupid waste-of-time meetings.

Lab Meetings. In my lab we have 2 of these dreaded meetings per week, from 9-11am. My PI is adamant that we have these meetings. One day someone presents all their data in an uncountable number of sloppily-put together powerpoint slides, and on the other meeting day 2 people have to do this, the idea being each person does a "mini" presentation but they have evolved to be 2 regular meetings crammed into one. Most people don't get anything out of them, peoples' presentations get stalled because of too many questions, comments and criticisms that lead to off-topic discussions, people sleep/play on their phones, and most people don't really care what other people are working on. And the time..4 hours wasted per week. And the sitting! I hate all the sitting! I can't sit still for more than an hour. I find i am just spending the time thinking about al the things i need/want to do related to my own project. On days we have these meetings my day is screwed: I can't get everything done by a reasonable time, I'm exhausted from 2 hours of sitting, and forget working out- that won't happen. When we don't have lab meetings I get so much more done and can leave early enough that I have time to workout and cook a nice meal for dinner. We have small group meetings once a week, where a few people working on a similar topic meet with the PI and we all discuss data/the field. These are much more helpful and worth it. I'm curious, does anybody like lab meetings or get anything useful out of them? What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the resources! I've also heard positive things about the programming tutorials on CodeAcademy, I may take a short crash course on a language before moving on to a MOOC on bioinformatics

I'm pretty sure if I had initially mentioned organic, gluten-free or paleo diets, your responses would have been quite different. This stems from the idea that our society as a whole is under the impression that we not allowed to criticize religion, that doing so is taboo, that it is perfectly fine for it to be inaccessible to scrutiny from thinking folks. As I've made it obvious, I don't think this is right. In fact, as a society, i think we need to be criticizing it much more than it is currently being done, just like we need to pay attention and be critical of our governments, politicians, domestic policies and foreign relations. It doesn't matter if a religious diet is healthy overall, there are nonreligious diets that are healthy too, what matters is that there is always a differential between the two regarding how often they are criticized and the types of responses to said criticisms, and I'll leave it at that.

I don't think the car is a suitable comparative base. Cars are made by humans, and experimental work has been done to determine the kinds of fuels that are best for different cars. We know how cars work, we know they are real and humans are real. This doesn't translate when it comes to the existence of a god. Organized religion is potentially dangerous because it has the power to enslave the people with its propaganda by telling them what they are supposed to believe, and uses dietary laws as one of the tools to achieve this goal. What baffles me is that the masses are so quick to criticize diets when GMOs or gluten are involved yet it seems nobody says a thing to criticize diets when religion is involved.

Is anyone here trained as a biologist and transitioned from doing traditional experimental bench work to bioinformatics to computational/systems biology? I am asking because I am finding out that I am developing more of an interest in human genetics and immunology and it seems there is a demand for scientists who are trained in biology and computer science. I read this article: https://caseybergman.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/top-n-reasons-to-do-a-ph-d-or-post-doc-in-bioinformaticscomputational-biology/ I was wondering, if you have made this transition how did you do it? Did you already have a computer background? I tried asking some people at my research institute but it seems nobody knows anything about the intersection of the two, and are just more medically and biologically trained. Pretty much everyone in the lab just has basic knowledge when it comes to computers, and my advisor types with 1 finger lol. I don't know anything about computer science and have no programming background, and have about 2 years left of my PhD. Is it too late for me to think about exploring this to see if I like it, since I should start looking at postdocs in a year or so? Maybe I should have posted this in "the menu" but it looks like people check "research" more often and I figured I'd have a higher probability of someone replying to this posted here.

I am a foodie. I enjoy cooking and trying all different kinds of foods, and one of my biggest pet peeves is diets that are not based on logic and reason but are based on religion (kosher, halal, no meat on fridays etc). I understand someone not wanting to eat something because of animal welfare, not enjoying the taste, or an allergy..but never eating something because some book says "no"? Come on.

I would recommend Airvoice Wireless. They are a no-contract provider on AT&T's network, so you have the option to use whatever phone you desire. I'm using an iPhone 4 at the moment. I have the $30/month plan which includes unlimited talk, text and 1GB data. They don't charge taxes either, so whatever price the plan is is what you would pay. Stay away from Virgin mobile, or anything that uses Sprint's network.

Unfortunately, I don't know a single person who is American and went to another country to do their postdoc or settle in their career =/ As well, most of the researchers in my institution are foreigners who came to the US to do research. So, settling up a panel discussion with Americans who worked outside the US probably won't happen. I would like a postdoc in Canada, for personal reasons (my husband does not want to stay/live in the US) he is European, and Europe is a bit too far from my family so we compromised on Canada; he's lived there and likes it there too. I just don't have any idea what the job market is like there for biomedical researchers, and if I should worry. We talked about me finding a permanent position there after a postdoc too, but like I said I have no idea of the level of competition there is for an American moving there as well as the funding for sciences. I think I would be happy career wise teaching biological/medical sciences to undergrads at a small liberal arts college, and maintaining a small research program mentoring those kinds of students. Takeruk, you are Canadian, do you know of any resources for me to look into for establishing a career there? I know of the Fulbright fellowship, but I'm sure there are more I don't know about. You can PM me if you want

You know, tons of non-US PhDs come to the US to do their postdoctoral training, and there is tons of information and resources out there on making this kind of career move. Yet it seems like NOBODY talks about the reverse - American PhDs doing their postdoctoral training abroad! It's so biased - at many career development events, International students coming to the US is often given considerable discussion yet the reverse is completely ignored. Why?

Some people I work with do everyday and read at least one paper a day, I know others as well who went through their phd having read very few papers.

America's 2-party political system Large vehicles (jeeps, trucks/SUVs) Spongebob Squarepants Walmart Chain restaurants including but not limited to: Crapplebees, Dead Lobster, OutCrap Steakhouse, Olive Garbage (really hate chain italian places claiming that they are "authentic")

I make an effort to work out a few times a week - whether it's going for a run, bike riding or hitting the gym. When I go to the gym, I attend the group classes and prefer kickboxing and zumba type workouts. When I run, it is generally short (less than 5K). I am a fan of intense cardio style workouts. If I don't get a chance to work out after leaving lab, I just take the stairs up to the parking garage which is 6 flights up rather than take the elevator. I noticed that when I go a few days without exercising at all, I start to feel crappy and tired and have less energy throughout the day. Most of the people in my lab don't work out and when they complain they are tired, have headaches, need more coffee etc.. I suggest brief exercise, even if it's for 10 minutes in the evening. In terms of food, I eat whatever I want. I am not a very picky eater. I am slender and have been the same weight since high school. I'm itching to go for a jog or something now but it's snowing outside..