aberrant

Talk to your advisor.  Talk to your advisor. Talk to your advisor. Talk to other students in your department (in my department proposals are defended so by the time I did mine I had read several proposals). The theoretical framework should illustrate your choice for this particular topic. Since you don't provide any information, I'll work with what you gave us.  Frame your question within the literature. Who has done what? What have they argued? How does this research help us better answer this question? Frame your methods within the literature. Interviews can look very differently from study to study. Who are you going to interview? What questions are you going to make? Are you going to record these interviews? Do you need IRB approval? How has your field used interviews? How has the literature of your topic used interviews? How will you recollect, store, and process data?  Frame your questions beyond your field, if possible. Eg. If you work on migration and you are in polisci, how would your question help other scholars of migrations beyond polisci (anthropologists, for example)? Why would anyone read your research? What's novel about it? Hope this helps. 
   

I've been living in San Francisco for 3, almost 4 years now and I have a dog. I would say the best area to find pet friendly housing in San Francisco is the Sunset (very dog friendly, basically everyone has a dog) and the apartments here are more likely to be within that price range - also look into in-law apartments, they tend to rent a bit cheaper. The best time for housing listings I would say is in November and in May. That seems to be the time when people are trying to fill their leases. 

Yes, much more difficult for intl students because of lack of recognition of international schools outside of top 20 schools such as Oxford, Cambridge, etc. We also get many students from developing countries who turn out to be complete busts because of the poor preparation they received in their home country or failure to adjust to cultural differences.

OP, I was in the almost-exactly-the-same situation, except, I was a postdoc and then there was the 1st year student.
At some point, during your Ph.D. (especially if you are in STEM with wet lab stuff), you are going to learned and realized that your priority is to complete a certain task (i.e. an experiment) before the day ends. That priority will be placed above you taking the initiative and teaching a new member/rotation student in the lab to do something that you do routinely. Having said that, I used to wait until a new member of the lab to show up, and then show them what experiment(s) I'm doing now/next -- not anymore. Because I realized 2 things:
1) it is to my own interest to complete my task ASAP, and there is absolutely no reason to hinder my own experiment/schedule for someone who isn't part of the project (unless I was instructed by my PI that this someone has to learn this experiment ASAP), and
2) I am not the parent of this new member -- I have no obligation to tell this student that "hey, I'm gonna do this now" for every experiment that I do, all day, 7 days a week.
That being said, my expectation (and my PI agrees) is the new student need to be proactive -- taking the initiative to shadow / learn from anyone in the lab (not just me). Others maybe busy, but scientists typically are happy to talk about their research/work, or demonstrate what they are doing to someone who is genuine interested, and seemingly passionate about their work.
The student that was in the lab was quiet and all. In the first week, I showed this student what (most of the) experiments I do, and the student get their hands on. After the first week or so, I started conducting the experiments at my own pace and schedule. I was expecting that the student would either follow up with the things that we did, or ask and/or shadow what I (or anyone in the lab) were doing. Instead of showing interest to learn what everyone was doing, this student sat and their desk quietly the whole time, for the whole week. They came in, sit at the desk, and left however many hours later. From the my perspective, this student isn't interested in what we are doing, to say the least. Granted that this student claimed they were interested in our work, but had absolutely no experience on any experiments that we do regularly.
In contrast, high school students and undergrads who I worked with were all passionate about everything that we did, and they typically stick around the lab long enough to have their own projects and go from there.

OP, I was in the almost-exactly-the-same situation, except, I was a postdoc and then there was the 1st year student.
At some point, during your Ph.D. (especially if you are in STEM with wet lab stuff), you are going to learned and realized that your priority is to complete a certain task (i.e. an experiment) before the day ends. That priority will be placed above you taking the initiative and teaching a new member/rotation student in the lab to do something that you do routinely. Having said that, I used to wait until a new member of the lab to show up, and then show them what experiment(s) I'm doing now/next -- not anymore. Because I realized 2 things:
1) it is to my own interest to complete my task ASAP, and there is absolutely no reason to hinder my own experiment/schedule for someone who isn't part of the project (unless I was instructed by my PI that this someone has to learn this experiment ASAP), and
2) I am not the parent of this new member -- I have no obligation to tell this student that "hey, I'm gonna do this now" for every experiment that I do, all day, 7 days a week.
That being said, my expectation (and my PI agrees) is the new student need to be proactive -- taking the initiative to shadow / learn from anyone in the lab (not just me). Others maybe busy, but scientists typically are happy to talk about their research/work, or demonstrate what they are doing to someone who is genuine interested, and seemingly passionate about their work.
The student that was in the lab was quiet and all. In the first week, I showed this student what (most of the) experiments I do, and the student get their hands on. After the first week or so, I started conducting the experiments at my own pace and schedule. I was expecting that the student would either follow up with the things that we did, or ask and/or shadow what I (or anyone in the lab) were doing. Instead of showing interest to learn what everyone was doing, this student sat and their desk quietly the whole time, for the whole week. They came in, sit at the desk, and left however many hours later. From the my perspective, this student isn't interested in what we are doing, to say the least. Granted that this student claimed they were interested in our work, but had absolutely no experience on any experiments that we do regularly.
In contrast, high school students and undergrads who I worked with were all passionate about everything that we did, and they typically stick around the lab long enough to have their own projects and go from there.

Update for those following this:
I went for my morning meeting, and sat somewhere else. I purposely placed myself near the female professors. Got a raised eyebrow from one but I just shrugged it off.
After the meeting, one of the senior PIs I sat next to asked if everything was fine. She said I hadn't said a word during the meeting and had moved to sit with the "older and more senior people" instead of hanging out where the grad students tend to sit. She also mentioned that I had uncapped and capped my pen "over a hundred times" throughout the one hour meeting and hadn't taken any notes, which seemed to her like I was terribly anxious (she's a psychiatrist) and I was usually pretty chilled. She said she was annoyed at the pen uncapping and capping at first but when it continued she thought this was more than just "usual graduate student tics, idiosyncrasies, and anxiety."
I pretty much wanted to cry right there. Mostly because I have been dreading this meeting. I think she is probably very well-trained to know when someone's going to cry so she asked me to go to her office with her.
I told her pretty much everything. And she flipped. She started cursing. I've never seen this professor frazzled. But she then said she would talk to the other PIs/co-investigators if I was fine with that, and would move towards removing him from the team and said "We can always get another investigator from that area. There's several other guys I know."
In the meantime though, she said I didn't have to attend the meetings until he is gone. They won't penalise me.
I am so relieved! And I ate about a pound of chocolate so I'm now sick to the pit of my stomach and sugar high. But that's okay. :-)

I am little new in this... I want to wait a little to get all this.

I would say that you should consider taking biology, chemistry, calculus, and physics courses in community college first. Then maybe you can take a few upper division bio classes that are required for a typical biology major at a 4-year university, and look for research opportunity at the same time.
You can try to look for lab assistant / research assistant position as a start. It should be relatively easy to find one if you are in Greater Boston area, or if you can commute to Boston/Cambridge. Otherwise, you still may have a chance to find the same kind of position at a nearby research university/ies.
I don't think that a science degree is absolutely a must if you can show that you have mastered the scientific knowledge that is expected to have from a bachelor degree holder. Typically, it can be proven by doing well in courses and, especially in situations like yours, an outstanding subject GRE test score.

Same here. All we need are... friends. 

I moved from the most southwest end of the country to the most southeast end of the country.
 
- Sold / gave away my furnitures
- Sold large electronics/appliances
- Sold books that I don't need to carry with me
- Shipped books, a bike, some clothes, small electronics to the new location by UPS (gathered boxes from my research building)
- Flew myself to the new location
 
I know two friends of mine who are also from the same state to where I am -- they drove all the way to here, with their books, clothes, and electronics (specifically computer and peripherals).
 
There is another thread about how to reduce costs to move cross-country, coast-to-coast. Just look it up.

Thank you for your reply. I just got an offer from a professor in Queen's University. They offer minimum stipend at 23,000 a year. This professor seems to have quite good connection to the US which might be great for my post-doc afterward. After the interview, it looks like he wanted to pin me down as soon as possible but I am still keeping hope on other US schools, so a little worried.

It's 3 am and I'm most definitely getting viral infection in my throat. So I do apologized if I'm repeating myself in the following message...
I think that there are too many reasons why people dropping out of grad schools. So I wouldn't read too much on that.
Whether that program is top 5 or top 500, I think the first and foremost question(s) that you have to ask yourself is/are "can this PhD in Chemistry / <insert a noun for a specific subfield of> Chemistry take me to where I want to be, or what I want to do", and/or the equivalence of "do I need this degree to become <insert a word/line/sentence/description of your ideal career". I was a quasi-traditional grad school applicant, because I took sometime off during my undergraduate studies (not between undergrad and grad but in the middle of undergrad). Now that I am near the end of my grad school training, I still am working towards my career goal that absolutely requires a PhD, which means that I have no other options to begin with (but I enjoy it quite a lot of what I have been doing in grad school, so I'm not really complaining). I can only imagine that most people who are on the same boat would feel the same/similar way, and completely opposite for the ones who went to grad school for 'wrong' reasons (the word 'wrong' is completely subjective here).
I just think that before committing your next 4-6 years in graduate school, which may (or may not) take you steps closer to your career goal, you definitely should consider all the possible options. Would you be happy doing those experiments/research that you are less/not interested in? Would you rather spend 4-6 years in grad school before a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program, or straight to a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program? How about spending 7-9 years in a joint PhD-MPH / PhD-JD programs? (Noticed that the game plan here influence on how much of tuition fees you have to pay out-of-pocket / from student loan, assuming that you are not awarding any sorts of scholarships / fellowships. To my understanding, any PhD / joint PhD programs have tuition waivers. I know people who are/were in PhD-MD and PhD-MBA programs do not have to pay 'anything' -- just like many other PhD students -- but either take longer years or have a crazy, fully packed schedule.)
It is also a great start to look into funding opportunities that fund JD / MPH programs (if any). I most definitely understand that possible debt situation that you may get into. Hence the above questions/suggestions that I would guide you towards to. (Don't forget that time can be expensive, too!)
Good luck!

It's 3 am and I'm most definitely getting viral infection in my throat. So I do apologized if I'm repeating myself in the following message...
I think that there are too many reasons why people dropping out of grad schools. So I wouldn't read too much on that.
Whether that program is top 5 or top 500, I think the first and foremost question(s) that you have to ask yourself is/are "can this PhD in Chemistry / <insert a noun for a specific subfield of> Chemistry take me to where I want to be, or what I want to do", and/or the equivalence of "do I need this degree to become <insert a word/line/sentence/description of your ideal career". I was a quasi-traditional grad school applicant, because I took sometime off during my undergraduate studies (not between undergrad and grad but in the middle of undergrad). Now that I am near the end of my grad school training, I still am working towards my career goal that absolutely requires a PhD, which means that I have no other options to begin with (but I enjoy it quite a lot of what I have been doing in grad school, so I'm not really complaining). I can only imagine that most people who are on the same boat would feel the same/similar way, and completely opposite for the ones who went to grad school for 'wrong' reasons (the word 'wrong' is completely subjective here).
I just think that before committing your next 4-6 years in graduate school, which may (or may not) take you steps closer to your career goal, you definitely should consider all the possible options. Would you be happy doing those experiments/research that you are less/not interested in? Would you rather spend 4-6 years in grad school before a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program, or straight to a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program? How about spending 7-9 years in a joint PhD-MPH / PhD-JD programs? (Noticed that the game plan here influence on how much of tuition fees you have to pay out-of-pocket / from student loan, assuming that you are not awarding any sorts of scholarships / fellowships. To my understanding, any PhD / joint PhD programs have tuition waivers. I know people who are/were in PhD-MD and PhD-MBA programs do not have to pay 'anything' -- just like many other PhD students -- but either take longer years or have a crazy, fully packed schedule.)
It is also a great start to look into funding opportunities that fund JD / MPH programs (if any). I most definitely understand that possible debt situation that you may get into. Hence the above questions/suggestions that I would guide you towards to. (Don't forget that time can be expensive, too!)
Good luck!

It's 3 am and I'm most definitely getting viral infection in my throat. So I do apologized if I'm repeating myself in the following message...
I think that there are too many reasons why people dropping out of grad schools. So I wouldn't read too much on that.
Whether that program is top 5 or top 500, I think the first and foremost question(s) that you have to ask yourself is/are "can this PhD in Chemistry / <insert a noun for a specific subfield of> Chemistry take me to where I want to be, or what I want to do", and/or the equivalence of "do I need this degree to become <insert a word/line/sentence/description of your ideal career". I was a quasi-traditional grad school applicant, because I took sometime off during my undergraduate studies (not between undergrad and grad but in the middle of undergrad). Now that I am near the end of my grad school training, I still am working towards my career goal that absolutely requires a PhD, which means that I have no other options to begin with (but I enjoy it quite a lot of what I have been doing in grad school, so I'm not really complaining). I can only imagine that most people who are on the same boat would feel the same/similar way, and completely opposite for the ones who went to grad school for 'wrong' reasons (the word 'wrong' is completely subjective here).
I just think that before committing your next 4-6 years in graduate school, which may (or may not) take you steps closer to your career goal, you definitely should consider all the possible options. Would you be happy doing those experiments/research that you are less/not interested in? Would you rather spend 4-6 years in grad school before a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program, or straight to a 4-year JD / 2-year MPH program? How about spending 7-9 years in a joint PhD-MPH / PhD-JD programs? (Noticed that the game plan here influence on how much of tuition fees you have to pay out-of-pocket / from student loan, assuming that you are not awarding any sorts of scholarships / fellowships. To my understanding, any PhD / joint PhD programs have tuition waivers. I know people who are/were in PhD-MD and PhD-MBA programs do not have to pay 'anything' -- just like many other PhD students -- but either take longer years or have a crazy, fully packed schedule.)
It is also a great start to look into funding opportunities that fund JD / MPH programs (if any). I most definitely understand that possible debt situation that you may get into. Hence the above questions/suggestions that I would guide you towards to. (Don't forget that time can be expensive, too!)
Good luck!

Personally, as a Chemistry major back in undergrad, I think your trend of GPA means more than your current GPA. That being said, if you think you messed up this semester, just make sure you will bring up your GPA next year, and avoid taking classes that you think it may hurt your GPA before your application cycle (drop it if you think you cannot handle it). While it may seem to be a reasonable thing to do summer internship and such, unless it is a REU, I would rather stay in the same lab and work through your undergrad as time progress. Keep in mind that not too many undergraduates get publication to begin with (depending on the field and PI's perspective on who/how should I get his/her name on a paper), let alone getting a paper published in fewer semesters working in the lab. For that, I would recommend you stick around the lab and push your project further whenever you can -- unless you are not interested in your current research. At the same time, try to network with other professors who run their own labs -- you will want to have good recommendation letters from those individuals who can evaluate your ability to succeed in grad school.
While I'm not sure what discipline of Chemistry you are focusing on, when I was a "general" Chemistry major, calculus plays a huge role in a lot of upper division courses. If it isn't your thing, you definitely want to polish the basics up. If biochemistry isn't your major requirement, nor you are applying to analytical chemistry program with some emphasis on biomolecules (i.e. HDX-MS and such), I won't bother retaking it -- better spend my time elsewhere worthwhile. You don't have to be a perfect student in every aspect of Chemistry, you just need to be great at a discipline, or two, or three. However, if you think that you need to master that knowledge, you can self-taught or retake the class when time is available (on top of your research commitment and fulfill other course requirements for your degree).
Finally, it takes extra effort to fail a class in grad school even in top tier programs. For me, I didn't bother enough to try it.

You're welcome. Regarding your summer plan -- go check out other NSF-funded REU programs (https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/list_result.jsp?unitid=5048), both at universities and at national labs. Check and see if MSU has a REU program -- apply there if they do. If you get in one of those, assuming you are doing fine in the REU, your (future) PI during the REU will immediately be your LOR for graduate school. I know enough kids (undergrads at my current school) who did a REU at "university X", apply to that school's PhD program, and got accepted -- both Chemistry and Biology. It can only help your admission unless you figuratively set the world (or campus) on fire.
REU pays for your lodging and a program-long stipend, too. Relative to a publication as an undergrad, getting into REU is more achievable. Apply a couple (or more) programs while you can. The deadlines are coming up in January / February, which is program/location-dependent.
Good luck!
 
Update: MSU does have a REU (https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/web/reu/). Although it may not necessarily exactly in analytical chem, but I would imagine that getting into that REU can only build your network in that department (of chemistry), and it can only help your admission profile.

Just wanted to point out that the word plugin for Mendeley can do what @Butterfly_effect was looking for. That being said, Mendeley can also automatically arrange/adjust the order of citation in bibliography (that is journal / citation format-dependent. You can change your format from 1 journal [e.g. Nature] to another [e.g. PNAS] in a few clicks.)

In my field, you definitely need to ask and make it as widely known as possible that you are seeking a postdoctoral position (without being annoying). I've been doing this for the last couple of months now! I agree with what fuzzy said, and cold emailing people I don't know is something I've done a bunch now. Here's the format I use and seems to work well:
(these aren't really the words I use, I just made them up now and you can make it sound nicer, the point is just to show the structure and the content)
Dear Prof. X,
My name is TakeruK and I am in the final year of my PhD in Planetary Science at University ABC with Professor XYZ. My thesis work has been in [...no more than 2 sentences].
I am applying for postdoctoral positions to start in Fall 2017 and I am interested in [....summarize your postdoc research interests/proposal in 2-3 sentences.]
I would be interested in working with you on these proposals. [maybe a sentence here about why they are a great fit for you.] If you're interested, I would love to chat with you [on skype, or at the upcoming meeting, etc.] briefly about potential postdoc opportunities in your group and/or [their department].
[[I don't usually attach any CV or other information, but if it's normal in your field to do so, then you could attach one. Otherwise I wait until they ask for one.]]
----
In my field, the order of applications are TT and fellowship postdocs first (these are generally due Oct/November), then non-fellowship postdoc (i.e. you're hired to do a specific project that the supervisor advertises instead of doing your own proposal) later on, usually not until February/March.
Also, in my field, it's common to visit the schools you're really excited about a postdoc position. This year, I picked 3 places/cities and got myself invited** to give talks--some are formal seminars but many others are just informal talks at a group meeting or a lunch seminar series. At each city, I picked a couple of schools in the area to visit and present my research. This makes it a lot easier to "cold-email" someone about a postdoc position because you can also say that you are visiting on X date to give a talk titled Y and that you would love to meet with them while you are there etc. This also makes the other person more interested in you because it shows you are interested enough to go to their institution (i.e. you're serious about a postdoc there) and you're more likely to get their time.
** I got some invitations by hinting to some professors at conferences earlier this year that I'm on the job market and they invited me to come give a talk. For other places, my advisor told me that they are willing to spend money to send me so I wrote to people who are in charge of the seminars and said something like "I'm going to be in town, are there any opportunities to give a seminar, etc." The three places I chose to visit all had people I already knew there, but for some other students, having your advisor contact their colleague in X department can help you get invited too.

I cold-emailed some people when I was about to graduate to ask about postdoc positions, but they were all people who I knew to some extent (as in, I met them at conferences at least once and I knew that they would know who I am). When I did this, I didn't send any materials along, I just basically said something like "as you may know, I am graduating from [School] this summer and am starting to plan for [Next year]. While I am still waiting to hear back from applications to TT positions, I have also started considering postdoc applications.* I think that your research would be a great match with mine and [I am eager to learn the methods you use, work on the language you work on, whatevs]. Therefore, I am writing to ask if you are going to have any funding to hire a new postdoc next year. If so I would appreciate being considered for the position and would be very happy to talk further or provide any necessary documents. If you don't have any funding but know of someone else who might, I'd appreciate knowing that, too." (This was composed on the fly now, it's not actual text I used, but it's a good reflection of the content.) These either led to "let's chat on Skype" or to "sorry I don't have funding (but try X, who might)". Some people I know had their advisors make the initial introductions, if it was a person the student had never met but the advisor knew. 
I gather that your situation is different in that you're emailing people who you may not know. I think that it would be important to keep the email short and to make it clear why you are writing the person. That is, say what you do in a sentence or two, and explain very briefly why this person is a good fit for you. These professors get lots of emails that are clearly mass-emails that aren't customized and often obviously aren't a good fit, and you want to make sure you're not perceived as one of those. The main difference from an advertised position probably isn't in demonstrating that you're a good fit for the lab or the content of the text, but in getting the person to consider you in the first place. To that end, short and sweet is key. Otherwise, I'd imagine it's mostly the same. I'd add a link to your academic website, and I am not sure about sending attachments to unsolicited emails, but I suppose this is too field-specific for me to have an opinion on. 
As for in-person inquiries, could you email the person ahead of time and ask for a short chat over some coffee break? This is definitely not something to do before a person gives their talk (they are otherwise preoccupied), and after the talk there will likely be several people who want to talk to them, so it'd be awkward to have the conversations with other random people standing around. Most people should be able to find time for a 5-10 minute chat at some point over a multi-day conference, though, and I'd just email to ask for this ahead of time to make sure you're not forgotten. If that's not possible, see if you can ask them when they might have time for a short chat after their talk, and send a follow-up email with a proposed time immediately after (or confirming what you agreed to). You can always just ask a random question and then email later, building on the fact that the person will hopefully remember you from your conversation at the conference.
* The cycle for us is always TT positions first, postdocs (other than competitive ones) later. I don't know if this holds for you. 

Ask yourself for producing quality cover letter instead of CV. It's a better fit for your resume and HR departments read them more carefully then resume or CV.

I'll jump in since I'm bored.
I think a one-liner is OK as long as your "package' generally fits those PIs' research. By fit, I mean either your skill set or personal scientific interest(s) (e.g. theme) aligned with these PIs. Otherwise, you may have to tailor a bit more about how you see you are a "fit" for them. If you are applying an umbrella program, I think it is generally OK to be more broad / general when explaining what you are interested in.
Just my $0.02.

I know a few individuals who switched to different programs of the same school -- whether that be leaving my program, or transferred to my program.
There are a few things that you can do. For example, identify PIs from neuroscience whose research interests you. You then can communicate with those PI and see if they are willing to accept you as a PhD student. Typically, if they are willing to take you as a student, they will work with you -- go through all the paperworks, transfer process, and such -- so that you don't have to quit / re-apply the program (of the same school). You can also contact the program director to see if they are willing to accept you as a transfer student, and go from there. You can explain your situation to the PIs / program director and seek for their advice.
That is absolutely field-dependent. Some fields, or even sub-fields (i.e. crystallography in structural biology) are more open to train postdocs who have no previous background / experience, while some other (i.e. electron microscopy in structural biology) typically doesn't -- unless it is a position from a lab that does both. Hence, it is also certain that if your PhD career doesn't overlap in any ways with what you want to do in postdoc, you are very unlikely to be recruited -- maybe with the exception of a stellar LOR from a well-known PI. That being said, if OP truly wants to work in the field of neuroscience as a postdoc, her PhD training absolutely needs to cover topics/techniques that are common used in neuroscience, despite being in MCB.

What specifically has you disliking molecular biology? In my masters degree I worked in collaboration (as a co-PI) with a neurobiologist. She did electrophysiology, which is about as neurobiology as you get. In order to get her new NIH grant she has had to move away from that and into RNAseq, in situ hybridizations, IHC and transgenic mice to further her research. Talking to other neurobiologists at SFN last year this seems to be the trend. Molecular biology is easily applied to neuroscience and you'll find that many are moving to use of those techniques in their research.
 
Also, you are aware that while grad school can determine your path, it doesn't lock you in. You can do postdocs after you graduate in neuroscience.  

I know a few individuals who switched to different programs of the same school -- whether that be leaving my program, or transferred to my program.
There are a few things that you can do. For example, identify PIs from neuroscience whose research interests you. You then can communicate with those PI and see if they are willing to accept you as a PhD student. Typically, if they are willing to take you as a student, they will work with you -- go through all the paperworks, transfer process, and such -- so that you don't have to quit / re-apply the program (of the same school). You can also contact the program director to see if they are willing to accept you as a transfer student, and go from there. You can explain your situation to the PIs / program director and seek for their advice.
That is absolutely field-dependent. Some fields, or even sub-fields (i.e. crystallography in structural biology) are more open to train postdocs who have no previous background / experience, while some other (i.e. electron microscopy in structural biology) typically doesn't -- unless it is a position from a lab that does both. Hence, it is also certain that if your PhD career doesn't overlap in any ways with what you want to do in postdoc, you are very unlikely to be recruited -- maybe with the exception of a stellar LOR from a well-known PI. That being said, if OP truly wants to work in the field of neuroscience as a postdoc, her PhD training absolutely needs to cover topics/techniques that are common used in neuroscience, despite being in MCB.