So, you want to be a Program Evaluator when you grow up…

Posted July 22nd 2010 at 5:54 am by Beth

Since Dave has started us off on the “So you want to be a blank when you grow up” series, I’m going to take the lowest of the low hanging fruit and tell you all about what I’ve learned since becoming a program evaluator!  But first I’d like to mention two things:

  • If there is a type of career you are particularly interested in, let us know and we’ll see what we can dig up.
  • If you are a PhD who hasn’t followed the tenure track and would like to share your experiences with our readers in this series, please let us know. We’d love more guest posters!

— Now, onto the exciting world of program evaluation! So, you want to be a Program Evaluator when you grow up… Evaluation is a great career for a PhD, because it allows you to use the skills you developed in your training – research skills, problem solving, critical thinking, project management, and more. Though I’d not heard of evaluation as a field per se during my education, it actually is quite established as a profession.  If you want to get a good sense of what evaluation is all about, I’d suggest checking out:

Each of these societies’ websites have a wealth of information about evaluation, including things like evaluation standards of practice, literature, conferences and workshops, and, importantly, job postings and requests for applications for contracts.  Which brings us to the question:

In-House Evaluator or Independent Consultant?

There are pros and cons to both, of course.  Working in house (like I do) offers things that are appealing both personally (like a stable income and benefits) and professionally (like the ability to have a thorough understanding of the programs you evaluate, the opportunity to work with programs over the long-term and see them flourish, and a chance to build evaluation capacity in your sector1.  Working as an independent consultant offers benefits like flexibility of when and where and on what you work and the chance to make a lot more money than you will in-house.  Apparently there is a tendency for evaluators to flip between in house and independent throughout their careers (as one colleague described it to me, you get sick of the bureaucracy of working in-house, so you go out on your own for about 5 years, then you get lonely from working on your own for so long, so join an organization. And repeat).  You can, of course, combine the two – for example, having an in-house job and do small evaluation projects on contract on the side).  And working for an evaluation firm – where you have some security, benefits, etc., but some of the flexibility of working on your own – is a possibility as well.

Training in Program Evaluation

There are a number of training opportunities to learn more about program evaluation and to build particular skills.  The above-named societies offer a variety of training workshops, as does the Evaluators’ Institute. As well, if you are interested in doing more schooling, you can get graduate-level training in program evaluation at:

As well, the CES has recently launched a credentialing program, and though it’s still early days, I think it will be well worth working towards obtaining that credential, especially if you plan to work as an independent consultant. And a few resources worth checking out: In addition to the wealth of resources on the CES, AEA, EES websites, here are a few things that I would recommend reading:

Final words: Like Dave said about science writing, it’s worth starting to build your portfolio of evaluation projects early. You can certainly use aspects of your graduate research as a demonstration of your skills, but picking up some small evaluation projects while you are in school – perhaps even working under a more established evaluator as a mentor – would be good way to start off your portfolio.

  1. if such a thing appeals to you, like it does for me. [↩]
  2. Patton has also recently published a book called Developmental Evaluation – I haven’t read it yet, but it’s probably worth checking out [↩]

No Comments

Beth, July 22nd 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jobs

So, you want to be a Science Writer when you grow up…

Posted July 15th 2010 at 4:06 pm by Dave

QUICK HIT:

Exciting news from the fight for global access to medicines and health technology development – a new organization called Mind the Health Gap is working to bring researchers, developers, and advocates together to tackle the problems of technology development, effective delivery, and funding.  No small goal for sure, but an exciting workshop is taking place this September and more information on the group can be found here.

—

In chatting with Beth over the last few months about future topics for the Black Hole site, we identified a need to push out some information that might begin to alleviate some of the stresses on the science trainee environment in Canada.  The low hanging fruit in this category seems to be one that affects most current and prospective PhD holders and is underscored in past entries here and here.

We thought we could help fill the career guidance gap left by many trainee programs by launching a series of entries entitled “So you want to be a blank when you grow up”, the first of which is below…

So, you want to be a Science Writer when you grow up…

Throughout the course of my own training, I have encountered a number of fellow trainees that have a passion for science writing and they live amongst a sea of those that do not.  For those considering a career shift toward this passion, I think the first critical step is to figure out what kind of science writing you are interested in…  loosely I’ve broken it up into three categories:

Popular
Feeding the brains of the public

Technical
Accurately explaining scientific protocols and/or information

Editorial
Consolidating or shifting a scientific field, making policy, designing programs, lobbying for change

I would guess that all forms of writing are not equally appealing to everyone, but also that the wonderful heterogeneity in our population produces people that have a passion for all three types.  Trying your hand at these styles of writing should not wait until you’re two months before graduation and in panic mode about “what do I do next?” and it really is up to you to figure out what type of career you might want to pursue.  Some advice on how to test out these different styles while still in your degree program is below:

Popular:

Technical:

  • Write up a protocol for a book chapter (i.e.: current protocols)
  • Write up protocols for internal lab databases and get feedback from lab members
  • Read and improve Wikipedia entries around techniques or machines that you utilise every day

Editorial:

  • Write a review on a topic in your field (this doubles as a great start on your thesis introduction)
  • Write a letter to the editor or freelance article on a science based issue of public concern
  • Start a journal club in your institute to identify key experiments that are missing from research papers and how the papers do or do not move the field forward (i.e.: start thinking like a journal editor)

Once you have figured out the type of writing you like, it’s time to consider the types of jobs that are out there for such styles of writing.  I’ve listed a few examples below, but they are here as a guide so you can get a sense of the type of thing to look for:

Popular

  1. Science Journalism (Newspapers, Magazines, Television, Radio, etc)
    1. Print based, online, or backroom script writing/research for radio/tv
    2. Extra training (i.e.: journalism programs) might be considered and a great resource is J-Source.ca which appears to have a pretty comprehensive list of options
  2. Non-Profits/Charities/Societies
    1. Making science exciting for particular groups (kids, patient groups, etc)
    2. Examples: Let’s Talk Science and Hospital for Sick Children

Technical

  1. Industry brochures, manuals, etc (Job Example 1, 2, and 3)

Editorial

  1. Science Journal Editor – remember that all editors are not specifically for reading/reviewing research articles.  Examples include here, here, and here.
  2. Policy Analyst for organizations like the Suzuki Foundation or Fraser Institute
  3. Report writing for organizations like the Council of Canadian Academies or Health Canada

—

If you’re really serious about science writing, I would suggest a look at the following resources as well:

The Canadian Science Writers’ Association
Get in while you’re still a student – $35/yr vs. $75!

    The Science Media Centre of Canada
    Keep apprised of the latest with what promises to be a critical tool for science journalists in Canada

      Association of British Science Writers
      A little more transparent than the CSWA with its job listings and quite a lot of great ideas and information

        Final Words

        The last piece of advice that I can think of is for you to start as soon as possible with building a portfolio.  Nobody will ever hire you on the basis of “everyone has always said I can write well” or “I had the best grades in my English class”.  Many of these portfolio items need not be completely unrelated to your field (e.g.: book chapters, reviews, press releases, protocols, etc) so be creative with how you get your writing experience.  Also, many universities have very active and engaging extra-curricular programs that might be worth exploring so don’t be afraid to start writing articles for these groups or to develop your writing skills at professional development workshops.

        And last but certainly not least – I’m not a proper science writer and don’t have the wealth of experience that many proper science writers do, so don’t be afraid to ask questions to such people or even request information interviews if you’re very interested in what they do.  If any such writers are reading this, please offer up more suggestions as well in the comment box below!

        2 Comments

        Dave, July 15th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        Quarterly Summary: Guest bloggers and the road to solutions

        Posted July 4th 2010 at 3:59 pm by Dave

        Over the first six months of this site’s existence, a lot of virtual ink has been dedicated to highlighting the major concerns about the way we train scientists and how scientific information is communicated to the public and government. The next six months will continue to present this type of information, but will also focus on how to move forward while embracing the current trends within the system.

        Importantly, we’ve now started our guest blogger section with two excellent entries from Carl Wonders and Marianne Stanford. We are certainly keen to expand this section as we go forward, using it to represent the diverse views in an attempt to build consensus and devise solutions moving forward – if you are interested email us here.

        These two entries commented on the Canada Revenue Agency’s response to the CAPS letter of January 2009 and engage the major issue of Post Docs: Trainees or Employees? – this is a critical issue moving forward and the work of CAPS is beginning to gain clarity of how the post doctoral fellow is (and should be) classified. If Canada wishes to recruit and retain this class of researchers, major changes have to take place as the international reputation of Canada as a place to do a post doc is faltering and this uncertain status is a major contributor to such feelings. A personal take on it – Nobody in my current Institute complains about salary or vacation days… this might be because they are employees with standard incremental pay raises based on experience, have access to staff pension plans, and have 31 days of vacation.

        While we’ve been very lucky to have such stellar guest bloggers, Beth and I have also continued writing on a multitude of issues:

        Beth started the quarter with an entry on communicating science to non-scientists alerting readers to the metric of the “fog index” which approximates how difficult your writing is to understand. Many scientists would be shocked to know how difficult their writing is to interpret and should take note when trying to write for, or communicate to, a non-academic audience.

        She also pulled on the heart strings of many PhDs and post doc prospective and current parents with her musings on having a family while undertaking academic science careers. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation showed that childcare at UBC would cost 38% of a post doc’s salary if they were being paid $35,000 (which is the situation of nearly 20% of post docs in Canada according to the November 2009 CAPS survey). The comment box was very active – Post Docs are often not paying into EI (and can’t get parental leave), contract working post docs often have to take a break in their contract and/or risk not getting it renewed, and my personal favourite:

        My university’s policy on the matter is: “We don’t have a policy, talk to your supervisor.” What is this, the 1950s?

        Most recently, Beth has taken a Q/A type approach, posing very open ended questions that have attracted a good deal of attention from our readers:
        • Why does anyone think science is a good job?
        • Why Do Scientists Blog?
        • What Does A Graduate Degree Mean?

        I started to spill over into the stuff that Beth normally writes about, starting off this quarter wondering: “If 80% of PhD holders do not become tenure track academics, what do they become and are universities helping them get there?” Looking at the Canadian numbers, we graduated nearly 5000 doctoral students in 2007 and 4000 of them will not become tenure track professors. Assuming we continue this trend (in fact it’s likely to increase as it has been doing), this equates to 40,000 workers over a ten year period who will have PhDs but will not be tenure track professors. The entry basically asked what resources were available to this large sector of workers to find this job while they were being trained and the answer was highly variable depending on the university you attended? Some great resources do exist though and I tried to highlight them in that entry.

        Next, I touched on one of the things that I find most challenging about new groups with great ideas and mission statements. The Council of Canadian Academies has much to uplift one’s spirits in this way, but I am really concerned that this effort will not retain the support of the Government when its 10 year funding expires and has yet to convince me that they can sustain themselves on a cost recovery basis, so the hunt for new funds must begin. Why is it that such necessary programs (like an arms length scientific advisory panel) find it so difficult to cultivate support in Canada?

        Finally, I wrote three entries that underscore some major themes of this site and the issues that are most pressing for science trainees in Canada:

        1. Facilitating career mobility for senior lab based scientists – to become advisers, politicians, entrepreneurs, etc without being severely detrimental to the trainees?
        2. Addressing the gap between policy makers and scientists
        3. Focusing the training of PhDs on thinking and innovating rather than generating requisite amounts of information or data.

        That’s it for this summary, stay tuned for a summer filled with ramblings from Beth and I as we try to bring new and exciting developments to the front page of the Black Hole site. Thanks, as always, for reading and spreading the word.

        No Comments

        Dave, July 4th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General

        Devils of Details: Getting Scientists to Understand How Policy Making Works

        Posted June 16th 2010 at 5:15 am by Dave

        Yesterday I attended a panel discussion at Cambridge run by a group called the Centre for Science and Policy. It is part of a series of events designed to engage and unite those at the University who have an interest in the role of scientific information in government policy. This particular session was entitled Working on the inside and highlighted the roles of Cambridge academics that have pursued these sorts of roles in Government.

        The panelists all had some role in bringing a scientific perspective to the parliamentarians at Whitehall. These roles, however, were distinct and spanned multiple career stages, areas of focus, and included different sets of responsibilities. The panelists were:

        Dr Rob Doubleday (ESRC Policy Placement Fellow, Government Office for Science)
        Professor Michael Kelly (former Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), Dept. for Communities and Local Government)
        Professor Frank Kelly (former CSA, Dept. for Transport)
        Dr Eoin O’Sullivan (Senior Policy Fellow, Institute for Manufacturing)

        It lasted just 2.5 hours and involved just 50 people – many of whom also had (or have) a major role in science and policy in the UK. Needless to say, I felt critically undereducated, overwhelmed, and had virtually nothing to contribute. But, there was much to learn from this meeting. Sadly, it was run under the Chatham House Rule which means I cannot thoroughly discuss the ideas presented or the information given, but a few things that I think Canadian universities, granting agencies, and the civil service would be foolish not to consider are:

        Test Driving: Programs to engage, inform and train early career researchers

        The ESRC Government Placement Fellowship scheme
         sounded like the realization of an idea I first heard pitched by then National Science Adviser Art Carty – sabbaticals in Parliament – which I’ve written about before in another entry on getting science to Government. It seems that the UK has created a 3-12 month program for researchers to take leave from their university and become a pseudo-member of the civil service.

        This is a real win-win as the researcher gets insight into how things work in “the real world” while also offering a fresh perspective to the civil service in terms of thinking as well as the actual information delivered. Importantly, bureaucrats involved in the program appeared to have no sense of performing an advanced form of babysitting. Furthermore, it helps researchers learn a little bit about how to manage people – principal investigators are often on their own when it comes to managing human resources, this type of experience can only help.

        It’s already built, I don’t care anymore: Learning how the other team thinks
        Scientists are a focused bunch – we specialize (to our detriment sometimes) and are often left very unsatisfied with loose ends. Politicians make big decisions daily and a scientist’s life’s work can be discussed and adopted (or dismissed) over an afternoon tea break. The loose ends are often plentiful, but there’s no time to tie them and other critically important items need to be discussed and decided. This distinction seems so straightforward, but can be the root of so many problems. If a scientist is going to step into the policy realm, they had best take a crash course in how to get their ideas into simple practical messages with real consequences on one side or the other.

        Grade A for America: Learning from Washington and the AAAS
        A lot of the funding and organizations that support improving the presence and role of science in Government comes from the National Science Foundation and the AAAS – organizations for which Canada has no equivalent. The programs and progress achieved by these groups are vast and something Canada should aspire toward.

        This does, however, beg the question of who could support or design such a program in Canada? Perhaps this is a role that granting agencies, centres of excellence, the CFI, universities or the Royal Society could fill by inventing (read: copying from elsewhere) a program that would encourage scientists to undertake such roles.

        University centric approaches: Knowing who’s who and what they are doing
        Oftentimes, the way an individual gets involved with science and policy is the result of a friend or colleague who either recommends or encourages them to partake. This leads to a general lack of awareness from the rest of the institution about these people and their positions. One of the action items that was agreed upon informally at the panel discussion was to establish a mechanism for members of Cambridge University to know who was involved at Whitehall and what they were doing, so these similarly engaged academics could learn from each other and pool resources. The CSaP events were agreed to be a great start to this and the overall feeling was that the university could contribute far more to the country’s policy than it was currently doing. Perhaps Canadian universities could run with this idea as well and ensure that they have a central resource for facilitating these types of interactions between their researchers and the government.

        Overall, it appears that Canada suffers similarly to the UK and the gap between academic scientists and civil servants is not insignificant – probably more pronounced in Canada. The solution is not necessarily an increased science focused bureaucracy, but instead to simply have more cross-fertilization between universities and governments – put them in the same room at the same time and let them learn from each other. This can be achieved by fellowship/sabbatical type arrangements, by encouraging science trainees (and university professors) to pursue careers in the civil service, and by breaking down the barriers between styles of thinking.

        There is a lot of lip service paid to the idea that Canada needs a knowledge-based, innovation economy. While an enormous portion of the personnel training takes place at universities, trainees appear to be given less and less freedom or encouragement to “innovate” and are producing more and more cookie cutter PhDs. The innovation culture line of thinking is not an inherently bad one (academics would agree that innovation is important and the bedrock of research), but the politicization of that message result in programs like business related SSHRCs and extreme skewing toward translational medicine which are not necessarily the academic’s version of innovation.

        Getting more academics in the same room with policymakers will clear the muddy waters – which organization will step up to the challenge in Canada?

        3 Comments

        Dave, June 16th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Science Communcation

        Why does anyone think science is a good job?

        Posted May 24th 2010 at 7:08 pm by Beth

        “A science researcher at Harvard now earns an annual salary that is only 1/50th the price of a family-sized house in Cambridge, a fact that may not be lost on an intelligent female Harvard undergraduate choosing a career.” (Source)

        The announcement of the new Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) – 19 scientists granted $10 million over 7 years to establish research program in Canada – has raised some eyebrows for its notable lack of women among the recipients.  We’ve talked a bit about this issue here before, notably about the mat leave issue and the disadvantage one faces in a career in academics should they choose to take time off to have kids.  But while reading some of the articles and blog postings about the CERCs, I came across this interesting article, which poses the question: “Why does anyone think science is a good job?”

        From the article:

        The average trajectory for a successful scientist is the following:

        1. age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
        2. age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
        3. age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
        4. age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
        5. age 44: with (if lucky) young children at home, fired by the university (“denied tenure” is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s

        Not to mention that academics who make the above salaries aren’t just putting in a 40-hour work week with four weeks paid vacation and stat holidays that aren’t spent working on the next grant application, as they would be in another, higher paying, career. Put like that, it’s not hard to see why I – and many people like me – have gotten off the academic career track, regardless of whether or not we have/plan to have kids.  In fact, when I see the fierce competition that recent PhD grads and post-docs face trying to land a tenure-track position, it makes me wonder why so many people are willing to fight so hard for what, in many ways, is a thankless job1.

        Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that no one should ever become an academic researcher.  In fact, I think that academic research is essential – we can’t leave science solely in the hands of industry, for example.  But I think we need to give some serious thought to the compensation and work-life of our academic scientists. So while we talk about the ways to advocate for appropriate compensation and benefits for postdocs to help keep good scientists in the game – a very important issue, to be sure – we also have to be thinking about what comes after that for those postdocs who are lucky enough (or is that “unlucky” enough?) to land a tenure-track gig.

        1. Maybe in the comments section those of you who have chosen to stay on the academic career path can shed some light onto why you think being an academic scientist is a good job? [↩]

        1 Comment

        Beth, May 24th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, Jobs

        The Council of Canadian Academies – Thriving, Surviving, or Doomed to Fail?

        Posted April 25th 2010 at 9:01 pm by Dave

        Quick hit:

        1. The Stem Cell Foundation has been nominated for a Webby – the Oscars of the Internet – in the category of Best Activism Website. It’s quite impressive that they were nominated as these are a big deal, and what’s even more impressive is that when I cast my vote, they had a slim lead! It’s not often that support for medical research will hit the radar of activists so if, like me, you think they did an excellent job of communicating a positive and inspiring message about scientific research, vote in order to help them win the People’s Voice Award. Also, don’t forget to consider signing the stem cell charter if you haven’t already.

        The Council of Canadian Academies – Thriving, Surviving, or Doomed to Fail?
        Created in 2005, the Council of Canadian Academies is a not-for-profit corporation that supports science-based, expert assessments to inform public policy development in Canada. It was created with $30 million seed funding from Government which expires in 2015 and just underwent its midterm assessment last week. The report was generally positive and indeed to the casual reader it would appear the CCA has a lot to be proud of and not much to worry about. Digging a little deeper though, one gets the feeling that the CCA is facing a critical juncture in its existence and faces the very real possibility of becoming a heck of a lot less effective in 2015.

        The panel, James Wilsdon (Britain’s Royal Society), E. William Colglazier (US National Academy of Sciences), Luc Vinet (Rector, of U de Montreal), and Margaret Bloodworth (former Canadian senior public servant) highlighted the council as a unique body within Canada with much opportunity to grow, was strong and credible in its membership, and covered a wide variety of topics. This is all too common in Canada – we build it, prove its quality, and then funding dries up because it’s not new and exciting anymore. Genome Canada barely escaped this fate after becoming one of the most effective networks of scientists in Canada with renewed funding in 2010 after being left out in 2009. The CCA will probably not be so lucky. Am I premature in assuming that the Canadian Government will not renew funding for the CCA? Perhaps, but I think the writing is on the wall with the way the organization has been treated in its first five years. Instead of being closely linked to the National Science Adviser and the Prime Minister’s Office as it was in 2005, the CCA was pushed into the Ministry of Industry and is now filtered through the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. I’ve ranted about this earlier but the important point for the CCA and Canadians who want to see it continue is that no matter how good a report is (which in the CCAs case is “very”) it is rendered completely useless if not actually read by policy makers, industry and community stakeholders.

        The Council has had some major impacts on the Government sponsors that have requested reports. The mid-term assessment highlights the fact that 6 of the Council’s first 8 reports have had substantive impact on the sponsor’s thinking. A clear-cut example is when Natural Resources Canada asked for a feasibility report on gas hydrates as part of the long-term fuel supply and based on the CCA report, now funds two major gas hydrate programs. The CCA can also adapt reasonably quickly to short term policy demands as evidenced by the report that was generated for Indian and Northern Affairs to assess the scientific priorities of their May 2008 Visioning Workshop. This report was completed more quickly, involved fewer meetings, and demonstrated that the CCA could perform multiple functions depending on the depth of information required.

        However, as the panel also pointed out, the CCA lacks visibility beyond their sponsors and has an almost exclusive dependence on Government sponsors. And these are the crucial issues that need resolution in order for Canada to retain an independent body of experts to provide advice on science policy.

        In Britain and America, such bodies are much more established and much better funded (often through private philanthropy) and play a major role in policy making. The scientific community, and the members of the public who believe in evidence based policy making, needs to help ensure that the CCA is not disbanded in 2015 and we have a reasonable amount of time to get this momentum created.

        So, I encourage you to read the reports, see the type of information that is being created, and then spread the word to your friends, family and colleagues to help build a support structure that will preserve this institution. And let’s not wait until 2015 to read the article about the removal of funding for the CCA – please Canada, don’t let another good institution fall by the wayside.

        Reports from the Council of Canadian Academies

        •Better Research for Better Business
        •The Sustainable Management of Groundwater in Canada
        •Innovation and Business Strategy: Why Canada Falls Short
        •Vision for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative: Assessing the Opportunities
        •Energy from Gas Hydrates: Assessing the Opportunities and Challenges for Canada
        •Small is Different: A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of the Nanoscale
        •Influenza Transmission and the Role of Personal Protective Respiratory Equipment: An Assessment of the Evidence
        •The State of Science and Technology in Canada

        Assessments underway:

        Approaches to Animal Health Risk Assessment
        Integrated Testing of Pesticides
        Research Integrity in the Canadian Context
        State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada

        1 Comment

        Dave, April 25th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        Old Debate, More Participants: What do 80% of PhD holders do for a career?

        Posted April 12th 2010 at 12:59 pm by Dave

        I received a pamphlet the other day entitled: Careers Support for Life Science Post Docs
        Page-2Page-3Page-4
        (thanks to Anne and Lynn for letting me post this!)

        This got me thinking and building on the momentum from Beth’s Why do PhDs leave and What Types of Jobs are out there entries along with the heated discussion around my Say No to the Second Post Doc entry I decided to have a look around Canadian universities to see if programs were present for the 80% of PhD holders who will pursue an alternative career.

        Through that search, I identified great variability, with some universities having good institutional support (e.g.: University of Alberta) and others doing an impressive job on their own as concerned post docs (e.g.: University of Toronto). Many still lag far behind though… so I’ve selected highlights that are generally applicable and worth a visit:

        University of Calgary
        A newsletter that looks sharp, is generally relevant to post docs and could easily serve as a model for other post doc (or research institute) newsletters. One of the themes that I see here and recurring throughout the country is a lack of role models for PhD holders – hence the interview approach… find a handful of people who have PhDs and ask them where they are and how they got there. I’ll look forward to reading future issues.

        University of Toronto
        If you’re going to have a post doc association… follow this lead and have a Career Development Coordinator. The majority of your members will not be going down the professor route, it makes absolute sense to have someone who knows what resources are available at your university and in the city for them to speak with.

        University of Alberta
        Institutional Support… for real. It looks like there was Killam money put into establishing something permanent for post docs – this is a great way to ensure the long term stability of information/resources and avoid the problem that many trainee groups cannot get their heads around – how to do succession planning. There are many organizations that get started with the energy of a handful of interested people and then fade into oblivion. Institutional support (i.e.: an office, a contact in senior admin who is permanent, a mailing address, etc) is critical to the long term success of these organizations.

        McGill University
        Has emphatically stated that Post Docs are trainees… in fact, they are all mandatory members of the Post-Graduate Students’ Society at McGill. This comes with a good array of career services, though it does seem that they are mostly tailored for graduate students. Not all post docs would want this status, but it is certainly a way of handling things like group benefits and access to facilities.

        University Affairs
        A great set of resources for post academic career planning in Canada including great articles, podcasts, blogs (Career Sense and Margin Notes), and news/events pages.

        The best set…
        There are many great examples in Canada that Universities can mimic in their own institutes, but the best set of alternative career resources to be found for PhD holders seems to be on the American Association for the Advancement of Science website under the Careers Section. These booklets are a MUST READ for PhDs looking for a non-tenure track career path. The other sections of the AAAS careers page are also quite extensive (again, why does Canada have no equivalent to the AAAS for its scientists?). Granted, this is US-centric, but it still far outweighs the type of resources available in Canada and offers great advice for those struggling with the decision between 80 and 20.

        Here in Cambridge, they’ve really put a lot of effort into ensuring the success of their academic trainees. It makes so much sense too, because every person that comes through your university is a reflection on your university.

        Canadian Universities need to learn this and invest in their people.

        Some great examples from a post doc’s point of view:

        First – a dedicated full time office for life science post docs (another for physical sciences and another for social sciences/humanities)

        Second – a vibrant post doc society that provides numerous guides (finding a post doc, finding accommodation, how to supervise, etc), hosts social events, and organizes professional development seminars.

        Third – an idea I’d never heard of, but again makes a whole lot of sense… they have a database of Cambridge alumni who have agreed to be contacted for advice/questions about where they ended up with their PhDs. It’s a free service called GradLink – I’ve browsed it and it covers hundreds of different disciplines from across the world.

        Another interesting follow up question that I’ll certainly blog about on another occasion:

        Are Canadian Institutions training Post Docs to have the core competencies suggested by the National Post Doc Association?
        1. Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge
        2. Research skill development
        3. Communication skills
        4. Professionalism
        5. Leadership and management skills
        6. Responsible conduct of research

        Admittedly, most of these depend on a good supervisor who cares more about training the next generation of scientists rather than getting the next paper out. It seems so short sighted (and a little self-centred) to think that a single lab’s productivity with respect to “knowledge learned” could outweigh that of multiple labs run by well trained scientists…. but like I said – another time perhaps.

        3 Comments

        Dave, April 12th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs

        Quarterly Summary: “CAP”ital Action and Effective Communication

        Posted April 1st 2010 at 5:38 pm by Dave

        This quarter has been a very active one for the Black Hole site, marked most notably by a tripling of site traffic in the month of March. Admittedly, most of this increased traffic was due to Budget 2010 and the sheer panic it invoked in the post doc community. Fortunately, the momentum that I hoped would continue has certainly done just that. Two prime examples of this forward movement over the last quarter have been:

        1. The Canada Foundation for Innovation model of autonomy and flexibility was named “world’s best practice” and the contribution to developing both the quality and quantity of research infrastructure was highlighted. The matching investment in people needs to be the focus going forward, let’s hope the policymakers realize this. They have built it… will the scientists come?

        If you are a prospective post doctoral research fellow, the answer right now is “probably not” as a flurry of bad press surrounds Canada as a place to complete this part of one’s training. It’s curious because Canada definitely has excellent core components in place for research success with great equipment and buildings, internationally heralded expertise, access to other scientists and patient samples, etc etc. So what’s wrong with the picture? The answer lies in the second burst of momentum from this quarter

        2. What exactly is a post doctoral fellow? – in Canada there is certainly no easy answer and it seems that they are classified as trainees, students, or employees depending on which status benefits them the least. In Britain and Australia, a post doc certainly leans toward the employee side of the coin with good wages (often 25-35% higher than Canadian post docs), benefits similar to other employees at the institute, pay taxes, etc etc. In Canada, however, post doctoral fellows often get terrible wages (78% earn less than $40,000 after 10+ years of university training), benefits are inconsistent at best and often absent (though UBC just made an impressive announcement about PDF benefits), and Budget 2010 proposes to make post doctoral fellowships taxable.

        The momentum from the Canadian Association of Post-Doctoral Scholars in recent weeks has produced the following:
        - An FAQ entitled “What is a post doctoral fellow?”
        - An online petition to maintain the competitiveness of a postdoctoral research career in Canada
        - A campaign that has gotten recognition for post doctoral fellows in Parliament

        Great to see this kind of effort being put forth to improve the trainee environment in Canada. Let’s hope we get some results!

        This quarter also saw The Black Hole become even more connected as exemplified by our growing toolbar of excellent links to check out including recent additions of:

        Canadian Programs
        CIHR Science to Business Program – Program to encourage and enable individuals who have obtained a recent health-related PhD to pursue an MBA
        The Science Creative Quarterly – UBC based online collection of scientific articles that are spiced up for a general audience

        Excellent organizations/resources for Canada to learn from
        The Royal Society – The UK’s national academy of science which is leaps and bounds ahead of the Royal Society of Canada when it comes to public and governmental interaction
        The Society of Biology– A whopping 80,000 members who support the strong presence of biology in academia, industry, education and research

        Other blogs of interest
        Margin Notes – University Affairs blogger Leo Charbonneau tackles many of the institutional issues that are discussed heavily on this site – great insights and wonderfully in touch with the hottest topics.
        rENNISance Woman – Self described Cancer Research grant wrangler Cath Ennis and her thoughts form a frequently updated Nature Network blog worth reading!

        As for blog entries, Beth has been squirreling away on entries related to the theoretical (What is Science? and Evaluation vs. Research) and the very practical (Talking Science to Non-Scientists and Community Collaboration) sides of science. She also introduced us to the CIHRs Science to Business program which aims to equip PhDs in the medical sciences with MBAs.

        I’ve been (again!) a little less focused and was certainly side-tracked in Budget season with entries related to taxes, moving forward from the budget, and the CAPS campaign.

        The story of how DNA and genetics became buzz words on everyone’s lips is one that I often share with people about the importance and long term impact that public outreach can have (especially when it comes to a general willingness to support research in the area) – this tipped off two entries ( >The Least Work Principle and
        Getting Involved in Science and Society        ) and was followed up with an entry on my current pet peeve in Britain which is going to consistently underwhelming climate change related talks.

        Other entries on the lack of science policy in Canada and the importance of scholarships and networking to one’s future career generated good buzz, but also resulted in a strong criticism of our blog and other blogs for being far too focused on complaining about the situation. While politely disagreeing with this being the case for the Black Hole site, I have made a mental note (and followed up with physical entries!) to give credit where credit is due on the many great things happening in the country and continue to keep an extremely open mind to future solutions.

        Hope you’ll all continue to read and contribute, it’s been a fun six months so far!

        PS: If you’re interested in writing a guest blog entry or a regular blog column, please do get in touch.

        2 Comments

        Dave, April 1st 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        Climbing up the Hill: Getting involved in Science and Society

        Posted February 22nd 2010 at 10:23 pm by Dave

        As promised in my least work principle entry, today’s entry will try to identify relatively easy ways for science trainees and professors to help further the public knowledge of, and excitement about, scientific research. I’ll try to stick to dissemination of academic information and communicating with governments and Beth will follow up next week with getting general information out to the public (adults and kids!)

        We are by no means capable of offering a comprehensive list of things that you could partake in within Canada or indeed internationally, so please do contribute your ideas, anecdotes, complaints, suggestions, etc and they will be part of Quarter 2’s summary doc at the end of March. The comment box below or an email to us would both work!

        For Everyone:

        Look up two terms in your field on Wikipedia, read them and see if you cry. If you do… fix it.


        Sign onto various charters         (e.g.: Stem Cell Charter), read and respond to university and/or funding agency calls for input – your voice and name matter.

        Communicate with your political representatives (especially Ministers of Education, Health, and (can we get one, please?) Science), let them know about exciting progress, encourage them to attend events, etc. If you’re worried about turnover, talk to the senior brass of the bureaucracy.

        Open House Nights at your University/Institute – take part. If you don’t have them yet, help make it happen. Universities are interesting places especially for those that don’t get to see them often! Also, think about the charities that might support your research and ask them if they’d like to host something.

        Volunteer with the Science Media Centre: This is the type of project that can really improve science reporting across the country and it needs the support of the science community.

        For Professors (because their attention span for such rambling is probably more limited):

        Write to newspapers (and not always in response to something! There’s this thing they call an Opinion Editorial)

        Be an expert. Most universities have a site that the people can come to for further information on a topic or to find an expert (e.g.: UBC, UofT, and UofA) – make sure you’re on the list.

        When your grant asks you to spend money on public outreach, give it proper consideration and make it count. These types of projects give your research and lab excellent exposure if done well. If you think it’s an inefficient use of money, write them and encourage them to pool those dollars into something larger.

        Encourage your trainees (alongside generating excellent research of course) to participate in and maybe even build a career in these fields. Remember that you only need to create a professor to replace yourself something like 2-3 times over your entire career!

        Use the FRSC. We don’t have as vibrant a Royal Society as they do in Britain – it’s not the quality of our fellows, but the lack of infrastructure supporting them. If you’ve been recognized with such a distinction, you have an amazing ability to command an audience.

        Post the phrase “Dr/Prof X would be happy to have enquiries about his/her field directed to (insert email/webpage here)” on your website

        For Trainees:

        Use your student / trainee voice. I have seen far too many student-run organizations that are solely focused on socialising. Of course social programs are critical to support, but the real power of such organizations (student councils, trainee organizations at institutes, etc) is that they can be a single voice for many people, which gives you a bigger stake in decisions. As much as you think it’s not true, your supervisor and the university both want you to succeed, and they will typically find time to listen to you. That being said, take it seriously, prepare your case and bring it to them in a way that compels them to agree with you.

        Write about your field. A great example of this is a UBC initiative called the Science Creative Quarterly, which aims to compile fun and interesting pieces about science and research. Give it a whirl, it’s a great way to start getting feedback if you’ve ever thought about a career in science writing or journalism.

        Change things from the bottom up. Instead of taking the negative attitude that one of our frequent comment makers complains about… try to bring a positive change to your local trainee environment. One of the most exciting examples that I bore witness to in Vancouver was the creation of the
        Jobs in Science Interview Series (JISIS)        . JISIS was driven almost entirely by a single person with an idea that spent months germinating… her passion for getting some help for those looking for alternative careers in science related disciplines was contagious and eventually morphed into a great series that still continues to help people get perspective and to deal with the changing human resources in academia.

        On a final note, the Science Canada folks highlighted an article in the Globe and mail that called for the next set of big ideas with respect to Canadian policy and I think that the science community needs to be part of this. In comparison, just today, my good friend Erika forwarded me an email from the newly formed UK based Society of Biology, an amalgamation of the Biosciences Federation and the Institute of Biology:

        The Society of Biology is a single unified voice for biology:

        * advising Government and influencing policy;
        * advancing education and professional development;
        * supporting our members,
        * and engaging and encouraging public interest in the life sciences.

        The Society now has over 70 Organizational Members and nearly 12,000 individual members.

        That’s a lot of oomph.

        2 Comments

        Dave, February 22nd 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        The Least Work Principle and Catalysing from Complacency

        Posted February 21st 2010 at 3:22 pm by Dave

        A high school geology teacher once explained to me a guiding philosophy for his life which seemed quite confusing at the time – he called it “The least work principle” which stated that one should always aspire to expending the least amount of effort to get an outcome. I thought “Great, I have a teacher telling me that his mission in life is to be lazy, what an inspiration!”… However, over the years, it has proven itself again and again as a pretty amazing and simple philosophy not centered on laziness, but on being efficient. Life is alarmingly short and we should really be focused on getting the most value for the least amount of work so we can do more things in the end (without sacrificing quality of life of course!).

        Now… I want to bring you back to high school (if you took chemistry) – though this might be the first time you’ve had chemistry used to make something easier to understand. One of the basic properties of molecules is that they will naturally exist in the state that requires the least amount of energy. With energy on the y axis below, you can see that the best place to be is on the right hand side (products). To get there from starting materials, however, you need to go through a transition period that temporarily requires more energy.


        (source: McMaster University Chemistry Dept)

        This short blog entry argues that when looking at the relationship or science and society, the majority of scientists only see (and avoid) the energy barrier in front of them and fail to imagine and strive toward the products on the other side. There are of course exceptions to the rule and this article hopes to inspire such visionary thinking. It contends that the products, similar to those in a chemical reaction, will provide a state that will in their own time lead to less energy expenditure for scientists.

        A simple example to illustrate this point is when a small group of scientists took it upon themselves to change things:
        In 1990, concomitant with the laboratory research endeavors of the Human Genome Project, a major portion of funding was allocated that surprised many as a budget line in a research project: The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Research Program whose function and purpose were:

        • To anticipate and address the implications for individuals and society of mapping and sequencing the human genome.
        • To examine the ethical, legal and social consequences of mapping and sequencing the human genome.
        • To stimulate public discussion of the issues.
        • To develop policy options that would assure that the information be used to benefit individuals and society.

        The public understanding of DNA, genes, proteins, and numerous derivatives grew exponentially in the 1990s through the work of many scientists involved in ELSI funded projects.

        The results?

        Students now enter high schools, undergraduate and graduate programs with a much increased base knowledge of genetics.

        Physicians, patients, and donors are excited by, and reasonably comprehend, the idea and hopes of personalized medicine through genetics.

        Granting agencies and governments are very excited to fund projects and entire institutes (e.g.: The Michael Smith GSC in Vancouver and the Sanger Institute in England) focused on dissecting genetic information.

        The cost and time of spelling out an individual’s genome has been incredibly decreased

        …it took 4 years for the international Human Genome Project to produce the first billion base pairs of sequence and less than 4 months to produce the second billion base pairs. In the month of January 2003, the DOE team sequenced 1.5 billion bases
        ~ US Dept. of Energy

        According to the Wall Street Transcript the cost of a genome in 2010 will be $10,000 (as opposed to the 13 year, multi-million dollar original human genome) and will continue to decline as technology improves even further. The $1000 genome is in sight.

        If you could jump in your telephone booth and transport to 1990 and ask a genetics professor if he would be part of an ELSI lecture series to explain what DNA is and offered the 2010 state of genetics as a return, my guess is he would strap on his crampons and be over the complacency hump within seconds.

        —

        Of course, it is extremely difficult to attribute all of this progress to the ELSI initiatives, but the unbridled enthusiasm that accompanied the human genome project, the number of university Genetics programs that cropped up across the world, and the enormous amounts of public and private monies that have accompanied it surely benefited from the ELSI program which allowed many larger discussions to take place outside of the laboratory.

        Such dissemination of information is critical to moving technology ahead with great speed and acceptance and tomorrow I will publish an entry on relatively easy ways for grad students, post docs, researchers, and professors to promote the public science enterprise through public policy and information dissemination.

        Beth will follow up in a week’s time with an entry on how these individuals can help encourage an understanding of and an engagement with science in schools across the country and with the public.

        Until then, look beyond the hill in front of you!

        No Comments

        Dave, February 21st 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Science Communcation
        « Older Posts