Out and about

So let me tell you all of a story. Back in undergrad, there was someone who was in the closet as a chemist. There was no one else he could really look up to as there weren't many out and about chemists,even though he went to a very liberal school. He tried to remain in the closet, but eventually came out to his friends and was accepted right away (as they pretty much had a feeling anyway). Now this person's undergraduate research advisor was well, not that accepting and there was lots of drama. Too much drama really. Eventually fired from his position (for a really bullcrap reason) and after almost losing a summer fellowship due to comment by former advisor, he went back into the closet even though word had spread and had become a bit ostracized in the department.

Years later this undergrad would go to grad school. Again, he came out to a few folks when starting. But it didn't last long as the department which was said to be quite friendly to the LGBT community seemed as such in the beginning. However, there would be more drama later on and decided to pursue other avenues instead of chemistry.

Alas, that is my story. Sure I've been writing here for a while, but there's a reason why I decided to go an alternative career route instead of traditional chemistry. Considering I have had people try to change who I am, and the way I live, I have decided to leave academia for a bit. Might I return? Who knows, but alas, I am a jaded and cynical chemist now.

It surprises me that as liberal and as open minded many chemists are socially and even fiscally, the topic of LGBT scientists still causes some squickyness amongst their peers. There are far too many gay grad students and undergrads who are in fact scared. Sure there may be some places with out faculty (though my grad school only had them at lecturer positions), the heterohegemony still remains a strong force in academia. The program Safespace can only do so much, as even students who I knew were bi-curious/questioning/gay/lesbian/transgendered didn't feel comfortable talking to various faculty members who had the stickers.

Then there's also the GLBT scientists groups.  Sure, they exist,but there are no real open member directories. Why? How can young struggling scientists talk with someone who already went through what they are going through now? Where is the support structure? How can you find someone else who shares your struggles? In the end, some students just feel alienated and go through their struggle alone and sometimes even dropout of programs.

While younger chemists are more accepting, trying to get a career in industry or academia is very difficult. When applying for fellowships, I asked, should I come out? No one told me to come out.  In fact, everyone I spoke with said that the statement would detract from my application and would probably cost me a fellowship.

I followed their advice begrudgingly. I got a fellowship. But at what price? To not be true to myself in the lab setting and to constantly worry in the back of my mind wondering who might know or suspect and what would they do about this information?

So now I am out and about. I'm looking for new avenues to continue my career path. Hopefully one day, chemistry will be as open to the GLBT community as it is to other minorities.

That's all.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

The Periodic Table Song! Memorize them all and win the Nobel Prize!

There was a post on another blog that talked about the elements. It seems the same thing is going on in Japan. There's an anime called Element Hunters where a bunch of kids have to find the various elements for some reason. I really havent watched beyond the first episode, but it's actually quite amusing and it teaches chemistry! Really, it TEACHES chemistry in a way little kids can understand it. So.. I give you the closing song (it's in Japanese with subtitles, but when they give you the elements to memorize, you'll know the words then). As the series progresses, there are more elements so if you put all the songs together, you'll know the entire periodic table!

Edit: Various other topics they talk about in the upcoming episodes.. superconductivity, carbon nanotubes, Bose-Einstein condensates, magnetism, paramagnetism, and superfluidity with Helium II. I'm serious, this is a kid's show. I am in love.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Like Natalie Imbruglia's One Hit Wonder, I'm Torn

So it's been a while since my last entry, but grad school has eaten me up. But over the past several months, I have been getting seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. No, I'm not talking about industry, I'm talking about another entity entirely.. the world of intellectual property law.

OMGWTFBBQ? That's probably your response right now, but as someone who has been rather myopic in my career path due to academe being the only thing I know, (and me not really feeling like a perfect fit in industry), the seductive path of law school is in the way.

One of the things I have learned through informational interviews with my local alumni is that law schools LOVE technical backgrounds and patent law is one of the hottest and fastest growing fields at the moment. Of course, things are cyclical which means it might not be great later, but the past 5 years has seen tremendous growth.

There are lots of other scientists going to the other side, but here's my dilemma...

There are firms that offer patent agent programs to seduce scientists to law. What is this patent agent program? You work at a firm (with zero to little experience in law) and get trained as you work. You get paid a great salary (think average 2.5 to 4 times the highest grad student stipend depending on where you go), with amazing benefits (401k plan, full medical/dental/vision benefits, etc), get to work in a fancy office, feel like a real world adult, get to dress up in fancy clothes and get trained. After a year, you're probably ready for the patent agent exam, and if you pass, said firm will offer tuition reimbursement if you attend law school.

Yes, they'll pay for expensive law school. Then you go back to the firm as a full J.D/(M.S. or PhD) as well, get promoted and commit for a few years, then you can go around to other firms as well!

So what's a chemist to do? I do love research and academe, but my pragmatic side is telling me to join the dark side.

I know I'm not the first to be seduced, and I definitely won't be the last! Intellectual property law, when it concerns chemistry, is actually quite fascinating. It's like being a grad student with all the reading, researching and writing you have to do, but you get paid way more and you're not inhaling chemical fumes. It's another career path available out there for grad students in chemistry, and I know I hadnt considered it before and just recently learned about it, so I'm throwing it out there, so like me, perhaps your blinders can be taken off and you might consider more options post PhD!

That's all! I'll let y'all know what I do in the coming months! For now I have lots of thinking to do.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Adopt a Chemist

In the spirit of Web 2.0 I've been inspired by the SPS (Sigma Pi Sigma) Adopt a Physicist. I was wanting to do something like this except for chemists, so I'm looking for chemists who wouldnt mind being 'adopted' by local high school chemistry classrooms so that they can ask questions about careers, chemistry, etc. I think the Chemistry Forum might be a good way to do this, but who knows, I'm just throwing this idea out there.

Here's what the Adopt a Physicist is...we should do the same thing...or at least try to?

================================================================================
Adopt-a-Physicist connects high school physics students to people with bachelors degrees or higher in physics via online discussion forums. Through their interactions, students can find out about the careers, educational backgrounds, and lives of current physicists.
Adopt-a-Physicist Goals

* Expose high school physics students to the range of careers open to people with degrees in physics.
* Advance the dialogue between the physics and the high school education communities.
* Introduce physicists and teachers to the ComPADRE network and its resources.

Project Summary

Download the Program Packet

Physicists and students interact through discussion forums for a three-week period. Before the three week period begins, the physicists and classes (via the teachers) each create a brief introduction page. After registration closes, teachers choose some physicists for their classes to interact with, preferably from different career categories.

The physicists each host a discussion forum where students dialogue with them about careers, educational level, current projects, and other topics of interest.

This structure lets students interact with physicists and learn first-hand what people with degrees in physics are doing. In addition to dialoguing with their assigned physicists, students can also read conversations between other physicists and students.

Registered teachers will receive an Adopt-a-Physicist Teacher's Guide that provides practical suggestions for implementing Adopt-a-Physicist in the classroom and suggested student assessments.

Adopt-a-Physicist is a service provided by Sigma Pi Sigma (ΣΠΣ), the physics honor society, in collaboration with the American Physical Society (APS), the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), and ComPADRE. It is supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the American Physical Society Campaign for Physics. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ΣΠΣ, APS, AAPT, or the supporting institutions.
The Adoption Process

* Registration: Physicists and teachers register and create a profile. This requires a ComPADRE login. ComPADRE accounts are free, require only a name and email address, and give the registrant access to all ComPADRE resources. Further information such as school/employer and contact information is required for Adopt-a-Physicist, but will not be used for any other purpose.
* Physicists Adopted: Once registration has closed, teachers can search the profiles of registered physicists (by career, research area, degree level, etc.) and sign up their classes for discussion forums. Registered teachers will be notified when it's time to choose their physicists.
* Discussion Forums Open: Students and physicists dialogue over the three week period that the forums are open. Teachers are encouraged to monitor the discussions.
* Discussions Archived: The discussion forums close after a 3-week period; however transcripts of the conversations are archived and will remain accessible.
==============================================================================

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Why is science important?

A new movie was recently made answering the question, "Why is science important?"

http://whyscience.co.uk/

This is a really short post since I'm currently jetlagged, but this movie is..well, it's definitely a must-see. My only gripe is that they ignore chemistry and go more around biology and physics. So, my question to the readers of the blog is...

Why is chemistry important?

P.S. I found this wonderful website from Berkeley called Understanding Science. It puts things in perspective for the public. Give it a look as well! Highly recommended ^_^ Understanding Science

Subscribe to the comments for this post

The Nano Song - Chemical Edutainment Done Right

So ACS has the Nanotation contest right now trying to find the most entertaining way to explain the concept of Nano. These people from Berkeley have done an amazing job*, so Mitch, I want you to hook up a brotha (me) with these people. I showed it to my niece and she memorized the song today and said:

boyie's cute five year old niece: "i'm going to teach my teacher about nanotechnology!"

I present to y'all, the Nano Song.

* chemistry-blog does not officially endorse the video for the nano contest (unless Mitch deems it so), but boyie sure does love the nanosong.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

I'm dumb, but it's okay!

So like most grad students, I've been feeling extremely retarded lately. Experiments are giving me weird (and quite repeatable results) that throw a wrench into my understanding of what I'm doing, I'm ending up with different products from the same synthesis, and I'm getting all types of twinning (tropochemical, pseudo-merohedral, etc, etc) in an allegedly 'single' crystal. In other words, I feel dumb.

However, after commiserating with my fellow grad students, and eventually with the parental units, I was lead to an interesting article published way back in the day in the Journal of Cell Science.

The importance of stupidity in scientific research

It definitely made me feel better, and I'd like to add some things that my dad (who was once a grad student and is now a chemistry prof as well) told me.

If you dont feel stupid every now and then...
1) ...you're not picking the 'right' research question
2) ...you're not working hard enough to get results that stump you
3) ...you really dont understand enough about your project
4) ...you're way too arrogant and belong in business school instead (no, he really didnt say that)

But, he did add the caveats that you did need to feel smart and accomplished every now and then or else you just dont know what you're doing (it goes along with #3)

so to everyone out there who feels dumb on occasion from their research, remember, it's okay! Just keep on truckin!

Subscribe to the comments for this post

So you're thinking about graduate school...

First off, I'd like to congratulate noel and everyone else who has gotten into graduate schools thus far. Considering the economy, applications are up and it's even more competitive than ever. However, I have had some friends get rejected and start to freak out, which is of course, natural, and I asked, why do you want to go to graduate school?

I got the response: I want to be a professor. Okay, I said, of what? Um..a research professor, she said. Okay...why?

The pause really didnt come to me as a surprise. Yes, the economy is bad right now. However, graduate school should not be looked at as a way of escaping the real world. Grad school is hard, you will feel stupid, you will be frustrated and there will be multiple times you want to quit.

But, but..Boyie, I <3 chemistry. Bull. Crap. Maybe 1% of the people in graduate school love chemistry. People have multiple reasons for doing it, and most dont involve loving chemistry, but the thing is, most people who eventually succeed have /STRONG/ motivations to do it.

But, but...Boyie, I'm smart, isnt graduate school the next logical step? Again, I have seen LOTS of smart people drop out. Why? Various reasons such as "I just didnt think it was right for me", "I felt stupid", "I dont want to spend 5 years working on the same problem", and "I just dont like research." All those answers are things that could have been avoided. I am fortunate enough to attend a prestigious program and I know people would kill for the slots that have just opened up as a result of people dropping out. So really, think about why you want to go to graduate school.

When I was applying, my father and my undergraduate research advisors asked me the following questions as a reflection of sorts to see if I had the strength of will to make it. So, I present to you, the questions I was asked.

1) Why chemistry?
2) Why graduate school?
3) What do you see yourself doing in 5, 10, 15 years?
4) Is a PhD really required for that?
5) Again, why graduate school?
6) What do you like about research?
7) Name five influential people in your chosen field.
What did they do?
9) What do you want to contribute to science?
10) What do you want to contribute to chemistry?
11) Are you okay with feeling stupid?
12) Are you okay with slamming your head against a wall?
13) Finally, why graduate school in chemistry?

Yes, there were 13 questions, three repeat, but looking back on it it's a very important question. So, for those of you about to enter, I highly recommend doing this exercise. Be honest with yourself for the answers, and g'luck!

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Porn at the NSF?

For those of you who dont know, Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Finance Committee on the Senate is doing an investigation into the National Science Foundation. Why? Well, because people have been spending time looking at porn instead of doing what they're suppose to do (look through our grant proposals perhaps?)

===================================================================================

Chuck Grassley knows it when he sees it.

The “it,” of course, is pornography. And Grassley has seen it deep in a demurely titled section of a report from the National Science Foundation — a report that says NSF employees have been spending significant amounts of company time on smut sites and in other explicit pursuits....

In one particularly egregious case, the report says one NSF “senior official” was discovered to have spent as much as 20 percent of his working hours over a two-year interval “viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online ‘chats’ with various women.”

Investigators calculated the value of the time lost at more than $58,000 — for that employee alone.

===================================================================================

I dont think this spells good news for people trying to get grants right now. Amongst my friends and I, we can already imagine the responses to grants.

Prof. So and So,

We are unable to fund your proposal because....it costs money to investigate people looking into porn at work.

Sincerely,

The NSF and the Senate

For more, here's the link: Grassley launches porn inquiry into the NSF

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Chemical Edutainment and Undergrad Labs

So it's me, the writer of solidasarock, and well I've joined the chemistry forums blog team. Studying for qualifiers have been awful, so writing has been almost nonexistent, but with finishing off TAing and watching the first years teach lab and hearing their complains that were oh so similar to mine last year, I thought I'd tackle something that's really prevalent in some chemistry departments, particularly, my department. And that would of course me chemical edutainment.

<insert 2 cents>

I had the privilege of teaching freshmen, juniors, seniors and graduate students in my TA load, and seeing how things were run here versus my undergrad alma mater is disappointing. Back in my alma mater, experiments were 'boring'. We didnt go into the latest nanotechnology, but we did go over very valuable experimental techniques. Twenty-thirty titrations in the first semester lab alone was enough to drive one insane, and the qualitative analysis freshman lab of having to figure out what ions were in a mixture was difficult for us fishies. Then of course, there was our 'reward' lab where we synthesized YBCO and then did a iodometric titration to determine the oxygen content, and then lots of other random labs that, while 'boring' to the students, showed important concepts that helped us conceptualize concepts.

Let's compare that to my new department. Freshmen here do not do multiple titrations till they die. They dont even determine the concentration of their titrant in a standardization. Here, they do one titration, and do it using a pH meter. We didnt use a pH meter in undergrad until junior year for our titrations since we had to get a feel for the end point before hand. From there, they move onto 'ubersexy' labs, such as the synthesis of CdSe nanoparticles, Au nanoparticles. Did they at least characterize these NPs? They did one UV-vis, didnt really get told what was the significance and then were told to move on. Then later they had experiments that had very little chemistry in it at all.

I remember asking why these labs were taught, and I was repeatedly told about the 'educational value' of them. They were short writeups with barely any real analysis for the students. I chagrined and did my duty as a TA and taught them the best I could, inserting concepts, that while tangentially related, would actually be covered on their exams. Needless to say, my students complained at the extra work I had 'assigned'. So writing down a few questions and having them answer it as part of their lab report was making me into a tyrannical despot. My evaluations were crappy, and I had learned my lesson.

I then spoke with one of the lab coordinators who told me about the consumerism of undergrad. We, as the TAs, are the product, and of course, the customer is always right. Of course! They pay \(\)$ money to attend this fine institution, but if they arent getting actual quality and instead get frou frou labs that teach them little but keep them entertained where is the value?

Now this sounds like a rant. Where is your proof? Like I said, I also got to teach juniors and seniors later on in the year, and I, to my dismay would find my proof there. Here are a bunch of chemistry juniors and seniors. I was explaining the quantitative analysis lab, and asked if they had done serial dilutions before. Nope. No one had done it. Unless they were a lackey in a biochem lab and had to do serial dilutions all day for their grad/postdoc mentors. Come on, at the junior/senior level, serial dilutions should be a snap. I explained the concept, showed them how to do it, and in the end, I was still asked by juniors and seniors to whether they could get micropippeters to dilute 1000x in a 100 ml volumetric flask.

I was dumbfounded. I was aghast. I wanted to rant and rave, but I kept it in. I taught them what they needed to know and went over the concept again. I had asked if they had covered it in organic lab (since I didnt get to teach that), and they said no. I knew the freshman curriculum, and I know it wasnt covered there. There were these chemistry majors, almost ready to graduate, not knowing very basic experimental skills.

So I was on fire and wanted to teach hardcore again. I went into other concepts that tangentially related, were still useful, and that they could use the information. A lot of them were happy at the knowledge, some werent. Then fast forward to another lab. These were the same juniors and seniors. I had assigned all the questions in the lab, but some were deemed too difficult. They saw no point in those questions. Needless to say, they went to my lab coordinator and complained to their hearts content.

I had a serious talking to again. Once again, they were right, as the questions were too hard. Of course, I didnt say at this point that the lab coordinator had written the lab completely and we both deemed prior that the questions were of the right difficulty and should be good for juniors and seniors. Since I was no longer entertaining them, since I actually went from 'nice guy TA' to 'no, you need to answer these questions' I was evil. I was a bad TA.

I was distraught. I really felt like I didnt want to be a professor anymore if things were going to be like this. Then I got to teach grad students, who all went to undergrad elsewhere. Thank GOD for grad students. And now I want to be a professor again. Why? To change this system of edutainment in chemistry.

Chemistry should be fun, but to a certain extent. If you want kids to actually learn, you need to teach them important concepts, not just show them the latest and greatest sexy experiments that have little experimental value. Basic skills, especially critical thinking need to be taught. Students should be challenged in labs, cause if they're easy, what's the point?

</insert 2 cents>

That's my two cents. What's yours?

Subscribe to the comments for this post