Citizen Science- volunteering for the microplastics study

11987012_10102332796628720_4685488031679567780_n
Sampling in September, when the stream wasn’t frozen and we could see the trail. 

Yesterday was the winter sampling time point for a large research project I’m volunteering for: Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation is managing sample collection for the ASC Gallatin Microplastics Initiative in the Gallatin Valley watershed. The project samples various streams and lakes, both where they converge with the Gallatin River and at their headwaters.  The project is part of a much larger project looking at microplastics in water around the world, the ASC Worldwide Microplastics Initiative.  ASC recruits volunteers who have the outdoors-man skills (like hiking, tracking, or boating) and enthusiasm to get to hard to reach places to collect samples, then trains them in how to collect water samples and metadata (like weather, temperature, what we’re wearing during collection), coordinates sample collection times, and makes sure to safely send the samples back to a laboratory in Maine.

IMG_0554
A lovely view of the Spanish Peaks.

Lee and I sample Deer Creek, just north of Big Sky, Montana.  To do this, we hike 13 miles round trip to Moon Lake, with a 3,288 foot elevation gain up to around 9,000 ft above sea level. This time, the trail was covered in 1-2 feet of undisturbed snow, luckily we had snowshoes that kept us from sinking into all but the most soft of snowdrifts. On the way up it was snowing heavily, though visibility was fine, and on the way down it was raining. In many areas of the trail, drifts meant that the trail was at a 45 degree angle, and we had to break our own trail for nearly all of it. Despite the arduous trek, the views were beautiful, it was wonderful to be out of the office, and it was fun helping a large coordinated study.  You can get involved in studies like this through organizations like ASC, or through research universities- volunteers are always needed for all different types of studies.

IMG_0557
Moon Lake…so where do we start digging?

Happy birthday to my chief contributor!

“I was married to Margaret Joan Howe in 1940. Although not a scientist herself she has contributed more to my work than anyone else by providing a peaceful and happy home.” – Dr. Frederick Sanger – From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 1980, Editor Wilhelm Odelberg, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1981

 

 

Lee with Luara Jr 2
Lee holding “Laura Jr.” during his daily weighing. Laura Jr. loved to cuddle.

Happy birthday and thank you to my partner and best supporting contributor, Lee.  Dr. Sanger was absolutely correct when he attributed his success at work to the support his wife gave him at home.  I don’t mean that our partners should run the entire household because we are too important (I’m all for egalitarian chore wheels).  What I mean is that it takes a special (and patient) type of person to emotionally support us and our work.  As researchers and/or academics, we lead busy work lives, have variable schedules, have sudden deadlines that crop up and glue us to our laptops, we can’t always take vacation during the school year and if we do take a vacation it always seems to coincide with a scientific conference we are presenting at.  We can be cranky without regular coffee infusions, and sometimes we come home smelling of whatever it is we were working on. And, sometimes we can never find enough undergraduate students to help us and ask you to help us clean sheep pens with no compensation.

 

Lee in pasture 2
Lee helping catch sheep in a pasture under the hot July sun. Generally, all my sheep liked him and would walk right up to him.

 

Our jobs can also require us to move often, or to hard-to-reach locations.  Roughly a year ago, I accepted a job (my current post-doc position) in Bozeman, MT, a place I had never been to 2,600 miles from where I was living in Vermont.  I asked Lee to drop everything and relocate with me- something that every partner of a graduate student, post-doc, or tenure-track professor has been asked at least once.  Relocating with a researcher is no small proposition- it usually comes with a variable-length timeline; you might have to move again in a year or three or you might get stuck there and have to put down roots.  I am delighted to say that Lee came with me, we drove all 2,600 miles across country to Montana, and we have been having a wonderful time under the Big Sky since!  Happy birthday Lee, and to everyone else: go home and thank your partner, parents, coworkers, friends, pets, house plants, or whatever else for giving you the emotional support you need to be your best scientist.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

A Lady on the Streets and a Tiger in the Sheets of Paperwork.

Stereotyping is a social adaptation which evolved to help individuals classify stimuli, and to make judgements about new, untested stimuli.  After all, once a crocodile ate your family, it was conducive to your survival to assume that all crocodiles were probably dangerous.  However, social interactions and the human sense of self is so much more nuanced today that stereotyping is no longer a valid social tool.  People make assumptions about others based on just about any aspect of their person, and this has very real repercussions for diversity and interactions in the workplace, though here I am focusing on preconceived notions of women.

Women often face a paradoxical set of rules for their personality and productivity, especially at work.  Sometimes we are perceived as being too talkative and willing to talk over others, yet a recent study showed that men do most of the talking in work meetings, and are much more likely to interrupt a woman and than man.  Women are perceived by men to be worse at problem solving, as being unreliable if they are working mothers, and as being worse team leaders or executives.  This is contrary to other studies which show women to be more effective leaders.  In that study, women were more likely to take charge, undergo professional development, be honest, and were better at communicative and collaborative skills.  Many women who were surveyed attributed their success to having to work much harder than their male counterparts in order to prove their competence.

Women are encouraged to be more feminine from many angles, such as societal norms, or product marketing and advertising, often with the perception that you will be more attractive and better liked if you exhibit predominantly feminine qualities (warmth, nurturing, patience). However, the perception of working women used to be (in 1984) that they were more masculine, and prior to that working women were seen as selfish, unfeminine, and cold.  While in 2014, working women were categorized as equally feminine and masculine, being more “masculine” (self-confident, self-promoting) is shown to increase your chance of promotion.  Women are also often expected to do workplace “chores” or to be altruistic (staying late, helping other employees, etc. at no personal gain) in ways that men are not.

Another problem is the perception of working women and their relation to their family, which has improved in the last century but still lags behind the times. It’s still assumed that women will at some point temporarily or permanently leave work to raise a family, and working mothers are commonly perceived to be unreliable in terms of performance and time spent at work.  There can still be negative attitudes towards women who work instead of staying home to raise children, even though countless studies across the globe have shown that working mothers (who want to be working) have a more positive attitude, act as role models, and reduce gender inequality in future generations (data from here and summarized here).

This also ties into theories about whether or not a woman should earn more that her man (arguments which ignore same-sex couple earning dynamics). However, this leads to the idea that women don’t work to financially support their families, but to feed an ambition, yet why can’t both be true?  Men responded that when jobs are scarce, men have more right to them than women, and were less likely to respond that a job was the best way for a woman to be independent.  Thus, women’s careers are incorrectly perceived as superfluous to supporting a family and leads to the idea that we don’t need to make as much as a man, who may be supporting his family.

I can personally attest to this.  For several years, I was financially supporting my ex-husband during his arduous job search following the 2008 recession.  It didn’t bother me, as I was applying to graduate school and preparing for the financial tables to turn once I transitioned to a student stipend.  However, our financial roles came as a surprise to many people, in that the thought hadn’t occurred to them that I was the prevailing breadwinner.  This was again reflected in people’s perceptions about what we would do after I graduated.  When I announced my interest in finding a post-doctoral position on the opposite US coast or internationally, people were surprised that I would ask my man to give up his job, start over in a new place, and move away from his family.  However, I would have been expected to do the same if our career roles had been reversed.

Luckily, attitudes about female bosses are changing, even if our paychecks aren’t.  Today fewer men responded that they would prefer a male boss to a female boss, and more had no preference, than they did 50 years ago.  Only 23% of Americans polled preferred a woman, which is and has always been lower than the number of respondents preferring a male boss.  Gender preference was also linked to the gender of your current boss, so it likely that people are as unsure of change in hierarchy as they are of specific genders in charge.  Surprisingly, women were 13% more likely to want a male boss, which may be a reaction to fierce competition to become the “token woman” at a company or working group, as women or other minorities who advocate hiring another woman or minority are penalized.  There is also the perception among women that a female boss less likely to promote you over herself, as she doesn’t want competition, known as Queen Bee Syndrome.  This too, has been refuted, as women are shown to be more likely to mentor and develop female employees lower down on the ladder (discussed here).    Interestingly, companies with higher numbers of women in leadership roles consistently do better financially than companies with low number of women in leadership roles.

So how do we act more confidently without being arrogant or dominating, prove that we are great at math and science without being narcissistic, or have a family but not make a big deal of it?  The best way to change public misconceptions is to prove them wrong.  My advice, for women, for everyone: just be yourself.  Be your best self. Be friendly and open, but judiciously say “no” to demands on your time.  Remember who you are, where you want to go, and be comfortable in your skin. Feel free to be feminine, masculine, or whatever (just remember to be professional).  As you work your way through your career, you should remember to be humble; after all, there is always someone out there that knows more than you do, but you also need to remember that you are intelligent, hard working, and you deserve to be where you are.

Abstract Accepted!

Great news!  I’ll be presenting a poster this year at the American Society for Microbiology’s (ASM) Microbe Conference in Boston, MA this June 16th-20th.  I’ll have a date and time later this month, and will of course post the full abstract and poster after the presentation.

“Farming Systems Modify The Impact Of Inoculum On Soil Microbial Diversity”

Suzanne L. Ishaq¹, Stephen P. Johnson², Zach J. Miller³, Erik A. Lehnhoff4, Carl J. Yeoman¹, Fabian D. Menalled²

1 Montana State University, Department of Animal and Range Science, Bozeman, MT 2 Montana State University, Department of Land Resources & Environmental Sciences, Bozeman, MT 3 Montana State University, Western Agriculture Research Center, Bozeman, MT 4 New Mexico State University, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Las Cruces, NM

Happy 1 year anniversary of finishing my dissertation!

A year ago today, I submitted my doctoral dissertation to my committee: 315 pages, 10 chapters, 73,009 words, 376 total citations (202 of which in the literature review).  It was the culmination of almost 5 years of research, over two months of writing, and the entire Buffy the Vampire series in reruns. It seems fitting that the last two months of this year I have been equally busy writing a handful of grants, though without the help of old TV scifi dramas.

Not in my backyard!

image

Today I spent a few hours picking trash out of some steams bordering my housing development. It’s very windy on the plains of Montana, and wind storms contribute to pollution by spreading trash. These steams are home to ducks, fish, musk rats, snakes, and frogs, and they link to larger water systems which run through local farms and provide water to cattle. Since the water table isn’t very deep here, any pollution can have far reaching effects. In just two and a half hours, I managed to pull all this out using only a ski pole, proving that one person can make a difference. As an environmental scientist, it’s important to me to give back. Next time you’re looking for something to do, why not try some green up?

Where’d the spark go? When it’s time to break up with your graduate program.

Remember when you first met your graduate program? You got that little thrill whenever they emailed you. You started measuring the graduate student office for new drapes. You just wanted to spend all your time in the lab, and couldn’t be happier doing so. As time went on, you learned a lot about your field and about yourself. You grew as a person and became more confident in your work. Eventually, the relationship started to stagnate: you got tired of working on the same old projects, ran out of interesting classes to try, you felt like it was never going to get the next level and, well, you got bored. It happens to everyone, and it’s important to recognize the signs (1), before the relationship becomes negative.

I have seen it before. Graduate students have trouble finishing up projects and getting manuscripts published, their PIs change the subject when the time comes to set a defense date, they feel like a perpetual student, until they become frustrated at the creeping feeling of no control over their life or the pace of their career. And eventually, many of them reflect this frustration outwardly by complaining about their PI, their department, their university. This is detrimental to yourself and to the quality of your work (2) (3), to the other students around you who still have several years of graduate work to look forward to, and to prospective students (4).

And more than that, it doesn’t help you to find your next position, because you find yourself complaining to people that you probably shouldn’t open up to: people you meet at a conference, a candidate interviewing in your current department, the interviewer for your prospective job. No one likes to hear someone rag on their old boss if they might one day be the boss you are badmouthing on social media.  Nor they do they want a team member who is going to bring down the tone for the whole group.

When you are ready to move on in your career, you know, and you need to take responsibility and control of your trajectory to make it happen. Set a timeline and stick to it, sit your PI down and set a defense date, curate your CV and start applying for jobs. Not just the two jobs that you really, really want, but any job that you think you might be interested in. The post-doctoral job market is small, and it’s difficult to find a position. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, as you may find yourself stuck in that particular graduate program if you’re not able to find a new position. The process will hone your skills as well, especially if you can get an interview. Use each opportunity, and if you don’t get the job, politely ask the interviewer how you could make yourself more competitive, or if there was an aspect of your work that was underwhelming or poorly explained.

The point is, don’t wait until you are sick of being a graduate student and can’t wait to get out, keep an eye out for your next move and be proactive about it. So put away those free t-shirts you got from vendors, get yourself some new business attire, get your CV in shape, and you’ll be surprised at how many interviewers ask for your number.

Here is another relevant and entertaining blog post on the subject.

Grant Season 2016

For the last few months (and for at least two more) I’ve been hard at work writing several large grants for future projects: one looking at plant species’ interactions with soil microbes, one on the microbiome of women on hormonal contraceptives, one on grazing systems in sheep, and a few more that are under conceptual development.  It’s intensive work, that requires a lot of time reading journal articles to formulate an argument for your proposed work, while making sure you are proposing something new and aren’t just repeating previous research.  To top it all off, you have to do it within a certain page limit.

Grant season typically lasts from late November to early April: it’s when many agencies in the US put out general or topic-specific calls for funding.  Each agency (ex. USDA, NIH, DOE, etc.) has it’s own requirements for formatting, the information that gets included, who can apply, etc.  They are very picky, too; sometimes proposals will be sent back for having more than the requisite maximum of citations on your CV– without the agency having read your proposal at all.  Many will also turn away proposals that they feel are not aligned with the goals of that agency or that funding call, even if they like your submission.

Despite the long hours and the nit-picky attention to detail required, I’ve enjoyed being able to hone my grant writing skills, to learn about different research topics, and to be part of so many exciting projects over the new few years.  Most of these will be submitted in March, and we probably won’t hear back until mid-summer- fingers crossed!

 

The Reluctant Interplay of Science and Social Media

Recently, I had another in a long series of conversations with scientists about how they got into science so that they wouldn’t have to use any of their rusty social skills, only to find that social interaction, meetings, and now online communication were a huge part of their daily routine. The myth of the curmudgeon scientist holed up their lab seems to persist despite the current age of social media, perhaps because we scientists don’t seem to understand the appeal of Twitter (how do you include the p-value when you only have 140 characters?!). But in reality, a great deal of our time involves communication, and having practiced social etiquette can make or break you in an interview, at a conference, or at a project pitch meeting.

Many researchers wait until they are hired as assistant professors before they reluctantly make a website, start a blog, or even set up an email account for the lab. How disappointing it must be to wait all those years as a graduate student and a post-doctoral researcher, only to find that a website with your last name has already been taken! And what a hassle to have to generate blog posts, update project and personnel pages, and keep up with social media when you have just landed a professorship and are swamped with grant proposals, manuscripts from old projects that keep hanging around, comparison shopping for equipment to set your lab up, generating coursework for one or several courses, recruiting students…. It’s such a hassle that a friend of mine created an entire business around helping new professors create and manage an online presence: Tenure Chasers.

It really got me thinking, shouldn’t I be starting this?  It’s a little preemptive, after all, I’m a post-doctoral researcher without a lab of my own.  But it makes sense to start it now; for one thing, I have the time to devote to creating the mainframe.  For another, as a new researcher, I sometimes need to prove that I exist.  It seems like a silly thing to think about, but sometimes you need to prove that you are, in fact, a real researcher will real work experience and not just an email scam targeting disused academic email servers (happens quite often).  And hiring someone is a serious consideration, as research funds are limited, indirect costs for personnel make total personnel costs high, you are trusting this person with your research and your career reputation, and you may need to work with this person for several to many years.  It’s a commitment to hire a scientist, and you need to be sure about them.  Thus, having at least one thorough online profile, or better yet- connections to other well-known researchers, can give employers more confidence in you.

Finally, having an online presence improves your communication skills, and shows a commitment to outreach, which is a component in any career level of academia.  It helps to get your work out to other scientists, especially those outside your field whom you wouldn’t run into at a conference or seminar, and more importantly, it disseminates it to the general public.  Graduate school and post-doctoral positions are designed to teach and refine skills, and the skill of communication is no different.  So don’t wait until you really need it, start early and improve the quality of your social media presence, before anyone is paying attention.

 

2016 New Year’s Resolution

It’s 2016 and already it seems like the year is flying by.  Between grant writing, manuscript writing, data analysis, and the thousand other little things you find yourself doing, it can be difficult to find time for outreach.  As such, my 2016 New Year’s Resolution as a researcher is to solidify my online footprint to better disseminate my work.  This site seeks to manage citations, connect all those online professional site profiles, give updates on my day-to-day, and to provide insight into the microbial communities that I investigate.