Just a quick look ahead to the Krasnow Science Retreat in January. First of all, kudos are once again due to Krasnow Director Emeritus, Harold Morowitz, for organizing the Retreat for a third year running. Second, we’re going to have two major discussions on the second day of the Retreat that I’d like folks to start thinking about:

1) We need to start making a list of individual PI’s that we would like to bring to Krasnow over the next several years as we expand into the new space. This year we’re going to be getting fairly specific and naming names for our wish list.

2) We need to think about the superstars we want to invite for the 2007 10th anniversary of the Krasnow Facility Celebration. We’re already deep into the planning process for this very important event in our history.

Jim

Usually these two shouldn’t mix–at least in the public arena. What I mean is that if you are involved in high-level science administration, then I think it’s probably not terribly wise to have a high profile on science policy issues when they intersect with politics–especially partisan politics.

Let me explain:

Usually, science administrators have to deal with decision makers at various levels of government. They also generally have fund raising responsibilities which brings them into direct contact with donors who may also be involved in politics. If one is perceived as partisan–on any issue–then one runs the risk of being de facto labeled. And as soon as one is labeled, then all bets are off as far as advancing the causes of your institution when the other party or faction is on power. And of course such change is bound to happen eventually.

I worry that too often, science administrators ignore this basic tenet and eventually end up paying a cost through their institution. Very often it’s done in the name of academic freedom–which is of course nonsense as far as a science administrator’s job. There will be plenty of time to spout off when one returns to the instructional faculty.

Cheers,
Jim

Eugenie Scott will be speaking at Mason later this week:

WHY SCIENTISTS REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN “THEORY”
A public lecture by
DR. EUGENIE C. SCOTT
Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education

Thursday December 1
7:00 PM
Johnson Center – Dewberry Hall South
George Mason University
Fairfax Campus

Free and open to the public
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Scott has been both a researcher and an activist in the creationism/evolution controversy for more than 20 years, focusing on educational, legal, scientific, religious and social issues around the controversy. She has received national recognition for her NCSE activities, including awards from the National Science Board, the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Geological Society of America and the American Humanist Association.

Driving directions and parking information at: http://www.gmu.edu/welcome/Directions-to-GMU.html
This event is sponsored by Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, the Provost’s office, and the College of Arts and Sciences, GMU.

Not sure why, but Blogger seems to be down this morning. So posting
will be difficult.

Jim

We’re now nearing the end of the trial period for having the Monday seminar series run by a Krasnow faculty committee. So far I think it’s worked really well–both in terms of quality of speakers and budget. I particularly like the idea of a rotating chair–although we’ve been extremely lucky to have two fantastic chairs in Professors Ascoli and Barreto.

Thus I’d like to ask for feedback on how others perceive the series during the recent trial run. If the feeling is that we continue with this mode, I’m game.

And of course…Happy Thanksgiving!

Jim

Yesterday, in the midst of an interview for a tenure-line position I found myself trying to describe for the candidate our strategy for investing in young scientists, in general filled with potential, but as yet unproven in their careers. For me that strategy is best summed up by the slightly glib expression “chose your bets carefully, but then follow them all the way through”. In other words, once we have made a choice, as a rule, we tend to avoid hedging that bet.

The first years of an independent investigator are of course the most fraught with risk. There is the challenge of developing a line of research that is separate and distinct from that of one’s mentors. There is the challenge of using set-up funding wisely in order to ensure good pilot data for the first round of independent grant applications. There are the challenges that go with balancing teaching load with research, combined with the need to attract quality graduate students to the effort.

In all of these challenges, I view the Krasnow Institute as a partner. We are also at risk (because of the investment, but also because each time we bring in a new investigator we to some extent roll the dice on the collegial environment that we enjoy here). As a partner, of course we give advice, but it is also crucial to be there with support and to do whatever can be done to improve the chances of the new person for success.

Jim

Giorgio…Thanks for your thoughtful comments. For more information on Dr. Ascoli’s research group here at Krasnow click on the link above.

Jim

SfN05

Jim asked me to enter a blog with my thoughts on SfN05. As usual, SfN was a “stock market” of information, as a senior colleague called it, a feast of amazing lectures, posters, demonstrations, symposia, etc. To me, it is the personal meetings that most notably define SfN. Both the formally arranged one, e.g. with collaborators from out of town to discuss the status of the project or exchange data, and the informal ones, i.e. bumping into the right person at the right time, trading bits of information or planting the seed for more extensive exchanges down the road. Many of my own research projects (and I can very concretely think of recent grants and papers) have started just that way at previous SfN meetings. This year the sequence of formal and informal meetings was even more intense than in the past, nearly around the clock!

More generally, I think that the meeting had a lot of energy, movement, and scientific appeal. The presence of neuroinformatics in particular was pervasive – my impression is that databases and analysis tools are changing the face of neuroscience research the way bioinformatics did to molecular biology. The ratio of “secondary” discovery (from re-analysis of archived data, be those gene sequences, fMRI images, or neuronal reconstructions) over “primary” data collection is destined to only increase in the future. I was very pleased that our own results (George Mason, Krasnow Institute, and Computational Neuroanatomy Group) received a considerable level of attention and praise. This was also the first SfN meeting and poster presentation for many of our grad students, a milestone I am particularly proud of!

Giorgio

I think it is important for Krasnow to acquire the capabilities in cellular imaging that come along with a comprehensive confocal microscope system. This capability will be positive, not only for our existing investigators, but also for our future recruitments. Basically, we are looking for cellular imaging which will allow us not only focus in superbly on the interior structure and dynamics of cells (such as neurons) but also the capability to manipulate those intracellular spaces using such techniques as caged compounds.

In truth, this may involve the purchase of more than one instrument. I have been looking at both spinning disk and laser scanning models and both upright and inverted types. I imagine that our cellular imaging center will be structured in a similar manner to our new brain imaging center.

Accordingly, in the next several weeks I will be arranging for demonstrations from various potential vendors. I’m looking forward to the participation of our scientific staff in addition to other interested scientists at George Mason.

Jim

Professor Giorgio Ascoli, of the Human Brain Project fame, will be a guest blogger soon. He’ll be writing about his perpectives on the recently completed Neuroscience meetings here in Washington.

Jim