Where are we? Where are we going?

See how your insights are being addressed.

Stay tuned to the Krasnow Construction blog as we move from data collection (no more solicitations for interviews!) into the next phase of the project.

http://krasnowconstruction.blogspot.com/

It happens all the time of course. Your good science is rejected following peer review at a journal that you think should have accepted it. It can feel like a punch in the stomach. But it shouldn’t. Here’s what you should do:

I give myself 24 hrs to decompress before I read the reviews again in detail. This time I’m not reading the reviews from the standpoint of why the referee felt that my manuscript definitely didn’t belong in Journal Y. Rather I’m looking for positive clues about where the referee thinks the work might be better suited. This would also be the time to seriously consider whether the work in question needs to be repackaged (i.e. put together with other experiments/figures).

But it’s important at this phase to put the referees’ comments in context. Perhaps there was another agenda at play. Perhaps they didn’t understand parts of the manuscript. Perhaps the editor picked the wrong reviewers. All of these are possible.

You then need to decide whether to flip the article (i.e. change the format and submit to another journal) or repackage. Obviously there are many factors that need to be thought about at this stage. I’ll only say that very often flipping is appropriate–and doesn’t get considered enough. If you really believe in the manuscript *and* if your trusted colleagues do also, then very often flipping to the right journal can be the right choice.

Now, how to decide on the right alternative journal? We’ll talk about that next post.

Jim

When my Dad moved to Caltech in 1969 there was no neuroscience department or program per se. But there was a behavioral biology concentration within the Biology Division that included the likes of Konishi, Allman, Benzer and eventually Koch and Bower. I’ve often mentioned behavioral biology as the third circle of the Venn diagram that describes our scientific focus at Krasnow. What is behavioral biology–and how does it differ from neuroscience?

To my mind, behavioral biology examines the behavior of animals, but also plants and bacteria within the context of an individual’s biology and the larger biosphere. Thus bacteria travel up a gradient of nutrient by reducing the frequency of random tumble behavior and that is behavioral biology. At the same time the vocalizations of non-human primates and birds are produced by the brain, but are meaningful within the context of their social surroundings and the evolutionary constraints of fitness selection. These vocalizations/calls are also the stuff of behavioral biology.

Certainly Konrad Lorenz’s field of neuroethology falls within the realm of behavioral biology, but to my mind so does the predatory behavior of certain insect-eating plants.

Rob Shumaker’s wonderful work on Orangutan language and numerosity skills is behavioral biology at its best I think.

What about neuroscience?

For me neuroscience is focused pretty much exclusively on the collection of neurons that we call brains. Certainly one aspect of what brains do is produce behaviors, but Walter Freeman might perhaps suggest that those behaviors are an epiphenomenon of what brain’s really do: which is change their ensemble states.

Jim

I never wrote anything in the previous post about why the planning conference is important to our institute.

Here goes:

With a seat at the table, we gain input into the direction of the University as a whole. More importantly we gain insight into where the University is going, and if we, as a collective group, are agile enough, we can align our own goals (short term and longer haul) so that they coincide with the movement of the whole.

I’d be happy to discuss further with anyone who want to visit my office.

Jim

I thought it might be useful to write a bit about what goes on annually at Airlie Virginia that pulls together all of George Mason’s leadership and why it is important to the Krasnow Institute.

First, the place is really extraordinary. I believe in the early years of the Krasnow Institute, one of our own scientific meetings was held there. The urban legend on the place is that it was originally a CIA safe house/estate situated in the middle of the Virginia hunt country, but with its own airstrip (for easy access?). Rolling lawns, stately oaks, placid ponds and a wonderful yellow Georgian mansion all give the place an atmosphere of isolation from the event-driven day-to-day operations of the University.

The conference spans three days. During the first day, the GMU President’s Council meets. We continue to meet on the morning of the second day and then the afternoon of the second day, we meet jointly with the Board of Visitors (Mason’s Governing Board, appointed by the Governor). And then the third day, the BOV meets on its own.

Interestingly, there is no wifi in the conference rooms, although there is high speed ethernet in all the hotel rooms. I suspect this is on purpose–no surfing or blogging while listening. The discussions range over the entire scope of the University–from student sports to academic budgets, from research to construction projects. It’s a great way for everyone to get on the same page before the year begins.

So why is this planning conference important to Krasnow? See the next post…

Jim

It’s been a week since my last post. In that time, Meredith and I presented the Krasnow Construction Blog to the Neuroarchitecture Workshop in Woods Hole, and…I spent two days at the Mason President’s Council/ Board of Visitors annual planning conference retreat in Airlie Virginia.

First with regards to the Neuroarchitecture Workshop. While I wasn’t able to stay for the entire conference, the trans-disciplinary exchanges between neuroscientists interested in way-finding (hippocampus) and architects was incredible. One of your colleagues who was participating suggested it was perhaps the begining of a new field: applied neuroscience. In any case, the science was excellent and the views of Buzzards Bay were to match.

The Planning Conference was equally enjoyable. In the evolution that I have witnessed over the years attending this meeting, it is no longer a question of whether we want to be a great research university (with strength emphasized in the biosciences) but how fast we can get there. We discussed an initiative for a level of investments in research that was frankly breathtaking.

What a great place to work!

Jim

It’s been a very nice two days back at Krasnow. Monday I’m back off to Woods Hole to give a talk and attend a meeting. I’ll be back in the area Wednesday for the Mason President’s Council/Board of Visitors Planning Conference in Airlie and finally back next Friday for a regular day in the office.

Have a nice weekend,

Jim

Years ago, before Janelia Farms had even been announced I used to argue with the President of Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology (the inverted pyramidal building out by Dulles) that inevitably Northern Virgnia would become not only a center for basic science research, but that science would eclipse technology as the engine for the regional economy. My reasons then are the same as they are now: the demographics of the region (both in terms of income and education) would in fact constrain the growth path.

Echoing Vannevar Bush’s report to FDR “Science the Endless Frontier”, science is an enabler for technology and for economic growth (to say nothing about public health)–not vice versa. If a region has the basic R&D enterprises, then the satellite growth in technology and related fields has a solid base upon which to grow itself. Without that sold base, technology development is brittle and can easily tank in response to the whims of the equity markets.

Mason is now perfectly positioned to be one of the three legs for the stool upon which Northern Virgnia science growth can fuel the rest of the regional economy (the others being INOVA and HHMI’s Janelia Farms). That’s a good position to be in, and it makes for an exciting time for those of us at Krasnow.

Jim

I have learned to appreciate air conditioning in an entirely new way since returning back to Fairfax this morning. New England basically just sweats its way through these hotest weeks of the year (for them). And, I’m pleased to know that my trip on Monday back up to Woods Hole will involve staying in the relative comfort of the Nautilis Motor Inn–which does have the magic AC–to supplement its superb view of Little Harbor.

Yesterday I had lunch with an old friend of mine, she is a research professor at MBL, about to move to New York City, where her husband has just accepted a full professorship at Columbia. We chatted a bit about the challenges that women face in neuroscience, not only in terms of representation in leadership positions, but also specifically w. regards to the so-called “two body” problem where one spouse takes a high profile job leaving the other one too often in a professionally untenable position.

In any case, I think my friend will probably land on her feet. A Nobel Laureate, whom we all know of, has offered her a very interesting position in his lab, and they have just purchased a beautiful house in Hastings on Hudson. But I’ve seen (even growing up with two neuroscientist parents) the problems that women face in science up close. It’s an issue we all need to take seriously and address–particularly those of us in administration leadership roles.

Jim

One of my plans for the upcoming year is to put in place a firm plan to establish an optical microscopy core at Krasnow. This core would operate as a cost-center, in much the way or Krasnow Brain Imaging Center will. The notion is that users would be PI’s from the Institute and around the University who would have access to state-of-the-art cellular imaging. The microscopes would include our current dedicated neuroleucida Olympus, but would add confocal and hopefully two-photon capability, and might be used as part of a recruitment package for a future faculty member, who would run the new core, in addition to conducting their own research program.

If we imagined purchasing at least some of this equipment about a year from now, there would be the additional complexity of where to put the stuff while we are building out the Krasnow Expansion. If we delayed a year, then of course, the new core would take up residence nominally in the new Krasnow space.

For PI’s who might be interested in participating in this effort, I would welcome a short email stating your interest.

Jim