Nobel laureate Ahmed Zewail’s editorial in Nature is here. Hat tip Harry Erwin.
Money quote:
How can we ensure that such research is encouraged today? Curiosity-driven research requires that creative scientists work in an environment that encourages interactions between researchers and collaborations across different fields. But such attributes cannot and should not be orchestrated by structured and weighty management, as creative minds and bureaucracies do not work harmoniously together.
As we prepare to take delivery of Krasnow Phase II in the Spring, the Institute will have approximately 55 thousand square feet of dedicated research space. We’ll have superb wet-labs, core support facilities and instrumentation clusters to support the bench-top science that is so important to our research program. But we’ll still have a center, one department and one of our top laboratories scattered around the campus. It will be time to build the wing that will not only bring those key academic and research elements under one roof, it will also provide Mason’s Institute for Advanced Study with a superb state-of-the-art auditorium (although really simulatorium should be the correct word since this facility will enable the presentation, in real time of multiple computational models), faculty offices and teaching labs for the academic programs that we participate in.
When Phase III is done, Krasnow will have all it’s faculty, trainees and students under one roof. It’s my belief that by creating that proximity, we will further facilitate the trans-disciplinary science that has become part of our identity. The new wing, off the south end of the Institute will take us up to approximately 75,000 square feet. We’ve received our first gifts to enable this effort and I’ll keep loyal readers posted on our progress.
Here’s the link from today’s NY Times on-line. So what’s my take? Well, for one, I’m very proud to work at a very affordable public university. But I do recognize that in the current economic environment, colleges have to raise tuition (and this is particularly true for public institutions) if they want to continue to deliver a quality product (and avoid, to use Fish’s term, academic malpractice).
But there’s a larger issue–the competitiveness of US institutions of higher education is a key national security asset of this country. We need to recognize that, especially as we go through the process of seriously discussing what government should do.
Kenneth Brower, himself the son of the famous environmental leader David Brower, writes a cogent and interesting piece about Freeman Dyson and his son George here.
This topic, in general, is of course a personally interesting.
Oliver Sacks new book is reviewed here by Annie Paul. The review is quite positive, and there is no doubt neurology has quite a lot to teach us about neuroscience–I will never forget Professor Anne Young’s wonderful lectures at Michigan before she moved to Harvard.
But there is a crucial limitation: the semiotics of the diseased brain may not tell the full story of how the healthy brain functions. If we want to understand how “mind” emerges from biological brains, at some point we need to study the neurobiology of the “normal” brain (realizing of course that all brains are different and that our definition of normal is therefore a statistical one).
Which brings us to brain imaging and specifically functional MRI (fMRI). This type of non-invasive brain imaging indeed does allow us to study the neurobiology of the healthy brain. But as an imaging technology it is woefully mismatched to the spatial and temporal scales of the brain. We need to push the physics and keep working towards non-invasive human brain imaging that is scaled better at the problem.
The second piece of crucial advice for individuals considering applying for doctoral programs in the sciences here in the United States has to do with a separate letter from the formal application package. The addressee is a faculty member whose research interests align with your own. Or to put it more bluntly, a scientist for whom you can align your own ideas for a thesis with their established research program. The decision on who to select for this letter has been made infinitely easier by the Internet. But, nevertheless, the process takes some very hard work. Suffice it to say, the work is worth it. In my experience, if done well (and assuming you have decent grades and GRE scores) it will double your chances of admission with fellowship support.
So the first part of the research process involves going to the web site of the program (e.g. ours is here). Generally on the web site, you will find a listing of faculty members with a short precis of their research interests. This however is only the start of what you’re going to do in terms of producing a letter.
Look through the list. Besides looking for a match in terms of the science, you’ll also want to look for initial evidence of a successful lab. One very simple piece of evidence is tenure. In general all full professors have tenure. But a tenure-track faculty member (e.g. an assistant professor) can actually be running an even more productive and successful lab. To assess this, you’ll need to dive into Pub Med (web site is here). Search for you potential targeted faculty member (perhaps your future thesis advisor!) and look for the number and quality of publications. Quality is assessed by the impact factor of the journal (but a good sign are articles published in Science, Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science or one of the Cell Journals–such as Neuron). If your faculty member is more senior, then it’s a good sign that they are the last or senior author on the papers. If your target is junior, then they may either be first or last author, but in general, they shouldn’t be in the middle. Download some of the major articles for a serious read. We’ll get to that shortly.
Search the web now also for the lab’s home page. In most cases, you’ll get an idea of the make-up of the lab, a longer statement of the lab’s interests and crucially usually some photos of the lab members, either individually or as a group. Look carefully at the images–do the lab members look happy?
Now for the most difficult part: read the journal articles that you’ve picked very carefully. Note your questions in pencil along the side and assess the figures critically. Does the science still seem substantive to you? Do the methods seem interesting and doable in and of themselves?
Look at the references. Does the lab mostly cite it’s own work (not a good sign)? Note the major citations and download those papers also from Pub Med. Read them critically also.
Now produce your letter to the faculty member. Express your interest in joining the lab as a graduate student. Crucially, cross-reference, your application package to the program. The letter should address your own scientific interests within the context of the lab’s, it should demonstrate that you’ve read the relevant papers, and it should lay out your own ideas for next steps (potential thesis projects).
If you can, have a friend who is a scientist, read a draft of your letter. Incorporate any suggestions and email the letter directly to the faculty member. Don’t even think about using a mail merge program to send the same letter out to multiple faculty members.
You’ve just massively increased your chances of admission.
I keep giving advice over the years on how best to apply for doctoral programs. It’s time to put down at least the most central part of this advice as a service to loyal readers who, after careful consideration, have decided to go on to get their PhD in science. The advice here is somewhat localized (to use the computer software vocabulary): it applies best to my own field of neuroscience and the value of the advice probably tails off significantly as the discipline becomes further from my own. I’d also welcome comments on my advice (although, as always, I’ll moderate) because there may be valuable insights from other faculty members who are also readers of Advanced Studies.
So first piece of advice: understand that the costs of education at the doctoral level in neuroscience are counter-intuitive, especially to an undergraduate. The more established elite institutions (with the stellar undergraduate tuition costs) actually are the better economic deals for a doctoral student. That’s because they typically pay higher graduate student stipends and almost universally wave tuition. Sometimes they even subsidize housing (in expensive housing markets like Manhattan).
The result is that, in deciding where you want to apply for graduate school (in the hard sciences), don’t be scared off by what the undergraduate tuition costs may be. If admitted (with a fellowship and most folks are), you’ll be looking at probably full tuition remission and a substantial stipend. If you can get subsidized housing in addition, you’re earn your PhD with a small amount of savings and at least no debt.
NY Times reports on the discovery of very large gamma ray bubbles at the center of our galaxy, The Milky Way. Bubbles grow and bubbles burst of course. It would be interesting to get a read on that.
His column from today’s NY Times is here. As is usual for Brooks, he has an underlying optimism about America’s future. My only addition would be that Singapore is that cross-roads nation right now.
From The American Scientist here. The short version is that Cal Tech student subjects are willing to pay more for a material thing (say a baseball cap) if it’s actually displayed. An image or text just doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t strike me as market efficient, so there must some brain mechanism pushing the bias.
Discoverers and Discoveries 