A colleague of mine in Spain (both accomplished neuroscientist and
business person) induced me to try out Skype the other day (www.skype
com). Skype is Internet telephony with instant message capability that
is cost free “in network”. I-chat, Yahoo IM and AOL IM all have similar
capabilities. Skype is somewhat unique in that it has very low cost
“call out” capabilities–meaning that you can call someone at a regular
cell or land line, someone who is off the Internet.
What struck both of us is that these modalities may be of great utility
for enhancing international scientific initiatives. Imagine two
laboratories, on separate continents, engaged in a collaboration, funded
by perhaps an international granting agency. Now imagine being a fly on
the wall in a state-of-the-art electrophyiology laboratory (such as we
have at Krasnow):
A postdoc on one side of the ocean, patch clamping a hippocampal
pyramidal cell (in the early afternoon) might be able to assist another
postdoc (working in the early evening) with a recording of a similar
cell, sharing data in real time, while at the same time perhaps spending
30 minutes at a time communicating nothing at all–concentrating instead
on the bench work at hand.
The point is that it would cost nothing, but it would potentially create
a virtual adjacency that could be very powerful. Skype and it’s cousins
allow for a good deal more than voice/instant message communication.
Files can be transfered. Web links can be rapidly exchanged. And in the
case of I-chat, good video link is available.
These notions of free and ubiquitous communication brings back a
poignant memory from my recent trip to Curacao. In the main square,
overlooking the harbor, seated outside and alone at an Internet cafe
under a palm tree, a young woman with a web cam on her laptop was
clearly instant messaging with her boyfriend (or perhaps a close
relative). I imagine that the young woman was Dutch, since Curacao is
part of the Netherlands Antilles–perhaps the other party was on the
other side of the Atlantic, in Holland. The world has indeed changed.

Jim

Space is always a real “bread and butter” issue (or should one say a hot button issue?) at an institute for advanced study. Not only is space related to perceived prestige and power (especially when there are no titles or other honorifics on the office doors), but more importantly space is directly related to the ability to carry out research.

Within this overall context, it’s incumbent upon a director to make the hard choices on space allocation–and most importantly to put the interests of the institute (and in our case also the university) at the forefront.

For me when I make choices regarding space I consider the following factors in roughly descending order:
–overall scientific viability of the institute as a whole
–retaining our scientific talent
–preserving scientific viability of individual PI’s based on meritocracy criteria
–equity

Sometimes this results in individual and/or group unhappiness I know. Especially when, on the rare occasion, I have to change the status quo.

Jim

We wish UCSB and Mike well as they launch a sister institute on the west coast.

Money quote:
“UC Santa Barbara has received a $3.5-million contribution from SAGE Publications to launch a dynamic new interdisciplinary research center for the study of the mind. SAGE made the gift to commemorate its 40th anniversary as a leading international publisher for scholarly, educational, and professional markets.
The SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind will bring together UC Santa Barbara scholars from a broad range of academic disciplines in the arts and humanities, social sciences, the sciences, and engineering to explore the multidimensional nature of the human mind.

UCSB has attracted a top scholar to lead the pioneering new effort. Michael Gazzaniga, widely regarded as the founder of the cognitive neuroscience field, will direct the SAGE Center. Gazzaniga is currently the David T. McLaughlin Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth where he directs the college’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. In January, he will join UCSB’s Psychology Department, where he began his academic career in 1967 as an assistant professor of psychology.”

With November upon us, the academic semester, holiday season in sight, builds in intensity. Nevertheless, as the trees hit their peak colors, I am reminded of how beautiful this season is here in the Washington area. We are so lucky to be here–all of us.

In Washington *and* in academia, there is a fine art to blocking,
obstructing that which you may not wish to come to pass. It’s a
delicate dance of course because there are often powerful
constituencies behind initiatives. I remember when I used to live
near the National Zoo, my wife and I met a politically well-connected
guy who pointedly told us that it’s possible to block anything or
anyone “in this town”.
Hmmm.
I’m bringing this up because of course I think such process
“filibustering” is inappropriate. If you are against something, then
the proper way to oppose it is to come out, make your best case, let
the decision-makers have at it, and live with the course of history.
And definitely such a proper course requires both more courage and
more importantly, a greater respect for the folks who are charged
with saying yeah or nay.
Along these lines, may I recommend Jane Smiley’s novel of academia
“Moo”. It’s a delightful description of academic obstructionism taken
to obsession–and very entertaining!

Jim

I know that most of us are just getting used to the notion of the new Krasnow Expansion project that’s in the final stages of being contracted, however I’m now starting to think about Phase III–yet another 12,500 sq. foot addition that will bring the Institute up to its final, permanent physical footprint. This will enable us to eventually support in the neighborhood of 120 scientific staff, which I think is a good critical mass for the long haul.

Jim

I’m joking of course about Amherst College–where I went to undergrad. The link is to the Daily Jolt which provides a fairly accurate picture of undergraduate life at the “College on the Hill”.

I have mixed feelings about my time there. Without question, AC provides one of the best liberal arts educations available in the US today. Each year, it’s a horse race between Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore for the number 1 ranking in the US News and World Report best liberal arts college category. On the other hand, as a native Angelino arriving in blue-blood Amherst Massachusetts, the culture shock never wore off–even after four years. I probably should have stayed in California.

What is interesting about Amherst, is how seriously it treats the undergraduate neuroscience major–that’s something we would do well to emulate here at Mason.

It’s also very interesting about how Amherst promotes from day one, an entirely rigorous approach to critical writing and analysis–skills that of course are very important in basic research

Jim

The link (click above) is to Wikipedia’s entry on tenure.

I have a couple of thoughts on this matter which are relevant to research institutes such as Krasnow:

The first is that tenure serves a real function for us at Krasnow (especially when viewed in comparison to stand-alone research institute’s which may not grant same): it allows us to recruit top flight faculty under conditions when we otherwise might not be able to. In other words, tenure is a major carrot.

The second is that the reason for tenure was originally to protect academic freedom–particularly during the 1950’s when academics who had sympathies for left-wing causes had reason to fear for their jobs. That raison d’etre is no longer a valid concern. Academic freedom is reasonably secure in the Academy.

What concerns me is that the granting of tenure may remove the powerful job incentive that most other high performance professions have as a matter of course (imagine the coach of the Washington Red Skins having tenure!). And in science, particularly basic research, this loss of incentive can be a very bad thing.

Jim

Hello to friends from my alma mater who have found this blog. I plan to write about Amherst College in the near future.

Jim

Serving on an academic search committee is one of the most significant
roles that one can play as a professor. Interestingly, there are a lot
of misconceptions about such service, most of which revolve around the
concepts of representation (that is whether a member of the committee is
the representative of some academic unit or polity) and confidentiality
(preserving the integrity of the search).

What follows are my thoughts on these matters. They are by no means the
final word–just the results of my own learning experiences with the
additional pointers from my academic parents (in both senses of the word
parent).

First, it’s often the case, that when one is asked to serve on a search,
one’s first thought is that one is representing one’s colleagues in the
selection process. While this is true to an extent–yes, one is supposed
to think about what type of individual would be a best fit for one’s
department–it’s definitely *not* the case that one is there to
represent the consensus of colleagues on the dossier/application files.

Rather, the the search committee member’s role is to render his or her
own best judgment, realizing that colleagues (and perhaps one’s Chair)
have selected one to do so–it’s like being nominated and confirmed for
a judgeship: we don’t expect John Roberts to poll President Bush and the
other senior members of the administration on cases before him, even
though he clearly was selected by them and in some sense is representing
their ideas on the Court.

This leads directly to the idea of confidentiality. It’s extraordinarily
important not to discuss the search with one’s colleagues who are not
serving also on the search committee. Preserving this confidentiality
preserves the very integrity of the search. It prevents the application
of raw political power (at least at the level of the Committee) in the
selection process, while at the same time protecting the applicants
themselves–who may wish their job search to be secret from their own
colleagues and peers.

Interestingly this doesn’t preclude a bit of detective work with regards
to candidates. It *is* appropriate to make phone calls and ask
professional colleagues (generally at outside institutions) about
candidates–this is a critical addition to the information provided in
letters. At the same time, there’s a bit of judgment required here,
since such inquiries can often compromise the confidentiality of the
candidate’s application.

I’ll try to cover promotion and tenure as a topic very soon.

Jim