testing negative and being non-infected with Covid - slight comment

I wasn't planning on doing this but after a few days of hearing news from all over the place (thanks to being involved with someone who listens to Fox and "christian radio", I've gotten a view from there as well as the European sector that I cover on a regular daily basis and then the NPR and "liberal media" we both listen to....).

Anyhooo..... since part of what I'll be writing here shouldn't be an issue on anyone - regards republican or democrat - since it is fact.

The facts are as follows:

SARS-CoV-2 replicates in upper lung or lower lung, but most often is detected in respiratory part of the back of the nose (nasopharyngeal part). 

The PCR tests are designed to find the RNA in the swabs that are put in our noses - or sometimes the back of the throat - and will pick up virus and parts of the virus to show detection when run through the test.

The quick test - is having a high degree of certainty when positive (that means there is presence of virus in you) but the degree of false negatives is pretty high. This means that the Limit of Detection (LOD) as I previously wrote about, will be higher than 0. There's also a pure biological reason that the rapid test is having a low detection level of people "who might be infected but test negative" since there virus need to replicate to a point of detection. None of the test on market - understandably so - can say that they know you are infected the same day or day after (or even up to day "before you have symptoms") - since there LOD is not as sensitive as that.

Short explanation is this: you meet your friend and hug them. They are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and breathe when they say "Happy to see you". You get some of that breath, and viral particles, in your breath that you take into your lungs/upper respiratory tract (back of the nose/throat). The virus is all happy getting cells to infect and starts getting to work.... that means multiplying.

Depending on how well the virus is multiplying inside your cells, the number of cells and number of viral particles and RNA in your system (cells in the nose/lungs, bloodstream or stool) will vary. That's why some people show "positive" on the testing after 2 days after exposure, or others don't show it until 10 days. Either of them could be sick, have symptoms, and get others sick - it's all individual. That's why the guidelines say 5-14 days for quarantine.

As I explained to my parents - both over 70 - when I went to see them. I had a high risk event when flying, and I said "I want to wait 10 days before meeting you outside" (I'd still wear a mask since I'm the potential spreader at that point). The key facts for me are the scientific articles that say "after 11 days of quarantine without symptoms from a high risk/positive covid19 encounter, 97% are non-positive") .

When I re-entered USA to go to home to my house, I lived in my guest room for 9 days  - monitoring my temperature and symptoms - since it was important to me not getting anyone else potentially infected, and then I got a PCR test on day 8 since if my flight was the potential spreader moment. The test would pick up me as infected after 8 days even if I was symptomatic due to the viral replication rate as reported.

I feel like this aspect has been lost in the discussion. The test will NOT pick up on you being exposed today, yesterday, day before yesterday and maybe not day before that. Why? Because there isn't enough virus in you to get a positive in the test. the Swab is only so good. The swab doesn't go everywhere where the virus might be. The amount of virus is not what the Swab need it to be to pick it up.

This is what's mentioned in the discussion as "wait to test until 4 days after exposure" and quarantine until then. It's also why "going to work every day without social distancing even if you test every day will keep you safe from potential infections" (since you don't know who met someone infected the night before since the test will show up as negative that morning after....). 

Everyone with a basic biology degree should know this. 

Anyone having an infectious disease degree or knowledge knows this. Anyone with a pandemic preparedness knows this.

That's why I'm so confused seeing the "Rose Garden Event" from last Saturday since people are not only kissing and huggin (outdoors), they are also gathering indoors without any social distancing. It's confusing on a Risk level, and on a "protection level"

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that; people in the WH really didn't think Covid19 was an issue from the President, not any of the people surrounding him, since otherwise they would've taken precautions like social distancing, mask wearing indoors and no people cheek kissing and then talking to the president.  

Again, I feel like repeating - "What do I know? I'm just a PhD in microbiology with a speciality of virology and pandemic".....

PCR, serotesting, population level detection - what does this mean for me?! (covid19)

After more then three months of living in a pandemic, everyone is tired of it. It doesn't matter if it's living in a lockdown where people weren't allowed outside, or a country that sort of didn't mandated isolation for more than risks groups but every country has seen either extreme lockdown, massive death or lockdown and some death.

A few buzz words (describing mitigation techniques) have been floated during this time. I think that there are a fair amount of misunderstanding when using a lot of these words/techniques - compared to what they mean in a epidemiological setting. And since I have spent a fair amount of my time last three months discussing, explaining and listening to my friends and family telling me what limitations are involved with "testing", I would like to write a post about them (might have to be several).

First, a difference between tests. Two tests are mentioned a lot; PCR and serological (antibody). PCR test will indicate if there is RNA from the virus inside of a person.
Serological (antibody) will show if the person has developed antibodies against the virus (and therefore can not be sick again from the same virus). That is "the person has already 'seen' the virus".

Both tests have details attached to them that most people wouldn't know or care about. My primitive opinion is that people shouldn't really need know these details since FDA/EMA/country's each agency that approves test should know these details and only approve according to high standards. It might be obvious that I have an issue with how tests have been approved since I made this sentence in italics.

To evaluate biological tests for diagnostics there are three things to remember (there are a lot of others but these three are fundamental for how to view the test accuracy and validity - big words to say "does the test work well"):

• Sensitivity (how likely is a negative test to be really negative)
• Specificity (does the test detect the right thing that it's looking for)
• Limit of Detection (LOD) (related to sensitivity however slightly different and especially when talking about a whole chain of things together)

Before I go through these parameters, let's throw in another caveat with tests in general - especially since it goes hand in glove with these three fundaments. A test result should for all intent and purposes be seen as a probability and not a certainty. The golden and easy example for everyone to talk about is pregnancy tests. Those are, even if they are really really good, still a question of probability and certainty. The easy thing - the great thing - with pregnancy tests are that they measure one hormone (hCG) that only exists if the woman has a growing fetus inside. Then the test becomes only the question of "how low of a level of hCG can the test detect" (LOD). That's usually made into an equivalent of an average level of hCG at certain number of days after implantation, which is why tests have "early detecting, 5 days before period" (very low amounts of hormone can be detected) or "detection as early as first day of missed period" (a decent amount of hormone can be detected). If only all tests could be this clear cut.

With virus and PCR there is another issue that isn't much talked about outside the world of virus and microbiology. The fact that "just because RNA is detected doesn't mean that there is an infectious virus present". Dr Raciniello has described this on his blog a long time ago (here). The main take home message is "just because you find RNA, doesn't mean you find a virus particle that can infect." Further making it complicated, it will also depend where in the infection phase the person is, and what was investigated". It's been clear looking at published aggregated case studies from hospitals in regards to Sars-cov-2  virus is the likelihood of a positive test at different times in the infection within a person. The amount of virus, more specifically the amount of virus loose in the body available for detection and reinfection, varies a lot during the infection. There is a lot of virus day before symptoms show, there's evidence that 4 days after first symptoms there is more likelihood of testing positive. Combining the points (existing RNA but not active virion) seem to support the findings that 30 days after first symptoms, even if a positive PCR test, doesn't mean shedding (spreading) infectious virus. Brings back to the idea "it's a probablity, not a certainty". Also why hospitals where patients test negative on PCR but have distinctive 'glass lung' on CT are treated as covid19 positive.

(Side note for extra points; there is an assay that virologists use to evaluate virus load based on "plaque forming units" pfu which is dead cells that a virus have infected and killed, and that would give a "how many viruses who can infect exist in a sample" <- .="" p="" virions="">

All this is more than a 5 min simple read, and I apologize for even trying to cram a lot into a hopefully half-interesting blog post, I'm trying to explain why it's more complicated than "positive serotest" and "negative PCR and you're not sick" while not getting caught in the weeds.

So, back to the Sensitivity, Specificity and LOD.

When you take a PCR test - especially for an RNA virus - there is alway an overall chance/risk it will end up as a negative if you fail running the test itself. Why? Because the test is looking for a detection of something that will have to be going through at least 3 steps where the actual RNA might disappear before showing up in the test results. That's why there's always a control sample run together will all the real samples to make sure that all the steps worked out.

• Sensitivity is generally descried as how good the test is to find the true positives of what the test is looking for. That is to say, only the people who really have RNA from the virus should test positive when using the PCR test. Similar for the serotest (antibody), only people who have encountered Sars-cov-2 and developed those specific antibodies should test positive.

It also tells about the false negatives, which would the least good outcome. This since someone who tests with a PCR test, to see if they have virus and therefore might spread to other people, that comes back as negative might not keep safe distancing to people but move along closer so a false negative brings people safety when they really shouldn't have thought so.

• Specificity is generally described as how good the test is to show true negatives of what the test is saying it looks for. To simplify, if you test for sars-cov-2 RNA it's important that anyone with any old cold doesn't show up as positive (the common cold is part of the coronavirus family and share some parts of the RNA with sars-cov-2). If you don't have the virus, you are negative when testing.

There are repercussions of this part failing as well since looking at serotests (looking for presence of antibody in the blood) and if this shows antibody titers but it's the wrong type of antibody (say, from the common cold) then the test will have a low specificity.

• Limit of Detection (LOD) is the lowest concentration/level of test subject that can be detected in a sample. The reason for my addition to the list is that when it comes to certain tests, the LOD will depend on a number of different processes than "just the level in the blood/saliva" as is the case for a lot of samples. Again the pregnancy test as an example, pee on a stick. The hormone is in urine. The test is designed for levels that are found in urine (side note, the blood test is more sensitive and have a lower limit of detection). There is no part of the test that requires any manipulation/handling of the urine (or blood). However for a PCR test of an RNA virus - there are a lot of details involved. First of all, there is the base level of "amount of viral RNA present in the nose swab" that has to be present to be picked up on the swab. Then there are different ways to get the RNA (virus) off the swab, extracted into liquid and being able to even "run the PCR on" (PCR=polymerase chain reaction, a mix of stuff in a little tube to amplify what is in the tube from the start). And the limitations on how big of a volume was the RNA extracted into and how little was brought on into the PCR reaction etc..... 

I'm aware I didn't do a great job on the LOD discussion if nothing else I hope that I made it clear that it is complicated and also super important. Even if you don't know how to calculate this step - it should be super clear in the FDA approval process since the LOD will determine the limits of the usefulness of the test. 

All three of these parameters will decide if the test is useful. It will further determine if the test is useful on an individual or population view. Why this difference? Because of statistics. If the test is only to be roughly an estimate on where the population - a higher lever of uncertainty (higher possible wrong results) are more acceptable since stats work that many tests together with a fairly high certainty turns into an ok stats.

The same test can have a detrimental effect on an individual basis. As previously stated, imagine going for a PCR test to determine you don't have the virus before going to visit your grandmother. You get a false negative (you think it is negative), and then go visit grand mother. That's a huge risk. Similar with testing if you have antibodies (the serotest) and it comes back positive (you have antibodies). You then might start doing relaxing and not wash your hands as much as before, and then you get sick.

All of these parameters are things that I (we) anticipate and expect that the FDA (EMA/country of your living) have evaluated and deemed acceptable. However, it's important to remember that in this case of the pandemic - there were a lot of changes in the acceptance criteria for a lot of tests. In order  to get an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) the documentation from companies were relaxed a lot and most of all, not required to clearly state the limits on the test themselves.

You can argue that there isn't time to go through rigorous testing and documentation in a pandemic with an unknown virus - and I would agree whole hearted that time is of the essence. However, I would say that these details, the basis of the validity of the entire test, are extremely important to clearly state. If nothing else exactly to use when calculating the results on a population basis since the errors will compound/become very different based on these base numbers.

From an individual point of view - I wouldn't take a serotest without wanting to know the exact specifications since I wouldn't know what to do with a positive test unless I knew the cross-reactivity number. And that's not even mentioning the issue what kind of levels (or types) of antibodies that might be protective against sars-cov-2. 

interlude - canada geese

I mean, it's sort of a joke. Back in my home country (Sweden) we have a LOT of Canada geese. Especially congregating at the parks and places where we swedes would like to sit down and have picnics in the spring and summer. I might be slightly biased - as a young child, say 4 years old - I had a slightly less than terrific incident with regular geese (they are bigger and whiter than Canada geese but more tame and therefore less ferocious than wild Canada geese).

Anyway, it's funny for anyone else to notice that when I'm jogging around in my neighborhood during this "stay at home"/"stay safe" time in Covid-19, there is one new road that takes me to a ess than populated industrial area. I didn't know it existed before this "I need to find places to walk and jog since otherwise I will turn into more of a rotund person". However, I've explored a lot of places that are within a radius of 5 miles of my dwelling in the latests 6 weeks.

And there are these strange things like a congregation of Canada geese. Next by a road. Very little grass. And also, by another time when I went by, where there little alone cat used to hide.

Not sure what this means? Do someone feed the cat AND the Canada geese? Are the Canada geese going to eat the cat? (I don't think the cat can take on 5 Canada geese but sure, we could postulate I guess.)

Anyway, if anyone wants to leave a comment or email - feel free. I have a bunch of half made posts but I am trying to write them so that they are good (at least half decent) and not just venting based on the current situation in life and the world.

Here's a picture of the Canada geese. And yes, they are judging you. For sure! (the fifth one is one the street next to me on the left, outside of photo.)

new year, new me?

It's that saying "out with the old, in with the new", "The King is dead, long live the King" and other niceties. Happy New Year! Now, let's go.

The start of this new year, the new decade, coincided with a deadline for a huge project I'm involved in being moved up. When finding out about this change in schedule and delivery, there were some mapped out alternatives and suggestions of fast tracking some processes. However, what happened later could be referred to as "crashing the project".  Both of these terms are of course project management terms.

It's not really descriptive of what happens in a team with a project. To explain the terms quickly, one could say that fast tracking means working on several things in parallell rather than sequential. It increases risk, maybe especially when you develop things at the same time although the things are technically building on each other. And crashing is adding resources and increasing the cost but making the project faster.

In real world it meant that in the first part of the "let's work hard for the deadline" was developing a few things in parallell to avoid the time between "now this is complete, start with the next part". And then the second step was "stop working on any other project and go all in on this one and work OT if needed".

I would admit to thinking when I learned all these fancy terms that "increase resources" meant "hire additional people to help". I would say now that it usually means "stop working on other stuff and focus on this Project" since there's seldom a long period of time that this happens (in my place of business anyway). Needless to say, it's rare that you can "stop doing everything else" in a job, so it's a struggle balancing leaving all the other stuff for a short time vs working a little too much.

Which brings me to my point of this post. There is nothing that makes it so clear who you are as when you are faced with pressure and how you deal with this pressure is (for some of us) telling. I tend to get very focused on the task at hand (finishing the project). Depending on how much extra things that are in the background, and on the team, I tend to drop the shining smile and become a bit more blunt. As I said, focused on the tasks e.g. "We need to do A, F, G and K to finish. Let's do it!".

And while I definitely have worked on my personality expression over the years, and was raised as a very polite non-pushy person - there are limits to my patience and emotional bandwidth with people waffling and not contributing.

Lucky for me, there's a gif and a video (1-1.14 in the link) expressing how I felt when this phase happened.

"You don't know what I look like when there is a deadline that we can meet but it will require actual work and getting things done in a timely fashion".

Of course it's not quite as melodramatic. I was never in love with the project, and the project never loved me back to start with. But it is a good reminder that the last part of project is often the hardest. And that it requires something special to motivate the team and get everyone to perform great. The "actual finishing" the final things, wrapping up the present, tying the bow and writing the documentation and filing it so you can find it when you need to revisit, that takes effort. Especially when there are a plethora of other things waiting to get done and demanding your attention. And it is why it's so important to keep politeness and decency, and after the project is complete - have a "we did it!" celebration and hopefully a short relaxing time to regroup and get energy for the next thing. One can hope. Happy New Year indeed!

42km/26.2miles - again?! why? (marathon musings)

I realized that I never did follow up on my post about marathon training last year . Together with my earlier musings this year in regards to Lessons learned post I put up, I feel that it might be a good idea to do follow up....

So, in short I ran the marathon after 6 months of training. Like a lot of people will say, the race didn't go according to plan. I woke up to thunderstorms, delayed start, pouring rain like you wouldn't believe and then more delayed start. When the start happened the sun was up and the course was pretty much without shade, it was 96% humidity and unusually hot for being in December (80F/26C) in the shade. I had a sneaky feeling at 10 miles when I wanted to use the restroom to pee that I was in trouble since there was no way I really needed that. Especially since I know that one of the signs to flash "you're in dehydration" mode, is the feeling that I need to pee. Strange, yet there it is.

I still felt pretty ok about it all when I saw a runner getting taken off the course at mile 12 (medics pulled them off). And then the runner who almost ran into a tree. And then runner who was all gray in their face, walking slowly and then threw up next to me. At that point I started to think "what is the most important thing for me?". And it wasn't about finishing on a good time, it was finishing strong. So, I started walking a little and took it slow and steady.

I picked up the pace again closer to the finish line, once I hit 22 miles I felt safe to run "as fast as I could to get in goal" and did my last mile as the fastest mile of the whole race. Happiness for me! I crossed the finish line, got my participation medal, snapped a few photos with it and went to the hydration and food stance. Called my parents and talked about the race, still feeling pretty good about it all. And then the strangest thing happened when I met with my partner (in hindsight I should've seen it coming but I am good at ignoring certain things) - I started crying and mumbling that I hadn't done a good race. There were so many emotions all at once. Not only tired, but "not as tired as I thought I would be" (since I hadn't pushed myself as much since I was scared of the dehydration and belly cramps). Not as fast as I had hoped, which I had told myself all alone was never going to be the goal - "first race is to finish, not for time".

It all felt a bit better after the cry, the hugs and "you're being silly sweetie, you did great", and of course the glorious shower once I got home. And hydration fluids and a little bit of food. And more rest.

All in all, looking at the scale and the weighing before carbo loading, before the race and after the race - I lost over 6 pounds in water weight that day. I was seriously nervous about how little fluids I had left in my body (pee colour I've never seen before...) but I kept up with hydration two more days and then I had my annual physical. (Wouldn't recommend it but there is was.) My labs were excellent by the way, go me and hydration!

So, why do I bring this up now? Well, because I have gone and signed up for another marathon to do soon. And this time around my anxiety (competitiveness) is ramping up and I have to face a few uncomfortable truths.

I've always detested "the second time". I had to do my driver's license test twice and I was way more nervous the second time than the first. The first was "you just go and try", the second was "if you fail now you really aren't good". In short, stakes were/are higher the repeat time than the first. In theory, I should be faster this second time than my first race. But that's in theory, not a given. And it is a chance I will fail at that.

I got a good eye opener the other week when talking to a colleague about the training and how the running is going when they asked; "who are you running for? It doesn't sound like you look forward to this". And I thought to myself, "hm, that's an interesting thing.. I am way more nervous about this time around. I want to make a better time than last year, and I would like to feel better afterwards. But if I don't make a better time, how will I feel?". I answered them that this is one of the reasons I wanted to do it a second time, to prove to myself that I can do it "when I know what I am getting myself into and see if I can repeat what I did".

Funny enough (?), until I was on the course last year I never would've thought that I couldn't finish. All my training was still while never having doubt. I did my training program, kept at it and chafing and all, I still kept slogging along. It was while I was on the course, during the race, that I realized that it could go pear shaped at any time. That my training had been good, but at that point there were a lot of choices that I could make that would make things very difficult and that it wasn't at all clear that I would finish just because I had started (after all, more than 500 people of the 3000 who started didn't finish). And that knowledge - the doubt and the knowledge on how fickle the weather and life can be - is more prevalent this time around.

It's one of the things I have realized more and more the older I get, a trait (skill?) I have that isn't in everyone - the ability of shutting down and just keep going. Sometimes it's a good trait, sometimes it would've been better to stop and leave - accept that the situation is horrid and there's nothing you can do and you need to get out. I'm not saying it's all great to "persevere", sometimes it's plain dumb and I have certainly a few experiences that I would do differently if they came about today.

However, there are times - like when you are pushing yourself to jog 26.2 miles in a go - that the ability of not questioning "why am I doing this" but focusing on "one more mile, then I'll take a sip of water" is a good trait to have. The other benefit for me doing this is that I have to get over myself mentally - especially when I do my long runs. I have to get my brain in gear and think "I can do this". Somewhere during the run my brain will start spewing negative thoughts, not only doubt but "you're too slow", "you're too fat to do this", "why do you keep trying", "start walking and turn around to go home" etc. I've mentioned before, and it's probably all too obvious in my previous posts, that I am a champion in having these less than supportive self esteem thoughts. The good thing though is that it's really hard for my brain to do those thoughts after a long run when the body and brain is drenched in dopamine and my muscles have used up adrenalin and I lay panting on the floor hurting everywhere.

And I'm smart enough to remember that feeling when my brain comes knocking saying "hey, you're on mile 4, let's go home instead of doing another 12 miles". That's when the stubbornness kicks in and states "keep going, it'll be over soon enough and you will feel great afterwards".

All in all, what I wanted to say with this post is:
If you wanted to do a marathon - go ahead and train! Give yourself at least 6 months. I had done 6 half marathons before, and would recommend at least one half marathon before a full so you know how you feel after 2hours of jogging/running.
It's a lot of mental training to keep training and to keep running. And it gives you a different perspective on a lot of things. And if you can do it without music (which I recommend), it's an amazing time to be alone with your thoughts and really tap into feeling your body, breathing and everything.
And I really hope that my second marathon race will feel at least as good as the first. Fingers crossed!


TLDR: I hope I feel happy after my second marathon than my first. It was a lot of emotions and expectations in one day. And I want to prove to myself I can repeat this training and race a second time since now I know what I can expect from the race - and it's going to be tough. Mainly overcoming my own expectations and shortcomings.

being a failure vs having failed at something

There's a motivational quote that goes along the lines of "if you don't try at anything, you can't fail" and "you never fail until you stop trying". I'm not much for motivational quotes. I do however keep some demotivators as my screen saver at work since my humor is dark, and cynism has kept me from falling into the deep pit of despair a lot of times. You can't cry if you are laughing (well, you can but the saying is "laugh or cry")

The thing with the motivational quote in regards to failure is that I do think there is some merit to the saying. If you try something you have never done before there is a chance that you will not be able to do it (aka fail doing it). The problem is not with having failed at something. Learning from what you failed at doing is probably one of the best way to learn how to do something right. Not the only way though, and not always the best, but one of the ways. It is also true (in my humble opinion) that "just because you failed the first time, doesn't mean that you will keep failing".

One of bigger issues is when there is a switch in wording from "I have failed" to "I am a failure". It's a pretty common word play - at least based on the stories I hear at work, and the fears I hear vocalized from people I interact with. That the failure of doing R means that you are defined by R and now you are a failure. And that the failure is in everything, or at least in more things that one thing you initially failed at.

Personally, I have faced this particular piece of thinking a couple of times in my life so far (no surprise here). Maybe that is why I am so good at explaining it to others, yet failing a few key times with myself - no one is perfect...

Most recently I found myself talking to a friend who was walking in a circle around this particular argument. They have failed at something, something that a lot of people do and succeed with, and now they feel that they are a failure. That this something defines them and they keep thinking that success in general would mean no set backs and no failures - ever.

I saw a tweet a few months back in regards to people asking PIs to post their "failure CV" as in stating "applied for and got rejected for 5 R01s", "applied for 48 jobs before landing this one perfect job". While I like the idea, to be able to acknowledge that life isn't a full line of (easy or hard) successes, I can't help but think this is part of the issue that makes it even more difficult to not look at oneself as a failure.

Why? Because there are people who will never succeed with their dreams of getting an R01. They will not have the time to keep trying over and over. Like a lot of us knows, there's a finite time frame for most TT and if you haven't succeeded with an R01 by then, then you are out. Same with people who want to become actresses,  writers, partners, grandparents, truckers or anything else that people dream about. Very select few can keep trying the same thing over and over again to wait for that one time of success. This doesn't mean that everyone who does not succeed with what they set out to do are failures. Not failures as people, nor failures in general. I know that there are people who would say "but you shouldn't shy away from accepting that there is failure in life and that means that you failed". I don't. I shy away from defining it as "they are a failure".

There are a lot of failures in the world, I know. But there is something special to attribute the word "failure" to a person. A ship can be a failure (think Titanic). A plane can be a failure (think 737 Max8). Dinner was a failure (everything burns and is undercooked at the same time). However, Person P isn't a failure if they failed getting into grad school. They failed at getting into grad school.

To me that is a very important difference that bears reminding. We are more than a failure or a success story. We are the sum of all our failures and successes and it's not like math where the pluses and minuses add up since we are not math, we are people. People with experiences to live through, and learn from. And there are so many experiences in a life time.

being a good citizen and belonging

There's a discussion underway in Sweden that has some similarities in the USA. It's that one about "who is a true citizen" or "who is a real Swede". You see, there will be governmental voting times in Sweden in September so the election speak is ramping up. Like a few other times the debate has been relit in terms of "distinguishing who is really a Swede". If you aren't familiar with the arguments and the issues, a lot of the arguments stem from a wish to distinguish between "Swedish citizens" and "real Swedes" (that would be the ethnicity and sometimes linked to cultural nation).

Some of this stems from one of the now largest parties in the politics, the Swedish Democrats (let's all remember what Hitler's party was called, and what the full name of China is, before you think that the democrat in the name means anything), that have written a few notes about "being Swedish" in their party program. Not only do they distinguish between "real Swedes" and "Swedish citizens", they also introduce the idea that you can be born Swedish and then move away (assimilate to another culture) or express views that aren't correct for Swedes and therefore lose your right to being Swedish.

Why I'm bringing this up here? Not only because I am at risk of falling in this "third category" (after all, I've lived away from Sweden for over a decade), but also because this discussion about citizen, citizenship and "being a true member of the nation" has been present in my life here in the USA for a while.

I do feel like people who have never moved across borders, by free will or due to coercion, don't really understand the restrictions and privilege that exist on citizenship and residency. You see, I know a lot of people who would be quite alright with not becoming a citizen yet staying in a country and integrate and be a productive member of society. However, a lot of rights in a country comes from being a citizen. Not to mention that if you have children, there is a clear advantage of being of same citizenship (especially now when people are placing even more value on the citizenship status). I know that in the USA you swear allegiance to the flag. That's not the case in Sweden. To be quite frank, that is one of the issues in Sweden - very complicated to sort out "what defines us as Swedes" and one of the reasons I think the discussion there is even more into the aryan/blond&blue eye territory...

Anyhow, not to make this a very long rant leading nowhere. My main issues with this "defining who is a real citizen" goes to that the only binary choice here is "are you a citizen or not". Once you start with the "you should have a mom and dad born there and there" or "you are only real if you can trace three generations of the citizens", or "you can't be a member of a Native Indian tribe/Sami nation and be a true American/Swede" it's very obvious that you will end up in the gray zone. When is enough enough? When are you not fitting into the narrative? And who gets to decide that? And what rights fall within the protection of being a true citizen?

All of this was of course much easier when there was an all powerful King or Emperor (or Dictator) ruling the nation. One word of decision, no gray zone since He decided it all. And your rights weren't really that many. Not even your life to be honest. Not many protections in place.

The problem now? That we have decided we like democracy and have moved towards "everyone has equal value and a few base rights called Human Rights" so this view isn't really as comfortable.

However, as many women I've met through the years who were active in the women's movement are quick to repeat, none of these steps forward have been free. And none of these steps forward will stay there unless we are willing to still defend them. We can't step back and say "look, we decided that everyone has human rights, regardless of citizenship so can we leave that now and keep moving forward". I would love to that we could do that, imagine how much we could accomplish. Alas, that is not where we are. We need to keep reminding everyone that "just being human" means that everyone has "human rights". There is no distinction between human 1 and human 2, based on citizenship or religion or political views, not when it comes to these rights.

Especially in the light of a language that is increasingly talking about "being taken over","attacked" and "infested" it's crucial to remember to speak up that Human Rights are not negotiable. Not even for people who have despicable views or threaten us. Why? Mainly because you never know when you will be "on the other side" and then not have any rights. Safeguarding the nation, one human rights at a time. Considering that, the discussion about "being a true good citizen" becomes something much more somber and threatening to all of us.

"it only takes a minute" - does it really?

I hear it quite often, "it only takes a minute, just write them an email". But does it really?

In my job a lot of my time is spent with emails; reading them and writing them. I keep my inbox as a "task list" and mark the emails in a few different categories to keep track of what I need to do, follow up on and so on. In short, I read a lot of emails every day. I also write a lot of emails every day.

Here's the rub. I read a lot of emails that leaves me with "what does the person want [from me]?". When you get one of those emails it goes one of two ways; you read it and then go - I don't know what they mean, and reply back "I'm not sure what you mean, please elaborate", or you just leave it there and think "I'll read it again later and maybe it makes sense". The latter usually means that the email goes to die in the inbox until the person who wrote it follows up, or if that doesn't happen, it will get deleted and never seen again.

Brevity will always (with a few exceptions) be preferred. And then indicates "choosing your words and way of writing carefully". It's hard to do in a short time frame. You get better with practice. And practice takes time.

Before starting this job I was trained in writing proper letters, with salutations and paragraphs and proper endings. I have written memorandums for government and universities, for foreign communications and domestic law disputes. It's been an evolution in how I write emails, and to whom and why. I personally like to have a salutation in the beginning of an email, it probably dates me and it indicates that I view emails as "a letter rather than a text". This is not to say I don't write certain emails as texts
[empty row]
"sounds good."
[end email])

My default setting when writing an email though is
[start email]
"Dear Dr X," or "Hello Anna," or in certain cases when I am ambivalent on which level I should place myself "Hello, "
[keep going in the email].

The meat comes after the salutation (or not). And most times I would like to ask people "what's your purpose of writing the email"? It sounds simple, however when you unfold the idea it can turn quite tricky. Especially (?) in the times when constructing proper sentences and choosing correct words seem to more and more difficult. And this is not even getting into the "quick reply to show that you are on top of your emails" (please consider "what's the purpose of the email" when doing that as well. Quick response isn't always the best response).

If it is writing to someone you don't know, or who might not know exactly who you are but know either your organisation or your lab group, please start with a one lines introducing yourself in context to why you write to them. It shouldn't be too cumbersome or complicated "I work with Dr XX at Institute for awesomeness. I'm writing to you to ask for reagents described in you fab paper in journal of Fantasticness. We have worked on P for quite some time...."

A lot of people don't want to sound too demanding when asking for things, they start adding a couple of disclaimers in their emails. After a few of those, you're confused and it's hard to sort out what it is exactly that the person wants. In these cases I emphasize "be direct and clear without being rude". This is where finesse comes in. You have to know how to use please and thank you, and how to make at least one point about why the intended respondent is important/good/needed/positive word.

Also, adding some sort of time line when asking for something makes the email more likely to be responded to. A lot of things today fall in two categories, right now or later (never). It's the signs of us being so stressed and focused on the chores for today, also called being in a reactive mode. The chance of someone responding to your email, albeit later, increases a lot if you have a time limit in there. Why? Because if there isn't one and someone reads your email after a week, they might decided that "this was too long ago anyway so I am just going to ignore it".

Lastly, review the length of the email. For a lot of people email is not the best way to elaborate and make wordy tropes. If you end up with a long email (say six paragraphs and more than a page long) I would suggest you set up a meeting, type of the idea into bullet points, and then summarize in a memo that can be reviewed. If you have a four paragraph email, let's hope you made each paragraph 2-3 sentences.And whenever you have several things you want to address in one email.... either divvy them up between paragraphs or between emails if possible (too many things in one can lead to confusion), and consider making a bullet point/numbered list. When used properly, bullet points/numbers are efficient to make the text clearer and at the same time keeping short yet feeling spacious.

There are a lot of other things to consider when writing the perfect email, my main idea with this post was to point out that even a short "easy" email might take some time to craft. And that it is always a good idea to reread the email before sending it and ask yourself "is it clear, concise and easy to read?". If not, tweak and repeat.
TLDR: Many emails I read are too long and not precise enough. The chance of your email being received well and answered increases if it is short, precise and polite. This usually takes more than a minute. It will be worth the time to craft a good email.

Being offered a 6-figure job

There are times when I marvel at the situation and think, even in the moment, this is going to be an awesome story to tell later! Then there are times when I was too gob smacked to consider anything but to process what was currently happening at that specific moment.

I went looking in my blog to find a story that relates to the one I'm about to tell. Alas, I've forgotten when I wrote it down and didn't find it. If I do, I'll add the link. Anyway, there was a story back in the day when I was fairly new to Southern city. I was going home in the late evening on a Friday and pulled into a gas station in the not-best-part-of-town. Beggars can’t be chosers and when you need gas, it’s late and you live in a place not close to a gas station open at night, you end up in the one that you drive by on the way home. Anyhow, that story ended with me being offered a job as a stripper since I was so exotic looking (yes, I’m very white and I’m not from around here). Statements like "you would make so much more than working as in the hospital" and "you can start tonight!". The follow up that I mentioned to someone who stated I should be offended by the job offer (from the potential colleague stripper) was that I was sort of flattered. Back home, I would not fit the standards of strippers. They have more fit looking bodies. And at the time I had lost a couple of pounds and gotten some muscles so I took it as positive, sort of.

Well, that was many years ago and then last year happened. In Las Vegas. At a casino during a large conference. And yes, there was a few incidents but nothing tops what happened that one night. Private industry party in a penthouse on the Strip. I’m being the plus one, so I’m smiling and being generally polite and attentive. Playing my part, while having very much fun. I find it quite easy to have fun at a free party, with live music, drinks and a view of The Strip in the evening when on vacation. Who wouldn't?! Instead of schmoozing with the important conference people, even a plus one woman needs a break at times, I started chatting with some of the other women present. Granted, I knew before chatting with them that they were working the party and not being the main guests.

Bingo. Did I ever use the phrase correctly. After a little "wow this is a fun party" chatter, I hear them tell me that I would easily get a 6-figure job, like they have. At this time, I will admit, I did a double take since not only was I at least 10 years older*, neither a size 0-4 with 34Cish which they all seemed to be. Yes, exactly. Stereotypical me. Bingo. Working the party. Anyway, trying to save face and not look shocked I laughed and went down a route I've used before; “I’m not exactly a thin model like you are. And I’m old. But it's nice of you to say.” To which they answered sounding very sincere “Honey, Vegas loves every type of woman. You’d easily get that money. And more.”

Cue smiles and going for more drinks - I really didn't want to get into exchanging information to apply or so. Exit party with a smile, such a crazy evening. I’m still processing when we end up in a hotel bar for some chatting and a night cap. Being the polite woman I am, I'll fix some drinks for the others. Walking up to the bartender I decide to go to the bar between two women, who are both engaged in talking to a man each. I think it’s perfect to slide in between them since they are not only women, but not there together and I can order the drinks for the guys at the table. Said and done. All of as sudden one of the women says something snarky and shoves an elbow in my side. I'm about to turn around to ask if I did something to offend her when the other woman leans towards me and says “Honey, don’t take it personally, she is negotiating price for the night and doesn’t want you to compete”.

Huh? What now? This again? Do I look like a lady of the night? My dress isn't short by modern day standards and you can see way less than half of top of my boobs, which makes me one of the most covered women at the casino. I am wearing a pair of 3 inch heels, but really that's it. At this point I’ve decided to just roll with the punches so I smile at both of them and say loudly while pointing at the table where the people I’m picking up drinks for are sitting. "That’s my man over there, and his friends. No worries, I have no interest in anyone else". I grab the drinks and walk back. About halfway to the table it occurs to me that they most likely think I’m like them anyway and I have already secured my "man for the night". Oh well, what's a girl to do?

The morale of the story? 

At the evening in question I took it in stride and thought that it was sort of flattering that these women who were very beautiful thought that I would be able to hack it. (Hello comparative body thoughts and other weird things, there is something odd to feel confirmed that you are considered attractive enough. Oh world.) The next day though, and evening when I did a retake of what had happened I got a little less optimistic. Why? Well, to be honest - a lot of the couples I saw in Las Vegas (at the casinos) were lopsided so to speak. It wasn't obvious that a couple were together, they differed not only in age or shape, but also in style. Sure, it can be that people are more open about everything and it is vacation time but I would venture a guess and say that there are probably more "companions" available for a good time in Vegas than elsewhere.

Also, the thing that I normally don't think about as much living in the South - where it isn't unusual that men pick up the check for dinner  - I don't think I saw any woman paying for her drinks or food. Always men picking up the tab and waving the credit card. Sure, this could be a coincidence. Or it could be that the man usually pays during vacation? Or any number of other things, like I'm being way too sensitive about the splitting check/paying rounds. And there was a pretty big entertainment fight that had people fly in from all over the continent that might have skewed the set, but still - left a little strange aftertaste. (I know, I think too much).

Lucky for me, I'm almost certain I get to make another observation later this year going there to increase my n or 1 to an n of 2. How's that for science backed conclusions...

can't buy happiness - but sometimes you sort of can

"You can't buy happiness". That's the sentiment of a lot of self-help books and internet sites. "You need to look into yourself and find the source of your happiness there".

While I don't disagree on a larger scale, clearly there are a lot of unhappy rich people whom we can see sprawled all over the newspapers and internet every day, I would say that a lot of unhappiness (uncertainty and insecurity) can come from not having enough money and that some parts of happiness can be bought.

At least from where I'm sitting right now, having has another conversation with one of my friends who is really trying to get it all together. They are in the same boat as a few of my coworkers. It's clear to me that a few hundred more a month would make a huge difference to them. It's not that they are poor, not per se. They have a place to stay, the have a full time job, it's just that they have no margins at all. Holidays are not on the margin list, not really.

I can tell that the biggest issue for some of my "examples" are that they are single. And with that I mean, they live alone. I know that my biggest saving ever came when I moved in with someone (even when I was footing the majority of the bills and paying for two - I had more money than when I was single). Why? Because it was so much easier to socialize at home as a couple than being a single person and staying in meant most of the time - not meeting anyone. It's also not only boring but difficult to cook for one for cheap, it'll be two or more portions of most anything you try.

The staying in is not the key thing, obviously. It's that the base line cost of living in a place; rent, tv, cleaning supplies, everything else that you have in a place regardless of if you are one or two (or three or more) is pretty high. It's not exponentially more expensive when you add people, the flat fee for being single is always going to be much more. And that makes it hard for someone who has a fairly low salary/wage to save up and then have margins. And that's even without the added "please deposit two months salary for an appartment".

I know I read a number somewhere, but I don't remember where and to be fair I don't remember the exact number, where it was stated that about this much a year makes people feel safe and happy. More money than that isn't adding to their happiness, but less money than that increases the unhappy feeling and sense of security.

This "sometimes it's just a small difference to you, but it's huge to someone else" is a point I'm trying to make now when the Holidays are coming around in the United States. First Thanksgiving and then Christmas and other religious holidays. There is an increase in asking for donations and money for people to help them. To give a good meal. To be able to help with warm clothes etc. It's the season and so on.

I'm not trying to sound like a saint here, I'm really not, but for the last five to ten years my family and I have been removing "gifts to each other" at various occasions - Mother's day, Father's day, Birthdays and even Christmas - with donations to good causes. It started since we have some long time standing volunteering going on with Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors without Borders. And I have worked with vaccines and developments for a long time so why not donate to "pure drinking water for a year" or "vaccinations against measles in children". When I moved to the USA I found Heifer and Kiva, not to mention a lot of local charities who focus on the city I live in, and it seemed like a good idea to expand on.

On a smaller, closer scale I try and make some meaningful gifts for the people I see close to me. It's a little trickier, I won't lie about that. I'm fortunate that I can do a lot of things I want to and it doesn't mean that I worry about my retirement or my present day rent. I see how much a gift card of $10 to a popular coffee chain makes someone I work with very happy since they can indulge in one expensive drink one day without feeling that they broke the bank. Or the good quality gloves I donated to the "men's wardrobe" last year that one of the workers wanted to have for himself rather than giving it to a homeless man since they looked too expensive to waste on someone who could never buy them themselves... Or giving a dinner gift card to celebrate an 10 year anniversary at work or as a big "Thank you". 

I am aware that this might make me sound entitled or that it might make people feel uncomfortable but there are ways to make it less odd and power balancy. I make it clear that these are not "reciprocal" gifts. It's not that I expect that back (some people will try but that's missing the point since I know I have more money than they and the point was to help them), but that I would like to do something nice for someone. Again, it't not super easy to get this to be non-weird, but if you have some sort of relationship with people it can be done. And also that I personally think it is what you should do as a "manager" or someone "higher up" in the job hierarchy.

In my old job I tried to get the Boss to consider giving the cleaning people and the low paid administrator something extra for the Holidays. Partly because I estimated that Boss made well over five times than the others did, partly because I knew that there was a discretionary fund that could be used. Well, it didn't fly and there was no holiday gifts. I won't lie though, I was pretty happy when my coworkers approved of my idea on Boss' day that we all donated to Heifer and gave a goat to a family in need instead of some flowers and stuff.

For me nowadays? I give "Flock of Hope", measles vaccine, quick testing of malaria, tetanus shots, microloans to sustain a family, or teaching girls to read and write, a Thanksgiving box for families who don't have the means and print these gift certificates for my family and friends. Most of the times it's appreciated much more than random gift certificates with money getting swapped around since "we should exchange gifts". 

I will see how a Flock of chicks plays in the Dirty Santa game we play at work in a month. Maybe it will be stolen more than the "salt stone lamp to increase healthy air"someone brought last year?

some thoughts on #metoo and women

Like everyone I've seen the feeds of #meetoo on social media. I didn't want to add myself in the mix while I was thinking. Mainly because I thought it was fairly common knowledge that women are being harassed, partly because I am private about "what happened to me" since it's private. Yes, this would be one of the issues that make the harassment difficult to stop, the shame and non-privacy aspect.

Anyway, after these more than two weeks since it broke a few things stand out to me.

First, it's been a huge thing in Sweden where equality work and feminism is on the active political agenda (two of the political parties have very clear wording on what they would like to accomplish in terms of future society, and almost all party leaders call themselves feminists). It's been a drive to "stop this culture of harassment now!" and demonstrations and now the latest the secretary of arts becoming involved with the national dramatic scene since 456 actresses published an article today telling their stories of harassment and sexual abuse in their work spaces (theatre and movie industry as well).

Second, the comments from not just one man but several in my vicinity where they've opened with various comments as "I just don't understand, those allegations refer to something that happened years ago" and "really, it's just a comment - it's not that bad", not to mention "Do you really think all these women have had something happened to them, maybe just someone calling them cute in the workplace, that's really not harassment". And of course, with utmost sincerity "well, it hasn't happened to you right - so not all women" and the subsequent shock when I had to reply to them "It's happened to me, several time and degrees. I don't think I know any of my female friends over 25 who hasn't had an inappropriate come on from a coworker/manager, and let's not even go into the bar scene where everyone I know have had a least one man grabbing their boobs or butt" (I tend to separate the drunken incidents from the general discussion since I have noticed that "I was drunk" is a common point of excuse and takes the focus out of the actual problem - the touching/harassment.)

Third, the subdiscussion coming out of this where a bunch of men, and women, start yelling and talking about "this makes it impossible to joke at the workplace" and "all these women turning into victims and this isn't helping women's image as strong at all". It's been a surge in the "let¨s all do the Mike Pence way and not be alone with a woman if you are a man" thinking. Not as much discussion about what kind of jokes are you really throwing around in a workplace? It's not your home you know.

To me the obvious faulty step with the third point is that it really says "a man can not be left alone with a woman since then he will assault her because he can't control himself". I call BS on that. Most men I know have no issue being alone with a woman and nothing goes out of hand. Some men are bullies(opportunist/sociopaths/harassers/bad people). These people are always going to use a one-on-one situation to their advantage. For the life of me I can't understand why not more men are raising to the occasion and saying "I don't want to be associated with those men, therefore I will not be the silent witness around".  Not to mention that the idea that a man can't control their behaviour around a women when opportunity arises to be doing something alone seems to me to be.... let's say very animalistic and basic, not really civilized and being in control of your own body and mind. Something similar to the argument that a woman can't be president because we don't know what will happen when her ovaries gives her PMS and she has access to the nukes. Yes, BS.

If we bring it back to the science scene, rather than the acting scene since I'm a trained scientist and have spent more than two decades in academia and pharma. Science and art have similar feature when it comes to perpetuating the genius image. You know the "he is so talented and successful, super special" feature. The golden lab with the associations. The PI who gets all the grants, the PR and the glory. The lab where you go and then you get invitation letters to the ball with the keys to the kingdom after a successful grad studies/post doc/first appointment.

And when genius is involved, a lot of things slide. Same with money, when money gets involved - a lot of things are overlooked. You want to keep the golden ticket and be associated with the gold and the glitter. Especially if you have invested in them. The higher up, the more protection. Nothing new about that.

I'm missing the biggest discussion I have had though. I touch on it in the second comment above. "It doesn't seem so bad that someone would lose their job now 15 years later" - mentioned in context about "he touched her thigh under the dinner table at a state dinner" and "he talked about oral sex in front of me when I thought we were going to talk about work". I had to get into the nitty gritty details and explain the surrounding extra things that to my surprise was not on the radar of the person I was speaking to. Then again, while talking I remember again that the perception of "threat" is very different when you are a tall man compared to a average woman. Not to mention that if you go to a state dinner to discuss affairs of the state, is it a positive to realize that the man next to wants to touch and grab you, rather than respecting you to know your thoughts and politics about the issues at hand?

Long story short, the upsetting (and unacceptable) part in these stories are when you as a woman have to encounter sexual advances from men while you think that you are discussing work, while they are not remotely interested in you as a contributor to the science, but rather to make them feel good and feel manly and in control. Every such encounter adds to your archive of incidents and after a few years, you start seeing these (what some people call) small incidents as the start of something bigger. It's the "feeler/grooming" territory. It's about not respecting your boundaries since they are not even a part of the conversation. It's also simply about power and a little help from their friends.

It's been said SO many times, most of these men know exactly what they are doing. They are not behaving like this with everyone. They do it when they know they have the power. And maybe most galling, the do it when they know that the other (powerful) men around them will not do anything against them.

I wrote on twitter awhile back "Do they behave in this way in front of their wife or daughter?". If they do, they fall into a very clear abuser definition since they are very entitled. A lot of them do not though. They know where the line is when other people whom they need to maintain a good character in front of are watching. After a dinner at a conference where they are in control is not one of those times.

A friend and I talked about the age old "professor sleeps with student" scenario that seems to be so  difficult to get understanding that it is not appropriate and never excusable. Never mind the post-doc/grad student in a relationship with PI. The latter is especially galling to me since I've heard the excuse so many times "she is a grown woman and can choose what she wants. You don't know thtat the PI inserted influence and there was anything inappropriate going on". (I say her since it's mainly female post-doc/grad student with male PI). Never mind the whole structure in science that we know that if your post-doc PI doesn't support your future career in science, it's going to be very hard for you to get the keys to get invited. And IF your PI opens the door to inappropriate behaviour, how difficult is it to reject the advances without hurting that precious position? And especially if you know that your institution nor the other PIs/people in power doesn't have the best track record of helping you/the non faculty. So WHY would the PI want to risk their reputation on this? (Because they don't risk that much, that would be my short answer).

When I started in science I naively thought that the employee handbook - where it clearly states "no person can have a relationship with someone who is their direct report" - was a rule. My friend works in a place where they have the same rule. I saw that Berkley, San Diego and the other universities that have been in the news for their disgraced PIs lately have similar writings. Yet, when it comes to geniuses, or people who has secured a lot of grant funding, these rules are just not as easy. And most often it's the "oh, would you really want to ruin his life and lab, it was just a little touching, or a late night text. Surely you can take the compliment and not make a fuzz." The colleagues to the person stepping over the line silently distancing themselves doesn't help either.

The long and short of this rant is this:
To me it's obvious what a lot of this confusion is about when it come to "why such a big deal". It's that specific feeling of being regarded as meat, as someone's pleasure, regardless if you have a will of your own since their will overrides everything else. You should be happy that this genius is interested in you - not your mind though - but wanting to be with you. You should thankful that they deem you interesting enough to care about them. I guess they think that the shine will rub off once they sully your body with their hands or their thoughts about what they can do to you.

I don't think they have ever considered how impersonal it is to be viewed only as a piece of meat (boobs, butt or other parts) that makes them feel happy and aroused. Because really, isn't that what being a woman should be all about? Being admired and wanted for our looks. We all apparently want to be Helen of Troy, not Morgaine Le Fay.

a lab is like a NHL team?

I know, it's a little out there. And it might not be super accurate but the last week I've thought a little more about "what makes a good player/PI/postdoc" and "what makes a good team". It's mostly in the context of some moving a person with specific skills from one environment to another environment and hoping they will thrive in this new place. You know, like it happens all the time in science when a graduate student moves to a post-doc, or a player changes team and moves up to the NHL.

I'd admit, I started really thinking about this yesterday when I read this piece in ESPN and coupled it with what happened with Vegas Knights' player Sjipatjov/Shipachyov (depending on which transliteration you use, Swedish or English). Side note, if you are interested here is the official guide to "how to" from Russia to English from IIHF.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Just because someone is a shiny star in one place, doesn't mean that they are going to be shiny stars in a different environment. In certain things, this is obvious. In other situations, maybe not as obvious. And then there is that additional factor of "the majority of people want to feel comfortable" in order to do a stellar job performance.

The first time I encountered the discussion in a lab setting was as a graduate student with a predominantly homogeneous department. Let's say 90% was speaking fluent Swedish. It obviously meant that any visiting scholar was going to be either "changing the entire conversation into English" or "feel a little isolated when everyone was chatting away in their own language".

I've mentioned it before, it might not be an issue to keep all work presentations and seminars in English (common language) - however the small talk between people in the lab is usually feeling slightly contrived if it is in "not your native tongue when you are in majority in the group" (like being 9 native Swedish people and 1 foreigner). Yet, and I've given this spiel before - A LOT of communication and work productivity is lost if some members of the team doesn't pick up on the general chat that goes on. Of course, as I am not outside of the lab - I've missed that a lot of people nowadays wear headphones all the time so maybe this isn't as much of an issue that I had back in the days?

Moving to the United States, this became more diverse and complicated. The majority of the people at my institute were native English speakers. And we had a lot of international post-docs in the labs. A lot of people gathered and got to know each other, some more lucky (?) than others with having a peer group who spoke their native language and getting a taste of home. I still would argue though that if you are in a group of say 6-10 people, I think it is fairly rude to start chatting away in your own language if there is only one or two people who don't speak the language. (Yes, I've been there. As a person who has chosen to live with a person who doesn't speak my native language but hanging out with people who do.... I try and translate and keep him in the conversation since I find it extremely rude and excluding and these situations have decreased.)

It's different if you go off on your own with a small exclusive group, say three swedes go for dinner. There is no reason why we would speak English with each other but rather bond with our native tongue, exploring all the feelings that come from speaking your own language with all the nuances.

I digress from the point of the article. Most often when you talk about language issues and NHL there is a Russian somewhere in there. Why? Because other European countries have more English and do use the same alphabet as English. There have been a few examples of Russian players who come to the United States and start playing for NHL and not knowing any English at all. They have been great at playing hockey, stars of KHL but moving to NHL is a whole different game.

Some teams solve this a little different. There are stories about "host families" who speak Russian and English and take care of the 20-22 year old man who now is living in a completely different world. Others might have "another Russian" on the team and expecting them to guide the new guy into a more American style, interpret and then hopefully get the English going. The rumors around Shipachyov has been that he moved from Russia to Las Vegas as a 30year old who doesn't speak English, no host family or other Russian player on the team and that this didn't work out for him. There is probably a lot of other things, but a lot has been mentioned about this language/cultural barrier and that the owner and manager team might not have done as much as the could.

It's like when some new post-doc move to the new lab from another country and doesn't speak English that well or almost at all. They were good in their old environment, star in the lab, had good publications yet coming to the new lab entails learning where everything is, how things are done, where to go in the city for regular chores etc. Not always so easy and some institutions have a post-doc coordinator or an academic office to help with relocation issues. I know that I benefited enormously from the one that was there to welcome me. I don't know how I would've gotten a bank account, found a car, gotten a driver license and all those other stuff that I fixed the first two weeks of settling in the United States after getting off the plane with two suitcases.

All of this ranting is because I'm trying to avoid being rude. You see, I have a bad flaw when certain people start complaining about "they don't speak English all the time". It sometimes happens when people say similar things about Swedish, although it's easier making excuses for not knowing Swedish (small language, pretty difficult to pronounce), but I'm not as annoyed by it, my bad. My complaint is mainly these people say something to the point that they feel excluded in their own country and that "we need to put our foot down about this". (If you read the ESPN article linked in the beginning, look up Mr Seguin's comment. That's pretty much right on point where my irritation happens.) The unfair thing I want to ask them is "so how many languages do you speak?" Or sometimes, when I'm feel really self-important I'd say "come back when you've learned another language". Partly to point out that it isn't the easiest thing in the world to master a new language. Partly to bring to their attention that maybe, just maybe, they could pick up some new words themselves and make an effort to know something else that their native language?

I realize that it's a lot to ask from a hockey player to pick up Russian when playing in the NHL. And really, if they should pick up something it would be Swedish (109 players in NHL are Swedish, 66 Russian and 44 Czech) but hey - I'm just pointing out that there could be a humility about the fact that even if they are playing in the NHL, maybe that is because NHL is the best league in the world and people want to play there.

Similar to when people want to work in a world famous international lab. Regardless of the lab being in the USA or in France or in Holland, the people want to go there and work with the best of the best in that field. And maybe, just maybe, we have to accept that it means that it will be a little uncomfortable and that everyone, not just the people who move there, will have to make some changes and adapt to make everyone feel welcome and produce the best of their ability?

(Disclaimer; if you read this far - thanks. I personally think that learning the language of your new country is a must if you want to fit in. If my lab had been in France, I would have to speak more French, just as a lot of people moving to Sweden have to learn the language of 10 million people to make themselves more comfortable. What really pissed me off with Mr Seguin's comment was the fact that he lived in Switzerland for a year playing there. While he was there? He didn't speak any of the four languages given as an opportunity but kept on in his American English. So..... I would've hoped that he could've had just a little more understanding and humility than what he explains in the article as "putting down the foot and speak English since we are in the US". I just would've liked him to think that maybe his team mates in Switzerland would have liked to keep talking French/German on the ice rather than accommodating to him. Alas, I have prejudice and doubt he ever went there in his head. Mean me.)

pronounciation, accent and dialect...

The ideas of dialect and accent have been on my mind the last couple of weeks. First, I went out with my friends here in the South whom I’ve now known for over 10 years (!Where has time gone?). They commented that when they met me, fresh of the plane from Sweden, I spoke a clear British English. Now? It’s eroding and I sound more like a bland American English with some weird southern words and syntax at times (think y’all, fixing to do), extra confusing when interspersed with British English words* and spelling (I'm still spelling BE and have to change my automatic word check to AE when I write for work)

There are exceptions of course, when I speak to my British friends and coworkers I slip back into the BE accent. It's also one of those things when I give official talks or presentations, it's all BE. The main thing though, and that which makes me the most annoyed, is that my tone of voice is different in various languages, dialects and accents. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it in the blog before - if I have it’s been  years so if you read this post you probably don’t remember or never read it anyway - but this is something that has been on my mind a lot. You see, in native Swedish I have an alto voice. It’s not shrill, it’s not as childish, it’s my “vomanly voice” (Janet Reno?). I first noticed the difference in tone of voice when I learnt French since I have a tendency to go a little higher pitch in order to get the correct sounds and rolling rs and some of those other non-native french speaking distinctions that one uses to address questions and surprise.

British English, to me, has a couple of sounds that require the tip of the tongue to go spelunking in the front of the teeth, on the top and sometimes locking in on the lower teeth as a semi lisp (think ‘issues’). American English? Well, in the beginning of living here I explained that AE is a little more like being drunk and talking with food in your mouth. Sorry for being rude, it’s what I said at the time. I can recognize that there are more stressed Rs in the pronunciation and that makes is a little more “chewy” to talk. Think about how to pronounce "were" [wae:] and "were" [weRr]. Compared to BE I don’t have to focus as much on how things are pronounced since it is less subtle, thus finding it easier and a little less precise, if that makes sense?

German, as a contrast, has the same pitch as Swedish to me when I speak it. There’s a lot of overlap in the sounds and diphthongs feel more natural and I have a good sense on how to make the sounds without thinking or working it too much. It’s also a couple of more throat sounds (guttural?) so I think it is easier to keep a lower voice/pitch. (This is me guessing obviously, I'm not a linguist at any rate.)

After a few months here in the United States I realized that while I was speaking English every day at work, on the weekend I kept up with my Swedish friends and family and when I had spent too much time (many many hours) on the phone in Swedish I was horse. Why? Because I stressed my voice in American English much more and I changed pitch every time I shifted languages.

Why am I thinking about this now? Well, it’s a disclaimer for something that will happen in a few weeks or maybe months...

You see, I got asked to be on a podcast in an interview! A great honor and so much fun. I practiced my “voice” before the interview, and prepped things that I wanted to say and planned good proper BE since that is what I normally end up talking when I’m on panels or giving talks. (Note, usually after giving a talk my colleagues come up to me in the end and comment that I’ve slipped into the BE and wonder why? Because I feel grounded in BE and I feel more confident in it? Or that I'm not trying to adapt to the AE all around me in the stores and I do try and fit in so I'm not an obvious immigrant all the time?) Anyhow, I need to continue with my excuse and explanation and not get side tracked.

I did the podcast. It was great fun. However, in the end I realized that I was SO not speaking BE. I sounded like a fairly arrogant American English speaker. Or maybe it’s mostly in my head (the arrogant part at least. No joke on the AE speaking part). But anyway, the pitch is very high and I am a little worried that I sound too childish and girly.

You see, I've read a lot about women and voice pitches. And that the girly/higher pitch is a great deal less threatening than the alto womanly voices. If you've ever turned on the American telly in the morning shows, I'm sure you know what I mean. All abundant, the fairly high pitch voices.

Regardless of what you think about this, it’s something on my mind. And I would be disappointed in myself if I continue sounding high pitched and nonthreatening since I’m a confident woman and should like to be considered as a smart competent woman.

I guess I have my work cut out for me. To either "change back to BE" or accept that I now sound like a AE person although I still pronounce 'z' as [zed] to the annoyment of everyone, and what that means to my perception about myself. Oh to face your own prejudice.... 

Lucky for me, this will never be an issue in my native language. That's always going to be "proper Swedish" where it's clear where I come from.



TLDR: if you happen to hear a podcast with me in it, please remember that I thought I was still sounding like a person speaking British English like I was brought up. And, when singing and speaking my native language, I'm an alto.


*pronouncing 'z' as [zed], jumper in clothing, lifts and lorries, autumn and all the 'll' and 're' in  words like travelling and centre ... It's a bit of a mess...

"You're the Good Girl"

There are a few specific phrases that turn my insides to molten lava. The ones that make me see red in front of my eyes in a few short seconds. With age I have sorted out many of these triggers, but it's not surprising that I forget a few. It is good that I have come to be able to take a breath and count to 10 so to speak before reacting.

There are also a few stereotypes bouncing around that mess things up. I've encountered quite a few as an immigrant, not to mention back in the day at university, and back in junior high school. Again, some of these come out to play nowadays too, sometimes to my own surprise...

Like the other week at work when I was enjoying a nice meeting and things moved into more informal mode with giggles and smiles. And then it came, innocent comment when looking at myself and my female coworker, So, you're the good girl and she's the party girl". 

I kept smiling, since I was 99% that the person uttering these comments had no idea the things that went through my mind....

• Good girls are boring
• Good girls are predictable
• One wants to hang out with pretty party girls
• Party girls are good looking, good girls are...well... probably not that good looking since then they would be party girls. [yeah, it makes sense in teen brain, trust me]
• Party girls are good looking but not really bright (it's like the Pet Shop Boys song "I've got brains, you got the looks")
• Good girls are bright (the brains)
• You want to party with the fun girl, you want to marry the good girl- maybe
• and finally [we are not in a bar. do not engage in banter like this. this is work. You wouldn't want to say something too flirty/private/inappropriate] on a loop

Anyhooo.... I couldn't help my words a little bit later in the convo - while the smiles and giggles were abundant - to say "well, since I'm the boring girl I'll repeat that the joy ride is fun until the police stops you". Person who said the original comment didn't lose a second, looked at me and said "I never said boring, I said good girl" and smiled.

At this point I decided to listen to my brain who rushed into over drive to tell itself; "Shut your mouth and you'll get sugar" (Swedish proverb). I just kept on smiling, as per previous comments this year - points to me. So close to start explaining why I'm quite possibly not a good girl*, or at least that I'm not predictable and boring. Then again, I wouldn't have been happy with being called a party girl either. There are some stereotypes coming with both words that I have had some issues with in time so.... Sometimes you just can't win for losing - if you're me at least.

good girl dress

party girl tattoo
[this one isn't real, I am still tempted to make it real though]

I've expanded my shoe wardrobe since I moved to the South,
good and party girls wear boots with dresses

a great band - even for a good girl? [Ghost]

potential crush for a good girl turning party girl in danger zone? [Ghost]

*I'm most likely a good girl. Pay my bills on time, am loyal to my friends. Work too much, keep deadlines. Keep with the law. Don't do bad stuff. Call my parents every week. Send cards to my friends. And bring meals to the sick. It's just that underlying want from being a teen/young adult that I would like to be considered "exciting" or "cool" or "good looking hot stuff" sometimes. Not just the girl who can be relied on and help you with your homework since she's got it all together... Is this what they call a midlife crisis? Reliving the teen angst and want to change it? Am I buying a motor cycle soon and riding to work on it? Dear me. This could get expensive.