not placing eggs in one basket - have outside connections

Last month has been the final straw for one of my friends. They are leaving the lab, finally deciding and getting out. The abusive environment in the lab has finally taken its toll and they are done with science overall*.

It's hard. It's extremely frustrating for me, partly because I couldn't help then, and I can't help now - apart from being there and trying to make the exit plan the best one. (I think I've said this before, but I'll say this again - exit strategy and future planning is very important.)

Let me run down some points that I have learned over the years - and from watching both myself and others end up in less than great situations.

First and foremost, go with gut feeling. If something is starting to ping your tummy - listen to it and start collecting facts, then take a look and see if the feeling is warranted. If spider sense is warranted, get out as soon as you can. If you start in a lab as a post-doc and after less than 6 months things seem to be weird. Maybe the PI is screaming at people. Maybe the atmosphere is "not to have any outside contact outside the lab". Maybe something else that sounded weird when you started but you adapted, shrugged it off and then now it doesn't seem as bad.... Take another look. You might be like the frog in hot water - or the Stockholm syndrome. Get out ASAP. Moving labs within the first year can be salvaged. "It wasn't the right fit", "the project didn't turn out to be what was told at the interview" etc. It's not a great thing, but leaving earlier is better than adding another two years in a bad situation.

Second, which ties into the first, HR works for the employer. Not you as the employee. If you want them to help you, its probably going to include you having leverage and a solution planned so it's the least messy situation and solution for them to choose. But again, they don't work for you.

Third, have contacts outside your lab. Another mentor, another connection apart from your PI. Keep your old job connections and grad advisors in the loop. It's nothing strange to have another angle on your career and research. It doesn't mean that you tell all about the research from the lab, it means that you have another person who can be a support person to you. If you aren't a post-doc (like a research scientist or lab manager), definitely have outside connections for future career planning or options in case your PI loses funding or gets a new offer to another institute.

Fourth, if you find yourself in a bad situation - device an exit plan. Talk to some people outside of the situation since you will most likely be a little biased, scared and not thinking really straight. There might be some salvageable ideas and efforts. Perhaps even a solution that you have missed when being caught up in a bad situation. Don't just quit cold turkey. It could be that it happens that way but most often there are other solutions. Mainly because there is less hard to find a new job if you already have a job... and if you are on a visa... see next point.

Fifth, if you are on a visa - like I was on my post-doc - you need to be very diligent and know your requirements very well. How long can you stay in the country when your contract is up? If you are terminated, how long can you stay? (I had a 30 day stay in the country after the contract was ending. Not really super great for long term planning but the reality at the time.) How are things affecting your future visa status and applications? Do you have a possibility of applying for permanent residency for example? Is it possible to shift jobs within the institution or could you shift between places etc.

This post wasn't meant to be a negative one - but considering what I see now and have seen a few times, not to mention went through myself for a bit in my post-doc - it is a reality that one should look into. Like the saying goes: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("if wanting peace, prepare for war"). I interpret that it is better being prepared and having options. It's easier to take on challenges that way.




*they don't think they can get another job within science anymore. But mainly they don't think they have it in them for now to risk another lab. I'm not sure what will happen, I have my own hopes here, but I'm hanging in there providing support and alternatives.

Celebrity surgeon - Something's rotten in the state (university) ....

I had thought about writing something completely different but the story out of my home country that accelerated this week made it quite impossible to think about much more than "WTF is happening". And "what are they doing at Karolinska Institute (KI)"....

It's been a longer story, and then there was a TV documentary (all in Swedish) and an article in the "Swedish Physician journal" (an English translation here) and then things started to unfold pretty quickly. Especially considering that this mostly happened Friday and rolled into the weekend, Swedes don't normally work on weekends as much as the rest of the world. And then Science wrote a piece about it too.

Maybe you have read the Vanity Fair story (found here) about the celebrity surgeon who - when they looked into the CV found some inconsistencies and lies - seems to have made up a bunch of things. They didn't mention the incredible story of investigation that KI made last year when they were investigating possible fraud charges. That story is pretty fantastic. I mean, you have an independent investigator brought in from the "other" prestigious university (forgive the sarcasm, Sweden is small and there are two important old places apart from KI, Uppsala University and Lund University. The latter is not a known medical place so Uppsala it is). To add insult to injury this investigator is a former chair of an ethics committee.

Anyhow, partly what was investigated was a charge that the articles coming out of the research weren't properly showing what the raw data really showed, partly that the informed consent wasn't gathered properly. The independent investigator delivered the verdict that there were discrepancies and that the articles didn't properly show the raw data results. The report suggested more investigation and a full showing of the raw data. KI and their committee decided that this was not what they thought and disregarded the report. So much for "paying attention to the independent outside investigator".

Up until the documentary the vice-chancellor had said "I'm standing by the decisions we have made", of course it's interesting to note that Friday and Saturday the head of the Board (former Minister of Education in case you are interested) decided to come out and say "we need to take a look at this". Hello "welcome to the world is watching you now so maybe not good enough to cover it up internally".

My beef with the whole story? Mainly a few key ethical issues....

1) There was clinical trials in Russia AND in Sweden. The problems? That the inclusion criteria and treatment of the trials were different. The trials in Sweden only touched patients who were terminal and wouldn't have any other choice. The trials in Russia, well not so much. Any time I see these differences in trial protocols (between countries or rich/poor places*) I know that there is something going on. Why would you change the protocols unless there was something that wasn't flying in the stricter country but you "really wanted to try the surgery".....

2) Discrepancy between raw data and published results. Especially after people on your research team are reporting internally that they don't agree with the publication and the interpretation of the data.

3) Telling patients when you are trying to get their informed consent that you have done animal experimental procedures that have work when you haven't done ANY animal experiments at all. (I'm saying this is a no brainer. Seriously? How you even conceive to make this an OK thing, I don't know.)

There are many more, but I'll leave it to you dear reader to look at the articles and see what else there is. I'm mainly concerned with the handling from the most prestigious institution in the country. It's a mess with super prestige and medical doctors.... not to mention the Nobel prize... it will be interesting and I for one, am hoping that the internal process will change and they will be more diligent of not getting tricked by fancy research and showy things. Glam will do you in. Every time.

It can't be asking too much that an university checks credentials of professors. That the ethical committee are diligent with consent forms. That personnel who report discrepancies to publications are being heard and an investigation is performed. It's all about trust and truth and if you don't have that - how are we ever going to perform ethical clinical trials in the future?!






*like some malphalan trials.... a couple of trials running in other countries since they can't be run in the USA. Yep. But the results can be reported in scientific journals and conferences... since their ethical committees have approved the protocols. Not needed that the ethical boards in the other country agree. story for another time.

Is your advice wanted? if not - be quiet

Part of my job involves having assorted information about projects, planning and science (and quite a lot of behaviour and personal knowledge). I also have some experience in the research and industry field that may or may not be good to share at times when trying to decide priorities and goals. However, as everyone who has worked with people know - the issues are seldom with the project but with dealing with the people in the project. 

"The most important part to manage in a projects are the stakeholders aka people involved in the project."* Also "communication, communication, and documentation of communication" 

Even if you know "the best way" or have some suggestions that will improve the project and the ideas and goals, there are times when it feels like you are driving your head into a wall. "They simply won't listen to you, they know the way they want to do it"...

Since it's no fun feeling frustrated with people, having alternative strategies to deal with this is imperative. One of these strategies might be what we call ABC.

When in a situation when you have knowledge the other person doesn't, the questions to ask yourself are:

A - Accept ("will they accept it?")

B - Believe ("will they believe it?")

C - Change ("will it change anything/will they change their approach/attitude?")

If answer is No to these three - our solution is to "Let it go" and don't approach it. It is not the correct time or place to spend time and energy trying to convince them**. You will end up more frustrated and, more importantly, the person will be more frustrated with you (mostly since they will feel that you are hindering them and not playing on their team, and _that_ is so very important).

Of course, I know this. It doesn't mean that I always adhere to it. I'm a quite stubborn woman and at times I stick my chin out and dazzle with my knowledge***. And the people promptly go ignoring it but at least "I said something". There's a time and place for everything.... Now, if I could only be more like a duck...

*edit. As mentioned in the comments - you don't really manage people, you manage things. You lead people. I would say though, as a project manager a lot of what you do it manage communications (thus relationship) between people. But point is mostly - it's more complex than short snippets in a blog post.

**Second comment in regards to being quiet. I agree with the "a drop over time will make a hole in a stone" and changing someone's approach or modify it will take time. Building trust and making small comments and nudge them towards the "better" option. And indeed, that is what I try most of the time. Sometime though, it's good to remember to save the fight for another time.

***tongue in cheek, I voice my suggestions in a reasonable way, targeted to their personality.

rewrite

I tried to write a blog post - it turned out to be too personal. I'm lacking in practice. Maybe it is because I haven't talked to my friends for a while and feel that I want to share thoughts with someone who might read (and maybe comment). Maybe the blog isn't the place and maybe I know this which is why the post took a turn on its own and swirled into the "too private, too personal" space.

I'll look over it and see if I can salvage something. Maybe it is like with a lot of things I write - kill your darlings. Focus the message. One story, one text. Oh, I know it so well. And "don't try and fool yourself".

The general thought in the post was "Holiday - the time of year when feelings run high". All in the time of the season of course.

lessons learned part 2 - termination

Part of my job have turned out to be a participant in HR issues. Being part of corrective actions on employees who need a little help. And then, when/if the corrective action doesn't work - I get to be a part of the termination. It's not as easy as saying "you're fired" as a certain presidential candidate is known for. At least not the ones I've been involved in lately. no, they are more or a discussion - uncomfortable if anything - where you discuss with the employee what's going on and maybe they are better off looking for a new place of work.

I am still quite baffled at certain behaviour I've encountered in this "corrective action". I guess it's partly because I'm a rules gal. I haven't thought of watching netflix at work during work hours. Nor not clocking out for lunch or other longer breaks (like going off onto town and shopping while being clocked in). Nor have I thought that an option is outright lying about "what I've been doing during an experiment"*. I thought I was pretty hard core when it comes to a lot of these things (people on twitter might have seen a tweet I did a few weeks ago stating "I care about people's emotions since I need that to manipulate them into doing what I want them to do" - it was a short, crude way of stating that a lot of my work consists of figuring out a win-win for people since I don't have power to force them to do what I want, only trying to make them see the good in doing what I suggest. It's not that I like manipulating people. It's a pretty bad word to throw around, even if it might be useful more than one would like. Anyhooooo, I digress.) I still end up a bit baffled at some of the behaviour I've seen lately though. I'm trying not to make a prejudice assumption but there seems to be a little bit of an issue with certain positions, and certain ages of people.... I'm hoping I am wrong here though, so I am working on not having that prethought.

After these last couple of months I will say one thing. It's not how you start a job that's crucial for your future - it's what you do in the end. And burning bridges is never a good option. Regardless on how much you hate the job, the manager or what have you. It's not worth it. You still need some sort of reference and even if you are being terminated (or what you would call it, "encouraged to find new job"), the way you behave in the end will determine what kind of reference and new job you can get.

I had another more personal story to get into here but as I'm trying to be more personal, not private, here I've moved more into the work stories. I think however, that the next post will be more about dreams and hopes since a special anniversary is coming up and regardless on how much I would like to forget the date, it's pretty solidly ingrained in me.



*I will say as much as this. I trust you to document all you do. I try to teach while training that "mistakes happens, we don't want mistakes, we try as much as we can to avoid them ,but they are inevitable. The important thing though, is to be honest about what you did and then we can probably salvage a little of the data anyway. What we can't do, is try and trust you if you are dishonest about the data. It takes so little time to ruin something that has taken a very long time to build. And once the trust is gone.... well.... there isn't much to do there.