why you always need Plan B (and C and D)

This last week I got reminded yet again why it's imperative that you always, always, have a plan B. (Yes, having a pack of Plan B  - what the Americans call the "morning after pill" - at home if you are sexually active and not in the mood for offspring might also apply here.)

It's been mentioned a bunch of times when talking about career plans, especially for post-docs* who say they know they want to go into academia and TT.
"Please have a plan B if the way of getting into a SLAC or Top tier university doesn't happen." 
"Please assess your skills and keep that CV shiny in case something else comes up and you don't have that TT job offer."
"Please think of a Plan C and Plan D, just in case Plan B doesn't work."

And for the love of importance, if you are on a work visa in another country (like a foreign worker here in the USA), please keep those plans B, C and D in place since too often, if you job is terminated, you have a very short time to stay in the country before they kick you out.

All of this reared its head this last couple of months. Not for me per se this time, but in my vicinity and I ended up with damage control that will continue for another couple of weeks.

First of all, let's set the stage for the idea that you work in a state that is "right to work". This means that at any given time you can be let go of your job. Of course, you can always sue for "wrongful termination" and the company can always give you a pay out to stop that, but for many of us who don't keep a lawyer on retainer or have connections, the "I'll see you in court" does come across as a fairly little threat to the bigger company (who has retained legal help for sure).

Second, this is true for many places, the moment someone wants to quit or wants you out - most likely it is better to try sort out the best scenario for everyone (which quite possibly be you leaving the job, regardless if it is "right" or "fair"). I call this "cut your losses and try and save as much pain as possible" and then move on. Needless to say, this is not easy. I know. It does make it less panicky though, if you have some sort of plan or alternative ready. (CV written, a working network around you, alternative plans with keywords...)

I actually had one of those moments early in my 'career'. I was told it was better if I left, since "I wasn't TT material, it might as well be for the better for me to leave" and it was a quite hasty exit that was planned. It's a story for another day**. However, what it taught me was a few very important lessons.

• If someone (e.g. boss or someone who boss likes) wants you gone, there will be ways to get you gone (regardless if it is "fair or right"). 
• If you really want to fight it, you will need to have contacts in high places (more powerful than the boss) and remember HR is not really there for you (worker) but for the boss and most of all, the institution.
• IF the situation gets resolved, be sure that you let go of those bad moments early on, and not try and rehash it with coworkers (then the situation won't be called resolved for long). Also try and get out fairly fast with a better solution so you can keep it resolved.
• When you change jobs, remember that it doesn't really matter what you did during your time unless you finish well. Everyone will remember those last couple of months/weeks and how you left your stuff (and connect back to the old job place).
• Never bad mouth your boss to others (current, old or new doesn't matter. It is just never a good idea).
• Never, ever burn bridges. You never know who in the mess that will end up being important in the end game of this we call career and life. (Sure, it is tempting to burn down that house when you storm out, but for many that is not smartest thing to do. If nothing else, many people are willing to help you our after the fact you've left IF you haven't demolished everything in the process.)

I've forgotten that this is not something people do all the time. To me it's very strange when I see people shooting themselves in the foot and really ruining the opportunity to get a good reference/memory all in mainly just the last few weeks.

Examples from the fray:

• The post-doc who moved labs within the department and then tried to publish data (in the new lab) without either new PI or old PI but a third PI in the lab and the post-doc. They thought they were flying under the radar. They weren't.
• The post-doc who screwed up numerous experiments, didn't keep a lab notebook for an astonishing amount of time and had contact with HR since they were warned. It was a timed contract to start, so it shouldn't have been that surprising that the time was up. Although, somehow they thought it better to tell everyone in lab they found out with less than a week to spare and that the PI was evil, lying and everyone was on the chopping block if they weren't well liked with the PI. 
• The technician who found the salaries for everyone in the lab on a print out and proceeded to go to the lab and tell everyone what they were making and why this was unfair and who was the favourite in the lab. Then got surprised when it affected the relationship with the PI.
• The technician who was told during their first review in the new job by a new PI that they "quite bad and extremely disappointing" out of the blue (the had been a tech for another lab for a long time), and then put in the 'communication ice box' where most things are directives and orders and no positives but yet PI depends on them not leaving since they would be in a bind... (you need your CV up to date here, and leave fairly early, since the self confidence gets down and then it's harder to find a new job)
• The supervisor who applied for the same job as their underling, the underling got the job and the supervisor proceeded to call the new company to cuss them out and how wrongly they'd chosen. And then proceeded to tell this story at their old job to the boss and other coworkers.... (yeah, don't know how that worked out in their head either)

If you are in a (lab) environment where it doesn't feel like 'they' like you or you fit in, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to get out as early as possible. It's a little bit odd in one sense, since I've stuck it out a few times when I probably should've saved myself some headaches and left. Although, it is easier for me since both my times have ended with a good ending (so far at least) and I've been able to turn it around. However, the first time was ONLY because I had friends in high places and played the academia game quite well (and a fair amount of luck with my science results). I also ended up leaving the place without having too much hope for an "extra few months after my graduation" - but all in all, I still go there and chat with them and keep in contact so, who knows what will happen after a decade?!

Back to the "out as early as possible". You can always leave the reference out if it is 6 months or less, quite possibly a year. Claim it wasn't a "good fit" for you or the PI. It's not ideal, but people know this happens and it is way better than staying for several years and then in the end not having anything good to show for it since then you do have a problem if you're not using the reference. Also, most times the PI might be ok with it if you are open about it and make it about the fit rather than the skills etc. Note, "fit" is an HR term that is gaining a lot of attention since it does fall fairly close to the "like" aspect of a worker in an environment. However, I have to admit that there is something there with "fit"- nevermind that I don't like it.***

In order to leave/take a new chance, you need your CV up to par and ready. Nevermind that you have a good job at the moment, things like this happen before you know it sometimes. I have one master list - with EVERYTHING I've ever done - and then I redo it for every job I apply for. I also have two basic resumes that I work from in other times, one in English and one in native tongue, but they always need tweaking based on the keywords for the position I'm applying for.

Oh and this thing with applying for jobs. I found myself the other month applying for a job. Why? I really like my present job, I've just about gotten warm in my clothes and it's really exciting. However this was a really good opportunity and I stumbled upon the ad the same day it closed so I thought "why not?". I highly doubt I will get anywhere with it, but I know the institute and that they check old applications for newer job openings so who knows when someone will glance at my fairly specific resume?

As usual, I'm not sure on how to end my blogpost. I'll leave it as is and see if there are any questions and/or comments. Next time it will be a "how to avoid the biggest mistakes in the application/CV" and "what I've learned from telephone interviewing" (as the hirering person) - I wish I knew these things before.



*exchange for graduate students or any other expendable personnel

 ** I looked through my blog but I haven't written about this, nor the other obstacle I faced as a post-doc. I may do this, since it does have some interesting complications and what I know now I would do differently. Also, I have told the story at a few of the "career developing days" I've spoken at and people seem to like it.

***screening people to hire has a category if they are a good fit for the lab. it's horrendously hard - to me at least - to feel that I'm not only making it about "who do I like", a completely different question. This is one of the many reasons I'm not (yet) HR material but only a support person....

Your choice, no herd immunity - (child) vaccinations and the anti vaxx lobby

I've been trying to be quiet about this since I know I'm biased since I'm a researcher. (Biased as in I read scientific papers and have more knowledge than the "average person".) I didn't know that I was biased when I started of course. I thought since "I read research papers and am of logical mind" that I was just "one in the regular crowd", I didn't have anything more to say than the public opinion.

Oh was I wrong.

I mentioned on twitter earlier this week that I was giving up my gym membership due to the facebook links from them, which have been a lot of anti-vaccinations for children. See, I really think that people should be able to make their informed decisions and make what's best for them and their family. I'm all for that, to a point. And especially when I get links to what they read in order to get their idea of proof... and I read a lot of the links to their "proof". And it is a lot of "opinions" and not facts.

If you are living in a remote area where no one else gets hurt by your decision, I'm actually ok with you making whatever decisions you want for you children and family. Go ahead, choice is free and you will never be part of this the major difficulty of infectious diseases (see below). You are alone in that area, hopefully your family are ok with your choices and if your young ones and grand parents get sick anyway, well - that's fine with you and yours.

However, and this is where I get upset and need to say things, act on it and all the above and more, when your decisions make it impossible for other people to feel safe and their children are at risk.... well, sorry but your right to "choose" goes into my "this is not an area to discuss, these are FACTS and what you may or may not believe, is not my main concern since it is the children and families who do not have this choice and will get hurt by your decision".

I'll make this statement simple for this blog post - I can provide links to everyone of these FACTS (please note, these are not my opinions, but FACTS that are founded in examples, experience and scientific logic) if you so want. The only reason I'm not doing it right now is because I'm tired and want to get this blog post out now. I will update it after that fact that I've published it and gotten it out of my system. There are some very obvious misconceptions that are floating around that make me furious.

First; most of our "common childhood diseases" can not be cured by antibiotics. Why? Because they are viral infections (like measles and the flu (influenza)). Viral infections can not be cured by antibiotics because antibiotics only work on bacterial diseases - and that is IF they are not resistant to the antibiotics (most of the prevalent strains of ear infections (Otitis Media) and unfortunately TB, more to come - be sure of that since we have over-prescribed antibiotics for livestock and people last couple of decades, more of that in another blog post).

Secondly: (I would often put this first myself but that's because I know antibiotics don't work against measles and flu): HERD IMMUNITY means that the likelihood of a child getting the more common childhood diseases is lowered since more than 86-90% of the children (reservoirs) are vaccinated against the disease means that is less likely to exist and spread. In short, lots of people having vaccinated immunity will protect the unvaccinated people since the likelihood of the disease rearing its ugly head is diminished. Case in point; every community where the amount of vaccinated people drops (like London or places in California or Texas or even New York for Measles) will make the disease rate go up and spread uncontrollably.

Third; this silly notion that "childhood diseases like measles is not dangerous and therefore it's better to have it and then get protected". Let's get this misnomer VERY clear. A lot of children in places where the vaccinations aren't working are not only getting sick, nor getting SERIOUS side effects from the disease - like blindness - but they die. Simple as that. They die.

Fourth; (if you're counting, I'm not since I'm a firm believer in thinking about others apart from myself) the herd immunity means that the people (let's get this straight since it's mainly about the children, it's about small innocent vulnerable children) who can't get vaccinated get protected by a lot of other people getting vaccinated since this means that the unvaccinated kids are getting a chance to not encounter the infectious agent (that's virus for the most part, non treatable by antibiotics) and therefore getting a chance of not getting sick and getting the side effects of getting sick (death, 'moribond' = blind, sterile (if we are talking about men and chicken pox for example, etc). Examples of children who can't get protected and are very vulnerable, children who are less than 2 years of age (their immune system is still trying to get to work) and children who are battling any other type of disease like cancer.

This whole idea of "I'm choosing not to get my child vaccinated" is making me furious beyond. I'm not the one to rant about these things, nor pontificate, but the last year has gotten me over the line. It's the several drops on the camel's back s to speak. And the links for my gym (not to mention the conversations with the people in general) has made it obvious to me - it's not about INFORMED CHOICE. It's about a lot of people claiming "they know the truth" without ANY facts since "everyone is entitled to their opinion".

And I'm reacting to that since I truly think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions after reviewing the FACTS. The FACTS I'm referring to by the way, is infectious disease statistics spreading all over the world (Sweden, UK and the USA among some places) where the pockets of non-vaccinations spread and where the diseases are creeping up and the innocent (babies, children on chemotherapy who can't get vaccinated, and grandparents (who are old and therefore don't get the same protection with vaccinations) are getting sick, affected and dying.

You know, I' m all for "your choice" if you live in a remote area and don't socialize with anyone (not the elderly or children below 2 years of age). Go right ahead. If you don't live like that though, tough choice. You should really feel responsible for the health of your neighbour (or older and younger relatives). It's called HERD IMMUNITY since it is considering everyone living together and you should really have a sense of respect towards your neighbours and family. God knows there are plenty of people living in the world where they don't have a choice and their young children and old relatives die everyday. That'd called the "Developing world". Why don't you go look for the stats there and then come back. I can promise you that's it's pretty hard to keep your "I don't think the vaccination is good for my child" after looking at the reality of the communities where there isn't herd immunity and the disease is rampage and killing babies. Maybe if we get there (oh the sadness if we get there again) the people who talk about "their choice" and "it's not that bad" really understand what we - the scientists - are talking about.

I simply wish that we don't have to get there since it means a lot of dead people in the meantime.

Waffle day!

This Tuesday 25th of March was (as always) 'waffle day'. Well, in Sweden it was at least. Based on the wonders of a) language and spelling isn't the same as pronouncing b)Christmas is the 25th of December c)have a reason to eat waffles for dinner.... (as one does here in the South of USA with chicken...)

So, basically it's this simple: 25th of March is "conception day for Our Lady (Mary)" since it is 9 months to Christmas. Never mind details as "Sweden doesn't think of Mary as "our lady since we're not Catholic", nor do we celebrate Christmas with gifts the 25th. Sure enough, church service is at 5/6/7 am the 25th, but not that many people attend church compared to say the USA or UK. And kids gets their pressies on Christmas Eve (julafton) and the big family meal is the 24th and Donald Duck is on ... another story for another day...

Anyway, in Swedish this is "Vårfrudagen" - vår (our), fru (lady), dagen (the day). However, it's pronounced "vårffludagen" which can easily be turned into "våffeldagen"... Våffel=waffle

It's easy as pie ;)

Oh Canada, you mighty glorious winner!

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/525729-canada-wins-sochi-2014-gold-over-sweden-in-mens-ice-hockey-three-takeaways/?photo=2 

Yes, this is a photo of the victorious Canadian men's hockey team. Look at that nice gold bling!

Yes, Canada beat Sweden in the Olympic gold medal game on Sunday.

Yes, Chall is Swedish.

Yes, this post is the result of a lost wager on the game.

Yes, this is Cath . Hi!

Chall and I made the bet right after Canada beat the US in the semi-final. I watched the final period of that game with dozens of colleagues in the lunchroom at work, and there was much cheering and high-fiving at the end. All charged up, I took to Twitter to make a bet with our gracious Swedish host.

Two days later, I got up at 3:40 am (yes, you read that right, and I know how ridiculous that is) to watch the final, thinking "well, at least if we lose, it's to Sweden. I like Sweden".

Because, really, who doesn't like Sweden?

The game wasn't half as exciting as the much closer Canada-US semi final. It wasn't anywhere near as exciting as the Canada-US women's final earlier that week, when the Canadians came back from a 2-0 deficit with five minutes left and won in overtime in one of the most exciting games of any sport I've ever followed.

No, in the men's final against Sweden, Canada were dominant, scored early, took a 3-0 lead, and never looked like losing. We celebrated at the end, of course - winning the Olympic hockey gold medal is pretty crucial to our self-identity, eh? But did I want to gloat, or to mock the losing Swedish team?

Hell no - I wanted to give them all a big hug. Especially Daniel Sedin.

And then something wonderful happened on Twitter. #HardToTrashTalkSweden started to trend in Canada; #HardToTrashTalkCanada started to trend in Sweden (they must not know about Harper). Some of my favourites are in this screen capture:

Now that's true Olympic spirit! The internet can be a wonderful place sometimes.

Take THAT, Sweden!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional photo from me (chall) since Canada did indeed 

win it all in the hockey - women and men. 

A truly remarkable feat! Congratulations Canada!

http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/basking-in-olympic-gold/

job transition part 2

So, new job - moving back to academia but not into my own research, and maybe not even authorship (this last part is something I should've asked when I applied, didn't and now will see how it ends up).

I mentioned that I moved into more of a project manager position the last couple of years in the "industry" world and that I did both that and the other parts like assay development and adhering to FDA regulations and stuff involved in that. All fun and challenging things, but it got a little much at times to both be at the bench and doing the planning/strategic work so when the opportunity presented itself to move away from the bench it seemed like a great time to try it.

I also talked it over with my former post-doc mentor who said "if you want to be decision making you need to move from the bench". And another mentor within pharma who reminded me that "your scientific knowledge is nothing anyone would question, however the people interaction and the soft skills need to come from your job description and right now you are not separated from the other 'scientists' in the field". That coupled with my ego thought that I wanted to move forward in my career and thinking "if not moving forward you are actually moving backwards, even if you are staying at the same level for too long" made me want to go for the jump and move into this "project manager" full time.

I asked the woman whom I am now working with in the project manager group (we're a small group divided into several projects/programs where each are responsible for our own things) what the biggest challenge had been for her when she started. "That some people see you as a glorified secretary. It's definitely an ego thing that you have to think about if you are willing to risk. Of course, it helps if you have a PhD but still, you are not the PI and some people think anyone can do what we do, not realising the science knowledge you need to make it work". I gave it quite the thought since I am a little bit too much invested in this ego thing.... Then I spoke to the PI who would be my boss and realised that he was aware of the potential problem here. He wanted me to have intellectual input on the science and that the skill set I brought would complement the group currently working with the project, not to mention that I would be the driver of the project and be in a unique position to help with getting these new treatments/regulations/"moving the field forward"....  (yes, quite the ego smooth talking...)

Of course, this is what people say when they sell you on a project/job. What really happens when you start is usually another thing. So far though, I have to say that it's been pretty true - at least from management's pow. They want my input on science decisions, they leave a lot of detail to me to take care of and they let me run the ball on many things. It's an interesting, kind of scary feeling, to hear someone you have worked with for such a short time say "I'll leave it up to you, you know better than I what we need" and then they wait for your report, but so far so good. *knock wood*

What is it that I do? Well, since it's all about the pseud stuff but I work with cancer now. Leaving my precious microbes for the cancer treatment and potential new drugs. It was a pretty steep learning curve those first weeks with new computer programs, all the infrastructure, all the people (gosh the people I needed to learn the names and areas of) since I'm the "go to person who keeps everyone in the loop with each other", which means I'm working on my social extrovert skills on a daily basis. It's going pretty well I think, haven't heard too many bad things.

Then I have started writing up project plans for various areas, talking to pharma about our collaborations with their scientists and relaying the information to our scientist. All of which re enforces my feeling that they value my science background and my knowledge. Most of all though, I'm organizing and structurealising a lot of work. It's amazing to me that so many people do amazing research, yet have a little loss on the planning and details. I'm very happy to help though, and on top of my skills that I bring I've already learned a bunch of new things.

There has also been a little of a leadership development thing going on, starting up might be a better term. not sure what I want to write about that, but I can say this: It's not all that simple to be a woman from the north hanging around with all these southerners and their smiling passive aggressive "bless their hearts" when the directness of the north come knocking on the door of stress. All in a learning curve I tell ya.

The thing I miss the most (apart from those small strange moments when I miss my mice from my post doc days and my microbes in general) would be the lab bench and standing/moving around during the day. Gosh, there are days now when I sit in front of the computer, being in meetings and then not really move the whole day. So awkward feeling. I've started with mandatory "no elevators" and walking around the department every hour - if I'm not in a meeting. If not just to get the flab moving. And of course, sneaky me managed to get access and training on one of our very nice and cute robots the other day so now I can technically do some of the bench work. My mentor was not pleased "you are not going to be at the bench anymore, you're supposed to teach people project managing", but she saw the help I can provide and that it's not a permanent thing. that would be way not-cost-effective if nothing else...

Ah well, way too late to stay up right now! I need to get some sleep before an exciting new day at "the new job". When does it stop being "the new job" and "just the job" by the way? It's not been 100 days yet but maybe after that?