Parsing Words About IRB Statuses Pisses Me The Fuck Off..


See your point, and agree that the IRB status should be spelled out clearly. Something else you said on the twits was interesting…about the responsibility of reviewers to call out “egregious studies” that passed IRB. The IRB system of approval is (intentionally) vague and subjective…if a study is approved, what are the ethical responsibilities of various participants after that? I feel uncomfortable giving a single reviewer major authority to countermand a rendered decision…if there is an ethical concern remaining, shouldn’t it go back to the IRB?

Originally posted on :

I’ve been doing human research for better than a decade now (and, yes, I did just appeal to authority). Every study that I have ever done has at some point touched an Institutional Review Board and every study has involved some consideration of how to obtain informed consent.

IRBs can do a couple of things when they consider a study. They can approve or deny approval for a study’s conduct. They can exempt the study from review, meaning that the investigators may press on without IRB involvement. They can approve an informed consent process and document, or they can waive the requirement for informed consent.

Every paper that I have subsequently written has been published in a journal that requires two statements be made – 1) What is the study’s status vis-à-vis the IRB and 2) how was informed consent obtained?

I’ve been very fortunate because my studies have been…

View original 120 more words

The Philosophy of How We Do Science and Being the Cool Professor

Prof-like Substance has a post over at Scientopia about being the “cool professor”.  He writes:

When I started my lab I had a very distinct idea of the type of PI I wanted to be. I had experienced some different styles and observed many others. I knew what my needs were as a graduate student and a postdoc and recognized gaps in what my mentors had provided for me. Above all I thought I could navigate that line between friend and boss where all my trainees would both respect me and want to hang out with me.

Oh, and I wanted to ride a unicorn to work every day.

I’m soon to finish up my sixth year as a PI and have mentored two cohorts of students at this stage. I’m hardly a grizzled vet of the mentoring game, but I’ve had enough experience to change my views on my role. There’s been a discussion on twitter recently about whether someone is a Mentor or a Boss. It’s a false dichotomy. An effective mentor is both. Sometimes you can spend your time leading your people in the general vicinity of water and sometimes you have to hand them a cup and tell them to drink.

In our most recent Pub-Style Science, Michael Tomasson and I had a conversation with some fine folks about the philosophy of science. I find Prof-Like’s post and our recent Pub-Style Science interesting vis–à–vis each other because they contrast how we *do* science  with how *we* do science.  The difference may seem subtle, but I think it’s important and is part of the reason I have been inspired to work with Michael to develop Pub-Style Science.

To me, the choice to use the scientific method to perform our science seems so simple. It is the elegantly simple framework of all our endeavors, seemingly based in objectivity. But, as one of our guests commented, “science is also a human endeavor and, unfortunately, humans are assholes.”

That’s the reason I think that what we’re doing could have some value. There is the methodology of how we *do* science, which I will grant is also rooted in historical constructs with largely European roots. Yet, there are also the cultural constructs of how *we* do science, and that is the part that I would like to challenge. Each time we start a Pub-Style Science, Michael seems to sweat a little under his collar before he offers the disclaimer of what our show is about: the tone is non-typical for academic scientific discussions. We don’t ask anyone to codeswitch from the cultural norms that feel genuine to them, and that might result in a conversation that feels uncomfortable to some.  Unfortunately, academia is still an uncomfortable place for many people, especially people from underrepresented groups.

I originally agreed to participate if we could build a conversation that felt like the types of conversations I find myself having at scientific meetings, after the day’s activities have ended and everyone is sitting in the bar afterwards. That’s where I have gotten some of the best, most honest, and most useful advice of my career. The problem is that it can very very difficult for young women and minorities to find and enter those conversations.  When I was looking for a new job recently, I looked very carefully at the departments I sent my CV to. Were there women in the department?  Were there scientists of color in the department? There were some departments that I did not apply to because I didn’t want to be the magical rainbow unicorn and I didn’t want to worry about whether a department severely lacked diversity because that was what the faculty members were comfortable with. So, I want to take the same approach with Pub-Style Science that I hope people in science will take. I want to look around the table to seriously ask the question, “Did we really consider a diversity of participants here, or did we pick among our friends and people who look like the norm because that is who we know?”  Then, I want to be able to talk about the objective methodology of how we *do* science.

We’ve talked a lot recently about who Pub-Style Science is for, and that seems to leave us at the crossroads of where to go. It started, frankly, as a discussion of topics we happened to be interested in at the time.  It could certainly continue that way. We could maintain our focus on topics with a bit of an esoteric bent to them. We seem to have agreed that the topics of Pub-Style Science should be aimed at more junior scientists and scientists in training. That makes me wonder whether we should also consider more pragmatic topics. Choosing a lab. Starting your own lab. Finding mentors. Finding funding.

I also care that people look at our endeavor and see that people who look like them get a seat at the table and that they are valued for who they are.  I know for sure that I don’t want to talk about the tone of what we’re doing anymore. I am convinced by the positive feedback we get from trainee scientists that, because of how we are having these conversations, we have the potential to do something that will positively impact them. To return to Prof-like’s post, which inspired me to think more about this, I don’t really care about being the “cool” professor. I care about being the honest one – one that is, at least in some way, doing the process in a transparent way. That means, sometimes, throwing your hands up in the air and just saying “fuck!” I was amazed when Michael Tomasson, Joshua Drew, and I were at at LeMoyne College by the number of of undergraduates that told us that they didn’t realize that faculty worry about and struggle with the same things they do and that their preconceived notions of how faculty should be were keeping them from thinking they could apply to graduate or professional school. I see that as a problem.

It’s a problem that I would like to keep trying to fix.

A Brand New #PubScience!! Tonight at 8pm CT!!

Tonight we’ll be talking about  the culture and philosophy of how we do science. In outlining the topic, Michael Tomasson had this to say on his blog:

I like to share science and the culture of science with anyone who’s interested, especially to show a relaxed side of science to younger people who may be put off by narrow-minded cultural attitudes. PubStyleScience is a science culture experiment along these lines.  Let’s open the doors and windows of the scientific enterprise!  I see many sci’s on Twitter motivated to expose and correct sexism and racism in the scientific enterprise, to promote fairness and transparency.  We can agree that there is some bullshit cultural baggage with science community, but I’m more interested in the subtle baggage that keeps us from doing the best science.  I am often surprised at how scientists embrace groupthink.  In the abstract, the NIH (for one) declares a love for radical departures and fresh interdisciplinary ideas.  And yet, as a scientists love to run in a herd, and in evaluating others, demand conformity.  Professional science should be open to a diversity of participants.  This is a moral principle, and a conviction that the progress of science will benefit from the participation of a wider range of voices.

So what I’m interested in is the *positive* side of scientific cultural evolution.  My tweeps rail against what they don’t like about the old culture…but what are we *for?*  For most of the scientists I interact with, we can easily agree on the extreme ends of “unacceptable,” e.g.sexim and racism.  But there are softer cultural values that are not clear-cut, but messy.  How should we define the differences between “good culture” and bad?

Joining us will be the esteemed Dr. Free-Ride, Dr. Rubidium, and Andrew Brandel. Dr.Free-Ride has already, as is typical, been prolific on the topic. Go read “Is a scientist without philosophy like a fish without a bicycle?

Here’s a link to the YouTube page where you can watch our hangout as it’s happening, or catch it later in the archive. We look forward to hearing from everyone!

Is science a polytheistic religion?

Originally posted on The Analog World:

“The experimental method is concerned only with the search for objective truths, not with any search for subjective truths…An anticipative idea or an hypothesis is, then, the necessary starting point for all experimental reasoning.  Without it, we could not make any investigation at all nor learn anything; we could only pile up sterile observation.”

    –Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine

Image Claude Bernard: “Oui, I’m dead…but do I look naive to you?”

The other day, I told Dr. Isis I wanted to do a PubStyleScience on epistemology, and she said, “I don’t get it… what’s so hilarious about that?” Or words to that effect. Imagine my shock and surprise!  A bunch of scientists, sitting around, drinking and arguing about the meaning of everything?  It’s the *perfect* topic for PSS!!  So, let me explain my interest in the topic…

I like to share science and the culture of…

View original 855 more words


If your loved one is sick, you need to tweet about it

Originally posted on The Analog World:

The last Pub Style Science on patient blogs was a blast, as usual, but there was something more I wanted to say about medicine and interweb communication. Still thinking about what social media can do for medicine because I’ve been on service recently spending hours and hours working with leukemia (and lymphoma and myeloma) patients, fighting a myriad of problems with them. Mostly, of course, it’s their diagnosis, a horrible disease that is the enemy. But a fight against cancer can be a long battle and there are countless small issues that are much of the day-to-day work.  With a cold, statistical eye, I don’t know how significant the “little things” are to someone’s overall survival, but I feel they matter, at the very least for a person’s quality of life, and also for the patients’ families who have a strong desire to care for their loved ones in the…

View original 382 more words