27 and no PhD *sob*

The Scientist has just published their list compiled through surveys, for this year’s best places to work for postdocs.

Best place to work for postdoc 2008

There are two main lists that are featured - one that of Top 10 US Institutions, and one of Top 10 International Institutions.

Perhaps rather unsurprisingly the Top 10 US Institutions list is dominated by mainly private ventures rather than government-funded academic institutions, given the constant stories of reduction in funding to be made available from the federal budget. I had to say I am ignorant of the details and I don’t like to repeat what I heard from my friends since I haven’t got round to verifying the information, but suffice to say a lot of them are negatively reported that they scare me from wanting to consider moving to US for a postdoc after I finish my thesis.

On the international front, seems like UK and Canada are the countries of choice. These are countries that in recent years have poured in aplenty of scientific supports and investments, in order to boost the lively research environment that they have cultivated. As they are also English-speaking, it is a very appealing choice for international scientific community who are already communicating mainly through English. One does not feel to be under pressure to learn a new language in order to fit in in his/her new country of choice.

I don’t know though if I should be comforted or scared with the indication that some 11.6% of those surveyed don’t know the type of position they’ll expecting to be in two years. Comforted, because I am currently in such a situation, still trying to weigh my options on what to do after my thesis completion. Scared, because I wonder if this is the reflection of the uncertainties faced by scientists due to limited number of positions available, or are they becoming disillusioned with science that they’re now trying to decide whether to even stay or go.

Some nearly 20% foresee themselves in industry in two years, highlighting perhaps money and the level of income could be a thorny issue. Or at least big enough to pose the dilemma for one to choose to cross over from scientific ideals to commercial thinkers?

I am confused…

The deadline for SMBE 2008 abstract submission was yesterday.

I didn’t make it, nor was I intending to.

Well, more like I was even undecided whether to go or not, that I did not even approach my supervisor to talk about it.

I know, it is important, and good for a scientist, to be attending major conferences. If possible, at least once a year. It is afterall the best place to network and to hear what’s the latest in the research realm of areas close to my heart. Even if journals are good sources for information, after the time lapses for reviews and corrections etc, a lot more other research could have moved forward. Plus, if I want to look for a postdoc position, this would be a great opportunity to suss out possible openings.

However, I could not justify going to a conference without having something that I can present.

My current work in progress is hampered by dataset that is somewhat inaccurately procured by our collaborators, and given the politics of collaborative work, I am not even certain if I could present them.

A second project that involves data produced from our own lab is at the mercy of the sequencing company, and the guy in charge of our job is on 4 weeks holiday with no one to follow up. Pretty unreal, isn’t it? So that is now also on hold. On precious precious time that I can’t afford to waste.

Only 240 days left to my thesis deadline. Tick tock tick tock tick tock…

Wow, peer-reviewed journal of a new level altogether.

James Randerson’s blog entry of God’s journal just goes to show how context of religion can be taken way beyond what I perceive as normal. I mean, no offense, it’s good that one has a religious root to guide his/her personal life, but to try to fit science into the ideas of religion, that’s just so wrong.

But I guess the bunch of people over Answers in Genesis would beg to disagree. Therefore, they’re launching their own version of research journal called Answers Research Journal to “demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.”

In science, we search for an answer to something that we postulate, but we don’t try to fiddle every possible way to make our result conform to religious believes. That’s scientific blasphemy! And by calling their methods as “scientific” this is bound to confuse many and to mislead them into taking these supposed studies seriously, as rightly pointed out by Randerson.

Seriously, someone please stop these loonies…