The global magnetic anomaly map that I discussed last month has an interplanetary companion, generated from Mars Global Surveyor data by Connerney et al. (click on the image for a larger version):
I’ve just been finishing off my final piece for the Nature Post-doc Journal, and it occurred to me that they’re probably looking for people to replace me next year. Sure enough, they are:
The Postdoc Journal gives four postdoctoral fellows the opportunity to each write a monthly journal entry for Naturejobs. They will chart their ups and downs over the course of a year and describe how their experiences shape their future career choices. Some occasional blogging may be requested as well.
We ask that applicants provide three things:
- A cover letter saying why you want to be considered and what would make you a good journal keeper. Include your institutional affiliation, general area of research, the focus of your graduate degree, and how long you’ve been a postdoc.
- A sample first entry, 250 words long, that introduces yourself, identifies the biggest career question you will face in the upcoming year and how you plan to search for an answer.
- Your CV.
Deadline for applications is December 17, 2007.
More details, including how to apply, are found on the competition page. I really should have looked this up sooner, because there’s less than a week to go before the final deadline, but if the idea of writing in Nature appeals to any postdocs out there, you should definitely consider giving it a go (if it makes you feel any better, I still hadn’t written my audition piece at a similar stage last year). Who knows, next year it could be you.
It’s a curious state of 21st century affairs when a person’s suitability for leading the world’s most powerful nation hinges more on whether they mouth the right Christian platitudes than on whether they understand the difference between a Bronze age creation myth and the explanatory framework of evolution. Like it or not, religion is an important part of American cultural life, so it is no surprise that a candidate’s religious attitudes are placed under scrutiny (if only to check that they understand what “separation of church and state” actually means). But it is a little odd that, in a country which generates much of its wealth through technical innovation, in a world where issues such as climate change and the uses (and possible abuses) of biotechnology loom ever larger in the public consciousness, a candidate’s scientific literacy, or lack thereof, doesn’t seem to merit even a cursory examination.
An initative spearheaded by a group that includes my fellow Sciblings Chris and Sheril aims to correct this imbalance, by campaigning for a presidential debate specifically focused on scientific issues:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.
While I’m not a US citizen, I live in the world where the attitudes and actions of the American president affect me nonetheless; and I think it would be a very good thing if presidential candidates’ attitudes towards science were made an important part of electoral deliberations. We can’t expect every politician to be a polymath, but we should certainly expect them to have a basic grasp of, and respect for, how science works. They should understand that an administration where reality is trumped by ideology, where inconvenient research is suppressed or ignored and actual scientists are snubbed in favour of science-fiction authors and lobbyists who tell you want you want to hear, is a bad thing. They should realise that basic research is the foundation on which applied research, with all those lovely spin-off technologies and patents, is built, and not an optional extra.
Of course, it’s one thing to have a debate about science policy; it’s quite another for that debate to actually influence the opinions of the average voter. But perhaps if people start seeing their potential leaders actually taking science seriously, it might help to persuade them that maybe they should, too.
Congratulations to Brian and MarkH, who have both just successfully defended their PhD theses*.
It’s interesting how the process of getting a PhD differs in different countries. As Mark explains in his post, in the US you don’t start with a specific research project in mind; part of the process is you working with your supervisor to come up with your own proposal. In the UK, and most other countries, you’re working on your thesis project (which has generally been thought up by your supervisor before they ever met you) from the very beginning. There’s certainly ways and opportunities to imprint your own ideas and vision on things if you’re so motivated (my PhD project ended up being much broader in scope than originally envisaged), but it’s not quite the same thing as designing your own research programme from scratch – and that’s a valuable skill to take into your post-doc and beyond. On the negative side, this experience comes at the cost of 2 or 3 years’ worth of extra work.
There are also variations in the way you have to defend your thesis. My defence in the UK was in the form of a three or four hour, closed door discussion with my two examiners. In the US you get that too, but you also have to give a public presentation of your work to the entire department. Here in Africa, there is no defence at all – the thesis still gets to the external examiners, who send back a report with their suggested corrections.
I wonder how important these differences are. Is there an obvious difference between the sorts of post-doctoral student the different systems churn out? If there is, does it have a significant effect their later career trajectories?
*I’ve always wondered about this pluralisation – an intentional aural pun, or not?
Anyone who has noticed my latest Nature column will be aware that I have had to forgo the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco for yet another year. I suppose I can feel virtuous about not ramping up my already large carbon footprint for this year any further, but somehow I can’t help but feel a little depressed to be missing out – especially since it seems that a large proportion of the geoblogosphere will be descending on San Francisco for a little party. Just think of the Scibling shindig and add extra alcohol (if there’s any way that that is achievable, be assured that it’s geologists who will find it). This is one reason why posting has been a bit light this week – I’ve been sulking.
For lot's more videos on soil moisture topics, see Drs Selker and Or's text-book support videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoMb5YOZuaGtn8pZyQMSLuQ/playlists
[…] Announcing STORMS | Highly Allochthonous on Recent News […]
Nice plan for content warnings on Mastodon and the Fediverse. Now you need a Mastodon/Fediverse button on this blog.