In addition to a manuscript DrAdd'EmUp wants submitted by the end of June, I received an email from Dr. Add'EmUp asking me to provide the following for his grant:
1. Hypotheses for all current and future components
2. Figures, tables and a summary of progress of what has been done in the lab.
3. All methods for current and future components
This is Dr.Add'EmUp's second and last submission. If he doesn't get it - he's shit out of luck. The comments from his first reviews said that he lacked credibility, after all he is a mathematician who has just started a lab. As I understand it this translates as, "You need a manuscript or two before resubmitting." So he is really pushing to get a manuscript submitted by the end of June.
His lab consists of me, a lab technician, and two undergrads. I am supervising the undergrads who are helping in the data collection of this current project. Because of a run of contamination in the lab (turned out to be the biotech companies chemicals), we lost 3 months of time and it is only now that we're back on track. This is data for the manuscript "due" before the end of June.
So I'm supposed a. supervise two undergrads in data collection, b. submit a manuscript (for which we are still collecting data), and c. contribute to writing what I see as the majority of the grant, all in the span of a few weeks.
Myquestions:
What is my priority? I think it's the manuscript.
Is it typical of a PI to have the postdoc write what seems to be the majority of the grant, including things like future experiments but offer no compensation? (If most of the ideas about future experiments are the postdocs, what compensation is appropriate?)
After weird and unfriendly behaviour from a supervisor, would you want to work late nights and weekends just so the supervisor can reap the rewards?
Need some help peeps.
-
I just finished reading an engaging article in The New Yorker, called " The Truth Wears Off. " The author Jonah Lehrer talks abou... -
[These ideas on Slow Science are a work-in-progress a first draft of sorts. With some help from those of you who read this post, via a chal... -
Okay peeps, I know that many of you are lurkers at this website (according to the visits from the sitemeter stats). But I want you to come ...
6 comments:
I would say it varies by by both the lab and the field so its hard to generalize. I have heard of PI's doing just editing of grants with postdocts/students writing most of it, and ive heard of PI's writing all of it and just requesting figures/legends here or there.
I think your priority should depend on your situation and what will help you the most. If you are leaving soon then the data and paper are more important. If you are in for the long haul maybe the lab's funding takes priority.
Compensation is a tricky bit. I wrestle with this myself, part of me thinks that contributing to things that give no direct attribution (reviews/grants) is part of the unwritten job description. Other times i think that hey I am getting nothing out of this so why bother. I too would like to find out what others think
My gut reaction would be to focus on the paper and whatever data is needed for it. I think you should still work on the grant, but not as a priority. My reasoning is as follows:
1) You need publications
2) You won't get credit for the grants your PI gets.
As for how much you're contributing, I'd say it's par for the course.In my current postdoc I've written the majority of 3 RO1s and 9 society grants (most of the society grants were for me, though). It's a good experience, and I think I'm a much better grant writer for my efforts. But I can't help but think we would have had a better chance at getting some of these grants if I'd done less work or gotten more guidance. After all, my PI has been doing this for 15+ years now...
As for compensation, all I get is a fairly flexible schedule (I have 2 kids and miss a lot of time because of them). However, I did eventually get my own grant, and I have no doubt that I wouldn't have been able to do that without all the practice....
As a postdoc, I wrote (all of) grants that would fund me as did everyone around me; I also wrote pieces, or provided info, for the big lab-funding grants but not the whole thing. The description you give - asking for hypotheses, a progress summary - is worrying: what is Dr.AEU doing?
Part of all of this depends on your desires for future paths. If you're planning to leave asap, and the grant will not benefit you at all: lower priority, sure. Obviously if this is where your future salary will come from, it's a bigger deal. And no, I would not be struggling to bust a gut for someone with whom I did not get on - but then I would also have left by now, as in fact I did when that happened :).
Another question is *why* you would get no credit? You should at least be a CoI, it seems.
If the ideas are yours, why are they not in grants that you are writing?
All of that said: unless the undergrads are very very demanding, getting a grant and a paper written over 4 weeks should not be too silly a workload.
I agree with Ewan: writing a paper and a grant over 4 weeks is totally doable, especially because you can probably reuse some stuff from the paper in the grant (i.e. what the lab is doing now, the methods, etc.).
@Anon 10:45
My situation is that I'm likely to leave the lab fairly shortly (I hope). I still hold that my priority is what serves my career not his.
@Dr.Dad
I guess I totally understand that it's par for course for a PI to exploit his/her postdoc, but frankly I've had it and refuse to be used and not acknowledged. It's not like I'm asking for much. If Dr.Add'EmUp had said anything indicating that he valued my scientific contribution, I would have helped him write the grant as much as I could.
@Ewan
Exactly.
An update: I emailed DrAdd'EmUp and casually asked if it was possible for me to be a coPI. The answer, no. Why, his answer, "this grant is to fund my lab." Well, if it's your lab, then don't you think you should come up with your own future projects?
My compensation, according to Dr.Add'EmUp is that in his letters of reference for me he would write something about how the role I played in the proposal development was evidence that I was ready to develop your own. Frankly, in this economic condition where there are no tt jobs and the very real possibility that I won't get one of them, that type of compensation is like him offering me a partial skin off the carrot - it's just not enough.
@Anon 1:46
Agreed, but my focus and priority is the manuscript. I will minimally help with the grant by writing up what the lab is doing now, the methods. I am not, however, providing him with any future projects. Personally, his need to have me write up future projects indicates that he may be experiencing separation anxiety and not dealing with it well, at all.
Your plan sounds good - look our for your own career first, and help with the grant where you can. Four weeks is a good chunk of time, you never know what you might accomplish. Go get 'em!
Post a Comment