In article <61dj9u$jle at news.acns.nwu.edu>, g-berardesco at nwu.edu (Gina
Berardesco) wrote:
> Dianna L. Bourke (dlb17 at PSU.EDU) wrote:
> > At a recent WICB meeting that I attended I went on for a bit about how it
> > is really frustrating that THE SAME OLD SCIENTIST BIG WHIGS always present
> > the data "for their lab" and the students and postdocs almost never get any
> > significant visibility. Of course the students, postdocs and techs are
> > often acknowledged and thanked, but who remembers their faces or names when
> > the "credits" are only on the screen for 10 seconds?
>> This is a real pet peeve of mine - going to a big meeting and finding the
> same old people giving the same talks. I was particularly disappointed in a
> Gordon Conference I attended, because it was supposed to be 'new' stuff and
> it was the same old instead. I really do prefer that the students and
> post-docs give talks especially since then you have a chance of a *women*
> presenting some material.
A couple of years ago I went to a meeting that I was a terrified peon at,
and there was a P.I. who always presents the material from his lab
too---and he gave a talk that I absolutely loved. Two things that I
wanted to mention about it.
He was doing totally bizarre science. He was chopping heads off of flies
and sticking dopamine in the resultant hole created by not having a head
there. He was also sticking cocaine in there and duplicating the effects
of dopamine agonists. It was so bizarre because he showed videotapes of
headless flies performing repetitive grooming behaviours even though THEY
HAD NO HEADS! Sort of makes the whole idea of grooming seem a tad
unnecessary, but they are flies after all and I am guessing having your
head removed and having cocaine jammed in instead is not something that is
easily made sense of. At any rate, it was an excellent talk. And he was
really scared giving it. I could tell he was nervous about it. His hands
were shaking and his voice was cracking and he was tense. Now I really
like this P.I. and I wanted to mention this for a reason. Sometimes the
P.I.s almost have to give the talks at meetings, especially if the work
itself is unusual or controversial, because frankly, I think some student
and even post-docs are sitting ducks for really aggressive "dissing". A
P.I. who is established and has a reputation for not reporting things
until he is sure is far less likely to get dismissed than someone without
a proven track record to back them up. i agree that it is important to
give talks at meetings, but it may not be a bad idea to hold off on it
till you have a few publications out there that people can digest and get
acquainted with you in. And I believe this is especially true for the
bigger deal meetings where all of the other people are the old big whigs.
Just thought I'd add a little temperance for a change.....
Alice
