Friday, January 30, 2009

Give Us More Choice

For this month’s Scientiae, Pat @ Fairer Science has asked,

What do you think a better, more equitable society should look like? What are your dreams for your life? For the lives of others? How close are you to living the life of your dreams? What would make you able to live that life?

What I would like to see more of in our society in general is choice. Real choice. Not just new compulsory roles masquerading as choice. I mean a multitude of different ways for people to live their lives, and all of them equally viable and equally respectable. I feel that I spend an awful lot of time justifying the choices I've made in my life and the rights of others to make different choices. Overall, I am pretty happy with my life, because I have done and continue to do the things I want to do. But I often wonder – how many people just don’t live the kind of life they want to because they just aren't as good as I am at ignoring the judgments of others.

I’d like to see people truly free to marry whomever they love – regardless of gender, race, nationality, or religion. And once these marriages were celebrated, I’d like to see the happy couples free to define the rules of the union for themselves. There would be no repercussions for choosing to be a two career couple. Likewise, if they agreed that only one of them will work outside the home, that would be fine, too, regardless of which one does so. It would be nobody else’s business which one of them brings home the bacon, which one fries it up, or which of them cleans up the mess when it’s done. That would be something that couples work out between themselves, and the only thing society would expect of them is that they work out a mutually satisfactory agreement.

Couples who chose not to formalize their relationship with a traditional wedding would not be marginalized, though I believe that with a more inclusive definition of marriage, many of the disincentives to entering into the contract would be minimized. And if a person chose not to marry or enter a long term relationship, that choice would be fully respected as well – no more lectures about how singles just need to get out there and find the right person. People are not socks – they do not have to be in pairs.

How many children a couple chooses to have, and when, is a personal choice, and in my dream society, it would be treated as such. But that would not be used as an excuse to withhold the basic supports that families need, such as health insurance for their children, decent neighborhood schools, and adequate and affordable childcare. And employers would treat all people as the rich and complex entities that we really are. This would mean they’d be willing to figure out ways for people to get their work done without having to slowly chip away at the parts of their lives that don’t take place in the workplace until all the joy in their lives is gone.

I’d also like to live in a society where the family unit is not rigidly defined. A family is a structure that exists to provide the support people need to thrive through the various stages of their lives. It should facilitate the raising of children. It should serve as a safety net for the newly independent young adult. It should serve as a pillar of strength to the fully engaged adult who is building a life’s work. And it should provide a hearth of comfort to the aged nearing the end of life. It seems to me that there must be more than one way for a group of human beings to accomplish those goals. In my ideal society, the most important thing would be making sure that people get the support they need from a family, not policing the configuration of that family structure.

In my dream society, people would be free to do the kind of work that excites them. When people are doing work that they find engaging, they will feel naturally motivated to do their best work. That is, I think, a much better motivator than money. But that doesn't remove money from the equation. I'd like to see the range of jobs that will allow a person to earn a living wage to be expanded. And I'd like to see greater respect for work that is done for no pay – like raising children and caring for infirm relatives.

If a person is wants to do a job, and is able to do that job well, he or she is an excellent candidate for that job. Period. I’d really like for there to be an end to all debate about whether a job is appropriate for a certain person because of things that have nothing to do with their ability or desire to do the job. And I’d like for those who are in the position to make hiring decisions to figure out that a person’s age, gender, and race are, more often than not, completely peripheral to the actual job qualifications.

Not all work requires the same, cookie-cutter education track. So I'd like to see a broader definition of when and how a person can be educated. That means more flexibility in when people go to college. Some kids are not ready right out of high school, and some people only realize later in life what they need that degree for. I’d also like to see more variety in the types of education a person can undertake that would be respectable. Maybe that means more apprenticeships, and more internships. We also probably need more configurations of “the degree”, including associates degrees that are actually worth something, and, perhaps, some sort of an extended degree that is more than a bachelor’s degree but not as intense as a master’s degree. And we definitely need more ways to pay for college. This is another good reason to create more apprenticeships and internships. Student loan debt is getting out of control. There have to be other options.

More choice. It seems really simple, but it would actually require a lot of restructuring of our current version of society. Or maybe not. Letting other people live their lives the way they want to may very well mean the end of the world as we know it. But if everyone in the world woke up tomorrow and realized that it could also mean the beginning of an even better one, the work would be done in short order. Call me idealistic if you like, but that is my dream.

Friday, January 23, 2009

On Not Quite Passing

Helping to moderate the panel on Race in Science at ScienceOnline'09 reminded me that I have not written all that much about my experience of race on this blog. This is certainly not because I never think about it, or am not impacted by it in my life. It's just complicated for me, and, so, hard to write about.

Though I am very light-skinned, I don't think that when people meet me they think that I am white. But, I also know for certain that a lot of people do not immediately think that I am black, either. And not being able to immediately pigeon-hole me makes some people very uncomfortable. I can tell when it is happening because they will circle around and around the question they'd really like to ask. They will start by asking me where I am from. The answer is usually unsatisfactory, since I was born and lived in the Midwest region of America until I graduated high school. So, then they will ask me where my parents are from. Again, the answer provides no satisfactory explanation for my appearance, since my my mother was born in the same town I grew up in, and my father was from a town only 50 miles away. What happens next is usually interesting.

Some people drop it completely, and that is just fine.

But some people then ask me, "What is your national heritage?". If I'm in still in a good mood, I will go ahead and answer them. If they have annoyed me along the way with their questioning (like when it has completely derailed an otherwise productive conversation, and has nothing to do with the topic it has supplanted) I will fuck with them, and answer, "I am an American," which is a perfectly true and accurate answer to that question.

Sometimes people ask, "What is your ethnic background?" or some other such carefully constructed question. These people I usually answer directly, but, again, if they have annoyed me, I will fuck with them, and ask them what they think it is.

Some people guess before things get to this point. I've been asked if I was Hispanic (all possible flavors), Asian Indian, a Sephardi Jew, Turkish, Southern Italian, and probably loads of other nationalities I can't remember. If the people of a region have olive skin and very dark hair and eyes, I have probably had somebody ask me if I am from that region. And be really convinced that they must be right. To the point where I have had more people than I can count walk up to me and start speaking Spanish without so much as an introduction, and I have even insulted a taxi driver in India because I "refused" to speak Hindi to him (because I don't know how).

Nobody ever guesses correctly. My father was of mainly German descent with a fair bit of Irish mixed in, and my mother was an African American with a several Native Americans on the nearby branches of her family tree. So, though I don't think anyone really thinks that I am white, I do often pass for being "not black".

So why do I fuck with people? Let me make it clear which people I will fuck with. The people who I become annoyed with are the ones who really want to ask me, "What are you?". Before the whole PC movement, when I was growing up in the seventies, that was a question that I got asked on a regular basis. And when I would give the most obvious answer, "a person" it would really not go down well. For nearly a year in elementary school, this gang of kids would make a game of asking me. "What are you? Are you black or are you white?" They never accepted any of my answers. When I tried saying, "I'm both," they insisted that I had to choose. When I tried saying, "I'm neither," they still insisted that EVERYONE is one or the other. So, I had to choose. They would push, and push, and push, and push, until, at some point, I'd just completely lose it, and become irrational. I got in many, many schoolyard fights during this time. And it began to feel as though my very person-hood was being questioned on a daily basis.

So, now that it's not considered polite conversation to ask someone if they are an "Oreo", a "domino", "caramel", "half-baked", a "half-breed", a "half cast", "Halfrican", a "mulatto", a "mongrel", a "mutt", "newspaper", a "skunk", or a "zebra"*, people dance around those questions, but there is still a population of people who are just looking for a slightly nicer way to ask the same thing. They are the grown up version of those kids who taunted me in elementary school. I'm an adult, now, too, and much better at keeping my temper (though if you really want to see me go ballistic, just call me "high yellow"). But I do enjoy letting people know that I know what they are trying to do, and I am not going to let them get away with pretending to be polite.

This is not to say that I don't like people who are merely curious about what ingredients went into the mysterious potion of genetics that created my exquisite and unique appearance. In fact, I'm happy to discuss all the details I know with those people. I just think it's their job to identify themselves clearly as such, and make sure I know they are not a member of the other group.

Sometimes it is hard to tell. I have been coveted by white men as an exotic trophy. I have been told off by black men for thinking I'm too good for them (never mind that I am already married). I have been questioned by girlfriends as to why I didn't date more black men. I have been asked what I was doing at a black student group function. I have had the motivation and appropriateness of my parents' marriage questioned to my face. I have had people suggest that I must have been looking to "marry up" when I became engaged to my white, European husband. And I have had people ask me if I was remarried because Thing 1 is so much more similar in coloring to me than to her father, my current and only husband. Yes, among all that noise, sometimes it is very hard to tell.

*There are lots of the other, oh-so-amusing epithets that have been created especially for those of us who are not of a single racial lineage. You can see an amazing list of such terms at the Racial Slur Database. Some of the ones I have never actually heard, but found amusing were: "brass ankle", "calf", "halfro", and "Halfula".

Monday, January 19, 2009

ScienceOnline'09 - The Roundup

Well, I made it back from ScienceOnline'09, in spite of some weather issues. I had an amazing time! This was the first time I attended an un-conference, and I must say, I really liked it. The format made for much more dynamic discussions than I have ever seen before at a conference. The women in STEM group I am involved with at my university have some events planned that I think this approach will work well for, and I'm going to suggest it.

After the wine tasting, I heard Rebecca Skloot talk about the path she took to become a science writer, and about her upcoming book, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" on the history of HeLa cells. I'm definitely going to get a copy as soon as it comes out.

Saturday was a busy day. First, I attended Science Fiction on Science Blogs? led by Stephanie Zvan (Almost Diamonds) where potential for connections between science fiction writing and science blogging was discussed. Clearly scientists read a lot of science ficiton, but they don't tend to write about it on their blogs.

Next, I went to Transitions – changing your online persona as your real life changes moderated by Propterdoc and ScienceWoman. This was a lively discussion, touching on the reasons why blogging in the early stages of a career can be beneficial, as well as pitfalls to avoid.

Then it was off to Gender in science - online and offline, moderated by Suzanne Franks (aka Zuska), Abel Pharmboy, and Alice Pawley. Again, this was a lively discussion, focused on what it means to be an ally to an underprivileged group, and how to be a good ally.

After lunch came the highlight of my day - I helped Danielle Lee moderate the session on Race in Science. This came about as a result of my staying true to my theme this year - I put myself out there when Danielle's intended co-moderator couldn't make it at the last minute. Boy, was I nervous, but Danielle really put me at ease, and I am so glad I had a chance to be a part of that conversation. You can be sure I'll be blogging about the issues raised in many upcoming posts.

Next came Anonymity, Pseudonymity – building reputation online , moderated by PalMD and Abel Pharmboy (I honestly don't know how he had the energy to moderate two sessions - by this point of the day, I was pretty close to wiped out). But this was, again, a great discussion of the types of online identities one can have and the pros and cons of each.

And last, but not least, I went to Janet Stemwedel's session on Online science for the kids (and parents). Check out the linked wiki page - there is a treasure trove of online science resources geared toward kids. Super cool!

Then there was dinner, and socializing to the wee hours. I met and chatted with just about every person mentioned on this page, and many, many more. It was just an amazing collection of fascinating and thoughtful people who were all interested in talking about science, the culture of science, and ways to communicate science. And, I got to sign the tee shirt for DrugMonkey! What an honor!

Sunday morning, I went to Hey, You Can’t Say That!, moderated by Greg Laden, Rick MacPherson, Karen James, and Mark Powell. Though I was slightly dissapointed that PZ Meyers wasn't there, this was a really eye opening conversation about what can happen when you write freely on your blog, and how to handle the heat if it comes.

My final session was Science blogging networks – what works, what does not? This one was moderated by Cameron Neylon and Deepak Singh. Anna Kushir, from Nature Network, and Erin Johnson from ScienceBlogs also helped guide the discussion, which was mostly about the pros and cons of joining a network like ScienceBlogs, or Nature Network, or running your blog on your own.

Whew! Then I had lunch and ran to the airport to catch my plane, which was delayed. But it wasn't too much of a hardship, since the Raleigh-Durham airport is quite nice, and I didn't have to entertain anyone but myself. When I finally got home, my kids ran to the door to meet me, and both of lept into my arms at the same time. It was one of the best greetings I have had in a long time!

So, all in all, ScienceOnline'09 was an excellent experience. I have all kinds of ideas for posts inspired by the discussions. And, I'll definitely be going back next year if at all possible. A big, big thank you to Anton Zuiker, Bora Zivkovic and David Kroll for organizing a kick-ass conference, and making it possible for me to attend!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Liveblogging - with Wine

Abel Pharmboy has arranged a wine tasting this evening for some of us attending ScienceOnline'09, as an extension of the "Friday Fermentable" recurring fun-feature he's been doing over on Terra Sigillata. Well, I've never been to a wine tasting, and I've never liveblogged anything. Why not just combine these two firsts? How bad can it get? Let's find out...

6:30 - We have just received our first samples - two Chardonnays, one from California one from France. The Californian has a more golden color, and has "legs". Abel is telling us some interesting facts - American wines tend to be inoculated with oenococcus oeni cultures (which converts malic acid to lactic acid) where the French tend to rely on airborne bacteria. American wineries tend to use new barrels, where the French do not. Vanillin leaches from the barrels into the wine to give it he characteristic taste of oak. That would explain some of the the taste difference -the Californian has more oak taste and is less tart. Now, my verdict: I like the Californian. The French seems weak in comparison (but perhaps wouldn't have done if I had it on it's own). But I would, and will happily drink both. (NB: We are not spitting!)

7:00 - We are on to the reds. Both are Pinot Noir. One is from Oregon, the other Californian. Both have really nice, rich red color. Both have legs, but the Oregon was slightly more pronounced. I really prefer the Oregon wine. It has a smoother, more balanced taste. I felt that the Californian was more acidic, and didn't have as nice a finish, almost bitter. Apparently, nearly everyone else agrees with me. The conversation is becoming more relaxed and familiar. Could this have anything to do with the fact that we have all had four glasses of wine each? Hmm...

7:25 - Wrapping up: My favorite overall was the Oregon red. I want to look into the whole phenomena of "legs". This is when you swirl the wine in the glass and it forms streams as it runs back down the glass. I am wondering what it is in the wine that causes this to happen, though I'm not sure that it really affects the taste. I will also add the names of the wines later, in case you want to try this at home. Well, off to hear Rebecca Skloot talk. Yay!

Thursday, January 15, 2009


Well, I probably should have announced this several weeks ago, but I guess I just didn't really believe it was all going to work out. I am going to ScienceOnline'09! I plan to blog as much as possible while I'm there - total immersion style. So stay tuned for some prolific blogging!

Also, if any of you are going to be there, and haven't done so, yet, drop me a line by email and let me know. So I can avoid you to protect my secret identity.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009


Apologies for the light (okay, nonexistent) blogging last week. Personal matters filled my free time, but now the issues are resolving, so I am going to try to get back on schedule.

Last post, I announced my theme of the year, "putting myself out there". ScienceWoman commented, "But I think it should also apply to networking-like-hell at conferences."

How true! And probably one of the things I need to do the most work on. I begin to feel overwhelmed quickly in large gatherings, and I have trouble sometimes handling situations that do not have well established rules of engagement. For instance, I do just fine in a talk + question-and-answer format, and do ask questions, even though I feel really nervous. I have discovered that it makes it easier if I write the question down first (during the talk) - then all I have to do is read it when my turn comes. However, during less formally organized types of situations, a more sophisticated strategy is required. You cannot write down your questions in advance. In fact, you often don't even know who you will be talking to in advance.

I have been told (repeatedly) that the only way to get better at these things is to practice. I am accepting that advice and seeking out opportunities to network. For example, I recently received an email notifying me of a symposium near me that I could attend, and present at, requiring no travel. Normally, I would wait for my PI to suggest that I apply. But this time, I took the initiative and asked him what he thought about it. He agreed it would be a good opportunity for me, so I'm going. Now, I just have to get my abstract in and see what happens.

I don't think anyone else in the lab is planning on going, so this will be the first time I will not have other members of the lab to fall back on - I'm going to have to talk to people I don't know for the whole day. I plan to make up some business cards, and practice quickly describing my work in a clear, succinct, and memorable manner. I'm also going to be on the lookout for more opportunities like this.

Yes, I am dying for more suggestions.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Back to Work

Well, the kids went back to school today, and I went back to my normal schedule, full-time in the lab. The break has been much needed, and I was feeling ready to get my nose to the grindstone bright and early this morning. I was also inspired by Jane and ScienceWoman to choose a theme for this year. I had some vague ideas about what I want to accomplish this year, but I have only just now come up with a succinct way of expressing them.

I intend to make this year all about "putting myself out there".

I discovered last year that I need to build my skills (and confidence) in presenting myself and my science. I also discovered that I am ready to take more control of where my research project will go. Both of those important steps in becoming a real, grown-up scientist will require me to speak up, make decisions, and take risks. In short, it is time for me to step forward and out of the shadows. All last year, I kept hearing people referring to me as a nearly "senior" graduate student. My PI has been nudging me (okay, sometimes shoving me) in this direction. I just didn't feel ready until now. So, I've been dragging my heels.

But it is time for that to end. I've got a nearly completed manuscript on my desk. And just before Christmas, I got the nearly impossible experiment that would really improve the paper to work. Yippee! The only work I did over the holidays was to analyze the hell out of that data to see if I could get anything usable. Not-so-festive, but it's actually looking pretty good! So now it's time to send it out into the world.

It's also time to move forward with new things. Almost two years ago, I messed around with a new way to look at something that I thought could be developed into a new technique. At the time, PI wasn't all that impressed. But I kept coming back to it in my mind. When we were discussing potential follow up work, I brought it up again. This time, I had better reasons for why to work up my idea, and a clearer plan for how to do it. And this time, PI bit the hook - we are moving forward with the plan I laid out, virtually unchanged.

So I'm stepping out on a limb and doing the science that I want to do. That means that if it doesn't work out, then I've got nobody to blame for making me go this route but myself. I'm hoping that my PI's new-found enthusiasm is a good indicator that I have a good shot at making this work. But if not, c'est la vie, non?

Thursday, January 1, 2009

January Scientiae Carnival

It is New Year’s Day. We have crossed the threshold and have begun another year. For me, this is always a day of some degree of introspection. Over the past few years, I have opened and closed quite a few really big doors, and I’m always thinking about this on the first day of the year. I made the decision to go to graduate school. Seven years ago (ouch, it’s really hard to say that), I was preparing my applications, and I chose to aim high. It paid off, but not without a price. I marched through the door to the school of my dreams, and simultaneously opened the door to the nightmare of the “two-body problem”. One year later, I was finishing my first semester, and realizing that hubby was not going to be able to join Thing 1 and me in New City as quickly as we’d hoped. But we chose not to close the door on our desire to have another child. No, we marched right through that one, too, and two years later we were anxiously awaiting the birth of Thing 2. My difficult pregnancy necessitated closing to door on research for a while, but, thanks to the support of my PI and graduate program chair, I was able to re-open that one without too much trouble. It took another year before someone opened a door to hubby here in New City. But it finally happened. Which closed to door on the particular brand of insanity that trying to do my thesis research while raising two kids mostly on my own turned out to be.

This year has been all about looking around and opening the doors I thought I could not while things were so crazy. I have given several talks. I have nearly finished writing my first first-author paper. I have begun to take control of my research program in a way that I sometimes feared I would never be able to when all I could think about was how to get through THIS day. I have begun to see a big picture. It took me a while to get to this point, but I had a lot of closed doors in front of me.

Then, there is this blog. When I started this, I re-opened a part of myself that had lain dormant for some time. I love to write, I love to tell stories. I am grateful that someone out there actually wants to read them. And since blogging is so much more interactive than journaling, I have also gained a whole reader full of other people’s stories. So, for this month’s Scientiae Carnival, I asked you all to tell me about the doors YOU have opened and closed this year. And here is what you sent me:

Patchi @ My Middle Years has been keeping the door open on the research she did as a graduate student and in her first postdoc. But she has realized that:

One of the problems of trying to finish projects is that they are never actually finished.
So she has decided to
Move on, let the open doors shut...
which I think is a GREAT New Year's Resolution!

Cherish @ Faraday's Cage is where you put Schroedinger's Cat feels the disappointment of seeing a publication on one of her ideas, that she did not write:
The article covered pretty much what I had planned on doing for my PhD had I stayed in electrical engineering. I still had hopes to pursue it since I'd already done some preliminary work. My MS advisor really was excited about this field of research, and I was disappointed that I didn't have the time to do more with it.
So now she must decide whether to re-open that door and use the paper as a stepping-stone to investigate the topic at a deeper level, or to (reluctantly) close the door for good.

ScienceWoman @ ScienceWomen wrote about closing out her Ph.D. research and beginning to establish her new research progam:

Three papers. And I'm out of material from my Ph.D. It's all published or about to be.

For years my research identity has been wrapped up in a particular subject and a particular field area. Now I live someplace far away and I have to establish my independence as an investigator in order to build my case for tenure. And, of course, I have to keep that publication pipeline flowing.
While it's hard to believe that someday I will look back on my Ph.D. research in such a simplified way, it's good to know that there is an "after" that is not just more of the same!

Jane @ See Jane Compute wrote about how she "inadvertantly let a door close" by not actively putting herself out on the job market this year. She is up for tenure next year, and, as we all know, nothing is guaranteed. But, she says:
In short, the way I've assessed the situation is that I need X amount of time and energy to get tenure here, and I would need Y amount of time and energy to go on the market, and X + Y > Z, the time I actually have available. In fact, X > Z anyway, which is problematic in its own right.
I feel her pain, as I try to ramp up my own activity without letting too much fall by the wayside on the homefront, and I hope that everything works out for her.

Unbalanced Reaction @ Unbalanced Reaction also closed the door on the job market for this year, only to see it re-open all on its own:
So in recent months, I've been exploring new territory. I had to decide whether to go back on the active job market or continue on for another year at TempCollege. I chose to not put out any applications. The Boss was terribly disappointed that I was closing the door on all potential opportunities. The argument was made that I could leverage any tenure-track offers to try to gain a position at N.A.'s institution.

Now, a door has opened at N.A.'s institution.
N.A. being the other body in her two-body situation. Way to go, U.R.!

doc-in-training @ Kate's Casebook has been a busy little bee this year, in spite of the efforts of a few people who seem intent on holding her back. But while she is pleased with her progress in building a foundation for for further research, she is a bit worried about her next steps:
With regard to the year ahead, the most significant event will be to find out whether doors will indeed be opened for me after all these foundation building. Will I eventually get the fellowship and/ or internal grant so that I can head over to the other research team in another country, and start getting to the core of my research that I’d like to do? Has my work been good enough to get me to the next level? Or, has the self-proclaimed good work simply not been good enough? Well. If you ask me, my answer as of today is I dunno.
I hope that door is opened wide for her!

volcanista @ Volcanista: a magmalicious blog has also had a whirlwind year:
I opened and closed a lot of really obvious doors this past year. I am literally just formalities away from having my PhD right now. I left my PhD home and moved to a new state, far away from my significant other, to take a faculty job ABD (soon to be with D). Wow! I wish her luck in all her new endeavors!

PodBlack @ PodBlack Cat has a well developed habit of opening doors, which has served her well this year:
I’ve made new friends, made some great discoveries and (as always, it seems) made some people irrationally self-righteously petulant for daring to question their assumptions by ‘asking too many questions’ - and even had an adventure where I stayed in a Japanese-style hotel box at Heathrow Airport! The picture features evidence!

Mind, none of those are really out of the ordinary for me. I hope that there’s lots of people out there who can nod agreement at similar experiences, especially the ‘daring to ask too many questions or challenge their own preconceptions’! World would be a far more dull place if we stayed behind rather than ’set forth for Corfu’.
I couldn't agree more!

Professor in Training @ Professor in Training has quite a story to tell:
Given that the theme of January’s Scientiae is “As one door closes, another one opens. Likewise, as one door opens, another one closes” and that I had never gotten off my ass in time to submit anything for previous Scientiae carnivals, I figured that this was as good a time as any to provide one example of how having a door opened for me helped my career … and how I almost fucked it up.
Well, I'm not going to spoil it for you. Her tale of luck nearly lost is a must-read!

Pat @ FairerScience wrote about the ongoing effort to open the doors of opportunity to women in academia:
Last year, Toni Clewell and I wrote a book, Good Schools in Poor Neighborhoods, that built on this concept. We found highly effective schools (defined by student achievement) and matched them with typical schools from the same district in the same neighborhoods serving the same types of kids. Then we looked at what the good schools did that the others didn't and vice versa. Some results reflected existing theory, others didn't.

We should be doing this at college, graduate, post doc and faculty levels. Take the places with larger numbers of women in STEM, match them with other similar institutions that aren't doing so well and see what are the successful institutions are doing differently than the others. Heck we could even compare institutions where women in STEM are, dare I say it, happy and where they aren't. Let's spend more time looking at success and exploring what's behind it rather than always testing strategies to see if they work.
That sounds like an awesome idea.

Isis the Scientist @ On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess addresses a reader's concerns about minority-specific funding and tokenism:

There may be one or two doors open to you specifically because of who you are, but there are one or two hundred that are closed. These allies appreciate us, want us in the game because of the skills we bring, and are trying to lay down mechanisms (ie, open doors) by which we can get the opportunity to play. As this happens, we can begin to lay down our own mechanisms (and, to some degree, are already). Funding is tight enough as it is; take advantage of every opportunity you can without apology. Then, take everything and accent it with the brilliant science I have no doubt you are capable of doing.
I have struggled with this myself, and at each new level of my career I have been able to see just how many doors I didn't even know existed. I expect this will continue for a long time, so I intend on taking whatever route presents itself.

Arlenna @ ChemicalBioLOLogy is thinking about what a Ph.D. actually means, and whether it is the right door for everyone:
Yes, it is a special thing. It is a desirable thing, this degree. It's an exceptional thing, that not just anybody should be able to do. That is what makes it a valuable degree, and why people put themselves through some hell to get there. BUT it is not the only way to personal and professional success, in science or the rest of the world.
Be sure to check out her Venn diagram of the qualities that come together to make a Ph.D. scientist.

Amanda @ A Lady Scientist wrote about how her significant other's expectations of work schedule differ from hers. Now that they are living together again:
The door has closed on the obsessive (and unhealthy?) work habits, but a door has opened to the possibility of being happy in grad school.
I'll drink to that!

Brigindo @ Dirt and Rocks wrote:
the big door that closed for me this year is active mothering. Active mothering is a phrase I termed for having a child in the home with you; a child you nurture and care for on a daily basis. That ended for me when Angel went away to college. I am now on inactive status.
As a person in the thick of active mothering, it's hard to imagine that I, to will one day close the door on this phase of my life. I hope she finds some new, unexplored doors to open.

hypoglycemiagirl @ hypoglycemiagirl wrote eloquently about the loss of her grandfather and the complex feelings it aroused in her about her own life:
My grandma is bored at her rehab home. She's not a complainer, rather the opposite, but it's pretty evident she's not very impressed. Not much rehab is going on during the holidays anyway so we get her out of there and home to her house as much as possible. The doors to her room at the home are automatic to help the weak oldies open them. Sometimes the door open and close open and close at random times, both day and night. Which is pretty annoying and a damn good metaphor describing my career. Random doors opening as I passed by.

Candid Engineer @ Candid Engineer in Academia wrote about how hard it can be to walk through a door in the first place, especially when it slams shut behind you:
I was in a completely different part of the country, in an apartment that wasn't mine, in a lab that felt like a zoo on the best of days, and a war zone on the worst. My husband was without a job, and we had no money. No support system. I described to my friends the feeling of being thrown into the deep end of a dark, cold pool. And all I could think about was how I wanted to go back to our old city, the place where we had fallen in love, where people knew me, where my labmates looked up to me, where I felt safe and productive and comfortable.

But that door had closed.

Thank you so much to all of you who contributed to this month’s Scientiae Carnival. It was truly a pleasure to read every entry, and I hope I have done them all justice. Happy New Year to you all!

Happy New Year!

To all my friends, old and new:

I love you all so much more than I can ever express!