The Question

The most important component of any research project is The Question.  The Question is the little aspect of Nature that the project aims to understand.  It informs the development of testable hypotheses that, in turn, influence the experiments to be run.

The Question is always a challenge to define for any new project.  I've noticed that it is particularly difficult in very interdisciplinary research because the questions that each person thinks are important differ widely.  I want to tackle issues central to ecogeoscience, whereas my collaborators would like to go after statistical/computational problems using the same data.  Other collaborators have yet more ideas about what the primary purpose of the project should be.  Working out how to expand and divide up the project so that everyone gets piece (i.e., a paper) is a real challenge.

Jumping ship

Everybody is leaving.

The wonderful technician in my postdoc lab left a few weeks ago to start grad school.  I'm happy for him to start the new phase in his life, and I think he will be a very successful student.  At the same time, I was so sorry to see him go.  He was my scientific buddy in the lab, as our interests were more similar than to the other lab members.  We also got along very well personally.  Fortunately, I think we'll stay in touch, and might even have opportunities to collaborate while he's in school.

The other postdoc in my postdoc lab is also about to leave.  She found a full time position in industry after just short of a year in her postdoc.  I think the new job will be a great match for her, but we'll be fucked without her skill set around (PI will replace her, but he has made no moves to do so yet).  In addition, she breathes life into the social atmosphere of the lab, so things will be a lot more dry after she's gone.  On the other hand, she tends to be a bit of a drama queen and I don't think I'll miss that component of her personality so much.

Lastly and most disappointing, Awesome Technician is leaving.  I'm devastated and so is Research Advisor.  I'll be lucky if I ever work with someone as competent, nice, consistent, positive, and non-judgmental as her again.  It's going to have a huge impact on the productivity of RA's lab.  She is leaving for a better compensated position in an area she has wanted to get into for a long time so I am happy for her even if I'm super sad to see her go.

Time marches on.

Proposition

Remember how I whined about a certain instrument a few months ago? My main complaint was that I use it so infrequently that I don't remember what to do, and each time I go to use the thing the protocol has changed slightly anyway. Well, I need to use it again for another project. Just three more encounters with this thing and I will be done. I'm so not interested in learning how to run this instrument for just these next three times, but I need the data. The culture of the lab dictates that I should run my own damn samples, but since I don't know how, it typically goes like this: I stand there while someone else does everything but explains each step as they go along and I pretend like I'm absorbing it all. I learn a little bit, but not enough to do it on my own the next time, so I always need help. This doesn't seem very efficient to me, as I see no point in using two people's time to do a one-person job.

So, I'm going to propose a trade. There is someone else who is really proficient with the instrument. It's not her job to run other people's samples, but because of some recent shifts in lab personnel, it would probably fall to her to help me. So I'm going to ask her to just run my samples for me and in return I will do something for her. I'll ask her to keep track of how long it takes with my samples, and then I will do something for her for an equal amount of time. Anything she wants, as long as I have the skills to do it. I would much rather spend a few hours doing something for someone else than waste my time watching someone do what should be my job. I think it will appeal to her too, since she'd probably spend almost as much time on my samples if I "do them myself" as if she does them for me, and she'll get a few hours of skilled bonus help. Win-win, right?

I'll let you know how it goes.

ETA: She agreed. I have to help with two partial days of field work. It's possible that I am overcompensating, but I have a feeling she's going to be doing a lot more than her share of lab service for a while, so I don't mind helping her out.

Post-docs and the Shit Economy

It seems to me that my anticipated graduation in August 2009 could not be more poorly timed. We all know that the economy is tanking and I fear post-docs will not be spared a hit. I think this will manifest in two ways.

First, I think there will be fewer positions available in the coming months. Universities are initiating hiring freezes, which means that people currently in post-docs will not be vacating them for faculty jobs. On top of that, poor funding rates mean that there may be fewer new post-doc positions created.

It's actually the latter that has me agitated and brings me to point number two. If established scientists aren't as successful at obtaining funding, then where will money for post-docs come from? I imagine that a larger proportion of new post-doc positions will be funded from start up packages. And that means that instead of getting a mentor who has decades of experience with a large network of contacts, you get one who is maybe two years ahead of you on the career path. In fact, I know of one case where someone wanted to do a second post-doc and was offered a position in a new hire's lab. Applicant and mentor got their Ph.Ds the same year. What's the point of doing a post-doc in that situation?

Physioprof wrote an excellent post at On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess about how to find and get a post-doc. The merits of early-career vs. senior faculty advisors have been argued at length; Phsyioprof is something of an advocate for early career mentors and I can see his points. But I wonder if physiology post-doc positions tend to last longer so that new faculty have been out of grad school for longer than people in my field typically have when they start faculty jobs. Frankly, I think I prefer someone at least mid-career for a post-doc mentor (although my opinion of young vs old for PhD advisors is more flexible). I want someone with lots of experience to teach me how to write big grants, manage a lab, navigate funding agency politics, and share their network. I may not have a choice in the matter and I'm sure a successful post-doc could happen with a junior faculty mentor. But do you see where I'm coming from? Have I offended any junior faculty readers I might have?

Redirective feedback

Long-time readers may recognize some of the content of this post from a while back, but whatev. I wanted to share it again.

Awesome Technician occasionally goes to professional development workshops offered by our HR department and she's patient enough to share the wisdom with me afterward. One such class was about giving and receiving feedback, both positive and negative redirective. These classes can have some real gems of insight, stuff that's common sense but hard to identify. This one was particularly good, as it offered some counter-intuitive, yet sensible advice. Here, I have tried to relay as much as I can remember to you, dear reader.

First of all, the class claims that, contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not good to start negative feedback with a positive statement. It can

• confuse the listener -- was she saying I did a good job or a bad job?
• water down the praise -- people are more likely to remember the negative things, so the positives get lost
• lead to mistrust -- any future praise is met with anticipation of a "but"

It's better just to give positive feedback when it is warranted. When you're on the receiving end of positive comments, it's best to just say "thank you" rather than things like, "it was no big deal" or "so-and-so really did most of that project". You want to graciously accept the praise, take credit for your work, and contribute to a positive atmosphere.

Another poor opener for negative feedback is something like "I know you've been busy, but..." Don't supply the listener's excuses for her! You want the conversation to be focused on how to change behaviors so work goes more smoothly. An excuse parade doesn't accomplish that, it restricts the discussion to shallow lip-service without getting to the core of the problem.

A feedback conversation can also be derailed by ranting or venting. Vent to your friends! Don't waste work time with inefficient ranting that just makes people feel bad. You want the conversation to be positive so you can make progress toward fixing your problem. It's emotional enough to give negative feedback (for both parties) without adding a lot of hot-headed nonsense to the mix. Plus, the heart of the problem and how to solve it may not be clear to the listener if it is buried in a litany of emotional complaints.

So what should you say when you need to convey dissatisfaction? It's important to keep it brief (under 60 sec, although the resulting conversation may be much longer) and to the point. You should boil the problem down to a simple, clear statement, say how it's affecting your work, and then open the conversation up for discussion of solutions. Try to use your most calm and neutral tone.

1. Start by stating the problem.
   
2. Then say how the person's behavior is part of the problem.
3. Next, say how the problem is affecting you, your colleagues, or your productivity.
4. End with a question to kick off the discussion.

For example, you might say something like, "Lately, we have been running out of certain reagents even though there is a system in place to prevent that. 1 It's really a problem when you use the last of the reagent without ordering more. 2 Several times I have had to abort an experiment because the critical reagent was gone even though I had checked the supply the day before. That's a poor use of my time and lab resources, since the other supplies I used to initiate the experiment went to waste. 3 What ways can we make the reagent organization and ordering process clearer and easier so that this doesn't happen again? 4"

Hopefully, this will encourage the person to own up to their poor lab citizenship and either get their A into G to quit using everyone else's shit or to say that there really is a wrinkle in the system that could be ironed out.

December slump

My whiny post yesterday was a little bit of foreshadowing. Today I will discuss how I always feel crappy in December.

I have gone to a meeting in each of the past 3 or 4 Decembers. It sucks. There is always so much else going on with the holidays and scrambling to meet year-end goals. And I am never motivated in December. I'm either feeling lousy because it's dark and dreary or distracted because I'm excited about the approaching break/holiday. Every year I vow I won't do it again and then the next year I see myself hitting submit on an abstract for a December meeting. But I didn't this year! I'm blissfully deadline free until February. In any case, since it's so hard for me to set and stay focused on reasonable writing goals even when I'm feeling good, I think it's prudent for me to spend some time in the lab during a time when I know I'm easily distracted.

On top of my normal December yuck, EGM is away for 6 weeks (have I mentioned this yet? I'm one of those people who tells the same stories over and over and sometimes I worry I do it on the blog, too). I dropped him at the airport last weekend and now he's gone and I'm sad. I've never liked living alone. It's hard for me to resist turning into a giant stain when I'm home alone.

I mentioned the other day that I since I want to continue making progress on my new paper, I intend to write for the few first hours of each day and then move on to lab work. I think this is a great plan for my December because it should keep me moving. I think I'd spend a lot of time spacing out in front of my computer if I planned to just write this month. My idea is that if I plan to be at the bench, I'll at least be doing something. Seeing some measurable results will make me feel good about myself and perhaps keep me from slumping more. And it will be great to have something to show for myself when EGM returns.

I'll pick your nits, mate!

With Thanksgiving upon us, I thought I'd talk about one of many things I appreciate about my current lab. You may recall that I do most of my research at the non-university research institution where Research Advisor works. There are hardly any students there full time, so the staff is an assortment of PIs, post docs, and technicians. It has a much more collaborative culture since lab groups aren't comprised of several students who are all responsible for different projects. We are more or less focused on the same goals and since the techs are paid to do the work they are assigned, there aren't the territorial conflicts that can crop up in university labs. One of the benefits of this structure is that everyone is interested in what you're doing.

It can be very isolating to be in a lab where your project is a little different from the principle themes of the group. Or to be in a department where the faculty research interests are diverse so no other labs are doing work similar to your lab. It can limit collaboration and hamper enthusiasm if no one ever wants to talk shop with you because they work in a different shop. Sure, exposure to different ideas can be great, but if the ideas are so different that no one wants to explain them to you, it doesn't do much good to be in a diverse department. And it can really suck if most other people are doing similar work but yours is very different. Then you just feel left out. You suffer a little when there's no one to pick your nits.

I am thankful that I can talk to Awesome Technician about any little issue and she'll both know what I'm talking about and be interested. I like that everyone faces similar practical problems so we can all tackle them together, or at least get decent advice because other people have thought about the problem too. I also like that since we don't operate in separate little domains, we team up when work really needs to get done (e.g. it's pretty easy to assemble a crew for field work). Money is allocated from several different projects, so there is some level of assigning effort to particular grants, but overall we operate as a unit.

There are downsides to anything, however, and this is no exception. For example, I think we are prone to isolation. And we all get along pretty well, but I could imagine that one bad egg could really hinder productivity in a situation like ours. Also, it takes strong leadership to direct people who don't take ownership of their work like grad students do. Scientists aren't trained to be managers. I think professors can get away with poor management skills because their staff -- grad students and post docs, mainly -- really want to accomplish things and meet goals. Technicians, on the other hand, typically don't have that same motivation. That it how it should be, but it changes what the PI needs to do to keep the lab rolling.

In summary, I like my lab because we share common interests. Happy Thanksgiving.

Hi! My Name Is _____.

If I have written about this before, I'm sorry. But if I'm posting about this issue a second time, it means you guys didn't give me good enough advice.

The science staff is relatively friendly with the support staff where I work. I recognize everyone on the custodial and maintenance crews in my building and I know most of them by name. Some of them even chat with me (and other scientists) at length from time to time. There is one custodian in particular who always greets me and always says goodbye to me when he leaves for the day, which is great.

But. He calls me the wrong name.

He calls me by the name of another person in our group. It's similar to my name, sure. But it's wrong. At first I wasn't sure if I had heard him right and then I thought maybe he just made an isolated mistake. But then I realized that he just had it wrong. And then it went on for a long time where I never had an opportunity to correct him. Now it's been going on so long that I have no idea how to tell him without one or both of us feeling like a huge ass. Plus, I think by now the people he hangs out with know me by the wrong name too. It's not really a big deal because it's not like I have to interact with this person very much, but I'm sure it will come out sooner or later and it will be super awkward. Suggestions?

In other news, I almost met all of my goals for October 15. I got both little grants submitted and of course I finished the Crummy Tedious samples. The only thing I didn't quite complete was the next draft of my manuscript. I'm close though. I just have to polish the conclusions and write the abstract. I tried all afternoon but it was so hot and stuffy in my office that I just couldn't concentrate. I think I can get it done tomorrow though, so I feel pretty good all in all.

Is this how it is with women in charge?

First of all, I am very pleased to announce that S4 had a baby boy today. He is her third child and the 14th grandchild in my family. Everyone is happy and healthy. Yay!

Now I'd like to share two observations about life in a female-dominated lab. I've said before that the lab I'm in is something like 70% women. Since I've always been part of very woman heavy labs, I don't have personal experience with which to compare them to male dominated labs. Lately I've been trying to imagine what the little differences might be.

Our lab has several rather sensitive personalities. They aren't cry babies or difficult people, they are people who are always concerned with how their words and behaviors might be perceived by others and who carefully interpret the words and actions of others so as to fully understand their complete meaning and intent. I recently had a chance to work with a wider group of scientists from my institution as part of a new collaborative effort. We were literally working all together at a table for a whole day. As we worked, one of the technicians in my lab asked, "what is this thing?" I answered, "it's an X and it does function Y." She said, "I know it does Y but I didn't know Xs looked like this." I said, "oh, okay." No big deal. The entire exchange took less than a minute. Then the tech added, "Sorry to be short with you" and I replied, "You weren't and I hope I didn't sound condescending". The men at the table were mildly aghast. I think they thought we were walking on eggshells with each other but really it was just a normal interaction, at least among people who are used to sensitive types.

Is this representative of how women interact professionally as a result of socialization or is it because of the particular personalities that have shaped our lab culture?

Next observation. I have said before that I hate pooping (although I think butts are hilarious). It is the worst part of my day. If I have to Go while at work, I try to be as discreet as possible, even timing my bathroom visit when there are no other women in there. There is a man who works in my vicinity who goes to the bathroom every day with reading material tucked under his arm, clearly headed off to take a shit. Ewww. There have been other men at my work who regularly announce their #2 events. I have never heard a woman in our lab group do that.

Again, is this an example of how gender socialization drives lab culture or is it just individual quirks (i.e. that I am grossed out by the idea of anyone at all making #2 and it just happens that none of the women ever announce it in my presence)?

Ultimate Twix Challenge

I've probably mentioned before that Awesome Technician and I frequently issue Twix Challenges for each other. If one of us is having a blah day and needs some motivation, the other will define some milestone that needs to be reached by a certain time (e.g. finish half of your samples by 2 pm) and if the goal is achieved, the person gets a Twix from the vending machine. Sometimes the challenges are small, like something that can be accomplished in a few hours, while other times they are big, like a data analysis project that might take days or weeks. The trick is that the challenges are difficult but attainable and we follow through. If you don't meet the goal, you don't get the Twix.


Recently Awesome Technician said that when I graduate, she will try to get me a Twix cake. We're not sure what that might be like, exactly, but the idea of it certainly has motivated me to work!

Great job!

One of my favorite things about working with Awesome Technician is that we give each other non-ironic praise or sympathy, depending on the situation. For example, if the finicky instrument breaks down and she spends a few days fixing it, I tell her what a great job she did. She’s expected to do the work and do it right, so she didn’t go above and beyond her duty, but it was good work nonetheless. I also thank her whenever she does something for me. Usually, the things she does are her job, but I could certainly do them myself and I know that in some labs, I would not have the luxury of a technician performing instrument maintenance, for example. By the same token, if things aren't going well, I give her sincere sympathy. She does the same for me.

I heard this story on NPR’s Morning Edition, which talks about how young people expect to be valued as special snowflakes, their morale slumping if their bosses don’t praise their performance on everyday tasks. When they grew up, everyone – not just the winner -- got a ribbon just for trying. I’m not sure I really feel that way myself. I’m a little older than the people in the story and my childhood soccer team certainly didn’t get a trophy just for playing. But it’s nice to work in a positive environment, especially in an industry with so much very-delayed gratification.

Summer students swarm serene science space, create chaos

There are six extra people in our lab this summer, plus a temp who is finishing up a 5-month gig. There will also be a visiting post doc for a few weeks in July (staying at my place) and a post doc who has a joint appointment with another lab who will be with us more than usual. For reference, there are only eight of us there full-time year-round.

I enjoy having interns and visiting faculty around. The work that has become hum-drum to us is fresh to new people; their enthusiasm can enliven the mostly repetitive and often boring work we do. Also, it is exciting to see so much get done so quickly.

It takes good organization and communication to train and manage all those people, many of whom do not have much lab experience. Even the ones who have spent some time in labs don’t know how our lab operates (obviously), so they need a lot of help. If we don’t keep up with their needs, things can get royally f’d up. Regular readers may recall that our lab has occasional organizational shortcomings; I always get tense at the start of the summer before we know what the interns are like. Good ones make the summers rock out, but so-so ones can wreak havoc without even knowing it (if we were more organized or better mentors, we could probably circumvent problems).

Today was good though. I knew others would be working in the same area as me, so I got started in the lab straight away to could claim some space and supplies. One by one, people joined me and managed to squeeze in so everybody could work. An interesting if tedious highlight was sitting quietly while three different interns got trained by three different people at different points in the day to do almost the same thing. But the best part was with the temp: housekeeping is a perennial problem for us so yesterday I had asked her to clean up a big mess she had neglected for days and days and today she did it! I was the first to leave this afternoon, so we’ll see how the space looks tomorrow morning.

I hope today signals the start of a fun and productive summer.

Good for morale

At my lab, we like to talk about Lost the day after it airs. It used to be a string of individual conversations that seemed to go on all day. I'd talk to the first guy who got in, then later Awesome Technician and I would talk about it, then maybe later Research Advisor would want to chew on it with us too, then I'd see the other technician chatting with AT, and on it went. Now we take turns bringing donuts. No one is allowed to talk about last night's show until we're all together and then we hash out our theories and questions over some Boston cream.

I really like that we do this. Sure, it's 30 min of wasted time, but I think it's good for us. It's nice to have a little fun at work, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. On top of that, it often devolves into work talk.

I'd like to note that people in the lab who don't watch Lost are welcome to join us for donuts if they don't mind listening to us hypothesize about hatches and smoke monsters.

Selecting a lab

As a follow-up to these posts, I thought I'd write a little about how students in my field typically find and join labs. I am pretty sure my experience is generally representative of my discipline, but there may be departments that do it differently.

It’s very difficult to get accepted to grad school in my field without having an advisor who has agreed to take you on. Typically, students go straight into a lab; they do not join the department as a student at large*. When the faculty are debating who to accept, you must have an advocate in the department who will commit to mentoring you. This means that 1-8 months before applications are due, you have to start emailing faculty whose research interests are similar to yours. After determining that you have mutual interests, it’s good to ask if the professor has space for students in the coming year, if they have funding, what new projects the lab might be initiating, etc. It can take a lot of searching to find a lab that has everything you want in a location you can tolerate.

Often, after the applications have been reviewed but before offers are made, promising prospective students are invited to visit/interview on the university or lab's dime. This might be a group event where all prospectives visit at once, or students might be invited individually by a professor. This is the time to make sure the student and advisor make a good match -- they are interviewing each other. In the best visits, the prospective gets time to talk privately with current students to learn what life in the lab/department in really like. Often, the visitor stays with one of the current students, so they get a chance to ask lots of candid questions. Although as Mad Hatter pointed out, labs that don't value "fit" so much may not provide one-on-one time with each member of the lab. Unfortunately, some students, especially internationals, are unable to make a visit for a variety of reasons. For students who can't visit (international or not) or who visit but don't get a chance to talk privately with current students, it's a good idea to contact current and former students to make sure the advisor's style is one that you can cope with.

I don't know of any departments in my field that do rotations. The department I'm in is rather small, so the faculty are so different that I wouldn’t want to work with any other than my advisor (if for some reason during the first 1-4 years I had had to leave my lab, I think I would have changed schools before I would have changed advisors. At this point, I would stay to finish up no matter what). Larger departments might have people with enough overlap that there are more options for students. People do change labs if there is a big problem, but it’s rare.

There are clear advantages to this system. The most obvious is that it can help ensure equitable distribution of students among labs, favoring new faculty if necessary, since students just aren't accepted if there isn't space in the lab they want. For example, I've heard that there can be more students wanting into a lab than the professor can handle after the students are already in the program. I imagine this must sort of typical for departments that do rotations. Personally, I think I'd be upset if were in a department for a year and then couldn't get into the lab I wanted. Of course, it's also not good for faculty to get swamped with students as Ianqui described. Another advantage of this system is that students can be sure they will work in a research area that matches their interests. On the other hand, this system is less flexible than other models. Student and advisor may meet only briefly, if at all, before committing to 4-6 years together. If the student turns out to be a poor match for a lab, they may have few alternatives but to leave the department.

I'm pretty happy with the system my discipline uses, but since I haven't experienced any others, I can't make a balanced comparison. I bet that the advantages I see might not be so important in fields where students research is less tightly associated with faculty research, or where there is more overlap in faculty interests.

If anyone reading this is considering grad school ecogeoscienceology and has questions about finding a lab/department, feel free to email me.we

*Since students join labs and not departments, the fame and quality of the professor is more important than the quality of the department.

Does competence trump an annoying personality?

Back when I was looking for grad schools, I interviewed for a spot in a lab where they told me I was "perfect on paper". That was not, however, enough for this professor to take me on. He wanted to be sure I would "fit in" with his lab. In fact, this guy had his whole lab approve new members before he made offers. In effect, everyone had to like each other. I wonder if they had better lab dynamics or if it was just a gimmick.

Since then, I have met some people who I find exceedingly annoying, yet they are good students (or post docs or faculty or whatever). In the case of university labs, I wonder if the irritating personality traits are considered by faculty when they take on students, given that they will have to work together for 4-6 years. Perhaps these people aren't annoying to their supervisors. Maybe it's just judgmental me. I have been known to have limited tolerance for human frailty. note the silly font

Is there a balance for selecting staff that are both competent and cool? Does it matter? Should aggravating personality traits be overlooked, or is that a reasonable way to decide among candidates who are otherwise equal? I don't mean people who seem abusive, racist, dangerous, etc., just run of the mill annoying. What do you think?

Guaging writing productivity

As I have said before, I am a member of two labs. Neither of them are very prolific, but for somewhat different reasons. The one I consider my primary lab is super slow getting papers out mainly because nothing is ever considered final. There are always a few more samples to analyze, more statistical tests to run, or other ways to look at the data. Add to that the slow internal review process in our group, and papers just never seem to get submitted* (my frustrations with this will probably expand into future posts).

This lab culture makes me feel like it is a Herculean task to write and submit a paper. I think writing one’s first paper is often a battle. But it seems to be a particularly huge deal in our lab and that makes it ever more intimidating to complete a draft and give it to my advisors.

I worked exclusively on this paper for the first few weeks of the year, which included reworking stats and figures. Since then, I have interspersed lab work with writing, either working part of the day in the lab and part at my desk or alternating whole days. I find that I feel much more productive when I’m in the lab, which adds to the psychological difficulty of writing. I know exactly how long it takes to do different bench tasks, so I can plan the time I need to complete them. If I finish what I set out to do, I feel productive and good. Unfortunately, I have no idea how long it should take me to write sections of a paper, so it’s hard for me to tell if I have worked efficiently at writing. It’s a little frustrating.

I think this will change as I gain experience. I welcome suggestions or advice from your vast experience, readers.


*The papers are undoubtedly better for it. When they do get published, they are awesome and highly cited.

A new leader!

POOF!

This post had to go away.

RBOC

It's a random bullets post today because I just don't have much to say about any one thing.

• I seem to be getting another cold. No fair. I already had a really bad one this season, right after Thanksgiving. At least I don't feel super crappy, just super snotty.
• Another great interaction with Academic Advisor today. I sent him another draft of the conclusions for my paper and he responded super fast again. He was happy with my progress and made a really constructive suggestion for the main theme of the paper. It will take a lot of thinking to incorporate, but will make the paper much better.
• I have had the luxury of working on this paper for the entire day, every day since New Years. I have been trying to savor that, since I know there won't be many times in my career when I have the level of limited responsibility that gives that kind of freedom.
• I had a conversation with Research Advisor today wherein I got to vent about an issue that has been bothering me for some time. I think it came across okay, which is to say I think I sounded not too bossy/bratty (always a worry for me at work with the super non-confrontational people there) but got my point across that I was upset with both the lack of support from her and the inconsideration (carelessness? cluelessness? laziness?) of some of my coworkers. I think the topic might come up again tomorrow during a meeting with Research Advisor, Awesome Technician, and me, so I will blog more about it after that.