Scientific feasibility

I hate dealing with manufacturing and sacrificing innovation for quick development.  This is one of the biggest trade-offs I've had to deal with in industry.  Every time this comes up I think more and more about how much I hate it.  And my group doesn't deal with manufacturing that much.  We develop crazy medical devices and do crazy studies then other groups worry about how to take our devices to the next level.  But because I work for a company that has to make profit, I inevitably have to make sure the devices are grounded in reality.

This came up recently.  I came up with a crazy technology that I feel could really revolutionize the field, but it will take a year of scientific evaluation followed by a year of development.  This is much longer than our typical development cycles in my team.  And no one hear is willing to invest in the kind of core science I need to do.  Higher-ups are making me use rudimentary technology with a misunderstanding of the biology to get this done quickly.  I understand we need to make money.  And the faster we get things done the faster we'll get these devices in patients and make said money.  The problem is that for years I've been told, "That's a great idea.  Let's save that for the next generation."  But we never do.  Leadership just keeps pushing it through.  And we end up doing the most basic of feasibility studies on a device that could have been much better.  We need the best possible core knowledge and technologies if we're going to solve healthcare's most difficult problems.  Even if it takes an extra year.

This is one of the key differences in academia I can't wait to get involved with again.  I am really looking forward to doing core science, then creating the best technology possible regardless of how far off it is.  What's weird in all of this is that leadership is excited about giving my new lab money to pursue these core science and far-off technology ideas.  They just don't like funding their own labs to do this stuff.  I guarantee my current group would do this science and development much faster than my academic group will.  And probably for cheaper.  So why can't industry do more on the science and feasibility side.  Talking to lots of friends (I'm popular!!!!) in the field, they all have jobs that involve having to design devices for manufacturablility and quick turnarounds.  They don't mind, but whenever they hear about my group they're always amazed at the level of science and R&D we do...taking designs to feasibility then letting other groups handle the details.  This apparently is rare in most of the industry.  In most groups, if you designed it, you will inevitably take it to the next level.  I would hate to do this, especially since I want to regress even further,  working on tons of core science and devices that are ugly and take forever to design, but they do the job in new ways.  Seriously, I can't effectively describe how excited I am about getting more back to (translational) basics.  And every time I deal with people outside of my groups it makes me want to start my new position even more.

Progress today=0

Sometimes I don't feel like doing anything all day when I show up to work. It's not that I'm not challenged or engaged, I just feel lazy sometimes. I surf the net, read blogs, watch videos, have fun with coworkers, and listen to some music. I basically screw off the whole day. My boss is never around (he's in a different city) and even if he were around he knows that we get stuff done so he wouldn't care.  This happened today.

I leave the day refreshed, though a little guilty. Partly because patients need these devices, but also because I felt I stole money from my company.  I did a post a while back where I talk about my Very Laid Back Days.  There is the ultra rare day where I don't do shit.  I remember this was nonexistent during my grad school days.  And I was wondering why and came up with a couple reasons:

1.  I was on public money and felt guilty for cheating the public.

2.  I was working for myself and felt more pride and dedication because of it.

3.  I shared an office with grad students and wanted to give the impression that I'm a hard worker.

4.  My advisor was always asking for results.

5.  The leprechaun under my desk that kept on hounding me.

The last one only appeared when I was loopy after working too much.  Honestly, I don't know if any of these worked to keep me honest, but there was the ultra rare day where I screwed off all day.  And I don't seem to remember feeling guilty.  Why do I feel guilty now, then?  After such a great day, I should feel awesome.  This is why I think I feel guilty:

1.  I have my team depending on me.

2.  I have patients depending on me.

3.  I get paid a lot.

Even after listing these reasons I still don't know why I feel guilty.  Guess I'll just have to work extra hard tomorrow to work all this guilt out of my body.  Damnit.

What to do with my free time?

Like most overly dedicated grad students I worked all holidays except for Christmas and Thanksgiving. I switched off when I left work for the most part but occasionally I still had to pull out my computer to run a little code or do some emails or writing outside of work.  This was on top of very long work hours at the lab. This happened for a little over 4 years. And I definitely wouldn't have been as productive otherwise. Our lab was definitely split into the 'overworkers' (OWs) and 'barelyworkers' (BWs) categories. The OWs graduated on time or early with a job offer in-hand. The BWs hit the 7 year mark and are gently pushed out with no more than a postdoc in-hand from the lab they're graduating from. So I don't regret having spent that much time working. Especially since I love doing what I do. 

Since leaving academia, I didn't want to spend all my time at the lab anymore. So I don't work outside of work; even for emails.  The only drawback is that I try and get all my work done at work (even if it takes 16 hours/day).  So now I have weekends and holidays free, plus my average schedule isn't as bad as when in grad school.  I even take vacations now. Gasp! And I find myself looking for stuff to do. I have plenty of hobbies, but I got used to doing them at such weird times and intervals that even after years of being outside of academia I find myself looking for stuff to do. I go exploring in my city a lot, started writing a blog, dedicate more time to family and friends, play music, etc, but I still sometimes just find myself sitting around thinking of what to do. I've been able to finish more books, but I can only read so much before getting tired.

I always thought I could retire and never be hurting to find things to do because I could never find time for hobbies. But here I am trying to fill out my free time....albeit, this happens in the minority of my time.  I don't want to go back to my OW life, because gray hairs do not match my outfits.  This is, of course, only during the lulls. When things are blazing at work I find myself longing for hobby-time, when there's a lull I seek things to do. During these times I've picked up video gaming, Netflix binges, hanging out outdoors just thinking, napping, and reading books and scientific articles. I wish there was a safe medium, where I had just the right amount of time for hobbies, while never feeling like I have to try to find things to do.

This has become less of an issue the more I'm out of grad school, but I'm certain this is because when I first started working I had a lot more free time; as I get more responsibility I have less and less free time. But I can't seem to remember any transitions when I had the perfect amount of free time. I'm guessing it's around 50 hours/week working and maybe 20 hours/week for standard tasks (showering, cooking, cleaning, errands, etc).  But I don't think that's correct. Maybe that's the beauty of working for yourself: you know exactly how much free time you need and how successful you want your business to be.  As long as in not an OW or a BW, I'll be happy. Who says I can't be left or right leaning...just hanging out in the middle. 

Maybe I'll pick up a drug habit. That's what the media tells me teens do when they're bored, right?

Business talk and jargon

Double post day, wuttup!!!

Every field has specific jargon. The only ones that bug me are MIL/DoD acronyms and business talk. I'm talking phrases like  "upward mobility", "synergy", "paradigm", "vertical integration", etc. The DoD lives and breaths acronyms, but it doesn't bother me as much since I left that kind of work. 

And I can't escape it!  I think a big part of it is that I despise the type of people that use it, so correspondingly I don't like the lingo. It makes me very conscious of when people use those words, and I develop opinions of those people.  So I figure that others also develop these opinions. And because of this I try my absolute hardest not to use these terms like paradigm, leverage, etc.

This sucks because there are some situations where the use is legit. So I find myself bumbling for which words would convey the message but aren't on the MBA-list. So in the process of not trying to be typical-businessperson, I just end up looking like a bumbling idiot. 

What are your least favorite academic or business jargon (or is it jargons....shit I can't even get English correct, getting jargon(s) correct is hopeless)?

Will I learn to not hate my advisor?

I had a weird relationship with my advisor in grad school. Not THAT kind of weird, you prevert.  I came in when he was only two years into his assistant professorship, and proceeded to work on every project in the lab, build him new research devices for all his projects (especially those unrelated to my dissertation), write most sections of grants for him, and even secure my own funding. He trusted me and I took from him how to disseminate my research. That's the only thing I feel I learned from him. He had 8 students and 3 of us were expected to provide the world, while ther rest were never called upon to do anything out of their own research. 

I kind of enjoyed this because it gave me a little more diversity in my knowledge. But when it came time to work on my own stuff (which was so preliminary it wasn't ready for prime-time yet) he always pulled me off to work on more 'now' projects. I still graduated with plenty of time, and plenty of pubs. But I hated that we had to bend to his will and he a) wasn't grateful, and b) acted like he was doing us a favor. I'm hoping I will see things more from his perspective eventually, but talking to other grad students, their advisors were more grateful of their hard work (like having a lab dinner or celebration when they graduated...which we never got), cared whether they were really grasping the material, and generally nicer people. A lab mate was on the hospital for a month and our advisor didn't visit her once. When she came back he asked her if she had done any work while in bed. 

So all of these experiences has fostered a lot of resentment from a few of us; no more than myself. So as I'm preparing for setting up my lab, I'm soliciting advice and he never has time to talk with me for 10 minutes. Whereas if he needs something from me (like a medical device) for his research he always has time to call, ask for stuff, then hang up. 

I'm a pretty selfless person, and I'm very quick to respond to emails, missed calls, etc. I hate leaving people waiting without telling them why they're waiting. In my opinion it's a respect thing, and everyone should be treated with respect.  Part of this is because I'm impatient and get things done very quickly, and expect others to do the same.  Not to mention, when you are responsive with someone then think you're treating then with respect and they will be more responsive back...most of the time.  I don't work with people who are slow, flaky, or unresponsive.  But some people don't have the time management skills I've picked up working for a very fast-paced boss who also happens to be quite selfless. 

Talking with one of my former lab mates we were trying to wonder if we'd ever forgive our old advisor. I know my friend will never forgive him. My friend was academically focused prior to grad school and our advisor drove her into industry. She never wanted the possibility of running into him again. I was unsure whether I would ever like him.  I hope I do, because he's legitimately the only person I hate. And I hate that I hate someone. 

Screw you, FDA

I was visiting a hospital a little while ago chatting with random people and someone who used to work for the FDA was there and talking with me about why he left. I won't go into why he left other than politics, not getting valuable experience, judging medical devices while he actually didn't have any experience in designing them, etc.  He's in the med device industry and we were whining about his former employer. Fun times. 

Then something came up today. A device that I've taken to two countries with tremendous success on terminal patients got outright rejected here in the US for really stupid reasons. The kind of reasons that seem to be a combination of politics and dumb reviewers. I know some of those at the FDA have experience in medical device design, but 90% of the comments are either: you need to prove this totally inert material is safe, or you need to do tons more animal studies. I can see how small companies have no damn chance to get their devices out to save lives since my GLP animals are $8k each. 

This device has already been proven safe in people in other countries and the beaurocracy really pisses me off. I would far prefer my tax dollars were spent on education and training people in universities in how real medical devices are actually designed, a better understanding of the diseases so disease-targetted devices are better judged, and better biomaterial sciences...actually just all better education. When patients are traveling to Euro to get a treatment because the FDA can't get their crap together, it breaks my heart.  The government is not helping its citizens here. The FDA is hurting them.  

I have a treatment that has been working for a while in Euro. It's my first treatment that has cured 100% with 0% complication (after 6 months....).  If my family has this disease, with the next best option a highly invasive surgery with ~60% efficacy (6 month follow-up), I would have to fly them overseas and pay doctors in another country to get better success.  I've heard stories of companies faltering because of the beaurocratic mess that is the FDA. Companies with great treatments. And then there's the cost partly because of the FDA. I've been given the opportunity to target low-incidence disease in my work because of how much capital my company has, but most companies will not because the cost to get a device or drug to market is so high that you have to target high-incidence to get your investment back. I don't know a way to fix this, but I'm certain there's got to be a way. 

I wish I could say that at least I won't have to deal with this when in at my new school, but my intent is to still create devices and get them to patients. I just won't have the backing of a huge company now so it will be very very difficult. Thanks FDA. Screw you. 

Dodging the post-doc bullet

While traveling a while back I stopped off and talked to a friend. He's been in a post-doc for 2 years in a foreign country and he told me he's year-to-year now based on his contract. So he's casually applying to faculty posts. I agreed to look at his application material when he gets around to it. 

Today he Skyped me, panicked. His PI's funding fell through and the post-docs will be the first to go. Now he's in a rush to find a position. And hiring in a rush is not exactly something academia is known for. So now he'll have to either find an academic post soon or be stuck in another 2 year project as a post-doc....or go industry.  On top of this, as a post-doc he doesn't make enough to have put aside enough money to save for a long job-drought during an academic search.

I've enjoyed my time in industry for the most part and being able to be comfortable in my position not dependent on whether some guy/girl in the office upstairs can write a successful grant is pretty nice. My job is at the mercy of the competition and the board, but I know my products are superior and the free market has seemed to agree so I'm not worried. But more importantly, if I get laid off there's a very nice severance package (8 weeks of salary) and I've saved up a bunch because I'm overpaid. So I can deal with a break in employment. Plus, if I had gone year-after-year looking for a faculty job, I would be confident knowing that if I didn't find it I'd still have my job to fall back on. A post-doc isn't a really great fallback plan. 

Thinking of my friend's situation reminds me of how lucky I am. When I was job hunting I constantly thought about how much different my hunt would be if I had a heavy hitting school on my CV for a post-doc. In hindsight I don't think it mattered much, but the stress was there before.  Though the stress of worrying about pulling in a paycheck would be more than I could handle. I'd imagine his position could be in the minority, but I have no clue, and I don't wish that on anyone. I feel like Keanu in dodging that bullet. 

Dear theater-goers,

I don't go to the movies very frequently.  Maybe once a month...tops. I saw a movie today that people have raved about. It was okay, but the people were horrible. If you are one of the following people, I don't hate you, but please fix yourselves:

1. Person with a smell: I understand the matinee is early, but it's not so early you don't have time to shower. Your BO is disturbing. 

2. Person with smoker's breath: Stop breathing. Or at least put in a mint. 

3. Cell phone person: No one cares you're watching a movie. Unless people will die unless you answer your text, then put it away before I put it in your Coke. 

4. Person not controlling your kid: I don't have kids, but I have taken kids to the movies. I can stop them from kickin chairs and distractin people. You can too, or find a babysitter. 

5. No shoes next to my head person: I'm fine with you getting comfortable, but don't out your feet by my head. You're rude. 

6. Person who doesn't whisper: what you're saying is not better than the movie. Unless I'm watching the Michael Bay Ninja Turtles. A colonoscopy is better than that. 

But then there are also habits that my friends despise that I don't mind:

1. Loud laughing: keep laughing. Some of these jokes aren't really that funny, but life's too short not to be laughing. You can't help your laugh. I'm glad you're enjoying. 

2. Person that laughs at everything: same applies. 

3. Getting up to go to the restroom: it's not your fault; I'm just glad you're not going in your seat. 

4. Person who unbuttons your pants: I like your style. Time to relax. 

Basically, please act like a civilized person, shower, and brush your teeth and I'll watch a movie with you. If you pay, that also doesn't hurt. 

Offer from another

Those following this blog will know that I'm starting a job at an R1 (or very high whatever...) a year from now.  I was at a conference recently and a faculty member at a lower tiered university mentioned they were looking for faculty with my exact background. They asked that I give a seminar at their school to explain med device design and some of the things I've done the past few years. I obliged because I love giving talks.  In hindsight I should have realized it was an interview for a job I didn't apply to. Sneaky. 

I recently gave it and the head came forward with a job offer.  Roughly the same salary, bigger starting funds, cheaper city that I adore, but it's a lower-level school (not as highly regarded as the school I'm supposed to start at next year).  It seems shady they pursued me even though they know in starting at another school. Like dating someone you know is married. Though I'm thinking this is as common as people dating the married. 

This university is trying to expand their name and get more into R1 status. Their past few years have had an explosion of growth which I feel I can help them with. The department is also pretty laid back which is pretty important to me. So this has been weighing on me. I hate making bad decisions, and this school seems like I could do very well with. I don't feel like I'll jump ship before I begin, but now I feel bad about saying 'no' to this department.  

I'm thankful, but I probably should've realized something nefarious was going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't have come otherwise. Saves me from thinking about this situation. 

Learning to lead

I'm a horrible leader.  But I'm an 'okay' researcher so I usually guide projects just how I would do it.  I am really bad at inspiring, making business decisions, and handling group drama.  Part of this is that I'm not very sensitive and pretty straight-forward.  I hate beating around the bush.  And I've never been great at business decisions.  I'm all about what's best for the patient.  The patient-first attitude has gotten me to where I am.  And my research skills (or lack-thereof) combined with group members who are very confident in me and will follow me wherever has given the impression that I can handle a group.

My #2 and successor was asking me how to lead the team.  She wanted one piece of advice.  My advice was "be a great researcher, give the people tons of freedom, and hire the best people...even if you have to go through 100 candidates to find the right fit".  Even though I've been climbing the corporate ladder I know I couldn't climb any further because what I consider my strengths (straight-forwardness, doing what's best for the patient, etc.) are pretty glaring weaknesses in corporate America.

I've realized that the more time I spend in this role the most business-like I become.  I've been having to learn how to lead a business.  I'm hoping I can take some of these fiscal decision-making skills to my academic post but I'm unsure.

Animal studies

This post has some details on using animals for research with some details that I'm certain animal lovers might not like.  Please don't read further if you fall into this category.  I don't like doing animal studies, but I've come to understand that some animal testing is necessary, though every possible precaution should be made to ensure animals are well taken care of.  Plus, I won't experiment on monkeys or do anything psychological...or anything that causes pain.  When a university or company gets in trouble for animal stuff, I immediately boycott their products.  This includes not collaborating with some of the best physicians in the world...which I've had to do because of their treatment of animals.  I've disabled comments just-in-case.  That being said here's the post:

A friend came into town and we were having some pretty heavy discussions on the use of animals in research.  We both came to agreement that animals could be used more efficiently, and fewer killed by researchers, but it got me thinking about doing a post on animal research.  I got an email months ago about the expectations of doing animal research coming out of grad school when you don't really want to (where the highest species a grad student works on is usually live mice...though there are the rare wealthy labs...).  This could be a valid concern because there is a lot of money in industry for animal research and we do a ton of it.  And a lot of people hate seeing dogs, cats, pigs, etc. on the experimentation table.  I didn't want to do a post before, but thought it may be useful for students to read about jumping into animal studies from the perspective of someone that did not want to do them originally.

I want to preface this with the fact that I love animals.  I have two dogs now, and throughout my life I've had rabbits, fish, and even a pig as pets.  I hadn't seen an animal die until graduate school (I swear all my old pets are at farms...) when I found a local butcher to get cheap, high quality meat from and he offered to show me the process from farm to table.  I was heartbroken but grateful because it has made me far more grateful for the meat that I eat.  And I never ever waste it now.  In my home country meat is a side dish of small quantity so it was easy to eat all of it.  But after coming here I started to eat more meat and noticed a little waste if I wasn't hungry and things spoiled in the fridge.  I hate seeing animals die, but I always thank them (or their "spirit" if I just have the meat) for their life.  Of all the animals I've seen pass I have never gotten over it, even if it's just on an operating table and all I see is an open wound because of the dressing on it.

In graduate school I worked with mice and pigs (I didn't do bio before grad school....I was a physicist).  The mice were transgenic used for all kinds of things.  When I had to kill and harvest my first mouse I was terrified and felt like I wasn't built for this kind of research.  I brought this up to my advisor and she understood but explained to me the usefulness of animal research and how using surrogates would be impossible to replace all animals with because of inaccuracies.  And how people would die without it.  But she didn't pressure me.  She referred me to organizations like kids4research.org and explained the necessity of animal research.  I told myself I would continue to try it and by the fifth animal I wasn't as upset by it, though I have never gotten over the fact that I'm ending its life.  One thing I made sure of was that every experiment went well and gave me good data.  I didn't want the mouse's life to end for no reason.  I've seen so many people waste animals or the data, and it really pisses me off.

I moved on to porcine subjects and had the same reservations, though didn't have to do as much of the killing/husbandry.  This was handled by techs and vets.  But I still maintained the same level of respect for the animal: ensuring that pain and anesthesia was completely under control, death occurred painlessly, and data was very complete.  And I thanked the animal ever time...even though I know they can't hear me...or understand me.

When I moved to industry I started to have to do research on dogs.  Dogs hold a very special place in my heart so this took a while to get used to.  But I realize that there's no other way other than testing on humans since other animal models have proven inaccurate.  Technically I do test on humans, though the priority is the treatment...the data is just icing for me.  Talking to other people at my company there are plenty that don't go into the OR.  They get to do awesome R&D without ever seeing an animal.  They just see the data.  I forced myself to come to terms with the canine studies because I knew that if I was there I could guide the study from the control room to get the most out of the animal.  So if you're worried about the animal study just mention this to the recruiter and they'll try to find the suitable environment for you.  Or just try to desensitize yourself, as I have.  When I see my dogs at home (one's sitting on my feet right now!) I never think of what happens in the OR.  I separate myself.  It makes it easier to separate given that all I see of the animals are a couple squares of skin as revealed by windows in the dressing over the animal.  I occasionally I'll see a paw, and this gets to me.  At first I would hang out in the corner of the OR, letting the doctors and techs handle the testing with interjections from myself when I want a change to the testing or more testing done.  I now stand right by the table because I realized it makes the testing more effective with the 'expert' right there by the table.  And I want to make sure testing is as efficient as possible.  Never wasting an animal.  For the most part though I don't really have to touch live animals anymore.  I'll get excised tissue but this doesn't affect my psyche at all.  Just seeing the animal on the table.

It's impossible to get away from animal products.  If someone says they don't use anything that has an animal byproduct they're wrong.  When I was at the butcher they explained everything that animal products are used in or that have been tested on animals and I realized that getting away from animal use would be impossible.  And for me, I really care about patients and their families.  So if I have to bite-the-bullet and do something a little uncomfortable for me then I'll do it.  Seeing the patients I've touched makes it all worth it.  Though it did take some time....

My average days-when I first started

Xykademiqz made a good point in my last post that I posted my current hours when I was asked by a student about industry hours.  I've moved up at a rate much higher than the average, and have been taking the learning lumps that goes with being underqualified for a position.  I started in a role similar to a lot of people straight out of grad school, if not just a little higher since I had a good amount of industry and national lab experience before I tried to earn my letters.  I got my first big promotion about 8 months in, and at my meeting with the head of my company for the promotion I pitched a new type of idea for medical device design.  One that has paid off big for my company.  He made me in charge of this new group (which I still lead).  He set aside a small amount of money and within a year our budget increased by 10x because of the results my group had.  It was three of us, and we're easily responsible for all the upcoming products in our company's pipeline.  Everyone in my group gets promoted at 2x what everyone else does because of our success.  Any success I have is 99% luck from this meeting with the head of my company.  My hours changed dramatically at this stage.  I wanted...needed...to make this concept work.  I have a surprising amount of free time, especially outside of work, rarely working  outside of the office.  I had a ton more free time (and fewer gray hairs) when I first started here.  Though I would never trade my current position for my old one.  Without further ado, here's my hours when I first showed up:

Very laid back day:
9am Arrive
9-11am Experiments/design
11am-1pm Lunch
1pm-3pm Reading...occasional short meeting...emails
3pm-5pm Emails, calls, some design work or experiments
5pm Gone!

Laid back day
8:30am Arrive
8:30-9am Emails and day planning
9am-10am Meting
10am-11am Experiments
11am-noon Small group stuff, experiments, design stuff
Noon-1pm Lunch
1pm-4pm Work (experiments, design, etc)
4pm-5pm Email, reading
5pm Gone!!!

Busy day
8am Arrive
8am-9am Meeting
9am-10am Computer stuff
10am-noon Experiments
Noon-1pm Look at data while eating
1pm-3pm Experiments...maybe some small group meeting stuff
3pm-4pm Meeting
4pm-6pm Experiments and prototyping
6pm-7pm Emails, reading, transcribing notes
7pm Gone

Average day while traveling
5am-6am Check email during breakfast
6am Report to hospital
6am-8am Prepare equipment
8am-1pm Run animal study
1pm-2pm Lunch
2pm-7pm Run animal study
7pm-8pm Put equipment away
Do this 5 days in a row.

My percentages were probably like so, on average:

20% VLBD
60% LBD
5% BD
15% Travel

Those students out there: if you're worried about the hours, mine were definitely better than grad school.  And my starting salary was definitely higher than my old advisor's...but there are trade offs :)

My average days

Someone looking at whether to go industry or academia asked me what my schedule is like. The question came from a grad student figuring out which direction to go after graduation. I obviously (or maybe, not so obvious...I'm an enigma...) said to look at academia for the reasons I've discussed in this blog, but I thought I'd explain my average busy day, my average laid-back day, and my average travel schedule day. I'll throw in my most laid back and most busy days along with the relative percentages of the frequency of each type of day, too.

Very laid back day:  

9am Arrive

9-10am Emails

10am-11am Meeting

11am-1pm Lunch

1pm-3pm Work (experiments, design, etc)

3pm-5pm Email and read articles/patents/etc

5pm Leave and forget I even have a job

Laid back day

8am Arrive

8-9am Emails

9am-10am Experiments

10am-11am Meeting

11am-noon Brainstorming

Noon-1pm Lunch

1pm-4pm Work (experiments, design, etc)

4pm-5pm Email and read articles/patents/etc

5pm Leave while rarely thinking about work outside of work.

Busy day

7am Arrive

7am-8am Email

8am-9am Meeting

9am-10am Work on designs

10am-noon Experiments

Noon-1pm Look at data while eating

1pm-3pm Prototype changes and more experimentation

3pm-4pm Meeting

4pm-6pm Experiments and prototyping

6pm-7pm Emails

7pm Leave tired

Very busy day

6am Arrive

6am-7am Email

7am-8am Prepare materials for big meeting

8am-10am Big meeting

10am-11am Work on designs

11am-1pm Experiment while eating lunch

1pm-3pm Big meeting

3pm-5pm Experiments and prototyping

5pm-7pm International meeting

7pm-9pm Experiments to prepare for big show-and-tell

9pm-10pm Data processing

10pm-11pm Work on presentation

11pm-midnight Emails
midnight Sometimes leave while thinking about work...sometimes sleep in my office

Average day while traveling

5am-6am Check email during breakfast

6am Report to hospital

6am-8am Prepare equipment

8am-1pm Run animal study

1pm-2pm Lunch

2pm-7pm Run animal study

7pm-8pm Put equipment away

Do this 5 days in a row. 

My percentages are probably like so, on average:

2% VLBD

8% LBD

50% BD

10% VBD

30% Travel

Overall, I am very satisfied with my work, and it doesn't always seem like work since I'm having fun. The clinical-impact makes me feel great about the long days at the office, but I prefer VLBD :)

Sponsoring research

I sponsor more academic research on my company than any other group here. It's a great way to stay in touch with the academic community, give to people who really need it, and give kids an 'in' at a great (the best) medical device company ever.  Also, I've been using my past success to convince people at my company that I can guide great academic research and those in charge have been very open and enthusiastic about sponsoring some of the research I intend on pursuing next year.  Even going to the point of starting to talk numbers and aims with me.

My most recent exploit has been very successful, however, the PI I'm dealing with wants to push results to publication.  I love publishing, but this work has been going so well that I may be able to turn this into a great medical device.  It's the first project where the profit will be realized immediately rather than 20 years down the road.  Sooooo, I'm pub-blocking them.

I feel bad, especially since I really like the student on this, and this will delay their publishing.  The agreement with the school is that I control when things are released.  My concern with this now is that the PI will get antsy and leak information.  Not through a conference or manuscript, but just in talking with people while at a conference or faculty meeting.  Especially since they're starting to get frustrated, and in venting anger they may vent the idea.  I've already filed for patents on this, but the patent probably won't be public for at least six months.  When it's public, even though we don't have it issued yet, I've agreed to let it get submitted for conferences and manuscripts.

I'm trying to see this from the PIs point-of-view since I'll probably be in that situation before I know it.  But I'm hoping that I will empathize more with my [past] company, and relay this to the student.  Anyone out there that gets industry sponsorship and you're frustrated: please don't get too mad.  We're not just doing this for greed or ego.  This is something we have to...please understand.  And please relay this to your students.

Life is less busy

I had a post a little while back about how busy life has been. I've noticed that it seems awfully quiet right now and I'm embracing it.  Though I'm noticing things are just about to pick up.  It's a little too quiet right now...like a zombie movie before the heroes get ripped apart.  I love spending more time with friends and going on long walks, or watching some television.

There's two approaches I'm debating in my head:
1.  Embrace this totally and wait until crap hits the fan to get busy again,
2.  Take this time to get everything of mine in order and prepare for the next crap-storm.

I'm rolling with the first one.  It totally sucks to be on-edge, and I just want to clear things out.  I've got a nice vacation coming up.  I'd like to think that the average stress level ends up less if I handle a lot at once instead of a steady state of stress.  I was never a boy or girl scout so being prepared just isn't part of me.  For now, I'll start writing up a few blog posts and recover some of my natural-colored hair...leaving the grays as a distant memory.  Sit by the beach more frequently than not, watch some movies, hike a little, play some games, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......relaxation......for now.......

Passion=bad

I give great presentations. People are engaged. They understand the topics. The crowd loves me.  Either there's great conversations and laughter because they feel sorry for me, or it's good enough to get the point across and get people thinking.  I choose to believe the latter.  But I've been told it's unprofessional. A friend actually said it can seemed almost like scientific stand-up. I give engaging presentations because I love my work. And because I love my work, I love talking about it. It flows off the tongue with lots of relatable analogies and detailed theory...but also some jokes.

I've been told today my style is 'unprofessional for academia' by a soon-to-be-faculty-mentor at my new school. My thought is the point of presenting the work is to get the point across to as many people as possible. Or sometimes just the important ones. The presentation I gave when I was interviewing was a healthy mix of slides and talking-style geared towards undergrad, grads, and faculty depending on the section and depth. Everyone said they understood it well.

My advisor loved recording my talks because of how easy things were to understand.  And a committee member told me that my defense was the most lively one he's ever been apart of in the 30 years he's been advising.  I started presenting this way early in grad school when I realized that unenthusiastic talks put everyone asleep, and the point of a talk is to get your point across....can't do that if everyone is asleep.  There's a second point to this too: it's unresponsible science to not disseminate your results (usually paid by the public) to the public.  I want to see at least a little effort to keep the audience engaged.  I go the extra mile making my slides and speech great.  A friend thinks people think it's unprofessional because it looks like I'm trying really hard and appear too approachable.  That I need to appear at least a little unapproachable and put in the bare minimum of work.

I may be misinterpreting this, but when I see a drab talk, I immediately think either a) they don't give good talks, b) they don't care that other people are bored, or c) they're unpassionate about their work. I love seeing a speaker that loves their work, and loves to show it.  I'm going to try a find a safe point between talking passionately about my work and trying to get people engaged through humor and the lifeless talks that I've come to expect at most conferences and seminars.  Actually...screw that.  I'm going to present the way I want.  If people are 'too engaged' or 'too entertained' then that's their problem!

Expanding diversity

I am a big proponent of diversity in STEMs.  First off, we need more bodies in STEM.  The less diverse the field is, the fewer minorities will join.  Given the problems of this world, we need as many people as possible to solve them.  Growth of new ideas, directions for marketing, and progress on projects is stymied when everyone has the same background.

My problem with the current approach is approaching target demographics by using representatives from the target demographic (men recruit men, women recruit women, Latin Americans recruit Latin Americans, etc.).  During grad school and after grad school I have been doing my best to try and infiltrate the specialized organizations to spread awareness and learn all I can about demographics other than my own. My reason for this is 1. It will allow me to better understand what they're going through, 2. Develop strategies best for the specific groups, and 3. It exposes the students to me. Me, being someone different than their groups. My (perhaps misguided) reasoning is if they learn that people of all races and sexes are approachable and want them to succeed they will pick STEMs.  Being from industry also offers them someone outside of academia they can approach. Why any we all just get along?  I know there are hidden discriminations that often people don't know they have, but I wonder what it will take to put everyone on the same level. Is that even achieveable?

I'm doing an outreach thing for a club in my demo and I tried convincing others to team up with a different demo and they aren't hearing it. They think it will dilute our impact. What the heck?  There's got to be a reason, I just can't pinpoint it.

I'm in the airport with a colleague and he thinks that I'm just naive: thinking that people can get over their subconsciouses.  I'll try and get over my naivety while I'm embracing other cultures in my upcoming travels.

PS: Happy Birthday, America!!!

Moving in before commitment

So like many married couples, my spouse and I co-habitated together prior to marriage. Marriage seemed like a formality. And when we started to live together we already started our lifestyles into more of a married one. Why delay moving in if we know we're going to be together? I know there are personal as religious implications, but from a personal standpoint, if I know something is inevitable I have trouble focusing on the present because I know what's on the horizon. So we moved in immediately when we thought we were ready.

In 13 months I'll be quitting my job and moving to New College University (NCU). I know it's inevitable, but in this case I can't leave early because of obligations. So I'm stuck with this anxiety about my next stage in life.

I keep looking online at houses at NCU even though these probably won't be on the market when I move out there.  I kind of want to pull the trigger on a house just to have there; ready for me.  I can start making upgrades while I'm away.  But I think this is just my anxiety: wanting to 'move' in before I'm married....

New equipment at my new school

When I accepted the academic position I'm going to be taking in a year (seriously, I'm getting crazy excited and anxious), my new school (NS) agreed to buy a critical piece of equipment so long as I run it as a core facility. 

NS is pulling kind of a dick move: they're asking me to find a lesser costing system. A system that will be able to do the job, though not exactly what I want. I really should have gotten this in writing. On the plus side, they said I can start ordering equipment and outfitting my new lab space. This will allow me to really start as soon as I show up (I hope) and get students faster (I hope) since everything will already be ready (I hope).  

One thing I'm trying to work out given the lesser equipment is that I may be able to get a lab tech with some of the saved money difference. Though a couple year's salary of a lab tech hardly makes up for the equipment difference. I'm going to miss the days of my practically unlimited budget....

Dear Yelpers,

As I have been traveling a ton lately, I am trying to find good places to eat. Some coworkers know of places, some friends have recommendations, and I randomly walk around in cities and find some gems. Sometimes I turn to the internet. Yelp is usually my go-to.

There are a few breeds of Yelpers:

1.  The kind that just reads. 

2.  The kind that posts pics of food. 

3.  The kind that posts pics of the business. 

4.  The kind that posts funny pics.

5.  The kind of posts personal pics. 

6.  The kind that review everything and have to throw in their opinions all the time. 

7.  The kind that genuinely have good tips. 

8.  Combinations of the above. 

Yelp also has review-inflation. This is one of the worst parts of Yelp: most people have horrible tastes in food compared to my preferences. A five star review rarely results in five star flavor.  I sometimes think people are scared to go against the majority so reviews just become more and more positive.

So Yelpers, here's a few comments in regard to each archetype you may fall into:

1.  If you see something missing from a review (incorrect hours, better bartenders than others, etc).  Add it. Otherwise, you're just a user. But be sure to at least rate the place, regardless of whether you post a review. 

2.  There are enough pics of food. Do a quick search and see if the food you want to post hasn't been posted. If it has, then don't post. If it hasn't, absolutely make sure that of the 400+ photos already posted that your's will actually contribute. 

3.  Thank you. I frequently want to know if the restaurant is dingy, has a good view, etc.  These pics are rare, but again, if it's been posted then don't post.
4.  I don't care.  Unless it sheds light on the ambiance.
5.  I really really don't care.
6.  Please make sure it's not the same as every other review.  If it is, just rate.  While you may think we all care about your opinion...we don't.
7.  Please keep posting.  I know your good, unique tips get drowned out by the crap, but I dream of a world where the crap disappears.
8.  See above.

Seriously, a recent city I was in had hundreds of pics and reviews per place and it was impossible to really see what the restaurant had.  Five stars, but worth maybe two.  The bathroom was the dirtiest place, and $$$.

Yelp is supposed to make things easier.  In the time it takes me to see all the freaking pictures of the same foods, and people, and crap reviews I could just go to the restaurant and learn for myself.  In my home city, that's fine, but when I'm traveling in countries where I probably won't visit again, I want to make sure I get the best.  Though I've started to just play restaurant-roulette lately and ignore Yelp. If any readers out there work for Yelp: a feature where you upload and have to list whether its food, ambiance, or other would be awesome.

Sincerely,
Phindustry

So much travel!!!

I hate traveling. And I've been on the road more than at home lately. Normally time on the plane and airports and getting driven around gives me chances to relax, blog, watch movies, etc.  But things have been so damn busy that all I've had time for is work.  With a multiple devices getting ready for FDA-level animal studies and human studies I have to be around to support a lot of MDs. I get to talk advantages while the VP of my company, sales, and other engineers watch. 

Because of this travel I've been missing home a ton. And realizing that I hate the following cities (don't be offended, to each their own...I love certain cities that people despise...and I never get mad at people when they rip on them): Los Angeles, Phoenix, Hope, Houston, and Marseille. And being away from home makes me even more mad about these other cities. And I haven't had time to blog about the frustrations!  My Möbius strip of frustration. 

One interesting thing: yesterday in the airport I sat next to a kid and his mom. They're looking at apartments in the city of a certain Ivy League school. This kid has a lot to his advantage: clearly rich parents that can afford to send him anywhere, years of right control over his life and extracurriculars and school. Part of me is kind of jealous since I got into a lot of these schools but couldn't afford to attend. And I can't help but wonder if a better pedigree would've made job hunting easier. But part of me realizes how the focus of this persons life has been school and school alone. I talked with him a little and there are few people more boring than him.  There must be a good balance of overbearing parent and having an interesting, funny, and balanced kid. Right? ....starting to feel the pressure of wanting to be a parent....

One last thing: I've been flying to tons of places and with tons of different airlines. I love Delta, Alaska, and Virgin airlines. Economy, first, and business classes are all awesome with these two airlines. Considering the prices aren't much different how come other airlines can't bring it like these airlines have?

My no-longer-replacement

I've written about the guy that my company said is to replace me here. At a recent conference he was showcasing some of our new stuff to a few select physicians (the kind of physicians that will keep their mouths shut about our up-and-coming products).  Some of these physicians know and like me, and it's always nice to chat with them. I would introduce my replacement and we would all talk about the medical devices on the horizon. My replacement (Mr. MBA), would chime in every once in a while when he was directed a question during our discussions. He was able to joke around and develop back-and-forth with the physicians, but as soon as anything technical came up (either about the diseases or the devices) he seemed like an idiot.  On top of this, it didn't seem like he cares about patients, which is part of why I despise this guy. The physicians relayed this to me and my superiors that were there. And they were not amused.

So the president of my company has notified me that Mr. MBA will be transferring to marketing since the physicians have notified management that Mr. MBA is not someone they want to work with. Party with, yes, but work with, never. This makes me feel good and bad. Good that he'll be gone (he was horrible for our group) and bad because the physicians don't think I'd be fun to party with. 

So the president, realizing that they made a bad decision, has put me on charge of the hiring committee. I have 2 weeks to make a short-list and 1 week to complete the first round of phone interviews. Then on-sites after that. They want to rush this so they can start training under me.  I've been pushing to get my #2 in charge of my group when I depart in a year but for some reason leadership is obsessed with finding someone external. I suspect it's because my #2 is a quiet kinda gal.  She isn't too aggressive (unlike me), though she's insanely motivated.  I'm planning on training her for the committee.  I suspect her reserved attitude is part of why leadership doesn't want her leading my group.

Patent or perish

Question from a reader:

I want to make the transition from industry to academia, as you are about to.  I haven't published in five years, how can I supplement my CV?  I'm assuming you were in the same boat as I, and most advice I find online is about making the transition to a professorship from a current academic position (post-doc/grad school).

I can't publish my industry work in journals.  The only data of mine that goes public is in FDA filings, so this isn't always the most novel stuff.  I'm somewhere between second-fifteenth author on a couple major publications and conference abstracts where physicians have put me on their work since it's my device they're using, but I didn't really think these counted.  And any data that I got on my own needs to stay within the company.  If competitors take my data and turn it into a successful product then shareholders will be quite upset.  The only way I've been able to publish my work (and keep my CV fresh) was to turn this novel data into medical devices.  This is where patents come in.

With patents, I come up with an idea based on something crazy I think of in the shower (hot, right?) or when I realize that we can turn our data into a device I write a paragraph and attach a couple pics then upload it to our lawyers.  Our lawyers do a prior art search (I can write about the patent process from my point-of-view if you'd like...) then come back to me with how we should write the patent.  Without going into all the details, eventually this results in a plaque with my name and USPTO number on it.

This is how I bridged my academic publications and my industry work.  You've heard of 'publish or perish', in most high-level medical device jobs it's 'patent or perish'.  We get awards, crazy money, and recognition for patents...even if we just submit it and it never turns into a patent...or just a utility patent.  If you're not patenting (thereby preventing the competition from pursuing your awesome idea) then you're falling behind.  Those in the highest levels of scientific leadership here hold tons of patents.

I don't know if this is actually the best thing to do, and some companies choose trade secrets over patents...in which case I don't know what you'd do (advice from other readers, please?).  But this is how I managed to convince academics that I've done something between grad school and my current position.  I'm not sure if this even mattered.  Maybe the pedigree matters more than any patents or pubs...

Phone+business

I never use my phone for work.  The only thing I have in it is Busy/Available synced to my work Outlook so I don't mess up my scheduling for tests/dinners/etc.  Also, since I travel for a lot of studies and corporate portfolio meetings I need to make sure I'm not in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The email on my phone is personal.  No one, but a select few from work, have my cell.  Not even the president of my company (my boss). I don't even do web searches on it for work.  Here's my open tabs:

Cracked
NPR News
AV Club
Food Network
Amazon for watches
Wikipedia for Frozen (Film)
The homepage for my new department<-this is kind of work related, I know....

Nothing related to my current work.  Something about work encroaching on my real life bums me out.  My entire group is like this.  There should be work-life balance; not work-life integration.  We all realize that if you don't have time to switch off then you'll burn out.  Some people can handle it, we just would rather be hiking or hanging out with friends.

But my soon-to-be-successor asked me today how to get his phone on the 'network'.  Then he was shocked and started passing judgement on us when we said we didn't know.  First, he said we were luddites!  Then he said it made us seem undedicated!  We work on the cutting edge of technology.  We have created complicated implants that can manipulate the body into doing what we want.  We've written software that Google would drool over. But because we don't want to constantly be connected to the office we're undedicated and dumb?  Our group of a few has impacted more lives than the thousands of other groups in our company combined even though we switch off at the end of the day.

I understand some people like to be connected, but don't insult us when we want to have separate lives from work.  There's a conference next week where he'll be showcasing some of our technology with me to some MDs.  I guarantee he can't answer the first question they ask him.  And when leadership hears this I'm certain he'll be moving groups.  Probably through a promotion...

Paper review

To stay in the academic loop, I'm a reviewer for two major journals in my field.  Been doing this since as soon as I graduated a few years back.  The past year I've reviewed about a dozen papers.

When I was in grad school, at first I thought everything was brand spanking new and going to change the world. That quickly changed as I realized that the research was cool and beneficial but 99.9% of it won't have any direct clinical impact. For the stuff that isn't basic science it's still so far cutting edge that the impact is unrealized. In industry, my work has changed the medical device world with tons of direct impact. Well, maybe not the world, but 10's of thousand's of peoples' lives. But it's not really brand spanking new besides a few things.  But I have to keep these things on the D.L. to keep other companies from utilizing it.  A lot of the ideas in the papers I've read have been thought of before. I've only read one article that I was amazed by, but it was written so poorly it nearly got completely rejected. I reviewed this paper this week and it reminded me about how awesome writing is. 

It's a great way to organize your thoughts. Throw some pictures and diagrams in a great document and you've just won yourself a multimillion dollar grant. Or look back at your old writing and discover how much better you've become. Or discover how you've changed as a person and scientist. But you don't necessarily need good writing for nonprofessional writing (ahem...this blog).

I love technical writing because it's the culmination of a lot of hard work. Through the planning, organizing, reporting, and discussing results, it's a lot of fun to pull everything together and let the world know what's going on. In order to do this, the language of most prevalence is English. While my English isn't the best I'm pretty decent at disseminating my work. This paper I'm reviewing is reminding me that if you want to do science you should either learn great English writing or work and publish in an area where you don't need good English. With this paper I'm reading it's just such a shame that the PI approved submitting this paper without reworking the writing and figures. I'm going to try and push this into major revs (so it's not killed) because it's great work. It's just very tough since the writing and figs are sub-par. As a big fan of writing, it just kills me to see work like this that's been approved by a PI. If this person tried to submit this crap to the FDA he would be heavily punished for it. The PI is doing the grad student that wrote this a disservice by not pushing the student to learn better writing skills. Some people will probably say, "students won't listen, are incapable, don't have time, etc".  To that, I was a mediocre writer when I entered grad school. My former advisor wouldn't let me submit anything for publication until he says it was acceptable. This improved my writing dramatically.  At first it took forever (months of constant rewrites) to submit pubs.  Holding off publication (and therefore graduation) is one of the few things PIs can use to control the students. And it's for good reason: learning to disseminate information is part of the scientific process, so this needs to be learned. 

Again, this is probably just my naïveté. But my advisor was just as busy as the rest and had time to teach me writing. I teach entry level scientists and engineers better writing. Why can't the corresponding author on this paper teach good writing? Or at least not let this garbage get submitted. 

#InnovationDeficit

I've always wanted to help become a bridge between industry and academia. I think this is part of why departments took kindly to me while looking for an academic post. I think so, but I still don't know how the faculty hiring process works. This involves a few different approaches (I'm omitting some things but these are the biggest):

1. Funding acacdemic labs to do basic science I don't have time for

2. Hiring interns from schools

3. Giving talks at academic conferences and universities

4. Convincing my company to sponsor academic conferences and different university events and students

5. Working directly with local schools (K-12 and universities) and my company to show the youths that STEMs are fun, lucrative, necessary, and useful.

The last one involves me traveling to schools, taking part in tours, outreach with FIRST, SWE, ASME, MAES, SASE, and BMES (e.g., random acronyms) events, etc.  I try my hardest to get people into STEMs.  We need more of us of any race, religion, and creed.  The problem with this is we can convince more people to want to join, but without the funds to pay for college and have jobs for them, my recruiting efforts are useless.

While I wasn't born in the USA, I bleed the stars and stripes.  I love this country, which is part of why I recruit so heavily for STEMs.  To prevent our country from falling behind we have to have innovation.  And we need people with advanced knowledge to spur this on.  And to have innovation, we must have the funds to provide the best possible education, paying for tuition, fees, and stipends; especially for those who can't pay on their own.  We need funds to pay for more (and accountable) professors (and K-12 teachers) for the influx of students.  We need the funds to create the technologies that turn into the next generation of businesses to fund many a STEMer to come.  In industry, I fund a lot of academic research, but it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what the NIH/NSF/DoD give out.  But to handle the influx of STEMers we need to keep innovation going on the homefront. We need more investment.  This is something I've always preached.

This bring me to this website: http://www.innovationdeficit.org

When I saw this today, I saw statistics that I've always seen, but this is a very nice way to present them.  There has been all kinds of talk about funding being so bleak right now from federal agencies.  I have heard it in regard mainly to grant-funding.  But there's so much more to the lack of funding occurring in the academic environment. There needs to be more professors to handl the influx of students (and grants for them), we need the best labs and classrooms for them. And events to get them pumped about the fields.  As a country we need to start thinking about this and understanding our priorities.  Or companies need to start investing in our future since these students will be the eventual STEMers these companies need.  There needs to be an interaction between industry and the government.  Discussions about how they can work together: the government spending in a way to protect our intellectual future, with industry willing to shoulder some of the burden.

#InnovationDeficit

Sponsoring the children

I donate to a scholarship where I can sponsor the students I specifically pick (all applications are from the same university). It costs me around $10k/student/year (I sponsor two) and mainly this provides a partial stipend, but the schools appreciate the private money so much the university fills in the rest if the stipend and covers tuition/fees/etc. I had this when I was in grad school so it's only right that I give back.  If the student has a fellowship already then this money goes on top of that.  Pretty awesome.  I pick my students based on what kind of research they do and then their personal/professional essays.  I've met some great people this way.  There's a big ceremony where the students get their awards and get to meet their sponsors.  It's a lot of fun to take part in as a student, and just as fun as a sponsor.

I really enjoy this because I get to see some of the state-of-the-art, talk with interesting people that really care about research, and get a couple nice dinners.  At the most recent dinner I started to realize that I may not be able to take part as much for a couple reasons next year.  First, I'll have less disposable income.  Second, I'm concerned about the conflict-of-interest.  Is funding a different PI's student at a competing university ethical?  I guess I could reach out to my new school's local chapter of this scholarship and fund a student, but what if I like one of my own student's research the most.  If I don't select the one I want to fund I fear it's wrong, and if I do select my own, then I'm using personal money to fund one of my "employees".  But giving to another university when my new place could use the money presents me with a dilemma.

Regardless, I will take part, if nothing else but volunteering with the organization.  I really enjoyed my experience with this scholarship, and I don't want to give up sponsoring students.  Should I?

Requesting vacation time

When I took my industry job I ended up with 2.5 weeks of vacation time in my first year. Coming from grad school this was actually kind of low so I ended up using every second. After the first year I was promoted to a pay grade where we're required to have 4 allocated weeks regardless of time with the company (typically promotions here give 2 days/year of service) with 0.5 weeks added per year. I use about 3 weeks when you factor in the holidays, occasional Fridays off, miscellaneous time for when family or friends are in town, half days, etc.  The amount of time off doesn't bother me since my schedule prevents me from taking more than that, my problem with vacation time is that I have to request it, get approved, and make sure that I'm not taking too much time off in the eyes of the higher-ups.  I get even more judgment passed on me because I have a bustling out-of-work life with plenty of friends and hobbies. The higher-ups work all the time. So when I'm taking long weekends and extra vacation time beyond the 1 week the higher-ups allocate to themselves I get looks of disappointment. I felt guilty at first but now I don't. While I love my work, I love my personal life more. 

But I still hate getting the looks of disappointment/anger every time I put on vacation time. That is one thing I'm really looking forward to about academia. If I need to take off for something personal or just need some time off to decompress, or help out family or friends. I don't have to formally request anything.  It also opens me up for longer lunches.  So long as I make meetings and classes I get relative freedom. Sure, there will still be judgment and lots of work to make up for, but I won't have to login to the vacation website and request a set number of hours while keeping track of what I have left. There's a quote I've heard before: "academia is great; you can work 80 hours a week whenever you want."  I'm fine with long hours, I just want to work and take time off without requesting it. Something about that website reminds me of how owned I am. And NO PERSON SHALL OWN ME! :)

Life's been nuts!

I saw my old advisor recently and he was very excited about the summer: two conferences, no teaching, all the students spending most of their time on the lab, etc. He said he gets more free time for whatever he wants. I would love that. 

My schedule has been absolutely crazy as of late. I try to keep a few short term goals for every couple months. My current goals include finishing four projects, and trying these out in animals by June 1.  We're on track, but we still have to do bench testing. So I've been working with my techs to get these done so I can try these out ex vivo. This is coupled with some big corporate meetings that are taking a lot of my time. But more importantly, I'm also prepping for conference travels. These are conferences to start building my academic reputation. I can't present work, but I can show up as an industry representative, take professors out for dinner and drinks on the corporate card (their students will have to come to make it a recruiting expense...otherwise it's just stealing money), and talk starting up my own lab. I want to get this kind of research out of the way so as soon as I get there I can start getting equipment. My plan is to go out there a year from now to start recruiting students and finding a house. 

So I've been doing a lot of research at home, started on grants, and even started spewing out exactly the equipment I want to buy. This has been in my off-time, which there isn't much because of these devices I want to get out before I close-up-shop. I also want to really show leadership how I got stuff done, and that they would be stupid not to fund my academic lab. 

So during the day I'm doing R&D, planning studies, traveling, and reporting results. At night I write, read, and plan for my future life (this is in addition to donning a cape a mask for all the crime fighting at night).  I know that the less I plan for now, the more hectic life will be when I'm trying I find a house and set up my lab come next summer.  Too darn busy. 

So while my advisor is relaxing in the tower, I'm preparing to visit the tower while also working in the fields. Part of me wants to just delay all the academic stuff until I start, but I don't want to screw over future-Phindustry. 

This is all packed on top of several social obligations that have arisen recently (weddings, dinners, game-nights, etc). I rely heavily on friends for support. And so I spread myself thinner to ensure friends (and spouse) don't feel ignored. Honestly, these are the only people I care about disappointing. And so I type these blog entries when I'm in public and it's too noisy to get work done. It's the only 'alone' time I have to decompress from obligations.  I don't know how the hyper busy people manage their lives. Do they let something slide?  

My boss is technically a senior citizen and never been married. And I never hear him talking about friends. My fear is that I'll eventually slip into his mindset and be devoid of the things I find most fun in life because I'm too focused on ensuring the career is taken care of. I don't have kids but I liken it to having multiple kids. If you spend too much time on one, the others will fall behind on parental influence. I want a well-rounded family but I find that 24 hours in a day just isn't enough right now. 

Dancing for the executives

Every year, throughout my company and its sister companies, we have to present a bunch of new technologies to the executives.  Today was that day.  This is a way to let management know what's in the pipeline.  If we present technology that they like, we get to keep our budget. If we present technology they hate, we can all be confident people will be getting fired. However, if we present something absolutely amazing they will give us an extra $15 million (this happened last year). So tensions have been high lately. People have been doing everything they can to show off as many ground-breaking things as possible. Internal groups compete like we're from different companies. It's absolutely insane, and I despise it.

I hate it because I feel like such a pawn. I put on my tap shoes and have to dance for a bunch of higher-ups that think of me as just another chess piece they can replace. I've never felt so unappreciated. And I hate talking sales all day, when we SHOULD be making these products to save lives. This week we worked 2x our usual hours to get ready for the visit. We tested every last project, and wowed the executives. 

We got a crazy amount of money for two projects specifically and they want these in people by December. Considering we haven't done a single animal study we're a little on-edge. Except me. I don't feel anything. I feel like a kid that just worked overtime for my parents' praise, got it, but realized that life will go on and I can be happy without it. I'm glad we got the money since it will go a long ways to save lives. I just hate having to do this show every year. I feel like I'm whoring my science out to a bunch of rich businessmen...

Added to this are the talks by the executives. I was the representative from my division for a meeting attended by a bunch of board members and presidents of sister companies, and I heard "forward-thinking", "synergize", "vertical integration", and "value added" enough times to drive someone mad. I went nuts.  These same people came by to look at my group's new technology and they kept asking "what's the market?" and "what kind of sales would you expect?".  These are different ways of asking "what's the disease target?" and "how many lives will this save?".  The difference is that business-types think of sales numbers. This is something I can't wait to get away from. In my bio I say I'm a PhD in the medical device field trying to cleanse the soul and get into academia. This is the soul-cleansing I'm talking about.  I understand that we always have to fight for more money, but I hate being trotted in front of the executives like I'm at Westminster.

On the plus side, my boss took my group out for one hell of a nice dinner. 

My replacement

A year into my job out of grad school I proposed the idea for the creation of my group. It was a new idea for research and medical device development that has proved to be very successful for the company and for patients. We started off in leftover lab space with a dedicated, smart, but inexperienced team (I was the oldest...and only a year out of grad school...). We slowly developed into the best group in the company and a little over a year ago started working in a custom-built lab that we designed down to the border on the windows. It has all the equipment I wanted, with the exact layout I thought would be most condusive to doing great research. I love it. And I love my team.  It's incredibly fun; a start-up feel with big company name and dollars.  And the concept has worked out so well that a year ago I was made the international representative for this kind of group.  Every division across the world now has a group similar to mine.

When I accepted my academic job I started to talk to management about cultivating my right hand person to take my position. They've been with the group since the beginning and is only second to me in patents/year in the company. Leadership agreed this was the best move. 

But today I was given some troubling news. Leadership has found someone they want to join my group and shadow me to pick up everything they can in the one+ year before I leave. This person has a very good track record as a leader in other biomedical companies, but doesn't know much about applications.  Mr. MBA, as I've been calling him. Also, we've all talked with this person and our personalities don't match at all. Our group dynamic is one of the most important things about our team, and I'm pissed that leadership wants to mess with this dynamic.  He tells very different types of jokes, and comes in thinking he knows everything.  He worked in the old-world way of biomedical development, and very different from how my group does R&D; focused on money not lives.  And we can all tell that he's here to move up the ladder.  I would have never left my group if not for academia.  Even if they offered me the CEO position.  I love my group too much, and he's definitely here to leave.  Honestly, I think leadership put him here to quickly get experience in leading the best team in the company before moving up the ladder with that 'experience'.  There's no way this is going to stop me from leaving, but I'm suddenly fearing that the group will go downhill when I leave. And my group has been responsible for the vast majority of the company's recent success. I've got nothing to lose so I'll DEFINITELY be voicing my opinion.  My #2 isn't upset they're getting pushed back, and they definitely won't leave because the group is too important to them, too.  The rest of the team is sticking around, too.  But they definitely aren't happy about this.

I already hated business-types. I'm about to hate them more. 

My beef with patents

In a lot of biomedical companies, you are judged by the number of patents you hold. So we seek out every type of patent we can. I've been asked to file three patents today that I know will never be worked on by my company because we already have a ton of products in our pipeline. We're taking up the patent in order to prevent our competition from working on it. Or they can work on it, and we'll license the patent to them. But all we're doing is making a couple crappy sketches and filing. No actual R&D work. However, if you file lots of patents you get pats on the back, promotions, and $2000 per patent.

Let's say this product could have saved 100,000 lives. Now it won't, because no one can work on it, and we're not planning on developing it. This is contrary to journal publishing. We can steal, build-upon, and refocus from one another, but ultimately, nothing useful happens with the data...just like with some of these patents (by the way, my legal department says this isn't patent trolling, even though I think it is). So which is worse?

I'd say patents for a few reasons. First, in publications, nothing's happening with it (the time spent on my medical device patents will save more lives in a year than all my publications combined for the rest of the timespan of humankind), but at least you're letting anyone use it, including a company if they want to. A patent is locking up the idea. Second, patents don't contribute anything. They only take away. Patents are often written as broad as possible and very little engineering and science go into them. So no one can learn too much from them. This is on contrast to most manuscripts, where they are filled with all sorts of intellectual awesomeness that other researchers can build on. In addition, most of the claims are substantiated by data.  So someone else could potentially take the broad idea to market and save lives, but they can't without paying crazy license fees for a patent the issued company isn't using.  Patents have data, but it's not as scrutinized as most academic papers.  The change that the USPTO has made where you don't have to prove due-diligence and the patent is awarded to first-to-file is only going to make things worse (I can explain more on the patent cycle and medical device IP if any of you want to read a post on it).

Ultimately, I despise locking up an idea that could save lives if we don't intend on utilizing it. It's a defensive move that only helps shareholders. We could use these defensive patents as offensive weapons against the competition and the diseases. But ultimately, they sit back with their pitch and arrows just preventing anyone else from reaching good. 

Growth versus growth

I was in a meeting where the CEO was giving a talk about my particular division's growth relative to the rest of the company. When the CEO comes in, it's a big deal. He wears his $50,000 suit and leads one of the largest medical device companies in the world, and he's a ruthless businessman. He showed a plot like the one I have here (the left one), and a junior engineer from a different internal group than mine asked, "How many saved lives is that?".  He had no clue. Luckily, the president of my division knew that approximate figure. The CEO looked peeved that he was asked that.

I'd say ~90% of the people in my field I've talked to, and 100% of those in my group, got into this business to help people. The CEO was definitely in the 10%.  I have given presentations talking about growth and potential markets and I never once have put a dollar figure in because I only care about the people.  That's the only thing I talk about when interviewing people because it's the most important thing.  The only dollar figure I care about at all is the cost of my devices. If the device isn't cheap enough, even given 99% efficacy, no one will be able to afford it to cure their ailments. 

I understand that someone has to talk numbers, because without my $millions/year operating budget I wouldn't be saving ANY lives (well....maybe a few). But we should be happy that we're beating out our competition for lives saved, not that we made more money, but because we know our products are superior and our growth means even more patients saved by our products.  I understand money will also be a part of my academic future (I'm only kind of naive), but there's still the greater good...right?