Using Social Media to Enhance Your Scientific Training and Reducing Social Isolation
During my PhD I was in a very social environment and made lifelong friends, it was a collaborative environment to work in. After I started my postdoctorate (posdoc), things were a lot different. I was in a different country and didn’t speak the language. Unfortunately, the language in the lab was not English. Making friends in the department was very difficult, so I looked to outside sources, including social media (e.g. MeetUp) and I met some great people. An added bonus was that these people were not scientists, so they did not understand the culture and pressure of academic research. It was really nice to get that mental break and travel, try different restaurants, and attend festivals. The same thing continued during my second postdoc position, where I was back in my home country, so I could speak the language. During both my postdoc positions, the feeling of isolation was tough, especially when dealing with an uncertain future. However, I tried to build a social network, one way I accomplished it was through social media.
Sometimes social media gets a bad rap, but I think it can also be used for good. I think the current situation (COVID-19) is a good example, when social distancing is increasing in prevalence. During scientific training (e.g. PhD or postdoctorate) social isolation can also occur, I experienced it. I think social media can provide me a lot of opportunities to not feel so isolated. For me, social media helped me learn about new opportunities (e.g. funding, and open lab positions), meet other scientists to network. I think I tried most new platforms that are available (e.g. ResearchGate, Government of Canada Collab, Academics.edu), although TikTok is still foreign to me, so I have not tried them all. Some of these sites worked out and others did not. I was surprised at how much academic support I found on Twitter. One of the connections I made resulted in me publishing a blog about my research and then an entire book! Through my network on Twitter I have learned that some of my scientist role models also face rejection!
I think building a network is very important in academic research, as I outlined in a previous blog post. A support system is needed when things are going well and also when they are going not so well. I was reminded of the importance of a network earlier this week when I was listening to a podcast from the Professor Is In. Since 2016, the Professor Is In have been a part of my community as I tune into weekly sessions with Dr. Karen Kelsky and Kel Weinhold.
Academia is hard, we fail a lot, and that’s OK. Having people, you can talk and work through things is so important, as I have come to realize. If you are in academic research or science, I would encourage you to build a network. And in today’s reality, I think this can be done both in person and electronically.
Stay safe and healthy!
Originally published on ecrLife (11/04/2019) https://ecrlife.org/bullying-in-academia-tales-from victims-and-a-call-to-action/
Nafisa M. Jadavji, Emily Furlong, Pawel Grzechnik, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Sarah Hainer, Juniper Kiss, Renuka Kudva, Samantha Seah, Huanan Shi
Workplace bullying--repetitive abusive, threatening, humiliating and intimidating behaviour--is on the rise globally. And matters are worse in academia. In the UK, for example, up to 42% of academics report being bullied in the workplace. The national average by contrast ranges from just 10-20%.
Why do bullies bully? According to researchers from Brock University in Canada the goals of bullying come from internal motivations and desires, which can be conscious or not. Bullying takes many forms: the malicious mistreatment of someone including persistent criticism, inaccurate accusations, exclusion and ostracism, public humiliation, the spreading of rumors, setting people up to fail, or overloading someone with work. Bullying is different from accidental or reactive aggression, since it is goal-directed meaning that the purpose is to harm someone when there is a power imbalance.
While anyone is at risk of being bullied in academia, research has found that some of us are more vulnerable compared to others. For example, early career researchers (ECRs), including trainees (e.g. graduate students, postdocs), minority groups, adjunct professors, research associates, and untenured professors are at a higher risk to experience bullying. Employees with more years in a job report feeling less bullied than others subordinate to them, meaning that junior members of a research group or Faculty may be at greater risk of bullying.
An explanation for why particular groups are more vulnerable to bullying than others lies in the fact that the existence of power differentials are a major contributing factor to bullying in academia. For example, men and supervisors of large successful research groups are observed to perpetrate bullying behavior more often than women and other minorities, though exceptions do exist. Other research has shown that the pressure associated with publishing, getting research funding, and lack of leadership and people management training in science may also contribute to bullying.
In some cases, principal investigators (PI) can also experience bullying from students, peers, or administrators. Take the example of one PI who was bullied by an administrator for being too ambitious, making her overly conscious of her success. When she moved to another institution, she did not make collaborations with other researchers in different departments, as she had previously, because she did not want to appear to be too ambitious. This is also an example of the long-term impact bullying can have on future work.
To highlight that bullying can take different forms and occur at all career stages, we include here four anonymous testimonials from victims of academic bullying in the life sciences:
International Female PhD Student
I got pregnant during my PhD and I was told it was not an issue. However, during the course of my pregnancy, I was removed from my projects and left out of discussions about the work that needed to be done. When I asked for an explanation, I was told that science could not wait for me while I was pregnant, even though I was eager to work, and the law permitted me to do so. After my child was born, I was made to return to work after just three weeks, while legally I was permitted up to a year off work.
In the lab, I was given bits and pieces of others’ projects and not permitted to work on my own project. I worked without complaining but this took a toll on my emotional health with time. It was after my then-toddler son broke his arm that everything got worse. I needed to take a week off for his hospital stay, but my supervisor called me to his office and told me that I was a useless researcher and that I didn’t belong in science, and then he fired me. I knew it was illegal for him to do so, but I didn’t want to fight him because I was dependent on him to finish my PhD. I met with him after a week and he told me that I could work, but without pay, to make up for the duration of my pregnancy when I was paid. I did as I was told for the next six months, and somehow with the support of my husband and my best friend, was able to graduate and leave. I now have a permanent faculty position at a university in my home country, but my PhD broke me.
Male Graduate Student Completing His Graduate Studies in His Home Country
After I joined the lab, my supervisors told me that they needed to re-apply for funding, and that they were relying on my results for the application. Unfortunately, they wanted to employ a method that they were unfamiliar with, and as a beginner, I had very limited resources. I managed to get help from someone at another department and it took me three months to set up the method in the lab, but it turned out to be unsuitable for our project. My supervisors were unhappy about this and started blaming me for not smart enough to get the results they expected. I was constantly told that things didn’t work in my hands, and that they would need to decide whether to prolong my contract. This threat was dangled in front of me every few months, and it scared me. I contemplated leaving the lab and moving on, but my supervisors told me that it would look bad for them and offered me another project instead. Things didn’t improve after this either: my project worked fine, but my supervisors continued threatening to terminate my contract.
I decided to graduate after three and a half years of enduring this, but my supervisors then threatened to block me from finishing. I was gas lighted throughout my Master’s and never understood what they really wanted. Why did they offer me a position if I wasn’t good enough? I decided to switch fields after my PhD and am much happier now.
Female Research Associate in Home Country
Within 3-weeks of starting a new research associate position, I was asked to lead the writing of a grant. The research focus of the group was beyond my experience, and I had little exposure to the research environment of the group. The PI had not established the big picture of the grant; it was left up to me. Furthermore, he provided little to no guidance with writing the grant (e.g. his expectations, what had previously been done, etc.). It was a very overwhelming experience.
When I sent out a draft of the grant, I was pulled into a private meeting with the PI and the co-PI, who both told me that my work was crap and that since I was the highest paid member of the group I should have been producing amazing work. They said that all my responsibilities would be given to someone else in the group. I was given menial tasks like uploading files on the One Drive for several months. Most days, I would not have enough work to do or struggle with the work I was required to do because there was not enough guidance. I have been doing research for 16 years but had never been so bored as I was in this position. A few months later, I was asked to do a few more projects, but again was told my work was not good. The culture in the research group was unforgiving and exclusive.
Outside of the job, through my hard work and determination, I obtained another position and was able to leave. When I sent in my resignation, I was even intimidated to leave earlier than I planned because it would cost them less. I stood my ground and left when I planned to. This job increased my imposter syndrome by a hundred-fold. I was convinced that I was the problem and the dumb one. When I told my husband about the interactions with the PI, he would comment on how ridiculous the situation was. When I was in this situation, it was too hard to see how crappy it was. It’s been about a month since I left, and I feel so much better. I have worked hard to combat my imposter syndrome, and this summer I will begin a tenure track position in a STEM field. In 2019, this is so rare, so I celebrate that!
International Male Postdoc
I work as a postdoctoral researcher and my supervisor routinely tells us whom we can talk to, eat our lunch or take coffee breaks with. I recently started collaborating on a project with another postdoctoral researcher in the department but only after discussing it with my supervisor and gaining his approval.
We worked on the project part-time for a few months. I approached my supervisor after we had some interesting results, and he suddenly decided that I needed to stop working on it despite the fact that it looked promising. He informed me that he was shocked that I was working on it in the first place and that he didn’t like me to do things behind his back. He also accused me of leaving him out of my activities in the lab. I was also tasked with informing my collaborator, who was livid that we needed to end the project abruptly. However, he understood and let it go, even though it was unfair for him too. My supervisor then blamed my collaborator for inciting me into doing the project in the first place and threatened him too. I do whatever my supervisor asks of me, but I am not sure if that’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately, I feel as though I have no choice since he pays me.
The impacts of bullying are manifold. Studies have reported a long-term health effects in bullying victims, such as anxiety, sleep disorders, chronic fatigue, anger, depression, destabilization of identity, aggression, low self-esteem, loss of confidence, and other health problems. Bullying also has an impact on the institutions where the victims work, including negative work environments, absenteeism, lower engagement, higher turnover, and reduced performance. The impact of bullying is far reaching, policies need to be put into place to tackle the negative impact.
Recognizing what bullying looks like is just the first step towards tackling it. Many institutions have opted to use a top-down approach to tackle the problem through policies to report bullying via the human resource office or sometimes an ombudsman. Other institutions may not have specific policies to deal with bullying and often victims are not made aware of existing avenues of recourse. Funding agencies may also choose to get involved, for example after being accused of bullying by her colleagues in 2018 Professor Nazneem Rahman lost 3.5 million GBP in funding from the Wellcome Trust in the UK. In addition to what is currently being done at research institutions and funding agencies, legislation should be put into place by the government to ensure that victims are heard and that there are consequences for the perpetrators.
Apart from institutional actions, bottom-up approaches are also available, such as overcoming the bystander effect. The bystander effect is when individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. Research since the 60s has shown that the presence of other people will inhibit one’s own intention to help and overcoming this effect could be an effective way to mitigate bullying in academia.
A study of whistleblowers found that 71% of employees tend not to directly report wrongdoing as the perceived personal cost is higher than the perceived reward. People tend to feel that personal costs may be higher if reporting happens through face-to-face meetings with authorities. Hence, anonymous reporting channels are needed.
Bullying is an entrenched problem in academia, supported by workplaces with power differentials. Combating bullying is a challenging task at multiple levels and over the next year a group of us eLife Community Ambassadors will embark on an initiative to shine a light on the problem, investigate its root causes and eventually formulate a set of universal measures to tackle bullying in the workplace and give relief to its victims. Stay tuned for more on our progress!
Postdoctoral (postdoctorate) training is a period of time when you can focus on your research and carve out your niche, so that you can begin to make a name for yourself in your given field. This training period can be challenging, so building a network is essential. An African proverb says that it takes a village to raise a child, and I think the same can be applied to becoming a successful scientist.
If you are in STEM, your postdoctoral training will likely be completed in a lab or team environment. Supervisors are essential for support on big picture research goals, writing grants, and manuscripts, as well as with providing guidance in terms of attending scientific meetings, and forming collaborations. During postdoctoral training it is great to get involved in grant writing, specially, operating grants, being listed as a co-applicant adds to your CV.
Other lab members like research assistants, research associates, other postdocs can be a great resource for technical and day to day help, as well as sounding boards for experiments or when you are putting data together for presentations/papers. Mentoring undergraduate and graduate students in the lab is a lot of work, but you learn a lot about yourself and it’s also a good time to figure your personal mentorship style. Well trained students can support you with data collection. For example, a graduate student that I co-supervised helped me write a review article, she sorted through lots of data and was able to respond to the reviewer’s comments, it made the writing process a bit easier.
During my postdoctoral training I found it very useful to seek support outside of my lab, I built a network. I did this through networking at scientific meetings and training courses. For example, I was at a meeting in Denmark in 2017 and met a big name in my field. After the meeting I followed up with an e-mail and was then invited to speak at a seminar at his institution. Currently we are collaborating on a book project, as well as we have submitted two proposals for symposia at scientific meetings.
I have also attended a few training courses during my postdoctoral training, which also helped me meet people and make connections. If you can’t attend meetings or courses, I would recommend trying to work with people in similar areas, send out e-mails expressing your interest and ask about presenting your research findings at seminar series. Don’t be shy. Form collaborations with others, share your expertise, being open to opportunities can be very beneficial.
I think another way of building your network is through your personal connections, for example friends you make in graduate school and during your postdoctoral training might make great collaborations. I have a current collaboration combining my area of expertise with a cancer researcher (not my area of expertise), this collaboration came about through a friend I made in graduate school.
In the last 4 years I started to get more involved with social media, through Twitter and writing blog posts. At points during my postdoctoral training I felt isolated and I think that having a network and community online helped with managing the loneliness, depression, and anxiety that comes with being a postdoc on the job market in STEM. Through Twitter I learned about Future PI Slack. By joining this community, I got feedback on my job applications, ideas for publishing my research, and I also offered any advice I had.
I think the benefits of having a network both in your lab and outside is much needed for all postdocs or postdocs wanting a career in academia. Being a postdoc in the 21st century is hard and requires lots of resilience. It is important to note that not everyone you meet will be a part of your network, I have tried to be selective, but I still have been let down. But the benefits outweigh the costs. I have connected with each person differently in my network, which has enriched my training and I think my success in my chosen career path.
Last summer (2018), I read this tweet from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex and it made me realize I was in the midst of my own hustle! Landing a STEM tenure-track position in 2019 is a feat! Less than 20% of PhDs in STEM end up in a faculty position1. This statistic is a result of several factors, one of which includes overcoming a high number of rejections. I was recently on the academic job market and I have decided to write about my experiences.
I completed my PhD in 2012 at McGill University in Canada, afterwards I packed my bags to start a postdoc in Berlin, Germany and then returned to Canada 2 years later. My entire postdoc training lasted 6 years. During my postdoc I published 34 peer reviewed studies (average impact factor of 3.84), 2 book chapters, and 31 abstracts. I obtained $324,000 CDN (~$255,000 USD) in research funding, supervised 26 students in the lab, taught 15 courses, and volunteered my time to service activities (e.g. peer reviews, board membership, etc.). In addition to my research, teaching, and service activities, I applied for 427 faculty positions. From those applications, I had 17 online/telephone interviews and 10 on-campus visits. In 2018, I was offered a tenure track position.
It’s been a long journey to get here. When I started my postdoctorate, I didn’t think it would be this difficult, I was very naïve. During my job searching years I read lots of articles, books, and blog posts about different aspects of the process. One thing that resonated with me at the time was that the academic job search is a hard process, there is a lot of rejection, and everyone has their own path. For most job applications I submitted, I did not hear anything. When I made it to the interview process, I always made a point of asking for feedback if I wasn’t selected for the position. Feedback I was given included being told that I didn’t act like PI, didn’t have high impact papers, that I don’t smile enough, or my requests for feedback were ignored. Setting up an on-campus interview was sometimes difficult, one school contacted me for an interview, and they proposed only one date. The chair of the committee yelled at me on the phone because I could not make it due to personal conflicts. When I didn’t hear back from that school, I was relieved. Some schools I interviewed at ended up hiring other Assistant or Associate Professors, which was really difficult to digest, since there was no way I could compete with some that had research funds and a faculty appointment. It was hard to hear some of negative comments or nothing at all, but reflecting back on them, I knew that those were places I did not want to be.
A lot of preparation goes into the faculty job applications and process, I will outline what I found most useful for each step. Most faculty applications require a cover letter, CV, research proposal, and teaching statement. Schools in the US also require a diversity statement, this is not common in Canada (yet). My biggest advice for writing job documents, is to get examples and after you have written a draft, get feedback from anyone who will read your documents. Also, start drafting these documents early! Have a set of materials that you can revise for each application, do not re-write any of these documents from scratch, this will take hours. Of course, tailor each application for each position. When I first started writing my job documents, I looked for examples on the internet and then framed my documents to those. I was constantly revising them. Then in 2016 I took a writing course, where I discovered the Professor Is In. I read her book and began using the guidelines she provided. The main message I got from her was to stick to the facts and remove any emotion from your applications. You want to show the search committee you are going to get funding, mentor/teach students, get tenure, and not cause issues. In Spring 2018 I had 5 interviews and no offers; I spent the summer re-writing all my job documents in preparation for the fall 2018. Interestingly enough I was hired at a University where I used ‘older’ job documents, it’s funny how things work out.
References letters are a big component of the job application, since 2014 I have seen an increase in the number of jobs that require you to submit references with your application and not when you have been shortlisted. This sucks a lot! References start saying no after you ask them for 10th time, or they just don’t respond to requests. Through FuturePI Slack, I discovered that there are programs like Interfolio where references can upload general letters that can then unanimously be sent to different schools. I think the one downfall of this service is that the letters might not be as tailored, but at least you’ll have a complete application. When I was applying for jobs, I also wrote a lot of my own reference letters, which is hard, but with practice I learned to outline my strongest points, and also used templates from the Professor Is In.
More and more schools are doing online interviews prior to inviting candidates for on-campus interviews. For both online and on campus interviews, preparation is key. For the online interview having text prepared is my best advice. Prepare answers to questions like, why do you want the job? What courses do you plan to teach and develop? What is your research program? What will be the experiments you will do within the first year of starting your lab? After you have these questions generated, practice your answers over and over again. Also, generate a list of question you can ask the committee. An important lesson I learned during the interview process was that the questions you ask need to show your interest in the job. So, stick to questions like what support do new faculty at the University of X have for grant writing? What is the teaching load like?
Getting an on-campus interview, is a huge achievement. Celebrate it and then get to work, on preparing for it! There are a lot of resources out there, again, I highly recommend the Professor is in. A few points I think are really important, try to relax during the interview, it’s ok to be nervous and it takes some practice to relax, but it is important. Practice your research talk over and over again, if you can add a joke or two, to lighten the mood. I am an informal person, so I found making a joke at the end of my talks by thanking my research subject (aka the mice) always lightens the mood. At dinners ask about the area, good schools (if you have kids), and what social things there are to do in the area. Talk to your interviewers as colleagues. Expect to have a ton of one on one meetings with other faculty members. Be ready to repeat yourself a lot, but remember it is OK. For each meeting with a faculty member prepare a potential collaboration or some way you can help the faculty you are meeting with. Be ready to ask about their research and be excited about it! Be kind to administrative assistants, who are arranging the trip for you. Respond to their e-mails promptly and thank them. Keep in mind you are interviewing the institution as well. There are these so called ‘illegal questions’ (e.g. Will your spouse move with you? Are you pregnant or planning to get pregnant?). They should not be asked, but they will be asked. I think in all 10 on-campus interviews that I had, someone asked me at least one. My strategy was to answer them, quickly and succinctly, then get back to talking about my science, teaching, or service contributions.
If you are on the job market or going to be, know this lots of people will offer your advice with good intentions in mind. Some advice will be useful, and others might not be. Seek advice, gather information, but keep in mind your path on the academic job market will be unique. Not all the advice you receive will be applicable to your situation, including this blog, so be selective. Again, I recommend the Professor Is In for every step of your academic training and career development. If you do plan to pursue an academic job, I would recommend joining the Future PI Slack group, I found this group useful for bouncing off ideas, sharing my experiences, getting feedback on my job documents, reading about other experiences, and getting support during the application and interview process. Like I mentioned earlier, I read a lot of articles about the job search process. I found these stories and anecdotes to be beneficial during a very stressful period, so I am adding mine to the universe in hope that it will help someone out there. May the force be with you!
1. Jadavji NM, Adi M, Corkery T, Inoue J, Van Benthem K. The 2016 Canadian National Postdoctoral Survey Report. 2016.
This post was written for the Journal of Young Investigators, available here.
Presenting data can be a challenge, in terms of public speaking. I struggled with it when I started my scientific training and still do, but I have been doing it consistently 16 years. It does get easier, I still get nervous, but it is manageable.
How to Choose a Postdoc Lab
This blog post was written for the Graduate Women in Science in June 2018!
In the biomedical sciences, postdoctoral training is an opportunity for a young scientist to gain more research experience. Traditionally, this has been viewed as a short period of training. However, recent data shows that postdoc fellowships are lasting longer than before, and most young scientists are completing more than one postdoc in order to be competitive for an independent position (e.g. tenure track or assistant professor positions).
My name is Nafisa Jadavji and I am neuroscientist studying how nutrition impacts brain function. I am in my sixth year of postdoctoral training. I am a Canadian, and after completing my PhD in 2012 at McGill University, I moved to Berlin in Germany for my first postdoctoral fellowship at the Charité Medical University. In 2015, I moved back to Canada to start my second postdoc where I have been working since. The aim of this article is to share my experience as a postdoc and what I think are some important points when considering a postdoc position and training.
I knew postdoctoral training was what I wanted to do after my finishing my PhD, I absolutely love doing research. However, this is not the case for everyone, and that is totally OK - every person has a different path. I realized early in my graduate training that a large part of research is self-motivated. If you don’t like what you are doing than it will be hard to do it every day. I knew for my postdoc, I wanted to work on projects that I was passionate about. I also really liked working independently, so freedom to pursue the questions I wanted was important to me.
I think finding something that you are passionate about during your postdoctoral training is vital. Postdoc training requires a lot of independent work and self-motivation, and if you are working on something you don’t like it will be hard to keep things moving forward. Science is hard; experiments fail more times than they work. Papers are rejected more than they are accepted. The same goes for grants. Being passionate about what you want to study is important. Also, surrounding yourself with people that are supportive is essential. This includes picking a research group.
During my search for a postdoc lab, I knew the area of research I wanted to focus on. So, I hit the literature and read a lot. I found a few groups whose research focus interested me. I then started to contact them. My contact email included a summary of my PhD work (novel findings and expertise in techniques), as well as why I was specifically interested in the research group. I also mentioned my motivation to apply for funding and attached my PhD transcripts as well as an extensive CV to the email. I then tried to set up in person visits to the labs where there was a mutual interest expressed. I knew for my postdoc I wanted to move to Europe, so I focused my search there. In the summer of 2011, I planned a trip to visit 3 labs, two in the UK and one in Germany. During my visits, I gave presentations on my research, met with the principal investigators, as well as staff and students in the research group. During my meeting with principal investigators I discussed opportunities for projects, and what my role in the research group would be. I also brought up applying for funding, in terms of my salary as a postdoc and small research grants.
From my previous experience, after talking to mentors and others in my field I decided that I would apply for funding, in hopes to get a fellowship. Getting a fellowship would give me the independence I sought; I could purse the research questions I wanted. During my last year of PhD work, I applied for five fellowships and I was successful in one. It was a great relief to have my own funding. Writing grant applications is a lot of work, but it is a good learning experience. In 2016, I attended the Cold Spring Harbor Scientific Retreat. This helped a lot with improving my writing and I would recommend it to everyone who is doing a postdoc.
So far in my postdoctoral training, I have applied for 14 fellowships, 7 travel awards, and 13 operating grants. My recommendation is to apply for everything you can during your training. The writing is time-consuming, but you learn a lot about writing applications, formulating research questions, asking for feedback, and dealing with rejection. All of which are key factors for success in science.
I think another important component of postdoctoral training is to learn how to mentor and supervise students in and outside of the lab. While I was in Germany, I supervised four Masters of Science students and I really enjoyed it. Teaching them technical skills as well as working with them on projects and giving feedback on writing was a blast for me. I had some challenging students, but I also had some great ones. It was a rewarding experience from which I learned a lot. I would highly recommend getting involved in student supervision and even teaching classes, if possible. It does take away time from the lab, but I think teaching has helped me a lot with my research.
After moving back to Canada in 2015 I started to get more involved in science communication. I presented my research to lay people. This has been challenging, but in a good way. As a scientist, I think it is important to be able to share research findings with anyone. Some ways I have gotten involved in science communication is through writing guest blogs (e.g. American Society for Nutrition and AlzScience Blog), as well as giving talks at Scientific Café and Pint of Science events.
During my graduate training I have tried to maintain some sort of service component. I have been involved in organizations like the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and I continue to serve on the Journal of Young Investigators Board of Directors. I really enjoy volunteering my time; it has been something I have done since a very early age.
To help with postdoctoral training goals and plans, the ‘Individual Development Plan’ has recently been implemented. I have not used this in my postdoctoral training, but I think if used correctly, it can help trainees set out clear goals, increase communication with supervisors and mentors, as well as provide regular check-ins to see how things are going.
For further resources, Science and PLoS also offer some great advice about choosing a postdoc lab.
I think the postdoctoral training can be a really fun time to do science and learn a lot.
Feel free to visit my website and contact me with any questions or comments you may have.
I wish you all the best with your scientific training!
This text was originally published on Current Exchange: a blog by CHSL Meeting & Courses.
Meet Nafisa M. Jadavji of Carleton University (Canada). Nafisa is a postdoctoral fellow in Patrice Smith’s lab and a course instructor in the Department of Neuroscience. She returned to the Banbury Campus to participate in the three-day Workshop on Leadership in Bioscience to help her be “better prepared for [her] near-future role.”
What are your research interests? What are you working on?
My research uses a mouse model to assess how nutrition affects neurological function over the lifespan. I am presently concentrating on neurodegeneration associated to stroke and dementia. My own research group will continue to work on this as well as incorporate the impact of maternal nutrition contributions on long-term offspring neurological function.
How did you decide to make this the focus of your research?
My scientific training in the field of neuroscience started in 2002. In 2008, during my PhD with Dr. Rima Rozen’s laboratory at McGill University, I began studying – and fell in love with – how nutrition impacts brain function and I have been contributing to the field since.
How did your scientific journey begin?
I really enjoyed my high school science classes. During my 11th grade biology class, I learned about the brain – specifically what the synapse and neuromuscular junction are and their function – and I became fascinated with how the brain works to control our behaviours. This lead me to pursue neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge where, in 2002, I also got involved in basic research and never left.
Was there something about the Workshop on Leadership in Bioscience that drew you to apply?
As a Neuroscientist I think my training as a scientist has been extensive. However, when it comes to learning how to lead a research group and manage people, I know I lack that training. The topics covered during the workshop are very applicable to recruiting, as well as running a successful and productive research group which will be helpful to me when I start my research group .
What is your key takeaway from the workshop?
Being the leader of a laboratory is hard work but the workshop and the tools it gave me have helped me to feel better prepared for my near-future role.
What and/or how will you apply what you’ve learned from the Workshop to your work?
Carl Cohen, the instructor, provided extensive details about interviewing potential candidates (e.g. graduate students or postdocs). He gave us tools to help make the hiring process more consistent for candidates by introducing us to score sheets for each component of the hiring process (e.g. CV, phone interview, reference checks). I will be using these score sheets and guides as I recruit staff and students for my research group.
How many CSHL courses/workshops have you attended?
I also attended the Scientific Writing Retreat in 2016. I enjoyed the two courses I have attended and am open to attending more in the future, as well as sending my students and staff to future CSHL courses.
If someone curious in attending a future iteration of the Workshop on Leadership in Bioscience asked you for feedback or advice on it, what would you tell him/her?
I would recommend the workshop to anyone who plans to hire and manage people in a scientific setting. Though highly-motivated graduate students may benefit from this course, I think senior postdocs and people who have recently started their own independent group would gain the most from the course.
What do you like most about your time at CSHL's Banbury Campus?
I am runner and the Banbury Campus is a great place to go on an early morning run. I also enjoyed having meals with the other participants.
Nafisa received financial support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) to cover a portion of her course tuition. On behalf of Nafisa, thank you to HHMI for supporting and enabling our young scientists to attend a CSHL course where they expand their skills, knowledge, and network.
Thank you to Nafisa for being this week's featured visitor.
I originally wrote this post for fem STEM in February 2018.
I am a neuroscientist by training; I started working in a university lab letting during the first year of my undergraduate degree in 2002. This year, 2018, I am starting my 6th year of postdoctoral training.
Part of my postdoc training was completed in Berlin, Germany at the Charité Medical University. It was a dream of mine to live in Europe and I enjoyed it a lot. During my time in Germany, I travelled to many other countries and experienced different cultures. I also formed a number of fruitful scientific collaborations. In 2015, I returned home to Canada and continued my scientific training.
My research program focuses on nutritional neuroscience, with a specific focus on folic acid, a B-vitamin, and neurodegeneration. I work in a mouse model. I study vascular cognitive impairment and stroke, as well as Parkinson’s disease. Some of my research tools include behavioral testing, in vivoimaging, using MRI, primary cell cultures and biochemistry assays, such as Western Blot.
When I completed my PhD in 2012, I was very eager to get going on my postdoctoral research and move into an independent position, at the time I did not realize the importance of postdoctoral training. When I defended my doctoral thesis in late 2012, I felt that I was on top of the world and that I could do anything, like run my own lab.
Little did I know that was not the case, there is a significant amount of training required when moving from doctoral work to leading a research group.
While I was completing my first postdoc at the Charité Medical University in Berlin, I had the opportunity to mentor and supervise a 4 MSc. students, develop a course for graduate students, writing grants, and drive my own research project.
At first, I felt daunted by all these tasks, but it was also very exciting and made me work harder. The experience I had was priceless; I learned a lot that I would not have if I had not taken on these additional responsibilities. My time at the Charité helped me transition from a student to supervisor and mentor. This was further extended when I moved back to Canada and into my second postdoc position at Carleton University.
I have been driving my research program since beginning my postdoc in 2013. So far in my training I have mentored and supervised over 33 trainees, including high school, undergraduate, and graduate students. I have published 16 peer reviewed articles since beginning my postdoc training in 2013. These experiences have helped me learn techniques, strategies, and important lessons I think I need to know in order to lead a team of researchers in the future.
I have not taken the traditional road to postdoctoral training. This means that I did not go into someone’s laboratory and do experiments to help move their research program forward.
What I did do was obtain my own funding and drive my own research project. In my last two years of PhD training I did a lot of research to find potential labs and wrote a number of fellowship applications to fund my postdoctoral training. I knew exactly what I wanted to do in terms of research area and so I ran with it. I was successful in obtaining funding for five years from the provincial and federal Canadian government. Along the way I also got some small pots of money to help with meeting travel. I was successful in obtaining operating grant money twice which was a great to help with the costs of running experiments.
I have faced a lot of road blocks and rejection along the way, and I still do. But persistence and a strong will has helped me stay on path for a career in STEM.
I think I have learned a number of important lessons from my scientific training and the two top things I try and pass on are; one take a break from time to time, don’t burn yourself out. Take some time away from work and come back refreshed, you will work better.
Two, rejection is important. You can’t be good at everything. Failing is important, you learn how to pick yourself up and get going again, these lessons have been priceless.
Pursuing my own research program has also been a lonely path; I have been surrounded by people in the lab but there are not very many people in my current surroundings that are experts in my field. Although a challenge, I have embraced it and made a number of collaborations with others in and outside of the field. I have also expanded my research by working with others different areas, it has been a good challenge to embrace.
I think that postdoctoral training is very important for scientists in STEM. It is a difficult time because the future is not certain, job security is scarce. But when done correctly it can give an individual the experience and confidence that they require to run their own laboratory or to go down their own path.
If you love what you do, go for it!