Data mining talks

As a molecular biophysicist I often hear talks (and see posters) given by bioinformaticists.* I am struck by how these are almost uniformly abysmal. I'm not necessarily referring to the data, but rather the presentation as a whole. This has reached the point where I don't think I can bring myself to sit through another bioinformatics talk (or poster presentation) for at least the next three months.

Why has the quality of the now dozens of such talks I've suffered through been so low?

In the majority of cases I posit it's a combination, in varying degrees, of a lack of imagination and a disconnection from the underlying biology. Too many of these presenters regale their audiences with interminable laundry lists of how property X is over-represented in sequences of class A, and under-represented in sequences of class B. Ummmm... So what? Why should I care? Often such presenters either don't know or are too lazy to spend the time connecting their data with known biology. As an example, I recently sat through a talk where the speaker made a big deal about the prevalence of glutamine-rich sequences in proteins involved in transcription. Not once did he refer to the fairly substantial body of experimental data on these very same sequences. In fact, when asked, he couldn't offer up any explanation for this observation.** Major fail.

I can't explain why this happens. Obviously it shouldn't. Perhaps it's a function of the relatively immature nature of bioinformatics as a field. It's still at a stage where method development trumps method application. Application of the intelligent kind.

I remember when macromolecular crystallography talks suffered from similar issues. They would often be these long detailed descriptions of the structure(s) just solved by the crystallographer. No connection to the biology, just the details of the structure. Listen, I don't give a rat's arse that there's a type VIIb turn between helices 7 and 8. What I want to know is what the structure tells us about the biology. Nowadays most crystallographers do make the connections. One can't get a grant for simply solving structures any more.***

I've heard through the grapevine that getting a grant to do bioinformatics has become increasingly difficult. More so than would be expected from the downturn in science funding. Perhaps we'll see the field forced to mature more rapidly and presentations improve.








* By "bioinformatics" I mean the data-mining thing. A colleague once defined it thusly: "Bioinformatics is the mining of biological databases for profit (not necessarily of the monetary kind)." This is distinct from computational biology which, at least at the molecular level, tends to employ an energy function of sorts.

** Glutamine-rich regions can be involved in DNA binding - the glutamine side chain is quite good at making hydrogen bonds with nucleic acids.

*** Not when I'm reviewing the grant. :-)

Travel notes

A few observations after having returned from a meeting:

1) As someone in line before me found out, belligerently demanding airport security rush you through the screening process because you're late for your flight, and then becoming abusive when security politely informs you that you have to go through the same process as everyone else, is guaranteed to get you "special" treatment. And make you miss your flight.

2) There is an inverse correlation between the amount you pay for a hotel room and the chances of the stopper in the bathroom sink working.

3) The odds of the movie shown on my cross-country flight being watchable are slim to none.

4) The odds of the person sitting next to me on a cross-country flight having some hygiene issues are quite high.

5) Really bad talks get discussed far more than decent, but not quite kick-ass, talks. But not in a good way. The postdoc who gave a talk that very clearly demonstrated that he didn't know or understand basic physical properties of the kind we expect undergrads to know will be remembered for some time.

6) Not knowing how to set up, run and/or analyze experiments is not an impediment to giving a talk at a large meeting based on said experiments (n >> 10). And this is not correlated with career stage (student vs. postdoc vs. PI).

7) The best airport in the world is the one you land at at the end of your trip.

Your science is not enough

There's an awful lot of good advice out there in the blogosphere on how to succeed at many aspects of academia. DrugMonkey and Writedit are great resources for grant-writing, Professor in Training and Prof-like Substance are chronicling the trials and tribulations of being tenure-track assistant profs in the biological sciences, DrDrA is transitioning to the next level, and FemaleScienceProfessor provides a great deal of useful information from the senior level, etc. One thing that I have not seen discussed very much is something I have a problem with...

Assertiveness.

Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.

That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).

People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.

Something to think about and work on.

Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.

This and that

I heard this morning that my late Nanna's house was sold. She passed away earlier this year. I knew the house was on the market but hadn't really thought about it in depth. It's actually quite sad - I have some fond childhood memories of that old place. The fig tree in the backyard, the lanes out the back and on the side, the "old house" smell*... Sigh.


On a brighter note, I'm off to a smallish six day meeting this Sunday. Lots of good people will be there. My goals (you should always have goals, otherwise why attend?) are to:

i) get feedback on my new major research project - progress has been slow but steady,
ii) get feedback on my new major research project's bride, which is showing signs of life,
iii) catch up with old friends/collaborators,
iv) make new friends/collaborators,
v) score at least two seminar invites, and
vi) not make a fool of myself.

Goal vi) might be the hardest.


And finally a quote from my supertech: "Cloning always works. One day."






* Or was it an "old person" smell?

Judging presentation skills scale [UPDATE 2]

It's been a while since DrugMonkey reposted this meme, but the seminar I had to endure today reminded me of it and inspired me to invent my own scale for judging presentation skills. Not the science being presented, but the skill with which it is presented.

Herein I present Odyssey's

Presentation Impact Scale Summing Offending Factors Factor*,

hereafter shortened to PISSOFF.

It's very simple really,

PISSOFF = sum(Offending Factors)/(Total Number of Slides)

where Offending Factors are determined by, but are not limited to:

• Total number of slides exceeding number of minutes allotted for presentation (Offending Factor = [Total Number of Slides - 0.9*(Minutes Allotted)]²)
  
• Number of slides in presentation speaker skips over during presentation
  
• Number of figures the speaker does not refer to/explain
  
• Number of tables (or other sections) with text too small to read
  
• Number of tables with too much text to read
  
• Number of times speaker flicks backwards and forwards through slides in order to find the one he wants to talk about
  
• Number of slides that have nothing to do with the topic being presented
  
• Not addressing the audience (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Mumbling (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Assuming everyone in the audience is familiar with the background of the topic (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Presenting more than one story (+20 for the first additional story, +40 for the second, +1000 for the third and subsequent stories)
  
• Speaker waving the laser-pointer around like a madman (+5 to 10 depending upon severity)
  
• Use of yellow on a white background (+10 per instance)
  
• Use of red text on a blue background (+10 per slide)
  
• Using canned Powerpoint backgrounds (+10 for simple backgrounds up to +40 for complex backgrounds)
  
• Use of canned Powerpoint background that is animated (+200)
  
• Excessive use of animation (+10 to +50 depending upon severity)
  
• Speaking with their back to the audience (+20)
  
• Number of "in case they ask that question" slides appended to the end of the presentation
  
• Running over the allotted time (add 10x[Number of Minutes Over]²/(Minutes Allotted))
  
• Speaker appears bored (+100)
  
• Use of the phrase "this is really fascinating work, but I don't have time to tell you about it", or anything similar (+20 per instance)
  
• Figures/movies that don't work because the speaker didn't bother to try them out beforehand (+10 per instance)
  

Feel free to suggest more Offending Factors. I know there are many, many more - I'm too brain-dead to think of them right now.

The PISSOFF scale runs from zero for an excellent speaker to greater than one for a speaker who should never, ever be asked to present again.

I estimate yesterday's speaker would have a PISSOFF score of about 0.9...




* Yes, yes, I know it sounds horribly redundant etc.