Author Archives: Erin Hascup

About Erin Hascup

Erin graduated with her B.S. in Biochemistry from Hobart and William Smith Colleges in 2001 and went on to conduct research at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Erin returned to school and obtained a PhD in Anatomy and Neurobiology from the University of Kentucky in 2007. She completed postdocs at the Karolinska Institute and McGill University. Erin currently works at Southern Illinois School of Medicine and is co-founder of RateMyPI.com. Follow Erin on Twitter @RuthiePhD.

Entrepreneurship in Science

Posted by Erin Hascup on August 23, 2012   |   2 Comments

I was browsing the internet the other day and saw a link for “Grants to Encourage Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology for Women”.  Being a woman in science and a new entrepreneur, I decided to click on the link.  What it took me to was a slightly informative, and incredibly self-serving article in Forbes written by the United States Chief technology Officer, Todd Park.  The title was “What Efforts Has President Obama Made While In Office To Encourage Entrepreneurship And Innovation?”  I read on hoping to get to the part that is specific to women entrepreneurs in science…

“Promoting high-growth entrepreneurship” where I learned that the Administration has committed to match $2 billion private investments in high growth companies, is trying to make it easier for graduates to manage their student loans, and is taking credit for Startup America Partnership connecting startups with private-sector funding.  Why is our government so interested in funding startups?  As someone heavily invested in a startup, I think it is great, but as a taxpayer I think that there are several other places that you can go to fund a startup, such as angel investor groups, the bank, and other private-sector funding/grants.  Our country is in enough debt.  Let’s put our capitalistic roots to good practice.  Dreams can and do come true in America, but it is not the government’s job to supply us with the seed money.

Under “Helping accelerate technology breakthroughs” I learned about the Obama Administration’s advancements in space exploration…umm, aren’t we moving away from NASA and towards privatization of space exploration? 

Finally, we are starting to get into the research part…apparently, “President Obama has implemented the largest increase in federally funded research and development in history”.  Wow, I am really glad to hear that!  Just one question…Does anyone know any scientists in the US that thinks it is actually easier to get funding or that there is more money available for research???  We would love to hear from you.

Sadly, there was nothing on opportunities for women entrepreneurs in science.

The article also reiterates the Administration’s stance on science and technology and that more people need to go into science.  In the next decade they plan to have an additional 100,000 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and graduate 10,000 more engineers every year.  However, the article did not acknowledge that if you do decide to pursue the STEM path that it is going to be hard to get a position in academia and the funding that is often required to obtain said position.  Leaving the other main option of going into industry where the positions are also scarce due to outsourcing and downsizing.  Maybe that is why the article focuses on entrepreneurs.  With the overabundance of highly educated and specialized STEM workers, we are going to need to be able to fabricate our own jobs. 

RateMyPI.com does not endorse any candidate, but we do urge you to research their stance on issues important to you.  For a good overview on the candidate’s scientific platforms we encourage you to visit AAAS.org.

Tagged , , , ,

Teaching and Mentoring: A Consistent Weakness at the 2012 Best Academia Places to Work

Posted by Erin Hascup on August 14, 2012   |   No Comments

The results of a survey conducted by The Scientist determined the best places to work for life science academics.  Many of the names on the list were not a surprise (J. David Gladstone Institutes, Massachusetts General Hospital, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and the University of Groningen to name a few).  What was surprising was that 9 of the top 25 places to work listed “Teaching and Mentoring” as one of their top weaknesses.  9 out of 25.  And we wonder why it takes so long for an academic to get their first independent grant funded.  Even at the top institutions supportive infrastructure is not in place to prepare young scientists to succeed at the next level.  The top three institutions (and 5 out of the top 6) are considered to be weak in teaching and mentoring yet according to the survey they receive approximately 55 million US dollars in federal funding (~517 million US$ for the top 6!).  The Institute for Systems Biology (Seattle, WA) is the highest rated institute to have teaching and mentoring as a strength…and they are ranked 7th!  In light of all of this, it makes it even more important to know who you are working for.  Many researchers incorrectly assume that working at one of these top 25 institutions is enough to advance their careers. Unfortunately, you might not be receiving the much needed support and guidance from senior scientists during the early stages of your career.

Don’t leave your career to chance.  Visit RateMyPI.com (going live September, 2012) to read and write reviews about your fellow researchers, mentors/supervisors, and mentees/employees.

Tagged , , , , ,

Support for international Science collaboration: A good start, but…

Posted by Erin Hascup on July 28, 2012   |   2 Comments

In an effort to promote collaboration and the number of U.S. scientists in Europe, a joint venture between the U.S. NSF and Europe’s ERC was finalized earlier this month at the Euroscience Open Forum when NSF Director Subra Suresh and European commissioner for research and innovation Máire Geoghegan-Quinn signed the agreement.  The deal allows for selected early career scientists funded by the NSF CAREER awards to spend 3-12 months in labs funded by the ERC.  While at first glance this seems like a good way to accomplish their goals, the funding might better be directed towards scientists still in the postdoctoral role.  In an era when scientific funding is scarce and the average age for a scientist to receive their first grant as a PI is in their 40s, it is imperative that early-career scientists remain in their own lab to establish themselves, their lab, and their careers.  A new PI does not have the luxury of leaving their lab without leadership and an established crew.  Their lab needs oversight and leadership to be productive and pump out papers so that they can obtain more funding and have a successful career.

A better idea is to target postdocs as tools to increase worldwide scientific collaboration.  Postdocs are often more available and willing to move to a different country/lab where they can learn new techniques and establish connections with future collaborators, provided that it will help them further their careers as scientists.  However, the current situation for the U.S. postdoc abroad is dismal.  While it should open new doors and promote future collaborations, there is very little funding for postdocs to explore these options and it is harder still to return to the U.S. and obtain a PI postition, mainly because of the difficulty in getting your first independent funding.  One thing that makes it easier to get your first independent funding is to establish yourself as a fundable postdoc, which must almost exclusively be done within the borders of the U.S.  It is a vicious cycle that makes it almost impossible to remain in academics for those that try.  If today’s scientific leaders and policy makers truly want worldwide collaboration, they should aim more of their efforts at postdoctoral scientists and reward those that have spent time honing their skills abroad.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Page 3 of 3123