During my present post-doc position I have mainly been “stationed” at a user facility. For those of you unfamiliar with such places, user facilities are generally government run labs with massive scale pieces of equipment that outside scientists (e.g. researchers at universities or industry labs) can use. Common examples (ones that I have the most experience in) are synchrotrons and neutron scattering facilities, where scientists use x-rays or neutrons to probe properties of a wide variety of materials.
Doing an experiment at a user facility involves applying for time (making sure you have a good scientific case for why you should get to work on their big, cool science machines), being granted experimental time, travelling to the facility, and doing your experiment during the time allotted. Depending on the experiment/facility you can have something running from one day to over a week and you want to make the most of it, since you are generally working with techniques you don't have access to at your home lab.
That said, when you are running an experiments, that is your life for when your time is scheduled. Sometimes this means you set up the experiment and switch samples every few hours around the clock, so you can run on little to know sleep for several days at a time. Other times you can run one sample for several days and write automatic batches of commands to do the work for you. But either way you are essentially on call and may have to step in at 3 am if your experiment needs you to.
That's the reality of working at a user facility and I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed up for my job. I generally run 4 – 5 experiments during each half of the year, so I can have several weeks of experimental time. And for me, this time is often scheduled back to back. So this means that about twice a year there will be a month or so when I don't have any time off. Not weekends, or public holidays, and this is often accompanied by late hours.
Before I start sounding like I am whinging, I am really trying not to. I knew that my job would be like this when I started. And honestly, it can be really trilling to do these experiments that you have been planning for months and see some really cool and often unexpected results. I am more so trying to set the stage to say that I am conflicted with how I feel about seemingly twice annual months of sleep and free-time deprived science.
Sometimes these months feel like a badge of honor. Like I'm such a badass scientist doing badass sciencey things so I don't need sleep or a balanced life. I'm sacrificing that for science! These experiments can be a thrill and when you make a breakthrough, you may be exhausted, but it feels worth it.
But...when I reflect on feeling this way, I start feeling guilty. I'm a big believer in work-life balance, not the least because I think that making science an area where such a thing is seen as the norm rather than as something to sneer at can improve diversity and equity within it. Science is a field where successful scientists are often perceived as people who put science first. Who are willing to sacrifice their non-academic lives for their careers. And I think this is a bad thing for a lot of reasons. I'm going to try not to get completely rant-y and go into them, but I think this perception can discourage a lot of people from pursuing careers in STEM fields and is often detrimental to the career advancements of early- and mid-career workers in these areas (in particular for women).
So when I feel proud of myself for putting in long hours to chase a result, I am hesitant to share this or discuss it with others because I feel almost ashamed of perpetuating a work culture that I believe has a lot of negative sides to it. (And I'm not the only one to observe this. A great article was published in the NY Times recently where researchers looked at 24/7 work culture outside academia.) I also feel like it might be inappropriate to see this as an “accomplishment”.
However...my user facility experiments are not really the type of work I do most days, and in fact I usually feel like I am doing a good job with the whole work/life balance thing. These experiments are a kind of a “special case” where I go into them knowing I will commit a large portion of my time to them for a few days to a few weeks at a clip. So is it kind of ok to feel a bit chuffed about them because they can be thought of as the culmination of a fruitful collaboration and lots of planning?
I'm not sure. I like to think a lot about what kind of example I am setting for students or young people who may think about becoming scientists. I want to show them that they can have fulfilling academic and personal lives without having to sacrifice one for the other. I feel like one way to do this is by making sure I am doing what I need to do to “succeed” on both fronts myself. I perform interesting experiments and try to publish good papers, but also take awesome vacations and go see movies with my husband. But the type of science I am drawn to (e.g. x-ray and neutron scattering) often involves nearly total time commitments during schedule experiments. However, this is the exception for how I spend my days not the rule.
Either way, I still feel conflicted. I guess that's the main thesis of this post. It's not really me trying to strongly express a strong opinion on way or the other, but more to show a part of science that many people experience but may not think too much about (especially once it's over and you just want to catch up on sleep). I think because these experiments are often short term it's easy to be able to justify the time commitments. But is this more reasonable than asking people to commit 24/7 year-round?
I like to think so because I'd like to continue doing this type of science and involving students without feeling like I am setting the example that a successful scientist is who whose sole (or almost so) commitment in life is to science. Maybe that's a selfish reason. Also, time at user facilities (particularly the types I go to) is precious. If you only have a week per year to run an experiment, you damn well want to make sure you are doing everything you can to make it successful. But don't forget to take a few days off to recover afterwards!
P.S. I couldn't find a good way to organically link in this article while I was writing this post, but here's a great piece about setting boundaries in your academic life.
I’ve come back from blog hibernation (really from six of the busiest months I’ve ever had) to bring a Science Crush that, to me, has come out of left field, which is a terrible metaphor because he’s a professional football player, not a baseball pro. The man of science that I’m celebrating today is Baltimore Raven’s player John Urschel. It’s he dreamy?
(Image from the Penn State Science Journal.)
Yes...Mr. Urschel is a footballer, but he is also a more-than-casual mathematician. While at Penn State he majored in math and minored in statistics. His work was recently published in the Journal of Computational Mathematics (but you can view it here on arViv). And just in case you don’t think that’s sciencey enough (it is pretty advanced math stuff there), he has also dabbled in the mathematical side of astrophysics and planetary dynamics.
But wait...there’s more...
However, before I continue, let’s see an action shot. I chose one from training because you get to see more muscles that way.
(Picture from www.utsandiego.com)
Ok...onto extolling more of John’s scientific (well mathematic) virtues.
You see...he doesn’t just have a Bachelors in math. Nope. He soldiered on and got a Masters degree in mathematics, one year after finishing off his undergrad degree. And...he’s in the middle of getting another Masters in math education. AND...he plans on getting a PhD on the topic once he feels he is done with professional football.
Oh...and he also has started a program to provide scholarships to Baltimore area students interested in math. I bet he hand rears orphaned kittens in his spare time, too.
So...for his accomplishments in math, on the gridiron, and his dedication to mathematically outreach and education, John Urschel is one awesome Science Crush!
I got married this weekend! It wasn't a big affair but because my now-husband is a musician and of course got music he liked during the ceremony, it was only fair that we had a little science thrown in there, too!
We didn't do anything too adventurous like have a chemistry unity ceremony, mainly because I don't trust myself to do anything involving colorful liquids around and expensive, white dress, but I did get to have two nerdy readings.
We wanted to make sure that we had a bit of light-heartedness in our ceremony so we started out with a reading I constructed from one of my favorite shows ever The Adventures of Pete and Pete. And not only did it involve science but my husband and I both recognize the reading as coming from a scene with a marching band and french horn, which takes him way back.
(Image from the awesome tumbler Flip Yeah! Adventures of Pete and Pete)
Here's the reading:
Reader 1: Somehow I had to show Ellen how I felt. It was the riskiest move of my life.
Reader 2: It looks like the sun! I believe they’re going to attempt a thermonuclear fusion…There appears to be two heavy hydrogen atoms moving closer together. They’re reaching a state of hot plasma, ladies and gentlemen! We have fusion!
Reader 1: As for Ellen and me? We were finally joined into a new element that was much, much bigger than anything we had ever known. We didn’t know what the future had in store for us, but what did it matter? We fulfilled our destiny.
It totally wants to make me get a "We fulfilled our destiny" tattoo. Which then also makes me want to get an "I am your density" tattoo.
For our second reading (we wanted to pad our ceremony to last longer than like 5 minutes) we chose something a bit deeper. I was lucky enough to find this great, adapted reading by Carl Sagan on a reddit thread:
The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond what our minds can easily comprehend. Lost somewhere between its immensity and eternity lies our tiny planetary home. Our planet is so astonishing, packed full of mountains, deserts, seas, all the plants and animals, glorious wonders we can share. On the Earth walks mankind with all its faults to bear, yet ever so exquisite with so much love and moral depth. May we remain grateful every day on Earth we live for the brief but wonderous opportunity that all of life is. Although mankind is faulty, we continue to strive. The sum of all thinking, all our accomplishments is love. From within one of the billions of species to walk upon this tiny speck in the universe we find two imperfect people who want to share their short lives, living it as one. May this marriage take two fractional lives and make those fractional lives a whole. May these partners build a better world for the next generation to come. May this union bring a new light to the sunshine, a new fragrance to the flowers, a new beauty to the earth, and a new mystery to life.
I also tried to convince my husband to let us add this super duper physics-y speech from Numb3rs at the last minute. But apparently this was taking things one step too far.
I have done a very bad job of writing on this blog lately. I think it's because now that I'm a post-doc and getting paid quite well (thanks inflated Australian wages!) I don't procrastinate as much as when I was thesis-writing.
But this is amazing and needs to be shared. Someone made a remix of X Files agent Dana Scully quotes about science. This needs to be my new personal theme song. Seriously, I'm considering changing the song I'm walking in to at my wedding to this.
So maybe you think cross stitching is something only grandmas or great aunts so. If so, you're totally wrong! Cross stitching has taken a turn for the awesome thanks to the creativity (and snakiness) of us young-uns and sites like Etsy, where we can share all our funny, weird, or dirty craft ideas. However, this is a science blog, not a "Sara gets all mushy about crafts" blog (although I do a bit of cross stitching myself it tends to be on the adult side), and I've been collecting some kick-ass works of science-inspired cross stitchery on my romps through the internet. I encountered a really amazing one this morning and was thusly inspired to curate them into a post.
To begin, here's the one that started it all:
How gorgeous is that?! It doesn't even look like a cross stitch. Inspired by Carl Sagan, this design features a nebula, the birth place of stars. You can see more details over at its creator's (nuclearArt) Etsy shop.
Staying on astronomy-themes crafts for a second, here's another out-of-this-world (get it?!) design that may be a bit easier for you beginner cross stitchers to handle.
This cross stitched solar system comes from HugsForFun's Etsy shop and is such a minimalist yet pretty design that I'm willing to overlook that fact that Pluto is missing (I refuse to surrender!).
Just so you don't think that only astronomical objects make great cross stitch, check out this microbial sampler.
Hailing from Etsy seller aliciawatkins, this design features all your favorite viruses and bacteria (although I do physics so I may be wrong in saying that it features both). She also has designs for several STI's of varying potency, if you want to give your significant other a gift they'll cherish forever.
And for those of you who would like some chemical stimulation, here's something up your alley.
These clever little designs feature some of the molecules that make life worth living and you can even get them in kits, so they are an easy way to start your scientific cross stitch journey. You can find them here, by Acts of Craftiness.
And finally, because this exists I feel obligated to share it.
Yes, that is my sexy science bear, Neil deGrasse Tyson immortalized through the medium of cross stitch. Just look at that little smile. Seriously, he knows just how to melt me. By the way, if anyone is thinking of making me an early Christmas or birthday gift, this pattern comes from the Etsy store of StringPing.
Low Culture Science: ideas for the best science classes, ever
A few months ago, I had a conversation with a twitter friend about how a lot of the stunts on Jackass would make great examples to show in a basic physics class. Every time those fools collide shopping carts or propel themselves off ramps on various conveyances my brain starts to buzz with physics concepts like momentum transfer and energy conservation. After thinking back to some of the episodes I've seen (and the one movie) I realized you can teach almost all the concepts in a basic physics class just with using examples from Jackass, which would be way more entertaining than the usual examples I've encountered.
I've had some other pop-culture related ideas as well so I thought I would put together some of my brain storms into a small list of what I'm calling Low Culture Science courses. They may not be classy, but they'll most likely be quite engaging!
Class: ICP – Insane Clown Physics
Course Summary: This survey course tackles a wide breadth of scientific topics using the Insane Clown Posse song “Miracles” as the outline for the syllabus. This course will touch on subjects from both the hard and life sciences as we aim to answer the big questions asked in “Miracles” and correct some of the ICP’s scientific misconceptions. We will deconstruct hands-on and multimedia examples in order to describe the science we encounter in the world around us. And we will also study contemporary scientific publications in order to demonstrate that scientists are not, in fact, lying mother fuckers.
Homework Question: Go on YouTube and find a video demonstrating a phenomenon involving magnetism. Briefly describe the video and, within the context of your chosen video, explain what “fucking magnets” are and how they work.
Final Project: Working in pairs, you will each pick either one topic or several, related topics mentioned in “Miracles”. You will then write an original rap explaining the science behind your topic(s). Each pair will film a music video for their rap, which must include visual elements that relate your topic and instruct the audience on the science you are presenting. Extra credit for creative face painting.
Class: The Mechanics of Jackass
(This best of clip apparently gives you bonus zoology lessons, too!)
Course Summary: We’ve all laughed watching Johnny Knoxville get pelted with baseballs or Bam Margera hurled from a speeding shopping cart. But have you ever noticed how these men’s arguably dumb antics actually can serve as good examples of some basic physics principles? Well if you haven’t before, you certainly will after taking this course. Using the Jackass TV series and films and unconventional examples of how we interact with physics every day, this course will serve as an introduction to such physics topics as Newtonian mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and thermodynamics.
Homework Question: Johnny Knoxville (who weights 70 kg) has decided to wear roller skates and travel down a halfpipe into a brick wall. Why? Because he thinks it will be funny. The halfpipe is 10 m high and frictionless. The wall is right at the bottom and his collision with it take 0.05 s. Upon hitting the wall, will he get a concussion (which occurs if he undergoes a force greater than 50 G)? If not, how high would the half pipe have to be for a concussion to occur?
Final Project: While I can’t ask you students to perform Jackass-style students for this class, that doesn’t mean we can’t use inanimate objects, For your final project, you will break into small groups and each group will create a “stunt” based on a concept from class. Each stunt must have an ultimate action that can be estimated using physics from class. You will present this stunt to the class, who will have to use their knowledge to predict the ultimate outcome. Each person will calculate and write down their predictions (showing their work) and students who correctly compute the outcome of your stunt using scientific reasoning will get full marks. You will also get graded on how well you incorporated your chosen physics principle into your stunt.
Class: Mythbusting the Scientific Method*
(Ok…I'll avoid alcohol based myths when teaching kids. But this is still cool and teaches a scientific lesson!)
Course Summary: Designed for younger students, this course will use the Mythbusters TV series as a way to not only study basic scientific principles but as a way to familiarize students with the Do’s and Don’ts of the scientific method. While Mythbusters is always entertaining, the hosts of the show aren’t always as thorough with good scientific procedures as working scientists should be. Each week we will learn a new scientific topic and see which myth the Mythbusters team use to explore that topic. Students will dissect the television program and identify which parts of the investigation follow good scientific practice, which need improvement, and how they can be improved. We will the perform smaller scale (and sadly, less explosive) experiments in order to test the myth for ourselves.
Homework Question: Today is class we saw the Mythbusters test if a frozen bird caused more damage to a plan than an unfrozen bird. Using your notes from class identify how this experiment followed the scientific method:
What was the problem the Mythbusters wanted to solve or the question they wanted to answer?
Did this experiment have a hypothesis? If so, what was it? If not, what would be a good hypothesis?
What experimental steps did they take to test this hypothesis?
How did the Mythbusters analyze their data?
What conclusion did they draw from this experiment?
What scientific principles did this experiment involve?
Final Project: Working in pairs or small groups, pick an urban legend or myth that you’re curious (and that hasn’t been tested on the show). Prepare a well-designed experiment and present it to the class, who will give feedback on what could be improved to make it a better experiment. We will then consult on how to make those changes and then you will perform your experiment. Finally, you will give a final presentation about your experiment, in an entertaining, Mythbusters style.
*(disclaimer: I know it's a big stretch to refer to Mythbusters as low culture. It's a pretty rad show but I think it's gone a bit overboard on the cheese-and-explosions factor.)
I'm a big fan of science education, especially because I place a lot of the blame for why I'm a physicist on people who made science engaging during my younger days. So in addition to dedicating my thesis to my bad ass junior and senior year physics teacher, Mr. Galitskiy, I also mentioned those who got me on my scientific way early in life:
Of course, my mother goes and sends copies of this to the my uncle and my one of the teachers she still keeps in touch with: Ms. Gibbons, my sixth grade science teacher. She was pretty awesome. She ran the Young Astronauts Club, of which I was a member (the only girl member, which is not super surprising). We made model rockets and even built an inflatable planetarium. It was rad.
My mom got a nice note back from Ms. Gibbons and scanned it for me:(I've translated it from cursive below, because I know most of us are a bit out of practice.)
"Hi Sue! [note: that's my mom]
Thank you for sending the information on Sara. How proud you must be!
Personally I was overwhelmed by her mention of me in her dissertation. That she even remembered me is nice. To be considered influential is worth more than you can imagine. To me teaching wasn't a monetary making job. Just wanted to make the students realize - Science is all around us - We are made up of biology, chemistry and physics - So I am happy that a student heard what I tried to teach.
Clint Eastwood would say "Sara made his day". I saw - Sara made my whole teaching career!"
Reading that definitely made me tear up. I'm glad she got to see the dissertation acknowledgements. I think educators deserve to know the impact they make on people's lives. But it makes me wonder how little appreciation they get if just one acknowledgement gets this big of a reaction. How many people just don't bother to think of all the ways that teachers played a part in getting to where they are? And out of that population, how many bother to say thank you? So thank you favorite teacher, if you can find a way, because they probably deserve it.
I know it's been way, way too long since I've posted here, but being a post-doc has actually been a lot more time consuming than I expected. Truthfully I don't know what I didn't see this coming, but now that I have what's almost a real "grown-up job" I don't find myself doing things like spending time at work badly photoshopping pictures for my blog as much.
Anyway, so most science-minded folks on the web are familiar with "I Fucking Love Science". Founded by Elise Andrews (who got her "Holy Shit! He's a girl!" moment, which was both frustrating and entertaining.), This is a collection of cool factoids and science images and is very highly visible, especially among young people.
Here's a great example (also, sharks are awesome.)
If you browse I Fucking Love Science you might learn something new or just get a kind of "Woah..." moment at things that exist within the universe or at the universe itself. I think it's pretty rad.
However, over at his blog, The Anachronist, scientist John Skylar has recently claimed that No, you don't fucking love science.
It's actually a really well put together post, the crux of which is that I Fucking Love Science is mostly factoids and data and skips the scientific process. Science is underfunded and scientists often spend decided of their lived making very little money while building their careers. I don't disagree with any of this. Science is very undervalues politically and economically, which doesn't bode well for scientific creativity and the ability of countries like America to keep up their once extremely impressive scientific legacies. Skylar also calls for people who fucking love science to put their money where their mouths are start to get it together and put political pressure on for science to get some more love. And yes, people should certainly heed this call.
However, I don't think that a site like I Fucking Love Science is as trivial as Skylar may make it seem. It's a site that gives its viewers, which I'm going to assume is skewed towards a younger demographic because it started on Facebook, daily chances to see some of the great things science has led us to learn and discover. It's a way for people to have a constant awareness of science rather than only encounter it in the popular media if someone wins a Nobel Prize for an easily digestible piece of science or if there's an academic scandal. And hopefully when this generation starts to take the reins politically we will be a generation that values science and learning.
Unfortunately, this generation is underrepresented in terms of its political impact. In the last election only 47% of voters under 30 came out and voted (compared to around 66% for people over 30). I think this may come from how generally shafted young people feel when it comes to their political situation (with things like the cost of education and diminished employment prospects). So here I agree with Skylar that if people want change they need to come out and demonstrate it. However, I think this is where I Fucking Love Science will help the scientific cause rather than just be a passing novelty or a few minutes amusement. I Fucking Love Science is a way for people to build a lasting relationship with/appreciation of science and we can hope that as the younger generation gains more political traction (old people have to die some time!) science will be held in higher esteem and get the love it deserves.
A lady physicist's connections with women composers: a rambley literature review
There are a few subjects I’ve been thinking of a lot since I started this blog: women in science and the connections I’ve been making between science and music. Both of these have large personal connections to me. The first is pretty obvious. The second is that my boyfriend is a composer. So to learn what he does (and because learning new stuff is awesome!) I started a self-study about classical music, including my slightly stalled out efforts to teach myself music theory (I reached the point where I needed both a piano and the ability to play one). When I embarked down this trail I started off thinking a lot about the physics and mechanics of sound and music, but as I met more people involved in the field and began to see how the popular and academic cultures of both music and science, especially physics, were a lot alike for women.
Both are fields where stereotypes pretty much loom over the popular imagination of who is a physicist and who is a composer. Honestly, two and a half years ago the first mental image when I though “composer” would either be Mozart from “Amadeus” or Beeth-oven from “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”. It’s the old, white man stereotype agin, except this time with more dead people!
So it’s not surprising that recently on the internet, I’ve seen many great blog posts from women composers that echo many of my thoughts and feelings on being a lady physicist (“woman physicist” makes me feel kind of old and “lady physicist” seems cooler and like it could be a title in some sort of scientific nobility). I could probably write way too much them, so here are a few that have been making the rounds. While reading them, one of the most striking things to me was that you could pretty much replace “composer/musician” with “physicist” and each article would be virtually unchanged.
The Power List: Why Women Aren’t Equals in New Music Leadership and Innovation by Ellen McSweeney – This one hit me right in the feels because it talks a lot about career and personal goals and the challenges women face in terms of each one. And I’m at the point in both my career and personal life where I’m trying to come up with my “life plan” and figure out what my goals are and how to meet them.
Taking Off My Pants by Kristen Kuster – This NY Times opinion piece is from a composer whose opinion on how to represent herself in the new music world has changed as her views on how to make things better for women in new music have changed. Since I want to be a physicist who puts herself out there to change the face of physics (man, that sounds like a super lofty goal right now and I felt a bit pretentious writing that), this one resonated with me because since I’ve started grad school I’ve been really conscientious of how I present myself as a lady physicist.
The ‘Women Composer” is Dead by Amy Beth Kirsten – This New Music Box post was really interesting but it one that I don’t necessarily fully agree with. It covers some of the history of women composers, and the uphill battle that they faced which is very reminiscent of how early women scientists struggled. The author argues that because many women composers have received honors and made successful careers that there is no longer a need to push the “women composer” agenda to make headway for upcoming women in the field. This doesn’t really sit right with me, though, because while where are a number of prominent and recognized women composers, the field is still far from being gender diverse and non-male composers still face many hurdles like stereotype threat, institutional discrimination, and often the implication that anything with a “feminine” quality to it is inferior to “masculine” ways of approaching music. These are battles we still deal with in physics and while things have certainly improved for us in the last half-century, it doesn’t mean the problem has been solved.
For me, those three articles almost perfectly parallel my experience as a lady physicist. However, us ladies in STEM fields seem me be a bit luckier than our composer counterparts in that the lack of diversity in our fields has been officially recognized as a problem by many educational and governmental outlets and a lot of efforts are being put into place to make STEM fields more accessible for women and underrepresented minorities.
But that’s a digression from where I was going with all this.
Before, well, this morning, I thought a lot about the similarities of the experiences of women composers and women physicists. But two other blog posts have made me think about the differences, which stem (no pun intended) from the innate differences of the sciences and the arts.
Throughout the past, it was thought that women were less capable of being scientists than man, a fact which makes me groan. But science should be empirical. A person’s gender or race shouldn’t affect what experimental or theoretical outcomes are because they should be inherent to the natural world, or something like facts waiting to be uncovered. It doesn’t matter if a man or a woman discovers them, because the underlying nature is the same. The structure of the atom would be the same whether discovered by a Mr. or Mrs. Bohr.
But here’s where music and physics diverge. The music composers write is unavoidably personal. It almost always is informed by cultural or personal histories and experiences (e.g. my boyfriend went through a period where he was writing Beastie Boys inspired pieces) and reflects how a composer interacts with different facets of the world. Where science should be, ideally, objective, music can’t be. (Well, that’s kind of a lie since there was an entire movement called serialism which tried, in a way, tried to mechanize compositions with matrices, which is pretty cool mathematically, but still couldn’t become completely empirical). So when discussing how men and women “do” science as opposed to how men and women “do” composing, as opposed to how the scientific and musical communities treat men and women, you can no longer argue that men and women should write the same music like they should be able to come to the same scientific conclusions.
I am a women. I am a composer. I am a women composer by Melissa Dunphy was particularly fascinating to me because it addressed some of the reasons why men and women may have different musical aesthetics. Surprisingly it is not all about personal experiences but also biological ones. I didn’t know this before, but apparently men and women have different sensitivities to colors and sounds. The author asks the question “If our senses are calibrated differently, wouldn't that have some kind of influence on our artistic taste?”, which just really struck me. First of all, how fascinating is that?! I think it’s really cool in this case how biology can affect our interactions with different sensory inputs. But also, it’s interesting to imagine how this could lead to different types of output by men and women. But problems come in when people consider “feminine” or “masculine” music to be better or worse than the other.
Finally, in what is turning into a literature review of op-ed pieces on women in composing, is the post that inspired me to write all of this up: I’m a trans composer. What the hell does that mean?. I think when a lot of us reflect on our experience as women, whether in science or in the arts, the fact that we are women in a known quantity to us. I know I personally haven’t considered much about what being a woman means to me and take it for granted as a starting point. My opining has usually been about my interactions with the world of physics and about how I reach a lot of my goals in spite of obstacles. I haven’t thought much about how being a woman colors my view of physics as a science, if it does at all, as opposed to how I participate in physics as a community.
Composer Alex Temple (whose music is awesome and who also sometimes lists her gender as “80’s” or “Daria”, which makes me wish she was my best friend, which probably sounds creepy, but oh well…) does a fantastic job of expressing her observations about some trends in compositions by women and men. It’s obvious that she has done more thinking than most about what gender means to creative viewpoints and output and before I read her post I never really thought about how the different cultural and societal experiences of and expectations put on women could correlate with broad composing trends. (To be fair, I’m still trying to get exposed to more contemporary music so any trends will probably escape me due to lack of sample size.) And since I’ve been thinking a lot about the parallels between music and science, this has been really interesting to hear about from composers and to consider.
Anyway, I have rambled on long enough for a Saturday morning. If you are interested in the challenges women in STEM fields face you should give all those blog posts a read. I find that hearing about similar issues from those outside our fields can really add to perspective those of us on the inside can have. And I think we can have a tendency to view scientific fields in an academic vacuum so it's important to consider what others go through as well. And maybe this post will serve not only as a point of reflection about the experiences of women in male-dominated (both in terms of numbers and in public perception) fields but also introduce you to some new and interesting music.
If you are are interested in more contemporary women composers, there's a nifty list here, so have fun exploring!
Pick a science topic. Then go online and grad a bunch of papers about that topic. Read the opening paragraphs. Get a sense of variations on a theme?
I've just started writing the second paper to come out of my main dissertation project. And since I tend to think from beginning to end of the paper, I'm starting with the part that's the biggest pain in the butt: the introduction. My Ph.D. work was on perovskite oxide superlattices. Pretty much ever paper on this topic starts out the same way:
"Perovskite oxides are useful because there are many materials with similar structures but a wide variety of behaviors (e.g. metallic, superconducting, ferroelectric, magnetic, insulating, and on and on). Because of this, you can put two different materials together to make a superlattice with novel properties."
Ok…maybe the language gets a bit more formal and sciencey than that, but you get the point. Basically to write and introduction, that that paragraph and make it sound slightly different than the introductory paragraph of all the papers you are citing.
I wrote something to this effect on twitter, and @rejectedbanana happily chimed in with a better idea on how to open a paper. This lead to some back-and-forth on both our parts where we came up with opening lines to spice up any Physical Review Letter.
Once upon a time there were a bunch of perovskites and they made a lattice… (@rejectedbanana)
When two types of perovskites love each other very much, a superlattice is born
It was the best of perovskites, it was the worst of perovskites. It was the age of superlattices. (@rejectedbanana)
In a fair vacuum chamber where we lay our scene. Two perovskites both alike in crystallinity…
Four score and seven years ago, our physicists brought forth lattices on these perovskites (@rejectedbanana)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a superlattice in possession of a good interface much be in want of novel properties.
Alright stop, make a sample, and measure. Perovskites are back in a brand new structure. One layers grabs the other one tightly. At the interface new business is likely.
And what about going beyond the introduction? Opening lines like these have lead me to believe that my next paper should either be written in iambic pentameter (although it's been done before), early 90's rap, or perhaps as a romance novel.
I've been a bit distracted by my big move to Australia and starting my post-doc that I forgot to put this up. My friend Candace made a short documentary featuring two local (to Long Island) lady scientists: one is myself and the other is our friend Rocio, who studies genetics. I really like how it came out, even if I am really squeaky and did give a bit of a faulty definition of what a ferroelectric is (hint: I am very wrong when I say it has an internal magnetic field. I didn't catch myself and we didn't do any retakes.)
Since starting my post-doc, I've noticed that my new department has a lot of more women around than my old one. This is what I now deal with on a daily basis.
Check out trowelblazers, a new tumblr dedicated to saluting the women of archaeology, palaentology, and geology! As a lady who grew up wanting to become an archaeologist (thanks, Indiana Jones!) this blog makes me super excited. No offense, physics, but is it too late to switch sciences?
Tuesday nights are Ladies’ Night, at least in my department. For the past give years, the women graduate students have been organizing weekly get-togethers so we can bond over a few beers. For me, these nights have been invaluable because I’ve made new friends, gotten great advice about courses, research, and careers, and had a lot of interesting discussion about women in physics (and astronomy, too!). We’ve talked about professors, weddings, drag queens, gynecologists, which (if any) professors in the department we consider handsome, post-docs, having kids, board games and lately we’ve let some of the guys from the department in on our fun.
I’ve always considered Ladies’ Night to be a safe space for women in the department. We often have a lot to say with regards to our experiences in our department and in physics and we are there to support each other. We also don’t hesitate to name names and bring up specific experiences that we might be hesitant mentioning in front of a general audience. A lot of what comes up revolves around how our department and the people in it could be doing better in terms of becoming an overall nice environment for women. So when it comes to having guys we know joining us, I personally have always felt a bit hesitant because, honestly, I didn’t want to open Ladies’ Night up completely because there are some grad students that are tremendously disrespectful to women who would happily take any opportunity to head to the local bar. I also know that a lot of the younger women grad students don’t know many of the guys outside their year, so they might not be comfortable sharing things around them.
But the last few weeks have been a bit of an experiment. We’ve had some guys join us for Ladies’ Night. It’s never been enough to tip the gender balance away from being mostly women and we have made sure it’s people we are all friendly with (avoiding some of the asshats we spend our time discussing some weeks), so we’ve preserved the idea of a safe space. And with that accomplished, I’m actually super glad that we’ve added the fellows to the mix.
At Ladies’ Night we spend a lot of time talking about changes we would like to see in the department, especially among the graduate student population. And many of these are social changes. As I mentioned before, they are some jerks in the department. And it social situations, their bullshit often goes uncalled, because women are hesitant to speak up because they are in the minority and a lot of the guys don’t want a confrontation. So the environment becomes one in which misogynistic jokes or attitudes get a tacit approval or if not outright approval they get a pass. And while we’ve brought this up within our women’s groups, we haven’t told his to a lot of our guys friends, who could potentially act as allies in these social situations.
Two weeks ago my friend, I’ll call him Rob, joined us. He asked why I didn’t go to parties and get together at his house much because he missed hanging out with me. I mentioned some specific guys and said that I didn’t like being around them because of their behavior (jokes that get way too offense for my inappropriate-humor-loving taste, lots of objectification of women, general douch-baggery) and that I didn’t like being around friends that seemed to approve of this behavior. Rob apologized and said that while he also find a lot of this behavior distasteful, he never realized it was actually causing people to stop socializing with him and with other, generally cool friends. I’ve also noticed that he’s starting calling these people out when they start up with their offensive material.
Scenarios like this make me realize that there’s been a big gap between our Ladies’ Night discussions and instigating change in the department’s environment because there was still a disconnect in terms of enlisting allies and in realizing that there are a lot of people, men and women, who want to make things better for women in physics but don’t always know what to do or don’t always recognize some of the small things that can make our situation seem like a death by a thousand cuts. And when guys have joined us, they have taken the initiative in getting our perspectives on women’s issues from the big to the small. They also realize that many of the changes we talk about are things that, while they may start as discussions from a women’s group, will benefit the entire department and are enthusiastic about helping to make these changes.
Here’s another example. Every orientation our graduate director makes a sexual harassment speech. Our current director, while a nice guy, is super awkward and the speech just turns into cringe comedy. It’s not taken seriously and people develop an attitude that sexual harassment and offensive behavior isn’t that big of a deal. We’ve talked about this both at Ladies’ Night at in official department committees and want to propose having someone from Human Resources give the talk so it can be done in a serious and official manner. We got on this topic at yesterday’s get-together and one of the guys that joined us immediately starting planning on how he and another women students are going to take this task to our graduate secretary and ask for changes to be made to the upcoming orientation. Both guys that came admitted that the lax attitude towards crude jokes and misogynistic attitudes made them uncomfortable and they realize how it can really negatively affect both the entire social feel of the graduate program and the women they are friends with.
Additionally, having these guys come to Ladies’ Night has really helped me see and let other students know that we have a lot more people we can see as allies than we previously thought. Many of the male graduation students recognize that there are a lot of problems for women in physics and that finding solutions to these issues will benefit their friends, themselves (after all, many scientists end up partnering-up with other scientists), and the future of the field. And truthfully, seeing that the next generation of physicists is much more supportive of women in physics makes me optimistic about my own future in the science as well as that of my friends, colleagues, hell even my hypothetical future progeny.
Just as catchy as "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" but way, way creepier. Also, turtle junk is really weird and these turtles would make very inappropriate action figures for children.
Meet Sylvia: the Super-Awesome Mini Science Superstar!
Good thing I don't have any nieces/nephews/offspring because they would have been pushed aside for my new favorite kid. Meet Sylvia Todd, hostess of Sylvia's Super-Awesome Maker Show, who was recently profiled in the New York Times. She's an 11 year old who loves electronics, crafts, and science. Her parents help her put together a really fun web series where she demonstrates how to make different projects.
Here's her most popular show: how to etch copper to make both jewelry and circuit boards. This puts my childhood Perler bead and paint by numbers projects to shame.
Sylvia also does a really great job of explaining some of the engineering and scientific principles behind her projects. Check out this video where she makes a strobe light and a finger flute for an Arduino. I just watched it with my lab mates and we all learned something new about circuitry. Also, she uses puppets to explain different parts of the circuit. PUPPETS! And they are super cute and hand drawn and also very funny.
At 11 years old, this girl is already a fantastic role model. If I have kids they better turn out like her!
In honour of term paper season, I fixed up my pattern from last year with simpler stitches and brighter colours. Perfect for passive-aggressively stitching in the grad lounge.
Pattern and finished stitching both available in my new Etsy store.
