Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘genetics’

A farmer and his son had a beloved stallion who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbours exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!”

The farmer replied, “Maybe.”

A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild mares back to the farm as well. The neighbours shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!”

The farmer replied, “Maybe.”

Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to break one of the mares and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The villagers cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!”

The farmer replied, “Maybe.”

A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all the able-bodied boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, still recovering from his injury. Friends shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!”

To which the farmer replied, “Maybe.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: EVERYTHING I WROTE BELOW ARE MY OPINIONS AND REFLECT MY EXPERIENCE IN ACADEMIA (IN THE UK) – AT THE TIME OF WRITING. THEREFORE, THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT APPLY TO YOU. ALSO, PLEASE READ FROM START TO FINISH (INCL. FOOTNOTES) BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS.

Very soon, I’ll be moving to the ‘Human Genetics’ team of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (BI; Biberach R&D Centre in South Germany) as a ‘Senior Scientist’. I therefore wanted to look back at my time in academia and share my suggestion and concerns with other PhD students and early-career researchers (ECRs). Any criticism mentioned here is aimed at UK-based (research-intensive) academic institutions and “the system” – and not at any of my past supervisors/colleagues. The below are also going to be views that I have shared in some of my blog posts (e.g. Calculating the worth of an academic; Guide to an academic career in the UK; Bring back the ‘philosophy’ in ‘Natural philosophy’; What is success? YOU know better!) and with my colleagues throughout the years – and not something that I am just mentioning after securing a dream (will elaborate below on why I called it a ‘dream’) job at BI. (NB: See ‘Addendum (23/12/21)’ section, reflecting on my first 4-5 months at BI’s Human Genetics team)

To do my time in academia justice, I’ll get the good things out of the way first: I’ve been doing research for >10 years in UK-based academic institutions – first as a PhD student (Univ. of Bristol 2012-2015), then as a (Sn.) Postdoctoral Research Associate (2015-19 Univ. of Leicester; 2019-2021 Univ. of Cambridge) – and enjoyed almost every second of my time here. I met many world-class scientists but also great personalities whose memories and the things I learned from them will remain with me for the rest of my life. I was lucky to have had supervisors who also gave me the space and time to develop myself and I’d like to think I took good advantage of this. I also got to (i) publish quite a few papers I will always be proud about and (ii) travel to the US and many countries in Europe thanks to funding provided for academic conferences and, needless to say, none of them would have been possible without (4-year PhD) funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC UK) or support of my PhD/postdoc supervisors and colleagues. My time in the beautiful cities of Leicester (see: Life in Leicester), Bristol, and Cambridge was enjoyable too! I therefore would recommend any prospective scientist/researcher to spend at least some time as a ‘Postdoc’ in a research intensive UK-based university.

On top of all this, if you were to ask me 5 years ago, I would have said “I see myself staying in academia for the rest of my life” as I viewed my job as being paid for doing a ‘hobby’ – which was doing research, constantly learning, and rubbing shoulders with brilliant scientists. However, things started to change when I became a father towards the end of 2018, and I slowly began to have a change of heart about working in academia due to the well-known problems of fixed-term contracts/lack of permanent job opportunities, relatively poor* salaries compared to the private sector, and the many hurdles (incl. high workload) you need to overcome if you want to move a tiny bit up the ladder. The only thing keeping me going was my ideals of producing impactful science, my colleagues, and the possibility of pursuing my own ideas (and having PhD students). No one needs my acknowledgement to learn that there is ‘cutting-edge’ and potentially very impactful science being done at universities but the meaning of ‘impact’ for me changed during the COVID-19 pandemic when I was sat at home working on projects which I felt didn’t have much immediate impact and probably will not have much impact in the future either – and if they did, I probably would not be involved in the process as an ECR. On top of this, many of the (mostly COVID-19, and academia-related) analyses I was sharing on my Twitter page and blog were being read by tens of thousands. I was also heavily involved with the crowdfunding campaign of a one-year-old spinal muscular atrophy (type-1) patient (see tweet and news article). And these were both eye-opening and thought provoking! So the problems that I ignored or brushed under the carpet when I was a single, very early-career researcher were suddenly too big to ignore, and enduring through fixed-term jobs, relatively low pay packages* and a steep hierarchy (i.e. much more ‘status’ oriented than ideal) was just not worth it.

One of my biggest disappointments was not being able to move to Cambridge with my family because (i) Cambridge is very expensive relative to Leicester, and (ii) Univ. of Cambridge doesn’t pay their ECRs accordingly – mind you, I was being paid the equivalent of a (starting) ‘Lecturer’ post at the University’s pay scales (Point 49; see ‘Single Salary Spine’), so many of my colleagues were being paid less than myself.


There was also the issue of not having enough ‘independence’ as an ECR to work on different projects that excited me. As a ‘postdoc’, my priority had to be my supervisor’s projects/ideas. If I wanted to pursue my own projects, I had to bring my own salary via fellowship/grant applications – even those would have to be tailored towards the priorities of the funding bodies. Applying for grants/fellowships is not something I like or I’m trained for but I did try… I submitted three (one grant and two fellowship) applications and made it to the interview/final stage every time, however they were all ultimately rejected mostly because I “was not an expert on that respective disease” or “was too ambitious/couldn’t do all these in 3 (or 5) years”. I guess I also laid all my cards on the table and didn’t hide the fact that I was a proud ‘generalist’** and was never going to be a specialist as I am just too curious (and unwilling) to be working on a single disease or method. In addition to these, I had also co-applied (with a Lecturer colleague in the Arts dept. where we had to submit quite a few documents and a short video) for a very small grant (of ~£6000) to organise a conference to discuss the problems of asylum seekers/refugees in the UK, but it was rejected for strange reasons. I acknowledge that there is an element of luck involved and on another day with another panel, I may have been awarded but these rejections were also eye openers. (NB: I believe the ‘all-or-nothing’ nature of fellowship/grant applications should be revised as a colossal amount of researchers’ time and effort – and therefore taxpayers’ money – is being wasted)

But – in line with the story (of the Chinese farmer) I shared at the start – I am now happy that they didn’t work out as it probably would have meant I stayed in academia for longer (i.e. until the end of my fellowship period). I always took the ‘doing my best and not worrying about the outcome‘ approach and this has proven to be a good strategy for me so far.

Although unhappy with the way ‘the system’ took advantage of ECRs, I did try and “play by rules” to ramp up my CV and network by applying to become a ‘Non-stipendiary Junior Research Fellow’ at one of the colleges of the Univ. of Cambridge to increase my chances of securing a permanent lecturer post at a high-calibre university. Although I enjoy teaching and think I am good at explaining concepts, the main reason for applying was to add more teaching experience in my CV and secondly, to be more involved with the community of students and ECRs in Cambridge – which I did not have a chance to do much, mostly as I and my wife decided not to move to Cambridge from Leicester for the reasons mentioned above (underneath the first figure). I made a solid application and got to the interview stage. I thought the interview panel would be delighted to see someone like me who has a relatively good academic CV for an ECR (see my CV) but also does sports, has his own podcast, who tried to be active on social media (I had more followers than the college on Twitter – although they’re very active), who writes highly read blogs (some of my blog posts are read and shared by tens of thousands), led many student groups (incl. the President of Turkish Society at the Univ. of Bristol and Leicester) etc. to join their ‘guild’ but I was very surprised to receive a rejection email a couple of weeks later. I was going to work there for free, but it seems like they didn’t value my skills at all and that there were at least 5 other people who they thought were going to contribute to the College’s environment more than me. This was another eye-opener: Academia is full of (highly talented) ECRs who are just happy to do things for free for the sake of adding stuff to their CV and I realised I was about to do the same. I remember thinking “I dodged a bullet there” – I decided it just wasn’t worth fighting/competing over these things. I knew now that I had to explore options outside of academia more assertively as I could see clearer that universities and the senior members who helped build this system were just taking advantage of ECRs’ idealism and ambitions but also desperation. (BTW: I find it astonishing that non-stipendiary fellowships in Cambridge are even a thing. They state that they don’t expect much from their fellows but they clearly do)

I then shared a 1-page CV in certain job recruitment sites to see what was out there for me and I was surprised to see how valuable* some of my transferable skills were to businesses in different sectors. I had many interviews and pre-interview chats with agents and potential employers (incl. Pharma, other private sectors, and public sector) in the last 6 months but only one ticked all the boxes for me: this ‘Senior scientist’ role at the Human Genetics team of BI – who valued my versatility and expertise in various fields***. Thus, I took time out to fully concentrate on the process and prepared well. I had to go through five interview stages, including an hour-long presentation to a group of experts from different fields, before I was offered the post. Throughout the process I also saw that many of my prospective colleagues at BI had seen the abovementioned problems earlier than I did and made the move. They were all very happy, with many working, and hoping to stay, in the company for a long time. I should also mention I had a Lecturer job lined up at the Univ. of Manchester**** too but the opportunity to work for BI’s ‘Human Genetics’ team was too good to refuse.

I didn’t mean this post to be this long so I’ll stop here. To sum up, I am proud of the things I’ve achieved and the friends I’ve made along the way – and if I was to go back, I wouldn’t change anything – but I believe it is the right time for me to leave academia. I think I’ve been a good servant to the groups I worked in and tried to give all I could. Simultaneously, I grew a lot as a scientist but also as a person – and this was almost all down to the environment we were provided at the universities I worked in. But having reached this stage in my life and career, I now think that (UK) universities don’t treat us (i.e. ECRs) in the right way and provide us with the necessary tools or the empathy to take the next step. I don’t see this changing in the near future either because of the fierce job market. Universities are somehow getting away with it – at least for now. This is not to say other sectors are too different in general but I would strongly recommend exploring the job market outside of academia. You may stumble on a recruiter like BI and a post like the one I have been offered, which matches my skill set and ambitions but also pay well so I can live a decent life with my family – without having to live tens of miles away from my office.

Let me re-iterate before I finish: What I wrote above will most probably not apply to you as I (i) am a UK-based academic/researcher, (ii) am an early-career researcher in a field which also has a strong computational/programming and statistics component – so I have a lot of easy-to-sell transferable skills to the Pharma companies/private sector, (iii) am a ‘generalist’** rather than a ‘specialist’ – so I’m a person major funding bodies currently aren’t really too keen on, (iv) don’t have rich parents or much savings, and am married (to a PhD student) and have a son to look after – and thus, salary*****, living in a decent house/neighbourhood and spending time with my family is an important issue, and (v) am an impatient idealist, who wants to see his research have impact – and as soon as possible. I am also in a position that I can make a move to another country with my family.


Footnotes:

*Contractor jobs usually offer much better pay packages than permanent jobs in the ‘data science’ field e.g. as soon I as put my CV on the market as a ‘health data scientist’, I got contacted by a lot of agents who could find me short-term (3-12 months mainly) contracts with very good pay packages. Just to give one example of the salaries offered, there was one agent who in an apologetic tone said: “I know this is not very good for someone like you but we currently offer £400 a day to our contractors but I can push it to £450 for you.”this is ~3x the daily rate of my salary at the Univ. of Cambridge!

**I’ve always been involved in top groups and ‘cutting-edge’ projects so the jump from academia to Pharma in terms of research quality is not going to be too steep but the possibility of being directly involved in the process of a drug target that we identify go through the stages and maybe even become a drug that’s served to patients is not there for a (32 year old) ECR in academia – maybe, when I’m 45-50 years old. I also like the “skin in the game” and “all in the same boat” mentality in many Pharma/BI posts, which I do not see in academia. The current system incentivises people to be very individualistic in academia; and the repetitive and long process of publishing (at least partially) ‘rushed’ papers to lay claim to a potential discovery are things that have always bothered me. I don’t see how I can further improve myself personally and as a scientist as I don’t think my skills were anywhere near fully appreciated there – the system almost solely cares about publishing more and more papers, and bringing in funding. I have many ‘junior’ and ‘senior’ friends/colleagues who have made the transition from academia to Pharma (incl. Roche, NovoNordisk, GSK, AZ, Pfizer) and virtually all of them are happy to have moved on.

***As you can also see from my Google Scholar profile (and CV), I have worked on different diseases/traits and concepts/methods within the fields of medical genetics (e.g. rare diseases such as primary ciliary dyskinesia and Papillon-Lefevre syndrome), genetic epidemiology (e.g. common diseases such as type-2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and related traits such as smoking behaviour and blood pressure), (pure) epidemiology (COVID-19 studies), population genetics (Y-DNA & mtDNA haplogroup studies), and statistical genetics (e.g. LD Hub, HAPRAP) – and this is generally not seen as a ‘good sign’ (even when I’ve published papers in some of the most respectable journals in the respective fields as first/equal-first/prominent author) by some ‘senior academics’ (who review your grant/fellowship applications, and papers submitted to respectable journals) as many have spent their entire careers on a single disease, and sometimes on a single/few genes. It doesn’t mean they are right, but they usually make the final decision – and some like to act as gate keepers.

****I applied to the Univ. of Manchester post in case I would not get the BI job but also because it was a nice opportunity to work at a top university/department with high quality students and great scientists. They were also happy to pay me at the higher end of the ‘Lecturer’ salary scale. I believe I would have been a good lecturer and colleague but I just did not see myself in (UK) academia in its current state.

*****Although I – with my wife and son – was living in a nice neighbourhood and house in Leicester (renting of course!), due to my son’s expenses incl. a private nanny for a couple of days a week as my wife was also busy like me (small matter of writing her PhD thesis!), we were basically living paycheck to paycheck – and that was hard. When there were unexpected expenses, we used my wife’s (small amount of) savings, then asked my brother to help out financially – and that was hard too. It was almost impossible to fully concentrate on my research as I was always on the lookout for investment opportunities using the small amount of money I had on the side. At one point, I even contemplated doing casual work to earn a bit of cash on the side. Needless to say, I am very disappointed with the pay packages in academia – at least a stratified approach according to field, (transferable) skillset, and marriage/child status/other circumstances should be considered in my opinion. I also think, universities should at least provide guidance on solid investment (incl. mortgage) opportunities to their ECRs, so they can potentially earn or save a bit more. I can’t say much about my salary but it is a senior and permanent post, and my pay package also includes many of the perks of academia (e.g. >30 days of paid annual leave, flexible working hours, conference/travel allowance).


Couple of tweets – in addition to the blog posts I shared above – where I complain openly about the state of (UK-based) academia:

1- I don’t know how “no/limited feedback” has been normalised in academia:

2- I think science communication is as important as the papers we publish:

3- Publishing papers for the sake of publishing and inflating h-indexes:


Addendum (23/12/21) Reflecting on my first 4 months at BI’s Human Genetics team:

I was going to write a piece later but decided to add to this post now as I have been/am being invited to many ‘academia v industry/pharma‘ workshops/talks and saw that there is a lot of interest in this subject. I cannot properly respond to all emails or accept all invitations, thus would like to direct people here when needed…

A quick summary of what I’m doing: I’m a ‘Senior Scientist’ in the relatively newly established Human Genetics team of BI – and we’re located at the International Research Centre in the beautiful city of Biberach an der Riss in South Germany. As the Human Genetics team, we’re currently building analysis pipelines to make use of the huge amount of human genetics, proteomics and transcriptomics data that’s available to (in)validate the company’s portfolio of drugs (see below video for details).

A short primer on how I spend my days in the Human Genetics team of Boehringer Ingelheim: Leveraging human genetics data to guide drug target validation – Mesut Erzurumluoglu (Respiration/Solunum conference on 31/10/21)

If I say a few words about BI – which I didn’t know before I joined: BI one of the largest family-owned companies in the world with >20 billion euros revenue per year and >50k employees all around the world of which >8k are researchers (largest R&D centre is in Biberach an der Riss, where we’re also located) – so the company and the Boehringer/Von Baumbach family value R&D a lot. Some family members also attend research days organised within the company – which I find very encouraging as an employee but also a scientist at heart!

The other exciting thing for me is that the company’s currently going through a phase of massive expansion in ‘data driven drug target validation’, so the Comp. Bio/Human Genetics department is getting a lot of investment and are going to hire a lot of people in the near future – and I’m very happy to be involved in this process too.

To get back to my views of ‘working for BI v in academia’, I’ve made a summary table below which compares my experience as a Senior Scientist in BI and my time as an ECR/(Sn.) Postdoc/(Prospective) Lecturer in UK academia. I’ve highlighted in bold where I think one side better was than the other for me.

I believe the above rows are self-explanatory except maybe the bottom 4 rows – so I will provide some details here: (i) I feel like we’re ‘all in the same boat’ in my current team as we – as a group – have certain targets that we need to hit, so any success/breakthrough by any of the team members alleviates the pressure on all of us. This is also true of any success within the company. (ii) Re the next point/row, I just want to give one example: I have seen many papers be published in very high-impact journals by ‘top names’, which would not have made it past the ‘top names’ themselves (as reviewers) had the paper been written by some other group. Most of us also don’t have any editor friends who we can write to so that our ‘desk rejection’ at a high-impact journals is reviewed. The struggle for funding is even worse and I think life’s too short to be spending months on a fellowship or grant application, which is usually rejected for non-research related reasons (e.g. competition, timelines, priorities). (iii) We’re not allowed to work on Sundays at BI, and emails sent to others on Saturdays and after work hours is genuinely discouraged. (iv) Last row: We’re encouraged to produce good science and analysis pipelines by the senior management at BI rather than be in competition with colleagues to be the ‘first’ at something. In contrast, many papers in academia will be published in high-impact journals and be cited by others because they were the ‘first’ and not because they did a good job of strengthening their finding(s) via different lines of evidence. They do not lose anything if this ‘new and shiny’ finding turns out to be just a meaningless correlation 5-6 years down the line (i.e. there’s no “skin in the game”; even worse, they will have collected their grants and awards by then).

I also want to mention that career progression in UK academia is too slow for my liking (see below figure). I do not want to be treated as an ECR and living ‘paycheck to paycheck’ until I’m 50 – again, I feel like life is too short for this. This is why I wanted to move to a group where I would be respected more but also earning more – so that I can provide a good life for my family whilst fully concentrating on my/the team’s ‘cutting-edge’ research.

I always judged my ‘value’ at a place by adding how much I was earning and learning there. I was very happy during my PhD and first few years as a postdoc as I was learning a lot (from top scientists, attending conferences, giving talks, being provided the time to explore) and had a good salary/scholarship for a person who is single and <30 years of age. Unfortunately, for me, the increase in this regard was just not steep enough after this period. This feeling didn’t change much even after I secured a Lecturer post at the Univ. of Manchester – I just could not beg funders and apply for grants every year until I die. At BI, in addition to a very good salary, I’m also learning a lot from the different groups we are interacting with (e.g. wet-lab researchers/CRISPR screens, drug target research in different disease areas such as respiratory, immunology, oncology, and cardio-metabolic diseases) whilst also taking part in ‘cutting-edge’ research. There are also internal funds to explore your own ideas and a separate programme called ‘Research Beyond Borders’, which is dedicated to looking into other diseases which do not fit the main programmes.

To finish, I again re-iterate that it would be wise for a talented postdoc with data science and statistical skills to have a look around while they’re still comfortable in their current post (i.e. still have >12 months contract). If you have experience working with clinical and genetic data, then Pharma and Biotech companies would also be very interested in you.

I hope this post is of help, but feel free to contact me if you have specific questions that are not answered here.


Addendum (23/12/23) Reflecting on my first ~2.5 years at BI’s Human Genetics team:

Still happy. Family’s happy here. South Germany is very good for families: Very safe. My son’s kindergarten is great; Biberach and surrounding area is great. So much to see and learn.

Happy with the research I’m doing, things I’ve learned/learning, and my impact in the drug target development process at BI.

Also check out our preprint on structural variants – a valuable resource, openly shared with the research community (Note: I had encouraged Boris Noyvert to join our team and now we’ve published this preprint together):

Noyvert B, Erzurumluoglu AM, Drichel D, Omland S, Andlauer TFM et al. 2023. Imputation of structural variants using a multi-ancestry long-read sequencing panel enables identification of disease associations: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.20.23300308v1

Tweetorial:

Read Full Post »

I worked on rare genetic diseases during my PhD and looked for novel disease causal genes – which I was lucky enough to find1. I also became familiar with the state of rare disease therapeutics: there over 7,000 rare diseases for which only %5 have therapies2. A large majority of rare diseases are neglected by Pharma companies most probably as the market is not as big as it is for common diseases (e.g. obesity, diabetes, COPD). Thus, when I was approached by an old family friend out of the blue and told that his 11 month-old son was a spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 patient, I straight away thought “the child probably has no hope“.

I did not mention the lack of therapies for rare diseases to my friend and did some research about SMA – a severe neuromuscular disorder where many patients die before the age of two. I was surprised to see that there was an apparently effective ‘cure’: Zolgensma, a gene therapy/drug that Novartis are offering for ~$2.1 million – the world’s most expensive drug at present. Although the drug is FDA and EMA approved, the NHS does not offer the drug at the moment as it has not been reviewed by the NICE committee – which thoroughly reviews all credible drugs and advises the NHS on whether to offer it to UK patients or not.

As we saw that quite a few parents ran successful crowdfunding campaigns and got their children to have the therapy, we decided to do the same (Metehan’s Gofundme page). As the crowdfunding campaign gathered pace, I was sent a tonne of emails – including the academics listed below – asking how Novartis can charge such a price for one drug. While we understand that this is not just a quest for profits and the price reflects R&D and production costs as well as Zolgensma’s position compared to competitors such as Spinraza (Biogen) – offered by the NHS, which is thought to cost around ~£400,000 per patient (real price unknown due to undisclosed agreement3) for just the first year – we believe that Novartis should provide a breakdown of what the profit margin of Zolgensma is per patient.

While we commend Novartis and other companies for investing in rare diseases and can only hope more would follow suit, disclosing profit margins would be most ethical thing to do, which in turn can provide a room for negotiation for patients, and low and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Dr A. Mesut Erzurumluoglu, Research Associate/Genetic Epidemiologist (MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge)

Signed by:

Dr Zeynep Hulya Gumus, Assistant Professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences (Icahn School of Medicine, Dept. of Genetics and Genomics)

Dr Sevinc Ercan, Associate Professor of Biology (New York University, Faculty Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion)

Prof. Cem Say, Professor of Computer Science (Bogazici University, Dept. of Computer Science)

Short link to share this call: bit.ly/smanovartis

References

  1. Alsaadi, M.M. and Erzurumluoglu A.M. et al. Nonsense mutation in coiled-coil domain containing 151 gene (CCDC151) causes primary ciliary dyskinesia. Human Mutation 35, 1446-8 (2014). (Also see my blog post: Discovery of a new Primary ciliary dyskinesia causal gene)
  2. Tambuyzer, E. et al. Therapies for rare diseases: therapeutic modalities, progress and challenges ahead. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 19, 93-111 (2020).
  3. National Institute For Health And Care Excellence – Final appraisal document: Nusinersen for treating spinal muscular atrophy. July 2019. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta588/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document-2. Accessed: 10/09/2020

Read Full Post »

Some Leicester landmarks (clockwise from top-left): Jewry Wall (Roman site), National Space Centre, Arch of Remembrance (located in one of my favourite parks, Victoria Park), Central Leicester (near the Clock Tower), Curve theatre, Leicester Cathedral (where Richard III is buried) and Guildhall, Welford Road Stadium (Leicester Tigers’ ground), Leicester Market (where Gary Lineker once worked as a teenager). Image source: wikipedia.org

Important Notes: I declare no conflict of interest for any of the places of interest, stores or restaurants I mention below. I also take no responsibility if you have a bad experience in/at any of my recommendations.

Don’t forget to watch these videos by ‘Visit Leicester’

It’s happened again: As I’m quite famous(!) in my circles for still living in Leicester (read ‘less-ter’ or ‘Lestah’ if prefer local language) although I work at the University of Cambridge, I once again got asked about how life in Leicester is. So it’s time for me to write a blog post and share my general views. To get a more comprehensive view, you can always read the relevant Wiki page, which has a lot of nice information but is boring to say the least 🙂

TL;DR – cut the crap and tell me why I should live in/visit Leicester!

Leicester’s famous for:

1- Being one of the most multicultural cities in the UK – you can eat fantastic Indian, Chinese, Italian and Turkish food for great prices and there’s always some festival going on (e.g. Leicester Caribbean Carnival, Diwali Day Celebrations, Comedy Festival – see list here). You can also find almost everything Indian on Melton Road or stores such as Falcon Cash & Carry

2- Its sports teams such as Leicester City FC (watch this documentary) and Leicester Tigers (one of the most successful and famous Rugby teams). Leicester Riders is also one of best basketball teams in England but the sport isn’t that popular here.

3- Its famous sites such as Richard III’s Tomb (at Leicester Cathedral), Roman settlements from two millennia ago (e.g. see Jewry Wall Museum), and the National Space Centre

4- Its famous people/bands such as Sir David Attenborough (and the Attenborough family), Gary Lineker, Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys (see below), Kasabian, Engelbert Humperdinck, Mark Selby and many others

5- The discovery of DNA fingerprinting – which revolutionised forensic investigations – at the University of Leicester (a top 200 university) by Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys (read about one high-profile case here)

6- Its famous exports such as Thomas Cook (who rests at Welford Rd Cemetery – see tweet below), Walkers Crisps, and Admiral Sportswear – who manufactured and marketed the first football kits in the 1970s (Quorn could also be included in this list)

7- Its fantastic countryside (especially Bradgate Park, Watermead Park, Beacon Hill/Outwoods, Charnwood Forest, Foxton Locks, Rutland Water, Wistow Maze) and other ‘green’ spaces (e.g. University Botanic Garden, Attenborough Arboretum, Brocks Hill Country Park, Wash Brook Nature Reserve, Shady Lane Arboretum, Barnsdale Gardens (£), Launde Abbey/Park, Aylestone Meadows, Knighton Park, Abbey Park, Stoney Cove, Spinney Hill Park).

The beautiful Heights of Abraham and Dovedale (both in different parts of Peak district), Attenborough Nature Reserve (Nottingham) and Wollaton Park (Nottingham) are also a ~50 minute drive away. West Midlands Safari Park (near Birmingham) is ~1hr 20mins away.

Bradgate Park in 2025 (Credit: Mesut Erzurumluoglu)
Knighton Park panoramic view (Credit: Kerem Aydın)

8- Its geographical location as it’s within driving distance to almost all major cities and English Heritage sites (incl. being very close to Warwick Castle, Isaac Newton and Shakespeare’s birthplaces, the historical market town of Market Harborough, and Stamford/Burghley House). Also Birmingham International Airport being ~50 mins away has been fantastic for picking up my visitors from abroad – mostly Turkey

9- Being ‘value for money‘: You can buy a flat/house in a nice neighbourhood and provide a decent life for your family with an average salary (~£2000 a month***)

(10- I don’t go to pubs much but there are some nice pubs like The Old Horse, The Grange Farm, The Landsdowne and the Marquis – but don’t take my word for the quality of their drinks)

That’s it! If you want further info and like watching videos, then I would also recommend this video on top 50 attractions in Leicester and this playlist on Leicester (or this YouTube channel on the Oral history of Leicester and the East Midlands)

Leicester City FC ‘Victory Parade’ at Victoria Park (May 2016). Image source: itv.com
4.561 billion year old Barwell Meteorite displayed in Leicester Museum
At Welford Rd Cemetery with my son Isaac – where Thomas Cook and his family also rests

Who are you to talk about Leicester?

I’m 31 at present, and although I was born in Turkey, I only lived there (in Ankara) for 6 years and 22 years in total in Leicester: between ages 1-7, then did my SATs (ages 12-14) and GCSEs (15-16) at Crown Hills Community College, A-Levels (16-18) at Wyggeston & Queen Elizabeth I College, undergraduate degree (19-23) and first Postdoc job (27-30) at the University of Leicester (see My Research page for details). I also met my wife, got married (at the Town Hall) and became a father in Leicester. The magical 2015-16 Premier League season happened the year I returned to Leicester to work at the University of Leicester after a 4-year stint in Bristol (ages 23-27) for a PhD at the University of Bristol. I had been watching most (and even attending some) Leicester City FC games when I used to live in Bristol between 2012 and 2015.

My photo was used in the University of Leicester Undergraduate Prospectus 2012/13, 13/14 and 14/15 (in the Biological Sciences section). See my blog post on the matter.

Since my second arrival to the UK in 2000, I’ve been very active in the Turkish/Kurdish community in Leicester, worked in many take-away shops in different parts of Leicester and even served as the President of the Turkish Society at the University of Leicester for ~2 years. I even co-setup a Sunday league football team for in 2007. Through these, I’ve met all sorts of people and taken part in many sportive, intercultural and interfaith events in Leicester – so I’m more knowledgeable than many in this regard. For example, I know that many religious groups and sects that you’ve probably never heard of have a temple/shrine in Leicester (see Leicester Council of Faith for some examples – I even met a true Shaman in one event who offered to read tarot cards for me and invited me to their place for some enlightenment 🙂 ).

Throughout the years I became a bit of an ambassador for Leicester as the city became famous – and more and more of my friends started paying a visit out of curiosity. I’ve taken >100 people/families on a Leicester tour over the last 3-4 years.

Finally, I was recently awarded the ‘Future Leader Award’ (2020) by the University of Leicester Alumni Association for my “academic achievements and notable community work post-graduation” (see my tweets and blog post)


Life in Leicester for me

I like to keep it short when introducing “my second home town” (or more correctly joint-first): Leicester is a wonderful place to live in. For me it’s just the right size: not too big, not too small. It has so much to offer for any type of person – whether you like food, sports, cultural activities, the countryside or history. It’s geographically well placed so you are close to almost all cities in England – you can go to London in an hour by train which is how long it takes for most Londoners to reach somewhere in London. I made it to North London (e.g. Woodgreen) so many times in ~90 minutes by car. Add on top of all this the world-class university (that is, the University of Leicester but even DeMontfort University’s competitive in certain fields) and getting the chance to meet people of many many ethnicities/cultures and faith with virtually no violence/tension between the different communities. Not too many reasons to be unhappy 🙂

I tried some of my favourite* Indian food at Tipu Sultan and Kayal**, (Western) Chinese food at Karamay, and Turkish food at Konak. It’s also been nice to see Korean-inspired Grounded Kitchen do so well since opening their first store on Queens Road exactly where our old (TJ’s Kebab) take-away shop used to be (yes! we used to own a take-away shop like most Turks have in the UK!). There are also some fantastic cafes and book shops on/near London Road, Queens Road (esp. Loros and Clarendon Books) and St Martin’s Square.

Cavendish House ruins in Abbey Park

I really enjoy walking to the Welford Road Cemetery with my wife for its serene atmosphere or to Chaiiwala and having a nice Karak Chai. We occasionally enjoy a tandoori chicken box from Tuk Tuk Journey, a curry box from Bombay Bites, bubble tea from Hi Tea or a pizza from our favourite TJ’s (Evington Village). I should also mention the Phoenix, Curve, and the Attenborough Art Centre for their Film Festivals and interesting events.

In short, there’s so much I personally like about Leicester!

I hope this has been sufficient in convincing you to at least pay a visit, but if you have specific questions, feel free to ping me an email at m.erz@hotmail.com

The beautiful Bradgate Park with its ruins, river and deers. Image source: leicesterairport.com


Footnotes:

*As with all my blog posts, these are my views on the day of writing

**I’m being told there are some fantastic Indian restaurants (and dessert shops) on the ‘Golden Mile‘ – so should give those a try too! I also recently discovered Anmol Sweet Centre on Welford Road and their Samosas are amazing!

***My salary (after tax & other deductions) when I started working at the University of Leicester in 2015 – my first ‘proper’ job. My rent was £600 when I lived with my family (2015-19) in a 2-bedroom flat in Stoneygate (nice neighbourhood) – 20 minute walk to the University of Leicester. I then moved to a 3-bedroom house with a garden in a very nice neighbourhood (again in Stoneygate – 15 mins away from the University) and my rent is £800.

Get on the steam train from the ‘Leicester North’ station
‘Peace walk’ which leads to the Arch of Remembrance in Victoria Park from University Road – where University of Leicester’s main campus is

Read Full Post »


This blog post first appeared on the Leicester Connect webpage (a platform for University of Leicester Alumni) on the 20th March 2020


Out of all the inspirational quotes on the internet, an old Sufi saying is the one that touches me the most:

“There are as many paths to God as there are souls on Earth.”

Although it is mostly used in a religious (mostly Islamic) setting, for me it carries truths that tower above this narrow meaning. It especially reminds me that we all start from different steps of the ladder, face different challenges along the way, and ultimately end up where we are because of the way we respond to those challenges, the doors that are open to us and the people we meet along the way – with the latter two we mostly cannot control.

I was kindly asked if I could write a blog post after being awarded the Future Leader Award at the 2020 Alumni Awards. I am grateful and honoured to have received the award but also acknowledge that there were at least two more people (my fellow finalists) who deserved it as much as me – if not more.

I would like to start by saying – from my experience in life and academia – that there are no objective criteria which separates those “who made it” versus those who just fell short. I got to meet plenty of people and interview panels who I felt judged me using very narrow and subjective criteria and ignored every other quality I had. It’s always nice to get the job or funding you applied for, however I never dwelled on the outcome if I did my preparation right. I would strongly recommend this approach.

Free yourself from the need for appreciation

Many academics suffer from a condition called Impostor Syndrome – simply put, doubting one’s own accomplishments and constantly fearing being exposed as a “fraud”. I can’t say I ever had it because I always thought of myself as successful in my own way and never sought confirmation from anyone. Although striving to improve myself all the time, I was happy with “just trying to do the right things” – irrespective of the outcome.

I base this belief on the fact that the people who judge us do not know the full story about us. Maybe if they did, they would look at us differently. For example, someone who is born to a middle-class English family will not be able to judge how much of a success it is for an immigrant to learn advanced-level English from scratch, get citizenship and compete for the same positions. Someone who has not had any serious health issues will not be able to comprehend what success is for a disabled person. How about a person who has managed to stay away from crime in a neighbourhood full of ignorance, hate and violence? None of these are mentioned in a CV and no one finds these people and offers them an MBE… or a job. However, this doesn’t change the fact that these people are inspirational and successful. I can only wish more people would realise this and stop treating subjective decisions about themselves or others as objective truths.

I feel privileged to be living in the UK which is a relatively meritocratic country and has a higher quality of life index compared to most. However, this also means that the competition is fiercer for “top jobs” and can mean those from underprivileged backgrounds are affected severely. One must realise this early on and respond to the challenge. The good news is that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to help and share their knowledge and experience when approached.

Believe in yourself but get help. Make friends!

I had to overcome many financial, emotional and visa issues during my undergraduate years which undoubtedly affected my performance. When I somehow graduated from the University of Leicester with a 2.1 in BSc Genetics in 2011, I did not listen to the people who thought I would not be able to make the cut in academia and started applying for PhDs. Before applying, I read all the blogs and papers that were out there about “selling yourself well” and making your CV stand out. I always did my research before taking an important step. Thankfully, I must have been at the right place at the right time as I was very fortunate to be offered a fully-funded studentship at the University of Bristol – I remember even my interview not going that well. The scholarship freed me from the shackles of financial distress as I was embarking on an academic career.

Again, doing my thorough background reading, I quickly realised that the field of Genetic Epidemiology – the field I now found myself in – required a solid foundation in medical statistics, epidemiology, bioinformatics, and programming as well as human genetics. I realised and accepted my limited expertise in these fields and got to work. I got all the help and knowledge I need from my supervisors, friends, online courses, blogs and research papers. I made sure I spent at least 2-3 hours a day on improving myself on top of working on my specific PhD project. Not keeping to myself, I was also supportive and sincere with my “PhD friends” who were on the same boat as me. I’m still close with many of my supervisors/teachers and friends. I couldn’t have achieved what I’ve achieved without their help.

Ultimate success: happiness and self-respect

In this fast-paced world, especially in academia, we continually forget that family and friends are worth more than any academic success. Although my academic papers are important to me – and I can only hope they’ll be useful to someone, somewhere, somehow – I do not spend much time thinking about my papers or PhD thesis. But I’m always longing to spend more time with my family and friends and the fact that I have them is the success of my life.

I want to finish by saying that I was very fortunate to get to where I am and achieve many milestones in the process, but it could have all turned out very differently, very easily. Yes, I tried to do the right things, but many things were out of my control. But as long as I had my friends and family, I’d like to think I would have been happy wherever I ended up.

I wrote all of these to convince you of one thing: do not let others – even senior people – define what success is for you as they do not know you and how you got to where you are. Just keep doing the rights things and, with the help and support of your loved ones, you’ll eventually get through everything in life.

Feel free to contact me!

I blog – in English and Turkish – about my research and other academia and culture-related things…

E.g. a post that may be of interest: An Academic Career in the UK

Download

If you’d like to download the blog post as it appeared on the Leicester Connect website, click the ‘Download’ button below:

Read Full Post »

This is a post inspired by a question I saw online: Which single public health intervention would be most effective in the UK?

I would like to share my own views on the question although don’t expect anything comprehensive as I don’t have much experience about how an idea can be taken further to impact policy and public health practice.

‘Investigating addiction in the UK’ study. Source URL: http://www.raconteur.net

Something must be done – and fast!

Legend has it that a great chess player travelled to Manhattan to take part in a World Chess tournament. Looking around Central Park, he saw that a crowd had gathered around a street chess player who was offering money to those who could beat him. He decided to give it a go – and after a gruelling match, they shaked hands on a draw. This dented his confidence and ultimately caused him to return to his homeland without taking part in the tournament.

Little did he know that the street chess player was a grand master who wanted to pass time before taking part in the same the tournament.

What has this got to do with a public health intervention? I will come back to it…

From my observations over the last 7-8 years as a scientist studying different common diseases such as diabetes – to which £1 of every £10 of the NHS’s budget is spent on, obesity – which is the major risk factor for heart attacks, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) – currently the third leading killer in the world, it is clear that cheap and effective treatments for these diseases are a long way away. This is not to say that there is no progress as there is tremendous research being carried out on (i) understanding the molecular causes of (e.g. genes, proteins that cause) these diseases and (ii) developing new therapies. The continuous economical costs of treating patients with current state-of-the-art therapies is reaching infeasible levels with a significant proportion being wasted on patients who do not adhere to their prescriptions properly1 and ‘top selling’ drugs being so inefficient that up to 25 patients need to be treated in order to prevent one adverse event such as a heart attack2. These diseases drain the NHS’s budget, cost the lives and healthy years of hundreds of thousands of people and causes emotional distress to the patients and their loved ones. If something is not done now – and quick – latter generations may not have an NHS that is ‘free and accessible to all’ to rely on as the system is already showing signs of failure in many parts of the country3,4 – although costing around 1 in 5 of the government’s annual budget.

Parents need help!

What is also striking about these diseases is that up to 9 in 10 cases are thought to be preventable. Thus, concentrating on prevention rather than ‘cure’ makes most sense as the only economically feasible solution lies here. No single public health intervention is going to solve all the problems that the UK health system faces currently but one thing that has always stared me in the face was how clueless and/or irresponsible most parents are, regardless of which socio-economic stratum they belong to – writing this sentence as I read an article on a teenager who died from obesity after his mother continually brought takeaway to his hospital bed5. The consequence is children living through many traumatic experiences, picking up bad habits and developing health problems due to a combination of ignorance, lack of guidance and toxic environments.

A wise man was once asked: “How do we educate our children?” and he is said to have replied “Educate yourself as they will imitate you”. As a new father, I got to observe first-hand that my child is virtually learning everything in life from myself and my wife. Thinking back, my parents never smoked, did not allow any visitors to smoke in the house, and kept me away from friends who smoked. Their actions were the main factor for myself and my three siblings to never start smoking – although there was pressure from my school friends. Research suggests that this is true across the general population, that is, if parents do not smoke, their children are more likely to become adults who will not either6; if parents prepare healthy food, their children will do too; if parents do not drink or drink moderately, the children will do too; if parents are educated, their children will be too7; and the list goes on… As the only economically feasible hope seems to be prevention, there is no better place to start than educating parents.

Since starting as a researcher at my current institute, I have been to a dozen or so ‘induction courses’, taking lessons on a variety of subjects from ‘equality and diversity’ to ‘fire safety’ to ’unconscious biases’. Although most seemed a bit of a time waster at first, after enrolling to them, I soon accepted that these were important as I did not know how crucial they were in certain situations – situations that are more common than one would think. I would not have attended them if they were not mandatory.

However, arguably, none of these skills that I picked up in these induction courses are as important as being a good parent and helping my children achieve their potential physically, intellectually, psychologically, emotionally and socially. I think it is irresponsible that there exists no mandatory training before people become parents. We as parents are expected to be not just people who keep our children alive by providing for them, but we are also expected to be good dieticians, sleep coaches, pedagogues, psychiatrists, life coaches, friends… Unsurprisingly, many parents are failing horribly as we are not equipped with a solid foundation to guide them properly. The result is: one-third of the population is obese, one-fourth drink above advised thresholds, one-fourth of students report to have taken drugs, one-fifth smoke (noting that vaping is not included in this figure), one-fifth show symptoms of anxiety or depression and up to one-tenth may be game addicts.

To help parents in this long and extremely difficult journey of parenthood, I propose mandatory courses tailored for first-time parents – with exemptions & alternatives available. The specific syllabus and the length of the course should be shaped by pedagogy, public health, psychology, sociology, and epidemiology experts but also by the parents themselves.

In this course parents can:

  1. Be persuaded about the importance of such a course – just as I learned that spending time learning about fire safety was not a bad idea
  2. Be provided with links on where to easily find reliable information (e.g. NHS website)
  3. Learn about the mental and physical health aspects of smoking, drinking alcohol, exercising, eating high sugar content food, pollution, watching TV, reading books, cooking healthy food, mould, asthma triggers, excessive use of social media etc.
  4. Feedback any problems they have to a central panel and make suggestions as to how the course could be improved
  5. Hear about local activities (e.g. ‘Stop smoking’ events, English courses, even events such as Yoga classes)
  6. Receive information about who they can contact if they themselves have addiction problems (e.g. smoking, alcohol, drugs, gambling)
  7. Learn about what to look out for in their children (e.g. any obvious signs of physical and mental diseases, bullying)
  8. Be encouraged to support their children achieve their potential – no matter what background they come from
  9. Be encouraged to offer help in local as well as national problems such as the organ donor shortage, climate change (recycling, carbon emissions), air pollution etc.
  10. Be reminded of the responsibility to provide future generations a sustainable world
  11. Be taught about the relevant laws (e.g. child seat, domestic abuse, cannot leave at home on their own).

I believe if the course is designed with the help of experts but also by parents, the course can be engaging and lead to more knowledgeable parents. This is turn will lead to positive changes in behaviour and a significant drop in the incidence of unhealthy diets/lifestyles, (at least heavy) smoking, substance use and binge drinking – major causes of the abovementioned common diseases. I think to ensure that parents engage and take part in the process, an exam should be administered where individuals who fail should re-take the exam. Parents who contribute to the process with feedback and suggestions can be rewarded with minor presents or a simple ‘thank you’ card from the government itself – a gesture that is bound to make parents feel part of a bigger process. Parents who are engaged in this process will also be encouraged to engage with their children’s education and help their teachers when they start going to school. Parental participation in turn, will positively affect academic achievement and the healthy development of children – a phenomenon shown by many studies8,9. Incentives such as additional child tax credit/benefit and/or paid parental leave for both parents should be considered to increase true participation rates.

These courses can then be accompanied by a number of optional courses where NGOs and volunteers from the local community can offer advice on matters such as ‘how to quit smoking?’, ‘how to find jobs?’, online parenting, English language courses (for non-speakers), and engaging children with local sports teams. I would certainly volunteer to give a session on the genetic causes of diabetes and obesity – and I know there are plenty of academics and professionals (e.g. experienced teachers, solicitors) out there whom would happily offer free advice to those who are interested. There are NGOs providing information on almost all diseases and health-related skills (e.g. CPR, first-aid) and this course would offer a more targeted and cost-efficient platform for them to disseminate their brochures and information on their upcoming events.

Many upper-middle to upper class parents regularly attend similar courses and events – and making this available to every parent would represent another way to close ‘the gap’10. Old problems persist but new ones are added on top such as online gaming, e-cigarettes, FOMO and betting addiction – and the courses can evolve with the times. A government which successfully implements such a course can leave a great legacy as social interventions have long lasting impact and even affect other countries.

One could argue that a course like this should be offered to every citizen at few key stages in their lives (e.g. first parenthood, before first child reaches puberty) – and that would be the ultimate aim. But as this option may initially be very costly and hard to organise and focusing on parents ensures that not only the parents are educated but consequently the children are too – making the process more cost efficient. The first courses could be trialled in certain regions of the country before going nation-wide.

We are all in the same boat – whether we realise or not

I would like to diverge a little to mention the potential sociological benefits of the proposed course: Tolstoy, in Anna Karenina wrote “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in their own way” – also an increasingly used aphorism in public health circles. However, I observe and believe that many of us are unhappy due to similar reasons: we all want to be listened to, understood and feel like we are being cared about. I believe the proposed course accompanied with an honest feedback system would be a great start in getting the ‘neglected masses’ involved in national issues.

I would like to finish by returning to the little story at the start. I believe that many parents, especially those from poorer backgrounds, give up trying for their children early on as they do not think that they or their children can compete against other ‘well-off’ individuals and therefore see no future for themselves. Their children and grandchildren also end up in this vicious cycle. But if they get to see first-hand in the proposed course that we all – rich and poor – start from not too dissimilar levels as parents and have the same anxieties about our children can also motivate us all to push a little bit extra and hopefully close the massive gaps that exist between the different socio-economic strata in the UK11 – and ultimately decrease the prevalence of the diseases that are crippling the NHS.

Further reading

  1. Shork, N. 2015. Personalized medicine: Time for one-person trials. Nature. 520(7549)
  2. Bluett et al., 2015. Impact of inadequate adherence on response to subcutaneously administered anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs: results from the Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate cohort. Rheumatology. 54(3):494-9
  3. NHS failure is inevitable – and it will shock those responsible into action. The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/nhs-failure-health-service. Accessed on 30th October 2019
  4. The first step towards fixing the UK’s health care system is admitting it’s broken. Quartz. https://qz.com/1201096/by-deifying-the-nhs-the-uk-will-never-fix-its-broken-health-care-system/. Accessed on 30th October 2019
  5. Teenager Dies from Obesity After Mother Brought Takeaways to His Hospital Bed – Extra.ie. URL: https://extra.ie/2019/09/12/news/extraordinary/child-dies-obesity-mum-hospital. Accessed on 27th October 2019
  6. Mike Vuolo and Jeremy Staff. 2013. Parent and Child Cigarette Use: A Longitudinal, Multigenerational Study. Pediatrics. 132(3): 568–577
  7. Sutherland et al. 2008. Like Parent, Like Child. Child Food and Beverage Choices During Role Playing. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 162(11): 1063–1069
  8. Sevcan Hakyemez-Paul, Paivi Pihlaja & Heikki Silvennoinen. 2018. Parental involvement in Finnish day care – what do early childhood educators say? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26:2, 258-273
  9. Jennifer Christofferson & Bradford Strand. 2016. Mandatory Parent Education Programs Can Create Positive Youth Sport Experiences. A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators. 29:6, 8-12
  10. How Obesity Relates to Socioeconomic Status. Population Reference Bureau. URL: https://www.prb.org/obesity-socioeconomic-status/. Accessed: 18/12/19
  11. Nancy E. Adler, Katherine Newman. 2002. Socioeconomic Disparities In Health: Pathways And Policies. Health Affairs. 21:2, 60-76

Read Full Post »

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change – attributed to Charles Darwin

“How did you get accepted to Cambridge?”

I saw a tweet a while ago which said something along the lines of: “If you’ve been asked the same question three times, you need to write a blog post about it”. I get asked about how I got my current postdoc job at the University of Cambridge all the time. Therefore, I decided to write this document to provide a bit of a backstory as I did many things over the years which – with a bit of luck – contributed to this ‘achievement’.

It is a long document but hopefully it will be worth reading in full for all foreign PhD students, new Postdocs and undergraduates who want an introduction to the world of academia in the UK. I wish I could write it in other languages (for a Turkish version click here) to make it as easy as I can for you, but I strived to use as less jargon as possible. Although there is some UK-specific information in there, the document is mostly filled with general guidance that will be applicable to not just foreign students or those who want to study in the UK, but all PhD students and new Postdocs.

I can only hope that there are no errors and every section is complete and fully understandable but please do contact me for clarifications, suggestions and/or criticism. I thank you in advance!

To make a connection between academia in the UK and the quote attributed to Darwin above, I would say being very clever/intelligent is definitely an advantage in academia but it is not the be-all and end-all. Learning to adapt with the changing landscape (e.g. sought-after skills, priorities of funders and PIs), keeping a good relationship with your colleagues and supervisors, and being able to sell yourself is as, if not more important. Those who pay attention to this side of academia usually make things easier for themselves.

I hope the below document helps you reach the places you want to reach:

Good luck in your career!


I included this tweet here because Ed was one of my lecturers when I was a first year undergraduate student at the University of Leicester (2007)
I was kindly asked to send in a short video for the 2022 Univ. of Leicester Annual Alumni Dinner

Read Full Post »

Many of today’s scientists (incl. myself a lot of the time) have probably lost touch with some of the central tenets of being a scientist – instead titles, number of published papers and grant money brought in becoming more important than the societal impact of their publications and how much they contributed to human knowledge. A shoddy paper published in Nature/Science/Cell (especially if cited/talked about a lot) carries far more weight than a solid paper in a less glamorous journal. An academic who brings in grant money – doesn’t matter if he/she wastes it on shoddy or average research – is far more important (i.e. they will be promoted and bring in further funding easier as they already brought in some before) than one who chooses to concentrate on producing solid research but struggles to bring in money e.g. due to a lack of funding in their specific field or publishing papers in non-glamorous journals due to ‘non-exciting’ results as they didn’t add a spin to their conclusions (click here for other examples). Some of the papers published in prestigious journals in my field would not have been accepted if the senior authors of the same papers were the reviewers – many seem to apply a less stringent criteria to their own papers. The relationship between editors and some senior scientists is also opaque which is ultimately damaging to science. Image source: naturalphilosophy.org

Hell for academics and researchers (NB: The list is loosely ordered and is not an exhaustive one). Of course, inspired by Dante’s Nine levels/layers/circles of Hell

A few months ago, I spent almost a week trying to replicate a published “causal” association which had received >500 citations in the last 5 years. My aim was to provide a better effect estimate and to do this, I used two different datasets, one with similar and another with a larger sample size. However, both of my analyses returned null results (i.e. no effect of exposure on outcome). Positive controls were carried out to make sure the analysis pipeline was working correctly. Ultimately, I moved on to other ‘more interesting’ projects as there was no point spending time writing a paper that was probably going to end up in a ‘not-so-prestigious’ journal and never going to get >500 citations or be weighted heavily when I apply for grants/fellowships.

Consequently, inadvertently I contributed to publication bias on this issue – and no other analyses on the subject matter were published since the original publication, so I am sure others have found similar results and chose not to publish.

State of academia (very generally speaking): Really talented and successful people working like slaves for unimportant academic titles and average salaries. What’s worse is that the job market is so fierce that most are perfectly happy(!) to just get on with their ‘jobs and do what they’ve always been doing (Note: this is my first attempt at drawing using Paint 🙂 )

However, I have changed my mind about publishing null/negative results after encountering Russell, Wittgenstein and others’ long debates on proving ‘negative’ truths/facts (and in a nutshell, how hard it is to prove negatives – which should make it especially important to publish conclusive null findings). These giants of philosophy thought it was an important issue and spent years structuring their ideas but here I am, not seeing my conclusive null results worthy of publication. I (and the others who found similar results) should have at least published a preprint to right a wrong – and this sentiment doesn’t just apply to the scientific literature. I also think academics should spend some time on social media to issue corrections to common misconceptions in the general public.

This also got me thinking about my university education: I was not taught any philosophy other than bioethics during my undergraduate course in biological sciences (specialising in Genetics in the final year). I am now more convinced than ever that ‘relevant’ philosophy (e.g. importance of publishing all results, taking a step back and revisiting what ‘knowledge’ is and how to attain ‘truth’, how to construct an argument1, critical thinking/logical fallacies, what is an academic’s intellectual responsibility?) should be embedded and mandatory in all ‘natural science’ courses. This way, I believe future scientists and journal editors would appreciate the importance of publishing negative/null results more and allow well-done experiments to be published in ‘prestigious’ journals more. This way, hopefully, less published research findings are going to be false2.

References/Further reading:

  1. Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments (Coursera MOOC)
  2. Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med. 2(8): e124 (2015)
  3. How Life Sciences Actually Work: Findings of a Year-Long Investigation (Blog post)
  4. An interesting Quora discussion: Why do some intelligent people lose all interest in academia?
  5. Calculating the ‘worth’ of an academic (Blog post)
A gross generalisation but unfortunately there is some truth behind this table – and it’s not even a comprehensive list (e.g. gatekeepers, cherry picking of results). Incentives need to change asap – and more idealists are needed in academic circles!

*the title comes from the fact that today’s natural scientists would have been called ‘natural philosophers’ back in the day

Read Full Post »

smoking_genetics_gwas_mesut_erzurumluoglu
A ‘Circos’ plot (with three concentric circular ‘Manhattan’ plots) presenting results from our latest genetic association study of smoking behaviour – showing some (not all) regions in our genome that are associated with smoking behaviour (Erzurumluoglu, Liu, Jackson et al, 2019). SI: Smoking initiation – whether they smoke or not; CPD: Cigarettes per day – how many cigarettes do they smoke per day; SC: Smoking cessation – whether they’ve stopped smoking after starting. Labels in the outer circle show the name of the nearest gene to the identified variants. X-axis: Genomic positions of the variants in the human genome (chromosome numbers, 1-22, in the outer circle), Y-axis: Statistical significance of the genetic variants in this study – higher the peak, greater the significance. Red peaks are the newly identified regions in the genome, and the blue ones were identified by previous groups. Image source: Molecular Psychiatry

I believe that all scientists should be bloggers and that they should spare some thought and time to explain their research to interested non-scientists without using technical jargon. This is going to be my attempt at one; hopefully it’ll be a nice and short read.

We’ve just published a paper in one of the top molecular psychiatry journals (well, named Molecular Psychiatry 🙂 ) where we tried to identify genetic variants that (directly or indirectly) affect (i) whether a person starts smoking or not, and once initiated, (ii) whether they smoke more. The paper is titled: Meta-analysis of up to 622,409 individuals identifies 40 novel smoking behaviour associated genetic loci. It is ‘open access’ so anyone with access to the internet can read the paper without paying a single penny.

If you can understand the paper, great! If not, I will now try my best to explain some of the key points of the paper:

Why is it important?

Smoking causes all sorts of diseases, including respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which causes 1 in 20 of all deaths globally; more stats here) and lung cancer – which causes ~1 in 5 of all cancer deaths (more stats here). Therefore understanding what causes individuals to smoke is very important. A deeper understanding can help us develop therapies/interventions that help smokers to stop and have a massive impact on reducing the financial, health and emotional burden of smoking-related diseases.

Genes and Smoking? What!?

There are currently around fifty genetic variants that are identified to be associated with various smoking behaviours and we identified 40 of them in our latest study, including two on the X-chromosome which is potentially very interesting. There are probably hundreds more to be found*. So, it’s hard to comprehend but yes, our genes – given the environment – can affect whether we start smoking or not, and whether we’ll smoke heavier or not. This is not to say our genes determine whether we smoke or not so that we can’t do anything about it.

There are three main take-home messages:

1- I have to start by re-iterating the “given the environment” comment above. If there was no such thing as cigarettes or tobacco in the world, there would be no smoking. If none of our friends or family members smoked, we’re probably not going to smoke no matter what genetic variants we inherit. So the ‘environment’ you’re brought up in is by far the most important reason why you may start smoking.

2- I have to also underline the term “associated“. What we’re identifying are correlations so we don’t know whether these genetic variants are directly or indirectly affecting the smoking behaviour of individuals – bearing in mind that some might be statistical artefacts. Some of the genetic variants are more apparently related to smoking than others though: for example, variants in genes coding for nicotine receptors cause them to function less efficiently so more nicotine is needed to induce ‘that happy feeling‘ that smokers get. Other variants can directly or indirectly affect the educational attainment of an individual, which in turn can affect whether someone smokes or not. I’d highly recommend reading the ‘FAQ’ by the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium (link below) which fantastically explains the caveats that comes with these types of genetic association studies.

3- Last but not least, there are many (I mean many!) non-smokers who have these genetic variants. I haven’t got any data on this but I’m almost 100% sure that all of us have at least one of these variants – but a large majority of people in the world (~80%) don’t smoke.

Closing remarks

To identify these genetic variants, we had to analyse the genetic data of over 620k people. To then identify which genes and biological pathways these variants may be affecting, we queried many genetic, biochemical and protein databases. We’ve been working on this study for over 2 years.

Finally, this study would not be possible (i) without the participants of over 60 studies, especially of UK Biobank – who’ve contributed ~400k of the total 622k, and (ii) without a huge scientific collaboration. The study was led by groups located at the University of Leicester, University of Cambridge, University of Minnesota and Penn State University – with contribution by researchers from >100 different institutions.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, impact these findings will have. We hope that there will be at least one gene within our paper that turns out to be a target for an effective smoking cessation drug.

Further reading

1- FAQs about “Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment” – a must read in my opinion

2- Smoking ‘is down to your genes’ – a useful commentary on the NHS website on an older study

3- 9 reasons why many people started smoking in the past – a nice read

4- Genetics and Smoking – an academic paper, so quite technical

5- Causal Diagrams: Draw Your Assumptions Before Your Conclusions – a fantastic course on ‘Cause and Effect’ by Prof. Miguel Hernan at Harvard University

6- Searching for “Breathtaking” genes – my earlier blog post on genetic association studies

Data access

The full results can be downloaded from here

*in fact we know that there is another paper in press that has identified a lot more associations than we have

Read Full Post »

copd_smoking_nat_genet_lung_function_gwas_wain

We – as a group – carried out the largest genome-wide association study to identify genetic variants that are associated with decreased lung function and increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We hope that our findings will ultimately lead to the identification of effective drug targets for COPD. Image source: University of Leicester

I remember reading somewhere that ‘if you get asked the same question three times, then write a blog post about it’. That’s what I’ve been doing so far, and the purpose of this blog post is the same: to try and provide an answer to a commonly asked question. (Important note: my answers are in no way authoritative and only meant for interested non-scientists)

As a ‘Genetic Epidemiologist’, I constantly get asked what I do and what my (replace ‘my’ with ‘our’, as I do everything within a team) research can lead to. Please see my previous post ‘Searching for “Breathtaking” genes. Literally!‘ and My Research page for short answers to these questions. In tandem to these, I am constantly asked ‘why we can’t find a ‘cure’ for (noncommunicable) diseases that affect/will affect most of us such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, COPD – although there are many scientific advancements?’. I looked around for a straight forward example, but couldn’t find one (probably didn’t look hard enough!). So I decided to write my own.

I will first try and put the question into context: We do have ‘therapies’ and ‘preventive measures’ for most diseases and sometimes making that distinction from ‘a cure’ answers their question. For example, coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death both in the UK and worldwide (see NHS page for details) but we know how we can prevent many CHD cases (e.g. lowering cholesterol, stopping smoking, regular exercise) and treat CHD patients (e.g. statins, aspirin, ACE inhibitors). However, there are currently there are no ‘cures’ for CHD. So once a person is diagnosed with CHD, it is currently impossible to cure them from it, but doctors can offer quite a few options to make their life better.

I then gave it some thought about why finding a ‘cure’ was so hard for most diseases, and came up with the below analogy of a river/sea, water dam, and a nicely functioning village/city (excuse my awful drawing!).

The first figure below sets the scene: there’s a water dam that’s keeping the river from flooding and damaging the nice village/city next to it. Now please read the caption of the below figure to make sense of how they’re related to a disease.

Prevention

The river/sea is the combination of your genetic risk (e.g. you could have inherited genetic variants from your parents that increased your chances of type-2 diabetes) and environmental exposures (e.g. for type-2 diabetes, that would be being obese, eating high sugar content diet, smoking). The water dam is your immune system and/or mechanisms in your body which tame the sea of risk factors to ensure that everything in your body work fine (e.g. pancreatic islet cells have beta cells which produce insulin to lower your glucose levels back to normal levels – which would be damaging to the body’s organs if it stayed high).

So to ‘prevent’ a disease (well, flooding in this case), we could (i) make the water dam taller, (ii) make the dam stronger, and (iii) do regular checks to patch any damage done to the dam. To provide an example, for type-2 diabetes, point (i) could correspond to being ‘fit’ (or playing with your genes, which currently isn’t possible), point (ii) could correspond to staying ‘fit’, and point (iii) could correspond to having regular check-ups to see whether any preventive measures are necessary. Hope that made sense. If not, please stop reading immediately and look for other blog posts on the subject matter 🙂

Using the figure below, I wanted to then move to ‘therapy’. So as you can see, the river has flooded i.e. this individual has the disease (e.g. type-2 diabetes as above). The water dam is now not doing a good job of stopping the river and the city is in danger of being destroyed. But we have treatments: (i) The (badly drawn) water pumping trucks suck up excess water, and (ii) we have now built a second (smaller) dam to protect the houses and/or slow the flow of the water. Again, to provide an example using type-2 diabetes, water pumping trucks could be analogous to insulin or metformin injections, and the smaller dams could be changing current diet to a ‘low sugar’ version. This way we can alleviate the effects of the current and future ‘floods’.

Therapy

Analogy for therapy/treatment – after being diagnosed with the disease

Finally, we move on to our main question: ‘the cure’. Using the same analogy as above, as the water dam is now dysfunctional, the only way to stop future ‘floods’ would be to design a sewage system that can mop up all water that could come towards the city. Of course the water dam and ‘old city’ was destroyed/damaged due to past floods, so we’d need to build a new functioning city to take over the job of the old one. A related real example (off the top of my head) could be to remove the damaged tissues and replace them with new ones. Genetic engineering (using CRISPR/Cas9) and/or stem cell techniques are likely to offer useful options in the future.

Cure

Analogy for cure – after being diagnosed with the disease

Hopefully it is now clear that the measures taken to prevent or treat the disease, cannot be used to cure the disease. E.g. you can build another dam in place of the old one, but the city is already destroyed so that’s not going to be of any use in curing the disease.

So to sum up, diseases like obesity, cancer, COPD are very complex diseases – in fact they’re called ‘complex diseases’ in the literature – and understanding their underlying biology is very hard (e.g. hundreds of genes and environmental exposures could combine to cause them). We’re currently identifying many causal variants but turning these findings into ‘cures’ is a challenge that we have not been able to crack yet. However, it is clear that the methods that we currently use to identify preventive measures and therapies cannot be used to identify cures.

I hope that was helpful. I’d be very happy to read your comments/suggestions and share credit with contributing scientists. Thanks for reading!

Read Full Post »

evolution_of_intellectual_freedom_cham_phdcomics

Source URL: PhD Comics

Figuratively speaking, what is the ‘worth’ of a certain academic? Between two academics, which one has had more positive academic impact than the other? How do you rank academics? And award grants, promotion, tenure etc. to the best* ones?

I’m not going to answer these questions but would like to chip in with some food for thought and suggestions.

Well; one may say: “It’s easy! Just compare their h-index and total no of citations!

This may be an effective way to go about answering the question. Surely someone with an h-index of 30 has had more positive academic impact than someone with let’s say an h-index of 15 – and is the better candidate?

Maybe – that is if all things are equal regarding the way citations and the h-index works i.e. if both academics:

  • are in similar fields – as papers in certain fields receive more citations overall than papers in other fields,
  • are in similar stages in their careers – as comparing an early-career postdoc with an established “Prof.” wouldn’t be fair,
  • have similar numbers of first/equal-first or last author papers – as an academic with many middle-authorships can have excessively inflated h-indexes,
  • have similar number of co-authors – as it may be easier to be listed as a co-author in some fields than others and/or mean that more people will be presenting and citing the paper as their own, and
  • have a similar distribution of citations across the papers – as the h-index ignores highly influential papers and the total citations can be highly influenced by even just one of these (see figure below).

I may have missed other factors, but I think these are the main ones (please add a comment below).

mesut_erzurumluoglu_h-index_academic_2018

Calculating my h-index: Although problematic (discussed here), the h-index has become the standard metric when measuring the academic output of an academic. It is calculated by sorting the publications of an academic from most to least cited, then checking whether he/she has h papers with h citations e.g. if an academic has 10 papers with ≥10 citations but not 11 papers with ≥11 citations then their h-index will be 10. It was proposed as a way to summarise the number of publications that an academic has and their academic impact (via citations) with a single number. The above citation counts were obtained from my Google Scholar page

As of 31st July 2018, I have 14 published papers – including 5 as first/equal-first author – under my belt. I have a total citation count of 316 and an h-index of 6 (225 and 5 respectively, when excluding publications marked with an asterisk in the above figure). It is fair to say that these numbers are above average for a 29-year-old postdoc. But even I’m not content with my h-index – and many established academics are definitely right not to be. I’ll try and explain why: the figure above shows the citation distribution of my 14 publications sorted by the ‘number of times cited’ from the left (highest) to right (lowest). One can easily see that the h-index (red box) captures only a small portion of the general picture (effectively, 6 x 6 i.e. 36 citations) and ignores the peak (>6 on the y-axis) and tail (>6 on the x-axis) of the publication-citation distribution. I have also included the publication year of each paper and added an asterisk (*) against the publications where I haven’t provided much input e.g. I have done almost nothing for the Warren et al (2017) paper but it constitutes almost a third of my total citations (90/316)**. The ‘ignored peak’ contains three highly cited papers to which I have made significant contributions to and the ‘ignored tail’ contains research papers that (i) I am very proud of (e.g. Erzurumluoglu et al, 2015) or (ii) are just published – thus didn’t have the time to accumulate citations. What is entirely missing from this figure are my (i) non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. reports, articles in general science magazines), (ii) correspondence/letters to editor (e.g. my reply to a Nature News article), (iii) blog posts where I review papers or explain concepts (e.g. journal clubs), (iv) shared code/analysis pipelines, (v) my PhD thesis with potentially important unpublished results, (vi) other things in my CV (e.g. peer-review reports, some blog posts) – which are all academia-related things I am very proud of. I have seen other people’s contributions in relation to these (e.g. Prof. Graham Coop’s blog) and thought that they were more useful than even some published papers in my field. These contributions should be incorporated into ‘academic output’ measures somehow.

It is also clear that “just compare their h-index and total no of citations!” isn’t going to be fair on academics that (i) do a lot of high-quality supervision at different levels (PhD, postdoc, masters, undergrad project – which all require different skill sets and arrangements), (ii) spend extra time to make their lectures inspiring and as educative as possible to undergrad and Masters students, (iii) present at a lot of conferences, (iv) do ‘admin work’ which benefits early-career researchers (e.g. workshops, discussion sessions), (v) do a lot of blogging to explain concepts, review papers, and offer personal views on field generally, (vi) have a lot of social media presence (e.g. to give examples from my field i.e. Genetic Epidemiology, academics such as Eric Topol, Daniel MacArthur, Sek Kathiresan take time out from their busy schedules to discuss, present and debate latest papers in their fields – which I find intellectually stimulating), (vii) give a lot of interviews (TV, online media, print media) to correct misconceptions, (viii) take part in public engagement events (incl. public talks), (ix) organise (inter-disciplinary) workshops, (x) inspire youngsters to become academics working for the benefit of humankind, (xi) publish reliable reports for the public and/or corporations to use, (x) provide pro bono consultation, (xi) take part in expert panels and try very hard to make the right decisions, (xii) engage in pro bono work, (xiii) do their best to change bad habits in the academic circles (e.g. by sharing code, advocating open access publications, standing up to unfair/bad decisions whether it affects them or not), (xiv) extensively peer-review papers, (xv) help everyone who asks for help and/or reply to emails… The list could go on but I think I’ll stop there…

I acknowledge that some of the above may indirectly help increase the h-index and total citations of an individual but I don’t think any of the above are valued as much as they should be per se by universities – and something needs to change. Academics should not be treated like ‘paper machines’ until the REF*** submission period, and then ‘cash cows’ that continually bring grant money until the next REF submission cycle starts. As a result, many academics have made ‘getting their names into as many papers as possible’ their main aim – it is especially easier for senior academics, many with a tonne of middle-authorships for which they have done virtually nothing****. This is not how science and scientists should work and universities are ultimately disrespecting the tax payers’ and donors’ money. Some of the above-mentioned factors are easier to quantify than others but thought should go into acknowledging work other than (i) published papers, (ii) grant money brought in, and maybe (iii) appearing on national TV channels.

Unless an academic publishes a ‘hot paper’ as first or corresponding author – which very few have the chance and/or luck to do – and he/she becomes very famous in their field, their rank is usually dictated by the h-index and/or total citations. In fact, many scientists who have very high h-indexes (e.g. because of many middle-author papers) put this figure at the top of their publication list to prove that they’re top scientists – and unfortunately, they contribute to the problem.

People have proposed that contributions of each author are explicitly stated on each paper but this is going to present a lot of work when analysing the academic output of tens of applicants – especially when the number of publications an individual has increases. Additionally, in papers with tens or even hundreds of authors, general statements such as “this author contributed to data analysis” are going to be assigned to many authors without explicitly stating what they did to be included as a co-author – thus the utility of this proposition could also be less than expected in reality.

It’s not going to solve all the problems, but I humbly propose that a figure such as the one above be provided by Google Scholar and/or similar bibliometric databases (e.g. SCOPUS, CrossRef, Microsoft Academic, Loop) for all academics, where the papers for which the respective academic is not the first author are marked with an asterisk. The asterisks could then be manually removed by the respective academic on publications where he/she has made significant contributions (i.e. equal-first, corresponding author, equal-last author or other prominent role) but wasn’t the first author. Metrics such as the h-index and total citations could then become better measures by giving funders/decision makers the chance to filter accordingly.

Thanks for reading. Please leave your comments below if you do not agree with anything or would like to make a suggestion.

academic_worth_researcher_university_mesut_erzurumluoglu

The heuristic that I think people use when calculating the worth of an early career researcher (but generally applies to all levels): ‘CV’ and ‘Skills’ are the two main contributors, with the factors highlighted in red carrying enormous weight in determining whether someone should get the job/fellowship or not. Virtually no one cares about anything that is outside what is written here – as mentioned in the post. Directly applicable: Some technical skill that the funder/Professor thinks is essential for the job; Prestige of university: where you did your PhD and/or undergrad; Funded PhD: whether your PhD was fully funded or not; Female/BME: being female and/or of BME background – this can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the regulations/characteristics of the university/panel, as underrepresented groups can be subjected to both positive and negative discrimination. NB: this is a simplified version and there are many factors that affect outcomes such as “who you know” and “being at the right place at the right time“.

 

Added on 30/10/18: I just came across ‘No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you‘ by Tal Yarkoni about the common malpractices in academic circles, and I think it’s well worth a read.

 

*Making sure there’s a gender balance and that academics from BME backgrounds are not excluded from the process – as they’ve usually had to overcome more obstacles to reach the same heights.

**I have been honest about this in my applications and put this publication under “Other Publications” in my CV.

***REF stands for the ‘Research Excellence Framework’, and is the UK’s system for assessing the quality of research in higher education institutions. The last REF cycle finished in 2014 and the next one will finish in 2021 (every 7 years). Universities start planning for this 3-4 years before the submission dates and the ones ranked high in the list will receive tens of millions of pounds from the government. For example, University of Oxford (1st) received ~£150m and University of Bristol (8th) received ~£80m.

****Sometimes it’s not their fault; people add senior authors on their papers to increase their chances of getting them accepted. It’s then human nature that they’re not going to decline authorship. It sounds nice when one’s introduced in a conference etc. as having “published >100 papers with >10,000 citations” – when in reality they’ve not made significant (if any!) contributions to most of them.

 

PS: I also propose that acknowledgements at the bottom of papers and PhD theses be screened in some way. I’ve had colleagues who’ve helped me out a lot when learning some concepts who then moved on and did not have the chance to be a co-author on my papers. I have acknowledged them in my PhD thesis and would love to see my comments be helpful to these colleagues in some way when they apply for postdoc jobs or fellowships. Some of them did not publish many papers and acknowledgements like these could show that they not only have the ability to be of help (e.g. statistical, computational expertise), but are also easy to work with and want to help their peers.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »