For my younger friends.

Wow, it's been 2 months.....funny how that happens.

I've had this post in my arsenal for that 2-month period, but just haven't gotten around to posting until tonight.  I finally had a night free of homework guilt. Cool. 

I'm a fan of TED talks.  This one came across my RADAR in mid-July, and again last week during an NPR Ted Hour podcast. I had a re-listen, and the meaning still rings pretty true 2 months later.  (I have it going in the background now.....still pretty awesome.)

This post will be short and sweet.  The talk kind of speaks for itself. Listen to it. If you have an hour, listen to the NPR podcast. It's worth it.

Take-home message: Spend your twenties learning about yourself. Understand who you are. Pay attention to what you want. Make good life choices.  Don't just let your 20's pass you by.  It's not time meant to kill. 

I think I did most of that, but now in my thirties (I still have to get used to saying that...) I wish I would have understood some of this advice about....oh....ten years ago. 

Even if no one sat me down, I think I came across some of this advice by trial and error throughout my 20's.

I changed a lot in my 20's.  A. LOT. (I also spent a lot of time in University...but that's beside the point.)  My career plan changed probably 10 times. Hell, it's still changing...but I think I'm starting to hone in on something. Finally.

I dated a lot of different people in my 20's too.  I'm still slowly figuring a lot of this area out, but I know what I'm willing to compromise on. Ten years ago, I had no idea what compromise really was. 


For my friends who are still in their twenties, here's a talk you should listen to.

You're welcome.

Probably the best math class...maybe ever.

When I'm in class taking notes, I tend to jot down just as many "random ideas" as I do actual class notes.  Sometimes they're witty things I think of, sometimes they're semi-brilliant ideas, but most of the time, it's something really funny either a student or the Prof has said. 

Today was one of those classes. 

I suppose writing down someone else's ramblings may be a little on the disrespectful side....well, not really, but it's kind of uncomfortable recording someone else's ruminating moments, especially when that someone is someone that truly amazes you.

Here's where I stand on it:  I've taught.....I've publicly rambled--even when not teaching.  Those words are usually documented.  It's cool.  It's going to happen eventually.  I'm just so gorram witty and sharp that someone, somewhere will find a little bit of humor in the clutter that is my thoughts.

I figure that you really must be paying attention if you document someone's random ramblings, especially when tensors have never made so much sense before (I totally had a lightbulb moment where the last 8 years of my engineering career made sense in about a fraction if a second.  It was...literally....brilliant--but that's a post for another time I guess.)

Here's some real gems.....I'm posting the "not-so-awesome-ones" simply because I want to save the awesome ones for a slam poem I'm working on. (That's a post for another time.) Also, some are mine, some belong to my Prof.  Some are a combined effort.

WARNING: Lots of these are a "you had to be there" or incredibly nerdy, like elephant-sine-theta and the mountain goat is a scalar kind of nerdy.  If you don't get it....well....that's really too bad *dismissively tap on head*. 

• "Remember the Moment..."
• "Turns out PLANE42 isn't the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything after all...it's merely 4 nodes in 2 degrees.  Well.....that's disappointing."
• "I'm pretty sure Einstein threw his hands up in the air in frustration too at one point.  Don't judge me!" (We were learning "Einstein notation" that day. Next step--world domination.)
• "Remember that day in 226 when you fell asleep in class and hit your head on the back of your chair...today we're gonna review that stuff." (I honestly didn't think he remembered that. Dr. D. is now officially SUPERMAN! True story.)
• "This is 'THE CHART'. Trust me, it looks a lot easier to understand than my medical records."
• "You now have 5 displacements, 5 unknowns, and they all come from second-order, non-linear ODE's....can't be that difficult? Right?"
• "Pain, I think it's all just a part of the 'simple decomposition' process." (There's like three double-entendres in there.....trust me...)
• "People let you down. Math doesn't"
• "I get tired of people, then I go do math.  Makes me feel better."
• "Apparently you can't do matrix operations without a Q or Star Trek reference.  I'm really sorry."
• "Tensors don't yell at each other. Brothers do."
• "Eigenvalues are better than muscles--they stretch both ways."

And here's one of my favorites...

"I'm hungry.  I think I'll eat while you guys write.  I wonder if I should do that next time I'm at the doctor...pull out a granola bar when he starts to scribble stuff down.  He'd probably scream, 'What are you doing!?'.  'Meh, it's my new thing.'"

Good class.  Makes math fun again.  I need that right now.

Just a small-town girl.....(no, not that kind of Journey)...

So, I found this article a few weeks back...and I've finally had time to do some mental ruminating on it. 

It's a look at female PhD students studying chemistry in the UK, and where (and how) they end up employed after all that fancy schooling.  I can totally relate with the figures they spit out.  I've found quite a few other sources that will agree as well.

As for where I'll end up, I'm still not too sure.  All I'm 100% sure about is that I don't want teaching to be my primary duty.  (If you've been following my blog, you know exactly why; if you haven't, well....just trust me.)

At this point though, I kind of agree with this article. I think I would be "better off" in industry....or with my own consulting company/laboratory. I'm sick and tired with the bureaucracy of Universities...I'm also sick and tired of being poor. Honestly, though....I don't think my reasons are gender-based (as brought up in the article).

As a female engineer in industry (especially an industry that was VERY male-dominated...I was one of six female "test engineers" in all of North America for a very large "international" company.  I think I was one of about 40 world-wide. (There was a pun there, but only the hard-core farm equipment buffs will get it.)  Bottom line, I saw more than my fair share of barriers because I was female; however, none of them prevented me from doing my job.  It may have made it a little more difficult, but I was always able to finish the job to the best of my abilities.

It could be the lack of role models.  I don't think so though.  Although I didn't have any "close" female science-type role models growing up, I did have the chance to meet a wicked-awesome Canadian astronaut (who also happened to be a very nice lady) when I was 11.  That was a pretty neat experience.  From that point on I thought "If she can do this, why can't I." (I'm not an astronaut, but I think I'm pretty damned close to similar (but by far not even close) accomplishments. :P ....)

Either way, I think the article is in some ways correct.  There are fewer women that enter academia, but I think it extends to further than the "gender-related" reasons stated in the article. 

Here's my 2-cents: It takes a lot of gumption, bull-headedness, stubbornness, patience, ambition, passion...and all those other flouncy nouns and adjectives...to finish an advanced degree, no matter what your gender.  It's exhausting.  I think that women just realize that there's a little more to life than everything that goes on in getting that fancy Doctorate, that once they graduate, they throw their arms in the air and exclaim "FUCK IT!" and decide to never have to deal with that crap again.  They sell out and go into industry. 

The men on the other hand, are just so damned excited that they were able to make it through, they have no idea what happened and decide to sign their name on the first dotted line that appears. It just happens to be a teaching position at a University...because the women graduands are perceptive enough to walk away while the walking's good.

You're welcome. 


(Also when I'm done this degree, I'm starting to consider a second Doctorate in Women's and Gender studies or something of that likeness.  We'll see.)

(There is some more deep thought on this subject, but it's late, I'm tired, and I have an assignment to work on. It involves some reasonably exciting math.  I'd rather do that then write.)

Well, that escalated quickly....and by escalated, I mean pretty damn dark.

So, I watched Star Trek: Into Darkness on Monday evening.  I went, I saw, I conquered a medium popcorn.
I went knowing very little beforehand; I refused to purposely watch any trailers or read any reviews....simply because this is Star Trek! It's something sacred, that just shouldn't be messed with. 

Well, about an hour in, it got dark.  Damn dark.  Like Frank Miller Batman dark.  It was messed with.
I don't have a problem with "Frank Miller Dark"....I love Sin City, The Dark Knight, etc, etc...it's that J.J. Abrams decided to dabble in dark and apply it to Star Trek.  *facepalm*

Now, I had this idea come to me in the shower, so it's scribbled in some cryptic form of grease-marker shorthand all over my bathroom wall, so it may only be partially developed.  I need to release it to the world though so I can move on without letting my Nerd show too much.  (5 accusations in 7 days....I think I need to tone it back or get out more often...)

Back to Frank Miller--Batman is completely acceptable for "Dark". I mean, look simply at the character development.  Here's a guy who's seriously disturbed.
Now paralleling Bruce Wayne to the J.J. Abrams Star Trek, ok...I will concede that Kirk is allowed to be a little "dark".  In TOS, or at least according to the 2009 movie reboot, Kirk's parents lived to see him graduate from Starfleet.  In the reboot parallel universe his father died a fiery death is a battle against the Romulan, so Kirk was stuck in Iowa as a spoiled kid that drives his uncle's 67 Stingray Convertible (awesome car btw) recklessly over a cliff.   From this, I can accept that Kirk himself will lean a little bit towards the troubled side of the spectrum. But the whole movie.....wait....wut?

I found a review that pretty much sums up where I stand on the movie. I also had and discussion (although not heated, we seemed to see eye-to-eye on most things) with a friend about how the reboot pulled too far from the TOS.

My take-home: If you have 2.5 hours to kill, and you want to see some explosions, some romantic plot lines (between Spock and Uhura...ewwww--no spoiler, you knew that was coming), some reasonably witty writing (it's no Joss Whedon, but I'll take it), then go and see it. 

If you want what Star Trek: TOS is known for: discovery, SCIENCE!, exploration, peace love and freedom, etc....then go watch the reboot, but accept that it's no TOS.  Not at all.

My favorite part of the movie (spoiler alert) was about 1/2 an hour in, when Scotty and Kirk have a pretty heated argument about the ethics and responsibilities of a Starfleet mission, eventually leading to Scotty's resignation.  I was kind of expecting the remaining 2 hours to take that turn.  They didn't. I was sad. The Esquire article I posted covers this argument pretty solidly. Honestly, I think the debate and moral argument was the most exciting part of the entire Star Trek franchise. (...which I think is why TNG is my favorite...)

One thing that was done very well (and I mean very well) was the character development.  We got to see Spock's "human side". We got to see a little more of McCoy's smart-ass demeanor.   Kirk, well, he wasn't so much of a ladies man (as in the OS), and seemed more like a spoiled brat with an expensive spaceship to do damage with, but there were still more dimensions to his character in a 2.5 hour movie than I think there were in 79 one-hour episodes (I know I'm opening up a huge can of worms here, but I'm willing to take that risk).  At least we got to see a little more of what makes the crew tick.  I appreciate that.

Bottom line: I much preferred the original 1982 Wrath of Khan. :P
Parallel universe or not, but it was still worth the watch.  I'm just wondering if it's worth the thought investment of the past three days.

When pop culture starts to relate to your research things get...interesting.

I've been holding on to the ideas in this post since a little NYT article kept popping up on my FB feed last week.  I also ended up discussing it with some friends over drinks and post-Comprehensive exam (not mine....I don't have to write a Comp...Thank the Gods) banter.  We needed something gossipy to lighten the mood, but being grad students, gossip slowly turned into a full-on ethic and health care conversation.

I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue, but I think putting all this out there and maybe building some discussion might help sort out my thoughts and opinions.

Angelina Jolie's Double Mastectomy.  Yeah, totally didn't see that one coming.  From the public eye, this is a big deal.  Here THE lady, the source of most wet dreams (male and female...thank-you Lara Croft), deciding to have a preventative (and what I feel may have been elective...but more on that later) surgery to remove both her breasts because she knew that she carries the BRCA1 gene--a gene that as closely linked to breast cancer as smoking is linked to lung cancer. Honestly, from a pop-culture perspective, her curves (her acting is pretty good too, but let's be honest here--we're a visual society) are what made her famous...and now she's had them lobbed off.

Now, if I were her publicist, I would have strongly encouraged her to write this article.  Although I've never had cancer, I have experience being the support system for friends and family going through the experience. (In fact, one of the funniest blogs I've EVER READ is written by one of my best friends going through stem-cell treatment in Seattle right now.  Excellent writer. Stand-up dude.)

Support may come in the the weirdest places, and for some patients, this could be a push or inspiration that gets them through. Everyone's experience is a little bit different, and I acknowledge that this could help some patients get over the hump (poorly-used pun intended).
Here's an international sex symbol, electing to cut off the body parts that helped make her famous, all in the "battle" for cancer.  Big deal.

Now, I use the "battle" term loosely because she never actually had cancer.  This was preventative--nothing more. She's in the same position as I am (except with a lot more money in a privatized health care system...a good place to be within a crummy deal). She's seen others suffer through a terrible disease (which sucks), lost some close family members (supreme suckage), and wants to make sure that she'll be there for her family in the future (noble).  She was not diagnosed with cancer, her body has never fought cancer.  Same as me and mine.


The double mastectomy, in my opinion, was elective...not preventative.  (I'll talk about the reconstructive surgery that followed later...promise.)

I'm still on the hunt for articles to help build my case (so posting this may have been preemptive at best), but a couple have come across my feed to help me feel more comfortable with my opinions.

This one is excellent in helping to build my case, because it addresses some of my concerns.
To summarize:

• This situation is not relevant to 99% of women.  The BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are very rare.  Although these genes are strongly linked to the likelihood of developing breast cancer, the actual application of this case to the average person is strongly unlikely. Trust me, you're average.
• Preventative medicine is a good thing.  But right now, we don't know enough about the BRCA1/2 mutations to make fully researched and validated screening recommendations, let alone impose a new screening procedure.  I agree, and this is why I LOVE the Health Science field.  There's so much more to discover and understand...but the public needs to be patient.  Rome wasn't built in a day. 

I have other concerns that were not addressed in this article.  I'm still hunting for sources.

• Just because you have the BRCA1/2 mutation does not certainly mean that you will develop breast cancer. Risk is an interesting statistical concept.  The actual risk factor population-wide is difficult to determine, because each patient is different. In Jolie's article, she writes that she had an 87% chance of getting breast cancer. Now my question: Is it significant? Answer: We don't know.  I think this was a pretty drastic action for a "We don't know."
• The BRCA1/2 mutations don't simply affect a woman's breasts. Other sex organs are affected, like the ovaries.  Something to consider...which was briefly brought up in Jolie's article but not strongly addressed...if you're going to go to the trouble to remove your breasts, you might as well go through the hysterectomy as well.  If you're going to be sure, be REALLY SURE.  This brings up a bigger question: Where do we stop? I'm not going to answer that one, again because we don't yet know enough. 
• After Ms. Jolie's breasts have been removed, is there still a chance that other tissues will be affected?  I think the answer could be yes.  She had the target tissue removed, not the BRCA1/2 gene...the "root cause" is still within her biological system. Again, we don't know if other tissues could be at risk once the breasts have been removed.  I'm not an expert in molecular biology, but from a materials perspective living tissue is still living tissue.  Other parts of her body with similar composition (perhaps the thyroid) could be at risk. Should she be concerned about the possibility of other cancers?  I think so.
• What about the reconstructive surgery and the imposition that it may place on the system?  I'm not an expert in public health policy, and I honestly don't intend to be; but I'd like to build an understanding of the field.  In Canada, after a body-altering surgery like this, the reconstructive surgery is not considered cosmetic. (I think...please correct me if I'm wrong. This is where the post-Comps conversation Tuesday comes into play. I have a reasonable source on this, but I want to make sure.)  My understanding is because of the psychological benefits, should the patient decide to have reconstructive surgery, then the Canadian Health Care system will "cover it". I use this term loosely because I'm still uncertain on the details. I have no idea how this would be dealt with in a privatized system, but I think it opens up a whole other can of worms that needs to be addressed.

There's a lot of "We don't know"'s in Jolie's case.  Still too many for me to firm up my position and support the wide publicity and likely over-interpretation of something that doesn't apply to the "average".  Is it worth the pomp and circumstance?  I think so.  Even if only one patient has found a little bit of hope...it's worth it.  Is it worth developing a screening program? Yes, but not until we know more, much more.

I'm still hunting.  Maybe that's the researcher or the engineer in me...never really satisfied until I'm certain.  In Health Sciences, the cool thing is that we're never "certain", only "strongly convinced".  There's always that outlier that skews the data, the 0.1% that reacts to the PAX and turns into a Reaver. (OK, so it's a made-up scenario from the Firefly 'Verse, but there are cases exactly like this in the real-world...I just wanted to be a little light-hearted...gimme a break.)

Point being, as professionals working in the Health Sciences field, we have to understand the issues as best we can, but when putting it in practice remember that each patient is different...each risk is different...and honestly, I don't think we'll ever be certain. I guess that's what makes life interesting.

Rockstar: Dena +1

Yes, I do have other posts on the back-burner...some that require a little bit of research to support my "opinions", but it's Friday afternoon and I just came from a pretty exciting meeting with my Thesis Supervisors...and I really don't want to write anything more that requires research--and I need to get this out before I explode. 

I'm actually starting to believe that I'm "awesome". 

I've never really believed it, even though my friends keeps telling me I'm "awesome", and people keep me in their networks because I'm "awesome", but I've never really believed it.  I know I'm a "good person", but never to the extreme of "awesome".  After today's meeting, I'm starting to believe, just a little bit, that I'm pretty awesome. 

I have two really amazing (I was going to type 'awesome' but quickly hit the delete button--gotta switch it up for writing's sake) supervisors.  Like, really amazing. 
They work really well together (which is essential when you have to manage two 'bosses', when in most cases one is more than enough), they value me as a team member (given my experience in the 'real world', THIS IS HUGE), they push me to think a little deeper (which usually ends up with me working in circles--but that helps me reaffirm what I know, in a twisted-OCD-kind-of-way), and they're not afraid to let me fail or stumble around frustrated in the dark for a little bit (which is sadly how I learn my best lessons).

I'm wondering what I did in previous lives to end up in such a wonderful position.
How did I end up working with such great (and incredibly smart) people?
How did I end up researching something I love so much?  (I don't care what anyone says, bone is fucking FASCINATING!!)
How did I end up working with the Vet College in a side project?
How did I end up being scouted to start up a lab even before I finished my PhD?
How the fuck did I get into a PhD program!!??

I went into today's meeting with a cluster-fuck of ideas.  Kind of like I took all the "brilliance" in my brain, smashed it into a schedule, and wished that it would work.

I came out of today's meeting, still with the "brilliant" ideas, but now they're starting to fit into a plan...a plan that makes sense and I should realistically be able to finish in 3 years.  HUGE! 

If I can pull this all off, it might just affirm that I actually am awesome.

My apologies.

Sorry I haven't posted during any of April. 

Honestly, I have no idea where the bloody month went.  I think I spent most of it hiding under a rock because people are stupid (long story, of which I will not blog for reasons of privacy).

Right now though, I have about 3 or 4 posts percolating in my noggin, and they'll all come out in due time.  Some sooner than others. Timeliness is a factor I guess.

I'll have something Friday....after my "planning meeting" with my PhD supervisors. 

I'm not sure how you can realistically plan the next three years of your life (as well as the most important project in your career) in an hour-long meeting...but we're gonna try. 

I'm a Rockstar  (or, so I've heard). We can do this.