The PI's Nightmare

In the last post, I described a nightmare situation for any PI.  A trusted postdoc has turned out to be a fraud and has skipped town after fabricating data for a major project of yours. The postdoc also turns out to have lied about his Ph.D. degree--he never received it.

At this point, you may be thinking about all the things the PI could have done to avoid landing in this situation, and I could go through these points one by one.  However, at this stage in the situation, none of that is going to help.  Also, one could argue that taking all possible precautions does not guarantee that such a situation will never happen.  Especially if you are dealing with a real con artist. 

The term, "con", comes from confidence, which is what a con artist gains from his victims and allows him to succeed.  Such people are highly skilled at social manipulation and understand how to gain people's confidence.  Fortunately, there are not that many con artists who end up in the field of science.  However, scientists may on occasion encounter such people, either people within the field of science or people peripheral to science. 

For the latter situation, there is a very interesting film called House of Games, written and directed by David Mamet.  You may be more familiar with Mamet's other films, such as The Spanish Prisoner.  Both films are about confidence men (and women).  House of Games, however, features a female psychologist, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) who becomes the target of a group of grifters led by Mike (Joe Mantegna). 

Margaret has published a successful book, which has led to professional recognition, modest fame, and a small fortune.  It's this book and consequent fortune that have attracted the attention of this gang of con artists.  Their leader, Mike, designs an elaborate con to ensnare Margaret and eventually relieve her of her money.  They play on her professional interests and desire to find another subject to research and write about...one that may lead to another successful book. 

The set-up is initiated by a young, small-time gambler, who goes to Margaret for treatment.  He tells her that he owes a large sum of money and will be killed unless he pays (which he can't).  Margaret decides to intervene and visits the man the gambler owes. Turns out that it's Mike, the con man.  Mike agrees to forgive the young gambler's debt if Margaret agrees to accompany him to a poker game as his girlfriend and help him spot the "tells" of the other card players.  Margaret immediately sees an entry into an underworld that she can exploit for her own professional goals.

Margaret falls headlong into the trap set by this gang of grifters and eventually loses a large sum of money.  The con is so clever that Margaret does not realize she's been conned...at first.  By chance, she discovers the ruse and proceeds to turn the tables on Mike.  I won't reveal all that transpires, except to say that the film is intriguing on many levels and carefully crafted to keep you guessing until the end. It's not as well done as Mamet's later films, and one could quibble about the acting, especially Lindsay Crouse (see previous posts about female stereotypes in film). 

My point in describing this little film is that it is a cautionary tale about a successful female professional who is taken in by unscrupulous people, even though she knows she's dealing with people who are basically criminals.  Despite that knowledge, she's still fooled by Mike, who cleverly gains her confidence.  And that's all it takes.

How likely is it that a science professional might be victimized by a con artist?  Although the Mamet film is fictional, the postdoc story I described in the previous post is not.  The situation I described happened to my adviser (I was one of the graduate students working on the project).  I also was fooled once by a student worker who was falsifying his time sheets and forging signatures on them.  Fortunately for me, the student worker's actions did not threaten my entire research program or my job.  These experiences tell me that such situations are not that unusual in science, although perhaps not as prevalent as in other professions. 

Credit: Still image from House of Games, Filmhaus

Catch Me If You Can

Imagine the following situation:

You are a PI in charge of a large project to conduct an environmental assessment of the potential impact of a large Energy Utility on an adjacent natural ecosystem.  With the sizable grant awarded to you, you hire a postdoctoral researcher, technicians, and graduate students to conduct the work.  It is the responsibility of the postdoc, in addition to conducting the field research in his specific area of expertise, to collate all the data from all tasks and to write the final report to the Energy Utility.  

Although this postdoc is fresh out of graduate school, he is an experienced teacher and administrator who returned to graduate school to get a Ph.D. later in life.  You feel very confident in his abilities, especially because of his maturity and past experience, which is a primary reason you hired him for this job.  He is gregarious and well-liked by all on the research team and appears to be a diligent worker.  Things seem to go well during the data acquisition phase; everyone is working hard, spending many hours in the field and laboratory.  As the project is nearing the final months, the postdoc announces that he has accepted an offer to return to his previous position (in another country) but, not to worry, he's almost finished writing the report.  You are not worried because you have high confidence in him and you've been working closely with the technicians and graduate students who are responsible for particular aspects of the report and have also been shown portions of the work supervised by the postdoc.  As often happens in large projects, there are delays.  When it becomes clear that the report cannot be finalized by the date the postdoc must leave, you acquire a no-cost extension for the project and the postdoc agrees to finish up the writing remotely.  

A day or two after the postdoc's departure, you receive a message from him saying that his briefcase containing all the data files and the only copy of the draft report was stolen in the airport.  He's very sorry about this, but he won't be able to meet his obligations.  You are stunned and try to contact him.  All your efforts to communicate fail.  You try not to panic, thinking that at worst, you will just reconstruct everything from the copies of the files he left.  You meet with the technicians and students and explain the situation.  

Your head technician begins delving into the files and discovers some puzzling things.  After several days, the technician comes to your office and tells you that he thinks the postdoc fabricated much of the data he was supposed to have collected personally.  The only data he's confident of is what he and the other technicians and students collected.  However, cross-checking the original datasheets from field notebooks and lab books indicates that the postdoc cooked some of the summary files (altered the data) so that everything will have to be reconstructed from the original datasheets.  And the data the postdoc collected will have to be discarded and either recollected or eliminated from the report. 

You begin to investigate further and discover that the postdoc never really received a Ph.D.--his graduate committee failed him when it became clear he had fabricated some of his dissertation research.  The letters of reference from the adviser and other faculty to you were all forged.  Because the letters were from well-respected professors at a credible university and department, you never bothered to check with the postdoc's graduate school to determine that he actually received his degree from that university....


In other words, you've been the victim of an elaborate con.

If you were the PI in this situation, what would you do?  If you were one of the students or technicians and saw something that made you suspicious, would you report it to the PI?  If you (PI or team member) later encountered this person at a conference or other venue, what would you do?

Overturning the Stereotype

Recently, someone sent me a link to a website called This is What a Scientist Looks Like.  The site, which contains hundreds of photos posted by scientists, is part of a project designed to "challenge the stereotypical image of a scientist".

It's interesting to see what people submit. Some post photos of themselves at work; others at play. Some are serious and some are silly. Many show the scientists with their families. Some people noted in the description accompanying their photo that they have experienced how other people are surprised when faced with a scientist (them) who does not fit the stereotype (white, male, labcoated, nerdy). 

I've also occasionally encountered people who expressed incredulity upon being told my profession.  Some of these occasions were when I reentered the country and went through passport control. Because I carry an official passport (as a US government employee), I'm often asked what type of work I do for my agency. When I respond that I'm a scientist, I almost always get a double-take look from the passport officer.  Sometimes, they frown and question me further about exactly what I do science-wise, clearly not believing me. I can't imagine how they think I managed to get an official US passport using false information about my government job, but that's the implication. 

This third degree treatment always catches me off guard.  It's intimidating being questioned like this, and I automatically begin to feel guilty under the suspicious gaze of the US Customs agent.  Whatever I say sounds defensive and false.  Sometimes, the frown deepens, and the agent scrutinizes my documents some more.  I cringe and imagine the agent is going to next loudly announce to his supervisor and all my fellow travelers, "Hey, Joe, this lady here says she's a scientist.  Could you come over here?"  I briefly contemplate saying,  "Yes, I'm a real scientist who studies Important Scientific Topic and I'm just returning from a trip to Very Foreign Country where I gave the keynote address at a Major Scientific Conference."  However, I don't want to antagonize the agent and end up in one of those back rooms. So I just smile and confirm that what it says on my paperwork is correct. 

Later, I  fantasize about carrying around a copy of my doctorate diploma or my CV....to produce along with my passport and other travel papers.  Or perhaps I could just whip out my iPad already linked to my professional webpage describing my scientific credentials and activities? 

In the meantime, I hope the This Is What a Scientist Looks Like project will help change the public's perception of who can be a scientist.

I'd Rather Poke a Stick in my Eye

.....than participate in a conference call.

Is there anyone out there who enjoys conference calls? Maybe it's just me, but I find conference calls frustrating, annoying, and generally a waste of time. 

The call I was on today was pretty typical, with the usual array of annoyances.  During this particular call there was an unusual variety of background noises: building construction sounds (jack hammers), wind blowing (someone was outside), car sounds (someone was driving and listening in), sounds of moving furniture (maybe the caller was using the time to rearrange their office?), and a generally annoying hum that came and went (could not identify the source).  I suppose I should be thankful that there were not the other typical background noises one often hears: sounds of typing, eating or drinking, rattling paper or food wrappers being opened, side conversations with others in the office, ringing phones, barking dogs, and screaming kids.  It's usually up to the moderator to handle those callers who violate the conference call etiquette with these obnoxious noises.  However, if you are not the moderator and s/he is not handing the situation, should you speak up? Wait a bit and hope someone else will? Just grit your teeth? Hang up?

Another annoying sound one often encounters on conference calls is The Heavy Breather.  This unfortunate person often has blocked sinuses and, consequently, mouth-breaths directly into the microphone.  Someone will be saying, "I think we need to rewrite the section on.... 'HEAVYBREATH'....I suggest that the person who needs to take care of this is....'HEAVYBREATH' ...." Wait! What? Who? Alternatively, the person with problem sinuses will try to breath through their nose anyway, creating a high-pitched whistling noise.... 

Thankfully, we didn't have one of those today, but did have a different type of breathing distraction. One of the scientists on this call today was elderly and short of breath.  He seemed to be having difficulty talking and sounded as if he was about to have some type of seizure.  I was uncertain as to whether to ask if he was OK (potentially embarrassing) or keep quiet (potentially missing a life-threatening situation).  I decided not to say anything and just listen closely for sounds of further distress. After a bit, I decided that his condition must be chronic and not immediately life-threatening (or maybe he was exercising during the call!).

Another problem, which especially bothers me, is when some people speak too softly or not directly into their mike.  These people are sometimes what Seinfeld calls "low-talkers", not to be confused with the "close-talker" or the "high-talker".  The low-talker speaks so softly that others have to strain to make out what they are saying.  Low-talkers speak softly in person as well as on the phone, but in the latter case the listener does not have any possibility of understanding some of the conversation by lip-reading, for example.  Low-talkers can often be the people who actually have something of substance to say on a call, so I want to hear them.  I will usually say something like, "I didn't quite catch what you said. Could you repeat that?" If it's chronic and the low-talker is a key person on the call, I'll say, "I'm really having difficulty hearing Dr. X. Is it just my phone or are others having the same problem?" The latter may prompt the low-talker to speak up. 

Another difficulty I have during conference calls, especially with a lot of participants that I don't know well or never met, is not being able to identify who is speaking.  If you're mainly listening and not participating in the conversation, perhaps this is not too important.  However, if someone asks you a direct question, it might be important for you to know who it is...to formulate an appropriate response.  The Unknown Speaker might say, "DrDoyenne, I see that in the section you wrote for the panel summary that you failed to cite my stellar work on the topic.  I wonder if you'd like to comment?"  Uh oh.....just shoot me now and get it over with.  I find that being unable to identify speakers is generally disconcerting and just adds to my overall discomfort with conference calls.  I appreciate it when a speaker says, "This is Bob. Here's what I think about this issue..." When I've been listening to a series of unknown speakers, I feel like kissing Bob.

Perhaps the least annoying are the people on the call who never say anything.  However, I'm aware of them lurking in the background.  What are they thinking?  Why are they not saying anything? Why are they on the call? Or did they call in, identify themselves, and then mute their phone so they could work on something else. 

Hmmm. Not a bad idea.

Inspiring

I was talking with a colleague the other day about science videos and that more scientists were making short films about what their research is about, how they go about doing research, and some of the interesting things they are discovering. This colleague, who is a statistician/modeler, suggested that this activity was not something he could participate in because his area was too abstract and did not lend itself well to visual media.

I was a bit surprised by this statement and pointed out that there were lots of interesting and informative science videos that deal with math, physics, and similar topics. I suggested he take a look at YouTube where one can find some quite amazing and creative examples. His reaction to this suggestion indicated that he thought YouTube was a repository comprised of mostly amateur, puerile videos.  Although there are a lot of those, there are many excellent and professionally-produced videos.

Also, YouTube is the second largest search engine in the US (Google being first).

Anyway, I often conduct searches on science topics on YouTube just to see what interesting and creative videos are out there. Here is one I came across recently, which was created by Cristóbal Vila, a 3D illustrator and animator (with no formal science background that I can see). It is about geometry and mathematical relationships, using examples from nature to illustrate concepts.  The video is embedded below, but you can read more about how the video was made here.  Last I checked, this video has been viewed over 2 million times on YouTube. That's a lot of people potentially inspired to learn more about the mathematical proportions in nature.

Enjoy..(to see a high resolution version select the HD version and full screen mode to view)

When Introvert and Extrovert Marry

In this series of posts, I've been talking about introverts, people who are contemplative, reserved, and quiet, and how such people are often viewed as being maladjusted.  I am particularly aware of this phenomenon since I am an introvert.  Being married to an extrovert (35 years), I've also got a pretty good handle on the other half and what makes them tick.

Here is what I've observed over the years.  I need lots of time to myself, quiet time, without other people, without incessant talking, without blasting music, without traffic or other city noises....QUIET.  When there is a lot going on around me, I cannot concentrate, I cannot relax, I cannot recharge.  After being around people, especially loud people, I need quiet time to recover.  My husband is the opposite.  He is energized by other people, the more the better.  He needs the stimulation of being around other people and lots of activity and noise to be happy. He can appreciate a quiet evening alone, but after only a day or so, becomes anxious and needs to socialize.

Going to a party is quite a different experience for the two of us.  I usually dread it, much like someone would anticipate a visit to a dentist to have a root canal (we feel we should do it, but it's not going to be fun); he looks forward to it like a kid anticipating Disney World.  I'm anxious; he's giddy.  Once there, I'm usually fine and can carry on a decent, even enjoyable conversation with people.  On the way home, he usually points this out to me saying, "See, you had a good time." Yes, but I pay for it.  I'm drained emotionally and mentally. It may take several hours or even days to recover.  It really doesn't matter whether the stress is positive or negative; both are draining and take a toll.  The fact is, I often prefer to stay home, curled up with a good book in front of the fireplace.  I would have a much better time and would not be emotionally drained at the end of the evening.

As a couple, we've learned to compromise over our different needs for socializing.  I make an effort to do what he likes, and he does the same for me.  We spend quiet evenings together over a nice meal or watch a movie (at home–I finally quit going to the theater after acknowledging how much I hated the crowds).  We also go out to dinner with friends or have friends over; we go to plays or concerts (in small, intimate theaters).  He also does a lot of socializing without me...spending time at coffee houses, having lunch with his buddies, talking on the phone.  These extra activities help him feel socially connected.  I happily stay home and read or carry on some other solitary hobby.  When we travel, we take turns going to remote, natural areas to camp, hike, canoe, or swim and to cities with museums, restaurants, and bustling crowds. Sometimes, we manage both extremes during the same trip.

However, there is always an element of judgement regarding whose nature is "best".  My way is somehow viewed as being inferior, deficient, flawed, or maladjusted.  According to some, the extrovert is the ideal; it's what we should all be striving for–at least in the US this seems to be the case.  Apparently, many people who are naturally introverted also believe this and fake a more outgoing nature.  Even though they feel uncomfortable in social situations, they force themselves into social settings and can even fool other people into thinking they are extroverts.  Consider the poll I ran on this blog a while back (see very bottom of the page), asking scientists and non-scientists to rate themselves on a social scale: Social Butterfly, Congenial Comrade, Split Personality, Wallflower, Social Outcast.  I included, at the last minute, another category: Impostor (socially awkward, but able to fake social aptitude).  This category was selected most often, by both scientists and non-scientists.

Trying to "pass" as an extrovert may be a common behavior for some introverts, according to Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.  We feel pressured to spend more time socializing than is comfortable.  The pressure to be more social can be greatest from those closest to us--spouses, parents, or friends.

What this bias does to introverts and to society as a whole is explored in Cain's book. If you are interested in hearing her TED talk about these ideas, see the video link below.

Should Scientists Be Forced to Come Out of the Ivory Tower?

A commenter on an earlier post in this series brings up an important issue regarding scientists who are reluctant to be cheerleaders for science.  He argues that the days of scientists working in isolation in their laboratories and never having to bother with staff meetings, congressional hearings, or explaining their science to taxpayers are long gone.

I agree that we are in a different era in which there is an increasing demand for scientists to justify their research.  I do think it's important for scientists to communicate their work to a broader audience…which is why I’ve devoted numerous posts to talking about the importance of science communication by scientists (see the nav bar-- Science Communication).  Many argue that scientists can no longer afford to stay in their laboratories and never communicate with the ultimate end-users…policy-makers, land managers, and the general public.  Personally, I’ve done a complete about-face from being a scientist who does her research in isolation (never talking to the public) to actively promoting the value of my work….developing information products (fact sheets, videos) describing my research and its importance to the general public. I talk to grade-school students about science and about wetlands. I founded and edit a non-technical publication (articles written by scientists) with the purpose of encouraging scientists to directly engage the public.  I started writing this blog.  In other words, cheerleading for my own work and talking about what it's like to be a scientist.

As I've also pointed out in previous posts, however, there are dangers to speaking out in the public arena....just ask any climate scientist (see Who's Got Our Backs? and Sagan's Rejection).  Science communication also takes time and resources, which may not be available to the average scientist.  Such costs should be balanced against the need for science communication.  We should also understand that good science communication takes training and effort and is not typically taught to scientists (although this is changing).  We must also acknowledge that not everyone has the talent for science communication (see Don't Be Such a Romulan).  Many people who are attracted to science are often workers who are quiet, contemplative people and are just not very comfortable dealing with the public. 

The point of my series is to consider the hypothesis posed by the book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts...i.e., that introverted people are unfairly judged and should not be prodded to be more like extroverts.  These are people who are thoughtful, who weigh their words carefully before speaking, and who process information differently from those who are more verbally facile.  In the hypothetical example I gave, Jennifer is a young introvert with a lot of potential as a scientist.  There are many like her in science, both male and female, who need help and encouragement to feel confident in their inherent nature, not criticism for something they cannot easily change.  Such people often do just fine in one-on-one interactions, but find it difficult to speak up in larger groups, especially ones dominated by loud know-it-alls. Their reluctance to speak up is often misinterpreted and mishandled by teachers, mentors, and supervisors who fail to recognize how different introverts are.

We can try to encourage such people to become more verbally skilled, but expecting an introvert to testify successfully at a congressional hearing or participate in a public debate (without extensive training) is perhaps not reasonable (or wise).  Not everyone is cut out to be a good science communicator, nor should everyone be forced to be one. We can help such people improve their verbal communication skills through focused training and similar means, but there will be a limit to how much one can change an inherent way of thinking and feeling.  Scientists who are strongly introverted can be encouraged instead to develop non-verbal communications with the public (writing popular science articles, producing/directing science videos, hosting science blogs, for example). 

The point of my series is to explore the mind-set of introverts and how they differ from extroverts and to consider how this dichotomy relates to scientists.  We are perhaps better off taking advantage of the introverted scientist's natural skills rather than forcing them to change.  We can teach students the importance of communicating their science, try to provide them opportunities to hone their communication skills, but emphasize that they can select whichever communication mechanisms best fit their nature.  Over time, we'll hopefully end up with a science community in which there are a lot of good communicators, but who go about it in diverse ways.