Life: Back from Japan

I was visiting Japan from 5/12/2015 to 5/28/2015.

The main purpose was to set up a better support system for my mother who got sick a few months ago. She has recovered. But it was about time to review and improve entire support system.

Another purpose was my science business. I gave a talk at a University where a colleague's group is working.

And the other purpose was my vacation. I took my mother to hot springs and nice restaurants. Have you tried Suppon (Soft shell turtle)? It's a delicacy. 

         

          [Fresh seafood dinner at the seaside hot springs. Can you see live abalone?]

[Famous "Turtle blood" mixed with Sake.]  

I even went to a milonga in a neighboring city Nagoya, organized by Yuko Ono. I'd never attended a milonga in Japan before. They had a decent milonga there.

Life throws events. Some events we tend to call bad, and other events we tend to call good. But a great deal of the good-bad evaluation is subjective. My mother's sickness may sound bad. But thanks to that I decided to make the trip. The trip was good, and I had a great time with my family in Japan. Such time is precious, and I am very happy to have had the trip.

[Did I have a good time? Sure, I did.]

Science: Authorship rules and a (long) time to write a paper

There had been a volunteer student in the lab. He had been helping my work for about 9 months. He is leaving the lab for a medical school, so last Friday we had a farewell presentation by him. I am very thankful for his help.



When he joined the lab, my work was having a "harvest season", luckily for him. I have been busy writing manuscripts to get the results out. He contributed in generating data for the majority of the analytic work, and as a result he's earned authorship in two recent publications and two pending manuscripts. People in this industry would agree that his case (3-4 authored papers in 9 months) is quite an exception.


There is a widespread misconception among misinformed undergraduates that you work in a lab for a month or two and you get authorship. No, it's a wishful thinking and usually authorship is not that easy to earn.

I give authorship only to someone who made significant contribution. Intellectual contribution is important. I also give authorship to the person who generated critical data that become a part of the figures in final publication. There may be occasions that student's "future" is considered as well, but his/her contribution or involvement should be defensibly significant.

[This general rule excludes data from core facility or outsourced company. Contribution by staff and other collaborators is judged case by case].

Also, timing weighs heavily in your "luck". I used a metaphor of "harvest season". Before harvest, there was a long incubation time for the project to grow and bear fruits. It is especially true in animal-based research I am involved.

In hypothesis-driven medical science, a lot of seeds (hypotheses) die before bearing fruits. They may go unsupported by experiments and turn out to be untrue. Then the whole work can be very hard to publish. Generally, negative or neutral results are a lot harder to publish.

We usually assign students to projects with reasonable expectation of future publication. But publication may not happen in the most convenient time frame for students.


A lab is like a small (tiny) company. As to authorship decision, there are general rules and guidelines in the research field and in the journals. But how it is actually done depends on each PI's management decision. Writing a paper is not a one-month process. It can take years including the incubation and testing steps. What a student thinks it is or it should be can be different from actual and reasonable process, and knowing all these is an important part of learning as well.

There is a saying about time estimate for a project; "Triple the time of a students's estimate, and double the time of a postdoc's". Empirically that saying sounds about right.

Dance: Look good instantly

We tend to believe that to look good in dancing, it takes years of training and practice.

If we are talking about those "natural" or "professional" guys who stand out on the dance floor, that's right. I am not going to lie to you. They usually have had long hours of practice and serious training.


However,...

.... you can look much better in the matter of days (even minutes), if not weeks. At least temporarily. Maybe it is a little bit of "cheat" method. But it works.

How do you do it?

It is simple three step process.

(1) Watch good dancers and find dancers you like.

If your body type is similar to them, it makes the following work easier.


(2) Choose one (or more) as your virtual mentor, and faithfully imitate his/her postures.

Focus on his/her posture. Copy the mentor-dancer's posture in a static manner. Take your time to be accurate. Use mirror or have you videotaped to make sure your posture is accurate and looks good. 

Do you know animation is made by a series of static pictures? You move from a good looking posture to another good looking posture, and you will always look good.

Do it slow. I call it the "Tai chi" method. It will improve your coordination as well.


(3) Practice.

Practice makes your good posture permanent. At first, your "good postures" will not feel good, right, or natural to you. That's because you did not know how to assume good-looking posture and never done that before. You got to re-train your body.


Do you have doubts?

When I dance social ballroom waltz, most partners casually stand there at the beginning of the dance. But a few assume her waltz frame; left elbow pointing, chest expands, arms form a good frame, her head turns to left and spine makes a long line connected to left leg. Even if I have never danced with her or know nothing about her, I'd assume she took her time to train and knows what she is doing.

Alternatively, I bet you can guess dancer's level just from pictures. In the case, what are you looking at? Posture.

Even though we know nothing about the dancers, and even though these are just pictures, we do make our judgement.

[Why do they look good or trained, even though we don't see them dance?]

The real trick is, not-so-good-looking dancers can take the same postures as good-looking dancers in about a minute by directing or "choreographing". In the example of waltz, a total beginner can take the same posture as serious dancer in one minute instruction.

Now, we can say "both look good", at least in the static picture.

Maintaining the good-looking posture and dance with it is whole another game and another step. But you can take the first step by knowing, learning and practicing what postures look good.



Another very important part to look good in dancing is how you move. I'll write how to improve your motion later. It is a little harder than imitating postures (can't be helped......shrug).