Milo muses dot com

Well, layoffs at R&D have come and gone. We lost a few researchers. I am still within the rank and file, so I guess I should be happy. Being my first ever experience with corporate layoffs, I have to say that it really sucks. There is something  heartbreaking about seeing someone you say hello to everyday being escorted off the premises by the HR staff.

I was thinking the other day how invincible I felt right after my PhD defense. I felt like I could get any chemistry job (and have it be secure), simply because I had a PhD.

Oh what they do not tell you in graduate school.

Layoffs have come to the chemical mill. I suspect that the chemists will not be very productive this week. The self-preservation instinct tends to be pretty strong in times like this.

What is Green Chemistry?

According to the EPA:

Green chemistry, also known as sustainable chemistry, is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.

But, for most non-scientists, green chemistry means something totally different. For the non-scientist, green chemistry is something of an absolute. A process is either green, or it is not. For those in the know however, green is something to strive for, but also something that defies rigorous definition.

And, FYI, it is the new black of corporate buzzwords.

For fun, find a senior manager… someone who most likely has no idea what science really is, and ask them about green chemistry. You’ll probably get something like:

“We are very proactive in the area of green chemistry. We are looking at all of our facilities and processes, from top to bottom, to try to determine our carbon footprint. Then we will take deliberate steps to reduce emissions and increase sustainability, all while maximizing value for the customer and our investors.”

Green chemistry is really very simple. It is a relative term that says a process is as atom and energy efficient as possible. There is no magic line to cross in order to be green. Processes can be green from the inception, if planned out correctly. Or, they can be made “more green” by reducing energy consumption, finding renewable (truly renewable….) feed stocks or by improving catalysis. It is really a judgement call. At least for now.

But, as of now, there is no magic way to define, in absolute terms, what green chemistry is. A green process is just like pr0n, you know it when you see it.

 

Interestingly, deCODE Genetics is in two publications currently sitting on my night stand. Business Week has a nice article on the business of decoding ones genes in order to glean a glimpse of what diseases we might be at risk for. As any edumacted person might suspect, there are lots and lots of genes out there that do lots of things, both singularly and with the assistance of other genes. Sure, some genes can be correlated to various disease states, but as the article reminds us, there is so much we don’t know that it is almost silly to suppose that the current technology is capable of telling us anything other than that we have a 5% chance of getting cancer. In fact, as of today (Oct 28, 2008), it is better to ask your family what diseases run in your lineage than rely on a gene screen.

The Oct 27th, 2008, issue of C&EN tells us the deCODE is looking to explore its business options. With its valuation too low to be listed on the NASDAQ, it is looking for ways to be a useful endeavor. I don’t know…. seems like we are a little too early in the whole using-genetics-too-guide-our-health thing to make profitable business out of them.

Unless, of course, they advertise on TV between the hours of midnight and 6 am.

The potential is there for this industry to be really useful, the science is just not there yet.

I have nothing more to say…

Here is a link giving a little bit of information about autism and fruit flies.

I was looking over my resume the other day, for no other reason than to make sure it was up to date, which given the current state of the economy is not a  bad thing.

Anyway, when I first began drafting my current resume, I did not have a good feel for what length was appropriate, what format to use, even how long it should be. I had always heard that a resume should never be longer than two pages, but I had so much to say, how do I fit all of that to 2 pages?

I finally decided, after much debate, to toss all page limits out. I reasoned that the important stuff is the most recent, and will thus be on the first page. So who cares how long it is? If the recruiter does not make it through the first page, I am doomed regardless of the length.

So the first page had my name, address etc. I did not have an objective portion, for I figured it was a waste of space and the only reason I would be sending someone a resume would be to ask for a job, so why write the obvious? I then had sections for my highlights (skills), education and recent experience. All on one page. Considering that my thesis title took up three lines, I was fretting a little bit about space, but I was able fit everything on without reducing the font (Helvetica 12pt) or stretching the margins. The later pages had older experience patents and publications. The total length was roughly 4-5 pages (17 patents and pubs….).

What about the formatting of the experience? I was a little worried about what was "correct". There is the standard bullet point format like this:

2000-2005  Research Assistant, University of Importance

• Developed asymmetric synthesis (90 linear steps) to whocareotoxin
• Isolated 0.0001 mg of novel antitumor agent from deep-sea squirt via GC-trap, HPLC and column chromatography with full characterization via IR, UV, NMR (1-, 2- and 3D) and taste.
• Improved the yield of a new Pd(0) catalyzed olefin isomerization reaction from 12% to 12.4%.

I think that this format sucks. It is dry and uninformative. So I went with the longer 3-4 sentence format:

2000-2002 Researcher, Big Company, Inc.

Catalyst Development:

Prior to my arrival, BCI was trying to market their catalyst technology in emerging markets, however their efforts were in for naught for their competitor had a superior product at a much lower cost. Using crystal-field theory and wet chemistry, I was able to redesign, synthesize and characterize the Pd(0) based olefin isomerization catalyst system such that the overall performance was increased 8-fold while reducing the cost by 50%. BSI now enjoys a 90% market share in Asia because of these improvements.

So, as you can see, the format is a bit longer, but this tells a mini story. It is not just a fact. Rather, it describes 1) the problem 2) the solution and 3) the resultant benefit of solving the problem.  Personally, when I get resumes in the mail, I enjoy reading this format, it gives more depth to the work.

Resumes are very hard to build, but rather easy to maintain, as long as you do it in a semi-regular fashion. I tend to do it once per quarter. Sometimes I have nothing to add, other times I have a couple papers and patents (from the postdoc that keeps on giving) and a few more work related projects and skills to write down. If I ever need to use it, I’ll have to  trim it down, it is now pretty beefy, but that is a good thing. It is easier to trim the fat than to try to fill up blank space….

Having just returned from a glorious weekend in the Hudson Valley (too bad there are no chemistry job up there…), I sat down to catch up on my InterWeb reading. Whilst perusing the random bits of news and dribble, I found myself reading an article about the chemical origins of life. Now, this article was not found in some schlub journal like JACS or JOC. No, I found this piece of goodness in that crack science journal, Wired.

Apparently some samples from Stanley Miller have been reanalyzed using ultra-modern techniques, like HPLC, and were shown to have more amino acids than originally thought. The nifty part is that the original experiment (from 1953) was designed to “mimic” the local environment of a volcano. Thus, it is suggested that volcanoes may have been one of those special places where organic molecules first formed.

I really like the idea of experimenting with simple mixtures of very simple components like CH4, H2O and NH3, hitting the mixture with a massive amount of energy and seeing what comes out. This is the stuff that all chemists want: the opportunity to play with cool equipment and massive amounts of energy.

But….

I don’t like the fact that this area of research is consistently described as looking into the origin of life. For some reason, this just does not sit well with me. It seems a little arrogant to say you are investigating the origin of life. I can see looking at prebiotic chemistry, or the origin of homochirality, but the origin of life?

I think the we scientists need to be a little bit more humble when we talk about our research.

But hey, what do I know. I still maintain naive view that politics, the media and science should never, ever, be found in bed together. Politics directs science (through funding) which is distorted by the media (through inaccurate descriptions of the work).

Prebiotic chemical research, while not a hot bed for funding, is still pretty interesting though. I’ll just try to strip away all the useless ego inflating trash when reading about it.

Now is the time where, in corporations all over America, dedicated employees participate in the “open enrollment” for their benefits. For those not in the know, this is when employees have the opportuity to change their health insurance, their flexible spending account etc…

I recently received some paperwork from my mid-sized global employer and was a little dismayed at what I read. During 2009, we will have access to smoking cessation programs. Ok. Smoking is bad, and they want to help smokers quit. Cool. In 2010, if you still smoke, you will pay more for your health insurance.

Hmmm, on the surface, this seems reasonable. Right? Smoking is responsible for some heavy expenditures in the health care system. And since the company pays a portion of my healthcare costs, they can charge me more for non-healthy behavior. Seems good on the surface.

What about other “non-healthy”, “optional” behaviors? Like:

• Drinking
• Having poor stress managment (and having a heart attack)
• Eating poorly
• Not sleeping enough
• Speeding in the car
• Riding a motorcycle

While they have the right to charge me whatever they want for whatever they want, you just have to wonder about these things….

Here is a classic musing from 10/13/2007. Note, some of the links may be broken. No, I will not be fixing them. I am lazy.

---

Milo’s Guide to Interviewing
Now is the season for changing leaves, turkey ( or tofurkey), job applications and interviews. I have written a few things on interview related topics (here, here and here), but if you are like me, you might not like to click on lots of links trying to hunt down little pieces of wisdom that will (in your mind) make the interviewing process more enjoyable. Lets face it, interviewing is stressful and hard. Once you meet your contact for dinner the night before, the show begins. Your performance will not end till you hit the airport the next day. In this post, I am going to offer my solicited (for once!) opinions on the following topics: The Phone Interview, The On-Site Interview including The Technical Talk and the One on One and I will end with the all important Follow-Up.

The Phone Interview

So, your resume has been through the OCR software and your carefully placed keywords have ensured that it is not filed in the digital trash. Your credentials have made it to the desk of a live person who thinks “Hmmm… let me give this cat a call…”. One day, your are in lab and the phone rings, above the din of scientific discussions (in three languages) and four different kinds of music you hear a voice say “I would like to take a minute of your time to talk to you about the position you applied for… “. Show time! To avoid the potential pants crapping, you should take a few hours to prepare. Assume that you will be called for each and every job you apply for. This means you should be prepare to verbally show that:

1. You know something about the position
2. You are familiar with the company, its products and its target customers
3. You can describe your current and past research accomplishments and failures
4. You can talk about what interests you scientifically (i.e. what if you had your own lab?)
5. You know what your strengths and weaknesses are

Be polite, get to the point (don’t be wordy) and mean what you say. The phone interview is the second hoop to go through (the OCR software was number one), so take this seriously.

The On-Site Interview

You have been invited for an On-Site interview! WooHoo! Relax, cowboy! You are probably one of say 5-10 candidates for 1-2 positions, so you still have a lot to do. First thing is first: LOOK GOOD. Get a haircut, shower with nice scented soap, comb you hair and learn how to wear a suit. Yes, a suit. This is the big time, always look as good as you can, and in business, this means a suit. I interviewed at a company in California once. I showed up in a suit and tie, and every one else was in jeans and a T-shirt. I got offered a job. Also, cover the tats and take out the earrings. If you don’t want to, go apply to Google. The chemical industry in conservative, so play by the rules.

When you meet people, look them in the eye, introduce yourself with as much confidence as you can and give a firm handshake. Leave the wet fish at home… a firm handshake sends more positive signals than you can count.

The Technical Talk

Nine times out of ten, you’ll be asked to give a technical talk on your work that you did as a graduate student or a postdoc. If you can, ask your contact if there is a particular topic s/he wants covered. If not, then try to craft a tale that shows:

1. Background (why the heck did your PI give you the project?)
2. Problems you encountered and how/why you overcame them
3. Things you discovered…
4. Where your contribution pushed the project forward
5. Where is the project now?

Always focus on your work. DO NOT FOCUS ON THE WORK OF YOUR COLLEGUES. Mention it, if needed, but do not dwell on it. This is a huge turn off. You are being interviewed, not the postdoc who left three years prior. Also, practice the talk, many times. Practice till you can give it without looking at the screen for more than 1-2 seconds. I am serious on this one. Don’t read the slides! People respond very well to conversational tones, not robotic reading. Here is how I prepared:

1. I chose three different topics, each highlighting a skill I possessed and a challenge I over came. I also tried to make to make the topics applicable to the job I was applying for. Since I was looking for synthetic jobs… I focused on…gasp… making molecules.
2. I worked really hard on the transitioning from one topic to another. I hate it when people say “and that concludes topic 2. Now on to topic 3…”
3. I made sure that my presentation was efficient. This means that, since I used Powerpoint, the slides were clear, concise and free of extraneous distractions. My goal was to tell the audience a story in such a way that they watched me, not the slides. I used the slides to illustrate the point, not as a cue card.
4. I practiced the talk till I knew it inside and out. Then I asked my wife to listen to it. Esther (my wife) has zero scientific training or interest. Her purpose was to view the presentation and critique my speaking, eye contact, mannerisms and all the other intangibles that can make or break a talk.
5. I knew the chemistry inside and out. I knew the reactions, the literature and the mechanisms. There is always one prick in the audience who wants to try to mess you up.
6. I taught myself how to use Powerpoint. I know how to shut off the auto-advance feature. I also know how to rapidly jump to different slides. Also, it is possible to have the laptop screen display a different view than the projector (to display notes), this is really helpful. Do you know to do this?
7. I also knew that 2 out of 10 projectors have a defunct color, or fail outright, so a backup set of transparencies was always in my interview folder. I also have the talk on a flash drive, a CD, a DVD and my iPod (with a cable).

The One on One

This is a tough one… You’ll be mano-e-mano with a potentially hard-nosed PhD who is bitter and wants to knock your snotty ass down a peg or two. Fear not! Be confident and honest. If you cannot answer a chemistry question, say so, but suggest a possible route: “I am not seeing the mechanism, but I suspect a fragmentation here might be in order…”. Please, take the time before hand to prepare a number of well thought out questions. Don’t ask about salary and vacation, that is for HR, ask about the science, the industry and the research group.

This is where people dig hard to figure you out. What are your strengths, weaknesses, when have you screwed up so bad you cried? How did you fix the situation? You need to know yourself pretty well to succeed in the one on one.

The Follow-Up

When you get to the airport, find a mailbox and drop your hand written thank you note in the mail. Don’t forget to. It is cheesy, but people remember handwritten notes. Also, email your contact when you get home and thank him/her and ask if they require anymore information. With any luck, you’ll hear back in a week or two. If you don’t, email your contact and inquire “as to the status of your application”. Don’t pester them, be professional. Remember, these people are really busy! If you do not get the job, well, ok. It happens. Call or email your contact, thank them, and ask them for some feedback. Did you goof at all? If so, can they offer a suggestion for improvement?

That is all for now. Good luck. Hopefully the community will offer ideas and tips.

I like teaching and I like thinking about the act of teaching. I also like to ask the question “What makes a good teacher?” This is first in a series, of indeterminate length, about teaching.

---

Once upon a time, I had a hankering to join the ranks of the under appreciated professor at an undergraduate school. There was something about that job that seemed to appeal to me. I think it was the combination of research, “real” teaching and a quaint New England like atmosphere…. Alas, most of these ideas were based on looking at job descriptions on the web and perusing college Web sites.

Towards this end, I began to formalize my personal philosophy regarding teaching (as opposed to education). I drew upon my experiences in college and graduate school, both as a student and as a TA and instructor. And I came up with the following bullet points:

• The majority of the students are not initially interested in the course you are taking unless it is an elective. Organic chemistry, for example, normally does not have many students who are there because “O-chem is fun”. The key is to relate the class to the students ultimate interests. Obviously there can be too many majors in one class, but relating O-chem to say… health… is a good place to start.
• Memorization is bad. Most people do not learn anything but their own short-term memory limitations through memorization. A better strategy is to develop problems and challenges for the student to apply new knowledge to. In the case of chemistry, piggy backing a lab to a lecture is a great way to demonstrate new concepts.
• Students hate being talked down to. Likewise, they hate being taught down to. Teaching in a way that projects a superiority complex is a great way to turn off anyone to your class and the subject.
• Multiple choice, true/false and fill in the blanks tests are simply lazy and do not, in my opinion, adequatly assay a student’s understanding. Essay and oral exams are the only way to go. Yes, they are time consuming, but they are a good way to asses understanding.
• Most people like to learn. The instructor’s job is to help them learn. The instructor cannot force anyone to learn anything, they can only provide information, assessment, feedback and most importantly, encouragement.

There is plenty of research out there on teaching methods. I am sure there are lots of folks out there who will tell me what the “effective” teaching methods are. But to be honest, teaching is more of an art than a science, and I certainly have not mastered it.

Alas, being an industrial chemist tends to limit my opportunities to teach, but I still find ways to educate the younger chemists I interact with.