Human psychophysics

I just happened upon a few tweets from a trainee named Toby Zabars asking about the rumors that somebody once put undergraduates into a monkey visuomotor behavior task without instruction and what happened. The foregoing was expurgated from my recent memoir “Eye of the Storm” at the firm insistence of my publisher’s spineless legal counsel. Nevertheless, now that the relevant statutes of limitations have run out, I think I can share it with you.

It was the late 1970s and Bob and I were approaching completion of our PhD theses. | remember it well because the time was marked by great anxiety for me and Bob and our entire cohort. Times were not as easy as they were for our forebears: only 70% of newly minted neuroscience PhDs were getting a position at an R1 university within 3 months of completion of their degree. Bob was one of the unlucky casualties of the new normal. He had to suffer the humiliating indignity of a 1.25 year fellowship at <shudder> NIMH before starting his lab. Of course, to be fair, Bob spent 80% of his time in grad school coked out of his gourd. And look at us now. We persevered and now we are widely considered to be giants of the field! This is why I always discount the whinging tweet storms/TikTok videos from today’s trainees as the embittered murmurings of also rans. But I digress.

So one day, Bob and I got a mimeograph from Kuffler’s assistant informing us of the impending arrival of Phil Zimbardo. I never heard the details, but it seems that Phil was getting some heat at Stanford from the newly empaneled Research Ethics Committee, and he needed a place to lay low for a while. Steve invited him to do a sabbatical and he asked us to show him our work. 

At the time, Bob and I were finishing up a series of experiments using our method of motivating starved macaques to perform 20 hour days of, I don’t remember, looking at some wiggly lines or something, by delivering them individual cocaine-laced raisins. By this point in our graduate work, we had a well-oiled machine of undergraduates collecting data for us with unaccounted for cocaine at an all-time low (<25%). We brought Phil downstairs to the basement room where we were running subjects.

“Intriguing,” was all he said before walking out.

Three weeks later, Phil brought us a proposal for a fully formed project. It was horrifying. Seriously, the first draft was insane and probably would have been enough to not only land all three of us in prison, but probably also enough to shut down the entire department. If you think what I am about to describe sounds bad, you should see what we talked him out of.

Within several weeks, we had sketched out a stripped-down version of Phil’s ideas and completed preparations to begin. The plan required many layers of subterfuge, only some of which were Bob and I aware of, both to elude the hand wringing of cowardly deans and ethics obsessed colleagues, and also to prevent word of our plan escaping to the undergraduate population.

“You two are going to be my confederates,” Phil explained to us. “This will require the utmost secrecy. And most importantly, you must do everything I ask. Is that clear?”

Bob and I both nodded.

“Good. Then we will begin tomorrow at 9 AM. I have recruited a number of undergraduate subjects. When you arrive, they will already be in the isolation chambers, prepped for head fixed behavior. You two will be the instructors.”

Apparently inspired by our success with motivating monkeys to infer increasingly cruel and baroque probabilistic structures underlying a visuomotor foraging task, Phil wanted to adapt our approach to explore the limits of human capabilities when properly reinforced.

As promised, when we arrived the next day, the experiments were already in progress. Frankly, I was impressed by the human undergraduates’ performance. With the macaques, it always seemed like Bob and I could not even dream of a task that was sufficiently capricious and convoluted for the monkeys to fail. We used to marvel at the feeble-minded monkeys and their tolerance for our shenanigans, imagining they must have superhuman patience to go through thousands of increasingly frustrating trials for a few more drops of juice or a coke-laced raisin.

After about 10 hours of continuous training, the human subjects had hit a wall. Were we finally reaching the limits of human endurance? Bob and I agreed we had, and proposed popping open one of Steve’s stash of vintage Moet from the cold room, but Phil was far from satisfied.

“Deploy the raisins,” he said, his words measured.

“W-w-hat?” I stammered. “I thought we agreed that was a line we wouldn’t cross!”

He glowered over his glasses at us and tersely repeated, “Deploy. The raisins. The experiment must continue.”

I looked over at Bob, and I could see the terror in his eyes. I can’t explain what came over me in that moment, but Phil seemed so authoritative in his lab coat and so confident and firm in his commands that I felt an irresistible compulsion to comply. This, despite knowing that each of those raisins was loaded up with enough cocaine to cause a small child’s heart to explode.

I began to bargain with myself. I decided that Phil is the boss, so I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. Bob and I are just following orders, right? So we can’t be responsible for what happens, can we? I loaded the raisins into the hoppers and quietly wept in the corner for for what seemed like hours.

Miraculously, the raisins worked! The subjects’ performance skyrocketed from there forward. We had shown that humans, when properly motivated with copious powerful drugs, could equal the performance of a well-trained macaque. We did end up opening one of those bottles of champagne, by the way.

Strangely the next morning, Bob and I arrived to train a new round of subjects as planned, but Phil was nowhere to be found. In fact, the rigs and all the equipment was cleared out of the windowless basement room we had been working out of.

Sometimes, in my quieter moments, I think about those poor undergraduate subjects that were lied to and used by Zimbardo. Those desperate, weak-willed motherfuckers.

Book excerpt: “Eye of the Storm”

The foregoing is an excerpt from my tell all memoir “Eye of the Storm” about my 50+ year career in neuroscience. Enjoy.  -BGB

____________________________________________________________________________________________

It was the early 1970s in Boston, and the air was electric with intellectual ferment. It was a time when on any given day, you might be at open mic night in a Cambridge coffee shop listening to Carla Shatz read her dreadful beat poetry (“I study plasticity in this city, this plastic city, this is the last shitty ditty that I’ll blast you with my pretties, I’m visually depriving my last few kitties by sewing up their tiny eyeliddies. <mic drop>”) Or, you might be on a peyote-fueled 3-day vision quest on Joe Perry’s farm in western Mass, sitting in a naked drum circle with Peter Fonda, Ed Furshpan, and an extremely coked out David Crosby. Crosby’s pupils were like pinholes, by the way. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

The Harvard Neurobiology department was the home of the Masters Of The Universe for a field in its infancy. Bob and I entered graduate school to run with the big dogs, and we scored benches in the lab of the biggest dog of all: department founder, NAS member, and OG BSD Stephen Kuffler. Kuffler did no drugs, and he forbade his lab members from taking them as well, so Bob and I smoked like chimneys when we were in the lab. I also acquired my renowned taste for expensive scotch. Those were the sacrifices we made to become the men of influence that we are today.

Bob and I shared a squalid garden apartment on Trowbridge Street in Cambridge with Steve Pinker, Nick Spitzer, and Nick’s already formidable mustache. You may be wondering why Bob and I even spoke to, much less were flatmates with, a ‘cognitive scientist’ like Pinker, but the arrangement paid handsome dividends. First of all, surely you’ve seen Steve’s hair? The man is well into his 60s and currently it is positively magnificent, so you can imagine its glory in those days. Bob and I would bag much higher quality babes simply drifting in that guy’s wake than we ever even encountered hanging out with the neurophysiologists in Longwood.

Second and just as important was the fact that Steve was our contact to the psychology department, which despite having fired Timothy Leary years earlier had failed to expunge his many acolytes. There were still guys there who started their PhDs in the late 50s, some of whom I suspected were squatting in the old jail cells that one of the social psychologists had installed years prior as part of a collaboration with Phil Zimbardo that went sour. Anyway, the only thing that these people had accomplished in 15 years of graduate study was learning how to cook up some exceptional acid.

Late in graduate school, Bob and I went to a Halloween party. I was dressed as Jimi Hendrix and Bob went as Travis Bickle, which honestly didn’t require much modification from his usual look. Every single trainee from the Hubel and Weisel labs wore only an eyepatch. They really thought that was hilarious.

I was working on picking up a tipsy Margaret Livingstone, when Bob elbowed me.

“Oh shit! Here comes David Marr! Don’t make eye contact – he’s going to ask us for our data.”

We all averted our eyes, but it was too late

“Oh hey guys. Maggie”

“Hi David,” we all muttered.

I think you all know that in my opinion, those who can’t do theorize. I understand that this kind of intellectual vampirism has become fashionable of late, and I have made an uneasy peace with that, but at the time, Bob and I (along with all serious scientists) considered Marr and his ilk to be truly execrable. At this point, his ideas remain particularly dangerous due to their utility for adding a high concept veneer of intellectual relevance to the circuit du jour among the shameless and dishonest invertebrate neuroscientists. This is how those vermin manage to still walk among us without contributing whatsoever to solving #cortex. Fortunately, I managed to deflect his attention by telling him about some lucifer yellow neuronal fills in crayfish that the first year student in Ed Kravitz’s lab was working on.

Moments later, I turned and saw Pinker’s hair coming toward us through the crowd. He looked like a cross between a majestic african lion and Farrah Fawcett. He was always referring to his hairdo as a “sign stimulus,” whatever that means.

Bob, mesmerized by the swirling fractal geometry of Steve’s locks, reached out slowly to touch his hair. Pinker pulled back.

“Hands off the plumage, Bob! That’s how I signal fitness to potential mates. And I’m foreign, so females are evolutionarily programmed to subconsciously assume I carry beneficial alleles that are rare in this ecosystem.” 

He shot us an appalling wink and scanned the room wolfishly, moistening his lips just slightly. He narrowed his eyes and his nostrils flared as his gaze fell on the target of my clumsy pickup lines.

“You look enchanting this evening, Margaret,” he said as he took her hand and kissed it.

“I have a collaboration I’d like to discuss with you,” he hissed seductively.

Steve turned toward me and Bob. “Take leave of us, gentlemen.”

As he led Margaret away, he muttered his personal Attenborough narrative just loud enough for us to hear: “The female is captivated by the male’s lustrous mane. Just like on the savannah…” He trailed off with what sounded like Quebecois obscenities,

Bob’s unfocused stare followed Steve’s mesmerizing cymotrichous visage into the haze of smoke and pheromones. I turned to Bob. “I think we just got Pinkered.”

As I was scanning the room looking for someone important to talk to, a couple came up to me and Bob. They were dressed like the Wonder Twins, Zan and Jayna.

“Hi! I’m Lily!”

“And I’m Yuh Nung!”

“And we’re the Jans!” they shouted in unison.

These were the the new postdocs in the Kuffler lab. They stood facing each other and they bumped fists.

“Form of an ice T maze!”

“Form of a drosophila!”

They giggled as they ran away. West coast neuroscientists were all nut jobs in those days.”

I met the eyes of Kuffler lab veteran U. Jack McMahan, who had been watching the action from across the room. He just shook his head at the silly duo. It was unusual to see him outside of the lab, much less at a party. He was a serious guy, who didn’t have time for activities that didn’t yield data. Bob and I worshipped him. In fact, we gave him a nickname that reflected his intense work ethic: “U. Jack: Hustler.”

It was just then that I was distracted by a fracas at the door. It was Kandel arriving with his usual entourage of sycophants. He always entered every room like this with his arms raised and mouth agape in mock surprise as if to say, “I am here! I am Eric Kandel! Let the party begin!” It was an insufferable routine, but Kuffler loved him, so we had to kiss his ass.

“Bob! How the hell are you?”

“I’m good, Eric. Thanks. Is work going well?” I knew better than to ask that.

“Oh nothing much, just… you know… unlocking the secrets of the essence of humanity.”

I threw up in my mouth a little at the prospect of yet another monologue tracing threads from synaptic facilitation in sea slugs to Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” and back again. I excused myself.

I headed home at an early 1:30 am since I was scheduled to present a journal club paper at the regular 7am Saturday Kuffler lab meeting the next day. As I did, I pondered my encounter with Eric and resolved to dedicate my life to outdoing him. No matter how long it would take, I was going to solve #cortex.

BGB out.

More thoughts on publishing

Due to popular demand, I have extended my taxonomy of journals to include more “niche” options. Use sparingly, if at all.

You’re welcome.

Elife – This improbably named blog is not a dating service as I once learned in a most embarrassing mixup that resulted in the formation of several investigatory committees at my university and my participation in an excruciating 15-minute online sensitivity training module. No, the truth is even sillier. The crackpots running this enterprise have the sad and naïve goal of forcing everyone who reviews for them to reveal their identity. I have steadfastly avoided publishing there, yet enduring an occasional round of the review process is a very convenient way to shore up your enemies list.

Journal of Neurophysiology – Who are you, Charles Sherrington? Welcome to the 21st century! Studies published here seem to be best described as hybrid undergraduate lab exercises/steampunk cosplays. If I see your paper here, I immediately know three things about you: 1) You’ve got the cleanest recordings around, 2) You’ve never been invited to speak at a Gordon Conference, 3) Your lab looks like a RadioShack in 1980.

Current Biology – As far as I can tell, this is some kind of lower case “G” glam journal for a readership composed of equal parts aged, mustachioed fly geneticists and bolo tie-clad naturalists. If you’ve ever glanced at an SfN poster and thought “Huh. Why would you do that?” this is where the paper will be. These occasionally diverting side projects have their place, I suppose, but all too often their authors–a rogues gallery of professors who teach, lab technician first authors, and (I shit you not) undergraduates–fail to even hypothesize how their observations may someday translate to mouse.

Nature Protocols – Look, I’m all in favor of methods development, but seriously, why don’t you just title your paper “Here are all my secrets. Please scoop me.” This is a useful receptacle for when you’ve made the classic mistake of hiring a physicist postdoc who has spent the last 7 years building a custom microscope or an immersive VR environment for mouse pups but can’t do an experiment to save their life. Come up with an acronym, dump it here, and move on.

Journal of Experimental Biology – This one is exclusively the province of creepy crawlies and dodgy neuroethologists. Signs that you should publish here include “your study involves filling cells with lucifer yellow” and “there is a Latin species name in your title.” Likewise, if you study the synapse that controls octopus ejaculation or fractal distribution patterns of mealworm pheromones in the basement of some Victorian ruin on an undergraduate quad, welcome home. I am sorry for your life choices.

Neural Networks – Clearly there is a place for neural theorists and modelers. That place is as a penultimate author on one of my studies. This is what happens when their masturbatory fantasies run amok and they forget their natural place: Figure 11k.

Nature Neuroscience – The Traveling Wilburys of journals. Your paper is an incoherent mess, neither fish nor fowl. Despite your best efforts you have have failed to slip it past the gatekeepers of true excellence, yet hope for some reflected glory. Unfortunately, thanks to Nature Communications, sticking “Nature” in front of something is no longer the imprimatur of distinction it once was. This is the bastion of strivers and also-rans who lack the courage to flog a postdoc across the real finish line at Nature.

PLOS One – If the character described in Billy Joel’s “Angry Young Man” were a scientist, this is where he would exclusively publish. If you’re not him, only when it absolutely, positively needs to come out, this is your nuclear option. In fact, occasionally I amuse myself by trying to find review language sufficiently harsh to elicit a hard reject. This exercise has only brought abject failure. PLOS One exists for only (PLOS)One reason. That’s right. Hastily publishing the experiments you and your most mercenary tech have been running late at night to replicate and scoop the postdoc about to leave with the mouse lines he’s “taking with him.” Just be aware that you are entering a Faustian bargain that buys you a decade of awkwardly stammering insistence that it is a real journal.

Biological Cybernetics – Are you German? Have you built a robot? Do the terms “Hopf bifurcation,” “chaotic,” “Hilbert transform,” “support vector machine” or “Fitzhugh-Nagumo model” appear non-ironically in your abstract? Are you Gilles Laurent or Nikos Logothetis? If you answered no to all of these questions, move along.

BGB out.

Thoughts on publishing

These are dark days for Dame Science my friends. As hard as I have tried to remain silent about the corrosive effects of the hyper competitive atmosphere in the academy, I can do so no longer.

Admittedly, one contributor has been the unintended consequences of some our most well-intended developments. Even as the tightening rigor of our funding mechanisms has, as intended, slowly but surely insulated our best and brightest from being drowned out by background noise from impudent millennials, “diversity” hires, and mid-career also-rans, these gains are being diluted.

For example, I acknowledge the conventional wisdom that the proliferation of new tools has been a boon for neuroscience over the past decade. Nevertheless, too little attention has been paid to ensuring that these tools remain in the right hands. With great power comes great responsibility. How are we to be certain that these tools are not being used to mask poor science or to advance an agenda of irrelevant research objectives? Many of us were sold on investment in our current arsenal by the promise that they would be a great clarifier in the waxing age of the bloated and insatiable  leviathan of “incremental” science. What will we do when the leading technology loses all value as a signifier of important and comprehensive studies?

Let me assure you, the forces of mediocrity will not go down without a fight, and they are dangerously emboldened by a recent victory that we should all find dispiriting. Under the guise of a quirky and harmless fad promulgated by an unlikely alliance of lazy bottom feeders and misguided fools who have expatriated themselves from the olympian upper echelons of anointed science royalty, they have been aggressively dismantling the fragile guardrails of proper peer review. Don’t misunderstand me, the system is not without its flaws. Notably, the pinheaded reviews I am routinely subjected to by 50 year old associate professors surely strain the notion of “peer” review, wouldn’t you agree? But this BIoLoGy ArKiV lunacy is not the answer.

I am confident that telling you this, dear reader, is preaching to the converted, however I also suspect many of you look to the wisdom of your superiors for guidance for publishing with distinction in defiance of the anti-peer review plebes and mountebanks. In sympathy for your plight, I will provide the following taxonomy of journals to help you find the right venue for your work.

1) Nature – This is obviously the gold standard. You should never pursue any study or even experiment that isn’t explicitly conceived off the blocks to appeal to their gatekeepers. One thing we can say with certainty is that the Nature editorial board speaks authoritatively for all scientists!

2) Cell – As unlikely as it seems, not all studies are served well by shoehorning them into 2.5 pages. In our relentless pursuit of “complete” stories, we occasionally overdo it and we end up with something “hypercomplete.” These are studies that not only close the book on a field, they nail it shut and salt the earth. There are other legitimate reasons to publish in Cell e.g. to punish Noah’s insolence when he declines to expand your manuscript into an article. And sometimes they actually send a bigger fruit basket.

3) Science – Science:CNS::Brown:Ivy League. It’s widely acknowledged as a lightweight, but it’s still a useful safety choice that will allow you to keep your head high. God knows they’ve saved my ass from humiliation more than once! It’s worth noting that YMMV in other fields. Bizarrely, Science would likely be your first choice if you found a weird meteorite or its your turn for the latest installment of “Diseased human remains or healthy, tiny, extinct prehuman remains?”

4) Neuron – In my world, this one is strictly reserved for BGB jam sessions that clearly missed the mark, like say, when I need to fire the postdoc in the middle of a study. Everyone knows Clapton has some “off nights,” especially when he was blasted out of his gourd on a couple of 8-balls. BGB is no different. But for most of you this will be a sturdy option for pulling one out of the fire. The assistant professors wise enough to be reading my blog should know that they can rack up a few Neuron papers and probably barely avoid being fired.

5) Journal of Neuroscience – OK, OK everybody calm down and hear me out. Every journal has a place, even if it’s only for publishing the most egregiously slapdash undergraduate honors theses without dooming their med school application. What is the point of having a flagship society journal otherwise? Still, JN is definitely skating on thin ice lately. Notably, the leadership there has apparently allowed prankster interns to commandeer their social media presence, to the delight of puerile kiddies and the vile, anonymous bomb thrower The Drugs Monkey.

BGB out.

Conquistador

“Conquistador a vulture sits
upon your silver shield
and in your rusty scabbard now
the sand has taken seed
and though your jewel-encrusted blade
has not been plundered still
the sea has washed across your face
and taken of its fill”

Late yesterday evening, after finishing my lovely wife’s dinner of beef Wellington, I retired to my study to allow her to clean up, unencumbered by the need to entertain yet another of my rambling monologues on science and academic politics. Such things are over her head anyway, so I mercifully retreated with a bottle of vintage Porto from the cellar. Granted some precious time alone, I began to pore over the day’s activity on Twitter. Amid the usual fawning at replies of sycophants and underlings, announcements of the latest awards for Karl Deisseroth, and drink recipes from Noah Gray, I found a tweet offering a bounty for a vial of my tears. I wondered how someone who calls himself “Namaste” could be so cruel. This is Twitter! Have some dignity!

My appetite for Twitter now spoiled, I opted to relax with some grape sugar and pop my laserdisc of “Procol Harum In Concert with the Danish National Concert Orchestra and Choir” into my BeoSystem 4. The transcendent music washed over me as I revisited fond memories of my undergraduate summer internship at Caltech, which was largely spent smoking weed and listening to records at Lindsey Buckingham’s Laurel Canyon bungalow. It was there that Graham Nash said to me, “Bob, our generation will change the world. We’ll do it through music. You’ll do it through science.” He was right.

The film closes with the stirring track “Conquistador”, which describes a majestic conqueror’s faded glory. It keeps me up at night to think that this might be the fate of my generation of scientists. All that we achieved is under assault by insolent and incompetent youth like The Drug Monkey. We need to confront the frightening prospect that these are the people who will be at the helm of our research programs when they are bequeathed through the insidious NIH emeritus award. If this comes to pass, tarnishment of our jewel encrusted scabbards will finally be complete.

Are you happy now, Namaste? You have your tears.

Losing My Edge

h/t LCD Soundsystem

Yeah, I’m losing my edge.
I’m losing my edge.
The kids are coming up from behind.
I’m losing my edge.
I’m losing my edge to the kids from Berkeley and Cambridge.
But I was there.

I was there in 1977.
I was there at the first Gordon Conference on Neural Circuits.
I’m losing my edge.
I’m losing my edge to the kids whose footsteps I hear when they get on the rig.
I’m losing my edge to the Neurotree seekers who can tell me every member of every good lab from 1981 to 1999.
I’m losing my edge.

To all the kids in Lausanne and Heidelberg.
I’m losing my edge to the grad school Palo Alto-ites with FM-143 and intrinsic imaging setups and borrowed nostalgia for the unremembered 90s.

But I’m losing my edge.
I’m losing my edge, but I was there.
I was there.
But I was there.

I’m losing my edge.
I’m losing my edge.
I can hear the action potentials every night on the rig.
But I was there.
I was there in 1993 at the first in vivo 2P imaging experiments at an industry lab in Princeton, NJ.
I was working on the scan head with much patience.
I was there when Linda Buck was cloning the olfactory receptors.
I told her, “Don’t do it that way. You’ll never get the Nobel Prize.”
I was there.
I was the first guy showing hippocampal place cell papers to the molecular kids.
I presented it at MIT.
Everybody thought I was crazy.
We all know.
I was there.
I was there.
I’ve never been wrong.

I used to work at the Salk.
I had everything before anyone.
I was there in the CSHL imaging course with Larry Katz.
I was there in Woods Hole during the Ca2+ cooperativity of synaptic release clashes.
I woke up naked on the beach in La Jolla in 1988.

But I’m losing my edge to better-looking people with better ideas and more talent.
And they’re actually really, really nice.

I’m losing my edge.

I heard you have a Mendeley collection of every good paper ever published by anybody.
Every great manuscript by Chuck Stevens. All the underground white papers.
All the Newsome papers. I heard you have a signed reprint of every Sakmann paper on German import.
I heard that you have a copy of every seminal locus of LTP paper – 1995, ’96, ’97.
I heard that you have an Endnote library of every good primate vision paper from the ‘80s and another vertical file from the ’90s.

I hear you’re buying a stimulus isolator and an Arduino and are throwing your Master-8 out the window because you want to make something real. You want to make a Lisberger paper.

I hear that you and your lab have sold your Neuralyx and bought INTAN chips.
I hear that you and your lab have sold your AAV-LSL-ArchT and bought CAV-Flex-JAWS.

I hear everybody that you trained with is more relevant than everybody that I trained with.

But have you seen my co-authors? Terry Sejnowski, Rod MacKinnon, Sol Snyder, Rob Malenka, Rick Huganir, Torsten Wiesel, Matt Wilson, Tom Jessell, Carla Shatz, John Maunsell, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Rafael Yuste, Florian Engert, Mike Merzenich, Cori Bargmann, Charles Zuker, Michael Hausser, Larry Abbott, Robert Desimone, Catherine Dulac, Karel Svoboda, Eve Marder, Earl Miller, Michael Greenberg, David McCormick, Ann Graybiel, Henry Markram, Miguel Nicolelis. May! Britt! Moser!, Richard Axel, Bill Bialek, Martha Constanine Paton, Karl Deisseroth

Eric Kandel

Eric Kandel

Eric Kandel

Eric Kandel

You don’t know what you really want.

BGB Guide to Obtaining Your First NIH Grant

I hear a lot of griping from assistant professors about how difficult it is to get your first grant. Boy howdy! I had to submit mine twice before Kuffler had to intervene. I shudder to think what I might have done if I had to wait a third time for it to print dot matrix from our lab’s PDP-11!

Thank god Steve took care of business and “Several projections to the visual claustrum of cats” was off like a rocket. Bob’s third proposal (I don’t know how he wasn’t fired) flew that round too so we did many a line of coke off some stripper’s melons that night I can tell you!

Enough about me. How can I help you? Well you’re probably making some simple mistakes:

1) Talk to your program officer. I had my third R01 before I knew what a program officer was. I was so naive. I probably wouldn’t have gotten my fourth if I hadn’t figured out who they were.

2) Formatting. My first time out I thought these were more “guidelines” or “helpful suggestions”. Turns out they are real hardasses about this stuff. Maybe some of you are making the same mistake?

3) Have a hypothesis. For example, my hypothesis was “There are several projections to the visual claustrum in cats” This was suspected but not known. And the grant just writes itself from there! See how easy that is? Try it, it’s formulaic but foolproof.

4) Write defensively. Try to foresee the pitfalls! You need to put yourself into the mind of the reviewer. For example, when I review I have a lot on my plate. Between the hangover from last night on the town in Bethesda, trying to remember which of my frenemies’ trainees to screw and which to champion, and rocking out to Slowhand on my Ipod between reviews I’m primary on, I can make some pretty slipshod judgment calls. It’s your job to see them coming and evade them. It’s all part of the game. Whining about “but I answered that! It’s in there!” is never an excuse. Tell that to the next guy that reviews your grant.

5) Everything in moderation. I was young once and and I know all about you kids with the hippin and hoppin and bippin and boppin. At my most debauched I never wrote more than 60% of a grant high on mescaline. And I always, ALWAYS proofread sober.

6) Persistence is key. Like any Poisson process, all values are inevitable. Keep trying as long as your chair will tolerate your presence

7) Brawn. If all else fails, it’s important to have fealty to a strongman. Who’s your Kuffler?

If that doesn’t help, I’m not sure you’re cut out for this.

BGB out

The Cover Letter

I’m not going to lie to you. It’s been a long time since I had to write one of these oily and undignified missives. Oh sure we occasionally have to write one for one of our “trash” papers that some premed sycophant or failed postdoc ends up sending to the Journal of Neuroscience or whatever. For these poor saps, I think of writing the cover letter as part of their punishment. If you’re ever going to be successful, you’re going to have to get to the point where editors are sending *you* cover letters, if not Harry and David fruit baskets, to try to persuade you to send them your papers.

But let’s be realistic. Baby steps. If you’re reading this blog, odds are you have a long way to go before you develop an “editor hand” of that strength. For the plebes who still have to craft these letters carefully to get their papers published, I whipped up this handy set of can’t miss cover letter tips!

1) Select your most intimidating letterhead. Well your first choice should always be HHMI, but take it easy. Stick with me and we’ll get you there. In the meantime, one of the sweetest perks of being at a top university is you get to use their letterhead. Make the most of it! One that has some Latin shit on it is ideal. This really lets them know who they’re dealing with. If you aren’t fortunate enough to be at a place where that would work, I really don’t know what to tell you and you might want to stop reading now. Anyway, aren’t you expected at office hours or your moonlighting gig as a bartender?

2) Keep the focus on why your work is important. A lot of people think you can get a Nature paper just because you used opto to influence some behavior. They are wrong. You are going to need two color opto at a minimum. Make sure to emphasize why your methods are superior to your predecessors’. For example, clearly state what version of GCaMP you used. Did you use something red-shifted? Don’t be shy – that’s the kind of thing that needs to be front and center. Now is also a good time to enumerate the neural circuits you dissected and the causalities you established. Finally, never describe your behavior as anything other than a phase-space map of eigenvalues. “Paw-licking” just sounds so 90s. We are doing Modern Neuroscience, which requires the kind of quantitative systems-level thinking you can only get with the right Matlab plugin.

3) Exclude all who would oppose you. If you followed number 2 above, the editor should now be salivating to publish your paper and looking to set up a kangaroo court to rubber stamp it. You don’t want your paper to end up in the wrong hands, so you need to make it clear who the wrong hands are. It is a little-known secret that you don’t have to stick with individual names. If your paper is threatened by a whole community or broad class of researcher, feel free to say so. For example, state universities outside of California are on my exclusion list. The review system should not be skewed or biased by petty jealousy.

4) Make brazen threats to take your work to their competitor journals. This is foolproof. Works every time. What editor wants to lose their job over dropping the ball on a solid gold get like the new BGB study and allowing it to land in Cell’s lap? I recommend something like:

Dear Noah,

The history of 21st century neuroscience will written by its triumphant heroes. What will we say about you? I sent you this paper because I thought you were man enough to publish it. If I’m wrong, then maybe Science has the stones.

5) Ingratiate yourself with feigned modesty and informality. Everybody calls me Bob, but I always sign my cover letters “Bobby.” That’s my move. Get your own.

BGB out

One

As the sun sets on my cloistered beach retreat, I pensively sip the last dram from the bottle of Laphroaig 18 brought earlier today by the distinctively obsequious new premed undergrad. My brow weighs heavy under thoughts of my return to Dame Science. The Procul Harum Pandora station quietly transitions from “Conquistador” into Three Dog Night’s “One” (of many versions the original and still the best!). This veritable master class in vocal nuance and restraint from ultimate rock and roll badass Chuck Negron* has me sobbing at 1:18.

I’m aware that I cast a brash formidable presence, but I am not above weeping openly at the burden of being without peer in my field. I contemplate my return to a lab full of trainees who will never understand the pain of possessing vision when none around you are capable of realizing it. One is indeed the loneliest number.

I’m so drunk.

*I think I’m supposed to say cc: DrBecky here but I’m not sure why

Mixed Emotions

It has been said, not by me but in reference to me, that “there is no off position on the genius switch.” However, I am a man with a knowledge of and appreciation for many things in life. You have seen me as a leader and mentor; today, a glimpse into one of my “other sides.” I have not been blogging lately because I have been away from the lab at the Graybeard family beach house. Here, I step away and “unplug” from the lab, the plenary talks, the back-room funding panels, the media interviews. I let the pressures and expectations of leading neuroscience into the 21st century melt away with family, friends, and the occasional cherished mentee up for the weekend with a booze resupply.

This is a time for me to read literature—Clancy, King, Grisham, Gladwell—all in hard back, of course, while away the hours in my Nantucket reds until 4 o’clock cocktails, and criticize the Scotch selections of the trainees. As the sun sets, my wife tactfully vanishes, then announces dinner some time later. Unless we are grilling. I do the grilling.

After dinner, I spend a few minutes at the computer, deleting my mandatory daily updates from everyone in the lab unread, check the webcam I installed in a lab ceiling vent to be sure no one is going home early, and search my name for a while on AltaVista. Then we sit, listen to the waves and Eagles bootlegs, and talk about the future. Recently, we have begun to talk about my retirement. The seed of influence I’ve planted will undoubtedly bear fruit for decades if not centuries. What more could a generation-defining scientist want? Why not stay here, on the shore, like a wise hermit, granting audiences to neuroscientists who travel from around the world to seek my counsel?

It was just such a reverie that turned suddenly into a waking nightmare. Like Jimmy Stewart, I had a vision of the disastrous course neuroscience could take in the next 5-10 years without me. The barbarians are, indeed, at the gate. Need we feel threatened by the Eisens, the PLOSses, the vindictive postdocs, the third-tier single-grant plebes who don’t understand that cutting them off now is a mercy? Instinct says these are gnats to be ignored, but isn’t that what Rome thought about the Visigoths? I think I read that in a Clancy novel.

Where are the standard bearers for quality? For valuing what is important over what is trivial? They are still here! Those I’ve known since SfN was at a Holiday Inn in Gloucester. (Can you imagine a brawl between neuroscientists and fishermen being a fair fight today? But that’s how it was.) This new generation… I don’t see it. PIs who were trained in good labs…trained by my friends…are publishing in open access journals. Skipping “blue movie” night at the Harvard Faculty Club is no longer frowned upon. This generation eschews the excellent Socials and Boat Parties at meetings, where I was once Jupiter and Bob was Saturn, densely orbited by admiring trainee moonlets, and instead goes to “raves” and dive bars for the company of other trainees and events organized by the untenured.

Very well, if you won’t learn from us, we will have to remain. We will not turn this ship over to mutineers and ingrates. I cannot watch Dame Science, once squired by the Greats, reduced to “hanging out” with headphoned slovens who have never heard of Cream.

Why should we give up, like the Beatles, when we can continue in greatness, like the Rolling Stones?

Selfless? Yes. But I am going nowhere. You’re welcome.