Myworkismyplay

Actually thinking things will 100% work this way is a first step to have a frustated life as s scientist. That's why they are called hypotesis, we don't know if they are true, we test them, if you got too excited about the fact they WILL work (instead of the fact it MAY work) you will naturally get frustrated and finally burned-out very quickly. Because there is no 100% success in any story, even less in any Science or Nature paper.

Get excited by the possibilities, not certainities, leave your mind open for for the fact, this one hypotesis won't be proven right, so you can immediatelly think of a new better one. Get excited by the fact you are uncovering the mystery, not by the fact you will get the one answer you want to hear. That's a science. Does it work? Excellent, so this hypotesis is true. Doesn't? Excellent, that means you got new piece of information you can use, new theory to make.

Other question alone are technical problems, you can't even prove anything, because you can't get the experimental system to work. Now that is frustrating, because it stands in the way of getting any knowledge. But in this way you come to analyse the problem, become the problemsolver, break it into pieces and work on each one to finally find the key, or just step aside and find incredibly simple solution out-of-the box. New source of excitement and contentment. Or sometimes you don't find any, you finaly need to give up and let go. But there are sure challenges that can't be answered now, and maybe they will be in the future.

You need to find a constant way to motivate yourself in this job. Because there sure are days of frustration, but you also need to have days when you're excited. And sometimes, when sou are so tired.. then the only thing that still takes you further is the restlessness and obsession, well.. that's the time to take a vacation

There should be one rule -- authorship on a paper is determined by the amount of work/data/ideas/financing contributed to the ultimate manuscript.  Titles, hierarchal position within the lab, and secondary considerations (such as so-and-so "needs" a paper) should have no standing.

fysio lab, on Jun 2 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

This is how I see it: there are 2 lab techs.

1. you are a lab tech and just do what you are told , nothing more.

2. you are a lab tech, but you also give hints , ideas and "change" , optimize things yourself (eg.: your boss tells you to do it like this and you say : it might be better to change this and that because my previous experience tells me that... and I know that ... ...) or I have done some literature review and...

If number 1 is the case: then its normal you are not on the paper since you just did what they told you. You have not done anything yourself but just did  what they told (monkey work? is this an expression that is known in english?)

if you are number 2 : then you should indeed be on the paper.


In my opinion the number 2 lab techs are also the lab techs that are active (reading literature, speaking out, checking things ....)

WHile the number 1 lab techs are most of the times those people that just come to work to earn they money and thats it.

Also: number 2 lab techs are most likely to be those that are interested in getting a "higher" or better place or those that want to start a Msc program or PhD.


I make a harsh line between the 2 types, but its just to simplify the things.

Being a senior lab rat, I decided to take the role of teacher instead of persecuter and approached the co-worker in a non-confrontational manner. Privately, I spoke with her, told her what I had observed and explained why her "method" was not the way to go and what it could lead too. I kept a freindly and encouraging tone (to my surprise). The end result was that the experiment will be gladly repeated, additional controls added and everyone is happy, it was a great day! I'm going to sleep much better tonight.
Thanks again gang

Why God Didn't Get Tenure

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the Book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

Possibly you could make some sense out of these samples, but I'd strongly recommend that you redo the PCR.  Long experience tells me (and I suspect others on this list) that it does not pay to continue experiments after questionable results.  You want to do a set of reactions, verify that they worked well, and then use those as the basis for another set of experiments.  If your first set are questionable, then you will never know if a later failure is due to what you are doing now is wrong, or if the previous results were wrong.  Learn from our experience.

Wow...100 ng DNA? A bit too much:) I usually use 1 ng/ kb plasmid in 15 uL PCR reaction (for example if I have a plasmid of 5 kb, I use 5 ng of DNA).

In a PCR reaction after a few PCR cycles (usually 10-20 cycles) the dNTPs, primers and so on are used up. If you have such a huge concentration from the beginning, the dNTP/primers/polymerase are limiting from the first cycle. If the PCR components are limiting/insufficient for the PCR, the amplification is done with errors.

17 ng/uL is a bit too little for sequencing.

You can usually store DNA in the fridge if you are sure that you do not have DNAses in your solution i.e. in the elution buffer from the PCR clean-up kit. But, it is no problem to keep it for long in either fridge (but better in the freezer). But again, you must be absolutely sure you don't have DNAse inside.

Andreea