Author Archives: T. Ryan Gregory

Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships.

Posted on by

So, the results of the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships have been released. A big congratulations to this year’s 166 recipients, who represent promising new researchers. However, it cannot be pointed out enough how poorly this program meshes with funding for other Canadian students and scientists. $50,000 for 3 years is what they get, which is 2.5x more than regular NSERC scholarship winners, $10,000 more than postdocs get, and nearly twice the average grant for people actually starting a lab. Remember, too, that this is twice what they gave one of our leading statisticians this time.

What could have been funded with the $25 million instead?

  • Regular PhD scholarships for 3 years: 395, or
  • Discovery Grants at the average of $34K for 5 years: 146

[Update]
Furthermore, note the following:

  • The scholarships can be awarded to non-Canadians. The plan, I presume, is to draw top students to Canada. How likely is it that they’ll stay when the find out that there is now a 65% chance that they will get an NSERC grant, and that it will average about $34,000 to run an entire lab?
  • The intent is to award 500 of these per year. That’s $25 million per year on scholarship students, folks. Meanwhile, 35% of existing researchers — who already have PhDs, completed postdoctoral research, landed a job at a Canadian university, and have built a lab whose primary functions include training students — get nothing, while the rest receive $15,000 less on average than single scholarship students.
  • These scholarships represent a direct trade-off between funding the MSc program for 2 years instead of 1 year. In other words, an already very competitive scholarship program just became decidedly elitist — better to give a few people an outrageous sum than to fund more of our other top students in the country.
  • These scholarships further exacerbate the inequalities in research support among universities in Canada. Not surprisingly, the largest schools got lots, mid-sized schools got some, and most of the smaller schools got none.

I have yet to meet a colleague who thinks this is a good idea.

More on "evolution-proof" malaria control.

Posted on by

There is a second article set to appear on “evolution-proof” malaria control. I think this whole approach is important, but I certainly don’t consider it “evolution-proof” and I wish the authors didn’t insist on suggesting otherwise. Here’s the thing, folks: Plasmodium would be under selection if you mess around with their vectors. They can evolve, also.

Koella, J.C., Lynch, P.A. , Thomas, M.B., Read, A.F. (2009). Towards evolution-proof malaria control with insecticides. Evolutionary Applications, in press.

As many strategies to control malaria use insecticides against adult mosquitoes, control is undermined by the continual evolution of resistant mosquitoes. Here we suggest that using alternative insecticides, or conventional insecticides in alternative ways might enable effective control, but delay considerably or prevent the evolution of resistance. Our reasoning relies on an epidemiological and an evolutionary principle: (i) the epidemiology of malaria is strongly influenced by the life-span of mosquitoes, as most infected mosquitoes die before the malaria parasite has completed its development; and (ii) evolutionary pressure is strongest in young individuals, for selection on individuals that have completed most of their reproduction has little evolutionary effect. It follows from these principles, first, that insecticides that kill mosquitoes several days after exposure can delay considerably the evolution of resistance and, second, that the evolution of resistance against larvicides can actually benefit control, if it is associated with shorter life-span or reduced biting in adults. If a late-acting insecticide and a larvicide are combined, the evolution of resistance against larvicides can in some circumstances prevent the evolution of resistance against the more effective, late-acting insecticide, leading to sustainable, effective control. We discuss several potential options to create such insecticides, focussing on biopesticides.

Read, A.F., Lynch, P.A., Thomas, M.B. 2009. How to make evolution-proof insecticides for malaria control. PLoS Biology 7: e1000058.

Insecticides are one of the cheapest, most effective, and best proven methods of controlling malaria, but mosquitoes can rapidly evolve resistance. Such evolution, first seen in the 1950s in areas of widespread DDT use, is a major challenge because attempts to comprehensively control and even eliminate malaria rely heavily on indoor house spraying and insecticide-treated bed nets. Current strategies for dealing with resistance evolution are expensive and open ended, and their sustainability has yet to be demonstrated. Here we show that if insecticides targeted old mosquitoes, and ideally old malaria-infected mosquitoes, they could provide effective malaria control while only weakly selecting for resistance. This alone would greatly enhance the useful life span of an insecticide. However, such weak selection for resistance can easily be overwhelmed if resistance is associated with fitness costs. In that case, late-life–acting insecticides would never be undermined by mosquito evolution. We discuss a number of practical ways to achieve this, including different use of existing chemical insecticides, biopesticides, and novel chemistry. Done right, a one-off investment in a single insecticide would solve the problem of mosquito resistance forever.

Casualties of NSERC peer review.

Posted on by

Two courageous colleagues have spoken up about the results of the recent Discovery Grant review from NSERC, which was based on new evaluation criteria. Both had previously been funded, and it is hard to imagine how these results are sensible. I think sharing stories like this is very important because otherwise a) researchers can become very discouraged, and b) systemic problems with the review system may go unnoticed for a long time. As Dr. Nancy Reid (University of Toronto) stated, individuals in this situation should not “hide in the office feeling you’ve done something wrong”. I am planning to share some of my own experiences with NSERC peer review soon. But in the meantime, you can read the plea from Dr. France Dufresne (Université du Québec à Rimouski) here, and Dr. Reid has graciously allowed me to repost her message below.

As news about the results of this year’s discovery grant competition trickle out, the list of alarming stories seems to grow. Here is my story.

My DG grant was cut this year from $48,000 to $25,000. Grants in statistics tend to be low, and our GSC (14) is perpetually short of money. My grant of $48k was the largest among those re-applying this year, and among the top 5 or so in the country. The last few years have seen most of the top grants cut to help the pressure on junior people who need to move up through the system. So I expected to see a decrease in my grant.

But, I didn’t expect to be knee-capped. This is just $1k short of the maximum cut allowed (50%).

My first reactions were deeply personal: I assumed that my standing, my research, and my training of HQP had been found wanting, I assumed that this was probably a correct judgment, and I started asking myself whether it was time to think about retiring. I asked myself why a group of my peers felt that it was necessary to deliver such a blow, even if I was judged to be slipping. I was embarrassed to tell even my closest friends what had happened.

But wait! The referees’ reports are quite positive! I looked at my proposal again: it was not bad! I had a long list of HQP! I had won a national and an international award! In fact, my proposal, my record of publication, training and achievement are very similar to past competitions.

This year, as we all know, NSERC instituted a completely different mechanism for determining grant amounts. They will of course be monitoring the situation, and assessing what worked and what didn’t. On their web page we read:

The emphasis on quality assessment under the new common rating system has achieved the desired objectives. It preserves continuity of funding for the most productive researchers who maintain a strong record of contributions to research and training. It also permits a more rapid ramp up of funding for applicants with superior accomplishments and research plans, no matter their history in the system.

Sounds admirable. But is it working?

We won’t know unless we share our stories. And NSERC won’t know unless it hears from us. Don’t hide in your office feeling that you’ve done something wrong. If there is any doubt in your mind about the adequacy of the review process and the outcome for your Discovery Grant, submit an appeal. And share your story.

I suppose it should be pointed out that the writing, reviewing, and denial of the proposals from these two productive researchers cost taxpayers about $80,000 according to one recent analysis. Again, we should ask whether the peer review system is working as well as it should, or indeed whether it should be abandoned in favour of baseline grants for all qualified researchers in Canada.

If you have a similar experience to share, I encourage you to visit Don’t Leave Canada Behind and post your story.

The problem with infrastructure without operations: Churchill Northern Studies Centre.

Posted on by

The National Post reported yesterday on the paradoxical and supremely frustrating approach of funding infrastructure while cutting support for people to use it, citing the example of the Churchill Northern Studies Centre. The CNSC received a much-needed infusion of funds to update the facilities, to the tune of $11 million, but rather than having their $80,000 operating grant from NSERC elevated to $120,000 as requested in light of rising needs, they had it cut totally.

As someone who has conducted research at Churchill (and will be working there again this summer), this is an example that is especially close to home.

Random quote about non-coding DNA.

Posted on by

I’m not making this officially part of the Quotes of Interest series, but I came across it while reading some papers yesterday and thought it worthy of note.

“Since the sequence composition of satellite DNA is remarkably heterogeneous in most organisms, and since its phenotypic or evolutionary function is not yet clear, satellite DNA is often called “selfish DNA” or “parasitic DNA” (Doolittle and Sapienza, 1980; Orgel and Crick, 1980). There is, however, accumulating evidence that such DNA sometimes contains functional DNA…”

This is a fairly standard introduction for a paper, and can be found in many recent articles announcing the end of a long period of neglect of “junk DNA” or “selfish DNA”.

Just one thing. This was published in 1991.

______________

Imai, H.T. 1991. Mutability of constitutive heterochromatin (C-bands) during eukaryotic chromosomal evolution and their cytological meaning. Japanese Journal of Genetics 66: 635-661.

I envy Americans for their politicians for the first time.

Posted on by

“At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today.”

– US President Barack Obama, Apr. 27, 2009

(Read the speech here)

Scientists about media: put up or shut up?

Posted on by

Kathy Sykes has a provocative article in New Scientist entitled Science in the media: Put up or shut up. She opens:

Most scientists want to see more science and technology in the media, but we’re making life hard for ourselves by forever criticising each other’s efforts or denouncing journalists and film-makers for not portraying science in ways we approve of. While healthy debate can improve science communication, I think we could all shut up a bit, and stop the more rabid criticism altogether. I include myself here.

Prof. Sykes is not a biologist, which may account for the fact that she sees little wrong with stunts like New Scientist’s recent “Darwin Was Wrong” inanity:

Similarly, New Scientist recently took flak over its cover that proclaimed “Darwin was wrong”. The article inside described discoveries that are leading to modifications to the theory of evolution. A cheap trick to sell magazines while giving fodder to the enemies of evolution? Sales certainly went up that week, but if more people than usual bought the magazine and read the article, more people will have found that scientists agree that Darwin was fundamentally right.

The problem, as pretty much every evolutionary biologist knows too well, is that most people who seek to undermine science will use the cover and not read the article. It was irresponsible, and it damaged New Scientist’s standing with scientists, without a doubt. I certainly have a much lower opinion of the magazine at this point.

That being said, I agree with Prof. Sykes’s frustration on another point:

I have ranted and railed at scientists and journalists who treat tentative results as if they are certain.

But, she continues:

Does ranting do any good? In some cases it does, especially if science is being carelessly mangled or deliberately distorted. But in many cases communicators are passionate about science and are simply trying to communicate it as clearly as they can to as large an audience as possible. We risk drowning out what’s good with a stream of public bickering. We also risk discouraging a new generation of communicators.

What’s the solution?

If you’re still troubled by how others communicate, why not spend less time ranting and get out there and communicate in ways you do like? Blogging is easier than ever, for example.

The thing is, lots of researchers do have blogs. And they use them for many purposes, such as: 1) criticizing inaccurate journalism (usually including clarification of the subject), 2) explaining new discoveries to a broad audience, and 3) praising good journalism. My blog certainly does this, as do many of the blogs I follow. In other words, the ranting is hardly decoupled from clarification in many cases.

My feeling is that Sykes is a little disconnected from the main issues as they are seen by scientists, especially since many of the most vocal critics of bad reporting are also engaged in communicating science themselves.

Is inaccurate science reporting better than no reporting at all? I think it is an open question.

Postdoctoral position in molecular identification ("DNA barcoding") of pathogens and disease vectors.

Posted on by

Outstanding applicants are sought for a two-year postdoctoral position at the University of Guelph, focusing on the development of molecular identification methodology (“DNA barcoding”) for a wide range of pathogens, parasites, and disease vectors. This will include both original research and participation in the assembly and coordination of large-scale international collaborations.

Experience is required in PCR, DNA sequencing, and related analytical approaches, as well as expertise in one or more of protists, nematodes, flatworms, or insect vectors. In addition, applicants must possess excellent written and oral communication skills in English as well as strong leadership qualities.

Salary and benefits will total $45,000 (CDN) per year, with a further $5,000 per year in individual research support. The successful candidate will have access to a high-throughput biodiversity genomics facility under the co-supervision of Ryan Gregory (Department of Integrative Biology) and Paul Hebert (Biodiversity Institute of Ontario). The position will be co-funded by the Ministry of Research and Innovation through the Ontario Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program, Round 3.

Candidates must meet the following additional requirements:

  • Have completed their PhD no earlier than June 15, 2007.
  • Be available to begin work no later than Oct. 31, 2009.
  • Be eligible to work in Ontario, Canada.

Applicants should send a CV including a brief overview of experience and research interests to rgregory(at)uoguelph.ca

Review of applications will commence June 15, 2009.

For more information, visit: