Dr. Shellie

I picked up a copy of Technology Review yesterday and noticed with interest that:

1) Researchers in India want to use tiny (5-nm diameter) gold particles for insulin delivery. You sniff in the particles, which are coated in insulin, and they get absorbed through the mucous membrane of your nose. Now, why would anyone think this was a good idea? Well, supposedly because it provides a way of getting drugs like insulin (which break down in your stomach) into your body without injections. That is, IF the gold particles do not end up building up in your body and causing harmful effects.

2) A variety of studies are now being done on the toxicity of carbon nanotubes and other nanoparticles in lab animals. One study (Operdorster et al, U. of Rochester) showed that nanoparticles inhaled by rats can end up in their brains.

Hmm… and so the implication of these two articles together…?

Granted. I am certainly not arguing that these two news briefs are conclusive.* But I am growing frustrated with the marketing of EVERYTHING "nano" as a potential cure for cancer, even when the toxicity is completely unknown, or even suspect. It seems like bio-compatability/safety ought to be the FIRST design criterion for new medical methods.

But then again: the x-ray machine, one of the most useful medical diagnostic devices of all time, is itself intrinsically toxic — x-ray radiation causes cancer. It has only been through careful engineering that high-quality images can be obtained using acceptably low dosages of radiation. So I will allow some hope for the alleged medical nano-revolution, if the biomedical engineers can do the job right. Certainly the x-ray proves the principle that basic research in the physical sciences has led to fundamentally-new technologies used in medicine.

* Probably not studying the same type of nanoparticle, animal models don’t necessarily reproduce human reactions, this was only one study, need more research, etc. etc. etc…

I went to a workshop by Dr. Valerie Young on Impostor Syndrome, a behavior pattern in which high-achieving individuals (particularly women and academics!) have a hard time believing in their own success and intelligence. Dr. Young asked a room full of highly-talented women to write down their fears about graduate school, research, and work. Every single woman’s list looked something like this:

• saying something wrong
• not knowing the things I should know
• asking a question I should know the answer to already and showing I am stupid
• not coming up with original or interesting ideas in my research
• not being as smart as my other people in my group/class/subject

That is, every single woman but one– one row behind me sat one of the career counselors at my university. Her list looked quite different:

• not always being as nurturing as I know I can be
• not helping all of my clients to reach their full potential
• sometimes acting impatient or rude

Clearly she did not suffer from Impostor issues.

What about you? Take the quiz here.

Continuing with the theme of my all-time favorite psychology researchers, we have Professor Julie Norem of Wellesley College for her work on defensive pessimism.

Do you back up your PowerPoint slides on a memory stick before each talk, just in case you lose/break/drop your computer? Do you make a list of nasty questions that someone just might ask and write up the answers on index cards? Do you look up the publication records of the speakers preceding you in your conference session to make sure you didn’t forget to cite any of their major, related works? Well, then you are using a "defensive pessimist" strategy.

The brilliant thing about Norem’s work is that she has quantitatively shown (through controlled experiments) that defensive pessimists are just as successful as their counterparts, so-called "strategic optimists"– you know, the ones who just sort of believe that everything is bound to go to well. However, both groups will do worse than usual if their normal strategy is disturbed. If you interrupt a defensive pessimist’s ability to do last-minute (over?)preparation tasks, his or her performance will suffer. Likewise, if you disturb a strategic optimist from spending his or her last minutes before a high-pressure test "relaxing" blissfully, his or her performance will also go down.

The most important implication of this work? Anxiety and self-doubt do not necessarily compromise performance.

Find out more here:

• Are you a defensive pessimist? Take the quiz at Norem’s website.
• CNN review of her book, "The Positive Power of Negative Thinking: Using Defensive Pessimism To Harness Anxiety and Perform at Your Peak"
• Article in the University of Chicago’s alumni magazine

Inspired by the possibility of creating my own unique, bold research vision, I have decided to simulataneously create my own unique, bold wine vision. Now, I know that wine is in some ways a very stupid thing to get interested in, simply because the more you develop your taste, the more money you end up spending. But you could say the same for research. Anyway, sometimes you want to have some people over for dinner, and then it is best to know how to buy wine that doesn’t totally stink.

For the last five years, my tried and true wine-buying method was this: I went to the friendly, local wine store. I located the friendly and knowledgeable store employee. I told him what I was eating (Thai mussels, say) and how much money I had (usually less than $12) and he pointed at a wine. I drank it. It did not stink.

Sadly, I moved cities to start a postdoc and no friendly, local wine store presents itself. Last weekend I went to the Wine Megastore and asked someone for advice. He pointed me at a $9.99 Merlot. It stunk. It stunk so badly I stopped drinking after half a glass and considered never drinking red wine again. Lacking any suitable Wine Authority Figure I decided the time had come to develop my own opinions. I bought 5 bottles of wine and invited friends over for dinner on five separate occasions. We drank. We contemplated. I labelled each bottle with a Post-It note: "GOOD," "AWFUL," or "NOT BAD." I am keeping them on my counter for reference. And so, dear readers, I have arrived at my very first wine opinion: I do not like Merlot.

Why is it so hard to find women’s shoes that stay attached to your feet when you walk, don’t make you tip over and fall when walking on the sidewalk or climbing steps, have a heel more than 3 mm wide but don’t make you look like an aging hippie or earth mother?

Who is it that is buying all the high-heeled gold sandals on sale this season?

Tell me, WHERE DO I BUY professional-looking shoes I can walk in?