Although I appreciate the casual and subtle, I'm afraid that if I wanted to be honest with myself, a formal line with bold color (but not too bright) would be important characteristics of anything inspired by me. Practicality would be essential (nobody likes something that doesn't work; especially with an essential like clothing) BUT BUT there is always room for experimentation when it comes to flare and accent.

It is extremely important to differentiate confidence from a desire/need too attract attention. This abstract concept would need to be pervasive in the mind of any designer exploring this collection. Attention needs to be earned, not forcibly taken. Therefore, that thin line between invading someone's psyche at the conscious or unconscious level would be the holy grail of fashion design I would pursue with reckless abandon. Understand/control that line, and you WIN.

Right now, although this is not a fail-safe rule, it seems to be pretty easy to get a decent postdoc. Any record of publication, good ideas, and perceived chemistry with the lab head should land you a postdoc, as long as money is not an issue. On that last point, my conversations with PI's young and old predominantly suggest that there's money available for training despite the budget crunches and if you already have a fellowship going in, you'll be able to pretty much name your postdoc.

When applying, make sure that you are selecting labs that would allow you to bring something new to the table for their work (increasing your early opportunities to contribute on the projects of others and get some papers while you are figuring out your own project...,) but where you can still learn something new and gain experience in a new field. Don't put yourself in a position that could get ugly a couple years down the road, so make sure that you strongly believe you can work together with the PI and maybe, even like him/her.

Good luck!

And miss out on all the idiotic complexities and melodrama of human relationships??!? Please. I'll pass, thank you very much.

All the motivation you need is to understand that everything you've worked for will be lost if you don't complete this final tedious step. Now go write that damn thing.

Unilaterally ending a postdoc is almost always the norm, even if you *have* had moderate success with the project and publications. No PI wants to lose a set of hands, so it is always a struggle to agree on a time to leave. I'm saying all of this to convince you to not let the perceived apprehensions I am sensing from your question affect your decision or handling of the situation. You'd be dealing with this situation regardless at some point in the future.

But back to the critical point at hand, you are unhappy, not satisfied with your progress, seemingly at an impasse with your adviser and all of this combined is undoubtedly affecting your scientific experience. When you feel that you are not getting anything out of a postdoc, it is best for all involved to separate, regardless of the short-term awkwardness and potential unpleasantness. The beautiful thing about leaving a postdoc early as opposed to a graduate program is that you don't *need* to finish. You already have your degree.

If you are convinced that things can't change, I would explain exactly that to your adviser, only after you already have an exit strategy in place. PIs are typically doing what's best for them and their lab, so make sure that you are doing what's best for you; get beyond worrying about him/her. The lab will be fine so long as you place adequate effort in leaving your materials, notes and project in a state amenable to being picked up again by a new party.

The issue regarding career prospects is the only one on your list that is a concern for me. Although unfair, it is true that often times, other labs may perceive a hastily-ended postdoc in a bad light and unfairly presume certain things. Your best (only?) defense is to simply be completely honest with any new potential postdoctoral adviser about what went wrong and why in your previous position. Go into any interview/meeting prepared to answer difficult questions and don't be shy about candidly touching on what you think you could have done better to avoid this situation in the first place. And of course, have an idea as to how in this new lab you intend to avoid the same traps (even if it is something as simple as "I didn't get along well enough with the PI, but you and I seem to have more common interests, etc...") So honesty and humility will get you in the door for your next postdoc and I don't think that this abrupt end will follow you much further. Perform adequately and up to your own personal standard in the next laboratory and that's what you'll be judged on when taking that next step. Good luck!

I actually haven't given it much thought nor read too much about it. I'm open to most things until I decide they're stupid. Feel free to enlighten me on it if you like.

I would approach the interviews like you were already a brand new student in the program. Therefore, solidify some big picture interests and start thinking about the type of lab in which you feel you would flourish. The two biggest decisions to be made in grad school are lab and project. Some labs are fast-paced and publish a lot, some are more relaxed and collaborative. Some PIs are hands-off while other are pipetting right next to you. Newer investigators have a completely different approach to their labs than tenured faculty. Imagine the possibilities, talk to others who have gone through the experience and gather a sense of what you want.

Regarding the project (big picture,) read through the science sections of major papers, Scientific American or Nature/Science news sections for neuroscience stories. Read through some of the resources I have previously listed (http://www.formspring.me/noahWG/q/53658773) and find what gets you excited. THEN, dig a little deeper into the academic/technical side of your chosen field and gather a few more thoughts. This will provide you with some specific information to assist you in answering basic questions in the interview about your interests and help you later once you have been accepted into a graduate program. Win Win!

So although this answer sounds a lot like advice for someone starting out in a graduate program, this is exactly what you need since the committee wants someone who can hit the ground running. Convince the admissions committee that you've been thinking seriously about your future science career. Good luck!

I don't have a lot of experience with the way that cognitive neuroscience labs work, but I can imagine that someone with a Masters would likely end up as a senior technician in a lab, perhaps also maintaining some independent projects. Working in or perhaps maintaining a core facility would be an option. Outside of the realm of research, at least in the US, there is a moderate advantage to having some Masters degree work, but unfortunately, I would think that the same set of positions open to someone with a Bachelors degree would be relevant to you as well. The difference would be that you would come to those jobs with some experience, something that many fresh out with a Bachelors does not have.

This is always a great question. The simple answer is that although publications at the PhD level are clearly important for the future and can only help you at each of the next steps in your scientific career, they are not an absolute necessity! In fact, many students graduate and start their postdocs long before their thesis research is published. Although perhaps frustrating for the student, this is a testament to the fact that postdoc advisors are not always simply looking at the publication record to determine if the prospective candidate would be a great fit for his or her lab.

With regards to the "high-risk" project wrinkle, this can be a hit or miss point to emphasize. Personally, I would never make a huge deal out of the fact that a project was high-risk. Most good scientists knowledgeable in your field will recognize this right away. If they don't, you probably don't want to work in their lab anyway. Now, as for the definition of "high-risk," the project can be technically challenging and have the potential for an extremely high-value reward, but one must make sure that the "high-risk" definition is not because the project idea or strategy is just not grounded in solid science. High-risk can backfire and reflect poorly on the scientist, if ill-conceived.

Bottom-line is: take risks, go after the tough experiment and explore your science as thoroughly (and as tangentially) as you can during your thesis work because with each stage in the future, there are greater demands on your time, for your results, demanding some necessity to focus. Your time as a student is your time to learn your science chops. Have fun.

I am not a cancer expert, but there are so many different causes of brain cancer. Most originate with the non-neurons in the brain that grow out-of-control (again, for a variety of reasons.) There are "brakes" that prevent out-of-control growth in cells, but when this safety mechanism breaks down, cancer can develop. In addition, other genetic changes can overwhelm the "brakes" leading to the same result. These genetic changes can be the result of heredity, radiation exposure (which can damage DNA), chemical exposure (ditto RE: DNA), and other factors that simply provide the substrate for out-of-control growth to manifest.

I became interested in neuroscience after taking an advanced philosophy course as an undergraduate. We discussed the ethics and morality of taking anti-depressants, which may help the individual to function, but potentially at the expense of the true self (??) This because the drug changes brain chemistry and thus personality. So would the drug-taker still be the same person? Anyway, there is no right answer to that, but I became fascinated with how the brain worked and the rest is history...

What's up smiley face?

I inadvertently let this one sit in my question in-box for quite some time, so to whomever the contributor was, my apologies! This is a tricky one to answer. A lot of it hinges on what you have been doing with yourself since the MS degree was rewarded. Did you stay in academia as a technician? Were you working for a big pharma company? Did you start an Internet social media company?

Many on graduate student admission committees (and I'm operating under the assumption that you are intending to go back to graduate school to complete your doctorate) want to see a commitment to research. If you demonstrate the interest and dedication to bench science, they are more likely to look favorably upon your application, as long as you meet whatever minimal requirements are necessary. So with that in mind, if you have been away from bench science, go find a technician job, stat! If you have maintained research ties, you are probably ready to apply. In either case, making contact with a program director from whichever graduate programs are on your radar will be essential so that you can receive some tailored advice. Most graduate school program directors are more than happy to discuss specific situations with potential candidates.

Finally, before getting back into graduate school, it will be important to reflect why you left with a "consolation MS." Was the subject matter not engaging enough, so you should perhaps switch fields, Were there external factors affecting your first couple of years in graduate school? Do you need to seek advice on study strategies in order to better-absorb the material? The answers to these questions may help you to get over the hurdles in academia that you encountered the first time. The final thing is to maintain confidence in yourself. If you decide to pursue this, jump into it 100% and don't look back. That's the only way you'll at least give yourself the opportunity for success. Good luck!

Actually, yes I do. The Neurocritic is an insightful, interesting, sharp-witted, devastatingly-handsome neuroscience blogger who maintains a blog at [http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/]. Born in West Virginia in 1980, The Neurocritic embarked upon a road trip across America at the age of thirteen with his mother. She abandoned him when they reached San Francisco and The Neurocritic descended into a spiral of drug abuse and prostitution. At fifteen, The Neurocritic's psychiatrist encouraged him to start writing as a form of therapy. Follow his sarcastic rants ridiculing the naive and praising the just on Twitter as well: @sarcastic_f or @neurocritic.

I'm sorry to hear of your problems and it is truly a shame that you are considering quitting. Bench science is a fickle enough endeavor without having to also add in the stress and uncomfort of a bad mentoring experience. In my opinion, you haven't really had that bench laboratory graduate student experience if indeed your mentor is unhelpful and you feel isolated. Thus, I will offer you the same advice I give to those graduate students finishing up with their degrees and asking themselves whether or not they want to continue in science and apply for postdoctoral positions:

Give it one more chance.

Experience is everything with lab work and graduate school, so it is unwise to make a decision on your future without at least trying a different environment for conducting science for another year or so. In a sense, you have nothing to lose, just like first year postdocs. If, after that year, you are still disappointed in your experience, while the change of scenery and research style has not increased your joy of experiments, then it is certainly time to move on.

Quitting now eliminates your opportunity to complete your Ph.D. You have already invested a lot in with class work and believe it or not, gained a lot of experience. Waiting a year and trying a different lab puts you in exactly the same position as you are in now, likely seeking a terminal Masters degree from your program. So still, nothing major is lost.

Starting over in a new lab can be frustrating, but you will be faster this time around since much of the trial-and-error of just being around the lab has already been done. It is never too late to switch labs and if this time around you still hate the lab work and being a graduate student, at least if you can always be confident in your decision, since you did the scientific thing and replicated your results.

I wish you the best of luck.

If you have good letters and a decent narrative to describe your undergraduate research experience, there's no harm in applying to grad school because if you don't get in to where you want, you can always just wait.

If indeed this is the case, clearly a job as a technician or some sort of full-time research position (some graduate programs have more long-term positions that allow students to take a graduate class or two during a time in the lab and credits transfer if/when the student gets into the graduate program.) The more experience you have the better for two reasons: first, once you ARE a grad student, you'll likely be more productive faster since the learning curve will not be as steep; second, graduate programs like to commit to students they think are going to finish, so the longer you've subjected yourself to the grind of the laboratory and are still asking for more, the more likely you actually enjoy this crazy stuff.

Read and blog about neuroscience. You're welcome.

Now it's been a while, but I think that if the participants are *wearing* Nazi uniforms, no orgy is actually taking place, so indeed, the only moral dilemma to consider is whether all these people should be wearing Nazi uniforms. So the answer to this question would land somewhere between "in bad taste" and "abhorrently disrespectful and disgusting."

One area that is ripe to really explode, in my opinion, is the intersection between neurodevelopmenτ or neural plasticity with hardcore molecular biology. Over the past year or so, there has been an increasing number of interesting studies examining the role of various unconventional RNA species, in particular miRNAs, in neurobiological processes. Much of the molecular biology is not that new, but applying it to neuroscience-related issues certainly is. Exploring the role of chromatin modifications in memory and plasticity is also getting hot. And the speculation for how these epigenetic and non-traditional means of gene regulation drive neuronal development and function will very soon turn into essential knowledge, in my opinion.

For whom? Regarding what? If I was comfortable understanding speech but not being able to speak myself, then Broca's Area. If I was comfortable with an incomplete set of senses, then any one of the primary sensory areas. If I were a member of the Tea party, then anything north of the brain stem.

Really, the possibilities are endless.