A Christmas poem by Clement Clarke Moore

I should have posted this on Christmas eve, but no matter, I'm posting it now--a Christmas poem my father used to enjoy reading to us as children, and one we enjoyed listening to. I appreciate the vivid imagery and the rhythm in the poem.
------------------------------------------------------

Twas the Night before Christmas      by Clement Clarke Moore  

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.

And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below.

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,

And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! On, Cupid! on Donner and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!

Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.

So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of Toys, and St Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney St Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler, just opening his pack.

His eyes-how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly!

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself!

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk.

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

The power of Interstellar

I have seen the movie Interstellar twice at this writing, and plan to see it several more times and to own a copy of it. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen in my opinion, and has already become one of my all-time favorites. From a critical standpoint, the inevitable comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey is understandable, since 2001 was a groundbreaking (and now classic) space film, but Interstellar can stand on its own as a masterpiece of groundbreaking filmmaking. I ‘judge’ films often on the effects they have on me. Do I think about them and the messages they impart after I’ve been to see them? Are they in any way life-changing? Do they challenge my assumptions and beliefs? The answer is yes to all these questions where Interstellar is concerned.

As most of you who read this blog know, I am a science fiction fan and have been for a long time. I saw 2001 for the first time when I was twelve years old. Even though I understood little of what it really was about, I understood intuitively that it was destined for greatness, because of its subject matter but also because it was an incredibly well-made film. Even when I watch it now, I feel the same way. It inspires awe. Interstellar does the same. It deals with space travel, black holes, singularities, event horizons, wormholes, tesseracts, gravity, the theory of relativity, and time in relation to gravity. For example, the astronauts in the film age much slower compared to those they leave behind on earth; this is explained well in the film even though it is difficult to understand conceptually. Much of the physics/astrophysics/quantum physics underlying the film are real, not fantasy. Christopher Nolan, the director, worked together with Kip S. Thorne, Caltech professor emeritus of theoretical physics, who is executive producer of Interstellar and who subsequently wrote a book called The Science of Interstellar, which I am reading now. It is a fascinating book that discusses the proven science versus scientific speculation in the film. It’s a good companion piece for the film once you’ve seen it. Interestingly, my husband, who majored in physics/biophysics and who subsequently moved into the field of cell biology, recently showed me a college textbook called Gravitation co-authored by Kip Thorne together with Charles W. Misner and John Archibald Wheeler. He had read it and meant that if I really want to attempt to even begin to understand the problem of gravity, I should attempt to read it. But I know I won’t, because the mathematics will just blow me away. I hit the wall in my first year of college when we got to complicated derivations in calculus. Up until that point though, I understood and even enjoyed studying most of the math taught to us.

In contrast to 2001, Interstellar is a warm film, despite its ‘cold’ subject matter. It is not afraid to tackle the difficulties and complexities of human relationships. 2001 was an extraordinarily stylish and elegant film, but it lacked depictions of real and warm human relationships. Cooper’s warm relationship with his scientifically-inclined young daughter Murph in Interstellar is well-portrayed and real. The strong bond between them was palpable; it was heartbreaking to watch him leave her behind on earth, knowing he probably would not see her again in their lifetimes. Matthew McConaughey did a terrific job as Cooper, the loving father who leaves ten-year old Murph (played beautifully by Mackenzie Foy) behind to go into deep space in search of a new world for the remaining earth inhabitants to move to. Even the relationships between the astronauts and the computers TARS and CASE were ‘warm’; these computers did not turn on the humans as HAL did in 2001, rather the opposite—they tried to save them in several instances. I won’t give away the story of Interstellar for those of you who haven’t seen it, but I will say that it is an incredibly warm and moving movie, one that is not afraid to deal with human emotions, complex science, metaphysical issues, and space exploration in one movie. Of course there are some flaws in such an ambitious venture, how could there not be? Some parts drag on a bit too long, others are too short, but I left the theater knowing I had seen a film that was life-changing. Why? Because it brought up issues and feelings for me that I have been thinking about and experiencing ever since my parents passed away. What is our place in the universe? Why are we here? What is beyond death? Can love transcend space and time (and death)? Is love a real force to be reckoned with? Can it be characterized scientifically? Is there life elsewhere—is it possible that the earth is not alone in its ability to sustain life? It wouldn’t bother me to find out that there are worlds similar to ours in other galaxies that can sustain life. It is comforting to know that. It makes space seem less alone and empty. Ultimately, it is the power of love and our hope in the future that keeps mankind going, regardless of where we find ourselves. Finally, Hans Zimmer’s score is perfect for the movie—moving, intense, mind-expanding and uplifting. I am still thinking about the movie many days after I saw it for the second time; that is the effect it has had on me. For those of you who have seen the movie and want some ‘answers’ to some of what was brought up in the film, I recommend IMDB’s FAQ page for the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm –a very well-written page.

How a scientist's worth is measured in academia

I promised myself that I wouldn’t post too many work-related pieces anymore, mostly because there’s so little about modern workplaces these days that is positive in my estimation. Most of the posts would just be depressing. You might think that 'noble' academia would be somewhat better than non-academic workplaces that are simply out to make a profit, but you'd be wrong. After reading this article online yesterday, I simply had to comment on it, as depressing as it is. It is a tragic real-life story of a gifted scientist in England named Stefan Grimm who simply couldn’t take the pressure of the ‘business of science’ anymore and committed suicide (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/imperial-college-professor-stefan-grimm-was-given-grant-income-target/2017369.article; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2861588/Professor-dead-cash-row-Cancer-scientist-said-told-fellow-academics-chiefs-treated-like-s.html). Before he did, he wrote an email to his colleagues telling them about what had happened to him and how his workplace had treated him. This incident took place in England, but I can assure you that the ‘business of science’ in Norway is no different. Universities and research institutes treat their scientists in much the same way; the only difference is that universities here cannot fire their scientists for not hauling in huge amounts of grant money, because scientists are unionized and that affords them some protection. But if they could, universities and research institutes would fire scientists without money because they are a drain on the workplace; it doesn’t matter if they have years of expertise, if they are professors and can teach, or even if they write articles and publish frequently. This country is no different than any other westernized capitalistic country in the world when it comes to worshiping money, even if it likes to think otherwise about itself.

For those of you who romanticize the world of academic scientific research, this article should rid you of any notion that there is anything idealistic or even noble about academic research these days. There isn’t. Firstly, it’s BIG BUSINESS now, and it’s been big business for a while. Money is the operative word. Those who make it to the top and gain power, those who are ‘successful’, are those who drag in hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in grant awards. In other words, your funding is ALL that matters; it defines your worth in your workplace—period, and if you don’t get funding, you are worth nothing to your workplace. Even if you got funding five or ten years ago, not one person who sits in a leadership position cares about that or even cares enough to remember that; the ONLY thing that matters is: did you get funding this year, this month, this week? And did you get a lot of funding? What is the innovative potential of your work and can it make us money? Are you patenting your work? Theoretically, I don’t have a problem with the idea that a workplace should benefit financially from the research of its employees if their work leads to a profitable drug or treatment, for example. But it’s gotten way out of hand in reality.

Secondly, there is subtle AGE DISCRIMINATION being practiced. I know scientists who were once productive, with small research groups working on interesting topics, who no longer get research funding. Why does funding suddenly dry up? It’s certainly not a gradual change; rather it is an abrupt one. Why do good scientists who once got decent funding, no longer get any funding whatsoever? One possible reason is that they are now middle-aged (late forties/early fifties for most of us; but in Norway, you are old at 53, and I can find many articles that corroborate this). These middle-aged scientists no longer get any financial support whatsoever, not from external granting agencies nor from their universities or research institutes. They get their salaries and that’s it. It borders on idiocy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you don’t get funded, you don’t get students. Without students, you have zero chance of getting substantial research done. Without research data, there are no publications, and without publications, you have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a grant award. After several years of this vicious circle, management steps in and tells you that it’s your fault you don’t get money, when in reality it’s not. In many cases it is age discrimination, albeit subtle. It could never be overt; think of the lawsuits. You simply reached the magic age at which point you are old and no longer ‘worth funding’. The problem of course is that you cannot retire with a good pension at 53 years of age. So you hang around your workplace hoping your luck will change. Everyone involved knows it won’t. It goes from bad to worse. Years go by with the same results; there are no publications and now management wants to know why there has been no progression in your work. What can you say? It’s merely survival of the fittest; you’ve seen the nature programs where the young males attack the old ones for control of the tribe or the harems. The same occurs in academia; once you’re labeled as old, you’re finished. You are punished for growing old.

Thirdly, if you are not designated as the absolute BEST OF THE BEST, CREAM OF THE CROP, you are finished in research these days before you even get started. Academic research science is beyond elitist at this point; it’s more like trying to make it through the proverbial eye of the needle. Almost no one manages that. Young people do their PhDs and then move on to something else; few to none are offered a post-doc position in any given research organization (http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/23/so-many-phd-students-so-few-jobs). One or two may end up as the 'chosen ones', the ones that management deems worthy enough to bet on. The reason given is that they are the brightest of the bunch, but often it’s nepotism in action—those that move upward are often simply those who are management’s favorites. They are the ones who are granted the academic career opportunities. They join the networks that management has laid out for them; all involved know that this is the key to gaining grant funding, since colleagues in those networks often work in positions that have enough clout to ensure that those networks get funding. They may not review the actual grant applications, but they have a say in the final prioritization of grant applications that have been recommended for funding by external reviewers. 

  

Finally, many universities now take on far too many PhD students, knowing full well that there are no careers for them in academic science, and knowing full well that they cannot offer them any sort of job future. It’s irresponsible behavior. But there’s money involved, so that makes it ok in the eyes of the universities. PhD students come with a specific sum of money for consumables and small expenses, and additionally, if you are the primary adviser, you get a tidy sum of money for having been an adviser, once the student is finished. Additionally, more students means more hands in the lab to do the research work. Who is going to turn that down? And who is going to be honest enough about the lack of academic career opportunities to tell potential PhD students to consider another profession because there are no jobs for them once they're finished? I do it as a senior researcher, but very few others do. I've said it before but it bears repeating; there are better, healthier and yes, nobler ways of earning a living and making yourself useful to society. Find them. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. This is the email that Stefan Grimm wrote to his colleagues before he committed suicide, including the link to the article that published it. 

http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publish-and-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stefan Grimm <professorstefangrimm@gmail.com>

Date: 21 October 2014 23:41:03 BST

To:

Subject: How Professors are treated at Imperial College

Dear all,

If anyone is interested how Professors are treated at Imperial College: Here is my story.

On May 30th ’13 my boss, Prof Martin Wilkins, came into my office together with his PA and ask me what grants I had. After I enumerated them I was told that this was not enough and that I had to leave the College within one year – “max” as he said. He made it clear that he was acting on behalf of Prof Gavin Screaton, the then head of the Department of Medicine, and told me that I would have a meeting with him soon to be sacked. Without any further comment he left my office. It was only then that I realized that he did not even have the courtesy to close the door of my office when he delivered this message. When I turned around the corner I saw a student who seems to have overheard the conversation looking at me in utter horror.

Prof Wilkins had nothing better to do than immediately inform my colleagues in the Section that he had just sacked me.

Why does a Professor have to be treated like that?

All my grant writing stopped afterwards, as I was waiting for the meeting to get sacked by Prof Screaton. This meeting, however, never took place.

In March ’14 I then received the ultimatum email below. 200,000 pounds research income every year is required. Very interesting. I was never informed about this before and cannot remember that this is part of my contract with the College. Especially interesting is the fact that the required 200,000.- pounds could potentially also be covered by smaller grants but in my case a programme grant was expected.

Our 135,000.- pounds from the University of Dammam? Doesn’t count. I have to say that it was a lovely situation to submit grant applications for your own survival with such a deadline. We all know what a lottery grant applications are.

There was talk that the Department had accepted to be in dept for some time and would compensate this through more teaching. So I thought that I would survive. But the email below indicates otherwise. I got this after the student for whom I “have plans” received the official admission to the College as a PhD student. He waited so long to work in our group and I will never be able to tell him that this should now not happen. What these guys don’t know is that they destroy lives. Well, they certainly destroyed mine.

The reality is that these career scientists up in the hierarchy of this organization only look at figures to judge their colleagues, be it impact factors or grant income. After all, how can you convince your Department head that you are working on something exciting if he not even attends the regular Departmental seminars? The aim is only to keep up the finances of their Departments for their own career advancement.

These formidable leaders are playing an interesting game: They hire scientists from other countries to submit the work that they did abroad under completely different conditions for the Research Assessment that is supposed to gauge the performance of British universities. Afterwards they leave them alone to either perform with grants or being kicked out. Even if your work is submitted to this Research Assessment and brings in money for the university, you are targeted if your grant income is deemed insufficient. Those submitted to the research assessment hence support those colleagues who are unproductive but have grants. Grant income is all that counts here, not scientific output.

We had four papers with original data this year so far, in Cell Death and Differentiation, Oncogene, Journal of Cell Science and, as I informed Prof Wilkins this week, one accepted with the EMBO Journal. I was also the editor of a book and wrote two reviews. Doesn’t count.

This leads to a interesting spin to the old saying “publish or perish”. Here it is “publish and perish”.

Did I regret coming to this place? I enormously enjoyed interacting with my science colleagues here, but like many of them, I fell into the trap of confusing the reputation of science here with the present reality. This is not a university anymore but a business with very few up in the hierarchy, like our formidable duo, profiteering and the rest of us are milked for money, be it professors for their grant income or students who pay 100.- pounds just to extend their write-up status.

If anyone believes that I feel what my excellent coworkers and I have accomplished here over the years is inferior to other work, is wrong. With our apoptosis genes and the concept of Anticancer Genes we have developed something that is probably much more exciting than most other projects, including those that are heavily supported by grants.

Was I perhaps too lazy? My boss smugly told me that I was actually the one professor on the whole campus who had submitted the highest number of grant applications. Well, they were probably simply not good enough.

I am by far not the only one who is targeted by those formidable guys. These colleagues only keep quiet out of shame about their situation. Which is wrong. As we all know hitting the sweet spot in bioscience is simply a matter of luck, both for grant applications and publications.

Why does a Professor have to be treated like that?

One of my colleagues here at the College whom I told my story looked at me, there was a silence, and then said: “Yes, they treat us like sh*t”.

Best regards,

Stefan Grimm

What Eckhart Tolle said

A man of wisdom--Eckhart Tolle, as revealed by the following.........
--------------------------------------

Whatever you fight, you strengthen, and what you resist, persists.

The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation but your thoughts about it. Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking. Separate them from the situation, which is always neutral. It is as it is.

Death is a stripping away of all that is not you. The secret of life is to "die before you die" --- and find that there is no death.

Some changes look negative on the surface but you will soon realize that space is being created in your life for something new to emerge.

Acknowledging the good that you already have in your life is the foundation for all abundance.

Being spiritual has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with your state of consciousness.

Life will give you whatever experience is most helpful for the evolution of your consciousness. How do you know this is the experience you need? Because this is the experience you are having at the moment.

You do not become good by trying to be good, but by finding the goodness that is already within you, and allowing that goodness to emerge. But it can only emerge if something fundamental changes in your state of consciousness.

Sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on.

Realize deeply that the present moment is all you have. Make the NOW the primary focus of your life.

Whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it.

The past has no power over the present moment.

You can only lose something that you have, but you cannot lose something that you are.

Anything that you resent and strongly react to in another is also in you.

All true artists, whether they know it or not, create from a place of no-mind, from inner stillness.

Watching the Orion liftoff

If you want to watch live coverage of the Orion liftoff, check out the following links:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VIBDJ9LF8rV

http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv

The liftoff has already been delayed several times due to wind, core engine temperature readings and a fuel and drain valve that did not close. Let's hope there is a launch today within the time window remaining.

For those of you who don't follow NASA's activities, Orion is an unmanned flight that will launch atop a Delta IV heavy rocket. It will be a two-orbit, four-hour flight followed by landing in the Pacific Ocean. The launch will be at Cape Canaveral in Florida, and will be a flight test of the systems that are most critical to safety. The ultimate and future goal is to take astronauts further into space than they've ever gone before.

Quotes about birthdays

Today I thought I'd share with you some good quotes having to do with birthdays, since today is my birthday and I was in the mood for some wisdom from the minds and hearts of others...........

--------------------------------------------
Today you are you! That is truer than true! There is no one alive who is you-er than you!  --Dr. Seuss

God gave us the gift of life; it is up to us to give ourselves the gift of living well.   –Voltaire

It takes a long time to become young.  --Pablo Picasso

I think, at a child's birth, if a mother could ask a fairy godmother to endow it with the most useful gift, that gift should be curiosity.  --Eleanor Roosevelt

Don't just count your years, make your years count.  --George Meredith

My life is better with every year of living it.  --Rachel Maddow

Let gratitude be the pillow upon which you kneel to say your nightly prayer. And let faith be the bridge you build to overcome evil and welcome good.  --Maya Angelou

With mirth and laughter let old wrinkles come.  --William Shakespeare

A birthday is just the first day of another 365-day journey around the sun. Enjoy the trip.  --author unknown

Just remember, once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed.  --Charles Schulz

They're not gray hairs. They're wisdom highlights.  --author unknown

You're not 40, you're eighteen with 22 years experience.  --author unknown

A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age.  --Robert Frost

The secret of staying young is to live honestly, eat slowly, and lie about your age.  --Lucille Ball