Thursday
Nov152018
Wednesday
Nov142018
Unlocking The Secrets Of A Rare Immune Disease
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 11:26AM by Adrian Liston and Josselyn Garcia-Perez
Primary immunodeficiencies (PID) are a heterogeneous group of disorders that disturb the host’s immunity, creating susceptibility to infections. PIDs are genetically diverse, with mutations in many different genes capable of causing immunodeficiency. The clinical symptoms of PIDs include, but are not limited to, susceptibility to infections, inflammation, and autoimmunity, although each gene mutated, and indeed each individual mutation, can lead to different manifestations.
Central to understanding PIDs is to understand which immune cell type is rendered defective by the mutation the patient carries. The type of infections the patient develops is often a key indicator of the underlying immunodeficiency; for example, pulmonary infections and bacterial septicemia are associated with B cell defect, whereas fungal susceptibility is associated with defects in certain types of T cells. Candidate pathways can be investigated using genetics and immune screening, and successful identification of the underlying causes allows a treatment program to be tailored to the patient.
Thursday
Nov082018
Rethinking definitions of autoimmune disease
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5:43PM Why autoimmune diseases should be redefined by molecular pathway
By Lauren Martz, senior writer
The autoimmune field is dialing up its search for better biomarkers as it seeks to make the next step change from the targeted therapiesthat overtook blanket immunosuppressants. The question is whether autoimmunity might follow the lead of oncology and classify indications by molecular drivers rather than the symptoms or tissues involved... (read the full article).
tagged Liston lab
Liston lab 
Thursday
Nov012018
The employer-mentor tension
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:07AM I've been reading a lot on the movement to normalise the working conditions of a PhD. A PhD is a lifestyle choice more than a job. The work permeates into your evenings, weekends and holidays. It is difficult to mentally dissociate from the work due to the emotional investment placed in it, which frequently leads to mental health issues. A growing number of students want the PhD to become a more normal "9-5" job, to work just the standard hours they are paid for, in conditions similar to any other profession. This is entirely reasonable.
At the same time, I am seeing a great desire for personal mentoring of students. Professors should be more than a scientific advisor; they should be a coach, a mentor, a career guide and a cheerleader. In this regard, the Professor is much more than a simple employer. This is also entirely reasonable.
Are these two goals, each reasonable in their own right, compatible? To me they pull me in opposite directions. If I support the student's right to be a normal employee, isn't the natural corollary the right to be a normal employer? If I make a point of not intruding on my student's home time, surely I have the right to not let my students intrude on my home time?
There are two additional asymmetries to consider. First, the asymmetry in power. An email from the Professor to the student on holiday is more invasive then the reverse, due to the nature of the relationship. I am training myself not to send emails on the weekend (my prime thinking time), because even though I intend them to be read on Monday, my students may feel obliged to read them on the weekend. The second asymmetry is less well recognised, the asymmetry in numbers. The student has one professor, while the professor has many staff. I have 20 staff and students, and more than 100 ex-lab members. While weekend-disrupting problems are rare individually, there is at least one every weekend. With HR, each person may only have a work-altering personal problem once every two years, but the net effect is that I deal with such a matter on a monthly basis.
My personal solution to the tension inherent in the employer-mentor balance is to allow my students and staff to pick their own place on that continuum, but their choice impacts both of our roles. If a student wants to work as a normal employee and not take their job home then they can, but equally they don't get the right to then intrude on my home. It is just not fair for a student to miss deadline after deadline on a piece of writing I assign them, but then to expect me to urgently proof-read their (late) progress report on Sunday afternoon. For a student who has worked above and beyond I will take their thesis draft with me on holiday if need be, but only because we both are invested. A student who doesn't go to the departmental seminars doesn't earn the right to get a paid trip to an international conference. The student who is creative and innovative in pushing technical boundaries will get support in new kit and training. A student who is passionate and talented in research will literally get a hundred hours in career development mentoring from me, but I am reluctant to invest more than 10 minutes doing the same for a student who refuses to be a team member.
In theory, I am comfortable with this choice. In practice it is difficult for me to maintain. Far too often it is the staff who give and give to those around them that are the least likely to ask in return. By contrast, toxic staff (fortunately I have none now!) expect mountains to be moved for them. I know my own nature, and unfortunately I am too much of a workaholic and care too much about my work to act as a completely impartial employer. Management style will always be a work in progress, constantly evolving with my own growth and in response to my staff.
tagged science careers
science careers 
