Compiled by Nehal R. Solanki Patel.
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you are able to provide additional resources.
- International Student and Scholar Services contact number: 215-898-4661. ISSS can also provide any member of the Penn community with important information about best practices and necessary steps for travel.
- Free Legal Service: Penn Law continues to provide clinics for any member of the Penn community impacted by the Executive Orders. The next Clinic will be held on Friday, March 24, from 11am–2pm at Greenfield Intercultural Center. You can register for a consultation here. A third Clinic will be held on April 8.
- Amy Gadsden, Ph.D, Executive Director for Global Initiative (Penn Global) held a Townhall meeting on February 7 2017. Her office is continuously updating resources and information at: global.upenn.edu/immigration-policy-notice.
- The office of Amy Gutmann, the President of University of Pennsylvania issues messages about the executive orders with updated links on resources available.
- If you do not receive emails from the provost office, we encourage all students, staff, and faculty to visit bpcnewsletter.wordpress.com for updates from the University.
President Trump, at the Pentagon on Friday, signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” No visas will be issued for 90 days to migrants or visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. U.S. President Trump’s order has not only thrown citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries into confusion about who can travel to the U.S., but has stirred chaos that has rippled through US airports, including Philadelphia.
While Americans and foreign countries attempt to grasp Washington’s new policy, we wanted to know how this ban has affected postdoctoral fellows, research scientists, and clinicians, in and around Philadelphia.
Please do share your stories by filling out this survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QBQPFQ5) or write to the Editor-in-Chief of the Biomedical Postdoctoral Council Newsletter about how this ban impacts our scientific community on email@example.com. Information provided on the survey along with select stories will be posted on our internal site and select stories will be printed in the “special edition” of University of Pennsylvania Biomedical Postdoctoral Council (BPC) Newsletter. We want to assure you that your responses will be completely anonymous. No personally identifiable information is captured unless you voluntarily offer personal or contact information in any of the comment fields.
Welcome back readers and welcome to 2017! We start this year off with articles on:
This edition of the Biomedical Postdoctoral Council Newsletter focuses on postdoc life at Penn; from community Gardening , recipes to make your own bitters, to resources on how to manage stress as a postdoc.
These topics include:
- A look back: The Fifteenth Biomedical Postdoctoral Symposium. https://goo.gl/Gc6i8p
- Talking Science 101: Saying All of the Science with None of the Jargon. https://goo.gl/dgqe0a
- Make your own Bitters at the Bartram Gardens. https://goo.gl/mlS5kw
- Community Garden at Penn. https://goo.gl/aJbGTN
- An interview with BPC co-president. https://goo.gl/hbUkFm
- At workplace: Mind Full or Mindful? https://goo.gl/wLrzWq
- How can I get involved? Postdocs can get involved by simply writing to firstname.lastname@example.org. We are actively looking for writers and editors so you can share your experience at Penn. We present ways in which postdocs can get involved here at Penn, from attending a seminar to joining a BPC committee. Here are a few upcoming events: https://goo.gl/9gcAFr
- Here are a few links you may find useful:
We hope that the ideas and resources that we present are helpful to the postdoctoral community both here at Penn and across the U.S. Please click the link below to access the issue.
Nehal R. Solanki Patel, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Biomedical Postdoctoral Council Newsletter
BPC Newsletter Spring 2017 Issue:
You can access the PDF here: https://goo.gl/NoSxbF
By Natoya Peart, Ph.D, Correspondence: email@example.com
Photos provided by Dr. Benjamin Cieply, Ph.D.
The 1st of November in 2016 was a cooler than usual fall day, with an overcast sky. It was my first day as a postdoctoral fellow at the university of Pennsylvania and it also happened to be the day of the fifteenth annual Biomedical Postdoctoral Research Symposium. The Symposium was held at the Smilow Center for Translational Research and featured a program comprised of competitive platform and poster sessions. The 2016 symposium featured work done by postdoctoral scientists from the Wistar Institute, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and from schools within the University of Pennsylvania, including the Perelman School of Medicine, School of Nursing, School of Engineering, and the School of Veterinary Medicine. The symposium chairs Dr. Benjamin Cieply and Dr. Glenna Brewster in collaboration with Biomedical Postdoctoral Council (BPC) Symposium Committee and the Biomedical Editors Committee, reviewed eighty-two abstracts of which eight were selected for platform talks, and one for the Sanjeev Kumar Memorial Lecture. The Sanjeev Kumar Memorial Lecture given in memory of Dr. Kumar, a former postdoctoral fellow at University of Pennsylvania by Dr. Reeti Behera on the “role of Klotho in age-related melanoma progression and resistance therapy”.
Both Dr. Cieply and Dr. Brewster highlighted the crucial role of the committee members and the BPP office in planning the event. Moreover, Dr. Cieply shared that appointing individual members of the committee specific roles ensured that responsibilities in planning the symposium were not overwhelming. In particular he suggested that for future symposiums the practice of appointing specific roles to the members of the BPC Symposium Committee will be continued. Drs. Brewster and Cieply noted that overall goals of the symposium were in line with goals of previous years, showcasing the research of the postdocs, encouraging discourse, and possible collaborations among them, their colleagues, and faculty.
Overall, the symposium was a success with the keynote address being given by renowned molecular biologist Dr. Richard Morimoto of Northwestern University. The Biomedical Postdoctoral Fellows were invited to submit nominations for the Keynote speaker, and Dr. Morimoto was invited to give the keynote address based his “broadly applicable research interests, great success in both academia and industry, outstanding presentation skills and passion for training and career progression of scientists.” Dr. Cieply noted that Dr. Morimoto was a “great choice”. His passion for science and mentorship was evident during talk. His interaction with the postdoctoral researchers during the lunch session was full of useful advice for junior scientists.
Following the keynote address, the awards were given for the first and second place in the platform session. Seventy poster sessions were judged and top three posters were picked based on their novelty, talent, and scientific significance. In addition to the awards for the poster and platform session, an award was issued to acknowledge the role of the mentor in the biomedical postdoctoral career.
The symposium closed out with a reception allowing the participants to socialize over food and wine, but despite the success of the event there were a few disappointments. In particular, it was noted that there was a drop in attendance at the second platform session post-lunch, which could be planned better in 2017 by rearranging the schedule and promoting the event more.
By Chris Edwards, Ph.D. Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org
Have you ever been asked how the body grows blood cells, how stars form, or what roams the ocean depths? Importantly, can you explain to laypeople how scientists address these questions? Importantly, can you explain to laypeople how scientists address these questions? With such knowledge, the public could understand the benefits of science and recognize the threats presented by pseudoscience. Unfortunately, many people comprehend neither the language nor methods of science and scientists generally receive little guidance in how to explain these concepts to them. Even worse, this lack of communications training excludes researchers from many non-academic careers and makes conversing with funding sources challenging. Thus, young scientists must learn to communicate their research in plain language and one opportunity to do this in Philadelphia is Start Talking Science (STS). STS is a science outreach program created in 2014 by Drexel University professor and physicist Dr. Christina Love. It consists of a science communications training workshop followed by a poster session where scientists present their work to the public. To participate, science, technology, engineering, and math researchers submit a non-technical research summary. If accepted, they then submit a poster free of jargon that is designed for a lay audience. Participants next attend a two-hour workshop where they and communications coaches work in small groups to critique each other’s posters and determine how to best explain their research. Finally, revised posters are presented at the public poster session. I participated in the third STS program in 2016, submitting the summary in May, drafting the poster in July, and attending the workshop in August. While participating in this program, it became rapidly obvious that the communications strategy employed in it would have to differ from what I learned in graduate school. Writing in the research world is technical and results-oriented; the reader is assumed to be a fellow expert. Scientific jargon, however, is an obstacle for laypeople. “The language that we use is the intimidating part,” noted University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) biomedical graduate student and STS participant Katherine Palozola. “If you start with definitions and explaining the jargon to them and use that as your building block, then I think you’ll be surprised how easily people pick up on the ideas and can follow you.”
Emphasis can also be placed on the background, research question, and methods rather than the complex technical results. In my poster for example, which concerned alternative splicing in developing red blood cells, I focused on explaining what blood cells do, what genes and gene transcripts are, and how we acquire blood cells and gene transcripts from laboratory animals. A pair of heat maps concluded the poster to show what actual data looks like and to illustrate what we learned.
The workshop critiques covered clarity of concept, poster organization and aesthetics, and how much emphasis to give to the background, methods, and results. Importantly, the presenters’ and coaches’ expertise were extremely varied; nobody was an expert in anyone else’s field. My group, for example, which was comprised of three presenters and two coaches, included a computer scientist, an astronomer, a physicist, a communications expert, and myself, a molecular biologist. We could thus judge one another’s posters from a non-expert perspective and the resulting advice was very beneficial. As Katherine recalled, “there was two sides to it [my poster] and I ended up inverting them because of the comments I received at that session. It turned out to be much more clear, and I [had originally] thought I had a really clear poster.”
The poster session was held on the evening of September 27th, 2016 at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia’s Old City neighborhood. 24 posters were presented and over one hundred individuals attended. While many presenters represented UPenn, others hailed from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Drexel University, Temple University, Thomas Jefferson University, Haverford College, the University of Delaware, and Brookhaven National Laboratory. Topics in biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, oceanography, and computer science were covered, and there was a heavy focus on biomedical research. Interactions with attendees were quite varied, with some progressing through the whole poster and others focusing on the background or methods. Perhaps most rewarding were the conversations on topics that were related to, but not directly addressed, by the poster. For example, one of my figures illustrated the different blood cells that arise from stem cells, prompting one attendee to inquire about the nature of stem cells. Another figure explaining gene transcript splicing prompted a conversation about how the proteins that splice RNA are themselves created from RNAs. Both young and adult science-enthusiasts benefitted from this event. “I thought it was a great opportunity for people in the community of all ages to learn about science…” noted Abigail Behrends, communications coordinator for the UPenn Institute for Regenerative Medicine and co-presenter with Katherine.
“I don’t think they [laypeople] have the opportunity often to do anything other than google. To actually talk to a human being I think is an important interaction, an important way to learn.”
“We had a five-year-old come to our poster, who was the most interesting person to talk to the entire night!” Finally, for scientists in attendance and those presenting, the diversity of topics gave them a chance to leave their comfort zone and explore new fields. As attendee and Drexel University neutrino physicist Dr. Yung-Ruey Yen noted, “it was actually more interesting to see the stuff outside of the usual physical sciences.. to see what’s going on in biology.”
The benefits of the poster session and communications coaching were numerous. Presenters learned to strip their research down to the basic concepts and explain it without jargon. Attendees learned about actual research occurring around Philadelphia and got to inquire about whatever topics were on their minds. Researchers were reminded that science extends beyond their niches. Most important of all, it was an opportunity for laypeople to interact with actual scientists. As Katherine noted, “I don’t think they [laypeople] have the opportunity often to do anything other than google. To actually talk to a human being I think is an important interaction, an important way to learn.” Scientists and laypeople will have additional chances to interact during future STS events.
By T. Cathopoulis, Ph.D. Correspondence: email@example.com
A Biomedical Postdoctoral council (BPC) project put forth by the Environmental Action Committee initiation to go greener. The idea was to find a space on campus that could be used for community members to garden in the hopes of offsetting their food costs as well as positively impacting the environment. This is the initiative’s first year and we put up a small pilot garden just outside Clinical Research Building (CRB) to see if the area was conducive to growing the types of crops people might be interested in. As a test, and out of personal interest, I tried a number of chili pepper varieties (cayenne, goat, fish, habanero, and moruga scorpian) as I figured sub-tropical species might be the most difficult. We were surprised at how successful we were, yields overcame expectations by wide margins. We were able to successfully maintain stocks of several common kitchen herbs (chives, parsley, cilantro, basil, dill, and oregano). We also successfully grew tomatoes, but the squirrels on campus proved to be adversarial. In the future, certain crops will require caging and BPC is actively looking for volunteers, green thumb or not.
A least successful crop type was melon. Two varieties were attempted and neither flourished. I believe the area has proven itself though and perhaps a more adept hand could see them grow successfully. For next year, we hope to install more permanent fixtures, such as planting beds, and to try other crops. I’d really like to try a potato planter as they can be constructed vertically and would be an efficient use of space. Email me to get involved in making our community greener.
Doreen Becker, Ph.D. interviewed by Nehal R. Solanki Patel
- How long have you worked at Penn as a postdoc? What was it like to work as a postdoc here at Penn?
I joined Penn as a postdoctoral researcher in mid-April 2014 after I finished my Ph.D. in Bern, Switzerland. Before my arrival I heard a lot about Philadelphia, Americans and their work ethic. It turned out that all this information was mostly wrong, but I did not know that back then so I had mixed feelings leaving Europe and moving over “The Big Pond”. However, the more I experienced Penn and Philadelphia the more I liked it here. My postdoc position offered me the opportunity to not only broaden my existing skills, but also helped me to acquire new skills needed for my professional development.
- Do you think Penn is a good place to be for postdocs? Why?
Absolutely! Penn not only offers great research infrastructure, but also many seminars, workshops and professional groups to connect with fellow postdocs and researchers. During my postdoc appointment, I was able to learn about careers alternative to the academic track. With the office of Biomedical Postdoctoral Programs (BPP) Penn has dedicated people that care about professional and personal training of Penn’s postdoctoral researchers. Furthermore, the Biomedical Postdoctoral Council (BPC), one of the first volunteer postdoctoral associations in the USA, provides a community for postdocs and offers additional resources. Being involved in the BPC and working closely together with the BPP made me realize that Penn offers great opportunities for its postdoctoral fellows.
- You have been extremely involved in the Biomedical Postdoc Association as a co-president—how long were you a co-president for BPC, how did you get involved, and what was your experience like?
As I already mentioned, I moved here from Europe. I did not know anyone and I thought it was a good idea to go to seminars and other events that other postdocs would attend too. A lot of those events were organized by the BPC. I met people that also were new to Penn and postdocs already involved in the BPC. Shortly after that Amita, co-chair of the Foreign National Committee back then and newly elect co-president now, was looking for a co-chair and I joined the Foreign National Committee. With my growing involvement in the BPC I wanted to have a leadership role and was elected co-president in December 2015. Through BPC I met my friends and colleagues, I enhanced my communication, presentation and managing skills. But most of all, I found something rewarding besides my research.
- What types of activities did the BPC host and what were your favorite events?
During my almost 3 years at Penn BPC has hosted numerous events, seminars and workshops, too many to mention them all here. I have great memories of a social event during my first Holidays here in 2014, where postdocs, national and international, met and watched an American Christmas movie together. I enjoyed the “Science, Wine & Cheese” event, where postdocs competed in presenting their research in a TED-style talk and the Yards brewery tour. One of my clear favorites is the annual Biomedical Postdoctoral Research Symposium that BPC and BPP organize. It is great to learn about the research that your fellow postdocs do and present your own work. Also enjoyable (and delicious) are the potlucks, where people share their most favorite dish. Bottom line is that there is an event/seminar/workshop for everyone’s taste from Happy Hours to professional development. Organized by the Social, Seminar, Diversity and/or Career, Enhancement & Training Committee, BPC offers a large variety of activities for the postdoc community.
- Did getting involved in BPC events help with the so-called “work-life balance” for you?
Yes, I met some of my dearest friends during BPC (and BPP) events. A lot of them have already transitioned to their next position and we still are in contact and meet outside of the BPC. Especially the social events give you the chance to leave the lab and meet people of your community. As mentioned above, being involved with the BPC was also very rewarding.
- What advice would you give to new postdocs or applicants?
I really would recommend applicants to first do their research on the lab they want to apply to and on the PI they want to work for. New postdocs should get to know the opportunities that are offered to them by Penn (Workshops, Career Services, BPC etc.) as soon as possible. Your research is important, but you should not miss out on the full Penn postdoc experience. Keep in mind that your postdoc position might not offer you all the professional and personal training that might need for your next career step.
- Where are you off to next and do you think postdoc-ing at Penn helped you get where you wanted to be?
I will end my postdoc position in January 2017 and will return to my home country, where I found a research assistant position at a university. My postdoc experience at Penn helped me in different ways to get that position. First, academic institutes in Europe value research experience in the US. Being able to get that experience at an academic institution with a highly respected reputation like Penn was a huge advantage. Second, being involved in the BPC let me stand out among other applicants and was a big topic during all my interviews. Third, Career Services helped me to structure my CV and practice my skype interview. And last but not least, I was able to use multiple skills that I learned during my years at Penn and in numerous workshops. All in all, my postdoc experience at Penn prepared me for my next career step.