Thanks, Shopping, and Goats…

I gave thanks for many things last week. For football, family, friends, and my health, especially my kidneys. We also gave thanks for living in a land of plenty where a feast can be had and children can be educated.

Today is “Cyber Monday.” We all know about Black Friday, the “official” kick-off of the solstice-holiday shopping season. Cyber Monday began a few years back when most homes had mere dial-up connections for their computers. Monday at work, with a high-speed internet connection, folks would e-shop via those computers during lunch hour and other breaks (never on the company’s time, I’m sure).

Black Friday sales were up 11% this year, perhaps the result of steep discounts and promotions (although something really great would have to be free to get me dressed and at the store by 5am). Cyber Monday is unlikely to overtake Black Friday (or Christmas Eve) as the busiest shopping day of the year, in part because high-speed internet access is everywhere now. As Allan Sloan said on the radio this morning:

Black Friday is a sport and Christmas Eve is always the biggest day in terms of dollars, and that's just panic-driven. So Cyber Monday or Cyber-whatever will move up, but it's not going to rival these other things. But it's a great invention, and the marketing people who invented it should be proud of themselves, cause we're talking about it.

My spouse and I shopped yesterday, crossing a number of gifts off our list. I also made a decision to get my office people something small for a personal gift, but then do something charitable as well. 

I bought a goat.

This urge began last week when I heard a story about a girl in Uganda. Her family received a goat from Heifer International. That goat gave birth to 2 kids that they sold to build a home. The goat produced milk that the family sold to generate income. Soon they were earning enough money that they could send their daughter, Beatrice, to school. She did well, and has now become the first college graduate from her community. The goat subsequently produced a female kid that was passed on to another family in need (a Heifer tradition).

The Heifer International gift catalog includes livestock at all price points. In addition to the animals, the organization provides educational seminars so the families can care for the animals in an ecologically responsible way. They now include bees among their gift choices, as well as tree seedlings for reforestation programs.

Your kids will likely prefer Mr. Squiggles, a hot-selling Zhu Zhu hamster. But someone on your list might prefer a water buffalo…

A Nephrologist Gives Thanks

Tomorrow, The Great American Pig-Out, is not just a day for food and football. We should count our blessings and be thankful for them.

I am thankful for my loving husband, 2 healthy happy kids, and other supportive family members.

I have a career I (usually) love, that gives me fulfillment and allows me to participate in the progression of knowledge.

Most of all, be thankful that you pee. Until you cannot, you won’t realize how great it is to urinate.

Golden Thanksgiving, All!

Art courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Musical Meanderings

Over at the literary temple of the goddess, Isis has entertained her loyal subjects with a number of Lady Gaga videos in the past week. I also saw Lady Gaga on some awards show on Sunday (as my husband clicked through every station available in some lame attempt to watch… nothing long enough to understand it). He actually flipped back when he realized “some chick wearing almost nothing was playing a flaming piano.” He seemed worried when I knew it had to be Lady Gaga without any help from captions or the announcers (are you really listening to this stuff? And watching it online, honey!).

During my brief morning commute I enjoyed Christmas music from a station that goes 24/7 holiday this week through December 25. It’s often corny, but you just can’t help blasting out Rudolph and feeling alive! I now drive a car with a radio that let’s you know who is performing most songs, and I am often surprised by the artists who have burned Christmas albums. That, of course, got me thinking:

Will Lady Gaga do a Christmas album?

Turns out she has done a Christmas song,:

Christmas Tree by Lady Gaga

Play song from iLike.com

 

 

I think some other traditional songs need the Gaga touch. For example, I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas.

Just imagine what the Lady could do with this part:

“There's lots of room for him in our two-car garage
I'd feed him there and wash him there and give him his massage”

I suspect Lady Gaga wouldn’t be nude, but would wear chain mail and/or leather. And hot stilettos.

I guess I should do some work now. But once you get “Lady Gaga and a hippo video” in your brain, you have to let it out before you can accomplish anything else.

Clicking on the photo will take you to its original posting site.

Moral Psychology and Political Leanings

Over the weekend I relaxed with the December issue of Scientific American. The Skeptic column by Michael Shermer explored the psychological differences between liberal and conservatives. We all know the stereotypes of these political entities; research can now explain some of the differences:

Like many other stereotypes, each of these contains an element of truth that reflects an emphasis on different moral values. Jonathan Haidt, who is a psychologist at the University of Virginia, explains such stereotypes in terms of his Moral Foundations Theory (see www.moralfoundations.org), which he developed “to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes.” Haidt proposes that the foundations of our sense of right and wrong rest within “five innate and universally available psychological systems” that might be summarized as follows: 

1. Harm/care: Evolved mammalian attachment systems mean we can feel the pain of others, giving rise to the virtues of kindness, gentleness and nurturance.
2. Fairness/reciprocity: Evolved reciprocal altruism generates a sense of justice.
3. Ingroup/loyalty: Evolved in-group tribalism leads to patriotism.
4. Authority/respect: Evolved hierarchical social structures translate to respect for authority and tradition.
5. Purity/sanctity: Evolved emotion of disgust related to disease and contamination underlies our sense of bodily purity.

Liberals generally score high on 1 and 2 with lower scores on components 3, 4, and 5. Conservatives usually have similar scores for all 5 themes, with 1 and 2 lower than self-reported liberals.

Want to know how you stack up? Go to www.yourmorals.org and take the quiz! There are 5 “morality” quizzes (the one summarized above is fifth on the list). After taking each brief quiz you see your results and how they compare to others in the study population. A number of other studies and tests are included on the site as well.

An “informed consent” check box precedes each question set, so the site generates data for the group. Assist a psychologist with their research today!

My results? I am an admitted liberal who provided further validation of their findings.

Photo courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Pesky Patients Prevent Prose

I came back from a couple of national meetings with a bunch of ideas for this blog. One involved Varmus’ comments on the impact factor; I actually wrote that one last week.

Then my inpatient care service ballooned beyond one patient. Kids were coming out of the woodwork wanting to see a nephrologist.

I hate when that happens.

Since handing over the service last night at 5, I have been trying to recover from 48 hours of everybody wanting my attention, and all wanting it NOW. I am just now feeling like I have my brain back.

It wasn’t enough to have a whole bunch of patients at once, though. We had our furnaces and hot water heater replaced during the same 48 hours. That just made those 2 days that much more special.

I will get my head back together and write more meaningful input. I promise.

Photo courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Valuing The Written Word

I recently attended an interesting lecture at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Boston. Harold E. Varmus, MD, gave the Robert G. Petersdorf Lecture, entitled Publication Practices and Academic Values. The talk addressed the increasing pressure to publish in glamour journals, both for funding and academic advancement. Dr. Varmus pointed out that many of his most significant works appeared in “lesser” journals that served the appropriate audience for the science. Discussions after the formal talk centered on judging academic achievement on that standard.

How did some scientific journals acquire biblical reputations?

Some have been around a long, long time. I have not found anyone who can remember a time when The New England Journal of Medicine was not the premier clinical research carrier.

How do we determine a journal’s worth? At the present time, the index of choice is the Impact Factor (IF). There is an excellent description of IF and its calculation on Wikipedia:

The impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now part of Thomson Reuters. Impact factors are calculated yearly for those journals that are indexed in Thomson Reuter's Journal Citation Reports.

Academics, especially scientists, love an objective numerical datapoint. During the 20 years or so that I have participated in these endeavors [has it really been that long?], the IF has risen dramatically in importance because it seems so objective. However, like all numbers, the IF can be gamed, and its validity has been questioned:

The impact factor refers to the average number of citations per paper, but this is not a normal distribution. It is rather a Bradford distribution, as predicted by theory. Being an arithmetic mean, the impact factor therefore is not a valid representation of this distribution and unfit for citation evaluation.^[6]

Most journals try to improve IF by providing more review articles. Reviews receive more citations than original research, thus improving the IF. Other manipulations may also inflate IF:

Journals may change the fraction of "citable items" compared to front-matter in the denominator of the IF equation. Which types of articles are considered "citable" is largely a matter of negotiation between journals and Thomson Scientific. As a result of such negotiations, impact factor variations of more than 300% have been observed.^[12] For instance, editorials in a journal are not considered to be citable items and therefore do not enter into the denominator of the impact factor. However, citations to such items will still enter into the numerator, thereby inflating the impact factor. In addition, if such items cite other articles (often even from the same journal), those citations will be counted and will increase the citation count for the cited journal. This effect is hard to evaluate, for the distinction between editorial comment and short original articles is not always obvious. "Letters to the editor" might refer to either class.

 

Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's impact factor.^[13]

 

In 2007 a specialist journal with an impact factor of 0.66 published an editorial that cited all its articles from 2005 to 2006 in a protest against the absurd use of the impact factor.^[14] The large number of citations meant that the impact factor for that journal increased to 1.44. As a result of the increase, the journal was not included in the 2008 Journal Citation Report. ^[15]

The Wiki lists a number of alternatives to IF; however, complexity plagues them. PageRank algorithms (such as used by Google) cannot be explained in a simple equation. Increasing complexity may improve validity, but it zaps intuitive understanding.

Dr. Varmus plead for an end to IF insanity. He also works on open access, and has been a a major proponent of freely available online science. In 2006, Chris Surridge of Public Library of Science (PLoS) blogged on the IF and its irrelevancy to PLoS following an editorial in PLoS Medicine. In the Petersdorf lecture, Varmus bragged about reported the IF for PLoS Medicine (amusing but irrelevant, I guess).

So what is the answer? Clearly, the IF can be too easily manipulated. Other alternatives should be considered. Or, perhaps, we need to get over the idea of ranking stuff. Ranking journals and schools (that pesky US News and World Report thing) results in game-playing. We all know which ones are elite. The IF works about as well right now as the Bowl Championship Series algorithm does for college football.

In this internet-connected, computerized age, any paper in a peer-reviewed, indexed journal can readily be retrieved by interested parties. “Elite” journals increase early exposure, but those who need to see the work can easily retrieve it without personal subscriptions or press releases. Today, more than ever, the content should be the point.

Photo courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Masks, Hot or Not

“Why do you use your real name?”

Eventually most people who read my blog ask me this question. We all read other blogs written under pseudonyms, be they  a goddess or another fictional name. Many commenters also use pseudonyms. Working behind the veil of a screen name allows people to discuss things with candor; otherwise they might not feel free to open up for fear of reprisal or embarrassment.

Within my world of academic medicine, most bloggers hide their identity, at least to some degree. Some posts, although pseudonymous, include the author’s identity, or enough clues to figure it out. Others work hard to separate their real name from their blogosphere self.

Online identity is one of the first thing a new blogger decides. My own rationale for blogging came about because of my work. In starting a new magazine for the American Society of Nephrology, I needed to learn about social media and the role it could play with traditional media. The best way to learn this stuff is to jump in and do it. It did not make sense to have an anonymous online identity when I wanted these activities to compliment stuff I do offline under my real name.

Isis has posted her rules for pseudonymous blogging:

Anyone who could fire me/prevent my career advancement knows about my blog. I write with the knowledge that they may be reading it.  Some of them do.

I never, ever, ever write about my students.  Ever.

I never write about a colleague without their knowledge.  My immediate colleagues and collaborators know about my blog. 

I never write things about another scientist that I would not say to them openly and in public.

I don't divulge top secret MRU-related stuff.

These are good rules for any blogger no matter how they handle their identity, and ones to which I generally adhere. Given these rules, I feel completely comfortable being “out” on the web. Occasionally I get snarky, but not in a way that will cause irreparable harm to myself or my relationships.

I still remember the sense of freedom I felt when I turned 40. About that age I realized that other people really could not do that much to harm me. I bring that same attitude online now. Of course, I still have enough fear to give proper attribution to the photo-art supplier… cause FWDAOTI is cool, but stealing intellectual property is not.

Photo courtesy of PhotoXpress.