Today I had a conversation with someone who is now working for free at a major academic center.

Yes, that’s right. This person is no longer being paid a salary – but is still working.

The center that this person is working at brings in a few hundred million per year in grant money – on top of hundreds of millions in patient care revenues, etc.

But, because the person hasn’t received a grant for a while, the university has shut off the salary.

“Sorry, no grants, no paycheck.”

“Oh, you need to eat? Food? Maybe you can eat agar left over from the latest experiment while you wait for three months to see if you’re graced by the roll of the NIH grant dice.”

“By the way, we still expect you to teach that course next fall for all the med students, but we don’t have any money for your salary to do that – you’ll have to milk the NIH for that.”

This is taking things too far.

I’m calling a spade a spade – and this is the worst kind.

Universities seem to have gotten this notion that this is a “business” and that all their scientists are “businesspeople”. This is especially true in academic medicine.

But I’ve got news for the administrators who think they are being so smart by running things “like a business:”

Yes, in a business, salary can go to zero if you’re not “productive” enough. No difference here.

But, in a business, salary can go to millions or billions if you’re extremely productive.
BIG difference here. In a business, there’s huge upside potential. In an academic job?
Not so much, these days.

Basically, what the university is doing to this person (and many are doing to many people) is saying: you’re taking all the risk on the downside, but you get none of the upside potential.

You get no grants, you get no salary.
You get millions of dollars in grants, and you get no extra salary*.

It’s not the way to motivate people, folks. At least not the really smart and really capable people. They will see right through the ruse (why do you think I own two businesses? I don’t want to miss out on the upside potential of my own particular skills and talents).

I’m happy to take on the risk of my salary going to zero – as long as the university is happy to pay me at least 30% of the total grant revenue I bring in each year. (ummmm errrr maybe I shouldn’t be giving them any ideas about “businessifying” academia even more)

It is saddening to me that the academy has gotten to this point. I understand that everyone has big budget pressures to deal with. I try to be sympathetic about that. But the question that admins should be asking themselves are, “what are the long-term ramifications of my budget cutting decisions?”

The long term ramifications of putting people in a situation where there is only downside but no upside is low morale, and a flight of talent.

When the talent flees, the revenue will drop.
When the revenue drops, more budgets get cut.

And things go into a death spiral.

That’s not the way to run a business, folks. Most businesses who go into that kind of death spiral die (or get bailed out by the government).

Universities: treat your scientists (and all your people) well! You should be treating them like kings and queens, not like peons. These are the people that make your university great – and bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

Universities administrators that “get this” will be leading successful institutions into the future.

Today Morgan discusses really really boring scientific talk titles. Giving a great science talk begins with having a great title, that captivates the audience and motivates them to come to your talk. Don’t be afraid of giving your talk an interesting title! You will stand out, because everyone else will continue to use boring dry talk titles. Standing out is good. It gets you noticed. Morgan shares her favorite title for a talk, “Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a …. ” (you’ll have to watch the video to find out).

The other day, after reading a book on copyrighting by Joe Sugarman, I decided to use one technique that he suggests for coming up with a title for an upcoming talk.

The technique is simple: brainstorm. Don’t just write one title. Write 25 or more. Then pick the best one.

So I started brainstorming. I wrote some titles. I wrote some more. I started feeling silly, but I forced myself to write some more.

Towards the end, I got a little loopy. You can see the whole list below.

I then went back and rated them all, 1 (best), 2 (ok) or 3 (bad). I sorted them all in a spreadsheet, and removed the 2′s and 3′s.

I had about 5 left.

One kept beckoning to me. I just could not bring myself to delete it, or pick one of the others above it.

Guess which one?

“Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a V8-engine to a horse drawn buggy”

If I had written this title in my standard way, the most likely outcome would have been:
“Multi scale systems biology modeling with computer agents”

Which one sounds more interesting? I find the former far more compelling, due to the strong visual.

And, it conveys an important subtext that the second, more “safe” title doesn’t – that our tools aren’t necessarily right for the job.

Who knows how the folks at the receiving institution will like it, but it gave people around here a good laugh. They liked the title. I wrote the abstract in a more serious tone – but it did address the point made by the title.

This is an example of “Marketing Your Science” in action. A boring title is less likely to catch someone’s attention. If it doesn’t catch their attention, then they’re unlikely to come to the talk. If they don’t come to the talk, then what is the point of giving it?

Here is the list of possibilities I brainstormed (I’d like to see your vote in the comments for which one you prefer):

Agents are everything

Agents and fractals

Agents and fractals: modeling self similar protein behavior

Modeling self similar protein behavior

Multi scale systems biology modeling with computer agents

Protein behavior as a fractal mirror to nature

How complexity arises from simplicity in biology

Cells are simple, but our models that are complex

Proteins are simple, but our models are complex

Of birds and proteins: how modeling reveals fractal self-similarity

Birds are made of proteins and birds are like proteins

The Birds, the bees, and the proteins: how nature mirrors itself at multiple scales

Taking cues from the birds and the bees to construct realistic cellular models

Can cancer be solved by specialists? Or does it require a generalist.

It’s not the size of your CPU, it’s how you use it

It’s not the size of your equation, it’s how you use it

From equations to agents – boiling the complex down to the simple

Models as tools – it’s all how you use them

Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a V8-engine to a horse drawn buggy
“You have lots of power but won’t get very far”.

Representations of proteins: equations or agents?

From the simple arises the complex: can we mirror this in a computer?

Biological complexity arises from simplicity – can we model it the other way around?

Modeling how biological complexity arises from simple rules

The complexity we see in biology derives from many simple interactions

Forward modeling or reverse modeling: from the top down or from the bottom up?

On the top or on the bottom? Modeling approaches reveal how you like it.

ps – should science really be so boring all the time?  Most talk titles I see convey that sense.  But given that we need to get more people interested in science, not less, how about we make it a little bit interesting from time to time?

pss – I invited well known antibiotic resistance researcher Bruce Levin (from Emory) to give an upcoming seminar in my department.  He obviously “gets” this concept.  His talk title?

“Sex and drugs: the population and evolutionary dynamics of recombination and antibiotic treatment in bacteria”

I know a lot of artists and scientists, and the story is the same for both: be “proud” or be “paid”.

This came up when I was talking to a friend who has a band that plays some music I happen to like, Graveyard Fields.

I recently ran across Mark Joyner’s “Online Music Promotion Course”, and I recommended it to my friend the musician.

Mark Joyner is an “internet mogul” who pioneered many aspects of early online marketing, and now runs a series of courses on managing time, money, and energy. I’ve gotten a lot out of Mark Joyner’s various efforts. For one, I’ve learned how to better promote my own scientific work.

I thought that my musician friend needed some marketing help, so I told him about the course.

A few days later, I asked him, “did you sign up?”

His response distilled down was “it was too much marketing for me.”

I was a bit flabbergasted – but not surprised.

I see this all the time. I used to hold this attitude. In fact, I used to resent some of the well-known scientists who are good at “marketing” themselves (almost all well known scientists are good at marketing themselves, unless they were the 1-2% that got really lucky by being “discovered”).

A month ago, I attended a book writing session at the Science Online conference near Raleigh/Durham NC. I saw the same dynamic play out.

There were three published authors running the session. Guess which one of those was the most successful (in terms of buzz, interest, interviews, and perhaps, money made)? It was the author who had been doing her own marketing for more than a year before the book was published, through Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.

After the authors spoke, questions were asked. There were questions on how to get “discovered”. It seemed clear that at least part of the audience were only interested in practicing “their art” – not in doing their own promotion.

But the odds of being “discovered” without sufficient self-promotion are about the same as the odds of winning a lottery.

Hey, I didn’t make the rules. Sometimes I am not proud to have to “market” my work. But the evidence is all around: if you don’t promote your artistic (or scientific) work, you are very unlikely to get any gravy from it.

I’m not exactly sure why the world has changed to the point where this is so necessary, but I have an idea.

I believe that it is the constant cacophany of other “marketing” messages that are out there, screaming for your attention.

I know plenty of people who hate this. I know one person who changed cell phone providers simply because of their marketing.

But recently I had an interaction that was revelatory to me.

I joined an online copywriting course, focused on marketing copy.

I sent a sample of one of my bits of work to the instructor. He sent it back completely rewritten, and I thought it sounded like a late night infomercial. When I told him that was my response, he wrote back saying: “the reason it sounds that way is because that works – those guys spend millions of dollars on those infomercials, so they tune and tweak them until they pay off”

It is so bizarre to me, sometimes, to write ad copy. But I’ve done some testing myself – and the “late night infomercial” approach is statistically superior to bland and understated in terms of response.

Science is a creative product – just like books and CDs. While one can’t go about writing “late night infomercial” style headlines for manuscripts or grant proposals (I’m sure that would backfire), it is essential to pay attention to how the work is being “marketed”. (aside: most science work is not marketed at all – that’s why most articles get buried in the trashbin of history so rapidly).

Here’s another way I can verify this. My mother was a successful watercolor artist. What do I mean by “successful?” I mean that she paid the bills by selling her art – without ever holding a “side job”.

How did she do that? A majority of her revenue came from marketing notecards and prints with her art on it. Only a fraction of the revenue came from selling the paintings themselves. She figured out early on that she had to “market” her work. She didn’t necessarily love that aspect of the work. But she did get to avoid working as a clerk at Wal Mart.

While I don’t have hard statistical evidence on this, I think the anecdotal evidence is so strong as to be almost irrefutable – if you don’t learn how to market your own creative works effectively, then getting paid reasonable money to do that work is unlikely.

The bottom line for my friend (and many others I know who hate to hear mention of “marketing”): “you can be too proud to market your work, or you can can get paid for your work – but not both”.

Speaking of that, do you want a preview of my upcoming book, code named “Marketing Your Science”? People who sign up for my newsletter list right now get a free copy of Chapter 1 – Why Marketing Your Science Is Important.

It’s that little box in the upper left hand corner that is beckoning to you.