Научный «туризм»

С рыбалкой нам впервые не повезло. На донки клева не было – Антон поймал лишь одного рыбца, Гросс-Витя, несмотря на обещания «в момент» решить проблему с рыбой, поймал две верховодки, а я вообще ничего не поймал. Единственным «кормильцем» оказался Сергей, который на свой «прут» и спиннинги наловил рыбы для вечерней ухи. Было несколько приличных окуней и плотва. В качестве «фундамента» для ухи я использовал концентрат супа-харчо, и уха получилась очень оригинальная.

Сосед был более удачлив, но его место, как объяснил нам многоопытный Антон, было прикормлено. Наше внимание привлекли две женщины-рыбачки по соседству, которые самостоятельно разбили лагерь в очень уютном месте на мысу, сами затащили донки и очень успешно (в отличие от нас) ловили крупных лещей. Причем, при мелких взаимных промахах крыли друг дружку таким матом, которому могли бы позавидовать и одесские биндюжники, а у нас уши свертывались в трубочку.

Глядя на это безобразие с рыбой, я взял сумку и пошел на грибы. Ну, о своих грибных способностях я уже писал, но надо добавить, что у меня еще есть чутье на грибные места. И в Карпатах, и в Сувидском лесу я сам, интуитивно, находил самые богатые места. Сработало это чутье и здесь. Причем я, впервые оказавшись на данном участке побережья Днестра, фактически прямиком направился на самое грибное место. Наверное, грибной бог меня любит. Сама местность заслуживает отдельного описания. Склон горы с редко растущими дубами был покрыт сплошным ковром мха, каскадами спускавшегося к подножию. Это было в стиле японских парков в Киото, если бы еще убрать мелкие сухие ветки и немножко облагородить местность – добавить 2–3 камня, пару декоративных кустиков… На этом мху и росли белые грибы. В основном, небольшого размера, много червивых, но собирать их здесь было огромным удовольствием. Позже я заметил и конкурентов, но они бегали на вершине горы. Я уже отмечал это свойство людей – сразу бежать в чащу леса, а в горах – переться на самую вершину. Тогда как грибы, в основном, любят расти на опушках, вдоль дорог и на нижних склонах гор. Короче, через час у меня уже было порядка 50 белых, плюс несколько крепких лисичек, подберезовик, и голубые сыроежки. Обед был обеспечен.

На следующий день приехали Слава с Аней. Добирались тяжело (я координировал их маршрут по мобильнику), блукали по Кельменцах, но все же к 5 вечера были на месте. Освежились в речке и приступили к ухе. Сергей наловил окуней весьма приличных размеров, и уха получилась настоящей. Готовил ее Гросс-Витя, который в этом заезде добровольно взял на себя роль шеф-повара. Антон ходил в гости к знакомому соседу-рыбаку, где угощался самогоном и, в результате, к ужину уже выйти не смог. Не имел, так сказать, физической возможности.

Славе выделили одну из маленьких (детских) палаток, которые я привез из Штатов. Ане в ней было хорошо, но сам Слава (рост за 2 метра) в ней совершенно не помещался и значительной частью фигуры выступал наружу.

Утром, не торопясь, начали собираться. Мы со Славой пошли на грибы. Собрали около 80 белых, причем, штук 20 в одном месте, которое я, очевидно, пропустил накануне. Сережа, тем временем, поймал три больших окуня. Грибы и рыбу в Черновцах подарили деду. Добрали спиртного и поехали к месту встречи. Слава с Гросс-Витей за это время купили на базаре молодого барана и странных вин украинского производства. Пока ждали вторую машину, начался дождь. В Сторожинце, правда, дождя не было, но по мере приближения к Берегомету он все усиливался и, наконец, перешел в сильный ливень. Должен сказать, что это уже стало «доброй» традицией – наш приезд в Карпаты в последние годы обычно совпадает с началом периода затяжных дождей.

Взяли Диму, зонтиков, котел для приготовления барана и поехали на дачу. На первой же неровности «нисан» начал скрестись днищем по дороге, и Слава решил продвижение в горы прекратить. Вещи перегрузили в Сережину машину, а машину оставили у Диминой знакомой – в «предгорье».

Димина дача за последний год получила дальнейшее развитие. Построили печь из красивого зеленого кафеля, камин, одна комната и кладовая уже закрываются на ключ, к помосту пристроена лесенка, домик и часть территории огорожена от местных диких и одомашненных животных.

Разгрузились под ливнем. Разместили вещи. Мы с Гросс-Витей разделали барана. Вначале пожарили потрошки с большим количеством лука и чеснока на газовой плитке. Голодный коллектив умял блюдо в считанные секунды. Барана Гросс-Витя готовил уже в камине (чтоб с дымком!) в больших муках – камин дымил прямо Вите в физиономию.

Я пошел за домик вырубить веток для веника и неожиданно наткнулся на подберезовики – молоденькие и очень свеженькие, на тонких нежных ножках. Позже, за леском в 50 метрах от дачи я нашел двух подосиновиков. Затем мы со Славой обошли лесок вверху и добрали немного белых.

Сереже разрешили половить рыбу в озерце, куда старовер Петро запустил карпов и карасиков. Рыбалка была успешной. Попадались и крупные экземпляры – больше спичечного коробка. Весь этот улов (три десятка рыбок) Сергей выпустил в Димин пруд. Так что Дима, в качестве оплаты за аренду дачи, получил зарыбленный водоем.

Дима тоже куда-то убежал и через час вернулся с кучей подосиновиков и сыроежек. Вечером мы славно посидели под свежину. Баран получился исключительным – даже без привкуса баранины, который нравится не всем. После ужина народ начал располагаться вокруг камина на ночлег. Я взял спальник и отошел на улицу за угол – на свое обычное место, где тепла камина не чувствовалось, но и дыма было.

Утром в четверг мы со Славой и Витей пошли за грибами. Все было перенасыщено водой. Через скошенный луг текли целые речки, под ногами внезапно оказывались озерца дождевой воды. В общем, через 5 минут похода под ноги уже можно было не смотреть – брюки и кроссовки были насквозь мокрые.

Первую партию молоденьких подосиновиков я нашел сразу же за ручьем, на подъеме на гору. Затем пошли в молодой осиновый лес. В траве вымокли до пояса, а молодняк завершил процесс сверху. Нашел полянку с 7 большими грибами, контрастно выделяющимися на свежей от дождя зелени. Витя нашел белый. Слава выступил ниже своих возможностей. Позже он объяснил, что собирать грибы в условиях, когда по ушам течет вода, для него как-то непривычно. Уже на подходе к даче нашли чудное местечко с белыми и подосиновиками. А на территории возле самого домика я нашел самый большой белый. Дома грибы поделили на 3 кучки – для Славы в Киев (белые побольше), Гросс-Вите (большой белый и большие подосиновики) и нам – маленькие белые и подосиновики.

После обеда Слава с Гросс-Витей уехали, а мы остались. Дождь постепенно усиливался и шел всю ночь, сопровождаемый жуткой грозой. От света букетов молний порой было светло, как днем. Было очень приятно и уютно спать на трех спальниках в полуметре (можно было достать рукой) от стены дождя. Ближе к рассвету я начал опасаться за судьбу мостика, через который нам предстояло утром проехать – ручей возле домика ревел так, что перекрывал раскаты грома над головой.

Наутро выглянуло солнце. Я быстро собрался и пошел на грибы. Практически все грибы я нашел на Димином участке. Вначале за лесочком срезал 4 подосиновика. Затем за домом старовера в одном месте нашел с десяток молоденьких боровиков, один огромный белый и еще один поменьше. И, наконец, на опушке леса на небольшой полянке росли около десятка шикарных подосиновиков. Я пожалел, что не захватил с собой фотоаппарат – настолько приятным для грибника было это зрелище. Сразу же за оградой дачи нашел массу молоденьких подосиновиков, причем, если мне надо было лезть за грибом под мокрый куст, я на такие грибы уже, как говорится, игнорировал. В общем, необходимость в подъеме на гору за подосиновиками отпала – грибов было более чем достаточно и так.

Попили кофе со свежим молоком, взятым у старовера, убрали помещение, помыли посуду и под таким же ливнем, как и во время заезда, покинули Берегомет. Пока ехали – наблюдали результаты «дождика». Сирет вышел из берегов и затопил низкие участки берега, подбираясь к дороге. В Черновцах по ТВ нам сообщили о мощном наводнении в соседней области, ну а в Европе было уже совсем хорошо. В некоторых городах можно было нырять прямо на улицу из окон второго этажа.

Perevody

How to write paper in biochemistry

Short tutorial for post-graduates and young scientists

(The parody on Academician Yu.A.Ovchinnikov’s paper with the same title)

To learn, to learn and once again to learn…

V. I. Lenin. (Speech on the III Convention of Komsomol, 1922)

In the life of every young scientist sooner or later the moment comes when obtained with such a hard work experimental material is necessary to present for the judgement of the scientific world. Usually it is being performed in the form of a paper. Writing a decent paper is an uneasy task even for a skilled scientist, not to mention a “green” post-graduate student. Therefore, simple recommendations are brought over below, following which one can push his work in any of respectable journal without any problems. I think these advices will be useful also for mature scientists, many of which intuitevely use these rules in their practice already.

Paper should be divided in the sections: “introduction”, “ materials and methods”, “results” and “discussion”. Sometimes it is additionally alloted with “conclusions” and list of cited literature finishes all.

Introduction

Introduction is a fine opportunity of self-advertisement. Begin it with references to your own earlier data (preliminary results, rejected papers, abstracts of student’s conferences…) – anyway nobody will be looking for these works. If nobody cites you – do it yourself! Do not forget to give a bow towards the head of lab and probable reviewers. Your efforts will surely be properly appreciated. All of us love flattery very much though we try to pretend it is disgusting.

When citing yourself, do it a little bit carelessly not bringing it into a focus. References to the boss’s works should include epithets such as: “brilliant”, “magnificent”, “elegant” (about experiment), “deep”, “comprehensive”, “ingenious” (about analysis, hypothesis, theory). At the very end it is possible to mention 2 or 3 works of extraneous authors if you feel absolute necessity in it. However, data received by these authors are scanty, insignificant, contradictory, inconsistent and is not data at all – that is substantiation of a doubtless urgency of your work.

It is desirable that the size of “introduction” would not exceed the sum of all other sections of the paper.

Materials and methods

This part of paper serves exceptionally to throw dust in eyes of scientific public, to create in some way the image of “a master of experiment”. Write it in details – a lot of headings, subtitles and sub-subtitles. Devote separate section to the quality of used reagents. Here it is possible to boast with a bouquet of highly reputable foreign companies (salts from “Меrck”, enzymes – “Sigma”, sucrose – “Schwartz-Mann”) though you have seen only by a glance at the chief’s safe a ten years-old АТP from “Reanal”. All the rest reagents you have purified, distilled, recrystallized and sublimated many times (actually all your purification was limited to that you have thrown out the dead cockroach from the can with magnesium chloride). A centrifuge necessarily – last model of “Spinco”, spec – “Gilford”, and even рН-meter “Pye-Unicam”. Rats you used were of precisely fixed weight – 100 g ± 500 mg. Animals weighing 100 g 510 mg, were not taken in experiment any more. If you used wheat in your experiments, it should be refered to as “Kentucky 301” (in brackets it is necessary to specify, that it is a kind gift of professor Mattias), as a last resort – “Chuckchee 12”. Your method, if you have it, should be described very widely and in all details (2138 wheat germs washed out with 8620 ml extra pure water at 18.560C …). If you do not have one – think up updating a well-known method. For this purpose ,a great intellect it is not necessary: instead of 0.25 M of sucrose accept 0.27, instead of 40000 rpm – 38000, and updating is ready.

Important note. The detailed description of experimental techniques does not mean that it is necessary to give out all cherished secrets. By no means. Follow main principle of advertising – tell the truth, a lot of true, much more true, than they wait from you, but never tell all the truth. Indeed, that extremely convenient simplification of a well-known method which has allowed you to obtain such wonderful results in fortnight term, appeared to result in a complete and irretrievable loss of your enzyme already at the second stage of the isolation procedure. So refrain from needless details there, where you feel any doubts.

Experiment can be considered successful if it is necessary to reject no more than 50% of obtained results to reach accordance with the theory.

(2nd corollary of Myers law )

Results

If you have got such data that there is nothing to discuss, the section is better to be named “results and discussion”. In this part of paper you are obliged to bring in the accessible form all the obtained information to the reader. This can be done very simply. The table of data is presented, and then every figure of this table is described in great details. It takes at least 3 pages in order to describe even a small table; the description of big tables can be stretched up to 20 sheets. The material should be expounded in a self-possessed, sustained scientific language, periodically inserting archaisms, but it is not worth to turn completely on old language – the reader can think, that this is study in philology. In general, the section should be written in the way that any expert could not read it up to the end, otherwise crazy thought to repeat your experiments can come to his mind.

Never try to repeat successful experiment.

(Fett’s law)

Always provide the statistical analysis of data even if you have not done it. To achive this, add to the plotted figures 0.65 with plus and a minus. Explaining what is this is unnecessary – this would humiliate your dignity. Usually one experiment is enough to write a paper. Otherwise you are at risk to obtain absolutely non-concerted data that will deprive you of calmness and self-confidence, and also (most unpleasant) will lead to the necessity of the third experiment. If you nevertheless, in an impulse of diligence, have carried out the second experiment and received an opposite data, with some share of risk you can forward it to other journal.

Discussion

If facts do not confirm the theory, it is necessary to get rid of them.

Myers

The more verbose theory is, the better it is.

1 corollary of Myers’s law.

In this section you should show all your imagination and fantasy. Discuss all the obtained facts separately all over again. By detailed consideration, each fact can become a source of a small theory or, at least, hypotheses. Then discuss your data in various combinations, look whether they are connected (and if they are not connected what is the reason at that) between themselves, whether they fit an integral picture of the phenomenon. At last, discuss the results in comparison with the data of other authors. The obtained data should confirm the theory of your chief (if any) and to contradict the data of his opponents. With the latters you should not be ceremonious at all. Do not hesitate to accuse them of the principal methodical mistakes – they are far, and will not read your paper, and the chief will consider this favourably. When analysing the data, try to think up as much as possible variants of explanations, but do not give visible preference to any of them. No matter how the things turn out subsequently, you will be always right, and you should remind about it once more in your future publications.

Illustrations

Consider them very attentively. Good illustrations can rescue the most inutile paper. The reader will not penetrate into meaning of plots – he will admire cleanness of lines and a composition of the figure. You should give more plots (the reviewer will write: «paper is perfectly illustrated”), it is possible to include especially successful graphs from your earlier papers (it will be pleasant for a reader to meet a familiar place) even if they confirm opposite data. It is also desirable to refer to figure when it does not illustrate your conclusion – the reader will be studying your figure for a long time while feeling the deep respect to the author and not less deep sensation of own narrow-mindedness. Legends to figures should be very detailed. Try to copy section “Methods” into the “Legends” – this will considerably increase the volume of paper, and add to it necessary weight. If there is nothing on yours gels, specify by arrows position of assumed peptides with values of their molecular weight. As a last resort, draw a band with ink and make photo once again. It is also a good idea to prepare a “bank” of images after protein blotting or PCR and then to compose necessary results using bands from different gels.

The paper for illustrations (and in general for manuscript) should be of the highest quality, preferably with watermarks.

Conclusions

In “Conclusions” retell “Results and discussion”, only a little bit shorter and without references to figures. It is possible simply to list all the obtained data in alphabetic order. One conclusion should be global (a role of investigated process in the evolution of biosphere or something like that). Do not be afraid to summarize all literature data on the problem even if it is your first paper in this field. Easily put in hypotheses. If you will take the wrong sow by the ear (be wide of the mark), it will be attributed to your youth, but if your hypothesis will prove to be true, you can begin each following paper with words: “As early as in 1985…”

Title

Undoubtedly, the major part of a paper, its name card, so to say, a hook which catches the reader. It must be sonorous, readable, informative enough. Also the name should be intriguing, attracting, thrilling, mysterious, with an impurity something beyond. If your chief or the reviewer is the fossil from the beginning of the XX century, the tittle should begin with words: “To a question on”… or “Some features of”… This cast over on them pleasant memoirs on a happy youth when still knew nothing about marasm, phenol phthalene and stenocardia named as angina pectoris. Now it is recommended to take at once the bull for horns in the title, for example: “RNA-polymerase consists of four subunits”. Listen attentively to this naked, dry and primitive phrase! Would it be necessary to the experienced and respected scientist to study all 18 pages of your paper if he already knows, that RNA-polymerase consists of four subunits? And let us take other name: “To a question on some particular structurally functional features of DNA-dependent RNA-polymerase , as such, in view of the concept… “, etc. As far as this phrase is more resonant, more significant, sounds more scientifically, at last! Even if the conclusion of this paper will be the same as previous, the reader after its perusal will not calm down – he will overturn last page of the work pending to find continuation, and the sharpest will iron its with hot iron. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to make the title too long – the reader can understand it in wrong way and will not read paper at all.

Bibliography

It was already spoken about references, therefore I shall add only some remarks. The list of the cited literature should not be too long – it irritates editors (when because of two superfluous sources the text falls at a new page of a journal), and not too short – it testifies for disrespect to the scientific world. Cite all your papers, basic works of the head of your lab, works of your friends and acquaintances in the laboratory. If still there is some room, add to the list a little (no more than 2–3) of references to papers on this problem. It is possible to add 1–2 works published at the beginning of biochemistry (preferably in a German journal) – the reviewer will note your deep knowledge of the scientific literature. The list is better for making by way of citing works in the text – then your chief will borrow its worthy top line of the bibliography.

Style

It is necessary to let the reader know that you are not a simple person. All sentences should be complex and not less than 6–8 lines long. So that when the reader reaches the end of your sentence, he must forget at all that was contained in its beginning. It is desirable to use Latin and ancient Greek expressions (et cetera, ad hoc, inter alii…), that will undoubtedly ennoble you in the reader opinion, will emphasize your erudition. It is possible to build phrase according to German grammar (“experiment additional performed has been… “). Sometimes it is benefitial to introduce 2–3 new terms or to place an epigraph from Plato’s early works.

Co-authors

If your surname is Аabaev, there is nothing you have to worry about. It is worse if the first letter of your surname comes from the second half of alphabet. In such case try to put yourself on the last place of the list. Usually it the place of a head of laboratory (if he is modest enough), and the reader, having seen several times your name at the end of the list of authors, will write in the review: “…on the basis of results received in the laboratory of Yamamoto…” If nevertheless you have got in the faceless middle of the list, it is necessary after receiving paper reprints to distribute them immediately among leading scientists in this field on behalf of your own. But the best way is to publish paper without co-authors.

Acknowledgements

Express deep gratitude to the head of the lab for valuable advices and discussion throughout the work, thank aunt Dusja for excellent technical help (she washed test tubes) and Pete from the nearby lab who donated you two rats (yours had died one month before the experiment). If the chief is included into the list of authors, it is not worth to thank him – one can misunderstand. Students who actually have carried out your experiment should not be acknowledged also – they can put it on airs.

Our biotechnician Sasha

Sasha appeared in the lab in the beginning of the year. After his interview with the head of the lab he was assigned as a technician to work with a senior scientist Inna Sergeevna.

First surprise for her happened next day. Inna Sergeevna went in the lab and saw Sasha trying to boil about liter of ether in the glass on an open flame. It was the first sign for her, but she did not take this seriously. Few days later Inna Sergeevna found radioactive pipette on her desk. Later Inna Sergeevna Sergeevna decided to trust him to prepare simple reaction mixture of total volume 100 mcl. In 10 min she found Sasha trying to add 15 mcl with 1 ml sampler in 10 ml tube. That is how Sasha ended up washing glassware. At first he left overnight 25 liter bottle with MilliQ water. In the morning Inna Sergeevna with great regret saw 2 big cockroaches died in it. And after he broke some very valuable pieces of glassware I saw that picture: Inna Sergeevna (senior scientist) was washing glassware and Sasha was sitting at the Inna Sergeevna’s desk and looking through the magazine with nice pets.

Then Inna Sergeevna while analyzing microscopic samples in the neighboring lab asked Sasha to bring her a little bit of ethanol. Instead he brought her 50 ml of mercaptoethanol in the open glass. Recognizing the substance immediately when Sasha was entered Inna Sergeevna asked him to put substance back in the bottle as soon as possible and very carefully. In the hall Sasha met his friend and stopped to talk to him. As you imaging it is not very convenient to talk to somebody holding a glass of mercaptoethanol. So Sasha decided to put it in the corner right behind the door. Naturally in a few minutes the door was opened and substance ended up on the floor. Despite the taken measures one could feet the smell during next 3 month in the whole floor.

Another Sasha’s heroic deed was leaving several corpses of guinea pigs in the lab over a weekend unrefrigirated. The first person that discovered the incident was the head of the lab. His office was near Inna Sergeevna’s lab. This case places Sasha on the hot seat. But the last glory episode ends his career in our Institute. He decided to do some experiments with mercury. For this purpose he founded several broken thermometers and collected mercury from them for unknown reasons. But on certain point dropped everything on the floor. Having no idea of how to neutralize mercury his first and simple decision was to pour hydrochloric acid on the floor. After finding out that the only result of this attempt was a big burned spot on the hardwood floor he decided to read literature. Finding that neutralizing procedure is relatively complicated he simply closed the lab and went home. Next morning Inna Sergeevna founded the book opened on the page describing how to neutralize mercury. She asked Sahsa what he did with the mercury and the next 15 minutes were the last in his scientific career to the great relief of all his fortunate colleagues.