10 Common First-Aid Mistakes

1. Myth: Cut a snakebite
“The safest thing to do for snakebite is just splint the limb and go to the hospital,” says Christopher P. Holstege, M.D., an emergency medicine doctor and toxicology expert. “Cutting the bite wound could sever tendons, nerves or arteries or increase the risk of infection, and tourniquets are risky,” Dr. Holstege explains.

Dr. Holstege recommends the right approaches for the following first-aid myths.

2. Myth: Put butter on a burn.
Reality: If you apply butter or another substance to a serious burn, you could make it difficult for a doctor to treat the burn later and increase risk of infection.

The right approach: “It’s usually OK to cool the burn with cool water, but burns with significant blistering need to be seen at a health-care facility,” says Dr. Holstege. Keep the burn clean and loosely covered. Don’t pop the blisters.

3. Myth: Keep syrup of ipecac on hand in case of an accidental poisoning.
Reality: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other experts no longer recommend using syrup of ipecac. The AAP says there’s no evidence that vomiting helps children who have swallowed something poisonous. Most emergency medical facilities have switched to activated charcoal, which binds with the poison in the stomach and prevents it from entering the bloodstream.

The right approach: Throw out any syrup of ipecac that you have at home. If an accidental poisoning occurs, immediately call your doctor or a poison-control center for advice.

4. Myth: Apply a tourniquet to a bleeding extremity.
Reality: When severe bleeding occurs, some people mistakenly tie a belt or shoestring around the limb above the wound to slow the flow of blood. But doing so can cause permanent tissue damage.

The right approach: Pad the wound with layers of sterile gauze or cloth, apply direct pressure, and wrap the wound securely. Seek medical help if the bleeding doesn’t stop or if the wound is gaping, dirty, or caused by an animal bite.

5. Myth: Apply heat to a sprain, strain, or fracture.
Reality: Heat gives the opposite of the desired effect—it promotes swelling and can keep the injury from healing as quickly as it could.

The right approach: Apply ice wrapped in a cloth or something else to keep it from having direct contact with the skin, alternating 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off for the first 24 to 48 hours.

6. Myth: You should move someone injured in a car accident.
Reality: A person with a spinal-cord injury won’t necessarily appear badly injured, but pulling him or her out of a vehicle—even removing the helmet from an injured motorcyclist—could lead to paralysis or death.

The right approach: If the vehicle isn’t threatened by fire or another serious hazard, it’s best to leave the person in place until paramedics arrive.

7. Myth: Rub your eye when you get a foreign substance in it.
Reality: Doing so could cause a serious tear or abrasion.

The right approach: Rinse the eye with tap water.

8. Myth: Use hot water to thaw a cold extremity. Hands and feet go numb when they get too cold, in which case many people try to warm them up by putting them under hot water.
Reality: Hot water can cause further damage.

The right approach: Use lukewarm water only, or use dry heat.

9. Myth: Sponge on rubbing alcohol to reduce a fever.
Reality: In children, the alcohol vapor is absorbed from the lungs. Children are sensitive to very small amounts of alcohol.

The right approach: “Take acetaminophen or ibuprofen,” says Dr. Holstege. “If a fever is very high, have it checked by a physician or treated in a hospital emergency room.”

10. Myth: It’s OK to treat at home an allergic response to a bee sting.
Reality: Delaying professional treatment could be fatal.

The right approach: For symptoms such as breathing problems, tight throat, or swollen tongue, call for an ambulance immediately.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-common-first-aid-mistakes.html#ixzz1i1ZkQ1eE

Small Patients, Big Consequences in Medical Errors

WHEN 6-year-old Chance Pendleton came out of surgery for a wandering eye, it was obvious that something was not right. “He was crying hysterically, vomiting and kept saying, ‘I wish I was dead,’ ” his mother, Grace Alexander, of Paris, Tex., recalled.

The boy had been through surgery before and had never reacted this way. “The nurse was quite peeved and wanted me to calm him before he disturbed anyone,” said Ms. Alexander, who said Chance was denied more pain and anti-nausea medication. “She thought he was just throwing a tantrum.”
After about 20 minutes, another nurse walked by, and Ms. Alexander beckoned her for help. The nurse checked the intravenous line in Chance’s ankle and saw that it wasn’t inserted correctly. He wasn’t receiving any medication. She immediately fixed it, bringing relief to Chance in a matter of seconds.
Medical mistakes, though also common in adults, can have more serious consequences in children, doctors say. The actor Dennis Quaid’s newborn twins nearly died last year after receiving 1,000 times the prescribed dose of a blood thinner. Other infants have died from the same error. A study in the journal Pediatrics in April found that problems due to medications occurred in 11 percent of children who were in the hospital, and that 22 percent of them were preventable.
An Institute of Medicine report nearly a decade ago highlighted the prevalence of medical errors, and they are still a major problem. “There’s been slow progress in the decline of these errors,” said Dr. Peter B. Angood, chief patient safety officer of the Joint Commission, the independent hospital accreditation agency. The agency recently called onhospitals to further reduce medication errors in children.
Children are also the victims of diagnostic errors, incorrect procedures or tests, infections and injuries.
Medical errors pose a greater threat to children than to adults for a number of reasons. They are physically small, and their kidneys, liver and immune system are still developing. Even a tiny increase in the dose of medication can have serious effects — especially in babies born prematurely. And if children take a turn for the worse, they can deteriorate more rapidly than adults. Children also are less able to communicate what they are feeling, making it difficult to diagnose their problem or know when a symptom or complication develops.
Adult medications are prepackaged and have standardized doses, but pediatric medications vary, based on the child’s weight and sometimes height, requiring doctors to make calculations. It is easy to misplace a decimal point, a tenfold error.
Typically, an adult formulation is diluted for children, and sometimes “the amount of medication being diluted is smaller than an air bubble in a syringe,” said Dr. Rainu Kaushal, director of quality and patient safety at the Komansky Center for Children’s Health at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.
“A pharmacist can get orders for 55 milligrams, 65 milligrams, 70 milligrams of the same medication,” said Michael R. Cohen, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit health care education organization. And medications for children come in different formulations, from drops to liquids to chewables. These variables increase the chance of human error, Dr. Kaushal said.
The Joint Commission reported that about 32 percent of medication errors in children in the operating room involved the wrong dose, compared with 14 percent in adults.
But not all errors happen in hospitals. Karen Rhodes was giving her 2-year-old daughter, Lanie, the prescription medication Zyrtec for allergies three times a day, as the label indicated. But Lanie began to suffer tremors, her breathing grew shallow, and she became “zoned out,” her mother said. It turned out she was getting three times the recommended dose; the drug should have been taken once a day. It was the pharmacist’s error, said Mrs. Rhodes, of Spartanburg, S.C.
At the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting in 2006, Dr. Kaushal reported that potentially harmful medication errors affected 26 percent of children in outpatient care.
“There needs to be more medications specifically manufactured for the pediatric population, more standardized dosing regimens and very accurate and clear labeling and packaging of medications,” said Dr. Angood of the Joint Commission. A labeling issue caused the mix-up that led to the overdose of the Quaid twins. The label for a 10-unit dose of the blood thinner heparin, which is used to flush intravenous lines, looked similar to the label of the 10,000-unit dose that the twins were given.
TECHNOLOGY has helped to reduce medication errors. Two methods are favored by experts: an electronic prescribing system known as computerized physician order entry, and a system in which a bar code assigned to a patient is swiped against the bar code of the drug he is about to receive.
But these technologies are expensive and require training. Only about 10 percent of hospitals in the United States use computerized prescribing, and 20 percent use bar coding, said Dr. Cohen. One technology, adopted by about half of the hospitals in the United States, is the smart pump, a programmable intravenous device that regulates the amount and timing of drug delivery. Infections, which are considered errors because they are preventable, are also common among children being treated in hospitals. Studies of neonatal and pediatric intensive care units found that infections topped the list of medical errors, followed by medication errors and injuries from catheters (many are left in too long), said Dr. Paul J. Sharek, chief clinical patient safety officer of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford in Palo Alto, Calif.
Misdiagnosis is also common and can lead to serious complications or death. A study of malpractice lawsuits involving children visiting emergency departments found thatmeningitis, appendicitis and broken arms were the most common misdiagnosed conditions.
Hospitals can take simple measures to reduce mistakes. For example, when members of a surgical team take a time-out a moment before operating to check that they have the right patient, the right procedure and the correct location, errors are reduced.
Parents need to be the eyes, ears and advocates for their children. “Parents have to pay attention and speak up,” said Dr. Steve Selbst, professor of pediatrics at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, who conducted the study on malpractice suits. “You know your child, and if you feel something’s wrong, go up the chain of command.”
Chance Pendleton’s mother said she was not aggressive enough. “I wish I had been more confrontational sooner,” she said. “That was the worst 20 minutes of my life.”
Here are some tips from experts for parents to lower the chance their child will be harmed by his or her treatment.
ID BRACELETS If your child is in the hospital, make sure the identification bracelet is worn at all times.
HYGIENE Ask all health care providers to wash their hands before approaching your child.
INFORMATION Before a procedure, ask the surgery team’s members if they know exactly what the procedure is.
KNOWLEDGE Schedule a time every day to review with the physician and nurses the medications your child is taking and any other information about his care.
AWARENESS Keep an eye on catheters and incisions, looking for redness and swelling.
ASK QUESTIONS If your child is very sick, make sure a pediatric specialist is involved, and ask whether your child should be moved to a children’s hospital.
TALK ABOUT IT Express your concerns about a missed diagnosis.
BE PREPARED Carry a list of the medications your child is taking and remind doctors about any allergies your child has.
DOUBLE-CHECK Understand why medications are being ordered, and don’t be afraid to ask the doctor to double-check that he used your child’s correct weight and height in calculating the dose.
MEDICINES Familiarize yourself with the medications so that you can recognize if your child is given the wrong pill or liquid. Ask about potential complications and whom to contact if your child has a reaction.
VIGILANCE Be especially watchful if your child is taking multiple medications or is on high-risk medications like chemotherapy drugs, insulin or heparin, or if your child has a compromised immune or organ function.
THANKS  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/health

Top Ten Mistakes in Education

Obviously, I believe that the school system is making a great many mistakes. Here are my ten favorites, favorite not because I like them but because eradicating them would go so far towards helping kids learn:

Mistake #1: Schools act as if learning can be disassociated from doing.

There really is no learning without doing. There is the appearance of learning without doing when we ask children to memorize stuff. But adults know that they learn best on the job, from experience, by trying things out. Children learn best that way, too. If there is nothing to actually do in a subject area we want to teach children it may be the case that there really isn't anything that children ought to learn in that subject area.

Mistake #2: Schools believe they have the job of assessment as part of their natural role.

Assessment is not the job of the schools. Products ought to be assessed by the buyer of those products, not the producer of those products. Let the schools do the best job they can and then let the buyer beware. Schools must concentrate on learning and teaching, not testing and comparing.

Mistake #3: Schools believe they have an obligation to create standard curricula.

Why should everyone know the same stuff? What a dull world it would be if everyone knew only the same material. Let children choose where they want to go, and with proper guidance they will choose well and create an alive and diverse society.

Mistake #4: Teachers believe they ought to tell students what they think it is important to know.

There isn't all that much that it is important to know. There is a lot that it is important to know how to do, however. Teachers should help students figure out how to do stuff the students actually want to do.

Mistake #5: Schools believe instruction can be independent of motivation for actual use.

We really have to get over the idea that some stuff is just worth knowing even if you never do anything with it. Human memories happily erase stuff that has no purpose, so why try to fill up children's heads with such stuff? Concentrate on figuring out why someone would ever want to know something before you teach it, and teach the reason, in a way that can be believed, at the same time.

Mistake #6: Schools believe studying is an important part of learning.

Practice is an important part of learning, not studying. Studying is a complete waste of time. No one ever remembers the stuff they cram into their heads the night before the exam, so why do it? Practice, on the other hand, makes perfect. But, you have to be practicing a skill that you actually want to know how to perform.

Mistake #7: Schools believe that grading according to age group is an intrinsic part of the organization of a school.

This is just a historical accident and it's a terrible idea. Age-grouped grades are one of the principal sources of terror for children in school, because they are always feeling they are not as good as someone else or better than someone else, and so on. Such comparisons and other social problems caused by age-similar grades cause many a child to have terrible confidence problems. Allowing students to help those who are younger, on the other hand, works well for both parties.

Mistake #8: Schools believe children will accomplish things only by having grades to strive for.

Grades serve as motivation for some children, but not for all. Some children get very frustrated by the arbitrary use of power represented by grades and simply give up.

Mistake #9: Schools believe discipline is an inherent part of learning.

Old people especially believe this, probably because schools were seriously rigid and uptight in their day. The threat of a ruler across the head makes children anxious and quiet. It does not make them learn. It makes them afraid to fail, which is a different thing altogether.

Mistake #10: Schools believe students have a basic interest in learning whatever it is schools decide to teach to them.

What kid would choose learning mathematics over learning about animals, trucks, sports, or whatever? Is there one? Good. Then, teach him mathematics. Leave the other children alone.

This list does not detail all that is wrong with school, neither do the teaching architectures we propose fix all that is wrong with education. Nevertheless they give an idea of where to begin. And, I believe that high quality software could help make these changes possible.

   
Thanks:-   http://www.engines4ed.org/hyperbook/nodes/NODE-283-pg.html

Ten common mistakes people make when buying gold

Buying gold has long been touted as a terrific way to diversify your investment portfolio and protect yourself against downturns in global currency values and financial markets. At first glance, the process seems simple enough. You just find a couple of coins that look good, fork over your cash, and store your loot in a safe, right? Wrong. There's much more involved in gold investing than browsing through a coin catalog and picking out your favorites. Unfortunately a lot of people actually take that approach-and end up losing quite a bit of money while doing so. 

But you shouldn't let the fear of making mistakes prevent you from taking steps to solidify your financial standing. All you have to do is be aware of potential pitfalls so you can avoid them when the time comes to buy. Here are 10 of the most common mistakes to look out for prior to purchasing this precious metal. 

1. Lack of knowledge. There is no excuse for being uninformed. As long as you have access to the Internet, you should be able to find out all you need to know about the basic ins and outs of gold investing. You should start by reading a glossary of terms related to this activity before moving on to articles and other resources so you know exactly what the experts are talking about. 

2. Misunderstanding the value of gold. This mistake goes hand in hand with lack of knowledge. In order to invest wisely, you must understand how the metal-especially in coin form-derives its value based on things like history, scarcity, rarity, indestructibility, and global recognition as a desired commodity. 

3. Indecision about your investment amount. People who are new to buying gold frequently make the mistake of either ordering too much or too little of the metal. If you buy too much, it defeats the purpose of diversifying your portfolio. If you buy too little, you're not doing enough to protect your other assets. Most experts agree that your coin holdings should equal from 5 to 30 percent of the combined value of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds in your portfolio. 

4. Expecting big short-term gains. Gold investing is not going to make you rich overnight, so if you're interested in short-term gains, you should check out other options. The point of putting your money into investment grade coins is to hold onto them for a long time while they appreciate in value. 

5. Linking gold markets to the stock market. Some would-be investors are under the mistaken impression that gold prices are somehow linked to the stock market, and that fluctuations in one will lead to corresponding reactions in the other. But it's important to understand that the two markets are largely independent of one another, so your purchasing decisions shouldn't be based on illusory cause-effect relationships. 

6. Substituting gold stock or ETFs for the physical metal. Buying gold to protect your assets against unstable market conditions, inflation, and other economic problems is a smart move-but only if you get the metal itself instead of stocks, exchange traded funds, or other unworthy substitutes. 

7. Skipping Rare Certified Gold in favor of bullion. Not all gold investments are created equal. Bullion, for example, will not appreciate in value based on age, rarity, or other variables. It will only be worth what the commodities market dictates. By contrast, Rare Certified Gold coins that are held for many years can end up being worth far more than what their weight would command on the commodities market, since their value is driven by supply and demand. 

8. Looking for cheap prices. Although getting a bargain is usually considered a good thing, that's not necessarily the case when it comes to buying gold. Abnormally cheap prices are typically an indication of inferior quality, and are therefore a clear sign to stay away-unless you don't mind getting stuck with something that you won't be able to resell when you need cash. 

9. Working with multiple dealers.Because of the large sums involved in gold investing, it would be worth the time and effort to seek out a reputable dealer and stick with that person for each transaction you make. You will get to know and trust each other a bit more after every deal, which will in turn pave the way for discounts on bulk purchases and similar goodwill gestures. 

10. Failure to understand premiums over spot. Buying gold coins always involves a dealer markup or premium. This is what you're expected to pay over the spot price, and varies from dealer to dealer. It's critical to have some knowledge of fair premiums over spot in order to be able to identify any good or bad deals that might come your way. 

In order to make sound decisions when buying gold, it is imperative that you first learn all you can about gold investing. There are lots of factors that impact each transaction, so the more you know, the better your chances of being successful. 
Courtesy : EzineArticles.com
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Ten-common-mistakes-people-make-when-buying-gold-38734-3-1.html

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #1: We fall into a combat mentality.
When difficult conversations turn toxic, it's often because we've made a key mistake: we've fallen into a combat mentality. This allows the conversation to become a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser. But the reality is, when we let conversations take on this tenor – especially at the office – everyone looks bad, and everyone loses. The real enemy is not your conversational counterpart, but the combat mentality itself. And you can defeat it, with strategy and skill.

Mistake #2: We try to oversimplify the problem.
If the subject of your argument were straightforward, chances are you wouldn't be arguing about it. Because it's daunting to try and tackle several issues at once, we may try to roll these problems up into a less-complex Über-Problem. But the existence of such a beast is often an illusion. To avoid oversimplifying, remind yourself that if the issue weren't complicated, it probably wouldn't be so hard to talk about.

Mistake #3: We don't bring enough respect to the conversation.
The key to avoiding oversimplification is respecting the problem you're trying to resolve. To avoid the combat mentality, you need to go further – you need to respect the person you're talking to, and you need to respect yourself. Making sure that you respond in a way you can later be proud of will prevent you from being thrown off course if your counterpart is being openly hostile.

Mistake #4: We lash out – or shut down.
Fear, anger, embarrassment, defensiveness – any number of unpleasant feelings can course through us during a conversation we'd rather not have. Some of us react by confronting our counterpart more aggressively; others, by rushing to smooth things over. We might even see-saw between both counterproductive poles. Instead, move to the middle: state what you really want. The tough emotions won't evaporate. but with practice, you will learn to focus on the outcome you want in spite of them.

Mistake #5: We react to thwarting ploys.
Lying, threatening, stonewalling, crying, sarcasm, shouting, silence, accusing, taking offense: tough talks can present an arsenal of thwarting ploys. (Just because you're trying to move beyond the combat mentality doesn't mean your counterpart is.) But you also have an array of potential responses, ranging from passive to aggressive. Again, the most effective is to move to the middle: disarm the ploy by addressing it. For instance, if your counterpart has stopped responding to you, you can simply say, "I don't know how to interpret your silence."

Mistake #6: We get "hooked."
Everyone has a weak spot. And when someone finds ours – whether inadvertently, with a stray arrow, or because he is hoping to hurt us – it becomes even harder to stay out of the combat mentality. Maybe yours is tied to your job – you feel like your department doesn't get the respect it deserves. Or maybe it's more personal. But whatever it is, take the time to learn what hooks you. Just knowing where you're vulnerable will help you stay in control when someone pokes you there.

Mistake #7: We rehearse.
If we're sure a conversation is going to be tough, it's instinctive to rehearse what we'll say. But a difficult conversation is not a performance, with an actor and an audience. Once you've started the discussion, your counterpart could react in any number of ways – and having a "script" in mind will hamper your ability to listen effectively and react accordingly. Instead, prepare by asking yourself: 1. What is the problem? 2. What would my counterpart say the problem is? 3. What's my preferred outcome? 4. What's my preferred working relationship with my counterpart? You can also ask the other person to do the same in advance of your meeting.

Mistake #8: We make assumptions about our counterpart's intentions.
Optimists tend to assume that every disagreement is just a misunderstanding between two well-intentioned people; pessimists may feel that differences of opinion are actually ill-intentioned attacks. In the fog of a hard talk, we tend to forget that we don't have access to anyone's intentions but our own. Remember that you and your counterpart are both dealing with this ambiguity. If you get stuck, a handy phrase to remember is, "I'm realizing as we talk that I don't fully understand how you see this problem." Admitting what you don't know can be a powerful way to get a conversation back on track.

Mistake #9: We lose sight of the goal.
The key in any tough talk is to always keep sight of the goal. Help prevent this by going into conversations with a clear, realistic preferred outcome; the knowledge of how you want your working relationship with your counterpart to be; and having done some careful thinking about any obstacles that could interfere with either. (Remember, "winning" is not a realistic outcome, since your counterpart is unlikely to accept an outcome of "losing.") If you've done the exercise described in Slide 7, this should be easier. And you'll be less likely to get thrown off course by either thwarting ploys or your own emotions.

When we're caught off-guard, we're more likely to fall back into old, ineffective habits like the combat mentality. If you're not the one initiating the tough conversation, or if a problem erupts out of nowhere, stick to these basics: keep your content clear, keep your tone neutral, and keep your phrasing temperate. When disagreements flare, you'll be more likely to navigate to a productive outcome – and emerge with your reputation intact.

http://hbr.org/web/slideshows/difficult-conversations-nine-common-mistakes/1-slide

Recovering From Postdoc Mistakes

"The best thing you can do in a postdoc is to do things that you enjoy," urges Doon Gibbs, deputy director for science and technology at Brookhaven National Laboratory, who has overseen the supervision of many postdocs over 25 years. Ensure those tasks are noticeable, such as publishing papers and presenting at conferences, he adds. But possessing a passion and self-promotion prowess alone does not a successful scientist make. Too often postdocs end up making mistakes along the way that can sideline them from the vocation they desire. Whether it is spending too long in a postdoc appointment, relying too much on their advisor, or simply not taking ownership of their career, there are many possible ways that early-career scientists can blunder. But luckily, there are clever means and methods to remedy even the most serious of slip-ups. By Alaina G. Levine

Why Am I Here?

The postdoc appointment is meant to serve as the stepping-stone to victory in academic science and certain positions in industry, says Harold Myron, former director of education programs at Argonne National Laboratory. The job is designed as a training program to instill certain skills, techniques, tools, and tactics for pursuing advanced research. Ideally, a postdoc should sharpen their innovative problem-solving abilities and learn to manage research group resources, such as employees and grant money.

Too often graduate students take a postdoc appointment for the wrong reasons, which of course, can be a mistake in and of itself. There is a decades-old tradition that "the postdoc is a training ground for a tenure-track position, that this is the metric for success for young scientists," saysCathee Phillips, executive director of the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA). "Postdocs have heard this for years, which causes them not to think about their own strategic career plan, because they think the postdoc will naturally flow into a tenure-track position." But with only 20 percent of postdocs advancing to tenure-track employment, many find themselves realizing too late, or waiting too long, to make a career plan with tangible contingency options.

Sebastian (not his real name), who works as an administrator at a medical school in the southern United States, admits he made a number of mistakes in his two postdocs, not the least of which were going in naively and staying too long without a concrete career plan. "If you don't want a tenure-track position, then there's no reason to do a postdoc," he declares, and reveals that his lack of planning led to miscommunication with his bosses and wasted time.

In his first appointment, which only lasted a year, Sebastian's principal investigator (PI) needed someone experienced in a particular biomedical technique, which he did not have. The mentor did not have time to train his protégé, which led to arguments. "It was the wrong lab for me, and my naivety led me to accept bullying [from my advisor]," he says. "My mistake was that I stayed as long as I did."

Ultimately, Sebastian recovered from what could have been a costly career blunder by forging his own path into academic program management. "It is vitally important for postdocs to be aggressive and take charge of their careers," he cautions.

All The Doctorates Are Doing It…

When deciding whether to accept a particular postdoc, it is paramount to confirm that you are proceeding with the appointment for the right reasons.

However, frequently, graduate students venture into a postdoc out of a feeling of desperation for a job, resulting in a lack of inquiry about basic elements of the appointment and little or no negotiation for benefits. "When you're finished with your Ph.D., people look into what postdocs they want," confesses Jimmy Weterings, whose appointment took place at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and who is currently seeking an academic position. "There are some people, and I count myself among them, who will take anything—it's a safety feeling. You finished your Ph.D., you know you will have income, but I didn't think beyond the two years."

Weterings, who did not possess a strategic plan, neglected to bargain for essentials that would have bolstered his career progression, such as teaching his own course. "In hindsight, I learned a lot about negotiation and talking with people," he says. Weterings advises you can prevent this common mistake by relinquishing the feeling of desperation that you have to take a job without asking vital questions about it from the start. And "don't take the first one that comes along," he adds. "Think if it's the right opportunity, ask yourself 'what will I accomplish'?"

Fiona (not her real name), who recently finished a two-year biology postdoc at a state university in the western U.S., had been thinking of leaving academia after earning her Doctorate. She decided to pursue the postdoc anyway because finishing her thesis left her "on a high," and she thought "it might be rash" to depart the tenure-track too soon. Her gaffe was that she did "not question people enough" about what she would be doing day-to-day. "I was so excited about getting a job,…I didn't think to ask how people in the lab generally felt," she says.

Within the first year of her appointment, her project lost funding. There was no financial support to attend conferences. And with a PI who was close to retirement and on sabbatical, Fiona discovered difficulty maintaining motivation.

But Fiona was lucky in one respect: Although she did not have a crystallized career plan when she entered her postdoc, she did have ideas about where she wanted to go next. She leveraged her postdoc experience to launch a fulfilling career in medical writing.

Help! I'm In a Postdoc And Can't Get Out!

Although the number of years one spends in a postdoc differs depending on the chosen field, specialty, and career choice, most advisors agree that three to five years should be the cut-off point. Yet, some postdocs stay much longer, languishing with seemingly no end in sight—a big mistake, stress some experts. "The postdoc experience is not meant to be limitless," saysTrevor Penning, who served as associate dean for postdoctoral research and training at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine from 1997 to 2005.

Some stay because they don't know what else to do. "Knowing you have x years, a postdoc must develop a timeline and goals," continues Penning. "Go home every night and ask yourself 'what did I accomplish today that furthered my career?' If every day you accomplish nothing, you need to take action…it's a warning sign of bad things." With improper planning and a lack of assertiveness, early-career scientists can get stuck in a seemingly endless hamster wheel of postdoc appointment after appointment. After not landing a tenure-track position the first or second time around, some postdocs simply stay put where they are while others pursue another postdoc.

Gibbs is concerned that a postdoc who stays too long could be taken advantage of by their supervisor. Sebastian for example, feels he was treated as a technician during his postdoc. According to other associates and even PIs, it is not uncommon for some postdocs to be looked upon as an extra pair of hands and be charged with less complex routine tasks, as opposed to more creative, scientifically driven endeavors.

"If you find yourself in a situation that is untenable, [ask yourself] 'is it in my best interest to stay in the lab?'" suggests Penning. Identifying the problem early is critical. "It's much better to lose one year than five."

The Medium Is Me (And My Mentor)

Your mentor has the potential to heavily influence your career. But it is your career. Mary (not her real name), who received her Ph.D. in the biological sciences, proffers serious counsel regarding the all-to-frequent misstep of allocating complete control of your livelihood to another person, especially your supervisor. "Never expect your mentor to only be looking out for you. You have to look out for yourself," she says. After all, "your boss's priority is their own career."

There is so much riding on your relationship with your PI, so "choose your postdoc mentor carefully," warns Mary. In addition to serving as your advisor, and ideally as a coach and champion, a good mentor should help orchestrate pathways for you to advance to the next stage of your career. So examine his or her track record of training associates, and pick "someone who moves people on to successful positions," she says.

Mary made the mistake of not checking on this before securing her appointment. Her PI had never gotten anyone through a Ph.D., let alone on to a good job, she claims. As such, her career has progressed at a very slow pace. She is now in her second postdoc at the same institution where she received her Doctorate.

"Postdocs have to be realistic about what to expect from their mentors," says Phillips. "These are busy people, and just because they hired postdocs doesn't mean they will automatically be good mentors, particularly if you are looking at a career outside of academia." Moreover, "the [appointment] is a two-way street with the mentor," notes Penning, "but the postdoc has to take ultimate responsibility for their own career success or failure."

Pedigree Is Not Always Key

Another classic conundrum is the sometimes misguided conviction that in order to progress in academe, you must spend your postdoc in a big, well-funded research group, says Carla (not her real name), a biologist who completed a five-year postdoc at a prestigious private university. But a large lab run by a famous scientist doesn't guarantee direct value for the postdoc, as she found out the hard way.

Carla, who is an assistant professor at a medical school in the eastern U.S., divulges that her postdoc was complicated by lack of face time with her PI. The supervisor was well-known and traveled extensively. He directed an enormous lab, consisting of a score of postdocs who were all jockeying for time with their advisor. Upon returning from his trips, the PI "would only talk to those whose projects meant the most to him or to people close to submitting a paper," she says.

But her research was not the group's main focus, so she did not receive substantial opportunity to meet with her mentor. Carla recommends staying on the supervisor's "radar screen" by making a careful decision to work on a project that is the highlight of the lab, she says.

"The largest labs may not give you the skills to be a professional scientist," warns Penning. And selecting your mentor "is not just about the lab's pedigree," he adds. "Choosing the wrong person to be a mentor can make an experience go south from the beginning."

But by networking and seeking out other mentors besides their PI, a postdoc can remedy a difficult situation. "They can't depend only on the PI for points of contact," says Philip S. Clifford, associate dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

If there is confusion as to whether your supervisor is actively participating in your professional advancement, "it boils down to good communication between the mentor and the postdoc," states Penning. "When you ask for help, if help is not forthcoming, your decision is easy: you find another mentor."

When Another Postdoc Takes Over

There is great internal competition among postdocs that is often not acknowledged, admits Carla. She describes how another person in her lab "liked my project and usurped it," and the PI, whose management skills were subpar, did nothing. Carla was then faced with the decision of whether to leave the lab, start something fresh, or partner with someone who seemed like the enemy. "I decided to collaborate," she recalls, "but I ended up suffering because the other person ended up talking about it on job talks," which she felt limited her ability to use it in presentations for academic positions.

Carla's solution was to recognize that there was enough room in the job market and in the research field for her to differentiate herself from the other party. But "the onus was on me to distinguish myself," she says. "I took the hard road, but in the end, this gives the most meaning in science."

If you find yourself in a situation where you are faced with an internal rivalry that could backfire, Carla suggests speaking with the PI and the other person to find ways to partner together. For example, there might be an angle that allows both people to co-first-author a manuscript. Communication is crucial, she says, "so everyone maxes out the benefits." The bottom line is you don't want to burn any bridges.

There is great internal competition among postdocs that is often not acknowledged, admits Carla. She describes how another person in her lab "liked my project and usurped it," and the PI, whose management skills were subpar, did nothing. Carla was then faced with the decision of whether to leave the lab, start something fresh, or partner with someone who seemed like the enemy. "I decided to collaborate," she recalls, "but I ended up suffering because the other person ended up talking about it on job talks," which she felt limited her ability to use it in presentations for academic positions.

Carla's solution was to recognize that there was enough room in the job market and in the research field for her to differentiate herself from the other party. But "the onus was on me to distinguish myself," she says. "I took the hard road, but in the end, this gives the most meaning in science."

If you find yourself in a situation where you are faced with an internal rivalry that could backfire, Carla suggests speaking with the PI and the other person to find ways to partner together. For example, there might be an angle that allows both people to co-first-author a manuscript. Communication is crucial, she says, "so everyone maxes out the benefits." The bottom line is you don't want to burn any bridges.

The Portal To Success

Every vocation has potential pitfalls and every professional has made their share of mistakes. Whether it's spending too much time in "PostdocLand," choosing the wrong mentor or lab, or not having a targeted career plan with flexibility for unforeseen twists, there will always be opportunity to err in academic science. Fortunately, as sources say, if you recognize that you are in the driver's seat, acknowledge a problem's existence early on, and focus on finding a resolution, you can recover and discover success. There are plenty of resources to aid you on your adventure, (see " It Pays to Plan: Why You Need a Career Map," DOI:10.1126/science.opms.r1000098), and best of all, if you learn from your mistakes, some might argue they were never mistakes in the first place. As James Joyce wrote, "A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional and are portals of discovery."

This article was published as an advertising feature in the March 18, 2011, issue of Science.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_03_18/science.opms.r1100101

Top 10 Science Mistakes

1: The Circulatory System

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is...but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.

Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is).

How could they be so wrong? It gets worse.

Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long?

It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea.

2: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe

Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.

It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.

Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.

3: Germs in Surgery

Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.

The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).

"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.

Lister went on to pioneer the idea of actually cleaning wounds and using disinfectant. Remember him next time you reach for the Purell.

4: DNA: Not So Important

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.

5: The Atom Is the Smallest Particle in Existence

Believe it or not, we weren't actually all that stupid in ancient times. The idea that matter was composed of smaller, individual units (atoms) has been around for thousands of years -- but the idea that there was something smaller than that was a bit harder to come by.

It wasn't until the early 20th century, when physicists like J.J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick and Neils Bohr came along, that we started to sort out the basics of particle physics: protons, neutrons and electrons and how they make an atom what it is. Since then, we've come a long way: on to charmed quarks and Higgs bosons, anti-electrons and muon neutrinos. Let's hope it doesn't get too much more complicated than that.

6: The Earth Is Only 6,000 Years Old

Once upon a time, the Bible was considered a scientific work. Really. People just kind of assumed it was accurate, even when it didn't make much sense.

Take the age of the planet, for example.

Back in the 17th century, a religious scholar took a hard look at the Bible and estimated that creation happened around 4004 B.C. (you know, approximately). Add in nearly 2,000 more years to get to the 18th century, when Western, Bible-reading geologists started to realize that the Earth was constantly shifting and changing, and you get about 6,000 years.

Hmm ... those biblical scholars may have been a bit off. Current estimates, based on radioactive dating, place the age of the planet at around, oh, 4.5 BILLION years.

By the 19th century, geologists started putting the pieces together to realize that if geologic change was happening as slowly as they thought it was, and if this Darwin guy was at all right about evolution (which was also a slow process), the Earth had to be WAY older than they had thought. The emergence of radioactive dating in the early 20th century would eventually prove them right.

7: The Rain Follows the Plow

If only it were so easy. It's actually kind of shocking that humanity held on to the idea that land would become fertile through farming for so long. Didn't anyone look around and see that all this farming of arid land wasn't doing much?

So much for observation.

In reality, this quite erroneous theory (popular during the American and Australian expansions) may have stayed alive in part because it did sometimes work -- or at least it seemed to work.

What we know now is that the plow wasn't actually bringing the rain; long-term weather patterns were. Arid regions (like the American West, for example) go through long-term cyclical droughts, followed by cycles of wetter years. Wait long enough and you'll get a few wet ones.

There's just one problem: wait a few more years and all the rain just goes away - only now, you've got a civilization to support.

8: Phlogiston

What? You've never heard of phlogiston? Well, don't beat yourself up about it, because it's not real.

Phlogiston, proposed in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, was another element to add to the list (earth, water, air, fire and sometimes ether); it wasn't fire itself, but the stuff fire was made of. All combustible objects contained this stuff, Becher insisted, and they released it when they burned.

Scientists bought into the theory and used it to explain a few things about fire and burning: why things burned out (must have run out of phlogiston), why fire needed air to burn (air must absorb phlogiston), why we breathe (to get rid of phlogiston in the body).

Today, we know that we breathe to get oxygen to support cellular respiration, that objects need oxygen (or an oxidizing agent) to burn and that phlogiston just doesn't exist.

9: Heavier Objects Fall Faster

OK, trick question: do heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones? Today, we all know that they don't, but it's understandable how Aristotle could've gotten this one wrong.

It wasn't until Galileo came along in the late 16th century that anyone really tested this out. Though he most likely did not, as legend holds, drop weights from the tower of Pisa, Galileo did perform experiments to back up his theory that gravity accelerated all objects at the same rate. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton took us a step further, describing gravity as the attraction between two objects: on Earth, the most important being the attraction between one very massive object (our planet) and everything on it.

A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein's work would take us in a whole new direction, viewing gravity as the curvature that objects cause in space-time. And it's not over. To this day, physicists are ironing out the kinks and trying to find a theory that works equally well for the macroscopic, microscopic and even subatomic. Good luck with that.

10: Alchemy

The idea of morphing lead into gold may seem a little crazy these days, but take a step back and pretend you live in ancient or medieval times.

Pretend you never took high-school chemistry and know nothing about elements or atomic numbers or the periodic table. What you do know is that you've seen chemical reactions that seemed pretty impressive: substances change colors, spark, explode, evaporate, grow, shrink, make strange smells - all before your eyes.

Now, if chemistry can do all that, it seems pretty reasonable that it might be able to turn a dull, drab, gray metal into a bright, shiny yellow one, right? In the hopes of getting that job done, alchemists sought out the mythical "philosopher's stone," a substance that they believed would amplify their alchemical powers.

They also spent a lot of time looking for the "elixir of life." Never found that, either. 

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html