Amnesty International, London held the third annual science meeting run by the mental health charity MQ. It saw many mental health researchers and professionals meet and discuss state of the art and groundbreaking research across many interdisciplinary domains. MQ's tag line is "Transforming mental health through research" and what I loved about this event in particular was the focus on the research that can and has been undertaken in order to tackle the growing challenge of mental health. MQ highlights the need for interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches, and science meetings or conferences such as this enable the discussions to happen in order to meet this goal. Through research is particularly why I was drawn to MQ.
Two days of talks, an extended poster session, networking opportunities, and an insightful panel discussion on "What good is a diagnosis?" rounded up the two-day line up. I had the opportunity to get feedback on my poster "A cognitive model of psychological resilience: current research and future directions" which thankfully has given me quite a lot to ponder, as well as some ideas for cognitive task designs. For this post I would like to highlight several take home messages that I especially took to heart during the meeting.
Targeting the mechanisms
Michelle Moulds gave a talk and led the discussion on repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic process in mental illness. I was particularly glad as this aligned well with my current thinking (and background for an upcoming grant application). Repetitive negative thinking is common across disorders and is predictive of comorbidity. Therefore, the idea that interventions target repetitive negative thinking is timely and useful. In relation to my field (discussed more below), this suggests that cognitive interventions should target this underlying process, rather than attempting to address symptoms that lie further downstream. The discussion also led to the mention of some work that suggests that certain patterns of thought are promotive and some destructive, perhaps based on the content (e.g. positive versus negative content). Again, this is a useful distinction that resonates with my work; cognitive processes can be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on the context and content.
We need longitudinal research
I have made this point before, so I don't want to spend too much time on it here. Suffice to say that more longitudinal research is needed and in particular with a developmental focus, in order to understand mental illness. Although the cross-sectional and correlational research that has been undertaken is important, it needs to be situated in a developmental context. There are ethical issues with many potential experimental research designs (e.g. maltreating one group of children in order to compare to a protected group, or similar), however, this is where the interdisciplinary nature of MQ comes into play. Animal models, genetic, and epigenetic approaches are highly valuable, as are natural experiments such as the English and Romanian Adoptee study (link here) discussed by Professor Sonuga-Barke. My take home message from the varied and approaches discussed during the meeting is that there are are many ways in which vastly distinct disciplines can be integrated and provide complementary understanding of mental health. A caveat is that more longitudinal research is still needed in order to understand the development of mental ill-health, in order to develop preventative and resilience based approaches.
We need collaborative and integrative research
Touched on slightly above is that we need to collaborate and conduct multifaceted research in an interdisciplinary fashion. Animals and basic science help us understand the mechanisms underpinning mental health, while therapeutic intervention studies allow us to assess treatment options, and (epi)genetic studies give an additional glimpse into the underpinnings of mental health.
As it was brilliantly stated during the meeting (and ad-libbed here), it starts with meetings and conferences such as this, which facilitate the discussion between disciplines to share our knowledge and expertise. Ultimately, we are all interested in the same thing, transforming mental health through research. From this community will rise an exceptional body of research. Again, I love the tag line through research and think that it is what we need more of (as well as the funding and support to do so).
More research from a cognitive-experimental information-processing approach is needed
Or, perhaps it might be better to say that this approach should be better represented and communicated. I was excited to meet several researchers that are doing some great work in this field, including Ernst Koster and Colette Hirsch. My supervisor, Elaine Fox is also well known in this field. The cognitive-experimental approach borders with cognitive neuroscience and may provide a linkage between biological and neurological measures, and mental health related behaviour. We typically use computerised tasks to investigate differential responses to emotionally salient stimuli using a range of outcomes, including; behavioural (response times and accuracy rates), psychophysiological (e.g. eye tracking, heart rate), and neural (EEG, fMRI and so on), amongst others. These approaches have provided strong evidence for the causal contribution of automatic attentional biases favouring threatening stimuli towards anxiety symptoms (). In addition, this approach offers a number of paradigms designed to train particular biases and executive control processes. In one discussion during the MQ meeting it was commented that working memory training may help individuals with ADHD-related working memory impairments, but unfortunately there aren't such paradigms available. In fact, there are several lines of research tackling just that, and with some success. For example, improvements in working memory capacity have been shown to improve trait anxiety (Sari, Koster, Pourtois, & Derakshan, 2016). There are a growing number of studies from Derakshan and Koster which highlight the benefits of executive control training on mental health symptomology. Building on this existing research with novel paradigms and integrated methodologies (e.g. incorporating EEG and eye-tracking measures) has the potential to extend our understanding of the cognitive basis of mental health and resilience to mental illness. In addition, cognitive interventions may prove to be a useful clinical aid or preventative tool transforming mental health.
Final thoughts
The MQ science meeting was successful in bringing together experts from around the globe, from a multitude of disciplines, with the intention to foster collaborative and interdisciplinary mental health research, It was amazing to see such a range of science brought to the table to tackle the growing issue of mental health, both on a societal and individual level. I am looking forward to the next meeting, but in the mean time, I look forward to the funding call announcements and submitting my own proposals to fulfil the gap in current research investigating the cognitive-affective aspect of repetitive negative thinking and mental health in adolescence, and the development of resilience in this particularly vulnerable period.
Tuesday 7 February 2017
Monday 6 February 2017
A rebuttal: What does it mean to be a successful academic? And how to not suck at achieving it
I came across this blog post on twitter a few days ago titled "What Does It Mean to Be a Successful Academic? And How Not to Suck at Achieving It". Sounds great, and as a junior academic crawling to the end of my PhD looking (and hoping) for that elusive postdoc position, it felt like a timely read. The post has been shared a bit and does have some positive messages that I agree with. I confess however, the more I read the more the post failed to resonate with me, so here goes with trying to reconcile that. Note: I am trying to be balanced, but these issues are hitting home.
The first message is to enjoy the work, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The example of slaving away 80-90 hours a week to get that perfect paper or self-nominated award, etc, sounds extremely unappealing. I also like the mindset that what defines success is a personal thing and driving to be "the best" in a field isn't necessarily healthy (nor conducive to good science, which is the marker of success that I would like to drive towards).
The question, is it worth it? is raised and it is an important side of the coin to balance. While not mentioned explicitly, the theme of life first and academic achievement second agrees with my mindset. One Postdoc in my research lab is honest about this and conveys the refreshing attitude that while she loves her job and research, if and when necessary she will leave academia she will do so and be happy about it. Life first, academia second. I think that this is the way it should be.
Where I think that the message of the post was derailed for me is the mention of one of the benefits of tenure as not having to worry about having the most publications or highest impact factor etc. This is perhaps where the idea of personal achievement comes in. My idea of achievement at this stage is to do enough to stay in academia without an employment gap once my studentship funding runs dry. This introduces the thing that the post fails to capture, competition. At the early researcher stage, you are fighting for these positions tooth and nail. That means if you can get an extra publication, publish in higher impact journals (which I realise is nearly entirely BS, but is still sadly important), acquire research funding, and so on, then you pretty much have to play that game just to get the position. As a junior academic you are also susceptible to Departmental/University procedures which can leave you at a disadvantage (or at least not receiving full credit for grant applications due to being too junior, as I found to my own dismay recently). When competition and a lack of positions drives what is the most basic aspect to being an academic, having an academic position, the whole notion of the post fails. We junior academics cannot not worry about it and be content with a reasonable amount of output but not enough to stand out from the crowd. This left me with a take home message (completely unintended by the author I am sure), that having tenure means that you can stop worrying and enjoy life. But, what about everybody else?
Recently we had a discussion with our director of graduate studies who gave the average completion time of PhDs in our department at 44 months. For those like me lucky enough to have funding, it will run out after 3 years. So in terms of being successful and not sucking at achieving it, the best case scenario is that PhD candidates are finding extra funding to finish their PhDs. Realistically, they are likely being strategic and submitting their theses at a later date in order to get out those few extra papers and to get the extra time a few years later when applying for fellowships. Worst case scenario, it means that too many PhD candidates are paying their way through the latter stages in order to be competitive in this under-funded environment.
I'll try to bring this full circle and my apologies for the rant. Again, given present worries about employment, the post hit home. The importance of personal context, desired quality of life, and definition of success are stressed as key factors to balance in this equation. I agree that these are factors to balance in order to have a fulfilling life. However, when your definition of success is actually being able to stay in academia (or get into academia in the first place) then the milestone moves too far away from that set in that particular post. It all comes down to personal circumstance, goals, and life balance. In my case, without the benefit of tenure, the achievements that may be seen as arbitrary may also be the very ones that enable me to do what I love and stay in research.
The first message is to enjoy the work, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The example of slaving away 80-90 hours a week to get that perfect paper or self-nominated award, etc, sounds extremely unappealing. I also like the mindset that what defines success is a personal thing and driving to be "the best" in a field isn't necessarily healthy (nor conducive to good science, which is the marker of success that I would like to drive towards).
The question, is it worth it? is raised and it is an important side of the coin to balance. While not mentioned explicitly, the theme of life first and academic achievement second agrees with my mindset. One Postdoc in my research lab is honest about this and conveys the refreshing attitude that while she loves her job and research, if and when necessary she will leave academia she will do so and be happy about it. Life first, academia second. I think that this is the way it should be.
Where I think that the message of the post was derailed for me is the mention of one of the benefits of tenure as not having to worry about having the most publications or highest impact factor etc. This is perhaps where the idea of personal achievement comes in. My idea of achievement at this stage is to do enough to stay in academia without an employment gap once my studentship funding runs dry. This introduces the thing that the post fails to capture, competition. At the early researcher stage, you are fighting for these positions tooth and nail. That means if you can get an extra publication, publish in higher impact journals (which I realise is nearly entirely BS, but is still sadly important), acquire research funding, and so on, then you pretty much have to play that game just to get the position. As a junior academic you are also susceptible to Departmental/University procedures which can leave you at a disadvantage (or at least not receiving full credit for grant applications due to being too junior, as I found to my own dismay recently). When competition and a lack of positions drives what is the most basic aspect to being an academic, having an academic position, the whole notion of the post fails. We junior academics cannot not worry about it and be content with a reasonable amount of output but not enough to stand out from the crowd. This left me with a take home message (completely unintended by the author I am sure), that having tenure means that you can stop worrying and enjoy life. But, what about everybody else?
Recently we had a discussion with our director of graduate studies who gave the average completion time of PhDs in our department at 44 months. For those like me lucky enough to have funding, it will run out after 3 years. So in terms of being successful and not sucking at achieving it, the best case scenario is that PhD candidates are finding extra funding to finish their PhDs. Realistically, they are likely being strategic and submitting their theses at a later date in order to get out those few extra papers and to get the extra time a few years later when applying for fellowships. Worst case scenario, it means that too many PhD candidates are paying their way through the latter stages in order to be competitive in this under-funded environment.
I'll try to bring this full circle and my apologies for the rant. Again, given present worries about employment, the post hit home. The importance of personal context, desired quality of life, and definition of success are stressed as key factors to balance in this equation. I agree that these are factors to balance in order to have a fulfilling life. However, when your definition of success is actually being able to stay in academia (or get into academia in the first place) then the milestone moves too far away from that set in that particular post. It all comes down to personal circumstance, goals, and life balance. In my case, without the benefit of tenure, the achievements that may be seen as arbitrary may also be the very ones that enable me to do what I love and stay in research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)