ParentHooD: From Bench To Crib Side

Combining career and family is a problem most of us will encounter during our lives – and you will have to deal with questions ranging from parental leave to finding a day-care center. However, it is not always easy to find the right moment for having children in a scientific career. During your post-doc? During your PhD?

Always Bad Timing?
From an economic and organizational perspective, having a child while you are employed is always a burden to the employer: they lose an employee during parental leave, meaning they need to look for a replacement or pause the project for some time. However, we should understand that employers are fine with fulfilling these duties and providing support to the parents-to-be – after all people are people and not merely employees. Having a child is a very individual decision and if you decide to do it during your PhD or post-doc, it will always come with a lot of problems: From a work point of view, there will never be a perfect moment.

The Challenges
When having a child as a PhD student, you are up for several challenges – one of them being your terms of employment. Usually, PhD students are paid either with a scholarship or a part-time contract. If you have a part-time contract, the same rules apply to you as to any employee. Your situation is regulated by law in that you will be eligible for parental leave, allowance and child benefits [1]. Your contract will be extended by the amount of time of maternal or paternal leave.

Scholarship students get the short end of the stick

In case of a scholarship, the situation is much more complicated. Since you are not regularly employed and don’t pay taxes, you are not entitled to have parental leave and will receive only the minimum amount of parental allowance, which sums up to 300 euros per month [2]. With a contract, the parental allowance equals 65-67% of your pre-leave income [1]. If you have a scholarship, it depends very much on your institute whether or not and for how long your scholarship can be extended [2]. In this sense, having a scholarship during your PhD rather seems like a stumbling block when trying to re-conciliate career and family.

Source: Juliane Schiweck

Where To Get Information
Once you decide to have a child, your first challenge will be to obtain information regarding your situation. Especially – but not only – as an international PhD student, the process of becoming a parent in terms of knowing your rights and obligations in the workplace, as well as the financial benefits you can receive, can be confusing to say the least.
It is essential to talk to your supervisor in order to plan the subsequent steps of your PhD, but many times your supervisor might not have all the information you need. This is pretty unfortunate, since it would be fairly easy for the central institutions of the universities to provide such crucial information to the supervisors, be it an information brochure or a seminar!

Pay a visit to the Familienbüro

  

However, you can get some advice at the Familienbüro of your institution, which deals with combining carrier and family [3]. Unfortunately, the relevant information available on the internet is almost exclusively in German, making it very difficult for international students. If you decide to have a child during the PhD and you are part of a PhD program, the Familienbüro is one of the first places you should turn to. If you are part of the Medical Neurosciences Program, you can get help at the program office. There, they offer support and information, especially for international students who do not speak German and need help with administrative issues.

Back To Work?
Once your kiddo is born, parents will have to think about getting back to work. Parental leave can be split between the two parents, so that each is absent at work for the least amount of time possible and gets to spend time with the child as well [4].
When both parents decide to return to work, new problems arise, like finding a day-care center. This can be challenging and at times, you have to wait for over a year to get a spot. Fortunately, being employed at a big institution like the Charité has certain benefits. The Charité cooperates with day-care centers in Berlin and, in most cases, it will be possible for you to get a spot for your baby reasonably fast.

In a nutshell, having a baby during your PhD is difficult, mostly because it depends on how supportive and understanding your supervisor is. Uncertainties concerning financial aspects and the regulations of your contract also make things worse. If you are a PhD student with a scholarship, the situation is far from ideal.

It is necessary that universities start taking responsibility for their employees – especially the ones without a contract. However, having a child is an individual decision and if you decide it is the right moment for you, don’t be afraid to speak up for yourself.

[1] http://bit.ly/2adGdca

[2] http://bit.ly/2apoMZ1

[3] http://bit.ly/29T3cHa

[4] http://bit.ly/2ai01et

Juliane Schiweck, PhD Student AG Eickholt

A Degree For Life: The Job Market for PhDs Past and Present

Perspectives For PhD Graduates

The amount of PhD holders in Germany has greatly increased since the 1980s, producing many more graduates than available positions in academia [1]. Since then, the surplus of PhD degrees on the market has presumably been the cause of changed job perspectives for graduates. In the past, the traditional PhD-postdoc-professor career seemed more predefined for young scientists. Nowadays, the PhD bears importance as a title that represents more than just scientific expertise and the key to becoming a professor.

Outside of academia, a PhD title, regardless of the field it is in, is worshipped as a sign of highly valuable personal skills such as motivation, responsibility, perseverance and ambition. These traits are extremely important for leading positions in any profession [1]. Thus, scientists holding a PhD are appreciated in research and development in industry, in consulting, in patent law, scientific writing, sales and much more [2].

"The PhD Factory" by Pina Knauff

The Changing Face of Grad School

In the last few decades, the quality of PhD education has improved. Graduate schools were founded to turn the classical student-professor relationship to a more structured and interdisciplinary system. This helped shorten the graduation time and increase the quality of the degree [3]. Nonetheless, the prospects of long-term employment in academia remain poor in Germany [4].

One advance was the introduction of the junior professor position with tenure track option in 2002, representing an alternative to the classic Habilitation [5]. More recently, in 2015, a draft bill was passed to prevent short-term contracts in academia [6]. Despite these steps, Germany still lacks promising career prospects for PhD graduates in academia. There is clearly much room for improvement. 

[1] http://bit.ly/29R8eqH

[2] http://bit.ly/1EyziUL 

[3] http://bit.ly/29R2iOs 

[4] http://bit.ly/29EyLoz

[5] http://bit.ly/29Yxb2J

[6] http://bit.ly/1NZLNg5

Pina Knauff, PhD Student AG Wulczyn

BioBusiness Summer School

From June 26th to 30th 2017, I participated in the ninth edition of the BioBusiness Summer School in Amsterdam. Having always been interested in the combination of business with healthcare, I found the call for the course to be just what I had been looking for. I had high expectations – and they were fulfilled. In the short but very efficient five-day course, I learned an incredible amount. We had lectures with biotech entrepreneurs, big company CEOs, R&D scientists, venture capitalists, patent attorneys, CFOs (finance specialists), consultants, business developers... to name a few. On the final day, we headed to the Bio Science Park in Leiden (one of the top five life sciences clusters in Europe) and visited Janssen, a pharmaceutical company of Johnson & Johnson. There was also plenty of time for networking, interacting with the speakers and getting to know the other 80 young and enthusiastic participants.

Credit: BioBusiness Summer School / Hyphen Projects

Interested?
The BioBusiness Summer School is organized by Hyphen Projects and happens once a year. Although participation costs are not exactly cheap (€1,115 in 2017), they can be covered by conference and travel funds of a PhD scholarship. Registration deadline is March 1, 2018.

Mariana Cerdeira, PhD Student AG Harms

How Do Sports Affect Our Mind?

Sports are well-known to be good for our physical health. Many studies have confirmed the effectiveness of regular physical activity in the primary and secondary prevention of several diseases like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis and premature death. Exercising appears to have a direct relationship with many aspects of our health status, i.e., exercising more leads to further improvement in physical well-being [1]. The next question is: what is the effect of sports on our mind?
 

Source: http://bit.ly/1U7mgoT

Physical activity helps our brain in many ways. It decreases anxiety and depression, protects from loss of cognitive function in people with a risk of Alzheimer's and conserves cognitive brain functions across one's lifespan. Likewise, it helps healthy people by improving sleep, reducing the risk of Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases [2,3,4,5].

Excercise Improves Mood Instantly

Our mood also benefits from physical activity. Regular exercise was verified to improve mental well-being in the general population. It increases our quality of life by enhancing self-esteem, improving mood and reducing stress [2]. Not only do sports help us in the long run, but they were shown to improve our mood almost instantaneously. Most likely, if you do 20 sit-ups right now, you will feel happier immediately (once you catch your breath) [6].

So the next time you go for a run, know that you are not only taking care of your body but also of your brain!

[1] Warburton et al., CMAJ, 2006
[2] Fox, Public Health Nutr, 1999
[3] Lautenschlager et al., JAMA, 2008
[4] Scarmeas et al., JAMA, 2009
[5] Kramer and Erickson, Trends Cogn Sci, 2007
[6] Yeung, J Psychosom Res, 1996

By Michelle Livne, PhD Student AG Sobesky

Korean Food: Revamped

The Olympics in South Korea are coming to an end on Sunday. If you got interested in the Korean culture and food, you definitely need to check out these restaurants in Berlin!

via Wikimedia Commons

Korean food has been taking Berlin by storm - it seems to be the trendy thing to enjoy nowadays - kimchi rolls, bulgogi (grilled meat) with a side order of mandu (dumplings), all washed down with some silky soju (rice liqour). If you do happen to be cool enough to be seen in these dining establishments, you are in "the know" of people who enjoy the gastronomic landscape of the city.
But it's not as if Korean restaurants are new to the scene: Gung Jeon for instance is a staple hang out amongst the Korean community, usually packed with expat or exchange students at lunch (with their secret lunch specials) with well beloved classic dishes which remind them of home - a warm bowl of seafood soup, a hearty plate of egg noodles with black bean sauce. Here, they serve the food straight up, with warm service and a homley atmosphere. It might be slightly intimidating for the non-Korean, as the clientele seems to already be in the know-how. German is hardly to be heard. Here, if you're a non-Korean, you must walk in with a poker face of confidence. "I know exactly what I am doing!"

Gung Jeon
Kurfürstendamm 134
10711 Berlin
+49 30 89541892 http://www.gungjeon.de/

Ixhthy's is the more grungy cousin of Gung Jeon - an Imbiss run by three Korean widows, blatantly pushing their Christian faith to every diner by wallpapering every possible inch with verses from the Bible. The Bibimbap - a popular dish amongst novices to Korean food - is exactly how it should be: sizzling hot, spicy to the point where your tongue hurts, and so delicious and satisfying from the generous serving of sesame oil and water spinach that you want to cuddle someone for an hour afterwards.

 Ixhthy
Pallasstrasse 21
10781 Berlin
+49 30 81474769

The new kids on the block take on a more sleek angle. Stylized décor, red lipsticked clientele with asymmetrical haircuts and an unseemly snooty gaze. This is the new Korean food scene in town. A well beloved establishment among this crowd of hipster joints is Kimchi Princess in Kreuzberg. Unmistakable Korean cookery is at work (I checked: the kitchen IS staffed with Korean cooks though I could have told you without having peeked), while the service staff is more international. The owner is half Korean himself, born in Germany. In a dimly lit high-ceilinged space with cool simple décor and red lighting, this is indeed the place to be nowadays. Just don't even think about walking in without having made a reservation first, and be aware that service on weekends can be slow from the many orders from packed tables. Kimchi Princess offers Korean food on steroids: delicious, sexy, young and hip. 

 Kimchi Princess
Skalitzer Str. 36
10999 Berlin, Germany
+49 163 4580203

By Gina Eom
This article originally appeared in Vol. 04 - Issue 3 - Brain Stimulation

CNS Newsletter Poll: Mate Selection in Neuroscientists

Who we choose to fall in love and start a family with has gathered considerable interest over the past few decades. The common perception is that men and women prefer different characteristics in their potential mates. The two principal theories contesting these different preferences are based on perspectives drawn from the study of evolution and social structure.

The evolutionary (Darwinistic) perspective assumes that successful mate choice behaviors continue to influence current mate selection because the behavior led to continued existence and prosperity of the human species [1]. Sex differences between men and women have evolved because they have historically faced different environmental and social pressures [2]. The parental investment model proposed by Trivers in 1972 further suggests that this is because men and women differ in the level of parental investment required to ensure the survival of the species. Thus, their mating behaviors evolved accordingly. While women invest extensive physiological resources in producing offspring, men invest more outside resources beyond the act of conception [3].
In contrast, the social structure perspective proposes that sexually differentiated mate selection results from contrasting social positions that men and women have historically occupied within society [2,4]. These types of societal constraints and gender expectations still persist. In an attempt to maximize resources, women who are delegated to roles of less power and resources seek out these characteristics in potential mates. They can offer commodities such as physical beauty, fertility, and sexual pleasure that are desired by men [2,4,5].
Both hypotheses are supported by ample evidence that can be reviewed in Shoemake 2007 [6].
Here, we used a short online poll to investigate possible sex differences and differences associated with career stage regarding mate selection of Berlin neuroscientists.
The survey comprised three questions: 1) ''What is your gender?'' 2) ''What is your position in neuroscience research?'' 3) ''What are the first four qualities you look for in a partner?” Categories were the following: age, cleanliness, ethnicity, financial security, intelligence, kindness, nerdiness, physical attraction, religion, sense of humor, social status, trustworthiness, and other. The survey was prepared on surveymonkey.com and sent to the Berlin Neuroscience community via mailing lists of Medical Neurosciences, Mind and Brain, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience as well as the forum of the staff of the Department of Experimental Neurology. Answers were collected between April 28 and May 2, 2014.
126 responses were collected for the poll. One response had to be excluded since no answers were given to the questions. Out of the 125 answers, 62 participants were male, 61 female, one preferred not to answer and one chose “other”. Of the remaining 125 participants, 23 were students, 58 PhD students, 5 technicians, 20 postdocs, 4 group leaders, 10 professors, and 5 other (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Sociodemographic distribution of the participants

Neuroscientists Look for Intelligence, Physical Attraction Rates Only Third
Overall, intelligence (88.6%) was the most frequently reported quality that respondents looked for in their partners, followed by sense of humor (74.0%), physical attraction (68.3%), trustworthiness (60.2%), and kindness (58.5%) (Fig. 2). All other options had less than 10% votes, except for other (11.4%): age (8.1%), social status (7.3%), cleanliness (6.5%), nerdiness (5.7%), religion (3.3%), financial status (2.4%), and ethnicity (1.6%).

Fig. 2. Gender differences in mate selection

Male and Female Neuroscientists Desire Similar Qualities in their Partner
Both male and female participants rated the same top five qualities. The only differences across gender occurred with respect to physical attraction and sense of humor. For men, physical attraction was the second most frequent criterion, whereas only about half of the participating women reported it (80.6 vs. 55.7%, χ²(1, N=123)=8.81, p=0.003). Sense of humor was significantly more preferred by women compared to men (82.0 vs. 66.1%, χ²(1, N=123)=4.01, p=.045).


Neuroscientists Look for the Same Qualities Independent of Career Stage
Due to the low responses from technicians and 'other', we did not include these groups in the analysis. The responses from group leaders and professors were grouped for the same reason. All four groups – students, PhD students, postdocs, group leaders/professors – rated the top five qualities – intelligence, physical attraction, sense of humor, trustworthiness, and kindness – almost equally frequent. The more advanced in their career stage, the more important their partners' intelligence was rated by neuroscientists. Interestingly, postdocs rated physical attraction substantially lower than the other three groups, while they rated kindness substantially higher. Postdocs also had the highest score, even if not as pronounced, for trustworthiness and sense of humor. Only group leaders/professors rated social status as a quality of high importance. A Pearson's chi-squared test was performed and no relationship was found between career stage and any of the mate selection criteria investigated in this study.

Fig. 3. Career stage and mate selection

Discussion
We discovered that male and female neuroscientists have similar mate selection criteria which differ only when it comes to physical attraction. Intelligence was found to be the most frequently reported criterion. A relationship between career stage and mate selection criteria was not found.
In our study, we found intelligence, physical attraction, sense of humor, trustworthiness, and kindness to be the five key attributes both men and women look for in their mate. This goes in line with the immense amount of literature on mate preference that generally indicates a preference for intelligence, emotional stability, honesty and trustworthiness, an exciting overall personality, and – of course – a physically attractive appearance [7].

NEUROSCIENTISTS RATE INTELLIGENCE AS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THEIR PARTNER

 

Interestingly, our study suggests that neuroscientists rate intelligence as the most important factor in their partner – or at least, that is what we would like to believe. According to the matching hypothesis, people are more likely to form and succeed in a relationship with a partner who is equally socially desirable, which often refers to physical attractiveness [8]. On average, women tend to be attracted to men who are taller than they are and vice versa. While men want women with full breasts and lips, low waist-hip ratio, and a young appearance, women prefer men with broad shoulders, narrow waist, V-shaped torso, and masculine facial dimorphism. In addition, both seem to be attracted by a symmetrical face [9-11]. Even when on a purely platonic level, it was shown that people – especially men – tend to be drawn to others that they perceive as similarly attractive [12]. And sure, you probably know one or two successful couples where both partners are not necessarily attractive to the same degree. In this case, the less attractive partner possesses compensating qualities such as status and wealth [13]. Yet, it is not entirely surprising that intelligence is highly ranked. It was previously shown that people unconsciously attribute positive characteristics, e.g. intelligence, to physically attractive people [14]. This association was found to be stronger for men compared to women [15]. Prokosch and colleagues proposed a general fitness factor (f-factor) where intelligence and physical attractiveness are positively correlated because both reflect the quality of the genes and developmental stability [16]. 

NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAREER STAGE AND MATE SELECTION CRITERIA

Surprisingly, social status was ranked very low in this study, and only group leaders and professors seem to have a preference for it. According to the literature, women have a substantial preference for high social status and wealth [17,18]. In a large US study, men and women were asked how willing they would be to marry someone who possessed a variety of characteristics. While men were significantly less willing than women to marry someone who was “not good looking,” women were significantly less willing than men to marry a partner who was “not likely to hold a steady job” and who “would earn less than you.” However, they showed that both characteristics matter to men and women – just to a different degree [19]. 
We did not find a relationship between career stage and any of the mate selection criteria investigated here. Yet, group leaders and professors tend to pay more attention to social status. We can only speculate that being a neuroscientist or a researcher in academia favors a certain kind of person (which would also explain the lack of gender differences). Why postdocs, in particular, ranked physical attraction much lower than the other groups and tend to value sense of humor, kindness, and trustworthiness more, we'll leave up to your imagination.

What you think your partner should be like and how your beloved turns out to be might be completely different. That’s love! 

Limitations of this Study
This study is greatly limited by the short online poll and low number of respondents. A more detailed study on the mates and reproductive success of Berlin neuroscientists would provide a deeper insight on the actual selection criteria and evolutionary fitness of neuroscientists.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anna Pajkert for helping with the statistical analysis of the data.

[1] Kenrick, Advan Exp Soc Psychol, 1994
[2] Eagly and Wood, Amer Psychol, 1999
[3] Trivers, “Parental investment and sexual selection”, in Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine, 1972
[4] Howard et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1987
[5] Buss and Barnes, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1986
[6] Shoemake, J Scientific Psychol, 2007
[7] Regan, “The Mating Game. A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage”, Chapter 1: “Mate Preferences”, 2nd Edition, California State University, Los Angeles, 2008
[8] Feingold, Psychol Bull, 1988
[9] Perrett et al, Nature, 1998
[10] Nettle, Proc Biol Sci, 2002
[11] Glassenberg et al, Arch Sex Behav, 2010
[12] Feingold, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1990
[13] Myers, Social psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 10th ed., 2009
[14] Dion et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1972
[15] Kanazawa, Intelligence, 2011
[16] Prokosch et al, Intelligence, 2005
[17] Buss and Schmitt, Psychol Rev, 1993
[18] Feingold, Psychol Bull, 1992
[19] Sprecher et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1994

by Marietta Zille
this article originally appeared 2014 in CNS Volume 7, Issue 2, Neuroscience of Love

The Course of True Love Never Did Run Smooth

The Nature of Relationships from a Scientific Perspective

If you peek into your own relationship(s) or those of friends, you might also recognize that there are some differences in behavior depending on the duration of the relationship. And that many of them, unfortunately, do not have a happy ending, as reflected in a divorce rate > 50% of marriages in Western societies [1]. Within this article, we will take a closer look at the different phases of relationships, their neurobiological correlates, and key factors of fulfilling long-term relationships.
               
Phase 1: Falling in love
What is often referred to as the first phase of a relationship is a period characterized by high passion, a rapid rise in intimacy, and increased commitment [2]. Elevated cortisol levels help in overcoming initial neophobia [3] and make this phase a stressful period full of excitement and attachment. As serotonin levels are inversely correlated with those of corticosteroids, serotonin is depleted. Testosterone levels show a gender-specific difference at the beginning of a relationship as they are decreased in men but elevated in women [2]. Reduced activity in different brain areas is observable, for example in the frontal cortex, which explains why people who are in love are not able to judge their partner’s character honestly [4] (see also "Through Rose-Colored Glasses" on pp. 16). This phase usually lasts for half a year.

Phase 2: Passionate love
The second phase is a more settled phase dominated by feelings of safety, calmness, and balance that lasts several years. Passion remains high while intimacy and commitment rise. Testosterone, cortisol, and serotonin levels have returned to normal [2]. The key players of this phase are oxytocin and vasopressin as they are responsible for the formation of strong long-term pair-bonds [2] (see also 'Love is Chemistry', in this issue).

Phase 3: Companionate love
Over the years, intimacy and commitment grow, whereas passion decreases. Compassionate love is a “warm” love that is more similar to intimate friendship than to a couple in the first phase, where physical attraction and desire are more prominent [2]. The essential hormones are also oxytocin and vasopressin, restating and maintaining the pair-bond between a couple [5]. The transition from passionate to compassionate love is a critical point in the course of a relationship; when passion has decreased and intimacy is also low, commitment may be all that is left. This is referred to as “empty love” [6] and is usually not sufficient for the continuation of a relationship.

Breaking up
If a relationship comes to an end, it is usually experienced as an unpleasant event, with increased levels of stress hormones [2]. Recent studies of brain activity patterns found increased activity in areas active during choices for uncertain rewards and delayed responses, reflecting a common feeling of uncertainty about the future [7]. Rejected individuals showed a decreased activity in brain networks involved in the onset of major depression and also showed depressive symptoms, suggesting that the grieving period following a break up might be a major risk factor for clinical depression [8].

Triangular theory of love           
Based on the aforementioned three components “intimacy”, “passion”, and “commitment”, Sternberg postulated the “triangular theory of love” in 2007. Basically, this theory correlates combinations and intensities of the distinct components with different experiences of love (see figure). He hypothesized that love progresses in predictable ways and that all couples experience love in the same patterns [6]. Also, a long-term relationship would be more likely to develop when more than one component is experienced. The complete form of love, also referred to as “consummate love”, thereby arises from a strong expression of all three components and is theorized to be that love associated with the “perfect couple”. According to Sternberg, these couples will continue to have great sex fifteen years or more into the relationship, they cannot imagine themselves happier over the long-term with anyone else, they overcome their difficulties gracefully, and each delights in the relationship with the other. A state that sounds desirable. But Sternberg also points out that maintaining this state is highly dependent on a successful translation of the components into action and that consummate love may not be permanent [6].
All in all, it seems that a fulfilling long-term relationship is not accomplished by just finding “the one”. It is rather a co-operation between two passionate and highly motivated partners working together. If this co-operation is based on trust and respect, if problems are solved diplomatically and if progress is evaluated from time to time, it can result in something really great and satisfying.

[1] Kalmijn, Popul Stud, 2007
[2] De Boer, Neuroscience, 2012
[3] Marazziti, Psycho Endo, 2004
[4] Volz, Curr Opin Neurol, 2006
[5] Starka, Prag Med Rep, 2007
[6] Sternberg, Triangulating Love,2007
[7] Fisher, J Neurophysiol, 2010
[8] Stoessel, Neuropsychobiology, 2011

by Betty Jurek, PhD Student AG Prüß
This article originally appeared 2014 in CNS Volume 7, Issue 2, Neuroscience of Love