"In the classic movie It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey is at the point of despair but regains his confidence through the wisdom and perspective of a guardian angel, Clarence. Doubt and setbacks also are bound to happen in science (as is true of other careers), but pessimism should not rule the day. It is a great profession and there are many happy endings."

Commentary by Ron Vale...read it at least once a month to make sure it sticks:
http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/21/1/11.full

Commentary on Susan Lindquist's views that I endorse.
http://www.nature.com/news/prions-and-chaperones-outside-the-fold-1.10026

(Colin Macilwain - Cell 2012)

Old but still very relevant. Highly entertaining and infomative piece on writing grants by "Sticky Wicket". There was a time I used to read Sticky Wicket every time, but not anymore. Never read anything for fun anymore....

Part 1: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/116/6/945.long 
Part II: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/116/7/1153.long


 

Like every new parent we had invested in an analog "video camera" back in the days when our first son was born (maybe 2001). This was the one with the tiny casettes etc., the type that is extinct now. Anyway, after recording hours and hours of baby footage, I promptly lost the electrical charger that was necessary to operate this camera.

Now this is one of the chargers that has complicated and unique pins on the other end, and you pretty much cannot fit any another charger on it. In comes my second son and his hobby is - yes, accumulating chargers. Like every American household, we also have a pretty decent collection of chargers for things that worked at one time or another, but are now compleletely defunct. And this little guy collects them, that's what he does. Several times I have berated him about this (wires everywhere in the living room!); but the other day, this utterly meaningless occupation bore fruit.

And to my utter amazement, this 4 year old pops into the garage, rummages through old boxes (like he always does), and rettrieves a charger that looks almost exactly like the one I had lost (but its not the same one). I put it in the video camera, and it worked! We spent a highly enjoyable evening watching videos of my 8 yr old evolving from a meningless blob into an actual person (much to his chagrin). But this got me thinking.

Hypothetically speaking, I have no doubt that my 4 year old's grant application ("collecting and characterizing electrical charging units") would be stamped "descriptive", and triaged. And yet, if he was not driven by his internal curiosity for chargers, we may have never seen my boys recite poetry in the bathroom.

Something to think about.....   

Great article on "Ten Simple Rules for Building and Maintaining a Scientific Reputation"
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2fjournal.pcbi.1002108

Step 1: Complete disbelief that this data can possibly be correct (oh that method was used to get the results...)
Step 2: Trepidation at the joy that potential insights from the new data seems to provide (could it possibly be right?) 
Step 3: Sheer delight at the magnitude of nature's diabolical schemes (it is right!)
Step 4: Convincing cynical reviewers that you are right (no...Joe did NOT show this...)
Step 5: Fending off underhanded attacks from Joe and company for the rest of your life....
 
.....all for the love of Science...   

Among the numerous email lists that I have inadvertently signed up for (including several for focused organ enhancement and proclamations of my ancestors' enormous wealth), there is one that I really like http://www.connexoncreative.com/publications/Neural_Cell_News.aspx

I don't know how or why I get monthly updates in my email from "Neural Cell News", but curiously, there are always things in their list that interest me. Even though I must say their heading "Neural cell news" is annoying, because if you say 'neural', then you don't really have to say 'cell', because a neuron is a cell, and will always be one...but I digress. Sign up recommended if you are into neuroscience.


Also annoying is how they list stories by their impact factor. Thankfully this is at the bottom of the page, after the main stories, so can be easily ignored.

Its funny how some reviewers of "high impact factor journal X" don't review the Science so much, but instead make comments on whether the paper is "good enough for journal X". Its like deciding whether or not you deserve an entry into the club. Wonder if this is driven by editors, or whether its a reflection of the reviewers' assumed self-importance upon wearing the revered "Reviewer's Gown of the high impact factor journal X". 

Seems to me that you want to be ambitious, but not crazy. The proposed project must be well within the constrains of reality - must be a hypothesis that can be actually tested that is - and must not ignore decades of well-established facts, just to foster some lunatic, crazy-ass idea that one may have. 
 
The flip side to this is that there will be the occasional crazy idea that will be correct (prions come to mind right now, but science is littered with them - viruses causing cancer is another). Probably a simple rule of thumb is that  imagination needs to be based on reality, and must be eventually verified by real experiments!