In the previous article here, I tangentially examined a situation that arises often in collaborative data analysis: the digestion of the results in scientific graphs. The focus of that discussion was the building of a sceptical thinking attitude in my student - it is a really important asset in experimental science.

Lately I have been writing lots of reference letters for students who are applying to Ph.D. positions in Physics, and in so doing I have found myself pondering on the dubious usefulness of that exercise. So let me share a bit of my thoughts on the matter here.

Reference letters are meant to be an important input for academic selections, because they provide first-hand information on the previous experience of the candidates, from scholars who are supposed to be authoritative enough to be trusted, and unconcerned enough to provide a unbiased assessment. 

After a month of intense travel, which among other things included attendance to the MODE Workshop in Crete and the EUCAIF conference in Sardinia, I am back to northern Sweden. Besides significantly improving my well-being, given the horrible heat wave that hit Southern and Central Europe in the past few weeks, the move north allows me to finally give a relaxed look back at the most relevant information I gathered at those events, and other relevant things.

Applications for MSCA Post-doctoral fellowships are on, and will be so until September 10 this year. What that means is that if you have less than 8 years of experience after your Ph.D., you can pair up with a research institute in Europe to present a research plan, and the European Commission may decide to fund it for two years (plus 6 months in industry in some cases).

In order for your application to have a chance to win funding, you need to: 

1. have a great research topic in mind, 
2. be ready to invest some time in writing a great application, and 
3. pair up with an outstanding supervisor at a renowned research institute. 

Time is a gentleman - it waits patiently. And in physics, as in all exact sciences, problems and mysteries eventually get resolved, if we give it enough time. That is how science works, after all: the consensus on our explanation of reality changes as we acquire more information on the latter.

The other day I finally emerged from a very stressful push to submit two grant applications to the European Innovation Council. The call in question is for PATHFINDER_OPEN projects, that aim for proofs of principle of groundbreaking technological innovations. So I thought I would broadly report on that experience (no, I am not new to it, but you never cease to learn!), and disclose just a little about the ideas that brought about one of the two projects.
Grant applications