Major Revisions
So, the big news today, as far as I’m concerned, is that I received a decision on a manuscript. This is the first paper from my grant, which is now over, and which is kind of important for my career. It was submitted to a second-tier eye journal, after being rejected from a top-tier diabetes journal. The paper, of course, is about systems-science treatment of care for diabetic eye disease. And the big decision was (drumroll): “major revisions”. This is a tentatively positive result. This paper has been through an oddessy over the last six months of desk-rejects, peculiar rejection because the editor couldn’t find reviewers, and then a real, honest-to-betsy rejection after review from a good journal.
“Major revisions” as a decision category is a big catch-all. I don’t know what the options for this particular journal are. Generally, papers can be sorted into several different categories, not all of which are used by each journal: “Accept as-is”, “Accept with minor revisions”, “Revise and resubmit”, “Major revisions”, “Reject”. In general, “reject” is the most common result for good journals, and even for many second tier-journals. “Accept as-is” is essentially unheard of. The rest are all in regular play. In addition to my recent spate of rejections, I’ve been asked for revision prior to review, had a paper accepted with minor revisions (last January), and now this.
My reaction is one of guarded optimism. Over on twitter, the consensus is that “major revisions” is a positive outcome. Anything that isn’t “reject” is a positive outcome. A colleague here at work said the same thing when I told him. If they didn’t like the idea behind the paper, they’d have simply rejected. If they thought it was methodologically unsalvageable, they’d’ve done the same. So, the editor is interested enough to make it worth the time to request a revision and see where it goes. If I can be responsive to the review, it will probably (though not assuredly) be published.
The editor was unpleasantly candid, using words like “crude” and “simplistic”. But that’s the nature of scientific peer review. Especially with novel methods, they need to be attacked and defended. To have holes shot through them and then the walls rebuilt, so as to be certain we’re doing reasonable work and drawing appropriate conclusions. A lot of people have problems with the peer review process, and with good reason. Anonymity gives reviewers and associate editors the ability to, essentially, troll authors. Convention requires authors to be polite and obsequious in response. But not submissive. The response to review is a conversation, not a capitulation. However, too strong a defense of a cherished-but-assailed feature may result in the paper being rejected.
My strategy is normally to simply acquiesce to reviewers in nearly all circumstances. Because I’m interested in methodology and not phenotype, I will allow reviewers to guide me on all questions of medicine/health. Because I’m a simulation-builder and not an epidemiologist, if the reviewers have problems with how I conduct my sampling or organize my real-world subjects, I stipulate and conform. This is especially true because I don’t really have colleagues here who can help me in a lot of these matters, so the reviewers are actually incredibly helpful in these things sometimes. Sometimes I think they’re off base and I stand up to them.
And now, as admonished by @Namnazia, over on the twits, I am going to go revise my paper. I’d say wish me luck, but this part of the scientific process is probably the least susceptible to luck of all of them. Grants, those require luck. Getting a journal to consider your paper in the first place, that often requires luck. Responding to review isn’t about luck anymore. It’s about having a productive conversation with nameless, faceless colleagues who can crush your dreams and aspirations like a duck egg in a cobra’s throat. Wish me sanity.
Impressions.
Hurricane Sandy has finished its course across the eastern seaboard, and it has done to New Jersey and New York what Sherman did to Georgia. Atlantic City was briefly claimed for the sea. New York City has taken a staggering blow. I can’t imagine the flooded subways will reopen, in some places, for weeks. NYU Medical Center, in an astonishing feat of intrepidity in the face of danger, was evacuated in the midst of the gale. The ambulance drivers, nurses, police, physicians and students who carried out that horrifying necessity (including the evacuation of the 9th floor NICU unit with no power, no light, and no elevators), are stunning examples of the best we have among us.
So far I’ve heard from most of my friends out east. It seems as though everyone is ok, but that there is damage everywhere. One friend lost part of his apartment building in the Bronx. Literally. Part of it is gone and they can’t find the part that came off. It’s been blown away somewhere. One friend on Long Island I haven’t heard from yet. I don’t know exactly where he lives, so I don’t know how badly his area was hit.
Disasters tend to crystallize my thoughts about those I care about. I try to imagine what I’d do in their place. How would I measure up? What would I do this morning, looking out at the devastation. In my imagination, I put on a pair of work-gloves and go start clearing the street. Do I really? I don’t know. I admit: I don’t know how to help in those situations. It can be dangerous to just charge in and try to clean things up. There can be downed powerlines, unstable piles of rubble. I don’t advocate leaping in and trying to fix things by one’s self. I think there probably needs to be organization.
Today, be safe. Be grateful. If you can, donate to the Red Cross. And use the button that allows them to use your donation wherever it’s needed most. Frequently, after disasters, the Red Cross ends up with huge influxes of donations that overwhelm their ability to concentrate it all in one place. Allow them to put it where it needs to go. And go give blood. You can find a place to donate blood (or platelets!) here. These things matter, and they help people. Donating blood is essentially painless, and is worth +5 bonus karma, with a psychic reward to be named later. Do it.
My Eighth Step Talk.
Today my talk at my Sunday morning meeting was recorded. Here’s a copy of my talk. I had not known I was going to speak. The person who was supposed to talk had to work, and so was unavailable. I was tapped to speak about fifteen minutes before the meeting. I was asked to talk about the 8th step, which states: “We made a list of all the persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.”
It’s about 20 minutes long.
Working with Others.
The most basic aspect of AA is working with others. Some might find that surprising. Surely, the most basic aspect is abstaining from alcohol? No. Alcoholics drink all the time. It’s sort of in the title. Yes, that’s what we are seeking on an individual level, when we arrive. We are looking for a way to not drink, or to be free from the consequences of drinking. But what we very soon discover, if we are to remain sober, is that consuming alcohol is not the defining element of our condition. Consuming alcohol is what prevents us from addressing our condition.
Many, many more alcoholics succeed at the acute phase of alcohol withdrawal (in my experience, lasting about three days for serious risk of seizure, etc., and about two weeks for physical cravings) than develop and maintain long-term sobriety. Why? A few basic reasons spring to mind. After a short while without drinking, many of us begin to think that we have conquered our affliction. If we can stop for a few days, then surely we can stop after a few drinks! No. And, as our heads clear from their addled states, we begin to see all the majestic ruins we’ve made of our lives. We drink again to shut that out. To pretend it isn’t there.
And many alcoholics succeed at the acute phase of alcohol withdrawal with no help. They grip their fists, clench their teeth, and suffer for a few days until the booze works its way out of their systems. I did that a few times. It’s awful. Hell, it’s awful with help. Detox sucks. Those things can be done, though not with high success rates, and they almost never lead to lasting abstinence. Even when they do lead to some duration of abstinence, it is even more exceedingly rare that anything like happiness – like peace and serenity and comfort and utility – follows.
Because being sober takes help. It takes a community. It takes guidance. Because in order not to drink again, we need to be led through the process of dealing with the ruin of our lives, our psyches, our spirits. Expecting an alcoholic to find a way to be happy, and content, and productive is a bit like expecting a cancer patient to derive and administer their own course of chemotherapy. Are there a few who could do it? Probably. But it’s a totally unreasonable way to expect it to happen, and you certainly wouldn’t admonish such a patient for failing in those circumstances.
Yesterday I met my new sponsee before my men’s meeting. I bought him a cup of coffee and we talked for about 45 minutes. I asked him about his history, his drinking. He told me what felt like an honest and straightforward story. At one point, he apologized for being boring. I had to laugh. We tend to think of ourselves as either the worst in the world, or to excuse our horrific behavior. He did neither. He just talked about being a drunk. Going to rehab and trying to kill himself a bunch of times. It’s a pretty common story.
It is both ordinary and horrifying that so many of us have that same story. I have never been suicidal, but I can easily imagine it. I’d be lying if I said it isn’t an option for me, if I return to the depths of active alcoholism and despair I used to know. Knowing that about myself helps me stay sober. Putting it in writing, for other people to read and know keeps me accountable. When I drink, nothing is off the table. I am endlessly grateful that those feelings and fears are so remote for me now.
So I’m excited to work with my new sponsee. He’s bright. He’s depressed. He’s bewildered. He’s profoundly anxious. But he’s emerging. Now, it’s about honesty and willingness. He’s got the open mind. Or he wouldn’t be where he is. Now, he’ll either do the work, or he won’t. If he does, he’ll almost certainly get better. If he doesn’t, he’ll almost certainly end up dead. I told him yesterday that I’d lay even odds his next suicide attempt succeeds. We joked about there being a Vegas line.
Working with others, carrying the message of recovery from the seemingly hopeless state of active alcoholism, from pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization[1], is how we stay sober ourselves. By focusing outward, we recover internally. By working with my sponsee, I maintain my own sobriety. I deepen it. I stay rooted in the middle of the garden. Far from the tentacles of misery.
I am an alcoholic. Drinking is an option for me. It always will be. Drinking is what alcoholics do. So I work. And I commit myself to the program of action and accountability that has led so many before me out of blackness and into light. That is all the higher power that I need, really. This incredible community of people who know what it is to drown, so know what it is to swim.
____________________
[1] These quotes are so common as not to need attribution among alcoholics. For the rest of you, they’re from the book “Alcoholics Anonymous”, pp xiii, and pp 30 respectively.
On to Grantland.
OK. I spent the last two weeks with my fingers in my ears pretending I don’t have a grant due at the end of November. Two now. But I’ve passed on being PI of one of them, so I’m able to focus on my big R01eq. Which is coming along. I have about 11 pages written, of the 25 I have to fill. My agency uses the older format. I find myself deeply jealous of people submitting to the NIH who only have to put in 12 pages. But, my funding lines are a bit higher.
And of course, if writing grants isn’t your thing, you should know that when I say “25 pages”, I don’t actually mean 25 pages. The grant application will be probably 100-150 pages long. Perhaps a good bit longer. The 25 page limit is only for the research plan. There are reams of supplemental material. Support letters, bios, and funding statements of each person associated with the grant. Statements on human subjects protections, facilities, institutional support. Several short descriptions of the grant of varying lengths. Budgets. Budget justifications. For each year of the grant. And any papers-in-press relevant to the application which the reviewers will not otherwise have access to.
This all has to be crammed into a .pdf that was built by crack-addled monkeys. And not especially bright crack-addled monkeys. So. I’m writing my goddamn methods section now. In the event that I am stuck, I can always fill in the busy work of letters of support, etc., which needs to get done and can be a palette cleanser for the mind to do. It’s a laborious, miserable process to write a grant. I’m always amazed by people who can bang them out in a couple of weeks. It takes me months.
Home Again.
I have returned home to St. Louis after a short trip to the east coast. I watched as my colleague at East Coasty University presented our final project. I jumped in some to answer questions and fill in blanks on the engineering side. It went well and they were satisfied with the results. As with any simulation, it isn’t perfect, but I feel it’s useful. As with any presentation, we put the best face on it. I feel like there are important ways it can be made better. And we will. No question.
What I need to remember is that this is easily the most ambitious simulation of an emergency facility ever done. Well, at least, the literature doesn’t contain any reports of anything this complex. It’s certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that simulations this sophisticated have been made and not published in the peer-reviewed medical or engineering literature. Most of this work is done for corporate profit, not scientific exploration. Resultingly, much is not published. I had an idea for a cool paper this morning, that would be a review paper and a lot of work, but it would be really interesting, and I think highly publishable.
After spending time at ECU, I met up with people from twitter for dinner, and then went to New York City. I spent two days in Manhattan with other friends from twitter, and with Chicago Joe, who moved to NYC last month. It was good to see friends. Joe and I walked to hell-and-gone around Manhattan, saw Ground Zero, where the new Freedom Tower has risen to impressive heights. Manhattan, so long with a hole in its still-impressive skyline, has been nearly restored.
We walked across Central Park, and then went to the American Museum of Natural History, which in fact has a lot of human history as well. Though, I suppose for better or worse, humans are part of nature.
And I got to visit with my friend, of whom I’ve written much here, who is now six months sober and doing remarkably well. We went to two meetings, Saturday night and Sunday morning. AA in New York is much like AA in LA. The flavor was a little different from the AA we have here in St. Louis. But it was clearly excellent sobriety, well-distributed, and supportive. A bunch of us went to breakfast after, before I had to catch a ride to the airport. It was a lot like being here. It’s good to be with people. With drunks. Who care about each other. That’s what we do in AA.
It was a good trip. A good time. I’m not particularly glad to be home.
All the Career Things.
Blogging will likely be a little light over the next two months. I’ll do my best, but I have an unfathomable amount of work to get done. This week I am giving the final presentation for my recent work with East Coasty University, and I have to write the final report today and tomorrow. I have now two grants to get in for the December cycle, my R01eq and another R03eq. Luckily, the R03eq is essentially written, I just have to update it for the current RFA. But that is still probably a week of work. The R01eq is exactly where it was the last time I reported on it, whenever that was. A couple of weeks of depression and anxiety let it wallow. Now I’m picking it back up.
I have submitted to a number of professorships at schools of public health and health administration around the country and in Canada. I’m going to look at Europe too, I think. Sweden is doing amazing work in these fields, and England has a special pull on me. There is one position that opened up at an awesome university that I am calling DREAM JOB. There’s a big-name PI there who I’ve spoken to a few times, and so – on the advice of the professoriate on twitter – I contacted her and informed her I was applying for the position. It’s not in her department, but it’s in the School of Public Health.
She suggested I look up the work of another Associate Professor there. So, again at the advice of my twitterati, I wrote a polite note describing our common areas of interest to this professor (He’s an operations researcher working in systems in public health. We’re basically the same dude, except he’s older and more successful than me.). He wrote back the same day telling me he’d be glad to talk to me! Now, I don’t know if this will put me in contention for this job. This school is world-famous, highly regarded. And it’s an open-rank position. They’ll probably be getting applications from people with multiple papers in NEJM and The Lancet, and multiple million-dollar histories of grant funding. But hopefully, just maybe, they’ll be looking for an early stage investigator with systems experience and proof of the ability to get extramural funding.
That’s what it comes down to. My publication record is undistinguished. It is, arguably, abysmal. but I’m hopeful that that will change soon. I have three papers currently under review. Two are at plain journals. Respected in their fields but not particularly impressive. The other is at a major journal, universally regarded as the best journal in its field in the world. the Editor-in-Chief wrote to me about my paper when I submitted it, asking me to make revisions prior to review. I did and resubmitted. He wrote me again, saying that he “partially agreed” with my response to his review, but that it was “close enough to ask for advice from reviewers”. He said that he’d have requests in addition to whatever they ask for. Which is fine. When the EIC of a major journal asks for revisions, you make them.
This is the kind of opportunity that could take my entire publishing history and go from undistinguished to competitive. It wouldn’t turn me into a well-recognized name or anything, but it would immediately make my CV one of those which you would look at and say that I do, in fact, have a history of publication in respected journals. It would clear a hurdle. If I could go in to a job talk with this in press, it would be a huge marker. If I can go in with two or three in press from my recent projects, showing that I can turn grant money into papers in good journals, I’ll be strongly competitive. I hope.
So. Three papers. Two grants. Two Final Reports. A Poster in a Conference. A Job Search. Still no word from Local Research University on my 25% position there. I believe it will happen; I can’t sit around assuming it will. And in the meantime, a trip to the East Coast. And then one further afield for a few days. It’s a bad time to travel, but I can’t do everything I need to do without taking some time off.
The Misery of Abstinence.
Many alcoholics attempt to control their drinking. In fact, it’s essentially a diagnostic symptom. If you find yourself needing to exert effort not to drink, or to diminish your consumption, you probably ought to take that as an enormous red flag regarding your alcohol consumption. Normal people, by and large, don’t need to think about how much they drink; nor do they struggle and fail to drink less. Normal people get drunk, sure. But they do so in safe, planned environments. They prepare ahead of time for their drinking. It’s generally a rare event. If they decide they want to drink less, it’s more likely to be about expense or calories than consequences of inebriation.
But when we alcoholics try to moderate our drinking, we fail. Maybe not every single day – there were days I had only one or two drinks, even near the end. But over any duration of time, we fail. We simply cannot control, once we have had any alcohol, how much we have. It is unpredictable when we’ll get drunk (until it progresses to essentially every time we drink). The consequences of getting drunk, like being unable to perform at work, or driving drunk, or neglecting our loved ones, will not prevent us from drinking more.
This period of trying, on our own, to stop or to moderate our drinking is invariably fraught with misery. Very early sobriety, the first few days or weeks, is always painful and difficult. Trying to do it alone, without help, without acknowledging it to people who can help us, is excruciating. Literally. Early sobriety is painful. Cravings hurt. At least, pain is the closest word I have to the sensation. Couple that with isolation – even among friends – and depression and anxiety and shame, and it’s insurmountable.
AA works because of the connections made from one alcoholic to another. And it does work. Through the telephone, and in person, we connect to support each other. To admonish each other. And to do the things we need to do to live better lives. So many people try to moderate on their own, and end up miserable, or in jail, or dead. We cannot defeat alcoholism on our own. In fact, we cannot defeat alcoholism at all. Together, as a group, one alcoholic helping another, we can accept our alcoholism and surrender. And when we surrender, we can trade drinking for freedom.
Choices and Sponsorship.
My men’s meeting last night was very good. Punctuated as usual with profanity and childish insults, we talked about the choices we have in sobriety. The speaker asked: “Why are you here? Why do we come back? What choices do we make in sobriety, and why?” All good questions. For me, they have some simple answers. I go there because I’m an alcoholic and I want to live a normal, healthy, productive life. I come back because I enjoy the camaraderie, the friendship, the connection, the wisdom, the male bonding. Choices is a bigger concept.
As an active alcoholic, I didn’t have any meaningful choices. No matter how much I wanted to, I could not stop or moderate my drinking. My thinking was deeply flawed. I have no control over how I drink when I drink. The few times I would stop after one or two drinks, I was miserable. The sensation is a bit like pain, but deep in bone and organ: longing and screaming. An agonizing appeal for more alcohol from every nerve. And so I did what I had to do to slake that thirst.
Today, I have choices. And each day, my most important choice is to refrain from returning to that misery. Now, that’s not so difficult a choice anymore. It’s not even a conscious choice the vast, vast majority of the time. I talked, when it was my turn, about having choices today, about not being just an alcohol-fueled automaton. And I spoke directly to two young men in the room, one with 30 days, and one with 60. I told them to get sponsors. Work the 12 steps. That’s what makes the difference between life and death for so many of us. And the difference between happy, productive lives of sobriety and miserable, angry, white-knuckle abstinence.
That kind of thing is not generally smiled upon in most AA meetings. You don’t talk directly to other people in the room. But this men’s meeting is a slightly different beast. It’s very old-school. We take each other’s sobriety personally. And so, when one of those young men approached me after the meeting and asked me to sponsor him, I said yes. I told him to call me every day, before 9pm, and then he did call me, that same night, before 9pm.
And we talked about step one, and what it means, and how he feels about it. We talked about his situation, and I told him a bit about how I drank. He’s clearly an angry young man. He’s been through this before, accrued 60 to 90 days of sobriety and then begun drinking again. But reaching out to get a sponsor is a good step, and a good sign. And I found a couple of interesting citations this morning which show that having a sponsor is associated with increased sobriety[1,2], though there remain problems with how the scientific community measures sobriety and remission in addiction.
So, it looks like I’ll be working with someone new. Hopefully, he’ll get it. We can work together to get his life back on track. He seems bright. But he makes some dumb decisions. Like watching the baseball game at a bar, when he’s 60 days sober. That’s pretty stupid. But he’s coming to meetings, and he’s taking positive steps. I hope I can help him. I hope he’s willing to do the work.
___________________
1) Witbrodt et al, Addiction. 2012 Feb;107(2):301-11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21752145
2) Kingree et al, Addict Behav. 2011 Aug;36(8):882-5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21511400
The Alcoholic Impulse.
So, I haven’t had a drink in 1,697 days. A bit more than four and a half years. Most days, alcohol is barely a thought other than the gratitude I feel to no longer be dependant on it. That gratitude is – as you’ll know if you read this regularly – enormous and in many ways life-defining. A huge part of my existence is centered around not drinking. I attend meetings regularly with other people who don’t drink. I write about not drinking. I read about not drinking. I help others to not drink, if they want help. It’s a core part of my self, at this point.
I’ve had limited success with that “helping others” part, at least from my own myopic perspective. I’ve had two sponsees. Both are drinking today. The first was a problem drinker and depressed and lonely and unemployed and didn’t know where to turn. He had a friend in the program. So he came to AA. He worked with me through the fifth step. Then he stopped calling. Later he got a job, moved to Italy, and the last I heard (Christmas time about 19 months ago) he was actually doing rather well, and moderating his drinking, or so he claimed. I haven’t heard from him since.
The other was a desperate mess. I presume he still is. He never got past step one. He came to meetings, a few times. But he simply obsessed over his ex-girlfriend. He drank constantly and smoked crack cocaine. He actually told me that he believed he would be able to drink normally if she would take him back. I asked if he’d drunk normally when he’d had her. Of course he hadn’t. He abandoned her and went on drunken, coke-fueled benders with his low-life friends. But this time would be different. He stopped calling. He’s alive, and working. But I have no reason to believe he’s happy. I will always carefully treasure the gift he gave me, which was perspective on the obliviousness of the active addict. His statement: “I am not even thinking about alcohol. I’m only thinking about [her]. So why shouldn’t I go get drunk?”
However, I have had the privilege of witnessing and being there with and for a large number of people as they negotiate the early stages of the program, and several of them are sober today. One dear friend who is almost six months sober is a point of particular joy. The amazing progress from alcoholic insanity to productive and happy through turmoil and trial is wonderful to watch. It’s inspiring. In many ways I’m jealous: the magic astonishment of early sobriety is past for me. Though, I do continue to discover new rewards.
But I have long been told, and continued to experience, that the old alcoholic impulses never truly fall away. This weekend I spent time with my “adopted” family in Indiana. As is common in family get-togethers, people drank a bit. There was one moment when someone asked me to hand a beer to someone else, a beer already open, and the impulse to take a swig as it passed was sudden and powerful. It lasted only a tenth of a second, and was not remotely compelling. But it was there. I’ve had that impulse many times.
There is only one defense against that impulse. Regular and careful maintenance of my sobriety. If I skip too many meetings, if I don’t keep up with my sponsor, if I don’t keep communicating with other drunks, if I don’t continuously apply the principles of sobriety to my life, then the day will come when I choose not to resist that impulse. Right now, resisting that is easy. There is an instant of longing. A flash of memory. A salivary response. And then almost as fast my mind flashes forward to what happens if I drink. Shame. Misery. Death. By the time I’d even consciously processed that there was an urge, the drink was out of my hand and in its recipient’s.
Vigilance is part of the recovered alcoholic’s world. Because while I have recovered from my state of hopeless inebriation and alcoholic insanity, I have in no way recovered from my status as an addict. When I put alcohol in my body, in any amount, I change. And for all of science’s new understanding of addiction and how my brain is different from normal people’s brains, there will never be a more meaningful definition of alcoholism for me than the one put forth some 80 years ago by Dr. Silkworth: it is an allergy of the body, and an obsession of the mind. Now, of course, “allergy” is not scientifically correct, we now know. But the fundamental point stands.
Alcoholism is a permanent condition consisting of two fundamental aspects, in the practical world of the alcoholic: we are affected differently by alcohol than normal people; when we are active in our addiction, we obsess about alcohol. That is the condition to which I can immediately return, if I choose. I am deeply and consistently grateful that today, I have the choice not to.
