I had literally no idea what I was doing when I applied for this last year. Something that helped was looking at the applications of other folks. I'm paying it forward by making my (successful 😛) application publicly available: https://t.co/7tn9lVSV9d #NSFPRFB

These are problems that affect ALL postdocs, but the structure of the NSF PRFB Fellowship sometimes exacerbates these issues. If your institution DOES NOT consider PRFB Fellows employees, start talking to admins to find a solution (some places have found workarounds!) 5/5

Relatedly, w/o clear employment status, some Fellows who were trying to buy a house were explicitly told their income could not be considered in determining whether they qualified for a loan. Once again, this caused folks to leave the fellowship + sometimes academia entirely. 4/5

In addition to the stress of trying to fill this financial gap, their research program was also negatively impacted due to a lack of expected funds. Several folks explicitly mentioned how this caused them to leave academia for alternative positions. 3/5

Lack of employee status often means no health insurance. You pay for coverage on the marketplace using your research stipend. Fellows who were expecting or had dependents could burn through their entire research stipend covering these costs. 2/5

Last year, when we surveyed current and previous NSF PRFB Fellows, several respondents talked about how the lack of employee status many Fellows experience directly exacerbates these exact challenges. - 1/5

OH. MY. GOD. The sequel I didn't even know I was waiting for. Also, kudos on making 24 (~70%) of the new palettes colorblind-friendly. This is almost a 50% increase in the proportion of overall palettes that are colorblind-friendly compared to MetBrewer!

You CAN use the research stipend to cover fringe benefits (like health insurance), but take this into account when preparing your material. I cannot stress this enough - Ask your sponsoring PI whether you will be considered an employee + what benefits you will get (4/4)

Many institutions DO NOT consider NSF PRFB Fellows employees. This has to do with how the fellowship is dispensed to awardees. This means that we are often denied key employee benefits (like health insurance 😬, retirement, even parking)… (3/4)

The living stipend awarded is fixed, which means there are no raises as you advance + no COLA. As of right now, PIs cannot directly supplement your income with federal funds. Talk to postdocs at that institution about whether the living stipend is competitive there. (2/4)

It’s that time of year again! If you’re thinking of applying for an #NSF #PRFB my application material can be found here - https://t.co/7tn9lVSV9d A few things I didn’t know before applying… (1/4)

Hopping on the bandwagon. Find me so I can find you 😋 — https://t.co/twPPX9UkQz

Another very successful year at the MN State Fair! An AMAZING few days w/ @yanivbrandvain, @amartin18 , and @AndyRaduski (PC) even though I didn’t leave with an ornamental chicken

That's it, folks, thanks for reading 😊 If you like this, check out our preprint + Charlesworth 1994 + Petras 1967. The latter two works were absolutely crucial in laying the foundation for this project! - 14/14

Our results support an adaptive explanation for lethal t-haplotype evolution. Reproductive compensation likely influences the evolution of other segregation distorters+meiotic drivers. Our results clearly demonstrate that inbreeding can further facilitate their evolution! - 13/14

In sum, our model links male sterility to the fitness of their sisters. Given moderate amounts of reproductive compensation, lethal t-haplotypes prevent unsuccessful matings by eliminating sterile brothers before they can reduce their sister’s fitness - 12/14

Furthermore, with sufficient levels of sib-mating, the lethal haplotype can displace the male-sterile one. This also aligns with natural observations, where a lethal t-haplotype is often observed at a higher frequency than the male-sterile variant - 11/14

Together, inbreeding + reproductive compensation favor lethal t-haplotypes. Even small amounts of sib-mating allow the lethal variant to invade the population under much lower and more reasonable values of reproductive compensation - 10/14

Our results align with those of Petras 1967. Inbreeding decreases the final frequency of the male-sterile variant bringing it much closer to natural observations. For pops stably polymorphic for the male-sterile haplotype, we then introduce a lethal t-haplotype - 9/14

Here, we link these two ideas - reproductive compensation + inbreeding (via sib-mating). Since the male-sterile haplotype is thought to be the ancestral variant, we started by modeling the impact of inbreeding on the evolution of a male-sterile haplotype into a naive pop - 8/14

Prior to this, Petras 1967 showed that t-haplotype frequency could be influenced by inbreeding. However, he considered the numerical reduction of hets due to pop subdivision (i.e., the Wahlund effect) instead of formally linking the reproductive success of relatives - 7/14