That's what I was trying to say: you don't have to look like a superhero and you don't have to be praised to do good science. Sometimes it is possible to look quite the opposite and still do a very good job. Also, I'm not giving up on getting funding, and this time I'm not going to get sick just in time for the proposal deadlines for my career stage (I've spent over a week in a hospital and I was still trying to write from there - stopped only when they told me there's no other way than surgery. Sometimes bad luck is bad...). If it was almost there in the panel for the biggest grant in the scheme, it might get the smaller one.

I didn't get prizes when I was a PhD student. I've started out four years later, which in the eyes of scientific community means I must be dumber than the rest (a lot of "young scientist" grants has a literal age cap). I was one of these awkward, bumbly blonde girls you meet at the corridor everyday, not the talented one, really. But I've finished it with very good papers and then my PhD was awarded with a distinction, which is a rare ocurrence. Despite all my troubles at the postdoc - which were not my fault, or not the PI's, just science being science and hypotheses not working as the state of art was implying, I've found something very real and probably a breakthrough and I want to stay because I want to find out what it is. If someone finances the dumb postdoc, I guess - but they don't look at my face when they read my proposal. I was told it almost made it and the sole reason it was not funded that I was competing with people like my own PI for this particular grant, actually very literally with him. It's not appearances that matter.

I think you must first state what you're doing PhD in. Because in my area you have to make experiments first so you have anything to write about :D

Thank you. Actually I did commit sort of career suicide choosing to stay in the country and do a domestic postdoc, for the sake of founding a family, which had failed in a spectacular way and I'm also a bit traumatized by that. I was also looking around for jobs outside academia, but I have no idea what those people do. It would be a horror to be stuck in a job where you have to do the same thing all the time - I'd be interested for the first six months, and then I'd bore out. Is there any other job for an ex-scientist that includes learning, improving stuff and analyzing?

If this is the case, it's probably defendable, even if you don't get accolades for it. Don't worry. Ask your advisor about it. If you're worried, it might be good to sprinkle the research with a well-thought fancy method or two, and perhaps something even shows up on the radar then. They understand it's science and it doesn't always result in breakthrough. Write it like a proper researcher, perhaps a beautiful thesis on negative results will be enough. Not all my experiments worked as well - the medical part was mostly negative, and people appreciate that I don't point in wrong directions.

When I was a bit younger, PLOS one tended to accept those as far as they were scientifically sound. This is a pain in the community, because we're not supposed to find exactly what we think, otherwise it wouldn't be called scientific research. Punishing it would be like actively punishing fairness. I've seen theses without papers, too, but I'm based in Poland, so I don't know about elsewhere.
That said, you can take those negative findings and as I said, build on it. Just like you'd follow the positive findings. Because they always tell you something, especially if they stand in contrary with previous research, and I don't believe that every single of your experiments didn't tell you anything.

It was the case of the project of the PhD student I was hired to help. Basically the results did not support the hypothesis of the mutated protein not binding the RNA, because it obviously bound it, just not as much. Instead of being bent on the original hypothesis, we looked at what else might cause the differences that resulted in the biological effect, and we found that it has different affinity to motors (we already had a clue that this is either something in binding or in transport). Sometimes when you get stuck on the original hypothesis you miss real findings. It does not have to be as we wanted it to be. I'd look at what the "negative results" tell you, because every experiments tells you something, and imagine in your head how the process might go. Also remember that you set out to disprove hypotheses, not to prove them.

What pm133 said is quite right. Second autorship for the student is right in this case, both in the poster and in the paper (or if anybody else contributes, rank them in the level of contribution, still including the student). She did your research after all - you taught her to do it. Who she is and what she's going to do with it does not matter, give credit when it's due. And one must look carefully at letting people develop, and not exploit them. Actually, guiding the student to do actual research you might have accidentally created a proper researcher, think about it.

Hello, I'd like some advice. What I want is a scientific career, perhaps in my home country, and a fair chance of winning grants. What I have is some valuable lab skills, willingness to learn, and - this will come as bragging - I'm smart (but who is not in this area). What I do not have is a first author paper from my first postdoc, because instead of a grant I was hired in I spent half of my time salvaging a trainwreck project of a PhD student, which we published with IF 4+ and I got a second author for it. I declined to take 1st authorship, because at the time I thought I'd recover with a small grant and my own honest 1st author paper (basically I felt otherwise it would crush the student, even if it would be equal authorship). However, my health failed: I miscarried and missed the term of grant application. I expanded the grant and re-applied, but this time I was competing with older scientists (another grant scheme) and lost - explicitely due to not having the 1st author paper.
Now, I have some results and I'd need a few months to publish. My PI is out of money and he already promised to hire me for a year if he gets that grant (we were effectively competing in the same panel, and I was rejected because of my CV - I was told that they argued to let me through regardless). My abilities and willingness to carry out science are good, my publication record track is bad. Should I wait or try to apply elsewhere to have a backup plan? Will anybody take me? What approach should I take to build a decent CV? I'm really nervous. Also, if I go abroad, I'll probably lose the last chance to have babies, since with me it's probably going to be a heavily medicated pregnancy. We can manage having a baby and returning to science, but I do not have much time left in either department.

I don't know about US, in Europe all they look for is your research, they don't care about grades.

In my experience, I found the cooperation to be fruitful just because of the human contact. I did not need that much supervision, because I went to PhD after a research assistant post, but I needed reassurance - after the previous experience my self-esteem was pretty low. Scientifically, I did not struggle. Just like the TreeofLife said: often the "supervision" is just about noticing that the student's there.
Had I taken a PhD student that did not have research experience before, I'd guide him/her through the first year to ensure they get enough skill to cope on their own. Some things aren't learnable from thin air.
I'm in molecular neuroscience, so the methods are really tough.

I edited it out, because it could be identified.

Look out for personalities, and the amount of guidance you will get. Basically the old PI will give you opportunities, but you will see them once in a month. The young PI will be available daily, and manage (and perhaps micromanage), and you will be more like partners. For my PhD I had an old PI for my formal supervisor, but the upstart PI for my informal supervisor - I was in her grant, and under her supervision, but she did not have the right to formally guide PhD students yet. It was the best of all possible worlds, because I got direct supervision AND the opportunities. I've got three papers out of it, and a stellar defense. I'm still friends with my old direct PI (ans she has her own lab now, based partly on our common work). The postdoc however did not go that well, but this is another story :)

I'd write the same, except that I saw bad bosses, good bosses and the instances when the fairly good boss clashed with a fairly good student on personality issues. And this case is not clear cut.
Before making any sudden decision, I'd talk this through with another lab member. I'd also get their help to do my part of the job the best I can, following their advice and the boss's advice. If, all of a sudden, things start working after getting such an approach, it was you and it is avaluable lesson. If the boss continues to look not very competent, there are other signs to look out for: does she let people go to conferences? How are the papers in the lab going? Are the opportunities for ex-lab members better of worse than in the other departments? Can you carve out your piece of research and go with it anyway?
Remember that the PhD advisor is not just there for you as your mom; she's running a lab and it should be on you to get 15 minutes from her, and choose a right moment to do it. Also, always present your results throroughly, because she can't remember everybody's work in the lab, that is not possible. That is why she hires smart, independent people to run their projects.
Some bosses are good with postdocs, and not so good with PhD students that need strong guidance - in this case find another lab member to guide you, just be sure that they don't clash with the boss and the boss knows where you're getting help.
Also, her extracurricular activities should be not of your concern and vice versa. She might have four babies, or a rock band, or be a world famous author and the only important thing is to get the job done in the lab, and this is also a message for you.

Hello guys. I have a question for you. Currently I am looking for a postdoc and it seems I hit the wall. I would like to find a position where it is possible to change my focus to different methods that I've learned at my PhD, but PIs who look for postdocs prefer those who already know the methods they use (or would like to use). If you were a PI, would you take in a person who does not have all the preferred skills, but is willing to learn? The last thing I want is to fall into an overspecialization loop and become a specialist in one protein at the beginning of my career. What should I do to switch subfields/methods and thus, expand to become independent?