I mentioned that I did not go into my last committee meeting expecting my box to be checked (yes, I know, it’s still funny). I did not expect to be so close to the finish because I don’t have faith in my own data. I know its weak spots, caveats, and dirty secrets like no one else and have difficulty granting it my love and support. Every committee meeting and every talk I give I expect someone to call me on it, to expose my work’s flaws and scars for the world to see… but no one ever has. Either I continue to successfully pull the scientific wool over the eyes of people far superior to myself in both experience and intellect, or my data isn’t as full of it as I think it is.
I think I have figured it out – I am not alone in doubting my own work. All scientists question themselves, their results. No study is ever beyond reproach, nothing is perfect. Researchers constantly struggle to find the happy middle between two extremes: 1) qualifying every conclusion with: “suggests that”, “may be”, “potentially leads to”, “in preliminary studies” – thereby coming off as a fool with floppy data (a problem of mine that has been my advisor’s mission to eradicate, with only moderate success) or 2) making concrete and definitive statements about the work such as: “shows that” and “proves that” (my favorite… evolution is still called a theory, but you… you have proven something), looking like a bit of a blow-hard.
How did I come to this grand conclusion, this figuring it all out? I read another student’s thesis. And you know what? While I always thought this person’s work to be solid and beyond reproach, after reading a chapter of her thesis I realized that she had all the same doubt-ridden data I do. The difference between she and I is that she never expected it to be otherwise. She didn’t look for a yes or no answer from her experiments. She made all the conclusions she could from the data she collected and didn’t beat herself up over it.
This is the lesson I learned since getting my box checked. My work doesn’t have to be perfect. It can never be perfect – there is no such thing as flawless data. It just has to be good enough, believable enough, controlled enough, convincing enough.
Science is hard. I hereby resolve to quit making it even more difficult for myself and to accept what the experiment spirits see fit to grant me. It will be a lot easier to make forward progress once I stop looking over my shoulder and questioning every conclusion I have ever made.
P.S. Picture lifted from this site
I know this might seem like stating the obvious, but I’ll have a go anyway.
I’ll add that there are scientists who have partly built their careers on tearing apart other people’s work. It can be a healthy thing for a particular field but upsetting for a scientist who’s experiencing someone shaking their tree.
I’ve found that being convinced of the validity of one’s own work is fine—after you’ve torn it apart with your own doubts. Doubting is good when it allows you to shake your own tree from all directions before being satisfied with your own results.
Not that I think you’re throwing away caution to the wind—I just am trying to warn you about getting that thick skin as soon as possible. :)
I (along with a handful of other science writers) have spent the last few days in a molecular biology lab learning techniques and about the life and culture of scientists. We’ve all been quite surprised at how much uncertainty is involved in experimental biology, how each experiment raises more questions than it answers. I would find that very frustrating, but maybe that’s why I decided I couldn’t be and didn’t want to be a practicing scientist.
At the same time, our instructor told us that in science, there is a certain element of ego or unflappable confidence that’s required to be successful: confidence in one’s own ability at the bench, in one’s own ideas, confidence that data will bear out those ideas and that data does bear out those ideas, etc. Perhaps that is why one finds a high level of ego in the world of science?! Is ego a requirement for success in the competitive world of biology? Perhaps it’s that find balance/mixture of doubt and confidence that’s needed.
Hi Deanne – I am working on my thick skin. It is terrifying to go into a talk knowing that I may get torn to shreds. My problem is that all I do is shake that tree. I am trying to temper the shaking just a wee bit so that I can catch my breath and move forward with my experiments. I guess it’s that fine balance we all have to find, between being overly critical or not critical enough of our own work. Both impede progress in the end.
Corie – There is no black or white in bench work, just weird shades of grey. And yes, it can be horrifically frustrating and confusing.
I am convinced that ego is the answer to success in science (or one of them). Having enough confidence to stand up for your conclusions, respond to criticism, and generally make people believe that you know what you are talking about is essential. It is also a lot more difficult than it sounds, for me, anyway.