Many thanks for your responses to my last blog entry. Throughout my not-so-long scientific career, I came across a variety of ideas on working time. In Japan, having crazy working time can be something to be proud of as scientists and I do know many stories on this. For example, a Japanese Nobel prize winner Noyori was late for his wedding because he was so busy with his experiments. In particular many of biomedical scientists in Japan are medical doctors and they tend to maintain their work ethics as clinicians even in labs. I know a story of a junior doctor who asked his senior how long he should work before break. Then he was told “until you pass out”. Similar stories can be heard outside Japan. When my friend applied to a postdoc job, the lab head told her that she was expected to work during weekend, and would be shouted and yelled if she wasn’t doing enough. Another friend told me about a lab where postdocs would be encouraged to leave if they didn’t work more than 80 hours a week.
The trouble is that the labs from which these stories came are actually doing very well scientifically. Therefore it is easy for the lab heads to say “well, you know, working as a scientist is tough. I am famous and have lots of money for my lab because I work hard. You won’t get a tenure or a grant if you don’t work more than others.”. The argument that people can work more effectively with shorter working time won’t be taken seriously unless significant number of really prominent scientists agree with it.
Of course there are some great scientists which had a better balance between work and private life. Another Japanese Nobel prize winner Shirakawa used to go home about 6PM and stayed at home during weekends, growing his cactus. Another winner Tanaka also said that he preferred not to work too long to maximize his productivity.
I understand such generalization is dangerous, but my impression is that those who regard science as a sort of competitive game tend to work longer and require others to do the same, while those who see it as a life style are more willing to balance it with other aspects of their life. I think I am a bit of both, but I would like my lab to be somewhere the scientists of both styles can work happily together.
Kojiro
Dear Kojiro, one example from physics. Max von Laue thought out that X-rays should be diffracted when passed through a crystal. This ingenious idea resolved two basic questions of contemporary physics: are X-rays electromagnetic wave? does crystalline arrangement resemble diffraction grating? Friedrich and Knipping proved Laue´s idea to be correct. So, Laue (but not Friedrich or Knipping) received the Nobel Prize for Physics for 1914. My question is here: is science about ideas, which can grow up without any stress, bureaucracy, grant support etc., or is it about hard work, competition, money etc.? I think the greatest scientist teach us that science is about ideas, philosophy, magnanimity and generosity, what can be in danger by mere competition for success and money.
Passion it is that makes you forget everything else. what is being sought is bound to reach the seeker without any aid.
Science is not about ideas, philosophy, government aid, stress or anything of that sort; science is about passion to know the truth. Everything else falls in place automatically.
There is story in India that the person who invented Sanskrit Language (It is only language that has been scientifically developed)was so engrossed in his work that he got married without noticing it and continued to work. His wife entered his room only twice to give him his meals. This went on for a few years. Finally, when he completed his work, he noticed the lady who had brought his meals and asked her who she was. When she informed him who she was, he realized that her dedication was bigger than his dedication and named the book after his wife’s name.
This is passion. Other day I saw a remark in one of the groups that suggested that when we buy a yellow car, suddenly we see lots of yellow cars on the roads or when our wife is pregnant then we see lots of pregnant ladies.
This is because there is a difference in seeing and noticing. Seeing is a function of eyes and noticing is a function of brain. I do not know how the biological processes differ in seeing and noticing but this is a fact.
Judgment of one’s level of passion can be made by simply assessing the level of stress. If your work is causing stress than you are not enjoying it and you are not in it but if it is effortless than you are moving in the right direction and with right attitude.
OK, thanks :). I am not certain of passion as the main feature of good scientist. I think good scientist knows that life is not only the science, but also love, politics, friendship, religion, art… He/she is not madman with one passion, blind to other aspects of life.
Yes, Boris ordinarily not and that is why Newtons and Einsteins are not born everyday.
The people who make a difference are the people who are different.
In any case, normally it is not the person who grips and idea and spends a lifetime understanding it; it is normally idea that grips the person. I guess even for a brief period every scientist goes through this phase when he sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and talks nothing else. How extended this period is depends on a number of factors.
Moreover, once one achieves what one sets out to achieve then it is difficult to sustain the passion and aim at anything bigger therefore there is plenty of time left for movies and sports and other such activities.
Thanks. I agree. Regarding Einstein or Newton, I think these two scientist were strongly interested in various things. For instance, Newton was an exegete of Relevation to st. John. Einstein was a Zionist, peacemaker, philosopher of science etc. Better scientist, in my view, has wider interests.
Thanks Boris, this is precisely what I had stated that it is not possible to sustain the passion over an extended period of time esp when one is able to achieve what one sets out to achieve. We form opinions on different aspects of life as we grow and once this passion is over then there is plenty of time to devote to social activities that we think are important.
Take the case of Einstein, it was not that he stopped thinking about science after theory of relativity was validated in that dubious experiment of Eddington or after receiving noble prize. In fact, it was a dream of Einstein to evolve a ‘grand unified theory’ but probably he was not able to sustain the same passion.
It is only a matter of maximum 2 years of sustained passion. Built up to this passion allows lot of time for other activities and there is plenty of time post this period.
Better scientist have wider interest and they have wider perspective. It reflects in everything they think about.
The way they look at things is vastly different than the way an ordinary human being does.
you will also agree that we know about wider ineterests of these gentelman because of their scientific achievements. Without the achievement in their field no one would have bothered what opinion Newton or Einstein have on religion or philosophy or nuclear weapons.
Thanks, Sunil, I am conform with you! :)