I recently asked a post-doc in my lab, whose been actively doing research for 12 years, what are the most important tips to be successful in science. Her reply:
1. Dedicate 1 hour everyday to read a scientific article relating to your field of study.
2. Be consistent in your experiments. If you do something and it works, do it the exact same way everytime.
After hearing her response, I thought this would be perfect advice to share with some of the Nature Network readers. Then, I had a brilliant idea; I should pose this same question to all the intelligent people at Nature Network.
So, let’s have it guys. What do you think are the most important tips to be successful in science?
I look forward to reading answers from some successful scientists (of whom I am not one!) — but in the meantime, her answer seems pretty good to me.
Well, I don’t consider myself successful either, but my advice would be to listen. If you have an idea bounce it back and forth to colleagues and listen to what they say. That’s not always pleasant, neither is it always helpful, but you always learn something from it. The picture of the lonely genius who is hit by an apple is pretty much nonsense, science is a community enterprise.
There is an interesting two-part perspective here and here. (Maxine originally pointed to these on the Nautilus blog).
Thanks, Erika!
I agree, Sabine — there is a regular trickle or stream of submissions to journals (well, Nature anyway) by people such as you describe, who have been working in isolation and who feel inspired that they have some unique and/or blinding insight. Usually, the journal staff are the first people who ever read these theories and ideas. I am often reminded on these occasions of Middlemarch by George Eliot, and the character of Causabon.
I agree with your view about listening and revisions, which is a succinct summary of the journal peer-review process also. A process that in my experience improves the quality of the submitted manuscript (and most published authors agree, according to our experience surveys).
But nobody has mentioned inspiration and originality, yet.
Maxine . they have now.
I was going to go for “Don’t let the bastards get you down”, but the last time someone received that advice, they ended up in jail.
I would suggest looking outside your subject area to see what other people are doing. You get to see all sorts of wacky things, and they can be useful years later.
Oh, and enjoy your science!
Oh, and one more thing – it helps if you’re so dedicated to science that you barely have a social life. It got so bad for one professor here that his wife made him take up horse-riding as a hobby.
Before asking Bob to unleash ‘The Beast’, could we perhaps clarify what is meant by successful here?
Never be afraid to ask a silly question.
… otherwise we’d never have had The Enlightenment.
I think you’re with me; but you might not be, so allow me to expound. Someone once said that all political careers end in failure. Well many, if not most scientific ‘careers’ do likewise… depending on your viewpoint. ‘Success’ is relative in this game. (And it takes a politician to be successful by the criteria of some.) Are we talking papers, funding, tenure, chair, Nobel Prize? Or just plain old satisfaction? I make a genuine query and can only speak for myself. I obtained funding for three years work; to many, that is deemed successful; however, the end of my fellowship draws nigh, but has yet to yield an original first-author publication; in which case, it could turn out to be failure. And if I do get something into a higher impact factor journal, then I will be deemed (by some) to be more successful than had I published in a lower one.
By referring to ‘The Beast’, I was light-heartedly alluding to the fact that we could be ‘catty’ about some success stories. Do you ever look at those author lists and wonder that some don’t warrant inclusion (‘free rides’), or that there are omissions (‘seen offs’)? Personally, I consider professional jealousy a weakness. But we all know it goes on. And as a postdoc still at the proverbial white coal face, this issue agitates. Nuruddeen, I think this is an important post.
I’m not a particular fan of Bob Dylan, but he once said something I like: “… A man is a success if he wakes up in the morning, goes to sleep at night, and does what he wants in between” (or words to that effect). So, I think Bob’s afterthought is important – ‘…enjoy your science!’ Because it won’t always work. So I’ll offer a couple more tips: learn how to troubleshoot; and work with people with whom you are comfortable discussing your mistakes.
I think the “helps if you are so dedicated….” etc holds true for other professions also, from what I’ve observed ;-).
I like yours, Henry. I think it particularly applies to someone when they are new to a field, because they haven’t yet absorbed the prevalent culture and paradigms — they have a fresh perspective. But maybe that applies to other professions also. Maybe it all does! Maybe this blog is finding the secret to success in all of life.
I might add oneof my favourite koans from the Zen and the Art of Jewish Motorycle Maintenance:
Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Failure to master this and attaining nirvana will be the least of your problems.
@ Maxine – thanks for picking up on that. In my view, it should apply to all scientists, because, if you think about it, all hypotheses boil down to questions that nobody has thought to ask before, or if they have, not in quite the same way, and some of the best hypotheses will sound silly to most people because they challenge the norms that people have learned to accept.
Lee, my two favourite philosophical comments, that have seemed truer to me the older I get, are
(1) Life is what happens while you are making other plans
(2) This is as good as it gets.
The two immortal philosophers who made these remarks are (1) John Lennon and (2) Kenny Dalgleish, made, I am told, while manager of Liverpool FC after they had won some game, probably an important one but that doesn’t matter, because “every little counts” (anon), another good piece of philosophy.
It’s all calm here. I’ve just finished plating cells, ready for the next go at making them play ball. This could be that hypothesis that comes good – success – or it’ll end up the way of others. It can be a fine line. What was that about dedication…?
Thanks, Maxine. I like the first one, and often quote it myself. However, I find the second one can be pessimistic. Kenny Dalglish saying this did, I think, contribute to the decision of one of his players, Craig Johnston, to retire early from the game. However, Johnston then went on to successfully develop a new football boot, and other inventions. But later went bankrupt! And now he’s trying something else… Not sure if I’ve got a point here. Maybe adaptability and versatility. Yeah, they’re good traits.
Thanks for the many great tips! This has really given me a lot of things to work on myself. I like the idea of bouncing ideas off of others, but I always feel a bit shy to talk to others that are in different labs. And, being the only grad student in my lab, my ideas usually get bounced in the trash…along with my pride. I must keep tellin myself “Don’t let the bastards get you down."
I truly agree with ‘enjoying the science’. Being happy in the lab and loving what you are doing really does go a long way. A brilliant person who is not motivated won’t go very far. At times, it seems as if my own motivation is on a roller coaster ride. I enjoy science and the art of discovering new things, but the pressure of publication and funding takes the fun out of it.
A literature strategy that works for me is that if it is worth reading the abstract, it is worth having a copy of the paper (provided it is available electronically).
I have completely abandoned paper and never print out papers. I get only two journals in hard copy, which I read while eating breakfast. Any important papers in them I will save electronically so I can keep track of them.
Henry, not some but all of the best hypotheses sound silly to everyone else. The absolutely best ones sound so silly that you can’t get anyone else to think them worth even considering. That is actually a problem because editors won’t even send them to reviewers.
Is the question of this blog about doing science successfully (i.e. finding interesting, good and useful information), or about being a successful scientist (being well funded)? So that one can have a life outside the lab and outside NN?
The logical and reasonable sounding ideas have all been looked at already. Some of them have been turned into paradigms. Some of them have been turned into paradigms even though they are wrong.
Once ideas get incorporated into paradigms, it is very difficult to get people to reconsider them, even when the paradigms are wrong, such as the wrong idea of homeostasis.
Let me ask the editors here, what level of evidence would be necessary to consider a paper concluding the idea of homeostasis is false? Think about the answer before clicking on the link.
Thanks for your comment David. I guess what I mean by successful is, as Lee pointed out, having “papers, funding, tenure, chair, Nobel Prize” AND “plain old satisfaction”. I’d like to think that most people wouldn’t put in the time it takes to get a first-author publication if they don’t like their work.
Peer recognition is not necessarily the same thing as doing good science. The people who developed the lobotomy won the Nobel Prize for their work.
If the peers who are the gatekeepers of the literature and of research funding don’t understand and/or appreciate your ideas, what can one do to be successful? I appreciate I am being provocative and perhaps inappropriately so for someone starting out in their career. This is not something I know the answer to. If anyone does know the answer, I would like to know it.
Just to warn everyone, the question I posed above on homeostasis is a trick question. What ever you answer is likely to be wrong.
Well, as an editor, I’d say “we have to see the whole paper before making a judgement”.
Henry, not some but all of the best hypotheses sound silly to everyone else. The absolutely best ones sound so silly that you can’t get anyone else to think them worth even considering.
Good point.
That is actually a problem because editors won’t even send them to reviewers.
Dreadful generalization. I like wacky ideas provided they can be backed up by evidence.
That’s what coffee breaks are for!
I don’t know what the politics is like for your department, but if you can talk to people in different groups then I think it’s a great help. You get different perspectives, and different ideas etc. etc., and you’ll also find that you have something to contribute to their thinking.
There is answer by prof. Kodadek
Focus on really important problems and differentiate yourself from what everybody else will do. People tend to focus on the same thing, and then it’s just a question of who can do their experiments the fastest. That’s a bad way to do science. Use your imagination, use your cleverness and give yourself some kind of an edge.
Thank you, Nuruddeen! It is very interesting blog. I have just created new topic on the Nature forum “How to succeed in science?” It contains a very sad story about two unsuccessful attempts to publish my opinion about career prospects of young scientists in the Nature Reviews of Molecular Cell Biology and then the Nature. I suspect that the editors would like to hear only positive stories from junior scientists who have been actively doing research for 12 (!!??) years or longer. Wake up! 12 years of research and still a postdoc! Where is the common sense?
Thanks for your comment Alexei. I was informed from the post-doc I referred to in the beginning of my post that obtaining both a M.S. and Ph.D. were included in that 12 year time frame. So, maybe it’s not as bad as it may seem to you. I’ll be sure to check out your post and the comments.