How to succeed in science?
Alexei Poliakov
Thursday, 10 July 2008 13:15 UTC
I would like to discuss with the scientific community the prospects of pursuing a scientific career, which were described in essays “How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists” by Jonathan W. Yewdell published in the May-June issues of the Nature Reviews of Molecular Cell Biology. I think that the solutions provided by Dr. Yewdell’s are one-sided and constitute basically an adaptation strategy, which is aimed to preserve troublesome status quo.
Unfortunately, my efforts to provide an alternative opinion from a more junior perspective were unsuccessful, and my letter “The next Newton’s apple” was rejected by the journal. The journal strongly supported the author’s position and dismissed my views as being cynical and very personal. Inspired by my colleagues, I have written a more philosophical letter “How to succeed in science on time” and send it to the Nature. This time the reason for the rejection was the limited space in the journal. Reading Nature that week, I realised that my letter might not be as important as some of the published correspondence, e.g. letter about clarification of the goal of the lunar-echo experiments or the dispute about more intelligent use of the word “design”.
Do you agree with my letters? Do you think the young scientists have the right to publish their opinion even though it is unconventional?
Updated 13 August 2009 13:06 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I am not sure you will like my answer any more than you liked the Nature editor’s. I read all the articles you linked to. I found both the original article by Yewdell as well as your own to be very strongly worded and I disagreed with multiple passages in both. I for one, as an ex-young researcher, do not agree with what you wrote in your first letter.
In fact, I find that your letter goes further to maintain the unfortunate status quo in saying that a researcher’s reputation is only as good as the papers he/she published and the journals that published them. I would hope that a scientist can be judged more for skill and ability to reason than for volume of production. Product will follow where reason leads. I have heard a number of very senior PIs say that in their searches for new faculty, letters of recommendation are as heavily weighted, if not more so, than the publication record. They look for whole people, not just publication machines (thankfully). Yes, time does become an issue when assessing skills vs papers, but if the young researchers themselves don’t allow it to change, everything will remain as is.
Yewdell also strongly discourages young investigators from pursuing an academic career in saying that space and resources are exceedingly limited for up and coming PIs. On the other hand, he encourages scientists to love science and to want to do it, for the sake of science itself (much like the quote from Schweitzer in your second note). I don’t think that one needs to chase fame in order to succeed in science. I think that can lead to more failures and let downs than even a seasoned scientist can handle.
Overall, I think young scientists absolutely have the right to publish their opinion, but it’s the right of the journal to choose which opinion to publish. Balanced and thoughtful opinion pieces tend to stir up more logical and constructive debates than pieces written in indignation, no matter how conventional or unconventional they may be.
-
I started another thread about this essay in the PhD students forum. I think a lot of things that both Yewdell and you have to say pertain to grad students. Maybe others will have different thoughts on the subject than my own!
-
Thank you Anna. I agree with your comments and would like to add a few more.
Mr. (Dr.?) Yewdell’s commentary/opinions are exactly that, opinions. The problem is that this is couched as a “How to…” piece, an inappropriate label at best. The writing is too emotional to really be constructive. There are gross generalizations that do harbor some truth (i.e. harder to get funding, shrinking number of faculty positions). However, the tone of the first page and a half is enough to turn off any reader.
Salient points are sprinkled throughout the section that really gives advice (starting at Choosing a laboratory). Again there is too much opinion, bias and prejudice to make this useful for someone really looking for actionable advice. Personally, as someone who has gone through grad-school done a post-doc and now has a job (outside of academia), there are points at the end that are actually useful. Here the author has taken a much softer tone and actually communicates more soundly.
For me the only sentence in the whole essay (for this is just an essay, not a research paper) is this “There is no one path to success and each successful scientist has unique combinations of strengths (and weaknesses).” That is the take-away message, which should be remembered and focused on. Figure out your strengths, your passions, your enjoyments and recognize your weaknesses, but don’t let them stand in the way.
-
I’d have to say that, from my perspective (12 years as a PI), Yewdell’s articles were both excellent. In fact I used them as the basis of an extremely stimulating discussion with my group members who are at the PhD or postdoc level and therefore much exercised about their career options.
I read your letters Alexei and I’m afraid I agree with the editors’ decisions. For sure a strong publication record is important but it will only arise from a strong skills base (across a wide range of techniques – man-management as well as pipetting!). I thing Yewdell was correct to emphasise the downside of a scientific career, since is is certainly a risky option: even well-established scientists suffer the slings and arrows of rejection and failure on a regular basis.
Anna – I’d be interested to hear what you didn’t like about the articles.
-
I enjoyed both articles I must admit, and forwarded them to friends.
For another perspective I recommend Jeff Townsend’s short article in the National Postdoc Association’s newsletter: POSTDOCket You can find the link on the home page.
Alexei, I felt you actually contradicted yourself in your essays. Also, to me, it seems like you’re overreacting to the message; your bitterness undermines your argument. As has been mentioned, the nature of the articles determines their personal tone. And personally I (junior career, postdoc) would rather take advice from the senior scientists above me who have been there, and who now have the perspective to offer advice. This is advice from “wisdom” generated by years in the trade, and from serving on tenure committees, hire committees etc. Surely they know what hiring committees are looking for!
Finally, as to there being no alternative careers for experienced scientists, you’re just plain wrong there. All of us have the duty to expand our skill sets as much as possible. Anyone paying attention to the US job market knows there are a dearth of faculty positions. If you choose to make yourself unhirable by not training alternative skills, that’s your own fault.
-
Another point: You infer in your letters to Nature that Yewdell is saying that publication record is unimportant. That’s not the message at all. He saying one must be as well rounded as possible.
Given a choice between a biophysicist with 8 papers, or a biophysicist also experienced in biochemistry with teaching experience, but only 4 papers, who do you think is more hirable?
-
Stephen – I was really ticked by the dismissive tone Yewdell used when talking about who does and does not belong in lab. I found the whole sequence of arguments really exclusionary, cliquey, and, well, dismissive. I don’t agree that “if the laboratory is not the place you’d most like to be,” then you need to get out of science. First, most PIs are never in lab. They have desk jobs. I have met many highly successful PIs who were self-proclaimed utter terrors at the bench throughout their careers. Second, I don’t think it’s fair to say that you can’t and perhaps shouldn’t have a good life-work balance. I am not sure it’s easy or even possible, but ruling it out seems unwise and unhealthy. He also mentioned stuff about how one has to critically assess one’s skill level and judge it against that of others… that’s destructive. It was massively destructive for me, at least. My self-confidence in lab did not eke above pit-bottom level until I stopped doing that. Could be just me though.
And by the way, 43 is not old! He makes it sound like by the time the average PI receives his/her first RO1 (usually at around 43 years of age) they should just strap on some diapers for grown-ups and watch reruns on TV. Forty three is not old! It’s a perfectly reasonable age for someone to enter a productive and challenging phase in their life.
And I am with Ian on the alternative job market. The alternative jobs are there, but they require effort to find and to fit into. This is not surprising, since we are trained for specific things, anything extra has to be one’s own initiative.
You asked, Stephen! Pardon the semi-rant. I think the article struck a chord in me.
-
I continue to agree with Anna. Thanks for keeping up the posting.
-
Thanks, Craig. Looking over your comments again, it really was the first few paragraphs of the article that set me off. They were judgmental and completely superfluous. The rest of the essay was quite good though. Especially the Nature Network plug in the boxed note! The advice about choosing a lab was spot on, in my opinion.
-
Anna – thanks for your reply – it’s good to see things from a different perspective (I think I have more in common with Ian’s view). I’ll have to re-read the article because I don’t recall picking up on any of the points that clearly have struck you. I do think you have to love being in the lab if you are thinking of making a career as a scientist because it isn’t going to be easy. I once had a non-scientific job that I didn’t like and wasn’t very good at and it made life miserable.
Although most PI’s are now trapped behind desks, they are all likely to have worked a lengthy stint at the bench. Actually lab-work is one of the things that I miss most having become a PI. That pleasure is mostly to be had vicariously these days, but it’s still a pleasure.
And on my reading (though I’ll have to check) I thought he was in favour of a decent work-life balance (there was certainly a recommendation to take holidays in there). I think he may have been recognising that this is difficult to achieve. Ain’t that the truth!
And I’m totally with you on 43 not being old – I’m 44! But I don’t think Yewdell was saying that either. Was the point not that this is quite a way along the mortal coil to be before you get your first tranche of independent funding? That may be more of a US phenomenon, given the parlous state of NIH finances.
Results
-
