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
-
also on a side note, what makes you think that Nature only had a choice between your letters and the few they published?
-
Hi !
I just came across that thread and being Alexei’s compatriot felt obliged to add my 5 cents.
First point:
To be honest I guess your negative reaction of Alexei essay is based on the simple difference in definitions. I totally agree that “mastering skills” is necessary. But what do you mean when you say that? During my time in academia I was monumentally stunned by the ignorance or lack of knowledge of some of my fellow scientists, who supposed to me professionals in their areas.I would call “professionls” a person who from the only one glance at the protein 2D gel could tell you exactly what you did wrong in the protocol. Or person who know what is the composition of magic “Solution A” you add when you purify DNA and why you should grow cells at 10%CO2 and not in 5%CO2. Or why you should isolate bovine mitochondria from summer animals not from winter ones. For me this is the level where it is possible to say “this person has mastered his skills”. However most of the my fellow scientists would answer to this questions by simple “because it was like this in the protocol”. And this is absolutely true. For them “skill mastering” is the repetition of protocols (not necessarily many times). You read the manual (or more often rely on the words of your lab neighbor) and off you go.
May be for Dr. Yewdell and Alexei the concept of “mastering skills” is simply different.
BTW, if you are a PI – ask you PhD students simple questions why do they do what they do?
Second point:
Imagine the situation – one PhD student spend their entire PhD time mastering isolation of certain protein from Goldgi complex. The isolation of the protein is hard biochemical work which does not always yield the anticipated results and requires thorough experimental work. He finished his PhD with great knowledge of purification of that protein and generated reproducible protocol for that and two JBC papers. Second PhD student did the same project but because of the sloppy work and lack of necessary controls found that protein in nucleus and because preparation was contaminated with other stuff made a great discovery of “protein-protein cross talk”, associated functions and substrate channelling. And publish all these in PNAS or Cell Metabolism. Under otherwise equal conditions (like big professor behind, good networking skills) the second one would get better publication record and therefore better start of his carrier. Right? This is not fair but this is reality – if I am a member of committee board (and know nothing in that particular area) I would definitely prefer the second one because he published stuff in high impact journals. And more over he already proved that he will be able to continue if he gets the funding.
Who cares that one work is true and real and the other is pile of non reliable data? Given the number of scientific publications per year, all these data will be long forgotten. Moreover, nobody would spend time to check who was right. Simply because if you are a PI you cannot allow your PhD student to spend time on the project of “proof” or
“disproof” somebodies data. First it is not “so fun”, second it would not be so “publishable” at any outcome, third if you found that it is not reproducible you cannot announce it aloud because your opponent might become a reviewer of you next paper/grant proposal. So better generate something which is not unmask your fellow scientists and everybody will be happy.Third point.
Situation in UK and US regarding the carrier outside academia can be very different. Sure you can leave academia to work in Macdonalds, but can you work outside and still do a scientific activity?
Fourth point.
Not every lieutenant becomes a general. You cannot expect every postdoc finally becomes PI or Professor or even has successful career (which is usually measured in the size of your salary). Moreover, there are very few people comparable with size of the great scientists of the past. The general mass is doing career path via successful networking and not laborious hours in the lab in order to “master skills”.
I am not trying to expose something evil. It simply the situation in modern science or as mentioned by Erwin Chargaff the transormation of quality of science into quantity of scientists. We have to live with it and try to change it for the better by doing good quality science.
PS: Just want to comment that statement:
" For sure a strong publication record is important but it will only arise from a strong skills base"Apparently, this is not always the case. Sometimes strong publication record can arise from certain type of people who produce exactly the results their PI wants from them. Sometime it is outright lie, sometime it is not correct experiments, sometimes it is concealment of parts of the obtained data. Even if we exclude these “naughty behaviuor” I would say that a person not familiar with certain technique (confocal microscopy, FACS, chromatography or enzyme kinetics) would likely generate more “interesting and novel” results than the person who exactly know where to expect artefacts and pitfalls. It is actually happening and you can see it in numerous scientific papers nowadays.
-
I would call “professionls” a person who from the only one glance at the protein 2D gel could tell you exactly what you did wrong in the protocol.
I would use the term pedant, to be honest. I think you’re stretching the point way too far here, and blurring the lines between PhD student, postdoc and PI. By the time you’re a senior postdoc/PI you had better know your stuff inside and out. If you don’t then you probably won’t succeed. Some do, of course, but they usually wither and die. Survival of the fitest applies still.
under otherwise equal conditions (like big professor behind, good networking skills) the second one would get better publication record and therefore better start of his carrier. Right? This is not fair but this is reality
Again, I think you’re stretching the point. This may happen and surely does from time to time, but for the vast majority (tens of thousands of scientists, world wide, year in year out), this isn’t what happens. You might get a sloppy paper from a sloppy lab, but you can’t get extend that argument to encompass the whole scientific enterprise.
Situation in UK and US regarding the carrier outside academia can be very different. Sure you can leave academia to work in Macdonalds, but can you work outside and still do a scientific activity?
I assume you’re being deliberatly obtuse here?
Not every lieutenant becomes a general.
Isn’t that the point? That’s why you need to realistically evaluate yourself and your skills and determine if staying at the bench is the right career for you.
You cannot expect every postdoc finally becomes PI or Professor or even has successful career (which is usually measured in the size of your salary).
This is utter tosh. What on earth do you mean by this? Is your definition of success becoming a PI and getting rich? Then you’re in for a hell of a shock. If you want money, then get out of academia!
Moreover, there are very few people comparable with size of the great scientists of the past.
Seriously?
The general mass is doing career path via successful networking and not laborious hours in the lab in order to “master skills”.
These statements suggest you’re also upset at the system. It’s more competitive now, yes. There are more PhDs being generated than ever before. And to be fair, I think you’re right, they aren’t all great scientists. However, this doesn’t in some way dilute the talent pool! And furthermore, there is more money for research than ever before so we can support a larger community and give more people a chance.
And what’s wrong with networking? Most jobs are now, and always have been, gotten through networking. If you run through life blinkered, slaving in your lab complaining that no one is good enough to keep up with you, don’t be surprised to find you’ve run the wrong the race at the end of the day.
-
Hi Ian, thanks for the answer.
I would call “professionls” a person who from the only one glance at the protein 2D gel could tell you exactly what you did wrong in the protocol.
I would use the term pedant, to be honest. I think you’re stretching the point way too far here, and blurring the lines between PhD student, postdoc and PI. By the time you’re a senior postdoc/PI you had better know your stuff inside and out. If you don’t then you probably won’t succeed. Some do, of course, but they usually wither and die. Survival of the fitest applies still.
Point taken. However I guess science is the exact place for being thorough and pedantic. But as a head of the lab you do not need to get involved into nitty-gritty technical details. But you should be confident that your postdocs do it right and teach your PhD students right.
under otherwise equal conditions (like big professor behind, good networking skills) the second one would get better publication record and therefore better start of his carrier. Right? This is not fair but this is reality.
Again, I think you’re stretching the point. This may happen and surely does from time to time, but for the vast majority (tens of thousands of scientists, world wide, year in year out), this isn’t what happens. You might get a sloppy paper from a sloppy lab, but you can’t get extend that argument to encompass the whole scientific enterprise.
Definitely, I am exaggerating here. Just to make the point clear. But you see, the only available criteria to judge how good is the certain scientist (especially if you do not know him personally and he is from the area far away from yours) is his publication record. You called vast majority but how do you know? By their publication record? I do not even talking about the difference in degree of “sloppiness” in different labs/different areas – what is unacceptable for biophysicist would be truly accurate for molecular biologist.
Not every lieutenant becomes a general.
Isn’t that the point? That’s why you need to realistically evaluate yourself and your skills and determine if staying at the bench is the right career for you.
You know, if people would always evaluate themselves realistically… Besides all, staying at the bench and getting 30-35 k£/year is not really bad for some people.
You cannot expect every postdoc finally becomes PI or Professor or even has successful career (which is usually measured in the size of your salary).
This is utter tosh. What on earth do you mean by this? Is your definition of success becoming a PI and getting rich? Then you’re in for a hell of a shock. If you want money, then get out of academia!
Let’s be reasonable here and by the forum etiquette avoid any personal attacks or making any derogatory statements about your opponent even if you do not agree with him. Please tell me what is career success?
Moreover, there are very few people comparable with size of the great scientists of the past.
Seriously?
Sorry that my English. What I meant is that there cannot be many great scientists simply because they are rare.
The general mass is doing career path via successful networking and not laborious hours in the lab in order to “master skills”.
These statements suggest you’re also upset at the system.
You tried to shift the discussion to personal level, which can disturb other participants here. However I am not upset by the system yet. But being taught by very talented tutors, after some time in the Western academical system and visiting several top laboratories in different countries I realized, that the science I was thinking of is not the science which would lead you to the successful career in academia.
It’s more competitive now, yes. There are more PhDs being generated than ever before. And to be fair, I think you’re right, they aren’t all great scientists. However, this doesn’t in some way dilute the talent pool!
Why do you think they would not dilute the pool of talented?
And furthermore, there is more money for research than ever before so we can support a larger community and give more people a chance.
Are you sure that science is about giving people a chance? Or to support larger community? You just mentioned previously something about “survival of the fittest”, did you? And by the way, how many would leave academia if the salary drops to the minimal wage?
And what’s wrong with networking? Most jobs are now, and always have been, gotten through networking. If you run through life blinkered, slaving in your lab complaining that no one is good enough to keep up with you, don’t be surprised to find you’ve run the wrong the race at the end of the day.
Totally agree. But science per se is “Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning” and not networking. “Good quality science” is obtained by formulation of a falsifiable hypothesis, collection of data through experimentation and thorough analysis. You can be good at it but it would not make your career.
-
Hi Alexander, thanks for addressing my points. I want to carry on this debate because I’m truly fascinated by your (and Alexei’s) opinion because they are obviously very different my own.
It’ll take me some time to fully reply (and I’m in the middle of an experiment so now is not the time!), so just for now let me say I hope I didn’t offend you with any of my comments; they weren’t meant to be cruel, personal or xenophobic.
How much of the difference in opinion I wonder stems also from cultural background? I’ve had the fortune of working with many people from many countries and I’ve noticed that cultural identity necessarily pervades every aspect of their lives (and here even Brits and Americans are different), and thus it can be seen in their approach to lab life too.
-
This is an interesting discussion. It’s too late in the evening for me to delve into particular points but on the whole I’m still with Ian and look forward to his upcoming comment.
In the meantime and related to this topic, Deanne Taylor in Boston pointed out a very interesting article by Richard Hamming that is really worth reading – lots of wisdom and insight.
-
I really enjoyed Dr. Yewdell’s articles. This is the type of advice that I want to hear. His views are expressed strongly and he provides evidence on why he believes them. I think he hit the nail on the head.
-
This is the type of advice that I want to hear.
The nature of my personality dictates that I now insert the following cynical comment:
Writing down what people want to hear, has no necessary correlation to what they need to hear. In fact they frequently clash.
I’m going to side with Alexander Galkin on this topic so far. He has stayed very professional and cool, and has approached the reality, that is the reality that matches with my experience, the closest.
-
“most of the my fellow scientists would answer to this questions by simple “because it was like this in the protocol”. And this is absolutely true. For them “skill mastering” is the repetition of protocols (not necessarily many times). You read the manual (or more often rely on the words of your lab neighbor) and off you go.”
I’d like to go off topic a little and go back to the point Alexander made above. I agree that many students (and possibly even postdocs) don’t understand the science behind the protocols they are using. While this doesn’t prevent them from carrying out the protocol to a very high standard (or being excellent scientists), it does put them at a disadvantage if they need to modify the technique. This is why at Nature Protocols (where I’m an editor), we try to encourage authors to explain the steps of the protocol rather than merely list a set of instructions. Hopefully this will enable students to state ‘because it was like this in the protocol’ and then provide an explanation of why!
However, understanding the theory behind techniques is only one of many skills required to make it in the highly competitive world of research science. And the “value” of each skill may vary depending on the field of research – or even on career stage.
-
That’s an excellent point Dorothy. Many of the questions that I faced during my qualifying exam required me to explain the why behind steps in a protocol.
Results
-
