A very close friend and grad school classmate defended her PhD thesis on Monday! She passed with flying colors, her entire ~300 page thesis requiring the correction of just two typos. This, it turns out, is what is termed a high-qualifying pass. Who knew. Certainly not me. Making her accomplishment all the more impressive is the subject of her thesis – immune response to HIV/SIV gp120 – a field better covered by current research than Cheetos are by an orange cheese-like substance. The sheer volume of literature the girl had to slog through and recall is astounding. I bow down to her, and all of the ELISA plates, antibodies, point mutants, and SEAP assays that have passed through her highly-skilled hands.
I have known her since the day we came to interview for our program. We moved in together our first year. She taught me to love cooking. This was no small feat, considering that I always saw cooking as a hallmark of domestication wholly inappropriate for a self-respecting woman and scientist such as myself (turns out it’s just plain fun). She also introduced me to the possibility of a life outside of science. I didn’t really know about that before her, not consciously. I started in a virology lab when I was 17 and kept on the science track from that moment on, never having a real job (outside of a lab), never considering the possibility that I may want to or end up doing something besides science. The sight of my friend sitting on the couch, reading a book about the life of a chef in a culinary academy and restaurant, and lamenting her choice of a career in science boggled my naïve mind – how could anyone, anyone, second guess a PhD from a top school? In favor of what? Cooking? Ha!
Oh, how the tables have turned. Somehow, in the course of our seven years in grad schools, our roles switched. My friend is now the one going on to do a post-doc in yet another prestigious institution, studying Hepatitis C microRNA (I couldn’t fit more scientific buzzwords into that project if I tried), while I am here, typing away at my desk at a social networking website, kinda far from a lab, writing restaurant reviews and maintaining a food blog on the side. What happened? When in the course of our studies did I decide to leave science while she decided that it’s better than ice cream? (She did. It’s true and it’s sick). Certainly, we had very different mentors, very different projects, and very different experiences both inside and outside of lab, but was that it? Are we subtly yet significantly different at our cores? How? Why?
I am now trying to figure out whether there are aspects of a grad student’s personality which can serve as predictors for whether or not they remain in science, whether or not they love it or hate it by the end. I also wish to figure out how much of the decision is dictated by external factors, such as the quantity and quality of a student’s interaction with their advisor, or the success of abject failure of their thesis project(s). I guess I am asking if there are people who are pre-destined, programmed and fit to continue on in science. Who are those people? What are they like?
All answers and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I will continue sitting here, at my desk, and poking myself with the thought of working in a lab to see how I react, to see if I have another lab-stint left in me.
I hope I’m wrong, but you read slightly as though you are beating yourself up a bit. Do you harbour regrets, or feel guilty or inadequate at leaving it behind? You shouldn’t; you’re obviously doing what feels right for you now, which is important, whilst still keeping that connection with science, which you undoubtedly still love. In fact, I know more than a few people who would admire your self-awareness, and making a firm decision on it, and would envy your position. And if, after a time, you find you do miss the lab, then there would very likely be a door open somewhere for someone who, in the meantime, has enhanced their CV by doing something different for a while. Variety is the spice of life.
I think the deciding factor is how scientific research is a part of one’s personal attempt to make sense of life.
Interesting article from the last issue of Science (probably shouldn’t plug it here?) It follows 26 graduate students who started at Yale in 1991. They basically all worked in very prestigious labs… but now, at least 10 years after they’ve all graduated, only 1 of 26 has a tenured position and only one other is in a tenure-tracked position. The article requires a subscription, but the podcast is free… here it is
And then there was one
here’s the table of what the people are up to now…
8/26 are still in academics
link to the table
Hi Lee – No, I don’t harbor regrets about leaving academia. I do give it thought, however, simply for the fact that science had been my entire life until this very moment. I have never done anything else, and now I am not doing it any more. It leaves me room for contemplation, if nothing else. I love what I am doing now and am grateful daily for being able to start making my transition into the web publishing world. I do have a security blanket in science, in that there has to be a lab somewhere, anywhere, that will accept me after a prolonged absence. Jenny is my current hero, in the reverse defection arena.
Sabine – This is where I get tripped up a little. Does science always have to be an overwhelming passion and single minded pursuit of knowledge? Can it never be less than that, and still satisfy? I know quite a few scientists who don’t elevate their research to the level of making sense of their universe. It’s just what they do. Is that not enough? I am guessing your answer is, no. Fair enough, really. Explains a lot about me.
Hiya Karl – You bring up an interesting point. I have often wondered what would have happened if I went to a smaller institution for grad school, one more focused on teaching as opposed to data production and publication. Are high powered labs turning students off of academia? It’s amazing to me that less than a third of the people from Yale stayed in science. That’s nuts, though highly reflective of the situation at my (our) school.
Hi Anna,
For me, passion for science is what keeps me here. I once thought that was something all researchers/scientists had in common. But during my postdoc years here in Japan, what I saw negated that thought. There are researchers who strive to gain power and go up the ladder through doing science. I don’t feel any passion for science at all coming out from them, just the lust after power… (the system here is slightly different from North America. Full professors here have much much more authority, and some people really really lust after that)
Obviously you have a flair for writing, and I enjoy reading your post! Seems to me you’d be happy staying in publishing. But how knows, people can change.
Best of luck! (And I think that luck contributes a lot to success in science as well)
I like the sociological question you pose, Anna, and I generally have a dim view of sociology.
I have a feeling that the die will be cast before students arrive at grad school. A variety of engaging school and undergrad teachers could shape our determination to remain in science more than a tough PhD experience, although I agree that this is a particularly sensitive time in our growth and maturation period as scientists.
On a more personal note (Fah), I’ve always tried to make sure that I do something outside of the lab, whether it’s sports or music or comparing beers, to give me something else to dream about than matrix algebra when I’m drifting off to the land of nod. I really suffer when I don’t get a game of footie every week.
@Anna – you could conduct a study, similar to that in the latest issue of Science (thanks Karl for the link) but with a focus on the personality and sociology of your subjects.
My hypothesis is that you would find people both like yourself and like your flatmate, and all others in between. Career paths would be more complicated that the PhD – Post-doc – (more post doc) – tenure-track – tenure route and difficult to catagorize.
I for one am grateful that you took the web-publishing route. Where would NN be without you?
You are extremely kind in your compliments… Thank you :) I sat through your defense in May thinking the exact same thing – the decades of research you had to slog through (and recall) and the complicated systems of a much more complex virus as well as signaling networks (blech). Anyways, don’t ever sell your accomplishment short. I have known you for a very long time and know, without a doubt, that you will succeed no matter what kind of office you step into each day. And I echo the comments above, NN has grown because of your input, enthusiasm and hard work. It has helped me along the way and will continue to be a resource for me in the future, none of which would be true without your introduction… So, no matter what you choose as your next step (as long as it involves a stopover to visit me), you have made an impact in the lab and here that many appreciate. Thanks again. I’m just starting to recover, however none of it is sinking in quite yet :) just the need for more sleep.
Carmen – Yes! Luck! Having luck in one’s project can really shape how you feel about science. That makes it really difficult to judge whether or not you like the occupation as a whole. I am passionate about other things in my life (science writing, for one) so I know what you mean about it being a necessary component. I think you do have to love it. Though I think that’s the direct opposite of what I wrote yesterday in response to Sabine… I think I just had a really good science writing day!
Mike – Good point. My time in labs prior to grad school (at the NIH and at my undergrad institution) was spent listening to (not entirely happy) researchers telling me to stay out of science. Maybe the negativity seeped in. I can’t blame them – everyone was having a really tough time. I saw that. I must have internalized it. Lord, this is so much cheaper than therapy.
Erika – Thanks :) It is all difficult to categorize! This makes me doubt the field of sociology as a whole. Too many factors to analyze and no way to get a clear answer. Yes, there must be a spectrum of personalities and proclivities in scientists, leaning them toward and away from academia. I don’t have the energy to conduct such as study, however. How bout you do it and let me know how it goes? :)
Melissa – Nonsense. I did not exaggerate anything. I am so happy for you! I do love it here at NN. I do. Hope everyone heard that, loudly. I am grateful, every day, to be here. That’s way more than I ever felt about lab, so maybe that’s my answer.
Aw. There’s a lot of love in this room. sniff
I’m trying to rationalize why I want to leave the lab after I’m done, and the horrible truth came out when, while cleaning my parents’ attic last week, I found a magazine containing an interview with me from 1999. I had won an award and they asked me all kinds of things about what I did and where my future was. I never mentioned research in the interview. I only talked about learning and writing. I mentioned how an Argumentation course I took in the philosophy department was useful for writing the discussion section of lab reports. I considered spending my award money on a music theory course (I never did). Nowhere do I talk about research or a future in science. And whenever I pictured myself in the future, I always saw myself teaching, or writing, or otherwise explaining science – but never standing at a lab bench. For me the bench work has always been a means to an end (of being qualified enough to teach rather than do) and never a passion or career on its own.
And congratulations to Melissa!
First of all – big Congratulations to Melissa!
Then, there is this recent press release which breaks it down by gender.
Most of blogging about academia focuses on high-power schools and bio-medical departments. My experience in a non-molecular lab in a state university is very different, much more laid back and, IMHO, much more realistic.
Karl> That is interesting. THanks for the link. It is, as Anna says, intersting to se what happens with people from “Big places” since – at least I think – that they would go into science (academia) more than “small college somewhere”. Then again, maybe my thinking there is wrong?
Anna> trying to figure out whether there are aspects of a grad student’s personality which can serve as predictors for whether or not they remain in science, whether or not they love it or hate it by the end.
I think that there might be predictors on certain aspects of people’s personality, things that make it easier to be a scientist. However, i think that the experience and the advisor/project/group will be influential – at least 50% – in if the person will continue in science or not. I’ve seen a few of my fellow phdstudents who I thought would be excellent scientists who would love it – when they started – but who ended up doing completely different things. And the few who nobody really thought would continue after thier phd blossom and at least enjoy scholarships for post docs and keeping within the Academia and moving along the tenture track.
But it would be fun to know if there were predictors. And I guess you need to break it down to se what traits that are needed/positive for scientist and then back track? Or is there some other [sociological] way to study it all??
I guess I am asking if there are people who are pre-destined, programmed and fit to continue on in science. Who are those people? What are they like?
Focused people with a bit of good self confidence in their own ability, who can still like doing research even if/when they get a “bad review we will not publish this” and say to themselves “they were wrong. This IS good and I will keep changing it until they accept it”. And also to keep up that curiosity and keep pursuing for answers, never settle for a “nope, i don’t think so” answer.
Interesting article. I’ve been thinking quite a while on a similar problem since I’m in my 3rd year of PhD. I think one of the many factors that may affect one’s decision on whether to stay in science or not is your PhD experience. If you genuinely enjoy doing science, I guess you will know it while doing your PhD, which in a sense is a ‘taster’ session of an academic career. I agree with Lee’s comment that ‘Variety is the spice of life’. If science is the ‘main dish’, then other activities (e.g. business, sports, social, cooking) are ‘spices’, making your life more colourful.
Anna,
This post was really interesting, esp. due to my unique grad school experience. On a weekly basis (if not daily) I ask myself the question, that at an age when the former post-doc at my lab got a faculty position, I’m still in early stages of my grad school project. Whether I will stay in science afterwards, I have absolutely no idea.
Looking back into my childhood days, I can see I liked science/research from the age of 8-9. What in particular do I refer to? the desire to learn and discover. Also sort of my critical personality which challenges things that are taken for granted (the alternative explanation/controls in science). Another part is my obsessive traits, trying to do things at perfection (and of course I pay the price!). These are both found in science and cuisine (a bad-ass food critic, requiring major revisions for most dishes at restaurants!, with a passion for all different cuisines, culinary anthropology and molecular gastronomy!). So although sounding very different, I feel I can satisfy my desires in either of them.
However, being in science (maybe its my special grad school experience), I realised that besides the passion for discovery, one should possess an openness/patience for facing all kinds of problems.and in my area of work where i say there are 1000 AND operations, which any of the could stop your project, its something that only time would tell me whether I’m that kind of the person or not.
The biggest reason for why I decided to get into a way more difficult project in my dire situation rather than finishing quickly, is that I realised science was my childhood passion, and the new project is the last chance I’m giving myself to figure out whether I can survive in science (with all the problems:lifestyle, funding, problem-solving..)I wanted to figure out sooner; not in postdoc, but in grad school; if its only a childhood passion, unrealistic with adult-life, i decide what I want to do with my life, probably I’m 37-38 at that time! and in my case (where I’m sort of my own PI on my project), I think the tough challenge is an example of how science life would really be, when you’re all on your own (as a PI setting up a lab).
Only time can tell where I will end up.
mehdi
Sara – That’s just it! I am afraid that my not entirely happy experience in grad school colored my perception of academic research science as a whole. I wish that weren’t the case, but it is. I was pretty careful not to let lab rule my life and it didn’t… just enough to make me doubt myself in truly profound ways. That feeds in to what Asa is saying – needing the confidence to try to prove others wrong, and believing in your own work.
I am really starting to think that confidence has an awful lot to do with it. When I finally informed my committee that I wanted to leave science, one of my committee members told me to reconsider. She said that many women think they can’t do it, lack the confidence to think they can succeed in academia, but are in fact well-suited. I don’t know if that problem is restricted to women, though it is certainly more common.
Mehdi – It’s tough to use grad school as a litmus test for your love of science. Grad school has pressures which a post-doc may not (and vice versa, clearly). Then again, postponing the decision of whether or not to pursue a career and science until later and later is also not the greatest. As you say, there are people our age already in advanced positions! Argh. I hope that your decision making goes smoothly and that you figure out which life style is for you. Good luck with your project!
Aw. There’s a lot of love in this room. sniff
No, I think it’s just the onions.