|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
First published online October 22, 2008
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.042259
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sticky Wicket |
|
Dear Mole,
I've always wondered just how good the training is in the highly revered `Über-Megalabs'. I must state that my own training was by excellent scientists to whom I'm very grateful, but these were not Masters Of The Life-Science Universe (MOTLSUs). They were along the corridor from such Titans, and that's where I got my perspective. Nope, I'm not going to define `best', but will require that you do.
To begin with, only the most promising candidates are selected for entry into an Über-Megalab, as the MOTLSU (aka PI) can afford to be choosy (this may be deservedly so, having made some substantial contributions). The chosen few, nascent disciples perhaps, take forward the gospel of the PI, with the benefit of plenty of unpublished data and a lot of hard work. With a good dose of competition between disciples – think `shared' projects with winner-takes-first-author – progress can be rapid. There may be a few disciples who burn out or suffer at the hands of others, but an Über-Megalab is large and can carry a few such duds. Eventually, a disciple elaborates the new `Creed' and leaves the Seminary (lab?). Once out, conditions are different and difficult choices have to be made. No big-lab resources and grants, no capacity for post-doc competition or to carry dud/unengaged lab personnel, and no large volume of unpublished data. The choice of which area to work in is also tricky, as staying in the same field may mean competing with the Über-Megalab, which might lead to claims of heresy and attendant solutions. It could also require a type of novel thought not previously required in the Über-Megalab: what's my project, how am I going to do it, and will it lead to important discoveries that will be published in good journals? Will it be in an obscure yet important area that no one finds interesting, or will it be in a trendy area where I might be scooped? The ex-disciple and now embryonic PI may not fare so well, and will need to adapt quickly, and their previous Nirvana-like experiences in the Über-Megalab may be of little relevance to their new situation.
The question is, do these Über-Megalab alumni do as well as new PIs as they did in their previous environment? (At this point, anyone suggesting metrics must be compelled to be a grant administrator in perpetuity with no possibility of parole.) By contrast, do the alumni from non-Über-Megalab backgrounds do better on account of their training in a less successful environment? It might require them to think a bit more laterally or creatively, having experienced more project setbacks and a less-opportune environment. By now I expect that my chip (an Überchip, almost?) is plainly visible.
So, we've had a lot of my opinion and prejudice so far, but what about a real example? I'm going to take an example of the opposite of what I've been blethering about, i.e. a small lab that has produced a spectacular number of jolly clever and successful people, and not some Über-Megalab, the alumni of which have withered in the wilderness. The alumni of this small lab have a very high proportion of `field leaders', which begs the question: what does this PI do to his lab members, or does he pick only those destined for success? If it is something that he does, we need to know, as if more people did it we might produce a super generation of new PIs. A high-impact of Wunderkinder, maybe? (What is the collective noun?)
So, dear Mole, I'd like you to do a bit more digging, followed by some rumination on what sort of a lab or PI provides the `best' training.
Yours,
Caledonian Caveman
Dear Caledonian Caveman,
Very nicely put, CC, eloquent and challenging. And very pertinent to the discussion we've been having. For those of you who are just joining us, we've been talking about the woefully post-stuck post-docs, those hapless folks who seem to be trapped in a do-loop of never-ending research that seems to be going nowhere. For years and years, and sometimes years.
So before talking about what to do if you happen to be post-stuck, let's start as CC suggests, by talking about how to choose the right lab so that it doesn't happen. Or, at least, probably doesn't happen.
First of all, to you grad students (or pre-grad students) who haven't chosen a lab in which to do your stuff, your graduate work – don't worry about it. Once upon a time, long ego, even before e-mail, this was a terribly important problem that could determine if you would even survive to complete a degree. But now, thanks to the wonders of our market-driven reality, grad schools are magic degree factories – if you've gotten into the program, you'll succeed by just giving the impression of trying. You might even learn something, but that isn't strictly necessary. Yes, I'm being sarcastic (since you ask), but we'll save that for another time. Go away and read papers, and read this a few years from now when you're looking for a post-doc lab.
But for those of you who are looking for such a lab, whether for a first or a second post-doc, this is vitally important. You have a total of about six post-graduate years (no more than eight) to transform yourself into an actual, factual, independent scientist, capable of getting an actual, factual job. Why this time limit? Because, I'm sorry to say, if by the end of such time you haven't done it, most of those making the decisions about whether you ever will are going to go with those who have. Hey, it's not fair, but it's the way it is. (And if this is already you, we'll get back to this next time.)
Okay, so you're on track, you're doing okay, and you have to choose a lab. There are jobs out there, post-doc jobs, and you can get one. Shop around a bit. What field will it be? You may be tempted to stay with what you know, what you are already working on. This can be fine if you have managed to already establish yourself in your field, or if you are working on something that is just emerging as a field. But think about it – if it's a hot area now, how are you going to eventually set yourself apart as someone special? Most likely, you won't, and it will be a struggle. Unless, of course, you can bring something new to the work – and how are you going to do that? My advice, which you won't take unless you are very clever, is to move a bit away from what you know, to something a bit different (but still exciting and interesting) – and you'll want to familiarize yourself with that area, and the labs that are doing good work in it. That way, the combination of your prior experience and experience-to-be will make you someone to notice, maybe even watch, and hopefully someone to someday give a new lab to.
In any case, you've chosen an area and checked it out. Which lab will it be? We need to take a look at the sorts of labs that are out there, and which lab is right for you depends on, well, you. Yes, this is `The Mole's Field Guide to Biomedical Labs, and How to Know Them'.
The Hit Factory. These are the Masters of the Biomedical Universe, those remarkable labs that just keep on bringing out the high-impact papers, and driving their respective fields to new heights. But as my esteemed colleague CC points out, these can be sweat shops, designed solely for the promotion of the boss. Or not – they may be places that also turn out very successful scientists. They may pit post-docs against each other with a winner-take-all approach, or be places where success comes from a truly elevated, intellectual environment where the thinking, and projects, are simply ahead of the curve. So how can you tell? Easy. Do some homework. Go back a few years and look at the publications. Specifically, look for papers with a few recurring authors (in addition to the boss) and follow these people. Are they still publishing? If so, are they now the contributing authors with their own labs? This is simple detective work and will give you a pretty accurate impression of whether the folks who did the work developed effective careers, or were used up and (ulp) tossed away. No, not everyone will go on to independent research careers, but if some have, then there's a chance you could, too.
But be warned – you'll have to be really good at what you do. You'll have to be creative, independent and able to produce quality work at a good pace. This is not for those who want or need a lot of attention – the boss won't have time for you if you don't produce the goods. You could get lost in the crowd, and you could wither away. But if you can do it, you will have all you need to be brilliant. Is this you?
The Up-and-Comer. This is hitching a ride on a rising star. This lab will be smaller than the Hit Factory, but still, there are a lot of hits, and it will be exciting and fun to get in early. You probably won't find a lot of labs that have spun off from this one, or any, but you will probably work closely with the boss. But again, use caution – the Up and Comer lab is that way because the boss (probably) is very good and very demanding, and may have little or no patience for someone who shows themselves to be technically and/or intellectually lacking. Hours are long and weekends non-existent. Standards are high, as are (potentially) the experience and rewards. Are you the post-doc they're looking for?
Established and Steady. The boss is a pro, and has been doing this for a while. Probably a long while. The lab isn't a Hit Factory, but the work is consistently solid. Post-docs who have been in the lab speak well of the opportunity, and each one has one or two individual projects. For most of you who are currently picking and choosing, this is the best place to be. But (and you knew there was a but) you need to determine whether the boss is still actually interested in the research. Sorry, but this happens – she/he might be tired of it all, perhaps ready to move on to more of an administrative role. Here's how to know: check out the recent papers and, in particular, any recent reviews – is this a lab that still has a lot of work to do? And here's another trick: Google the boss. Any speaking engagements in the past year are likely to come up, and these are good things. Hey, in a couple of years it will be your work that will be featured.
The Magic Place. These exist, these small labs that produce stunning numbers of exceptionally successful scientists (not to mention superb work). I've never been to one, so I don't know how the magic actually works. Indeed, these may be where the rigor of the training, the exceptional attention to detail and the simple net genius of the environment is such to infuse astonishing creativity in those who pass through. But I think (and it's just a thought) that they may be a bit like the special town that was once described by the old comedy team, Bob and Ray – a town with no hay fever. The town's leaders decided to plant large fields of ragweed just up-wind of the town, and anyone who had hay fever, even a mild case, promptly left. By all means, seek out any Magic Place that may exist in the field you find yourself interested in, but beware – you may find out very quickly if you will be allowed to stay. I suspect that relatively small labs that produce an unusually large percentage of exceptional studies and scientists are both very choosy and quite cutthroat about asking folks to leave if they don't measure up. But hey, you might make the cut. You might even know you will – if so, go for it.
Of course, there are lots of other types of lab out there. Some are `Brand Spanking New', others are `Recent Moves', and then there are the `Once Were One Of The Above But Don't Seem To Be So Now'. How do you choose? Here's how – talk to them. Not just to the boss, but the lab. Are they motivated? Are they happy? Do they have the resources to do what they want and need to do?
But you'll notice that I've neglected a factor that might be awfully important to you – where are they (I mean, geographically)? What if they aren't in a city you've always wanted to live in? What if they are way over there, and you want to be way over here? Well, remember: you're a gypsy now – you're not looking for a place to settle down, you're looking for an opportunity to move on to the next step in your career. In nearly every case of success I know in this business, people moved around – its what we do. We gain experience, we do good work, and we go – in the process, we extend our contacts, our interactions and our perspectives, as well as knowing people we trust and who trust us, and this helps us reach further and better than we thought we would. Many of my most enjoyable collaborators are with my friends I post-doc'ed with, oh so many years ago, mentors and lab monkeys included.
But if its too late and you're already post-stuck...let's talk about it. But first, I've got a meeting with some of the Mole-lets. Sorry, but they do come first.
Yours sincerely,
Mole
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
