Okay, so this is fairly important. What am I about to introspect on is going to form the basis of my career.
Why am I going into research - making science my full-time job? It's definitely because I love the scientific method and how it helps us understand ourselves and our environment. I love solving puzzles; figuring out how things work. I am not interested in A resulting in B, as I am in
how A results in B. Working on basic mechanisms has a thrill that is capable of eliciting that content sigh, when a working model finally falls into place. Great, this is all good. Quite a bit of
E.O. Wilson influence there, but I am not complaining.
So then today, I came home after dinner with Bruce Stillman, the current director and president of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, I was really bummed out - it was almost as if someone had delivered a blow to my face. I had been really looking forward to meeting him, in the hopes that he might have something to say that may help my struggles with trying to find a direction in the future, picking a good scientific problem to work on and so on. However, the interactions I had chilled me to the bone because it seemed like success in this field was for those who were bright, and had seized great opportunities to excel, like doing a postdoc at CSHL and knowing the likes of James Watson.
Yes, I should have done that. I should have known from the very beginning, and focused towards it all my life. But it didn't happen that way, and even now, I am still discovering the things I love, and where I want to go 2 years ago, is completely different from where I want to go now. When I asked him how he got interested in the research that he has made such a successful career out of, I basically got "an interesting story" which led to the moral that he got interested in it as an undergraduate during his honors research year. He knew from day #1 that he wanted to do this.
He also said things like "I like to break new ground, so when a problem is mature, I consider it done and move on." Well, I would also like to break new ground, but this doesn't help me determine if I should become an expert in the field I am currently in, or if I should switch to another to demonstrate training potential that NIH recommends. That had been my question - whether there is any value left in coming an expert. My gut tells me yes, and I was just looking for some insight. Thanks.
Before this turns into a terrible whine, I want to reconsider why I am so bummed about this, and what that means to me. Meeting him and hearing a lot of what he had to say made me feel like I had wasted my life, as I had not done great research as an undergrad, am not going to a great, big research institution like Harvard etc. for my graduate training, and will most likely not do a postdoc at CSH. Why? What is my measure of success? I was talking with one of my close friends about this and she asked, well, does success to you mean being him? If I do not want to become him, then his words shouldn't make me feel discouraged, she said.
No, certainly not. But I realized that success does mean to me as having some recognition. I do not want to become him, and I do not want Nature, Science or Cell papers, but I would like, say an occasional PNAS or PLoS paper. So then am I going into science for recognition? Because that's bad. You go into science and research for the sake of solving the problem that motivates you.
So the challenge remains is to figure out what it is exactly I want from a career in research. Like my friend said, I have to reconcile what I want and what I am willing to do. If I am not willing/capable of doing something, I shouldn't want it. However, if I want something, I should do what it takes, bringing me back to the question of what I want. This is going to be extremely difficult and I'll likely have to keep coming back to it over the weeks, months, years to come.
For the sake of beginning, I'll make an attempt to list what I want from my research career:
1.
To work on a biological problem that is doable (aka possible to make some progress in 3 years), has broader scientific relevance and has the potential to contribute to changing/broadening the fundamentals of how we understand biology. This is the best advice I got from Stillman, and I intend on sticking to it. I am going to find a problem such as this that motivates me and make it my life. This will take a lot, lot of reading.
2. Some
recognition. Mainly through papers in medium to high impact factor journals. Most medium will do, as long as I have one or two high impact. I would like an award or two as well, however minor and even internal they are.
3. A
medium-paced career. I do not want a very high stress environment, and also not something that is very laid back. If I have answered two fundamental questions in biology before I retire, I will consider my job done. I don't know if that is a stretch.
4. To
not do the same experiments all the time, all throughout my career - I would like to be able to stretch across fields to utilize different techniques/approaches.
5.
Use,
rather than develop technology. So I am going to have to target an environment where enough excellent scientists and engineers are present who can develop technologies that will revolutionize research. This will also mean that I will have to end up at a large, rather than small research institution, where enough senior mentors can be found and enough "core facilities" are present. This is going to be a tough one if I don't have the credentials.
Based on the above, the things I can do right now (to get what I want):
1. Publish (credentials)
2. Read (knowledge to identify a scientific problem)
3. Get a fellowship/award (to be competitive for a high profile research institution)
#1 and #3 will be most challenging, and I am not sure if I can make it work. I also don't know how much I still have in me. Part of me really feels burnt out, but clearly that part of me did not just finish writing this post. And then there are people I love. I cannot forget about them.
God help me.