In an ideal world, when a postdoc leaves to start her own lab, she gets to take her postdoctoral project with her and her advisor agrees not to further pursue that avenue of research. But in the real world, these negotiations don't always work out this way. Sometimes, for one reason or another, the postdoc ends up competing with her former advisor once she becomes a junior PI.
This can create an awkward situation for members of the postdoc lab. On one hand, Junior PI is a former labmate and often still a good friend, but on the other hand, Junior PI is now a competitor. If members of the postdoc lab continue to discuss unpublished lab data from that project with Junior PI, is that fair or foul?
In theory, science should be a communal enterprise in which all information is freely shared within the community. But in some competitive fields, it is common practice to keep unpublished data quiet out of fear of being scooped. And while members of the postdoc lab who are friends with Junior PI may feel it is only natural to continue discussing all aspects of the lab's research with her, newer members of the lab who have picked up Junior PI's postdoc project would understandably be concerned about their unpublished data being transmitted to a competitor.
So is there, or should there be, such a thing as lab loyalty when it comes to the sharing of information in science? Should we cut off data-sharing communications with former labmates if they turn into competitors?
Ponderable
3 hours ago
24 comments:
Not quite answer your questions, but I've always made the assumption that I would take nothing from the labs I work in. Is that a mistake? I very much view the projects I work on in my lab as mine, but under my bosses umbrella and they are ultimately his. After all they are, it is his lab and his name on the grants. I feel that is a good way to avoid disappointment and a realistic perspective. I know I hear the alternate points of view, but I feel a lot of post-docs might be causing themselves undue stress by worrying about what is theirs. Perhaps that I'm wrong?
This business of competitor - I have seen this recently, having been explicitly stated to a colleague who got a faculty position by their mentor. I find this a very dissapointing approach to mentorship and a generally bad attitude towards science. But I believe it is not uncommon and perhaps not surprising in fields where competition for money is fierce. Nonetheless it is a great shame if PIs fear competition, they should be able to benefit from their collaboration with their past mentees unless of course they are stealing data.
I'd also argue that you should take nothing from your postdoc lab. Mainly because a junior PI needs to distinguish them self in their field and cannot do that if it appears they are still hanging onto their postdoc PI's coattails.
As for loyalty, well that's pretty clean cut to me - you don't talk to other competitors about work so why would you talk to new competitors. Your first 'data' loyalty is to your employer or PI. Friendship is entirely distinct from that.
I walked away from my post-doc having finished all of my projects I was working on and started totally new projects as a PI. There is good and bad to doing this. The good is that I am moving in a different, and I think, exciting direction with my new lab. I still talk to my post-doc supervisor frequently and have plans to do a few things on the side with his lab. The bad is that it takes time to establish a brand new research program without having a whole bunch of preliminary data to use for grant proposals. This has been a bit painful, but we're getting there and I think some recent grants we submitted have a fighting chance. Getting a good ammount of "opperations" start-up is crucial in this situation.
I would think that you need to be quiet since you are indeed a competitor but more than that, you are not the one with the data. If it is done "in your lab" I don't see that it is a given for me to tell others what others in "my post doc lab" is doing. I am usually vague.... although, I was taught science in a very patented/competitive/being in the poor lab compared to the others in the field....
Dr. J--In my field, postdocs typically interview for faculty positions by presenting their postdoc work and proposing to develop some aspect of that into their own research program. I've never heard of anyone in my field getting a research-based assistant professorship without having a postdoc project to develop into a research program. But reading PD's and PLS' comments, it seems this may be specific to my field? I agree it would be nice if junior PIs can collaborate with their former advisors, but this is often dangerous for the junior PI because of the "independence" issues that PD points out.
PD--I completely agree that it's bad for a junior PI to appear to be still dependent on a former mentor. This is why, in my field, trainees who are getting ready to leave typically negotiate with their mentors to be "protected" on certain portions of their project, by which I mean that the mentor agrees not to compete in that area, thus allowing the junior PI to develop that project further in a completely independent way. I agree with you on the topic of loyalty, although I know some people who either believe that their former labmates can be trusted not to misuse the information, or that there should be no competition between junior PIs and former mentors, as Dr. J said.
PLS--Do people in your field usually start totally new projects as PI? I think it would be near impossible for many junior faculty in my field to generate enough preliminary data in time for their first R01 submission if they were starting a project from scratch. I don't even know anyone who has proposed to start completely new projects during their faculty position interviews, although starting those new projects once they have the faculty position is, of course, fair game! Congrats on getting the new research program up and running, though, and best of luck on those grant submissions!
Chall--Yeah, I think the fact that someone was communicating another person's data to a potential competitor is what got people pissed off in the situation I'm writing about. I also trained in very competitive and close-mouthed fields where people are often worried about being scooped!
In theory, science should be a communal enterprise in which all information is freely shared within the community.
Which is what peer-reviewed publications are for. Same goes for scientific presentations. It does not, at least to me, mean that anyone can walk freely into my lab, gaze into my lab books, and take copious amounts of notes ... which is what a communal enterprise seems to suggest.
There are appropriate avenues/formats for discussions and the exchange of ideas. Discussing ideas/results with someone not in the lab without the PI's approval is ... wrong. It is not your intellectual property to be dispensed however you see fit (unless you are the PI), and needs to be done in a fashion where everyone benefits ... firstly those who put the effort into the research (to see it to publication), and then those who can benefit by adding to the body of work from that point forward (the rest of the community).
Not quite answer your questions, but I've always made the assumption that I would take nothing from the labs I work in. Is that a mistake?
Damn skippy that's a mistake. When it comes time for you to get a tenure-track position and they ask you what you're going to do research on ... what the hell are you going to tell them? That you're going to work on something you've never worked on before when you have a shitload of experience working on projects from your Post-Doc?
You needed to negotiate what you were going to keep and what you were going to leave from your PostDoc lab with your PostDoc adviser before you even entered their lab. Now, it's going to be more difficult to do. In my experience, I was entering the lab of a geneticist for my PostDoc. They needed a molecular biologist and I wanted further genetics experience, so it was a good fit. I had some ideas about some small RNA work that had not been done with the organisms my adviser was studying and he was game, as long as I continued to help them develop the tests they needed done. So, I worked on both projects and added an additional spin on the work they originally brought me onboard to do. When it was time to interview with academia I had two projects I could tell them I was for sure going to bring with me, along with published evidence that they were going to be "profitable" for me (and hence the university). If I had told them "I don't have a project from my PostDoc, I'm going to have to start from scratch, but it should work." I don't think I would have been offered the position (or at very least not the sizeable startup package they offered me to get me running as quickly as possible with all the machinery I had already demonstrated I would need).
I agree with Thomas - you need to discuss and negotiate with your postdoc mentor as to what you can/can't take with you as early as possible in your postdoc experience. It's also important to remember that as a postdoc you're working on someone else's ideas/project and that you should not assume that it's your's to take with you ... that's not what independence is all about. Continuing to work in exactly the same area as your postdoc lab is not a sign of independent thinking. By all means continue to collaborate but a junior PI should be looking to establish their own line of work, not to be in direct competition with their postdoc lab.
A good postdoc mentor will encourage trainees to develop their own ideas for work they will do when they leave and will often allow them to collect some preliminary data to facilitate early grant submissions etc.
I should clarify a bit. When I set up my own lab it was on a subject related enough to my post-doc work to not be out of the blue. My new topic is more of a combination between my PhD training and my post-doc training, with elements of both without being in conflict with either. It has been a challenge to generate enough data to get grants in, but I am applying to NSF, not NIH, and the system is something that no one else is really working on. I'll let you know how it goes...
I'm in the same situation as PLS in that the work my lab will be pursuing will be a combination of my PhD and postdoc work but in a new area for both. However, the first big grant I've been trying to get funded is something I had developed during my postdoc and tried to get funded as a fellowship and then as a new investigator - it was a new offshoot from my postdoc mentor's work and when I first proposed it as a fellowship idea, he told me I could take it with me if/when I left as he wouldn't be pursuing the idea himself. In the meantime, I'm also trying to get my new stuff going so that I can get enough data to start writing grants.
Try to make as must of a fresh start as possible.
I suppose that if the junior PI and their previous mentor are working on the same aspects of the same projects, then they are competing so it might not seem prudent to discuss that project as either one could scoop the other. The junior PI would likely have the upper hand over the new post-doc in the old lab since the junior PI is more familiar with the project and could possibly move on new information faster. (Of course I have no idea how time consuming starting up your own lab is, so maybe I am wrong here.) If I were the post-doc taking over the project, i would certainly feel a fire under my ass.
However, I've only witnessed the opposite situation. Almost every junior faculty I've met is taking their project from their post-doc lab and using it as a jumping off point. It does not appear that there is competition between the old mentor and junior faculty, In fact, it seems as though the junior PI is taking the project with the impression that the old mentor is not working on it anymore. I should also add that the junior faculty I am referring to developed their own projects as post-docs and took them in a completely new direction. They were not handed a 'legacy" project. Maybe this makes the division more clear.
Tom--Just to clarify, by "communal enterprise", I meant everyone sharing their information with each other as if they were on the same team, not everyone stealing data from everyone else. As for negotiating with one's PI, I agree that as early as possible is best, although it can be difficult very early on to know which things in the pipeline are actually going to turn into a real project.
PiT--I completely agree that becoming independent means developing one's own line of work. Every postdoc I know who was successful in getting a faculty position was already directing their postdoc projects based on their own ideas. But advisors can sometimes be reluctant to let go of successful and high profile projects. Particularly when projects are broadly defined and interests overlap, junior PIs can find themselves in competition with former mentors through no real lack of intellectual independence on their part.
PLS--I've never worked in an NSF-funded lab. Do you know how the funding structure (type of grants, mechanism for review, etc.) differs from that of the NIH? Just curious.
MXX--I think it depends on what stage of "setting up the lab" the junior PI is in. A junior PI with a good tech and a couple of good students can definitely make progress quickly. I think developing one's own project as a postdoc certainly helps. In the labs I've worked in, though, postdocs are often hired to work on a particular area or project. They can still find their own direction to take the project, but I haven't seen too many instances in which postdocs in my field came up with their postdoc project entirely on their own.
As for negotiating with one's PI, I agree that as early as possible is best, although it can be difficult very early on to know which things in the pipeline are actually going to turn into a real project.
I think you need to have a conversation before entering the lab to establish the fact that you will be able to take something with you. You will want to know before starting your PostDoc whether or not your prospective PI is a total dillweed, pack rat, and an individual who will horde everything that happens in the lab. YMMV I suppose, but I think it certainly doesn't hurt to get it in the open ASAP.
Oh, I agree one should always have the conversation. Just saying that many times what one considers to be one's project at the start is not the same thing as one's project at the end. And there are plenty of dillweeds (what does that mean, exactly? I assume it's a pejorative) who will give you the old bait-and-switch--tell you you can take everything you work on when you're being recruited, and then change tunes when you're getting ready to leave.
And there are plenty of dillweeds (what does that mean, exactly? I assume it's a pejorative) ...
I suppose I could have just said "d**khead" but I was trying to avoid the use of profanity. :P
And the bait-n-switch in my mind, negates any moral obligation one might have in regards to taking things from their PostDoc and working on them as a junior PI. Of course, that may raise some logistical issues (dependent upon the sway said PI has in the scientific community as a whole) so buyer beware. It is also a reason why one should consider contacting people who have left the lab (who were either graduate students and/or PostDocs) for an "off the record" discussion about the PI. You can do that easily enough at conferences (without them really knowing what you're doing) or have your graduate advisor put out feelers. Most everyone has a reputation which will precede them.
I would've understood d**khead...apparently I'm just not up to snuff on the more obscure American insults. :-)
Yes, checking out a potential PI's reputation is one of the most important things to do when looking for a thesis/postdoc lab. With regard to bait-n-switch situations, the logistical issues also include the problem of how to take with you the reagents that are essential to the project. You can always take the idea, but if your PI won't give you the unique knockout mouse, you're kinda screwed on that project no matter what.
You can always take the idea, but if your PI won't give you the unique knockout mouse, you're kinda screwed on that project no matter what.
[sung to the tune "Thank God I'm a Country Boy"] Thank God I'm a Microbiologist [/sung]
See, what you do, after you publish a paper, is convince your PI that instead of getting hounded for various strains, you submit them to some culture collection for storage and then you refer all requests to that collection. If you are lead author, and were responsible for generating the strains in question, I wonder if you'd even need his permission *shrug* (probably depends on who has to pay for the transaction). Then, when you leave, you go to the culture collection and reacquire them. You may wind up incurring costs for both transactions, but it would be ethically legit. It's also a whole lot more work than just ensuring that do you don't wind up working for a d**khead. :P
PLS--I've never worked in an NSF-funded lab. Do you know how the funding structure (type of grants, mechanism for review, etc.) differs from that of the NIH? Just curious.The grants tend to be for less money, but the requirements for preliminary data are also a bit less, so one can get away with a topic switch more easily than if they were going for NIH money - at least an R01.
MH: also check out Odyssey's series of posts about NSF funding here, here here and here.
Tom--Um...John Denver? If it's the song I'm thinking of, there are way too many syllables in "microbiologist" to fit the melody! Yeah, some experimental systems are definitely easier to "transfer" than others.
PLS and PiT--Thanks for the info! I'll definitely go check out those links.
MH: I never said I wasn't tone deaf, or a good singer.
I think it depends on what terms I'm with with my coworkers. There are a few of my previous labmates with whom I actually never want to speak with again, let alone share results. They can check them out in Nature (haha, just kidding).
That's true--I definitely have those kinds of former labmates too! :-)
Post a Comment