Sharing Information Or Selling Out Your Lab?

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 If members of the postdoc lab continue to discuss unpublished lab data from that project with Junior PI, is that fair or foul?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 But in some competitive fields, it is common practice to keep unpublished data quiet out of fear of being scooped.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newer members of the lab who have picked up Junior PI's postdoc project would understandably be concerned about their unpublished data being transmitted to a competitor.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?

Cable Alternatives, Anyone?

Our cable company has just pissed us off for the last time. I'm actually looking forward to calling them on Tuesday to tell them we're firing their sorry ass!

So we are now shopping for a cable alternative. Anyone using satellite or U-verse? Thumbs up or thumbs down?

For The Love Of Science

There's a post up at DrugMonkey about a recent YFS post on disillusionment with academic science. As much as I disagree with many of Ms.PhD's views, her situation makes me sad. It seems to me that being so unhappy doing something, but yet loving it enough to continue putting up with being unhappy, must be incredibly painful.

I confess this is not something I particularly understand. My dirty little secret is that I don't love science. Don't get me wrong--I'm very happy with my job and career path and I'm excited by my research projects. What I mean is that I love getting to work on interesting and challenging problems, but they don't necessarily have to be scientific problems. I don't have a specific passion for science, nor do I feel that being a scientist is my "calling," so to speak.

I applied to grad school because I had had a fantastic undergrad experience doing research, and I wanted to do more of it. Science seemed like an interesting and promising career option, but it was never "science or bust" for me. I can envision myself being equally interested in, and engaged by, a number of other professions/fields. And at the risk of sounding completely egotistical, I think the traits that make me a good scientist would also make me a good lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.

If being a scientist ever became more painful than fulfilling, I think I would find something else to be. And I think I could be happy being something else.

I've heard some scientists say that those who don't love science have no place in academic research. I say that's a load of crap. Science is not a deity at whose feet only the most devout and ardent are worthy to kneel. And in my experience, the people who love science are, on average, no more talented at it than those who simply enjoy being scientists and have a desire to succeed. Grants are not funded, and manuscripts are not accepted, based on the investigators' level of ardor for their research topic. How would one quantify an investigator's devotion to science anyway? By the number of hours worked and the amount of personal sacrifice? I'll note that many of those who have voiced this opinion have had wives who do most of the household work.

I've not saying that one shouldn't love science or that loving science doesn't help one succeed. If nothing else, love for science helps one get through the periods of self-doubt by providing a compelling answer for the "why am I doing this when I could be doing X for more money and shorter hours" question. But I think there's also a place in academic research for those of us who are good at science, but can't quite manage the "thou shalt have no other god before science" commandment.

Hypothetical Question

Suppose you have just been fired by your PI for lack of progress and productivity^*. Suppose you feel this judgment is unfair because your PI did not take into account various unexpected hurdles which were out of your control--e.g., technical difficulties, equipment and reagent problems, etc.--in evaluating your performance. Suppose your PI is allowing you to stay on until you've found a new position, and is leaving the question of whether to inform the rest of the lab up to you.

Would you tell the lab what happened, or would you quietly find a new position and then simply announce that you are leaving? Would you tell the few people you are closest to and ask them to keep it secret?

Telling people would mean that you can have the emotional support of your friends and not have to pretend that everything's okay. And being open about your job search will allow you to network more effectively. But on the other hand, you may not want to have to answer questions or to endure pitying looks. Perhaps it would be easier to get through the day if things were, at least on the surface, relatively normal.

Would you tell a prospective employer about the circumstances under which you are leaving your current position? You have been in your current position for a short enough period of time that your search for a new position would raise questions. Should you address this in a cover letter or wait till the interview?

Telling a prospective employer would at least allow you to present your side of the story, assuming that your PI will tell her side when asked for a reference. But perhaps telling your side of the story would come across as defensive and hostile, or making excuses? Perhaps a prospective employer would automatically dismiss an application from someone who had been fired?

What's the best way to salvage a career out of a situation like this?


^*This is not about me. I have not been fired, nor have I fired anyone.

Who's The Real Lab Rat???

Setting The Bar

How do you decide how high to set your expectations for the people you train, supervise or mentor? In the past, I have had undergrads, rotation students, technicians, and junior graduate students work with me. In general, I have set my expectations using one of two methods.

When training someone in a position that I have been in before (e.g. undergrad, rotation student, etc.), I usually use the "personal experience" method: When I was an undergrad/roton, how quickly could I grasp new concept X and learn new technique Y? How well could I perform complicated procedure Z?

When training someone in a position that I haven't been in (e.g. technician), I often use the "population average" method: Among all the Technician Level X staff I've worked with, on average how quickly could they learn Y and how well could they do Z?

Each of these methods has its flaws, of course. Not every undergrad, rotation student, or grad student has the same level of prior research experience and/or relevant background. Not to mention the fact that the "personal experience" method is particularly susceptible to the kind of historical revisionism in which I imagine my younger self to be smarter, more hardworking, more productive, and generally much more awesome than I actually was. And for someone at my current career stage, the "population average" method suffers from having teeny-tiny population sizes for any given staff position.

But despite their flaws, I've generally found some combination of these two methods to provide a decent starting point. The problem I'm having now is managing expectations for a Senior Research Scientist (SRS) I am supervising. SRS has a graduate degree from a foreign country and has been working in labs for much longer than I have. I feel that SRS is not meeting expectations, but since I have never supervised an SRS before nor been one myself, I'm not entirely sure whether SRS is underperforming or my expectations are inflated.

To be fair, many aspects of SRS' performance are quite good. He understands the scientific concepts and experimental design, takes initiative in looking up relevant literature, works carefully and tries hard. The problem is that SRS appears to work very slowly and to have a hard time multi-tasking. He seems unable or unwilling to do more than one large experiment at a time and generates a smaller-than-expected amount of data for the amount of time he spends in lab.

Frankly, given SRS' years of lab experience in this subfield, I expect him to be able to get up-to-speed on each new project quickly, and to be able to juggle multiple projects and make progress on all fronts. Given that SRS has at least 10-15 more years of lab experience than I do, I expect him to be at least as good as I am at the bench work, if not better.

So how do I figure out if I need to have a chat with SRS about his productivity, or if I'm being completely unreasonable?