As a relatively new graduate student, I find myself a bit unclear on the following concepts and would greatly appreciate some elucidation of these ideas.
It is my understanding that in order to earn one’s PhD, one must produce and publish "a significant contribution" to science. Exactly what qualifies as a “significant contribution”, and who decides this? Is there a set of agreed upon rules that the contribution must be more “academic” as opposed to “immediately practical” or “R & D”, and what do those terms truly mean when compared to each other, beyond their limited dictionary definitions?
For example, is developing a novel physical method that prevents malaria from being transmitted by mosquitoes worthy of the degree, or does only something such as isolating a specific protein that renders a strain of mosquito refractory to malaria qualify? If both methods use original research and end up advancing knowledge and saving lives, is one more of a significant contribution to science than another?
I’m eager to hear your points of view and experiences in graduate school regarding these topics.
Dear Cheri,
'developing a novel physical method that prevents malaria from being transmitted by mosquitoes' is certainly a very significant contribution. But be aware that you or anyone will never research and develop something like that alone. Such an achievement will require a team of specialists of different fields, from basic cell biology to parasitology, entomology etc.
One might well say that research that saves lives is more relevant than research that doesn't - but no one can tell now what research will results in a product saving lives. The basic research conducted today might only be translated into therapies in 20 years or later.
Dear Cheri,
I actually don't know if "a significant contribution" is an accurate definition about the ability to earn a PhD because, as you rightly stated it cannot be easily determined what is to be regarded as "significant". Furthermore, you might get some publishable results that are quite "useless" today (although they are accurate and new) but they might become important in ten or twenty years.
I would rather state that in order to obtain a PhD degree one should be able to work self-reliant on a well defined topic and that the outcome of the work should enhance the knowledge/understanding in the topic or field, the work is dealing with.
Thank you Cristian, George, and Johannes for your insights. It is true that one can not truly tell what will eventually contribute to science and health, and I suppose that is what the Committee is there to ascertain and approve/not approve. And yes, working in collaboration and independently is important as well.
Dear Cheri
This question itself answers many things like Many published papers without practical application are baseless but in another sense those provides some insight science, fundamental science. For me, I think we scientific and academic intellectual should think about the real application of the science but not for the sake of obtaining degree, acquiring funds, promotion etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals