So I am a new PhD student but I have been doing good research since I have been an undergrad. I have scientific interest in a lot of things and firmly believe that "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points" (Alan Kay, computer scientist) because looking at a standard problem with fresh new eyes from a new scientific field has been useful to me. Some people might think that expanding the scope of a problem is an unnecessary tangent line of reasoning but I don't believe so.
Upon extensive literature review, I cannot identity the relatively easy unsolved problems in biology but I can propose a scientific path to solving complex multifactorial problems requiring a scientific answer. By difficult problems I mean problems requiring many experiments to understand a phenomena for a biological system with which not much is known. This is not a short path to publication.
I understand that simple solutions can exist for complex problems like the the Avery OT, Macleod CM, McCarty M (1944) experiment was totally brilliant showing that DNA, not protein, not RNA is the genetic information required for transformation by destroying DNA with DNase and protein with protease, and RNase and observing that DNA was the genetic machinery required for life.
I think that my ability to identity complex multifactorial problems and propose means to solve those problems is my greatest strength but also my greatest weakness. Either most of the easy problems have already been solved or I just can't see the problems that require few experiments to solve.
I know that scientific knowledge is advanced by closing in the void of unknowns and creating new questions, but high risk:high reward scientific research isn't rewarded quickly. Does it take more experience to see simpler problems in your scientific field or do simple problems not exist anymore?
Thanks.
Reference:
Avery OT, Macleod CM, McCarty M. STUDIES ON THE CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE SUBSTANCE INDUCING TRANSFORMATION OF PNEUMOCOCCAL TYPES : INDUCTION OF TRANSFORMATION BY A DESOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID FRACTION ISOLATED FROM PNEUMOCOCCUS TYPE III. J Exp Med. 1944;79(2):137–158. doi:10.1084/jem.79.2.137
I don't think there are simple problems in science. It is only in retrospect that it seems the solution to a problem was simple. The hard work, confusion, and false leads that came before the elucidation are not usually divulged in scientific publications.
The example you chose, the identification of the Pneumococcus transforming principle by Avery, Macleod and McCarty is a good case in point. For more background on the long and difficult path to the solution of this particular scientific problem I recommend "The Transforming Principle" by Maclyn McCarty and "Unraveling the Double Helix" by Gareth Williams.
Also, very few graduate student projects lead to ground-breaking results. Most work leads, at best, to an incremental advance. Don't set your sights too high when you are just starting out. The goal of graduate studies is primarily to get training and experience.
If you want to be happy in your work, choose a project that "speaks to you." Talk to the professors about their work and what sort of projects you might work on in their labs. Also, choose the lab carefully. You may be there for a long time, so the people you will be working with/for are an important consideration. Talk to the people who work there, not just the professor.
I don't think there are simple problems in science. It is only in retrospect that it seems the solution to a problem was simple. The hard work, confusion, and false leads that came before the elucidation are not usually divulged in scientific publications.
The example you chose, the identification of the Pneumococcus transforming principle by Avery, Macleod and McCarty is a good case in point. For more background on the long and difficult path to the solution of this particular scientific problem I recommend "The Transforming Principle" by Maclyn McCarty and "Unraveling the Double Helix" by Gareth Williams.
Also, very few graduate student projects lead to ground-breaking results. Most work leads, at best, to an incremental advance. Don't set your sights too high when you are just starting out. The goal of graduate studies is primarily to get training and experience.
If you want to be happy in your work, choose a project that "speaks to you." Talk to the professors about their work and what sort of projects you might work on in their labs. Also, choose the lab carefully. You may be there for a long time, so the people you will be working with/for are an important consideration. Talk to the people who work there, not just the professor.
What Adam B Shapiro says about choosing the lab cannot be stated often enough. There are many great and good people working in our profession, but there are also some real monsters out there who are well-funded but also terrible to work for. There are also some really good people who have toxic lab cultures caused by the people working under them. You don't want either.
You also have to discipline yourself to make sure you keep your project simple, and not to answer something larger than you ought to. It's a dissertation, not your life's work. You get past the dissertation so that you can go on to your life's work.
All the best to you in your profession. The biological world is beautiful, and it's an exciting time to be in it, with so much new and exciting being found out.
I agree with the Benjamin and adam. The most important aspect of scientific journey is your PI and immediate post-PhD (post-doc) PI.
Here are my tips how to evaluate any lab:
1)
If you see an adviser who sits on the head of lab members like several times a day. Avoid - You will end up in the same situation
2)
If you see an adviser working so extensively during off hours - Avoid- You will become robot.
3)
If you see a lab members who are not reading papers on PC or print copy in say like 2 weeks- Avoid- You will become technician
4)
Mentors commit to their trainees. Losing focus on the graduate student or pdf violates the most basic premise of mentorship. If you see an adviser who can not retain or who let lab members go off soon. Alarm!
5)
Trainee should get equal or more time to present/talk. Scientific trigger does not start when student just seat on the couch waiting for the lecture to be over.
Above points are quick points to rule out terrible lab culture, but most of the labs are really good. Many scientist in bioscience are really amazing. Even a very great idea will fail, and simple idea will rock. Good PI, lab members, and what you love doing is an important aspect of scientific journey. If you love your project you will enjoy your experiments.
Thank you! Well by new PhD student, I mean I did 6 laboratory rotations and I have been teaching 80 undergrads a week this semester so everything is quite new and hard to keep up with. Some professor didn't like how eager I was to try new types of experiments because those could fail a few times but my principle investigator likes high risk:high reward research. I feel lost a lot in a sea of unknowns, but the lab I joined was inevitable, was my destiny. It is good.
Simple problems will pass unnoticed. You will most probably solve them as part of the complex ones.
Best wishes,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Biology