Avoid boring people

Anna-Maria De Mars has some good advice for judo players that is equally applicable to science. What she is saying is, in short: Work harder than the competition, and work with people who are better than you are. Actually, the latter of these was originally advice for scientists from James D. Watson. He wrote a whole book on the subject:

Avoid boring people: Lessons from a life in science. 

Being a sucker for books I bought it immediately. So, thank you Anna-Maria for pointing it out to me (albeit indirectly). The best thing about it is the double-meaning title. Behind this is an autobiography, which is interesting in many ways, but today's subject is the Remembered Lessons at the end of each chapter. There is some very important survival advice there, like:

"Avoid fighting bigger boys or dogs."

 And some advice that will be good for your development no matter what you do:

"Seek out bright as opposed to popular friends." This is really what Anna-Maria was quoting although from a different article as: "Never be the smartest person in the room," which sounds better but not as good as the book-title.

Then, there is some advice for young scientists like:

"Choose a young thesis adviser" that I obviously think all bright young prospects should do now, but which I did not follow myself and do not think I should have.

Or, the more cumbersome:

"Extend yourself intellectually through courses that initially frighten you," which is really good advice, and, like for Watson himself, mostly means study more mathematics and statistics.

and

"Keep your intellectual curiosity much broader than your thesis objective." This is also one of my own goals, and a recurring suggestion for my students. To some degree it comes naturally to medical students, since they have to be able to handle a variety of patients. However, they (MDs) often have to be induced to read more widely from theoretical literature, while students with basic science degrees have to be motivated to read some clinical medicine as well (and everyone has to be forced and whipped to study more mathematics and statistics). 

The autobiographical part is also interesting. James Watson describes how he was very focused on forwarding his career, and not spending time on things (courses, projects, etc) that would not be of direct use for his research or advancement in science. Anyway, that was it for now. I am going to follow his advice to:

"Work on Sundays."

MD or PhD

Let us return to the discussion about combining research and clinical work. Specifically starting a new group in a physiology lab and working as a junior doctor at a university hospital.

I have now finished my first spat of full time research in the new lab after a year as a clinician. I have been able to do most of what I set out to do this semester, but I will probably have to work as much next spat of research to make it work then too. The reason for this is that none of the senior PIs are directly behind my project, therefore none of them thinks that I should encroach on their space. At the same time they are all very supportive and positive to me being there. Just in a more theoretical way. What will happen is that in a year or two (hopefully sooner), there will have to be a centrally controlled reallocation of the lab space at the department, until then I will probably have to continue on borrowed space.

Funding wise, it is going alright. With a couple of minor grants I have had enough production of preliminary data to be able to apply for some real grants. Career wise, the next step will be a docenture, which is kind of like the Swedish version of tenure. You need a number of original publications and you need to show that you are independent as a scientist. On top of that you have to have taught a minimum number of classes. In combination with clinical work it is a chore to get it all done as quickly as possible, but nothing much happens until it is done.

Clinically I have spent the first year in medicine, which is my home field, so that has been good. Now I am going to rotate out into psychiatry and surgery this autumn, and while that may be interesting and possibly good for something, it is also a bit of a waste. Especially as I am just picking up speed in the lab again after moving back to Sweden. I know, it was my choice to try to combine the clinic with research and rotation is a necessary part of a junior doctor's life, but I can still complain. There is surprisingly little time over when working clinically, but I hope to spend the autumn revising and submitting some new and exciting manuscripts, and writing even more grants.

But now for my last week of vacation.

Advice for a Young Investigator

Santiago Ramón y Cajal was a 19th century neurophysiologist. I'm told he is well known, though he seems to have ignored the kidneys completely. Strange.

Any way, he wrote a book - "Reglas y consejos sobre investigacion cientifica" translated as "Advice for a Young Investigator" - to help budding scientists through their first years as researchers. While some of his advice is dated, such as the section on how to choose a wife, most is well worth the $14. What follows is a brief summary and some comments on the 1999 MIT Press pocket edition (with one of the worst quality bindings in modern history), translated by Swanson and Swanson (who have done a good job).

There is a Foreword by Larry W. Swanson with a short biography of Dr. Cajal and some suggested readings from his quite large production. Then there are three prefaces, for each of the second, third and fourth editions.

There are nine chapters, each addressing a different potential difficulty.

1. Introduction

The introduction concerns itself with which theory of science a scientist should build his understanding of nature upon. The answer is determinism. Cajal is very clear that a scientist should not spend his time delving too deeply into the various theories of knowledge and science. He writes:

"...by abandoning the ethereal realm of philosophical principles and abstract methods we can descend to the solid ground of experimental science..."

In this he comes quite close to my own thoughts on the matter (which may be why I like the book in the first place). Today, pure determinism is still usefully utilized in Chaos Theory, or the study of non-linear dynamics, but in general the focus today should be on statistical determinism. That is, the fact that we cannot know the full state of any system (at least any interesting system) induces variation and that this punches a quite large hole in classical determinism, but can be compensated for by studying larger populations and using statistics. Actually Cajal does not mention statistics at all, probably because it was just starting out as a field at the time.

2. Beginner's Traps

In the second chapter Cajal goes through some things that might unduly discourage the beginning scientist from his chosen path. Basically that well known feeling that those who went before were smarter, saw farther and thought deeper than you ever could. He makes the case that it only seems so after the fact, and that with hard work and time a scientist starting out today will appear equally daunting to those starting out in the future.

3. Intellectual Qualities

Cajal's main point about the mind of the investigator is that it does not have to be exceedingly brilliant as long as it is tenacious and a bit vain. He does mention originality, but his focus really is on hard work and the striving for glory. These are qualities he dejectedly notes are none too present in his contemporary Spaniards, while he holds the Germans in high regard. He writes:

"In Spain, where laziness is a religion rather than a vice, there is little appreciation for how the ... work of German [scientists] is accomplished - espeially when it would appear that the time required ... might involve decades!"

Rather poignantly, the endnotes have been expanded with the editions. In relation to a section written in the original 1893 edition Cajal later notes:

"This frank optimism is now greatly undermined by the hideous international war that began in 1914... It is sad to admit, but all nations become ferociously imperialistic as soon as possible... So much for the weak and unpatriotic!"

4. What Newcomers to Biological Research Should Know

In this chapter Cajal handles the opposing needs for the investigator to know a lot about disparate fields, especially the basic sciences, and at the same time specialize as much as possible to be able to produce original work.

Perhaps his most important point is the short section on "Mastery of Technique", as he writes:

"...the most important scientific conquests have been won by only a dozen men who have become known for their invention of improvement of a research method..."

5. Diseases of the Will

This is clearly the most entertaining section. The six most dangerous personalities - "who never produce any original work and almost never write anything." - are described in detail. I will only quote the his classification, the rest you should read in his original, quite wonderful prose.

"These illustrious failures may be classified in the following way: the dilettantes of contemplators; the erudite or bibliophiles; the instrument addicts; the megalomaniacs; the misfits; and the theory builders."

While these are quite fun, and you can always find some colleague that fits each personality, the more important lesson is that everyone gets trapped in these mires of the mind from time to time. The important thing is to realise that you are stuck in an unproductive mindset and be able to move on.

6. Social Factors Beneficial to Scientific Work

These are the ever current problems of funding, combining a profession with science and combining work and family. His basic stance is that you can always do science, but you should be ready to sacrifice having a life. Good advice.

7. Stages of Scientific Research

Here Cajal goes over the practicalities of the experimental method. Observation - Experimentation - Working hypotheses - and Proof. It is material gone over many times in other books, although Cajal has the benefit of being brief.

8. On Writing Scientific Papers

To start with Cajal references a Mr. Billings and states four rules: Have something to say; Say it; and Stop once it is said. The fourth rule wasn't as catchy so I'll just drop it. Then he writes a bit about credit and curtesy.

9. The Investigator as Teacher

The final chapter expounds on the importance of fostering future researchers to continue the work once you have gone. He concedes that it might be restful and rewarding to work in solitude but that "Posterity has always been generous with the founders of schools." He then goes on to describe the pains and pleasures of trying to combine research and teaching. First, how to find a suitable potential investigator; then how to guide him; and finally how to see him become a successful scientist leave science for profit and glory.

In conclusion, it is one of the few books that actually describes what it means to be a scientist, specifically a physiologist. It is certainly one of the very, very few that does so while being well written. I heartily recommend it to all my colleagues, and to any one else who might be interested in what science really is.

Combining clinical work and basic research

Now I have finished my first week in the clinic. Nephrology paired with a day and a night in the ER. I have managed two brief meetings concerning research, and two evenings in the lab. Having thus prepared for a weekend in the lab, I can say that clinical work and laboratory research is compatible with each other. They are, however, not obviously compatible with life as we know it.

In many ways that goes for all serious hobbies. That is you have time for one serious hobby at the time. While doing full time research I had a fair amount of time to do photography, that involves reading books, looking at photographs, reading blogs, surfing for equipment, playing with photoshop, and occasionally photography. While studying it was ju-jutsu, which invloved rather more practice, but also a fair amount of reading and surfing forums (blogs weren't the thing at the time). Now my hobby is research, it involves quite a bit of reading, blog surfing, writing, some meetings, and occasionally lab work.

Luckily, most of my research at the moment is being run by centralized facilities at the university, which means I only have to prepare my samples and wait. I think analysis and writing is more easily compatible with clinical work, but that remains to be seen.

/M

Combining clinical and experimental careers

Once upon a time in the last century I was admitted to the medical school at Uppsala university; to a special branch program for just twelve students who thought they wanted to do research as well as become Real Doctors(TM). That program was canceled just a few years later because not enough people went into basic research.

I did, but, like the cellophane man, I am all but invisible. After having done research exclusively for a couple of years I am now trying to get back to clinical work and hopefully work out a combination of sorts. This may sound stupid to you (as it should), it even sounds stupid to me. As of today I know no one in my generation who has done it successfully, and I know of very few in the earlier generation. Most whom were already consultants when they started doing research, and produce somewhere upwards of half a day per week of clinical work.

That may be enough for a consultant but as a junior doctor working half a day a week will get you nowhere. Possibly make you dangerous. I have been considering a fifty/fifty arrangement, but how do you compete for grants while putting in only half the work of the competition? The result will inevitably be that I become a cellophane man in research as well.

Ignoring my all knowing, prescient and synical self I set out to get such a fifty/fifty position.

Damn it's hard. I didn't really mean all that about being a cellophane man, but damn. I thought I had been working pretty hard, writing papers and doing generally important stuff, but what does the hospital think about that?

Me: - I have done some really interesting research.

Hosp. - So, you haven't even worked as a temp in the ER?

Me: - But I have external funding.

Hosp. - So, you haven't even worked as a temp in the ER?

Me: -mmmf...

Then my limbs start sticking toghether like cellophane does and I crumple into a small ball of see-through plastic.

So now I am trying to juggle research and grant writing with getting a temporary position as a clinician so that I can apply for a proper job at some future time.

Wish me luck,

Michael