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."

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.

Experimental Biology - first morning

It is conference time for physiologists. Experimental Biology is by far the largest meeting for physiologists, and this year it's in Anaheim, California, right beside Disney Land. Now it's the morning of the second day. It is 5.30am and I can't sleep.

It started yesterday with the traditional refresher course. I feel a little bad for them, because I just couldn't take four hours of sitting down, so I only stayed for the first two and a half - even though the last talk looked like lots of fun. Of course, now in the days of the internet, I can just go and listen to the recording at www.the-aps.org/education/refresher.

The first two were really good, Donna Korzick talked about how:

"The Heart Develops Pressure, And Pressure Makes the Blood 'Go Round"

Which turned out to be mostly charge excitation coupling and pacemaker activity, including some exciting new data on how local calcium releases actually drives the slow depolarisation (see Lakatta et al, Circ Res, 106: 659-673, 2010).

Then Philip Clifford talked about "Local control of blood flow." He showed some really nifty confocal images of vascular structure and then talked about autoregulation. Not proper, renal autoregulation, but the sloppy kind you find in other organs. Most interestingly he pointed out that the myogenic response is a quite slow mechanism in muscle tissue, for example. Taking somewhere around two minutes to return blood flow to normal after a perturbation. In the kidney, bloodflow quickly stabilizes (20-30 seconds) following a perturbation. Although some of this is probably because of interactions between the myogenic response and the tubuloglomerular feedback, I think I brought home that myogenic response is faster in the kidney.

The afternoon brought a guest appearance of renal circulatory physiology at the micro circulatory society. You might call it a refresher course in renal autoregulation and afferent arteriolar function provided by the usual suspects, Arendshorst, Peti-Peterdi, Inscho. There was a small detour to the medulla. Pallone presented some very interesting data on how water shunting from the descending vasa recta to the ascending helps increase the concentrating capacity.

Last of the days lectures was the Walter B. Cannon memorial award lecture. This year it was awarded to JJ. Fredberd of the Harvard School of Public Health, an engineer who works in pulmonary physiology and probably wil receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for his evolutionary findings. A fantastic lecture, where he presented more novel ideas (with supporting data) in less time than anyone I have met in recent memory. In short, cells are soft as shaving foam because it makes them capable of eating their neighbours and/or crawling around. This explains the development of the eucaryote. I will have to study this for years before I understand it, maybe I will attempt a post on the implications for renal physiology at some later time.

Finally it was time for the free food and free beer, i.e. the opening reception.

The time when the breakfast buffet opens is approaching and I have to go.

/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