Thread
Been thinking about the meta of science. No one who runs the lab does not obsess endlessly about what is the best next experiment to do but what about the environment and culture of how we structure intellectual discourse in our lab? Lots of thoughts on this. To be continued...
Meta of Science PII: we tend to think of labs as producing data but if our foremost focus is on starting careers we initiate Von Neumann self-replication. Come on guys, pay it forward. In helping our trainees, everyone wins and the data growth curve becomes exponential!
Meta of Science PIII: Labs at their extremes function as factories or artist colonies. The former are more efficient but monolithic, the latter are synergistic but more challenging. Every PI needs to ask themself, "would my lab be better if my people had more agency?
Meta of science Pt IV: everyone who comes to the lab is very motivated to start their own experiments. I encourage them to contribute to ongoing work and think clearly through a plan before starting something new. Takes as long to do a bad experiment, as a good one
Meta of science pt V: Lab meetings are the magic sauce for all labs. Monologues are lost opportunities. How do you encourage dialog? Questions can be clarifying, challenging or redirecting but always respectful and never treated as stupid.
Meta of science pt VIa: science is always best at the edges. Collaborations across disciplines is where real progress is made. Go speed-date with a lab just beyond your comfort zone.
Meta of science pt VIb: but if you are a junior lab, collaboration should be for a young group's benefit. Don't become a derivative service lab. Special warning to young woman scientists. Committees want female members and that can become a dangerous time sink!
Meta of science pt VII: People in lab need to be heard from regularly. One-on-one meetings each week are essential. Not a command performance but a simple catch up. And it doesn't always need to be about the latest data chunk. Can be science gossip or their kid's birthday.
Meta of science pt VIII: Here is a tough one. When people are struggling in the lab, do you keep it between you and the individual? Used to believe this was to be kept confidential but have come to believe bringing in others (respectfully) works better. It takes a village.
Meta of science pt IX: people are your most precious and expensive resource. Ask them what they need in reagents and equipment. Having them recreate the wheel to save a few bucks is neither respectful nor cost efficient.
Meta of Science pt X: Nothing is more fundamental to a laboratory than publication. How do you resolve conflicts about authorship?
Rule 1: don't decide final authorship until acceptance. You never know who will ultimately make the key contribution.
Rule 2: if possible let the stake holders sort it out between themselves but watch for bullies and advocate for those who from shyness or generosity don't advocate for themselves.
Rule 3: if they can't agree, have a summit with all stakeholders and review all data, indicating which pieces are key to the story and who contributed what. In the end the PI needs to make the final call and explain to all the rationale for their decision.
Rule 4: If a stakeholder is still unhappy ask the authors to select someone (generally a PI from another lab) to review the paper and independently offer their opinion. In the end everyone may not be satisfied with the outcome but due process is essential.
Meta of science pt XI: A fun aspect of being in a lab is the creation of new reagents (e.g. alleles, viruses, antibodies). Labs are often proprietary. Be counter intuitive and share freely with others early and often! Usually a win in opportunities, as well as pubs.
Meta of science pt XII: Don't asked people to be in the lab over fixed hours. You can increase face time but not productivity. People work if they're motivated and as I discovered with students and postdocs with kids, constrained people are often the most productive.
Meta of science pt XIII: The most common experimental outcome is failure. As my PhD supervisor told me at the start of my dissertation, "If more than 30% of your experiments are working, you are not asking tough enough questions." Scientists are made of sterner stuff.
Meta of science pt XIV: No time is so critical or anxious as job searches. Choosing where and how many places to apply to, application letters and practice of a talk and chalk talk are only some of the challenges. The support and understanding of PI's makes all the difference!
Meta of science pt XV: There is much debate choosing an academic versus non-academic career path. Which you choose is a deeply personal choice and a PhD is a great time to consider your options. That said remember getting a PhD is educational not vocational.
Meta of science pt XVI: Labs need to consider competition versus collaboration with colleagues. Co-submission can often be a win for all. Truly being scooped is rare and different labs usually have different takes on even very similar problems.
Meta of science pt XVII: We are
still recovering from COVID. Working remotely has become all too baked it. That has its benefits but the magic of science demands the serendipity gained from random face to face interactions. Spending time with colleagues/lab mates is essential.
still recovering from COVID. Working remotely has become all too baked it. That has its benefits but the magic of science demands the serendipity gained from random face to face interactions. Spending time with colleagues/lab mates is essential.
Meta of science pt XVIII: Iterative thinking about problems wins in the long run. Reflect on science challenges when offline...showers and walks in particular work well for me.
Meta of science pt XIX: productivity is non-linear. Power-hours (uninterrupted hour, no email/text/internet) and power-naps (20 minutes) can both boost clarity and focus.
Meta of science pt XX: Laboratories are communities and a single toxic member can be ruinous. No amount of brilliance compensates for anti-social behavior.
Meta of science pt XXI: As important to know as what experiments to do, is to know what experiments to let go of. All too often I find people get stuck trouble shooting experiments that are not mission critical.
Meta of science pt XXII: Most people don't get through their PhD, postdoc or for that matter any given project, without hitting a wall. More often than not, if you beat on the problem enough, it will eventually bleed daylight. Keep the faith...
Meta of science pt XXIII: I have yet to meet anyone who enjoys writing grants. That said the American system forces one to keep up their A game by keeping the landscape flat and judging on merit, rather than track record. "The worst of all systems -except for all the rest."
Meta of science pt XXIV: What makes me happiest is watching life long friendships emerge between lab mates. Going to meetings, people who were in the lab decades ago seek each other out. The shared experience of discovery is the strongest catalyst for connection I know.
Meta of science pt XXV: Grad school is different for everyone. At its best it is an oasis where people realize their full potential. At its worst it can feel like a trap. For all it is a nexus for introspection. Good news is that few people aren't retrospectively nostalgic.
Meta of science pt XXVI: One of the hardest things to learn as a PI is active listening. I confess for me that still is a work in progress. The ability to focus on what someone is telling you rather than spending your time thinking about the next response you want to give them.
Meta of science pt XXVII: In the 20th draft of papers, I find sentences (often written by myself) that are sheer gibberish. One solution is joint author out-loud reading sessions. Surprisingly effective for finding clunky sentences or logic gaffes.
Meta of science pt XXVIII: The gap between grad school and a postdoc is an opportunity. Last chance for a substantial break before going down the tunnel of a postdoc followed by a job search. Take the time for that life-changing trip you have always wanted to do!
Meta of science pt XXIX: Getting the pulse of the lab daily is essential. I drop by people's benches just to hear what's going on. Trying not to interrupt any conversation that is ongoing. Just breathing in the commununity I am so proud of assembling.
Meta of science pt XXX: We all need role models. As circumstance would have it, most of mine were female. That taught me interesting perspectives on leadership, inclusion and empathy. Sure guys can have those qualities too, but science definitely is enhanced by gender balance.
Meta of science pt XXXI: One of the scariest things, particularly for young labs, is turn over. In a flash the deep knowledge goes out the door. The silver lining is that younger lab members find their voice. It is always exciting to watch people come into their own!
Meta of science pt XXXII: nothing defines a lab more than what they choose to study. It is the most difficult and crucial decision and less obvious than most people think. In the end the question needs to address some critical gap in knowledge.
Meta of science pt XXXIII: When people are starting I spend a lot of time hashing out ideas. Cheerleading is part of that process but so is constructive criticism. All projects need a thorough red team-blue team vetting and that process is synergistic not antagonistic.
Meta of science pt XXXIV: writing grants beginning as a grad student often feels like an endless cycle. Hashing over the specific aims for a disproportionate period is time well spent. If you don't have clear well articulated goals, it is a thankless uphill battle.
Meta of science pt XXXV: watching grad students take intellectual possession of their projects is one of the great joys of being a PI. To every nervous student before their defense, I am quick to remind them that on that day, they are the world's expert on their field.
Meta of science pt XXXVI: Graduate students are the biggest commitment to time and effort. Finding the right impedance match is crucial. I have a one on one journal club with rotation students. Really works to work out if we are simpatico.
Meta of science pt XXXVII: Been involved in conversations of late about implicit bias and barriers to minorities in science. My lab has always been open to people regardless of race or gender. But if you have no access, you have no opportunity. How do we change that?
Meta of science pt XXXVIII: New people are often terrified to speak out at lab meeting. When asked how often they have an idea but were afraid to say it, only to have someone else bring it up, the answer is often yes. Surprising how often that gets them to next take the plunge.
Meta of science pt XXXIX: In dealing with lab conflicts, I find myself sympathizing with a multitude of views from a variety of perspectives. Trying to reconcile people who are acting in good faith but come from very different vantage points is one of the greater lab challenges.
Meta of science pt XXXXI: A few thoughts for the newest cohort of grad students. Individuals often speak of what they want to do and even the person the want to work with. Keep an open mind. There is way too much out there to restrict yourself prior to your first rotation.
Meta of science pt XXXXII: In affirmative selection of grad students or faculty, I have heard it voiced that we should just pick based on "best athlete". But what does that mean and what are the criteria? Why not give underrepresented people a leg up. It makes us all stronger.
Meta of science pt XXXXIII: just attended my second meeting post-COVID. I am once again reminded that the best talks are the ones that avoid jargon and selectively speaking to the aficionados. The inclusion of even a few impenetrable acronyms is enough to lose your audience.
Meta of science pt XXXXIV: Graduate students generally start a PhD with only a foggy notion of where they want end up. That is their own journey but a PI can help by discussing the options (preferably taking a broader position than arguing for emulation of their own life style).
Meta of science pt XXXXV: Nothing makes me more nervous than people in the lab confirming my favored hypotheses. Much more comfortable when it turns out Nature has its own idea about how things work. Besides then we learned something and have a new direction to study.
Meta of science pt XXXXVI: Sometimes a postdoc or student will share an idea for a project I absolutely hate. When I started, I would have eviscerated it from the get go. Now I ask questions aimed at addressing my issues. Sometimes great science comes from waiting.
Meta of science pt XXXXVII: The longer I do science, the more I am humbled. Humbled that I am allowed to spend my days asking questions and that on very good days, Nature shares with me some of her secrets.
Meta of science pt XXXXVIII: It often seems certain ideas emerge in multiple places simultaneously. Two I have been involved with are radial glia as stem cells and more recently microglia/neuronal interactions being specific rather than generic. Keep your ear to the ground!
Meta of science pt XXXXVIX: in mid-project there comes a moment where it feels like we have a ton of data and none of it makes sense. Buckling down and looking at the findings makes all the difference.
Meta of science pt XXXXX: In case you have been counting, this is my 50th tweet on this subject, I think it is time to pause. Take home- simple. Labs work well when ambition and drive are combined with a thoughtful and caring environment. Provide that -good things will follow.
Meta of science pt 51: Attended a GRC power hour today focused on DEI issues. Hearing the voices of so many young passionate scientists reminds me that we are people with many opinions and differences but a shared love of science. Privileged to be part of the broader community.
