After a discussion over coffee the day before yesterday, I read the editorial and 2 of the articles in this months nature. All three of those talk about the balance (or lack thereof) of the life of someone doing science. Considering I just a few days ago wrote “All your life cannot and should not be your PhD.” in a post, I feel the need to comment on those articles and the editorial.
I am after all (I think… 😉 ) one of those young scientists the editorial is referring to when saying:
What might a young scientist make of these two styles, apart from the observation that it takes all sorts?
So… which are twose two ideas described in the two articles discussed in the editorial? They are the views of two PIs with very different philosophies when it comes to personnel management. The 24/7 lab led by Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa and the balanced lab Julie Overbaugh. (If you have the time its worth spending some time reading all three texts – see bottom of post.)
The style of work described in the article about the 24/7 lab, with an ominous, threatening and intimidating professor does not suit me. *period* The main framework for human interactions in my world is respect. Respect me – and I will respect you. If I don’t perform well come and tell me. But don’t try and intimidate me… not only will it not work, I will lose my respect for you as well since I find intimidating as a leadership style ridiculous. Not to mention that fear of your PI/supervisor does not create a good working environment. Stressed and fearful colleagues can not be creative and inventive…
Creativity and innovation comes through “failure”. For every good idea we actually get to apply – we’ve tested a multitude of less good or plain bad/stupid ideas. An open and respectful environment is what allows you to bounce ideas with your colleagues, sorting out good – bad – stupid – with potential ideas. Fear, constant judgement and evaluation makes you keep your mouth (and in extension your mind) shut. Thus quenching creativity and innovation.
Also, I personally find the demand to be “Working weekends. Leaving at midnight. Friday evening meetings.”, too much to handle. Seriously… Who can maintain such a pace indefinitely? When I think of a work pace like that, in my mind the picture of a firework, or a signalling flare, pops up. Burning brightly, intensely and beautifully… but gone almost as fast as it lighted up.
Therefore I frowned when I read the following concluding remark in the editorial:
“Anyone lacking the inner intellectual drive and capacity for relentless focus to get to the heart of the way the world works should stay away.”
My first reaction was feeling annoyed ans disappointed, because I interpreted this as a sign that the author supports the 24/7 aspect of work in science. But is he really?
On second thought I’m not so sure…
The fact is that the world works in the way it works. Closing our eyes and wishing things were different than they are didn’t even work when we were kids, even less in adulthood. If you want to succeed in science you need to put in the hours. You need to get the work done. But if you want to do a career you also need to last. Cause no matter how bright and shiny the firework is, it’s lifespan is too short.
In order to succeed you need to be more of an oil lamp than a firework. Refillable with energy (usually by hobbies and friends) but also flexible. There are times when you need to apply single minded focus and work day and night. You need to burn fast and bright, you turn the wick up. Thankfully there are also times when you can turn the wick down to a steady flame and use up your fuel at a slower pace.
So in the end I find myself agreeing with the concluding remark. You do need the focus and capacity to get to the heart of how the world works. Only if you are aware of the framework of the world around you can you work in it. Work trough it. And work around it, in order to get what you want.
.
Do I make the cut? Am I one of the ones who should stay away from science? I don’t know… time will show!
.
.
Nature texts featured in this post:
Editorial: “Reality check”
Article: “Work ethic: The 24/7 lab”
Comment: “24/7 isn’t the only way: A healthy work–life balance can enhance research”
My days in Uppsala: 