Book Review: A PhD is not Enough — thoughts and reflections
Like nature herself, a career in science is full of unknowns and uncertainties.
Tell me if I am wrong: I consider a career as a scientist (especially those in academia) is similar to a life as an artist. Everyone has their topic and their way of doing research, just as most artists have their styles in making art. Most academic research positions are not so well paid and relatively unstable (mostly few-years contract based), but if your work is appreciated, you might become a PI and even a ‘celebrity’ in the field. You may be invited to talks, become a director of something, and you might get rich. But the chance is extremely rare. Just as there are many independent musicians but only a few make it to the billboard and strive to stay active for multiple years; many will struggle living.
Last August, my friend Tim, who is currently doing a PhD in nano-science, recommended me a book: “A PhD is Not Enough — A Guide to Survival in Science” by Peter J. Feibelman. I am currently in the process of applying for a PhD. I thought the book title was relevant, so I decided to get a copy from Bookdepository (My review on Bookdepository). I finished the book recently, I found it very informative and inspiring to myself as someone who is stepping into a scientific career. Here are three main points that were mentioned in the book, which I found the most memorable, and made me re-think my approach to science.
#1 I have to be serious
This book reminds me that as a scientist, I have to be serious. I love scientific research as a creative procedure to discover and invent, but this mindset also makes me a little bit too playful in making career decisions. It could make my life slightly more exciting and interesting, yet also problematic, as a lack of seriousness might lead me to nowhere. I have to be serious, so people will take me seriously.
The book mentioned a few ways to clearly show others that you are serious in this endeavour. First, be clever in choosing a project (about how-to, I will mention in point #2), start it and FINISH it, and have a story to tell about it. To have a career in science you want to show others that you are scientifically productive, you want to be known as someone who can finish what you started. The best thing would be to plan your project/ career in the way that there are always at least a few publications after each project/ year. Or at least, if working on a long project, create milestones for at which point you want to make publications to show your progress to the scientific community. The cruel fact is that the number of publications is the most common indicator of your scientific productivity.
Another thing that was mentioned is to make yourself known and useful. From the early stage, try establishing your own identity in the research community. I can think of a few ways to do it: talk to people, collaborate, be active in networking. In addition, especially in the information age, having a personal website to showcase your work and make you findable on the internet would be extremely useful. Even just having a LinkedIn account can provide opportunities.
One other thing that the author suggested is to decide on what area of science to make your name. I did several internships in various labs, but I know, in the end, life is finite and I have to decide what to spend the most time on. This is something to keep in mind as I progress in my career.
#2 Be realistic
This is more like an extension of the previous point. Three aspects were raised in the book to do with being realistic. First, be realistic in choosing a field. Despite your scientific curiosity and ambition to chase after “the hot field”, make sure to perform a cold-blooded analysis of your capabilities before deciding on a field. The author claimed that one should choose a field that could match their advantages, and it is more sensible to start one’s career off in an area where the contributions being made have a better chance of gaining recognition.
Second, be realistic in choosing a project. When choosing one, consider how this project will contribute to your long term scientific interest. Does it build on your previous experience? Does it lead to where you want to go? Also, choose a project that ideally gives you a publishable result in a short term. In addition to the book, there is this paper talking about how to choose a scientific problem. You might find it controversial, but I would highly recommend giving it a read.
Finally, be realistic in making a project plan/ proposal, or making a promise. This is something I would like to improve on. I am often in a situation where I told someone I would finish something on a tight deadline and could not finish things as I promised. I was not realistic enough in making a plan. It is always a good idea to be modest in making promises: “understatement is likely to win you more respect than overstatement of your possibilities.”
I know, being too realistic could kill creativity, and could potentially make the research more boring. So there is a balance to be found there which I hope to find out through my journey.
#3 Being technique or problem-oriented
As a biophysicist currently working on solving protein structures, I found myself focusing solely on the technical side of things and rarely grasping the significance of the biological problem that I am solving. For example, over the past year, I was working on computing the structure of a particular virus, but it was the last few months before I submitted the paper I started to understand why I am doing this research. Ironically, sometimes I am proud of not knowing biology but still working in a biology lab, but this could be harmful to my career.
According to the book, just being a technically oriented person is not enough and it will just make me a very good “technician” but not a scientific leader; there are some scientists who hold a method and apply it to anything and get publications, but as the author pointed out, it is rare and without focussing on the scientifically (in my case, biologically) significant problems this won’t last too long.
The author strongly recommended one should “teach yourself to be problem-oriented, to plan your research projects so that they address important scientific issues regardless of what techniques you will need to use.”
So as a New Years resolution for 2022, I would like to learn more about biology this year, probably through reading reviews and reports and talking to people who are working in the field. By the end of the year, I hope I will be able to find a biologically significant problem, where the problem itself is important and interesting, and the techniques required to solve it are also mathematically satisfying.
Other than the aforementioned, the book also covered how to give a presentation, write a paper, succeed in an interview, get funded, and establish a research programme. Although not all of them are relevant to me at my current stage, I found it quite useful to read and know what might happen to me as I progress further in a scientific career.
You are responsible for your own success in science.
People might say that these things are best learnt by actually going through it, but as said in the last chapter of the book:
“Experience is the best teacher, but only when the experience is not fatal.”
So why not learn from the others, and know where all the pits and traps are before you get there? I highly recommend this book to anyone who is considering a career in science, I believe you will find it useful.