Ad Lagendijk
16 December 2009
Five-million dollar question
Tags: novelty, originality, principal investigator, startupPosted in Tips
The career path in the academic world is tough. After a demanding undergraduate period, you will enter graduate school and another period of at least four years of hard work lies ahead. After acquiring your PhD you will have to work as a postdoc for a number of years.
In all those years other people tell you what to do or what to study. Your own input, as far as research subject goes, is marginal. For the majority of young scientists the final goal is to become a principal Investigator themselves, or at least to work in a group where their influence on the research direction is substantial.
When you have almost finished your PhD or just started your postdoc period, the future of being a group leader seems far away. You have other problems on your mind. Nevertheless there is question that you should ask yourself over and over again. The earlier you start with considering this question the better. Here is the question:
What research subject would you choose, and what equipment would you buy if you would get five million dollars?
Would you jump a bandwagon? Would you iterate your thesis all your life and compete with your thesis adviser? Would you totally change your field? Would you just contribute incrementally to an already mature field? Or do you torture your own brains with trying to find a totally new field? Would you join an already very active field? Would you start in a field where almost nobody works?
When you try to answer this question in detail you will be confronted with a number of limitations. First of all your own limitations. Five million dollars is not twenty five million dollars. So you have to make choices.
Asking yourself this question over and over again is essential for preparing yourself for a successful career in science. Maybe you will discover that a scientific career is not suitable for you. If you are still far from being a group leader your answer to the question will help you how to proceed. You may realize you have to learn a lot of new stuff.
Being able to pursue something original requires talent. You either have talent or you don’t. But you have to find out. And if you got it, you got to develop it.
Follow
31 Dec 2009 18:30, Otto Muskens
Ad, is there a wrong answer to your question? Jumping a bandwagon sounds like a bad thing, however this strategy can be very successful especially if you have a nose for new developments at an early stage. Heroically starting your own field of science can end up pretty badly if this does not get noticed or you don’t get the desired (positive) result. Some rising stars in my field are doing the same as they did during their PhD. Staying in the area of your supervisor allows you to use the extensive network you have been introduced to and to get acceptation more quickly as people know where you come from. But there is the risk of being seen as a ‘one trick pony’. Starting in a new field means you have to build a reputation from scratch, but also that you can bring in your unique background and skills which may give an advantage. In short, I think every choice has its positive and negative sides.
21 Jan 2010 21:28, Ad Lagendijk
Otto,
I agree. But recognition is a highly nonlinear process. If your thesis advisor is well-known and you continue to work in that field after your PhD, it is quite difficult to get credit for your work. Quite difficult, but not impossible. It also depends on the attitude of your advisor.
22 Jan 2010 11:40, Jacopo Bertolotti
“Working in the same field as your advisor” has a lot of shades of gray. You might choose to stay in the same field but explore things from a slightly different perspective and then you can give a decent contribution without being a clone.
Incidentally I think many people that made their PhD with you did exactly that and most of them are now quite successful.