You got a love blog entries that start like this ... "there are two types of scientists"
Yes I know I do it too. But categorizing is what the human mind does best and so in this vein I'll present to you "Robots and Independent Thinkers"
A friend from Columbia told me about this particular type of division of grad students and postdocs.
Robots do what they are told.
Independent thinkers do what they want regardless of what they are told.
The question is, if you were a Principle Investigator, which would you prefer? When current postdocs were asked this question they responded "independent thinkers", while current PIs wanted "robots". Having thought about this for a while I think that their answers made sense.
1) The postdocs that were asked this question were all (what I would consider) independent thinkers. This answer is in fact a validation of their own attitudes towards science. I would need to ask this question to a robot.
2) Most PIs that were asked this question were young professors who need experienced hands to help them get those grants. The last thing they need is some young postdoc-punk that refuses to do their biding. A young professor exclaimed that these independent thinker postdocs ate up more time than the inexperienced robot techs. I can see how this particular situation is undesirable when you are starting up a lab. Judging from all the big labs I know of, I think that older more established professors do not want robot postdocs (I'll have to ask Tom this question). Robots are not as ambitious, and robots do not challenge your assumptions.
But I have a more fundamental problem with these categories, the terminology. Robots have the connotation of non-thinking slaves. Their only goal is to do their master's biding. Let's rename them to troopers. And independent thinkers? How about know-it-all punks . These guys don't know how to listen and learn from others. Pigheaded they perform their crazy experiments wasting everyone's resources.
Now I can hear the punks/independent-thinkers complain ... "no one fits neatly into one category" ... and ... "dumb independent thinkers are punks" ... true but perhaps smart robots would be ideal postdocs ... or perhaps smart postdocs wouldn't fit into either of these groups ...
So the question remains, if you ran a lab, which would you prefer and why?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
or perhaps smart postdocs wouldn't fit into either of these groups ...
What would you say is the ideal combination of characteristics of robots and independent thinkers?
Let's say that your boss asks you to do (what you think is) a terrible experiment. Troopers would just do it. And Independent thinkers would not.
But perhaps a smart postdoc/gradstudent would pick and choose their fights. Thus perform the experiment if it wasn't too time consumming, or ignore the advisor's request if the experiment was too involved.
The good advisor sets the limits, e.g., the work has to be on a particular general problem, done in a particular model system, using, for the most part equipment already found in the lab (though this is negotiable). The student/postdoc then designs the experiments and both people (PI and student) sit down and write the grant proposal and the IACU proposal, etc., then keep each other informed, teach each other, learn from each other, switch gears if neccessary, etc., as the work progresses.
The student may, as long as it is still within the limits (or covered by IACUC permission, for instance), do stuff that PI did not know anything about, and then, if the data are great, show the data to the PI which can be a really nice surprise.
More expensive and high-tech the research, harder it is to get this kind of relationship - the PI almost HAS TO dictate the details of the work done in the lab in order to use the millions smartly. So, the molecular labs tend to be more dictatorial, physiology/behavior labs are more like the one I described above, and ecology labs are practically anarchic with the PI often not having a really good idea what the heck is the student doing, until s/he reads the first draft of the thesis or paper (this is for self-starters for sure - robots perish in such labs)
Scientific research is a windy and often unclear path, and you need a bit of imagination to visualise the best route. If you're a micromanager, you want to be the one who supplies the creativity, and will prefer 'robots' in your lab. If you're more interested in getting things done than how they're done, you'll prefer more independent thinkers who can supply it themselves. Neither attitude is 'wrong', per se, and both have risks (in the first you might end up with an echo-chamber, in the second, anarchy), but I think I'd prefer the latter. Given that after my PhD. viva my supervisor(exaggerating) said that I'd spent the last four years ignoring everything he told me, wanting otherwise would be hypocritical!
After having the freedom to design my own thesis project, I couldn't imagine being a robot postdoc. A good advisor should be supportive (both financially and intellectually), but not dictatorial. A good student/postdoc should be willing to listen to his/her advisor's advice, but also have the intellectual capacity to offer constructive criticisms. The best student-advisor relationships occur when they treat each other like colleagues and not employee-employer.
Coturnix: so the ideal student is (roughly) one who:
a) does what they're told by default
b) is capable of spotting good ideas and following up on them in a way that won't mess the PI about
Does that sound about right?
To say that conflicts should not arise is, I think, unrealistic and idealistic. In cutting edge research, a PI will always want some extra ordinary experiments done, or if the PI does not feel that the postdoc is working hard enough, nudge the postdoc along. The question presumes that the PI and the postdoc will have a conflict.
Here's another scenario: a PI thinks that the postdoc is going along the wrong path (experimentally that is) and advises him to change course. So what does the postdoc do? If he's an employee, sure he has to follow what his boss dictates, but this isn't that type of relationship. And I wouldn't call it a colleague relationship either. It's mentor-mentee. That's difficult.
I would like a mixed population of post-docs, although with more "independent thinkers". If I would be a young PI I would like to have a "robot" that would work as my arms and produce the preliminary data for grants, as mentioned above. However independent thinkers would be the largest part of the lab. Science is made with exchange of ideas. I will need that to run good science and have fun in the lab.
I think "know it all punks" are different from "independent thinkers". If you don't listen to anyone, ignore the work done in the lab, and the long-term view of the PI, you are a "know it all punk". As a young PI, guys like these would be a challenge in the lab. The "independent thinker" will be more the type of person that you talk with and show why you like your work. And this guy will come up with new ways to answer your questions and even more questions (and hopefully the answers...), within the same major theme. This is the ideal post-doc for me.
I would be a slave master. And with my army we will rule the world!
Acme,
Uhm ... did you write this while sipping your midnight cap?