If you are contemplating pursuing a career in the life sciences, or have already embarked on one, you need to give some thought to your career prospects. So, take a study break, grab a cup of coffee and read on. Unfortunately, I need to begin with some depressing facts. First, only a small minority of Ph.D. students will ever have opportuni-ties to become principal investigators (PI)
in academic ttings and direct their own independent rearch programmes (FIG. 1). Second, even if you are among this elite group, the odds are that you will be well down the path towards retirement by the time you receive your first rearch project grant (R01) (the average age is 43) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the principal source of funding for biomedical rearch in the United States. Third, for your entire career as a PI, you will put inordinate efforts into writing grants. If you should ever lo funding, you will be at the mercy of your institution for your continued employment. Fourth, if you do achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ of full professorship then you will not be poor, but you will be far wor off financially than nearly all of your peers who have similar levels of talent, energy and dedication, but who cho other careers.
Y our professors might tell you that this is the way it has always been, but this simply isn’t true. Twenty-five years ago the situation was much rosier. Scientists gained independ-
ence a decade earlier and funding, although
never easy, was more reliable and accessible.
Universities were more humane institutions
where accountants had less influence over
institutional priorities and decisions. Our cur-
rent lamentable situation is fixable, and will
心疼的英文
have to improve significantly if the United
States is to maintain its position as a leader in
science and technology. A positive outcome
is not guaranteed, however, and fixing the
current mess will require the concerted efforts
of scientists, university presidents and politi-
cians to save the biomedical goo that has
laid golden eggs for US biotechnology and
health care for the past 50 years.
Science rocks
But there is good news too. Society desper-
ately needs your talents. The future health,
wealth and even survival of Homo sapiens
depend on a deeper understanding of the
laws and mechanisms of nature and on using
this information to develop new technologies
and therapies. For rationally thinking people
with an altruistic bent, life can be no more
rewarding than when practising the scientific
method for the benefit of all of the denizens
of this fragile planet. As a budding scientist,
you are trained to expertly u the scientific
method. That is, you learn how to wield the
body of techniques that are ud to identify
and investigate natural phenomena by form-
ulating and rigorously testing hypothes.
The origins of the scientific method date
back at least 1,000 years, and it is arguably
the most important invention of civilized
man. Armed with the scientific method, we
can explore and understand nature to the
limits of our intelligence. As a high priest of
‘Scientific Methodism’, you will be equipped
for success not only in science and its allied
occupations, but in virtually any career that
requires rational decision making (and in
some, such as politics, that ought to).
More good news: for individuals with
a hunger for knowledge and an insatiable
curiosity about how things work, science
offers a constant challenge and, best of all,
the inten thrill of discovery. What can
match being the first person who has ever
lived to know something new about nature?
And not just the big, infrequent, paradigm-
making (or breaking) discoveries, but the
small, incremental discoveries that occur
on a daily or weekly basis too. If this doesn’t
give you goobumps and if you are not in a
rush to get to the laboratory in the morning
to find the results of yesterday’s experiment,
then you should riously consider a non-
laboratory career. Making discoveries is the
core reward for the myriad of difficulties you
will face in your scientific career (e Part II,
in which I discuss making discoveries1).
Although it is possible to succeed in science
even if you lack this passion for discovery,
you will almost certainly be mirable and
make your colleagues, friends and family
wretched too.
Science has other perks. Contemporary
science is one of the most communal activi-
ties ever pursued by humanity, and is among
regenerate
the most international careers possible. Y ou
will probably be interacting on a daily basis
with scientists from all over the world, both
in your laboratory and over the internet.
Once established in your career, you can
fly to dozens of cities across the globe and
be greeted by a colleague that you either
know personally or through reading each
other’s publications. Y ou might even train a
generation of rearchers in your laboratory
who will disper around the globe to pass
the torch of the scientific method to the next
generation of their nation.
E S S ay
How to succeed in science:
a conci guide for young biomedical
scientists. Part I: taking the plunge
Jonathan W. Y ewdell
Abstract | Biomedical rearch has never been more intellectually exciting or
practically important to society. Ironically, pursuing a career as a biomedical
scientist has never been more difficult. Here I provide unvarnished advice for
young biomedical scientists on the difficulties that lie ahead and on how to find
the right laboratories for training in the skills that you will need to succeed.
Although my advice is geared towards succeeding in the United States, many
aspects apply to other countries.
PerSPectIveS
ideally veral per week, if not daily. This provides the best training and, importantly, is also the most fun. This will also develop your abilities to conceive the crucial controls that are needed to interpret the data in a meaningful way. ‘Control creativity’ is a central part of your scientific IQ; it comes only from the experience of designing and interpreting experiments. Y ou should avoid projects that are largely bad on using a single technique to develop a reagent or collect data (for example, generating a transgenic mou).
Choosing a mentor. Although there is tremendous subjectivity in choosing a compatible mentor, there are a number of objective criteria (FIG. 2). Are the people in the laboratory happy and enthusiastic about their rearch? Have former students gone on to productive careers? Does the mentor treat students as junior colleagues and not as employees? Generally speaking, you should run from laboratories where a PI is referred to as Doctor X and not by his or her first name.
Frequently, you will have to choo between a small laboratory with a new investigator versus a large laboratory with
a well-established scientist. Newly minted assistant professors will not have much of a track record as mentors; you might even be the first student they train. Still, you should riously consider joining
such a laboratory if the chemistry ems right. Although this has its obvious risks, you are a much more valu-able commodity to a small laboratory, the survival of which could well depend on your personal success. Conquently, you will get
more inten mentoring and will probably be working side-by-side with the PI. The best situation is to be the first Ph.D. student of a rising star, for you will be maximally produc-tive, will generate well-developed ties to your field and will have an influential champion for years to come (although becau aca-demic ‘star’ formation is an inexact science, this often takes some luck).
Skills, not papers.Contrary to what you might have heard, it is not critical to have
a spectacular publication record from your Ph.D. When the time comes to apply for a tenure-track job, the lection committee will focus on the productivity and promi you displayed during your postdoctoral fellowship. Furthermore, a solid Ph.D. with one good first-author paper that is bad largely on your own work is all that is usually required to obtain the postdoctoral position of your dreams, particularly for citizens of the United States, who are in short supply at
this level. Y our focus as a graduate student
should be to develop all of the skills you will
need to be an independent scientist.
At some point as a graduate student you
will need to take responsibility for all aspects
of your career and develop the skills of an
independent scientist. Y ou need to develop
confidence in your ability to make discover-
ies and learn new techniques, so that you will
not be limited later in your career when your
findings lead you to new and unexpected
美容护肤培训班areas (e Part II (ReF 1)). Y ou need to do the
background reading to place your results in
their proper context and determine the next
step in the project. Y ou need to learn how to
prent a minar in which you convey not
2010国家线
only the data and conclusions, but also yourthree
depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for
your field of rearch. Such public-speaking
skills are critical for peer recognition of
the impact of your rearch, for recruiting
students and fellows to your laboratory, and
for effective teaching. Most importantly, you
need to learn how to write concily and
lucidly2, for without this skill, you will not
be able to rai grant money or place your
papers in high-impact journals.
sat考试团Step two: postdoctoral fellowship
In many ways the most important decision
on the PI career path is where you do your
postdoctoral fellowship. It should be in a
field in which you envisage starting your
independent career, the success of which will
be almost entirely dependent on your ability
to attract funding. As a newly independent
scientist, study ctions will be loath to fund
you to embark on a project that is not a direct
continuation of your postdoctoral studies.
This also means that you will need access to
the reagents you developed as a postdoctoral Figure 2 | The nine types of principal investigator. this cartoon was kindly provided by Alexander Dent,
P e r s P e c t i v e s
fellow. Y ou will also need the blessings of your mentor and, optimally, your mentor should actively support your nascent career. So, in choosing your postdoctoral mentor, it is critical to determine whether a mentor enthusiastically supports, both materially and psychologically, the careers of their fledglings. This is easier to determine if the mentor is an established scientist with a pedi-gree. established scientists will also be able to offer laboratories with a greater variety
of experti, reagents and greater financial resources, all of which will help you establish an independent line of rearch for you to parlay into an independent career.
It is esntial to visit the laboratories that interest you to gauge the productivity, independence and happiness of the students and postdoctoral fellows. It is a good idea to contact scientists who have left the laboratory to obtain their honest opinion of their experience (in laboratories headed by evil mentors, this might be the only way to ascertain their pathology, as the current lab-oratory members may be too intimidated to express negative opinions). If the laboratory won’t pay your travel expens, then this does not augur well, as it indicates either limited financial resources or stinginess. All things being equal, it is advantageous to work at larger, wealthier institutions where there will be better access to expensive, state-of-the-art instruments and core facili-ties, greater overall intellectual ferment, more laboratories for collaboration and a better chance to impress other established scientists, who can write the crucial recom-mendation letters for getting your tenure-track application into the interview round. Sometimes, however, all things are not equal, and if the best mentor is at a smaller institution, this will do just fine.
What is it going to take? Perspiration. Success in science will require a major commitment of your body and soul. As a graduate student, you should be spend-ing a minimum of 40 hours per week actually designing, performing or interpreting experi-ments. As there are many other necessary things to do during the day (for example, reading the literature, attending minars and journal club, t
alking to colleagues both formally and informally, and common labo-ratory jobs), this means you will be spending 60 or more hours per week in science-associ-ated activities. The key to success and happi-ness is that most of this should not em like work. If the laboratory is not the place you’d most like to be, then a career as a PI is prob-ably not for you. At the postdoctoral level you will have to work at least as hard, but
your most inten effort will actually begin as
a tenure-track faculty member, when you are
expected to fund your rearch (and at least
some of your salary too), teach undergradu-everything is nothing
ates as well as graduate and professional
students, rve on committees and run your
laboratory, which itlf entails learning an
entirely new t of skills (such as accounting,
diplomacy and psychology). Ironically, you
will have more to learn as a fledgling profes-
sor than as a postdoctoral fellow. Until you
are well into your career, there will be time
in your life for just one additional significant
activity (family, active social life with friends,
a sport or a hobby), but probably not for
much more than that.
but not sufficient for a successful scientific
career. Talent is a key part of the equation,
and at some point in your career (not neces-
sarily as a graduate student), you will need
to objectively asss your skills and potential
relative to your peers. The inexorable weight
of the scientific career pyramid squeezes
out all but the most talented from getting
the tenure-track job that will offer you the
chance of establishing your own laboratory.
Furthermore, the insanely competitive fund-
ing situation is making the previously safe
transition between tenure-track and tenured
tablet是什么意思
professor a far dicier proposition. Scientific
talent is not a single parameter, but a com-
plex mix of innate and learned skills and
abilities. Deficiencies in one area can be off-
t by strengths in another. Some scientists
achieve success by their experimental skills
or insights, others by their management or
political skills. There is no one path to suc-
cess and each successful scientist has unique
combinations of strengths (and weakness).
If, for whatever reason, you decide that
you are better suited for life outside the labo-
ratory, there are numerous career alternatives.
Neither you nor your mentor should consider
this outcome a failure. It is unfair, and even
irresponsible for mentors to expect trainees
to emulate their own career paths. each men-
tor has only to train a single replacement to
maintain the PI population at equilibrium.
even with robust growth in NIH-funded
biomedical rearch (which is unlikely in the
foreeable future), the current investigator-
to-trainee ratio dictates that most trainees will
pursue careers that differ fundamentally from
tho of their mentors.
Networking plays a key part in provid-
ing information about potential alternative
careers and in landing such jobs. Alumni of
the laboratories and departments you have
worked in are the most proximal source of
networking partners. e-mail has opened a
great portal into the academic community
for initiating contacts that can be deepened
by follow-up telephone conversations. It can
be difficult to penetrate the corporate world
by this path, but conferences provide ideal
circumstances for meeting scientists out of
mark zuckerbergthe academic mainstream who can provide
insight, advice and even job opportunities.
It might be possible during your post-
doctoral fellowship to develop your skills
and attractiveness to potential employers by
moonlighting or volunteering in the career
path you are contemplating.
Final thoughts
So, your cup of coffee should be finished by
now. Plea don’t be discouraged, but give
some thought to your career path. If you
are talented and passionate, you will have a
good chance of becoming a PI; particularly in
the United States, which still provides great
opportunities for truly independent entry-
level positions. If the trials and tribulations of
being a PI aren’t for you, there are many other
ways to u your scientific training to make a
decent living and a valuable contribution to
society. Now get back to work.
Jonathan W. Yewdell is at the
Laboratory of Viral Dias,
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dias,
Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
E-mail: JYEWDELL@v
doi:10.1038/nrm2389
published online 10 April 2008
1. Yewdell, J. W. How to succeed in science: a conci
guide for young biomedical scientists. Part II: making
如何提高社交能力discoveries. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10 April 2008
(doi:10.1038/nrm2390).
2. Bredan, A. S. & van Roy, F. Writing readable pro.
EMBO Rep.7, 846–849 (2006).
3. Garrison, H. H. & McGuire, K. Education and
employment of biological and medical scientists: data
from national surveys.Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology. [online], opa.fab/
pages/PolicyIssues/training_datappt.htm(2007).
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the many junior and nior scientists
who shared their insights into scientific success. B. Dolan, K.
Grebe, S. Hensley and J. Ishizuka made valuable suggestions
for improvements to the manuscript.
P e r s P e c t i v e s
