Response to "Ten Simple Rules to Combine Teaching and Research"

Vicens & Bourne, PLoS Comp Biol 2009

My summary of their 10 rules:

1. Learn to manage your time
2. Set specific goals
3. Don't try to do everything
4. See #3
5. See #3
6. See #3
7. See #3
8. See #1
9. Start early, practice often
10. See #1

Methinks they liked the roundness of 10 in "10 Simple Rules" too much. My approach?

1. Learn GTD
   • bonus points for learning Inbox Zero, also
2. Start early, practice often

On Not Knowing and Being Wrong

Rarely do we have all the facts. We work based on the evidence available at the time, and even then some things may be overlooked.

Consider Alice and Bob. Alice asks Bob for assistance. Bob snaps at her to do her own work and quit bothering him. If Alice does not know Bob well, she might conclude that he's a jerk. If Alice knows that Bob has gotten very little sleep for the last few days and that he has a major deadline approaching, she might conclude that he's stressed out. Without changing the facts, just changing their availability to Alice, it is clear that her conclusion may change.

This is how scientific discovery works. The available facts change all the time, and so our conclusions change. New methods of measurement, new datasets, knowledge crossing disciplines, any of these things can potentially change the conclusions we draw. Often the differences are subtle. Still, if you are in the mindset that conclusions are fixed Truths, finding that you're wrong (again and again and again) can be disconcerting.

At the same time, we can't wait for all the facts before making any conclusions. You may never get all the facts. You'll be stuck in inaction, indecisive as Hamlet.

This is what I struggle with now. Do I have enough facts for a reasonably firm conclusion? Which facts can I collect – which experiments can I run – in the near future that would help? As fun as it may sound, I can't explore forever. It's not a realistic prospect. I need to gather the information available to me now and conclude what I can. Tomorrow's new facts may tell me I am wrong, but I won't know until then.

Surviving Chemistry Seminars

Considering Chad Orzel's Notes Toward a User's Guide to Synthetic Chemistry Talks, I made a list of questions you can (almost) always ask at a chemistry seminar (not just synthetic):

• What is the impact of pH on ‹thing you're studying›?
• What is the impact of temperature on ‹thing you're studying›?
• What is the impact of solvent[1] on ‹thing you're studying›?
• What is the effect of concentration/crowding on ‹thing you're studying›?

Riskier – Orzel might say "unsporting" – but often applicable questions include:

• What impact does ‹thing you're studying› have on the environment/society?
• What are the ethical implications of ‹thing you're studying›?

[1]: in biological chemistry, substitute "media" for "solvent"

Things they don't tell you about graduate school

My advice for those just beginning

• Many, many things may be the way they are because of department/campus/regional politics. (And that's not always bad.)
• Your advisor is probably making it up as he/she goes along, just like you are.
• Your students (particularly freshmen) think you are supposed to have all the answers. If grades are involved, they are not likely to be pleased or reassured to find out you are human.
• Everything takes longer than you think.
• There is no right way. There are better ways and more famous ways, and those may be two different things.
• Big name researchers may (and often do) give dreadful seminars.
• Just because the food is free does not mean it's any good or that you have to eat it.
• Beware of a group or advisor of whom the highest praise is lukewarm.
• A group referred to as "dedicated" should be considered with caution. "Dedicated" often means "life-stealing."
• Hours spent in the lab or office simply to satisfy an attendance quota are not likely to help. Butts in seats ≠ minds at work.
• Even so, sometimes you just need to throw more hours at a problem.
• Make friends outside your group. Even better, make friends outside your department. Best of all, have at least one friend you talk to regularly who isn't in grad school at all.
• Find time to do something that isn't work. Every week. Do not schedule anything else during that time.
• You will be wrong a lot. Maybe even most of the time.
• Your conclusions may change every few days or weeks. This is normal.
• Surround yourself with people who are experts at other things. Ask them for help early and often.
• Ask for help even if you're not sure what particular help you need. Sometimes the greatest help comes in formulating the questions you need to ask.
• Don't put up with bullies.
• Find an advocate. When you run in to trouble, you'll need someone to back you up.
• That guy who is arrogant and belittling? He's probably afraid you'll think he's a fraud. You don't have to fear him.
• You are not the only impostor in the room. Everyone else is hoping you won't notice.
• "I don't know" is a legitimate answer. When answering questions about your research, "I don't know yet" is probably better. You might never know. That's okay, too.

Scientific thought and the endurance of facts

• In the pop sci world, facts are frequently treated as solid, immovable things. When commonly known theories change, lay people can get up in arms over the changing of 'facts.'
• We teach students facts as if they were eternal, but few ideas are unchanging.
• Every scientific theory was once a hypothesis. Someone had to gather the evidence, take the measurements, and pull together a working idea.
• Scientific facts are not self-evident.

I think facts are more like stones in a wall. You can build a serviceable, sturdy wall out of rough hewn stones. There may be weak points and gaps. When someone does the hard (and often tedious) work of refining those stones, gaps are closed, and the structure becomes sturdier. Sometimes, despite years of acceptance, we find a stone doesn't fit with its neighbors any more. Sometimes that stone is changed and adapted. Sometimes it is removed altogether and replaced with one that fits better – a theory that explains better.

A key ingredient to scientific thought is falsifiability. You accept – perhaps expect! – that someone else with more evidence could come along and prove you wrong.