When I first read Keith Crutcher’s award winning essay more than 20 years ago I laughed my head off. It’s when you stop laughing and think about it for a moment that you see why he won the essay contest – there is an underlying ring of truth.
How to succeed in science!
Advice for the young scientist… by Dr. Grant Holder
Originally published as
Keith A. Crutcher. How To Succeed In Science
(Perspectives in Biol and Med, 34:2 Winter 1991, 213-218)
It seems that many of our scientists have not received basic training on how to succeed in
science – for example, obtaining grants, receiving peer recognition, having a bibliography that
is longer than any particular publication listed in it, etc. In order to correct this deficiency, the
following guidelines are presented. Of course, there will always be the occasional black
sheep who decides to embark on an entirely original course of work or chooses to forgo the
rewards of being recognized as a successful scientist, in which case these guidelines do not
apply. But attention to the principles set forth below should provide a solid framework for
most aspiring scientists to build on.
1. Relax! We’re Only between Paradigm Shifts Anyhow
Much of the stress and anxiety that have traditionally been associated with the conduct of
science are now relieved by the tremendous insight provided by Thomas Kuhn. Since the vast
majority of scientists are currently doing “normal” science, akin to treading theoretical water,
true advances must await the next shift in paradigms and most of us can relax as we realize
that our work is unlikely to have any lasting influence. Of -course, there may be some who
seek to contribute to, or actually precipitate, a shift in paradigms, and it is unlikely that they
can be stopped, but the rest of us should recognize that the clarification of an existing
paradigm is necessary for subsequent scientific revolutions. Just imagine how difficult
science would be if every investigator made some fundamental contribution that involved a
shift in paradigm or forced us to analyze our basic assumptions about the area in which we
work.
2. Become Famous
Once you have the appropriate relaxed attitude about the importance of your own work (see
1) it becomes much easier to focus on the business of being a scientist. In this regard, being
famous ranks second only to being relaxed. Unfortunately, many scientists have overlooked
the importance of being famous in order to succeed, especially in the areas of obtaining
grants and getting to travel (see 5, below). And becoming famous is really much less
difficult than most realize. There are several options. One of the quickest and surest is to
work with someone who is already famous. This will guarantee a certain amount of
secondary fame that can be used as a foundation for establishing your own fame. Another
method is to organize a symposium on a “hot” topic and invite the most famous people in the
field, including the famous person with whom you work, to participate. Then list yourself on
the same program. This technique has had marvelous results for countless numbers of now
famous scientists. Another effective option is to publish a paper or abstract every week in your
selected area (see 3). This method takes more effort, but with attention to the following
guidelines the work can be minimized and the results guaranteed to make you a recognized
expert in any particular field.
3. Publish Often (Preferably Abstracts)
It is common knowledge that modern scientists do not have time to read the rapidly growing
literature in their field and, with the realization that most research will have no lasting effect
(see 1), it is clear that to do so would be a waste of time. Therefore, take advantage of the fact
that most of your peers are going to be influenced by your work primarily through name
recognition. The same principle that advertising agencies use, namely, repeated exposure, is
vital to success in science as well. The more times your name is seen in print, the more
influence you will have and the more famous you will be (see 2). Of course the choice of
medium is critical; ideally you should publish as often as possible in newspapers and popular
magazines, but scientific journals can have their place as well. You should try to average one
paper or abstract every week, and your name should appear last. The more coauthors you
have, the better, because everyone knows that the last author is the one who really
counts, and it shows that you must already be famous to have so many other scientists
working with you. Some will argue that each publication should contain new information,
but, again, this view does not take into account the lessons learned from Madison Avenue. In
fact, the more often you say the same thing, the more likely your chances of being
remembered. Once the same set of data have been published several times, with no more than
slight variations, they begin to take on greater credibility, both in the minds of your
colleagues and in your own mind. In addition, the particular area that you work in, even if it
had formerly been considered obscure and uninteresting, takes on increasing importance each
time it appears in print.
Of course, the format can play a vital role in your ultimate success. The many advantages
derived from publishing your work, in abstract form, for example, are often overlooked.
First, it provides the opportunity to travel (see 5). Second, it is rarely reviewed (and we all
have horror stories to tell about critical reviews we have received on even our best papers).
Third, and most important, it provides a published document that can either be cited in
establishing precedence for an observation, if it turns out to be correct or important (or both!),
or can just as easily be left uncited if ultimately found to be in error. In some cases,
particularly once you have gained some experience, it is possible to publish several abstracts
at one time, each dealing with a slight variation on the same theme. Some scientific societies
permit you to submit only one abstract with yourself listed as first author but this restriction is easilyovercome. Most scientists, for example, are already aware of potential coauthors from the
ranks of students and associates, often overlooked are administrators and members of the
custodial staff, some of whom would be happy to see their names in print. With a little bit of
planning you can have several abstracts published simultaneously, one with your name first
and the rest with your name listed last. Legend has it that one scientist was able to fill two
entire sessions at a single meeting with abstracts solely from his laboratory.
4. Publish Only What Cannot Be Refuted (at Least in Your Lifetime)
Many young scientits sadly misinterpret this principle to mean that one should publish
careful, well-thought-out papers. On the contrary, much time and effort can be saved by
publishing results without any attention to their significance or relevance at all. Odds are, no
one is going to read the paper anyway (see 3), so don’t waste your valuable time analyzing
the results. More important, as long as you restrict your discussion to what you saw, with
enough methodological differences from previous work so that any discrepancies can be
explained if the need arises, you will never be found in error, particularly if you refrain from
discussing the potential significance of the results. The simplest way to avoid any
embarrassment is to publish new and improved techniques. The publication of new methods
rarely leads you into strong theoretical disputes with your colleagues but still permits lively
discussions about whether the pH was optimal. Even better, develop a desirable reagent that
your colleagues can use and then distribute it to them with the modest request that you be
included as an author on any paper that mentions the reagent. You will be amazed at how
quickly your bibliography lengthens and your fame correspondingly increases. If for some
reason you feel compelled to speculate on your data in print, be sure to limit your speculation
to ideas that cannot be tested in your lifetime, if at all.
5. Present Your Work at Every Opportunity
One of the many benefits of doing science is the opportunity to travel. Of course, the more
famous you are, the more opportunities you will have to travel. Conversely, the more times,
you are seen in public, the more famous you will become. In addition, most conferences
provide the opportunity to publish at least one abstract (see 3). When presenting your work,
be sure to use attractive slides that are not cluttered with detail. One helpful hint: leave off
any statistical information, especially for graphical data, since it often detracts from the main
point of the slide. Contrary to the situation for your published work, feel free to speculate
during your presentation. In fact, don’t be constrained by the data. Remember that your effect
will be much greater if you make sweeping statements and generalizations unrestrained by
the facts or by what you have published in the abstract. If anyone seriously questions a
statement you have made or presents contradictory results, you can avoid any embarrassment
for yourself by pointing out that he or she did not use the optimal pH. Presentations are
necessary, but not sufficient, for success in science. When you have been invited to
participate at a meeting, be sure to keep track of who invited you so that you will be able to
invite the same individuals to present at the next conference you organize. Eventually you
will find that there are enough of you to invite each other to several conferences during the
year, and, if you are really successful, you may even decide to establish your own society
consisting of only the most successful scientists (mainly those who are invited to several
conferences during the year).
6. Submit a Grant Proposal Only on Work You Have Already Done
This would hardly seem to require stating, but there are still a number of scientists, especially
unseasoned rookies, who actually propose experiments that have not yet been conducted.
Most reviewers of grant applications have finally weeded out the ones who continually
propose novel work, but there are still some who do not quite understand that the surest bet is
on a horse that has already won. Naturally, you need to be a little careful in timing the
publication of the proposed work so that it doesn’t actually appear in print before your grant
is reviewed (except, of course, in multiple abstract form). The rookie scientist may encounter
the dilemma of not having been able to do the experiments before obtaining grant support.
The most common solution is to propose work similar to what you have already done
working with someone who is famous. If that option is not available, then you may be forced
to propose work that is original. If so, be sure that the research is only a slight variation of
work that someone else has already done. This assures the reviewers that your particular
experiments fall within the existing paradigm. A good example would be finding the optimal
pH at which to run a new and improved technique.
7. Don’t Waste Your Time Teaching
Remember that your goal is to succeed in science. Although a certain amount of teaching can
be beneficial, in that it gives you some exposure to students who may decide to work for you
(and provide potential authors for your many abstracts), it is terribly time-consuming to make
more than cameo appearances. There will be some pressure by other faculty and your
chairman to contribute to the teaching program, especially, before you receive tenure, but this
pressure can be relieved to some extent by the way in which you teach. For example, always
present your material in a fashion that obscures any relevance to matters that concern the
students. In medical teaching this has become common practice. Another effective approach
is to provide details of the methods that you use in the laboratory, especially emphasizing the
importance of optimal pH. Usually students are so overwhelmed by the volume of
information that they will have difficulty asking intelligent questions. The advantage of this is
obvious. Eventually you will find less teaching is required of you, and you will have more
time to spend writing abstracts and going to conferences.
8. Go Commercial
Fame is nice but is so much more enjoyable when accompanied by wealth. The traditional
role of scientist has not always been as lucrative as other careers. This is changing. One of the
very exciting options in science is to identify potential commercial applications of the work
you do and market them. Numerous scientists are discovering the monetary advantages of
forming their own companies with initial research and development funds provided by the
federal government through grants and contracts. The beauty of this system is that there is
very little risk. If the commercial application does not generate a profit, you can always apply
for another federal research grant to keep going. On the other hand, if you are able to
capitalize on your scientific successes and establish a profitable company, you can use your
academic affiliations, and your positions on editorial review boards and study sections, to
keep abreast of the hottest developments in the field to feed into your company. The
competitive advantage this gives you should be obvious.
Summary
Adherence to these principles will not guarantee success, but the testimony of many famous
scientists supports the hypothesis that these guidelines can significantly (p<0.03,
Wilcoxon unpaired X-test run at pH 5.6) increase your chances of achieving recognition,
acquiring wealth, and ultimately being known as a successful scientist. At the very least, they
should prevent you from falling too far outside the boundaries of “normal” science where you
could easily be branded for life as a troublemaker or heretic. ‘Few scientists are aware of the
illustrious history of the abstract. The word is a contraction of the Original “Abe’s tract,”
which was a little known pamphlet circulated by Lincoln when first running for political
office. Although the contents of the tract are not known, its influence can hardly be
underestimated since Lincoln’s remaining political career was said to derive entirely from this
little tract. Some say that several ideas in the tract were actually plagiarized from an
unpublished work of John Wilkes Booth, but this allegation has never been substantiated.
Originally published as
Keith A. Crutcher. How To Succeed In Science
(Perspectives in Biol and Med, 34:2 Winter 1991, 213-218)
If you like this blog, please share it::
Like this:
Like Loading...