<p>Hello, It is the person, not the program, that determines success. The higher the" power" of the research lab, the less likely you will be given freedom to fulfill your own ideas (unless you are very fortunate, as I was, to be in a lab where the director wants all reasonable ideas to be explored). I was fortunate to be in a Nobel laureate’s lab for 3 years where my thoughts and labor were appreciated. My experience as a fellow doing a stint in research in a division of a medical school was less gratifying. When a novel approach to a problem was suggested, I was told by the division director that “I don’t need any new ideas; I need you to work on my ideas”. I left bench research; went into clinical practice ( and do my own invention/research); His ideas dried up. The politics of science is best imagined by visualizing super-egos competing for limited resources (money/promotion/prestige). It ain’t pretty and not every one gets what they deserve. There are a lot of people consumed in the process. I was consumed in my PhD program after I developed a product sought by my director/chairman for 10 years. He took my lab books, told me he never saw me in the lab doing anything related to the project, forbid me from publishing my work, blocked me from forming a committee, and patented my work… He was also chair of the university’s ethics committee. I suggest you become familiar with the contents of “The Art of War” and “The Prince” to successfully navigate the minefields that lie ahead. </p>