<p>
[quote]
Statements like these and also Sakky's comments on doing independent projects show that you don't understand the culture or the mechanism of scientific research, at least in life sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting. So, you are accusing me of not understanding the culture or mechanisms of scientific research, is it? Trust me, I think my level of understanding is pretty darn good, thank you very much. For more about this, see below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point being that if someone takes on a project in this field without appropriate equipment and supplies it is highly highly unlikely that any outcome will be of high impact or even as high as anything done while working in a laboratory. Primarily due to the soaring costs of reagents, equipment and most definitely the necessity of obtaining insight and guidance from senior scientists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's a rather unfair statement, I would say. </p>
<p>Let's unpack what you just said. First, you say that it is highly unlikely that your outcome will be of high impact if you don't have appropriate equipment and supplies. Well, the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of scientific research is not high impact. Let's be perfectly honest. You know it's true. A significant fraction (often times more than half in some disciplines) of all scientific papers are never cited, not even once, even years after publication. Even those that are cited, many of them are cited only occassionally. Most of the research that goes on out there - especially at the lower ranked departments - is just not very high impact. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. I know a girl who completed her PhD at Berkeley, and conducted her research under Jay Keasling who is undoubtedly one of the most prominent biochemical researchers in the world (as he was named the 2006 Discover Magazine's Scientist of the Year). She was first-author in a publication that came out in 1999 (and Keasling was a coauthor). It's 8 years later. To this day, that paper has been cited only 3 times. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to criticize her. After all, her paper has more citations than a lot of other papers out there that have zero citations after 8 years. However, she freely admits herself that she doesn't think that that research was high impact, and she never expected it to be. She freely admits that that paper uncovered only a relatively minor finding. It was important enough to be publishable, but she knew it wasn't exactly going to take the scientific world by storm. </p>
<p>But think about that. This isn't just some scrub school here. This is Berkeley. And this isn't just some mediocre PI she was working under. This is Jay Keasling we're talking about there. Yet even in the Keasling lab, there were people (like this girl) who were working on research that is of only relatively minor consequence. So if that sort of thing is happening at even a pre-eminent lab at a top department like that, just imagine what is happening at most of the other labs at lower-ranked departments with less prominent PI's. </p>
<p>I'll expand the story further. Let's talk more about Keasling. Let's talk about all of the publications that Keasling has published in 2002 and before. I choose 2002 as a cutoff because I think 5 years is enough time for a publication to have a decent chance of being cited by other reserachers. According to Web of Science, Keasling is an author of 98 papers that were published in or before 2002. Yet even of these 98 papers, 19 of them have * not even been cited once* - not even a self-citation. Another 39 have been cited, but only 10 times or less. In fact, of all of those papers that Keasling has published up to 2002, the average such publication has been cited only 11.78 times. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, Keasling obviously has some superstar papers. For example, he was coauthor on a 2003 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY paper that has been cited 96 times. That's a quite substantial paper, with a highly impressive average yearly citations rate of 19.20. He has the Pramanik & Keasling (1997) BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING paper that has been cited quite a bit. But again, the majority of his papers are not cited at all, or are cited only moderately. </p>
<p>Hence, that indicates that even in the lab of a guy who was named Discover Magazine's Scientist of the Year, the majority of the reserch performed in that lab is not high impact. So if that sort of thing happens in even the Keasling lab, imagine what is happening in less prominent labs. </p>
<p>Now, to your point about independent work not having as much 'impact' as work you can do in a lab, yeah that's probably true. But again, that's not really the point. What ultimately matters for your career is not what impact your project has, but what credit you get for the project. In other words, it doesn't really help you that much to be coauthor on a highly impactful paper if you're, say, 75th in the coauthorship list. {Don't laugh - some academic papers have literally hundreds of coauthors, and in fact, a few papers have coauthor lists that are longer than the paper itself). Frankly, it would be better for you to be first author (or even sole author) of a paper of only minor consequence. After all, if you're way down on a huge list of authors, then people are going to rightfully question whether you really contributed meaningfully to the project at all. But if you're first author, it's hard to question your contribution, even if the paper is minor. </p>
<p>Now, of course, it is obviously great to be an undergrad who is first author of a major paper. But come on, how many undergrads get THAT opportunity? Hey, if you're one of them, more power to you. But the vast majority of undergrads will never get that opportunity. Heck, most professors never get that opportunity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, it isn't that faculty do not care about nurturing undergraduates! Faculty are spread so incredibly thin by their teaching appointments, Grant writing which actually is probably the greatest imposition of all, advising other productive members of the lab, and writing papers amongst other things. This is just how it is, you have to take the initiative and find a lab with graduate students or Post-docs who will work with you productively because most PIs DO NOT HAVE TIME! Scientists get paid through lab publications and simply put most undergraduates don't have the knowledge to contribute much so any "nurturing" falls on the side of philanthropy.
I don't intend this to be a tirade or attack against anyone but this is simply how I have come to know the culture of science. Good luck
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But even so, that doesn't address the central concern that I raised. I said that many PI's don't care about undergrads. You may be exactly right that the reason they don't care is because they can't care; they are pressed for time and stretched too thin. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter why they don't care about undergrads. The only thing that matters is that, for whatever reason, those profs don't care. </p>
<p>Hence, my point is, if you're faced with a situation where you only have the choice to work with a prof who doesn't care (regardless of the reason why he doesn't care), then you may indeed be better off just working on your own project. Sure, I agree, you won't have access to high levels of funding. You won't have access to the most advanced equipment. You won't have access to good advising. But the truth is, as an undergrad student at many PI labs, you won't have access to any of these things either. Again, many undergrads get stuck doing silly trivial work and nothing more. That's the reality.</p>
