How much do you know? Top scientists and biomedical researchers are assumed to be all knowing demi-gods in their particular field of interest. However, this assumption does not have merit when the question is phrased: What percent of all that can be known about a particular system do you know? In his article “The importance of stupidity in scientific research,” Martin Schwartz addresses the reality that empirical research is all about wading through the unknown.
The concept of being actively stupid was first introduced to me by last year my research mentor, Dr. Cooper. At first this was a puzzling philosophical undertaking because I had always derived a sense of satisfaction from my academic accomplishments. During the intensive research j-term I truly began to experience this reality first hand. At first, the concept of plunging head first into a pool of the unknown seemed a daunting task that was only suited for the strongest of will. But after a couple weeks of research I have come to realize that the small gains that have been made are incredibly satisfying.
After reading Schwartz’s article I have developed a new perspective of this unique reality. Schwartz suggests that instructors do not spend enough time and energy on teaching students how to be productively stupid. The phrase “productively stupid”, while applied to instructors and their teaching methods, provided me with a new perspective on scientific research. It led me to realize that if I pursue a career in science I have the privilege of acting like a child in that I get to ask tons of interrogative questions that no one has the answer to... yet!
Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your interests or perspective) this philosophical approach to applying scientific method is not the only challenge associated with a career in science. Jonathan Yewdell published an article in Nature that provides a sort of ‘protocol’ for success in the scientific community. I really enjoyed reading his article because it was formally structured and informally written. This ironic format is accompanied by his use of humor and wit which do an excellent job of informing young aspiring scientists about some of the most important considerations when choosing a career in biomedical research.
Aspects of his breakdown of the potential pitfalls and potential for success was incredibly helpful to me because I am currently deciding whether to pursue a career in research or a career in clinical medicine. His advice about choosing a school is applicable to both pre medical and research oriented students. The rest of the advice focused on the important components once one was accepted to a PhD program.
Though I have not made a definite decision as to which career path I would like to pursue, as I read his article I found myself imagining a life as a researcher. What school would best fit my interests? How would my PI be? Am I talented enough to actually come up with creative controls and direct my own work? After reading the article I found myself with more questions than answers about which career path I should choose. But at least this is a step forward and has provided me with tools to think about this decision pragmatically. I hope that once I answer some of these questions I will be one step closer to finding my niche in the science community.
Works Consulted
Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science , 1771.
Yewdell, J. W. (2008). How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part I: taking the plunge. Nature , 9, 413-416.
Yewdell, J. W. (2008). How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part II: making discoveries. Nature , 1-4.
i think coming up with a control group in an experiment is a difficult task. I may be feeling like this because my control group in my experiment have failed to work.
ReplyDeleteI really like your comment about career dilemma. I felt the same thing after reading these article. Am I really strong enough to work as a research scientist?
hey Brennan,
ReplyDeleteGreat write up. Would like your input on this question: It seems that taking a researching career takes more courage and perseverence than actual knowledge, would you agree or disagree?
I'd like to put in my 2-cents on your questions, Casey. I would say that research primarily requires critical thinking ability and creativity. One does not need an overabundant amount of knowledge coming into graduate school. It will quickly accrue as time goes on. However, perseverance and courage are definitely part of the formula to be a successful researcher.
ReplyDeleteTy