Once in grad school our student-invited speaker was a funny old white dude from Hah-vahd. He told stories of digging for fossils in the arctic and the big polar bear print he found outside of his tent one morning. He also told us Hah-vahd was not that great. Easy for him to say - He had been a tenured professor there for close to eons!
I went to a seminar today. The speaker was another funny older white dude who told his story about how he got a PNAS paper. He told an interesting story about how getting published in science can go while also telling us about his interesting story. The idea for the research was first submitted to the big British broad science journal that shall remain nameless in 1991. The reviewers all had different takes on why it should not be published and what additional experiments they should add. When they added those experiments and resubmitted a while later, the editor said it was old news and to submit elsewhere.
So they submitted to the big American broad science journal, and reviewers said they needed more proof for their story. A few years later and some really cool science was added to the paper before resubmitting it. The editor said that the story was now an obvious thing and that they should submit elsewhere.
So they submitted to PNAS and the four or five (I can't remember how many) reviewers immediately told the editor upon reading the paper to accept the paper as-is immediately or the journal would lose the opportunity to have this wonderful and creative story published in their journal. This was in 2007. After 16 years of trying to get the story published. The idea never changed, but they kept adding more proof that their original idea was true. The research group that contributed to the ultimate publication had grown from 4 to 10 scientists, and they won an award for their work (not a Nobel, but a prestigious award).
16 years. And the speaker made an aside to the "young people" in the room to note that it took 16 years to get this great story published and that "you shouldn't rush experiments to get a degree." Easy for him to say - He is a famous successful established scientist who already has his PhD. It never ceases to amaze me how older scientists do not seem to realize that graduate school has changed significantly since they were there. Plus a PhD dissertation should not be an entire research program, but rather a part of the PI's research program.
For the record, both scientists seemed to enjoy interacting with trainees. Plus they were both extremely enthusiastic about science and their research and interactive during questions. So while I will chalk up some of the things they said to being established white dudes in science, it was worth listening to their enthusiasm and graciousness and stories.
4 comments:
Amazing how everything is so much easier and we should take our time and enjoy the process when you are already done. LOL
Honestly, 16 years? I can barely believe that anyone has that kind of patience. I sure don't.
I think I forwarded you the blurb that talked about how when Kreb (of the Kreb's cycle for cellular respiration) went to publish his data about the data for the Kreb cycle that it was rejected by Nature. Later he won the Nobel prize for it. And even later, Nature wrote some editorial or such stating that they realize what a huge mistake they made in not publishing it.
ha!
But 16 years. Man, that is scary.
Scientists tend to focus on the really cool stuff that may have taken 16yrs to come to fruition.
However, to remain in science they must have had "bread and butter" projects published in the meantime!
I think that the biggest thing to change in science is independence. It does not truly come about until you are an assistant professor. As a graduate student and postdoc you only have as much freedom as your mentor sees fit.
If your supervisor is telling you to hurry up those experiments or is insisting you focus on something else instead you have no control.
Post a Comment