New PhD students

[Dr Mike]

Don't get me started about controls. Even many seasoned postdocs seem to have no grasp on the basics. "I bought it from Sigma, therefore it worked"! That's a good one. I am sure people are taught this sort of thing, but I suspect that a deep understanding of controls is an inborn talent.

[Joao]

I bet a lot of papers could be written with titles starting: "The effect of DMSO (or ethanol) on X, Y and Z...". At least the control of using the solvent your drug/compound is dissolved in is a good starting point for these sorts of discussions, and one I introduce early and often. I also find that grasping the need for one control leads to the understanding of others (hopefully not to the point of paralysis...).

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Wow. Every department I've been in, anyone using that as a 'control' would have been ripped to shreds.

(In fact, in one department, they *were*. I think I did some of the ripping in the case I'm thinking of, too.)

[scaplan]

I think it is remarkable how much of a graduate student's future career revolves around making a good choice about a PhD mentor. A couple of years in a lab with poor training is sufficient to instill a lifetime of improper scientific thinking for even the brightest students...

[Beatrice]

I have also thought a lot about the PhD students who end up leaving research after their viva, because they have not been in a very good environment. They think all labs are crap because that is all they know. This is sad...but then, I suppose the likelihood of getting that job one day is slim anyway, so perhaps in a messed up sort of way it might turn out better for them.

[scaplan]

Don't you feel that labs have their own "personality"- certain labs, by virtue of the PI and in combination with the students/postdocs and researchers in the lab continue to attract people with similar personalities- or at least "lab personalities". Or is it that they become molded into the existing atmosphere? It seems to me that if a PI is arrogant- the students all take on an arrogant persona. Likewise, if the PI is overly laid back to the point of disinterest, the lab members tend to be not overly ambitious. And so on. However, bad science also gets passed down, but that's less surprising, as we noted before.

[Octavia]

I think that's definitely true, though I'd never really thought about it until you mentioned it...
hmmm, yeah. Labs really are 'infectious'. I got a lot more territorial in my one stint in a 'big famous lab' - though that might have been more down to necessity of survival than the transferal of culture.

Someone should definitely do a longitudinal study on this!

[scaplan]

There's no question that researchers become more territorial in a big lab- you are absolutely correct. I could have sworn a saw a male postdoc urinate around his bench area late at night to mark out his territory. Seriously, though, you learn to sharpen your elbows in that kind of environment. However- it's also culture-dependent. Coming from one country where I did my PhD (Israel-even in a small lab), I found that the necessity there was much greater to be territorial than in a big lab in the US (NIH). I think that had a lot to do with money: where there is easier access to equipment and reagents, people are more relaxed and generous in their attitudes towards others.

[Dr Mike]

I think this is why it's incredibly important to chat to individual lab members (out of hearing of their boss) when you are interviewing for a position. Even if they're too afraid to say straight out that their boss is an arrogant tw*t, you can almost always pick this up by embarrassed glances exchanged between postdocs when you say, "so, what's he *really* like?"

[Joao]

I think this is why it's incredibly important to chat to individual lab members (out of hearing of their boss) when you are interviewing for a position. Even if they're too afraid to say straight out that their boss is an arrogant tw*t, you can almost always pick this up by embarrassed glances exchanged between postdocs when you say, "so, what's he *really* like?"

That is always the best advice, and I hammer it constantly, as it also works both ways (so the lab can take a long look at prospective members outside of their talk). I was really surprised in the US when I was: 1- asked to interview like this; and 2- asked to sit on interviews 2 months after arriving (a great tool to feel part of the lab immediately, even though your opinion may not count for much at this stage)
What surprised me, exactly because of what has been discussed in the thread, were the instances where the lab "persona" was quite different from (what I perceived to be) that of the PI. In one case I had the PI all wrong, in two others the influence was that of Lifers/Lab managers (the PI was too removed), and changed drastically when that personnel changed.

[scaplan]

Dr Mike wrote:I think this is why it's incredibly important to chat to individual lab members (out of hearing of their boss) when you are interviewing for a position. Even if they're too afraid to say straight out that their boss is an arrogant tw*t, you can almost always pick this up by embarrassed glances exchanged between postdocs when you say, "so, what's he *really* like?"

This is excellent advice. Two comments, though: in looking for new positions (usually this is for postdocs on up, as students generally get accepted to a "program" these days rather than directly to a lab), a lot of the danger of ending up in a bad atmosphere lab can often be diffused by good background checking in advance. One common fallacy is that a lab PI who has published several Cell/Science/Nature papers is necessarily the best place to go. I constantly tell students to have a look at the number of postdocs and students in that lab and see if they are ALL doing well, or if it's only 3 of the 26 people there. This can lead to a rather uncomfortable atmosphere in a lab. The second issue is that there seems to be a higher than normal distribution of autistic-like scientists- or at least those who fare poorly at picking up social cues. So not everyone may be adept enough to catch those "embarassed glances" bouncing back and forth between lab members during the interview. I think graduate programs should put together "Science etiquette" courses for students...

[John from Florida]

I have noticed that people who do their Ph.D. in the lab of a new assistant prof tend to be happier than those who plunge into big turbo-gunner labs. Sure the boss may not be very experienced, but at least the students feel part of something brand new and grow/develop with it - they have a stake in it and it can feel more like a family. Big labs can be ruthless and soulless - of course not all labs, but on average. People get caught up in the competition and forget they are supposed to be a team.

[scaplan]

John,

While there is certainly truth in your comments, it's still based more on the individual PI in question. I've witnessed many stressed out newly-minted PIs who have trouble looking after themselves- let alone a group of inexperienced students. So the single most important thing is making a choice of a worthy PI- regardless of career stage. Having said that, I would probably agree that career progression from intimate lab as a student to larger lab as a postdoc is probably a more typical pattern for those bent on an academic career.

[hedge]

John, I was surprised to see your sentiment that labs should be a "team". Do you really, honestly think that team spirit is the norm for a lab? In my experience it tends to be every man/woman for him/herself and even when a lab gets on well superficially, the good results of one team member are met by ambivalent feelings and the bad, by schadenfreude. People seldom work on the same thing, so 'pulling together' doesn't really apply.