When during your tenure track do you stop being a postdoc and a PI at the same time? I am struggling at the moment with being pulled in multiple different directions and still doing the bench work, while managing the lab and various professorial tasks. Running a lab feels like being on strength training: first you lift 30 lbs, then 40, then 50, and as you get stronger the weight keeps piling on. Whatever you thought was overwhelming 6 months ago, has doubled in intensity now, yet you can manage or try to.
The biggest priority is finishing two papers: revisions on a collaborative project and submission on the lab's first manuscript. The pressure on paper #1 comes from not wanting to let my collaborators wait, while paper #2 is necessary for my R01 submission. Yet this month is a perfect storm of other commitments that cannot be moved: most of my teaching is happening now, I'm hosting a faculty candidate, I have to put together two progress reports and specific aims for two grants. Plus all the random BS that fills your day like meeting with seminar speakers, faculty meetings, tracking down orders, etc. Next month I'm gone for back to back conferences, so the clock is ticking. Since things are not moving as fast as I wanted with the papers, I took it upon myself to help speed things up, to the point that whenever I can, I do experiments for one paper in the morning and for the other in the afternoon. As I struggle to keep my head above water, I wonder, is this right? Am I supposed to be both postdoc and PI right now?
While my undergraduate advisor was a fierce micromanager, my doctoral and postdoctoral mentors were very laissez faire. Any pressure to publish, or do anything really, was completely self inflicted, but their careers did not depend on me at all. As a manager, I think I'm pretty hands off, but all my people are young and freshly graduated, and they still ask advice on experiments and data interpretation, so I want to be available to go over their data as necessary. Just for reference, my postdoctoral advisor never saw raw data I generated, ever...I think. Data was presented in fully structured lab meeting talks every 6 months or in manuscript form. Some of the questions in my mind are "How do I get them to the level of independence necessary to become a PI?", "Should I stop picking up their slack?" and "What kind of relationship do I want with my trainees?"
Honestly, I think my postdocs work a lot. They're at work on weekends and holidays and during snow storms. They'll be there whenever is necessary and would never think twice about coming in at odd hours to get me data for a deadline. Still I'm struggling to accept one of the most common advice I received while starting the lab "You have to remember that your people are not you". Even if I don't know where anything is in the lab any more, I'm stuck between two conflicting thoughts 1) that I'm faster and more motivated than they are, and I can get things done; and 2) that I don't have any idea of how long it takes to do something and I should just let them do their jobs. And this is the real conundrum, by stepping in as the fourth super-postdoc, am I helping or actually hindering their ability to become independent and more efficient? Am I making my life harder by doing two jobs, while I should give them time to get things done? I always try to lead by example, so by seeing me running around like a headless chicken (and deathly ill for the past week) should they be motivated or just realize that this job is crazy?
Any advice or comment would be greatly appreciated.
I am struggling with the exact same thing. I've been pulled in so many directions this season (fighting for first R01, coming up for tenure, interviewing as part of the tenure dance), that for the first time I've truly been out of the lab. Completely.
ReplyDeleteProductivity has definitely gone down, as I have not been as available to my lab members. What is interesting, though, is to see everyone's true colors in the face of this change. One of my postdocs has shown himself to be much more capable and independant than I thought. He seems to relishing in this new role, devising his own experiments based on data interpretation. The other is floundering. I do feel a bit sorry for my grad student, though. He is new and has no idea that this is not the "normal" modus operandi in my lab.
Anyway, I now see myself finally transitioning to manager mode after 5 years as an Asst Prof./super-postdoc. Things appear to be coming together, too. My first R01 was scored well below the payline just last week. At the same time I received 2 verbal offers (with promotion to Associate) from R1 schools. Never a dull moment I guess. But the days of me being in the lab running experiments are pretty much over, I think, for better or for worse.
I would say that it's one of those things that you will just 'know' when the time is right to withdraw from the bench. Almost like it's no longer a matter of choice.
Wow, congratulations on you R01, promotion and job offers! That is awesome to hear. And thank you for sharing your experience: I often thing about letting them just figure things out by themselves and see what happens. After these papers go out, maybe I'll try.
DeleteSenior grad student here. Want to say first that I appreciate you asking the questions you do at the end of your third paragraph. That you think about mentoring warms my cold, cynical heart.
ReplyDeleteAs a grad student, I know I don't have the experience you or other commenters may have, but here's my two bits: Setting the lab environment/atmosphere/expectation or whatever you want to call it is key. As a grad student, more than anything, I appreciate a PI who is consistent (or as consistent as one can be when funding is often inconsistent). My PI went from managing 5-6 people to 9-11 in my second and third years. It was awful, in part because the PI was too much of a micromanager to manage that many people effectively, but also because it changed the lab dynamic significantly. I no longer knew what to expect.
My advice would be to think about what you want your lab to look like for the long term. Once you know what you want to shoot for, then do what you can to make your current lab environment as close to the desired environment as possible. Setting the precedent and expectations for lab members will, I think, may everyone in the lab more productive.
PS: I know at least one PI (very well respected) who still works at the bench and has a side project. I don't think you have to give up the bench if it's something you really want to keep doing.
Thank you for your comment. Yes, establishing culture has been a very important priority from the very beginning of my blog
Deletehttp://thenewpi.blogspot.com/2013/01/establishing-lab-culture-in-new-lab.html
Even with the right culture, I think there are stressors that pile up independently. I was talking to a friend who is worried he only has 8 papers out of his R01 because apparently reviewers expect 10. I just cannot possibly fathom putting out 10 good impact papers in 5 years, and then wonder, do you sacrifice impact for quantity, but why? You constantly get pulled in different directions and receive tons of "advice" or requests from senior investigators and it's often difficult to know what to do, especially as a young investigator. I guess only time will tell...
I look forward to hearing more in the future about how this evolved for you.
DeleteFrom my anecdata, I've noticed that those who focus on quality science rather than worrying about dubious/hearsay stats did very well, and those whose goal was to meet certain "quota publications" for a grant or to maintain their yearly output ended up publishing mediocre papers. That's just some of my experience though and I don't know how much it can be generalized.
As for the original point, I would hold students' hands for maybe a couple of years and postdocs for one year. After that I would make them let go and pursue their own ideas and experimental designs. Particularly for postdocs, part of the reason that they are postdoccing is to develop into independent thinkers. A little nudging in the proper direction once in a while is alright.
Amen, Dr. Arenay. If I have to do science to provide some kind of steady mediocre output, I'd rather find another job.
DeleteThanks for the comment on student/PD hand holding. That sounds like a good timeline.
I've enjoyed reading this discussion. I only wanted to comment on the reflex to quit science if output is "mediocre". To me, it is unrealistic to expect that every possible direction taken will be a huge breakthrough, so I assume most results will be solid and interesting yet incremental. If every now and then something truly novel jumps out, that's amazing, but I consider it a bonus. 10 papers is an extremely high bar, but I do not shy away from publishing mediocre intermediates, or chase only shiny prizes - the publications are a by-product, not the goal.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! I didn't mean mediocre as related to JIF, but actually as bad quality. You can have mediocre papers in Nature for all that matters. I will not push a paper out just to reach a quota and when that was suggested to me by senior faculty, I was actually shocked. I have to live with myself and I want to know that each paper, big, medium and small, will make a contribution. We are working on some smaller projects, which I think will be really interesting to a lot of people, but will be small methods papers.
DeleteSorry for misreading - happy to join in an amen to quality!
Delete