---------------------------------------------------------------
(Perspectives in Biol and Med, 34:2 Winter 1991, 213--218)
: (C) (esorokin@glasnet.ru)
---------------------------------------------------------------
,
-- , , ,
,
, ..
. , , -,
, .
.
.
,
, . ,
" ", .. .
""
, ,
, -
. , , ,
. -- .
,
. , --
, ,
,
?...
,
(. 1), , .
. ,
(. 5, . ).
, .
. -- , .
-- , .
-- -
, ,
, . , ,
.
, .
--
(. 3). , ,
.
,
.
(. 1), , -- ,
. ,
, . ,
, -- ,
-- . ,
(. 2). ,
" ".
- ,
.
, .
, ! ,
, , ,
, -- .
, ,
. ,
, , .
( )
, --
. ,
, --
.
, .
, . -,
(. 5). -,
(
). - ( !), --
. ,
( ), , ,
.
.
. . --
: , ,
, !
, .
,
-- , -- .
,
, 2
.
4. ,
( )
,
. --
, ! ,
(. 3), --
. !
,
( ,
), -- ,
!
--
. ,
,
: " ?". --
, ,
,
. ,
,
, !
, --
, , , --
, .
-- .
, , .
, ,
. , --
(. 3).
.
, :
. ,
, ! ,
,
, .
- , ,
, .
, .
, ,
, -- , ,
. ,
, --
, ,
.
, (
"" ), .
, ,
, - .
, , .
--
( -- ).
, , .
. -- ,
. , -- ,
, --
. ,
.
: "
".
-- !
( ,
; ,
),
-- . (,
, )
, .
, ,
.
. ,
,
.
, -
. : ,
,
.
-- , ,
.
, . --
. ,
.
: ,
.
, --
( ,
) ,
, .
,
,
, ( =5,6 p < 0,03,
- ). ,
"" ,
.
Keith A.Crutcher. How To Succeed In Science
(Perspectives in Biol and Med, 34:2 Winter 1991, 213-218)
It seems that many of our scientists have not received basic training
on how to succeed in science - for example, obtaining grants, receiving peer
recognition, having a bibliography that is longer than any particular
publication listed in it, etc. In order to correct this deficiency, the
following guidelines are presented. Of course, there will always be the
occasional black sheep who decides to embark on an entirely original course
of work or chooses to forgo the rewards of being recognized as a successful
scientist, in which case. these guidelines do not. apply. But attention to
the principles set forth below should provide a solid framework for most
aspiring scientists to build on.
1. Relax! We're Only between Paradigm Shifts Anyhow
Much of the stress and anxiety that have traditionally been associated
with the conduct of science are now relieved by the tremendous insight
provided by Thomas Kuhn. Since the vast majority of scientists are
currently, doing "normal" science, akin to treading theoretical water, and
true a advances must await the next shift in paradigms, most of us can relax
as we realize that our work is unlikely to have any lasting influence. Of
-course, there may be some who seek to cont ribute to, or actually
precipitate, a shift in paradigms, and it is unlikely that they can be
stopped, but the rest of us should recognize that the clarification of an
existing paradigm is necessary for subsequent scientific revolutions. Just
imagine how difficult science would be if every investigator made some
fundamental contribution that involved a shift in paradigm or forced us to
analyze our basic assumptions about the area in which we work.
Once you have the appropriate relaxed attitude about the importance of
your own work (see 1) it becomes much easier to focus on the business of
being a scientist. In this regard, being famous ranks second only to being
relaxed. Unfortunately, many scientists have overlooked the importance of
being famous in order to succeedy especially in the areas of obtaining
grants, and getting. to travel (see 5, below). And becoming famous is really
much less difficult than most realize. There are several options. One of the
quickest and surest is to work with someone who is already famous. This will
guarantee a certain amount of secondary fame that can be used as a
foundation for establishing your own fame. Another method is to organize a
symposium on a "hot" topic and invite the most famous people in the field,
including.the famous person with whom you work, to participate. Then list
yourself on the same program. This technique has had marvelous results for
countless numbers of now famous scientists. Another effective option is to
publish a paper or bstract every week in your selected area (see. 3). This
method takes more effort, but with attention to the following guideline the
work can be minimized and the results guaranteed.to make you a recognized
expert in any particular field.
3. Publish Often (Preferably Abstracts)
It is common knowledge that modern scientists do not have time to read
the rapidly growing literature in their,field and, with the realization that
most research will have no lasting effect (see 1), it is clear that to do so
would be a waste of time. Therefore, take advantage of the fact that most of
your peers are going to be influenced by.your work primarily through name
recognition. The same principle that advertising agencies use, namely,
repeated exposure, is vital, to success in science as well. The more times
your name is seen in print, the.more influence you will have and the more
famous you will be (see 2). Of course the choice of medium is critical;
ideally, you should publish as often as possible in newspapers and popular
magazines, but scientific journals can have their place as well. You should
try to average one paper or abstract every week, and your name should appear
last. The more coauthors you have, the better, because everyone knows that
the last author is the realy one, who who counts, and it shows that you must
already be famous to have so many other scientists working with you. Some
will argue that each publication should contain new information, but, again,
this view does not take into account the lessons learned from Madison
Avenue. In fact, the more often you say the same thing, the more likely your
chances of being remembered, Once the same set of data have been published
several times, with no more than slight variations, they begin to take on
greater credibility, both in the minds of your colleagues and in your own
mind. In addition, the particular area that you work in, even if it had
formerly been considered obscure and uninteresting, takes on increasing
importance each time it appears in print.
Of course, the format can play a vital role in your ultimate success.
The many advantages derived from publishing your work, in abstract form, for
example, are often overlooked . First, it provides the opportunity to travel
(see 5). Second, it is rarely reviewed (and we all have horror stories to
tell about critical reviews we have received on even our best papers).
Third, and most important, it provides a published document that can either
be cited in establishing precedence for an.observation, if it turns out to
be correct or important (or both!), or can just as easily be left uncited if
ultimately found to be in error.
In some cases, particularly once you have gained some experience, it is
possible to publish several abstracts at one time, each dealing with a
slight variation on the same theme. Some scientific societies permit you to
submit on abstract with yourself listed as first author. ut this restriction
is easily overcome. Most scientists, for example, are already aware of
potential coauthors from the ranks of students and associates, often
overlooked are administrators and members of the custodial staff, some of
whom would be happy to see their names in print. With a little bit of
planning you can have several abstracts published simultaneously, one with
your name first and the rest with your name listed last. Legend. has it that
one scientist was able to fill two entire sessions at a single meeting with
abstracts solely from his laboratory.
4. Publish Only What Cannot Be Refuted (at Least in Your Lifetime)
Many young scientits sadly misinterpret this principle to mean that one
should publish careful, well-thought-out papers. On the contrary, much time
and effort can be saved by publishing results without any attention to their
significance or relevance at all. Odds are, no one is going to read the
paper anyway (see 3), so don't waste your valuable time analyzing the
results. More important, as long as you restrict your discussion to what you
saw, with enough methodological differences from previous work so that any
discrepancies can be explained if the need arises, you will never be found
in error, particularly if you refrain from discussing the potential
significance of the results. The simplest way to avoid any embarrassment is
to publish new and improved techniques. The publication of new methods
rarely leads you into strong theoretical disputes with your colleagues but
still permits lively discussions about whether the pH was optimal. Even
better, develop a desirable reagent that your colleagues can use and then
distribute it to them with the modest request that you be included as an
author on any paper that mentions the reagent. You will be amazed at how
quickly your bibliography lengthens and your fame correspondingly increases.
If for some reason you feel compelled to speculate on your data, in print,
be.sure to limit your speculation to ideas that cannot be tested in your
lifetime, if at all.
5. Present Your Work at Every Opportunity
One of the many benefits of doing science is the opportunity to travel.
Of course, the more famous you are, the more opportunities you will have to
travel. Conversely, the more times, you are seen in public, the more famous
you will become. In addition, most conferences provide the opportunity to
publish at least one abstract (see 3). When presenting your work, be sure to
use attractive, slides that are not cluttered with detail. One helpful hint:
leave off any statistical information, especially for graphical data, since
it often detracts from the main point of the slide. Contrary to the
situation for your published work, feel free to speculate during your
presentation. In fact, don't be constrained by the data. Remember that your
effect will be much greater if you make sweeping statements and
generalizations unrestrained by the facts or by what ou have published in
the abstract. If anyone seriously questions a statement you have made or
presents contradictory results, you can avoid any embarrassment for yourself
by pointing out that he or she did not use the optimal pH.
Presentations are necessary, but not sufficient, for success in
science. When you have been invited to participate at a meeting, be sure to
keep track of who invited you so that vou will be able to inv ite the same
individuals to present at the next con ference you organize. Eventually you
will find that there are enough of you to invite each other to several
conferences during the year, and, if you are really successful, you may even
decide to establish your'own society consisting of only the most successful
scientists (mainly those who are invited to several conferences during the
year).
6. , Submit a Grant Proposal Only on Work You Have Already Done
This would hardly seem to require stating, but there are still a number
of scientists, especially unseasoned rookies, who actually propose
experiments that have not yet been conducted. Most reviewers of grant
applications have finally weeded out the ones who continually propose novel
work, but there are still some who do riot quite understand that the surest
bet is on a horse that has already won. Naturally, you need to be a little
careful in timing the publication of the proposed work so that it doesn't
actually appear in print before your grant is reviewed (except, of course,
in multiple abstract form). The rookie scientist may encounter the dilemma
of not having been able to do the experiments before obtaining grant
support. The most common solution is to propose work similar to what you
have already done working with someone who is famous. If that option is not
available, then you may be forced to propose work that is original. If so,
be sure that the research is only a slight variation of work that someone
else has already done. This assures the reviewers that your particular
experiments fall within the existing paradigm. A good example would be
finding the optimal pH at which to run a new and improved technique.
7. Don't Waste Your Time Teaching
Remember that your goal is to succeed in science. Although a certain
amount of teaching can be beneficial, in that it gives you some exposure to
students who may decide to work for you (and provide potential authors for
your many abstracts), it is terribly time-consuming to make more than cameo
appearances. There will be some pressure by other faculty and your chairman
to contribute to the teaching program, especially, before you receive
tenure, but this pressure can be relieved to some extent by the way in which
you teach. For example, always present your material in a fashion that
obscures any relevance to matters that concern the students. In medical
teaching this has become common practice. Another effective approach is to
provide details of the methods that you use in the laboratory, especially
emphasizing the importance of optimal pH. Usually students are so
overwhelmed. by the volume of information that they will have difficulty
asking intelligent questions. The advantage of this is obvious. Eventually
you will find less teaching is required of you, and you. will have more time
to spend writing abstracts and going to conferences.
Fame is nice but is so much more enjoyable when accompanied by wealth.
The traditional role of scientist has not always been as lucrative as other
careers. This is changing. One of the very exciting options in science is to
identify potential commercial applications of the work you do and market
them. Numerous scientists are discovering the monetarv advantages of forming
their own com I panies with initial research and development funds provided
by the federal government through grants and contracts. The beauty of this
system is that there is very little risk. If the commercial application does
not generate a profit, you can always apply for another federal research
grant to keep going. On the other hand, if you are able to capitalize on
your scientific successes and establish a profitable company, you can use
your academic affiliations, and your positions on editorial review boards
and study sections, to keep abreast of the hottest developments in the field
to feed into your company. The competitive advantage this gives you should
be obvious.
Adherence to these principles will not guarantee success, but the
testimony of many famous scientists supports the hypothesis that these
guidelines can significantly (p < 0.03, Wilcoxon unpaired X-test run at pH
5.6) increase your chances of achieving recognition, acquiring wealth, and
ultimately being known as a successful scientist. At the very least, they
should prevent you from falling too far outside the boundaries of "normal"
science where you could easily be branded for life as a troublemaker or
heretic.
'Few scientists are aware of the illustrious history of the abstract.
The word is a contraction of the Original "Abe's tract," which was a little
known pamphlet circulated by Lincoln when first running for political.
office. Although the contents of the tract are not known, its influence can
hardly be underestimated since Lincoln's remainingpolitical career was said
to derive entirely from this little tract. Some say that several ideas in
the tract were actually plagiarized from an unpublished work of John Wilkes
Booth, but this allegation has never been substantiated.
Last-modified: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:43:01 GMT