In my previous post, I’ve listed some reasons why I think it’s a good idea to pursue a PhD. There are some negatives too unfortunately that I did not talk about… If I would have to give one piece of advice to future PhD students, it would be this: don’t ever expect it to be about science only, but be ready for some serious strategy game.
Why?
The system’s fucked up. So sorry for the wording. But that’s the best way to put it. It’s not necessarily the best science that’s getting funded. No, it’s the best selling science.
To be hired as an early career scientist, you’re probably going to send a CV and publication list as part of your application material. Other candidate with more or higher impact publications (on a side note; how do we determine impact anyway?!)? Bad luck. Reasons why you have “less”? Maybe too focused on kids. Not working enough. Simply not good enough. Would they actually care about why you have “less”? Never mind that you maybe wanted to publish open access or in the journal with the best target audience, regardless of impact factor. Or did solid work that the editors simply didn’t judge as being able to attract millions of citations and thus turned down.
Also, you need to know the right people. I learned that going to conferences isn’t really about science. The talks are mostly summaries of already published stuff, because everyone’s afraid to be scooped. You know, give away a little secret and have someone else publish it first. No, we want to see and be seen. Figure out who would be best to team up with for future projects. Collect people who may write letters of recommendation for you. Never mind science.
In a way, this really has become the Tenure Games. Right now, I’m playing along. Collecting publications. Grants. Teaming up with the career pack. Every now and then I wonder whether this really is me. Can I play this game and stay true to myself at the same time? I am afraid that if I decide to make up my own rules and pick up those deadly berries, the game makers will simply laugh and let me step out of the game, readily giving my place to someone more willing. I would love to aim for open access journals only for example, but can I afford to turn down glam publications, knowing I will have to compete with others over and over again for at least the next decade?
This is also the only reason why this blog is pseudonymous. I am really uncertain whether the people who’ll judge me in the future will think positively of a blog. The information I’ve given in bits and pieces would be enough to track me down, sure. But a quick google search will not link Dr.K to me (and yes, every now and then I google my name to check whether I really don’t find the blog!). Which shall stay this way until someone has been able to convince me that it will not harm my career perspectives.
I do apologize in case I’m pointlessly repeating that which has already been said. But I’d like to warn future generations. Don’t ever expect to be doing science only.
Dr.K. 
Well, it’s fair to say that the system is less-than-optimal. Retractions, plagiarism, predatory publishing, and other problems abound. Then again, the system is in flux. The entire scientific enterprise is still responding to political economic, social, and other pressures (including the advent of the Internet). It will be the younger scientists (such as, perhaps, you and your readers) who will help transform the system into what it will look like in 2050.
Then again, if you read history, the system has probably never been optimal.
Thanks for your comment, Tony. You are right that is has probably never been optimal and maybe never will be. But sometimes, I find it extremely frustrating. I cannot complain, my project is running quite smoothly and I hope I can really get where I want to be. When I look at some of my friends however, I really doubt whether they are gonna make it. Bad luck with projects or with supervisors can really ruin ones career before it has really started and sometimes I even feel guilty that things are going so well for me. Some of my friends are really good, know more than I do, but this has not translated into good quality publications yet. Leaving them empty handed, as they face multiple rejections because of their mediocre track record.
I do realize that it is hard to find a way of evaluating people that is more fair than mainly looking at publications. Maybe we can assist in transforming this system indeed! But for now, this is something all scientists will face eventually and after writing so positively about doing a PhD in my previous post, I wanted to describe the (in my opinion) downsides too.
Hi Klara,
I do agree with you that the system’s all fucked up. Sometimes I ask myself if I really want to come back to the US and participate in all this “tenure games”. However, I’m not sure if that’s just a science thing. I believe there are ups and downs for most jobs, and my love for science makes me “forget” about all the bad things and focus in the reward that I feel when doing research. I hope things work better for you now that you’re moving, and that you keep it on!
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I think you are right that similar difficulties will be part of other jobs too. Networking can be very valuable, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
I just wonder if we can’t think of a better way of judging people and research without relying on impact factors, without deciding what is “relevant” science even before publishing findings?
What I found really striking in Max Perutz collection of essays, “I Wish You’d Made Me Angry Earlier”, is that he spent years to determine the crystal structure of hemoglobin and then decades to decipher what that meant. If I remember correctly, at one point he wrote a simple note “I need more money” to a funding agency and even got it. I’m not saying that I would prefer simply handing out money to anyone who asks. However, I do think that there should be more room for fundamental research, for riskier projects, even if it’s not clear at the start what their future relevance might be.
Then again, Albert Einstein had to do much of his fundamental research in his spare time while working as a patent clerk; he had no grant.
I was just reading an old paper and I noticed the Acknowledgement section where the authors say “We wish to thank the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation for unrestricted research support.”
In case you are wondering it can be found by DOI: 10.1021/ja00798a095
Anyway, it is obvious that there were fewer scientists but many more problems (and “easy”) decades ago. So, it looks like it was easier to get money and do something applicable to real life shortly after the research. Now, there are not many “easy” problems and even if you think you are onto something, it is really hard to convince funding agencies to give you more money and resources.