The answer to that question is very simple right, your heart is to the left of your sternum. I think from a young age we figure out where the heart is in part because it holds such strong symbolism in our cultures. For example, while singing the national anthem to many countries people place their hands over the heart. I always took that to mean that your singing the national anthem is heart-felt and that you love your country with all your heart.
Where I am trying to go with this is that I am not sure where my heart is right now. I do know where the organ that helps circulate my blood is, but I am not sure where my heart is regarding my professional life. While I have only been in my current workplace for a month I have felt at times unsure about whether I made the right decision. The environment where I work is very good; the people I work with are great, my new boss is great, the university is pretty nice. The project I have started on is not all that bad. It is hard to predict where things will go, especially when I have barely moved ahead with the project in the month that I have been working in lab.
One larger worry, although I know I shouldn't delve too much in this as I have just started, is how people in my current lab are struggling to find jobs beyond their postdocs. Most of you that read this blog know about our good friend David and how he did not have the easiest of times finding a job. In my current workplace, there are 2 senior postdocs that have been looking for work, one of them more actively than the other, with no luck so far. It scares me to think that two very good scientists are struggling to find a job, especially as I start. It is hard not to think about whether part of their handicap in finding a job is the model system in which they are working.
One of my favorite movie/book quotes ever is from The Right Stuff and it goes like this: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." In science, especially in the current financial climate, having funding, is absolutely necessary, and a key part, to get your Buck Rogers, or project, off the ground. Even more so, being able to secure some bucks before you hit the job market for a faculty position makes the job hunting a lot easier. In a way, it is easier to sell tickets to see the Buck Rogers show when you already have the money to hire Buck and all you need is a place for him to show his skills. The catch in securing the monies is that it is very competitive nowadays and I feel like you need something to distance yourself from the other people gunning for the money. One way to do so is to work in an area that is "hot" (e.g. bioterrorism, SARS, miRNA, etc.). Another way is to work on something that is of pressing interest or that will yield something to the taxpayer, the people that after all is said and done pay our salaries through their taxes (e.g. Alzheimer's, cancer, infectious diseases, etc.).
Unfortunately my current work strikes out on both counts and I have known this from the time I interviewed. My current work falls strictly under the umbrella of basic research. My bug of interest causes disease, but VERY rarely does it do anything to humans and is not a problem in the agricultural industry. As such, understanding the mechanisms of how our virus causes disease in its model organism, the mouse, will likely yield unforeseen perspectives in our field that are bound to be exiting and novel. On the other hand, in the face of a financial crunch where funding needs to be allotted as best as possible, it is understandable that monies are going towards those pathogens that are currently causing more morbidity and mortality to the world's populous.
The argument for basic research has always been that basic research is what fuels the key discoveries that drive the drugs and cures of tomorrow. This has held true for many systems, including the coronavirus researchers that for years had studied a bug that did not seem to be all that important until SARS hit. When this happened our response to this new pathogen was greatly improved by what had been accomplished before through basic research.
I just hope in my heart doesn't fail me and that I made the right decision for my professional life. I just hope that I can someday find enough bucks so that good ol' Buck has a place for his show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First, I want to compliment you on a very-well written and very thoughtful blog entry on a very important topic. In all seriousness, there are avenues to publish these sorts of essays on the science job market (Science, etc.), and I don't think it's a bad idea to think about doing just that a few months down the road (provided that you can do it in a way that won't offend your new employer).
Second, I'm in no position to give you advice or even to give you a pep talk. You've taken a step that I wasn't able to take, and as a result, I don't have the perspective/experience to offer anything helpful. However, I do remember some good advice from one very successful postdoc in my graduate lab. Consider this his informed advice passed along by me, rather than my uninformed advice delivered independently.
He said that he re-evaluated his postdoc every six months at the beginning of his time in the lab and every year thereafter. He reconsidered what he'd done, what he was planning to do, and where we wanted to end up. Every time he reached the re-evaluation date, all options were on the table. He re-evaluated whether he still wanted to do what he had originally set out to accomplish or whether that had changed. He also considered whether what he had done was enabling him to reach that goal and whether his next planned steps were directed appropriately. However in between re-evaluation dates, he wouldn't let himself dwell on his doubts and concerns (which can be constant when science isn't going well). It allowed him to focus on the task at hand for a stretch before taking a step back to question everything. I thought this periodic re-evaluation approach worked very well for him.
Finally, the one question I do have about the entire industry of science is whether we're going to get back to peak funding levels anytime soon. That's probably my greatest concern for the field. Old timers like to tell us how things are cyclical, but the truth is that we are at a point when the NIH budget has recently doubled. In response to that, universities have expanded dramatically, hiring lots of a new, young faculty (just look at how much building occurred at UNC during our time there). Funding rates are low today in some part because large projects are now taking money from RO1s but, I would argue, in larger part because there are a lot more people competing for public dollars. At UNC, there are probably 25% more basic science researchers than there were 10 years ago. If that's a national trend, then a 25% increase in the NIH budget over inflation over that span would do no more than maintain funding rates. Add to it the growing popularity of big (and expensive) science, and I can't help but think that the competition for grant dollars is likely to remain fierce.
Thanks for the note. I have told myself that no matter what I am giving it my best for at least a year and then I can sit down and evaluate.
The post stemmed from me just worrying about things and I just used it as a vehicle to vent some thoughts/frustrations. Then again, it isn't like we haven't talked about a bulk of this before.
By the way, thanks for the heart link. I must admit that I was shocked that it's not actuallly shaped like Valentine's candies depict it to be.
And I hope it doesn't taste as bad as those either.
Post a Comment