Scientists are a persistent group. We all have the experience of doing experiments that refuse to work as planned, or favoring a hypothesis that seems contradicted by the latest data. If we accepted such setbacks, success would be rare, indeed. We frequently see frustration as a challenge and an opportunity to demonstrate the quality of our intuition. The harder we fight the battle, the sweeter the ensuing victory.

Of course we are not always victorious, and our challenges are not restricted to the next experiment. As scientists, we frequently pursue grants, jobs, and career choices using the same approach we use in research: We hypothesize that we are wanted for a certain position and then experimentally test that idea by submitting an application. Just as in the case with our experiments (or my experiments, at least), the results rarely support the original hypothesis.

Here, again, scientists are persistent: I have noted that young scientists rarely alter their original hypothesis ("I am right for this job") unless forced to do so.

I first came to appreciate this when I was head of our departmental graduate program at the University of Utah. One of my most unpleasant jobs was telling certain students that they were not cut out to pursue a career in independent scientific research.

Critically evaluating a student's performance was a real eye-opener for me. When I went through graduate school, I considered myself an intellectual egalitarian. I thought that my fellow students were all equally smart to a first approximation and that success was mostly due to diligence and hard work. What I saw as an advisor, however, suggested something quite different. Some students worked extremely hard, but struggled to keep up with compatriots who barely worked at all.

The biggest difference between the successful and unsuccessful students seemed to be in the area of pattern recognition. The best young scientists saw connections between everything they learned. Hypotheses came easily and new ideas were abundant. A prodigious memory did little good if you could not see the relationships between facts. Of course, being a successful scientist requires much more than native intelligence. It does require hard work, persistence, good communication skills, and luck. But without fundamental talent, success is rare.

When I informed students that they inherently "did not have what it took" to become independent scientists, most took it very hard. I tried to explain to them that it was very difficult to become successful in their field with all of the right tools (great intellect, memory, lab skills, organization, and so on). In their situation, success was nearly impossible. The hard truth was that continuing was a waste of time. Their time. Better to get a job in an area where they could excel rather than struggle.

Experience has reinforced my conviction that dropping weak students was the right thing to do. In many cases, I met these students years later and they thanked me for doing them a big favor. Some found jobs in the biotech industry and one became an MD. One said that he was actually relieved afterwards. It forced him to be realistic and to pursue a career in computer programming that he loved. Conversely, the marginal students I knew who continued in their research career all struggled. Most became successful, but not as independent scientists.

Why are many young scientists so reluctant to consider alternate careers? My experience suggests that it is, in part, due to the obsessive-compulsive nature of most young scientists, who get a fixed idea in their heads that they want to spend their lives understanding the nuances of biological systems. But it is sometimes due to self-interested faculty mentors who think of students as more a source of cheap labor rather than budding young scientists. In fact, our graduate committee excluded a student's adviser from evaluations of their prelims because advisers would reflexively want to keep students regardless of actual performance.

There is no disgrace in failing to achieve a career as a scientist. Truly. Some of my students achieved distinction in their graduate work only to walk away from a scientific career with no regrets and with much ensuing success. Life is full of opportunities. The more attuned we are to how we realistically match those opportunities, the more likely we are to find real satisfaction in our careers.

Steven Wiley is a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Fellow and director of PNNL's Biomolecular Systems Initiative.

Dear author

Your dedication to write this given me lot of insights...fundamentals, correlation, observation working in high energy level, etc are needed to know what is research in science. But , the real innovative mind and creative thought will come when they meditate on their science. Innovation or creative thought has to happen its not Ur mind can do only Ur feeling can do. thinking with mind and feeling with your heart the later gives insight and innovations.

This is what i realized in my small journey towards science.

Although I may agree with some comments but I disagree from most of what is stated. There is no shortage of faculty members who get into the system one or the other way yet I do not believe they have any intellectual abilities. They survive through political maneuverings. I myself obtained a Ph.D. degree followed by an M.D. Every step of my graduate education I was disgusted with my environment (dishonesty, exploitation, abuse, mis-guidance, mistreatment you just name it). Yes I took my Ph.D. degree. I saw the same treatment of some of my brightest colleagues who were dismissed from graduate programs yet they still became highly creative individuals and published truly outstanding original papers, although they don't have a Ph.D. degree. I can write a book on this topic.

Hi Ranvi,

Yours is a contradictory nice and tough story. I guess that true science has that taste too. Thanks for sharing.

It is in the historic records that Santiago Ramon y Cajal sold his wife?s jewelry, with her complicity of course, to buy a new more powerful microscope.

Anyway, during your schooling time, did you happen to have teachers and/ or mentors who inspire you to live your science the way that you are living it ?

I AM A BORN SELF SCIENTIST. AN ELECTRONICS ENGG. GRAUATE FROM REPUTED MIT- CHENNAI OF INDIA, ALL THE WORDS IN IT APTLY SAID.

I HAVE TAKEN FEW WORDS FROM THIS AND PUT THEM IN MY BLOG

www.hisnobelwoes.blogspot.com

IT IS TRUE THAT SCIENTISTS LIKE ME ARE BORN AND NOT MADE BY TRAINING.

INNOVATION IS NATIVE AND VERY DIFFICULT TO CULTURE.

I STICK TO RESEARCH, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. IN THAT PROCESS, I LOST ALL THINGS INCLUDING MY ONLY DAUGHTER'S CHILD AND YOUNG LIFE.

I WAS TRIED TO EAT LEFTOVER DOG'S FOOD FOR SURVIVAL.

MY PARENTS, BROTHERS REFUSED TO GIVE FUL SQUARE MEAL. I STICK TO RESEARCH, CAUSE IT IS IN MY BLOOD, AND NO OTHER WORK SUITS ME AS SCIENTIST OR RESEARCH.

STILL I AM BEWILDERED, AND DONOT KNOW WHERE I STAND, JUST WORKING HARD AND PULLING ALONG LIFE AGAINST ALL ODDS OF LIFE

Thanks to the readers who have commented with different perspectives. Just as the student who did not have any ideas but passed the exam with ideas from others, I know many 'successful' PIs who did the exact same thing but continued in research as PIs and would not give credit to those with innovative ideas, or even discoveries, and misappropiate them very cleverly. If questioned, I have known them to use their authority and influence in the university to force the post-doc into 'compliance' and if that did not work, essentially run him/her out of science with 'whispered' lies and manufactured accusations using others who 'co-operate' for gain. They publish others' efforts as their own and even manage to get grants to maintain their labs, leading very comfortable lives. But they rarely excel in science, despite receiving many 'awards'.

In fact, a vast majority of PIs funded by NIH etc., fall into this category of "mediocrity". To me, mediocrity grabs and pockets from others and makes a comfortble living. "Excellence", on the other hand, makes something out of nothing but finds it hard to sprout out from among the mediocre. 'Progress' in science happens due to excellence and mediocrity rides on the same wagon for free claiming credit whenever it can.

Let me give an example. While working as a "Scientist" (a slightly glorified post-doc) in a large university under an MD who was not only the "Head" of the Section in Department of Medicine, but also the Chief Editor of the most prominent journal in the field at that time, because a gene construct that I conceived and designed showed potential to cure a rare disease when transfected to cells in vitro as well as in transgenic mice expressing the disease in vivo, I was harassed tremendously with "You don't want to be deported unless you do exactly that I want" and with "the Irish worked for 5 generations for nothing before they got their due and so you must pay your dues first", etc, by my boss. He also tried to reduce me to assembling furniture instead of lab work. I resigned my position when I discovered something very interesting in my personal file at the Department office. An year earlier, my boss had walked in with some papers that were my 'evaluation' papers in which he had written, in his own hand-writing, how good I was in everything with 10 out of 11 characteristics checked as "Outstanding" and 1 as "Very good" and after I did my part to sign it after writing out how I would improve on the last one, he asked me to sign a blank form which he wanted to get the text typed in; I did sign it, but not before I insisted on making a copy of the original which I did after a brief and hesitant tug-of-war. Later that day I made another copy of it and took it home, leaving the first copy in a folder in my office. A year later, when my boss was on vacation in France, I looked into my personal file and found my signed paper entirely different, ratings mostly being "Average" and the typed in text unrecognizable. I told the 'Adminstrative Officer' who had showed me the file 'what a crook!' and went to my office to get the copy as he waited. The copy was missing. I drove home, got the other copy, made an additional copy from Kinkos on the way back, and took it to the Adminstrative officer. The first question he asked me was, "Is there another copy of this?" and I unfortunately said, "Yes, it is in my car". He "wanted to help me" and insisted on my not keeping a copy. As I walked back to my car to fetch the other copy, I decided that I will not give it up and came back to him with "I couldn't find it". I resigned. My boss cut short his vacation and came back; he insisted on helping me to find another job and with the Department's 'help' found me a well-paying position in Ireland for which I would be required to give up my US permanent residency in a couple of years. Of course, I did not take it and did not work for a while and was genuinely happy with a heavy burden lifted off my back. I guess I was a 'quitter'.

My former boss appeared happy at first that I resigned. He glorified my work in his web page at the University website as his own (I have the screen shots!) for a few months but abruptly changed the contents one fine day with no mention of the work or even the subject. He stopped working in the immediate area. The University compensated him with a $60 million grant to found a Translational Institue within the campus with himself as the 'Director'. He went on to first become the 'Secretary' of the premier Assoication in the field that publishes also the premier journal, and within two years, became its 'President'.

The moral of the story is, there is something else, apart from being worthy, that is required to succeed in science. Call it 'politics' or whatever, it has something to do with co-operating to propagate mediocrity and promising the proponents that you would not strive to excel, I think. I could be wrong, though!

I was one of those graduate students who struggled with course work but did just fine in the lab. I was also very fortunate to have a mentor who recognized this and told me how coursework is just a hurdle I'll have to jump over. I jumped over those hurdles and spent the rest of my graduate career quite happy. I published papers and did quite well.

If only my luck carried on to my postdoctoral fellowship. There I worked for a PI who could care less about his postdocs or graduate students. He only cared about himself. He even called one of his graduate students, begging him to come back and work for him as a postdoc, offering him a huge salary....Fortunately his former grad student was much smarter so he didn't come back. This same PI pretty much made my life a hell for 8 months after which I joined another lab. He would stand behind me, watching me work and I would have no idea he was there...Talk about freaky! And comments he would make about grad students and postdocs, basically equating us to animals.
And that is why I left research, not because I was not capable. I loved it very much, but those 8 months made me realize that if this is what it takes to be successful, I don't want any part of it.


The problem in my mind is the lack of good mentors!

I don't know folks...there are a lot of you that feel strongly that you shouldnt steer people away from career choices that may not suit them because they may be future Einstein's. I think there are clearly people who will not make it as independent researchers...however it may not hurt them excessively to keep trying (whether they WANT to keep trying should be up to them). I had a friend in graduate school who was a few years behind me. She was preparing for her examinations, and one thing every candidate had to be able to do was independently come up with, design and defend an alternate research proposal outside of their area of expertise. This tested their ability to come up with a good research plan on their own (creative thinking). Well, I and another grad student met her at a local resturant because she wanted some "advice" about how to come up with a research plan. She had a paper in an area of research that she though was interesting but couldnt think of anything to study. I was shocked that she couldnt see all these wonderful possibilities almost layed out in the paper she had! The other grad student and I just started listing tons of interesting examples of projects that extended the study in that paper (and to us at least appeard SO obvious!). We were not meaning to have her use our examples (to cheat), but to show her that there WAS interesting projects to do if you just looked for them. She quietly wrote down our ideas and went off and worked on her examination. She passed. I don't know if she used a specific idea we gave her or not, but I often wondered what would have happened if she had not asked for our help. She truly didnt see all those possibilities! Needless to say, she has gone on to a different field of work in science and does not do independent research. I'm not really surprised. Would it have been better for her to have got out earlier? I don't know. But it was her choice.

Thanks anonymous.

You were lucky to come across a non-intended mentor, who happened to act as a real mentor helping you discover the side of science that you really loved.

I spent four years in a doctoral program pursuing what I thought was my dream career. I finished my written and oral exams and was developing my PhD thesis topic when I came to the realization that quitting was right for me, with the help of a senior scientist at my university. This scientist was not my advisor--the latter wanted me to stay, no doubt for the "workhorse" rationale. He was in another department and I was making extra cash on the side by editing his book chapters and articles. It was he who, in the many conversations we had, showed me that what I really loved about science was not doing research, but writing and thinking about it. I left academic study and went into science publishing and writing, and have been both successful and happy ever since. I'm convinced that had I stayed, the stress would have ruined my health, both physical and mental. So to the posters who are cynical about the author's motivations... there are definitely cases where he's right, and I'm one.

Hi anonymous,

Yes. Likewise, there are some scientists that publish a lot and ?maintain funding for years? for them and their followers due to political alliances, to their astuteness to sit in every possible Scientific Grant Review Committee, Editorial Board of journals in their field, but not necessarily due to scientific writing skills (grantmanship ?).

I was once told, but never try to validate it, that there are some scientists with so much grant money that they hire professional writers to write their papers, grants, scientific presentations etc?

All of the above place a huge question mark in the validity of our present scientific process whereby access to critical information and resources, as well as control of information and resources seem to be pervasively permeating success in science for a few.

Of course, the resources are finite.

I just want to bring up a few anecdotes that come to mind after reading this article. 1. I recall having lunch with a very successful, special guest lecturer, who confessed that if she was independently wealthy, would have quit science at one point during her career. 2. Another guest speaker claimed that he used to be the angriest graduate student at his University and he now has a huge lab, lots of funding and is tenure track faculty.

Conversely, I know some scientists that hardly publish anything and maintain funding for years due to political alliances, friends at the NIH and their skills at grantsmanship. And all they seem to be capable of doing is criticizing EVERYTHING.

All in all, Science is an extremly challenging field and of course everyone struggles with it. So, to be so bold and pick out students, in a seemingly capricious manner, that you believe will not succeed in science and encourage them to quit seems inapropriate, irresponsible and arrogant. And pointing out their success in another field does not preclude that individual from success in science.

I am compelled to respond to this column, and I apologize at the outset for what will assuredly sound to some like 'sour grapes'. Let me assure you that it is not (at least, not entirely).

This column points out that one of the most unpleasant tasks of a mentor's role is having to cut someone out of their career path of choice because the capabilities they have exhibited do not seem to be a good match. Quite rightfully, Dr. Wiley also pointed out the role many supervisors play in keeping unsuitable graduate candidates in place as "cheap labour". What he stopped short of describing, however, is the situation that can arise when otherwise very capable and keen graduate students are engaged by less-than-suitable supervisors. I have to use my own history here as the example unfortunately (hence the 'sour grapes' reference), although I am quite certain that I am not alone in this boat. My particular 'shortcoming' as a graduate student was that I never learned before it was too late that being successful as a graduate student has more to do with playing politics and kow-towing to the personal opinions of faculty members than it does with scientific ability. I have never seen the need for a graduate student to be expected to consistently put in 16 - 20 hour days and week-ends just to satisfy the whims of a supervisor. My own graduate supervisor at University of Western Ontario, to his credit, neither expected nor insisted on such hours. But other faculty members did, and it was disheartening to see the incredible strain this expectation placed on their graduate students.. It seems that many faculty acquire a view of themselves as self-appointed guardians of the profession, free to make such judgmental comments to graduate students as 'I don't know about keeping you in our graduate program; you seem to have a very casual attitude about it all'. This is one I was treated to personally during a public progress review by one member of my graduate supervisory committee while working towards my Master's degree in Organic Chemistry. I hasten to pint out that by this time I had invested nearly twenty years of my life in the study of something that not only fascinated me (and still does) but was something that I was also very good at and which I expected to spend the rest of my life doing.
Again, because I never learned "academia politica" I also never played the add-drop game with the courses I took. Failing to drop out of a graduate course that was not related to my field of specialization and that was presented only sporadically by an inexperienced instructor who administered only two tests throughout the entire course I also managed to fail; to obtain the required B-level grade required. This automatically reduced my option from Ph.D. candidate to M.Sc. candidate, a degree that I completed two years later with a thesis that in fact exceeded those of many successful Ph.D. graduates.
The rest of my tale takes place at University of Alberta, where I had determined to complete the Ph.D. degree. There I was eventually convinced to join the research group of an untenured professor (who was granted tenure just over a year later) on the strength of the research project description he presented. He was a good salesman, I will admit, but a complete disaster as a graduate student supervisor. (This is something I should have realized early on since his research group consisted solely of foreign post-doc's and he was quite fond of boasting how easily he could deceive the Canadian regulations regarding hiring of post-doc's and other researchers.) Be that as it may, here finally is the example that counterpoints Dr. Wiley's column. This particular supervisor provided no mentorship whatsoever, had no regard for my previous training, experience or qualifications, and no regard for me personally. I was not given any guidance as to how I might best achieve our mutual goals and was in fact constantly treated to undisguised intimations that I should be prepared to give up my wife and kids in favour of continuing to work for him. It was quite clear that no matter how much I wanted my career as a practicing research chemist nor how long I had worked toward it, nor how many other professors at both UWO and UA thought I was the best graduate student TA they had seen in a long time, there was no way I could ever succeed as a graduate student anymore either there or anywhere. In 1985, at the age of 32, I walked away from it all and in the twenty-five years since, I have not found another profession to replace it although I have continued to use my training in other pursuits. A few years ago, I inherited my M.Sc. supervisor's journal collection and now use those to pursue some of my own research and applied chemistry ideas. But it's not the same. I don't have a lab to work in and there is little chance that anything I do as a chemist will ever see the light of day. All because one person held a position as a degree supervisor that he was neither capable nor competent to hold.
Like I said, it sounds like 'sour grapes', but it's the truth nevertheless, and I'm quite certain there are others out there who have similar stories to tell. Perhaps the suitability of supervisors to actually be supervisors and the fact that they need to be real mentors to their graduate students first of all is something that should be written about ni a future column.

Sicnerely,

Richard M.J. Renneboog M.Sc.

Dr. Wiley works at the nations greatest monument to phoney science, the tragic radio-active waste dump formerly known as hanford and he has the nerve to say some people were not cut out for science. Hanford will be a plutonium albatross hanging around the countries neck for centuries only so a few people who were not cut out for life sciences can call themselves scientists.

Hey guys,

I got excited with Richard's recommendation and looked for the book online. Unfortunately, one needs to pay for reading the book.
But good news. There is an alternative for whomever has insufficient funds. That is:

Advice to a young investigator by Santiago Ram￳n y Cajal. Go to Google, you'll find it and can read it for free.

I am not a young investigator but I have already read one chapter : Undue admiration to authority

It's inspiring. Go for it before the demand overwhelms the system. You might have to pay then too.

Good luck !

Rafaela

'Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers, some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics ... and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead.'

Sir Peter Medawar

If you are considering a career in science I highly recommend his book 'Advice to a Young Scientist' has an excellent section on what it takes to be a scientist (not much really).

The problem is not talent, it is lack of career structure and opportunity.

1) I am a bit afraid if somebody who takes decisions in the hiring of staff for research makes fun of "persistency", even sees it negatively.


2) I do not disagree with the notion that some people who were forced to quit a career as scientist "won".

I do disagree, however, if this is used as an argument by someone who has "unpleasant jobs ... telling certain students that they were not cut out to pursue a career in independent scientific research."

to say quitters sometimes win it is a cynical platitude. especially if used by a person who is in charge of making people quit.

There are well known examples of people who had to quit. Karl Landsteiner the Medical Faculty of Vienna, Albert Einstein the Prussian Academy of Sciences. (He, by the way, was not really a promising young student.) The list might get longer, easily. Thanks to God or to their persistency, they stayed in science.

3) On the other side, there are probably examples of non-quitters, who waste research money and do not get anywhere, or who conduct scientific fraud. do the people who had not made them quit take responsibility? or are they made responsible?

4) If an article is written on the subject of "telling certain students that they were not cut out to pursue a career in independent scientific research" I would expect some information on the decision making process.

I hear little about that but a very selected view of a possible outcome. this article serves as justification for an admittedly unpleasant job and it is based on platitude. since this platitude is taken as an argument, it gets dangerous.

"It's just not a situation that is in keeping with what it means to be a scientist."
Very nice sentence from the another article on misconduct.

Well -fault is not in being as uncucessful faculty and remaining as postdoc/research associate for very long or throughout the life.
If the Independent scientist has got the idea and grant -working out that idea by postdoc etc is equally important. It should be treated as "joint venture between professor and postdoc" one can derive pleasure in working on bench for many long years if he/she redifines success.

After you read Dr. Wiley's comment, you should read the next note in The Scientist:

Renal researchers faked data

...Though the motivation for the misconduct remains unclear, the case has increased the university's vigilance in monitoring research integrity, according to Marchese. "We really don't understand it," he said. "It's just not a situation that is in keeping with what it means to be a scientist."

I think they suposed to be able for independient science, they could be the talented students chosen by Dr. Wiley.

Moral: Look for your own way with commitment and drive.

Here is a real life experience. Thanks. Rafaela

AN ELITE ATHLETE WITHOUT A COACH

By Liz Robbins (New York Times, July 9, 2009)

Before Hendrick Ramaala became a marathon champion, he tried out for the soccer team at his university in Johannesburg, South Africa. When he didn?t make the squad, he ran on the school?s grass track to stay in shape while studying for a law degree. But instead of practicing law, he dedicated himself to elite distance running, preferring to train without a coach.
Humble, charismatic and ever determined at age 37, Mr. Ramaala won the New York City Marathon in 2004, finished as a painful runner-up by three-hundredths of a second in 2005, and came in third in New York in 2007. He trains in an unusual setting for an elite distance runner: he runs on a 2.17 mile (3.5 kilometer) loop around Johannesburg?s biggest city park, Zoo Lake.


Liz Robbins
Whenever I see Mr. Ramaala at races or when I visited him in South Africa, he is always talking to younger runners, generously giving advice. Today he is preparing for the 7-mile Falmouth Road Race in Cape Cod in early August, followed by the New York City half-marathon the week after and is hoping to run his eighth New York City marathon this fall. He recently took time to share his thoughts about his love of the sport and offered training tips for runners of all distances. Here?s our conversation.

How do you stay motivated without a coach?

First, the point is that I love the sport of running. I enjoy getting out and doing distance, going to races and competing, watching others run, reading about the sport ? that is, I enjoy being part of the sport. It?s easier to motivate myself. When I get an opportunity to run in big races, I get motivated to train harder, to focus; I take it as an honor.
When I lose a race or run badly, I get motivated to work harder so as to get better results next time. When I run well in a race, I get motivated to keep it up and even do better the next time. I feel good about it. I train with a group of guys, and they motivate me to keep up in training as they are younger and hungrier for results. I am still learning new things from other runners, and still learning from mistakes we all commit in training and races. I listen to my body and try to do what it tells me to do. I can feel when I am too tired to train or when I am ready for a race. A coach cannot feel that for me.

What advice would you give to recreational runners to stay motivated for races?

I think they must first get all the advice available out there. They can even join others to form training groups or even get a coach-adviser-mentor.
Planning is very important. If, say, you want to run a big city marathon, then you have to plan well. Running in smaller and shorter races before your main race will keep the motivation high. You will be measuring your progress in those small races, and you can see mistakes you commit or the right thing you have done and improve on them.
Don?t overtrain or overdo things, as that leads to burnout and injuries. Build up your training slowly, because as a recreational runner you don?t have enough time to do what full-time runners do ? for example, heavy loads of training, taking naps after training or training camps.

What do you do to train for a half-marathon, and what would you recommend?

For the half-marathon, one does not need to do the load required for marathons. You will still need a long run (25 to 30 kilometers, or 15 to 18 miles), an interval session (repeats on the track or road or park), tempo run and recovery runs. For the half-marathon, I need more intensive workouts than in the 10K, as ?halfs? are won in under an hour these days. I need six to eight weeks to prepare for a half, and my mileage can go up to 170 kilometers (105 miles) a week. I also race one or two 10K races before my half-marathon race to sharpen.

You have told me that, at the peak of your marathon training, you will run 12 laps around Zoo Lake (26 miles) on some days, run on the large hill near your house on others, then do speed work on the grass track at the University of the Witwatersrand. What else can you tell us about your training?

Marathon training can take up to 12 weeks to complete. You need a buildup (base) training phase and then a specific marathon training phase. I go 200 kilometers (124 miles) a week or more when I get ready for a marathon. At the end of this heavy training, you will need a tapering period of two to three weeks. I do a minimum of 10 to 12 long runs in that period. Four to six of those will be around 40 kilometers (24.8 miles), the rest between 25 and 30 kilometers (15 to 18 miles).
I also include interval sessions on the track (two times a week); some hill runs (once a week); tempo runs (twice a week) and recovery runs. Four or three weeks before my marathon race, I normally race a half-marathon to test myself. When doing marathon training you need to take lots of rest, get sports massages, consume lots of liquids, eat lots of good food and focus more as the load of training is taxing on the body.

As a professional athlete in South Africa, what are your impressions of the World Cup coming to the country and your city next year?

The whole of South Africa is excited about the World Cup coming to RSA. Africa is excited about it coming to our continent for the first time. It?s going to put our country in the spotlight, and we are ready to put on a good show.

Do you miss playing soccer?

No, I don?t miss playing soccer. I enjoy watching other guys play. I am scared of getting injured ? you get injured easily if you play soccer. I am more addicted to running these days. I do everything for my running.

I was one of these "slaves" who was only kept on in order to correct 3 unreadable PhD theses of Chinese students thus reducing the PI's workload. I was silently let go after three intensive rewrites. In the beginning I was told that the effort could lead to a full time position, which was not the case. All 3 PhDs went on to very high paying jobs in research. I drive a taxi. Thanks guys.

I'd love to show Dr. Wiley a blind copy of Cary Mullis's PhD dissertation.

Ideas in the article are in line with popular ideology widespread in the scientific world. I think that young scientists who are coming up with new and flashy ideas, are active, look smart and lively, ask many questions at the meetings, speak loud and usually step out of line, very often are not that good in actually producing lasting quality science. Indeed, many locally successful people just learned to show-off the signs the current system/establishment considers as criteria for prospective scientist. There is no guarantee that current system is close to perfect. It just evolved along with general lifestyle philosophies. This system lets you be good scientist if you have good grantsmanship skills and similar non-scientific skills are around in student selection process. Real problem is that clear criteria to identify presence of ?fundamental talent? before it reveals itself do not exist. Pattern recognition could be one out of several dozen criteria. Unconscious biases and prejudices are massive with people. So at this stage, if you label somewhat less performing student as ?weak? and worth for dropping, you basically play the god.

Just a suggestion.

Dr. Wiley is absolutely right in that alternatives to independent research careers are laudable and often more appropriate career paths for students. But he lays the blame on obsessive-compulsive students for sticking with the wrong career path too long. This is only part of the story. In practice, little credit is given for alternative career path choices among the practitioners of independent research. Scientists have their positive attributes: drive, analytical skills, technical writing, and insight. Other career paths require interpersonal, management, artistic, emotional and a broad range of technical skills that independent scientists are often lacking. In academic research labs, advisors and students create an atmosphere where failure as a research scientist is seen as failure, period. Dr. Wiley's references to "weak", "marginal" students who should be more "realistic" reflect this underlying value judgement. In this environment, expecting students to read between the lines and make the best choice is not realistic. I don't mean to pick on Dr. Wiley. He is clearly on the right path, and I commend him for speaking out in this issue. Research scientists should view alternative career paths as equally valuable to the choice that they made.

Yes. It would have been helpful if the writer had defined his understanding and metrics of ?marginal students?. There are a few examples in the history of contemporary science on scientists and thinkers whose performance did not match conventional standards during their schooling time. And yet their contributions have revolutionized biology, pathology and social sciences.

Mentoring and Leadership are as challenging as science itself. There are not absolute answers. I would like to know of one scientist, or mentor for that matter, who does not have to struggle to excel in order to find meaningful answers to his/her questions.

Struggling is required, virtually, in all professions if one wants to truly excel. Rafael Nadal struggles virtually in every game he plays.


As Severo Ochoa once said: ?if you have the urge to do scientific research get the proper training and by all means do it. Nothing is going to give you so much satisfaction and, above all, such a sense of fulfillment.

Perhaps having a little experience on not being fairly paid (cheap labor) will help you understand how many others in our society feel when they are exploited. You will have the opportunity to excel there also in changing the rules. While not condoning injustice, always look at the bright side of life.

This article contains a kernel of truth, but also a lot of nonsense.

First, while it is true that great scientists see relationships that are not obvious, seeing "connections between everything" is more commonly a trait of conspiracy nuts and paranoid schizophrenics.

Second, while "fundamental talent" may or may not lead to success as a PI, politicking, pushiness, flexible ethics, and an unlimited ability to abuse subordinates guarantees it.

Finally, unless the author is God, it is likely that he is responsible for discouraging some students who would have succeeded in science. He doesn't mention or take credit for that possibility.

I think part of a young scientists reluctance to accept anything other than independent research as a career path is that a lot of institutions do not present anything else as an alternative once you get a science degree.
Medicine might be an exception. But industry, *if* discussed at all, is often demonised as "selling out". Other alternative career paths - technical work, education, science communication, policy advisor etc. barely get mentioned, and if they do not really encouraged at the same level as academic researcher.

I think that the comment is interesting but if somebody feels a special attraction to science maybe he/she should try. After all, we are going to live one single time.
We should be very sensitive to ourself, so we can choose the best for us.

You seem to be a wise guy. I think there is a manner to say to someone that he/she is not well suited for a job. Some young people can be *very* discouraged to hear that, but apparently you manage to stay "human". Good job.