false description

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

So I've been reading some of the prospective MD/Ph.D students who ask " I want to do research, but not be a PI", and I ran across multiple people stating you shouldn't get an MD/Ph.D unless you want to be a PI, and that entails "doing administrative stuff and writing grants all the time". The way this was phrased by these people made it seem like PIs only write grants and do admin stuff, something I find a hard time believing. If this is the case, I can't see anyone actually enjoying writing grants and doing bs administrative stuff. Why would anyone in gods name become a PI if that meant all they did was write grants? I can't think of anyone saying to themselves "Oh, I want to be a scientist so I can write grants and sit in my office all day!" By telling prospective students this, it will certainly push them away from science and may even be shedding a negative light on scientist in general. Instead, I suggest people be a little more honest. I can think of many other reasons why I want to be a PI (yes I will be writing grants, which will suck, but I will also be training and teaching other students in the lab, mentoring, watching the development of new scientists, celebrating successes[hopefully], collaborating with other labs, making friends within and across departments, and thinking with students of new experiments that will help them succeed with their projects).

After discussing these statements with my current PI, she laughed and explained that yes grant writing is an innate part of being a PI and having your own lab. But there is so much more to it than this.

Am I right or am I right? I just think its a little odd how when someone says they want to get this dual degree to do research, current students jump on them and essentially scare them away from it by saying their lives will be filled with grant applications/paperwork/patients and nothing else (someone once sent me a pm stating whether or not I wanted to write grants for a living, and if I did, then I should continue with my dreams, but if not I should take another look at why I want to be a physician scientist) A more balanced response should be given cause it's false to say what most people are currently saying.

I'm not sure what the situation is with these "current students," but I can tell you that if they're in the middle of their PhD years then they're probably feeling jaded and pissed that their experiments aren't working, which is probably coloring how they view the research side of things. Just a guess. They may be focusing on the more negative/frustrating aspects of science because they're currently feeling negative and frustrated, however there's still some truth to what they're saying.

I think the reason that most people get into science is that they enjoy the hands on aspect. They like the benchwork, learning new techniques, and the thrill of getting an experiment to work. The nature of the beast, however, is that when you're successful at benchwork, you get pushed away from it to do things like write grants, be on committees, teach, and mentor others who end up doing the benchwork for you. That's not to say that writing grants, teaching, and mentoring students don't have interesting aspects and their own rewards, but for most people these things weren't their "first love." I'm guessing that's the cause of the frustration that you're hearing from others. Honestly, I see this same frustration in my PI. She goes through periodic bouts of wanting to "get back to the bench," much to the chagrin of all of us in the lab, but most of the time she just doesn't have the time for it. I know she still loves her job. She really enjoys mentoring students, puzzling out results and coming up with new ideas, but she decidedly misses the hands on aspect of it.

Originally Posted by delirium81

I'm not sure what the situation is with these "current students," but I can tell you that if they're in the middle of their PhD years then they're probably feeling jaded and pissed that their experiments aren't working, which is probably coloring how they view the research side of things. Just a guess. They may be focusing on the more negative/frustrating aspects of science because they're currently feeling negative and frustrated, however there's still some truth to what they're saying.

I think the reason that most people get into science is that they enjoy the hands on aspect. They like the benchwork, learning new techniques, and the thrill of getting an experiment to work. The nature of the beast, however, is that when you're successful at benchwork, you get pushed away from it to do things like write grants, be on committees, teach, and mentor others who end up doing the benchwork for you. That's not to say that writing grants, teaching, and mentoring students don't have interesting aspects and their own rewards, but for most people these things weren't their "first love." I'm guessing that's the cause of the frustration that you're hearing from others. Honestly, I see this same frustration in my PI. She goes through periodic bouts of wanting to "get back to the bench," much to the chagrin of all of us in the lab, but most of the time she just doesn't have the time for it. I know she still loves her job. She really enjoys mentoring students, puzzling out results and coming up with new ideas, but she decidedly misses the hands on aspect of it.

Ah, that definitely clears things up. Thanks for the thorough explanation, I appreciate it. I do agree most people go into science because they enjoy the hands on work, but I figured those getting their Ph.D's would know best that being "hands on" means getting extremely frustrated and wishing things would just work. Thus when you finally become a PI, you finally get a chance to spread your wings and let others do the work, so to speak. Not saying you throw all your work on them, but I think becoming a scientist definitely entails having to move away from the bench in order to let others do the work and learn as you did when you were getting your Ph.D. I understand these students currently in their Ph.D years are feeling frustrated, but they still have a responsibility to accurately describe their work so as not to scare prospective students and give scientist a bad "rap". And with my PI, she did express how she wishes she could do bench work, but that as a PI she has a responsibility, almost a duty, to let others take it on so that they get the experience they need to succeed as future scientist.

I'm just saying, it is one thing to tell someone not to go into science unless he or she want to write grants/fill out paperwork/be in meetings all their life, and another thing to say someone shouldn't go into science unless he or she know and can accept that he or she will not be doing bench work all the time and instead will be mentors,writing grants, being in meetings, teaching, along with doing other responsibilities (a description a lot more people can handle than the currently accepted one)

I disagree that people go into science because they like hands on work. That may be part of it, but it shouldn't be the only thing. I like science because of the intellectual stimulation of the process of research. Asking a question, thinking of ways of refining it into a focused and answerable form, devising experiments to address the question, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and ultimately answering the question that you posed in the first place. That's why I entered science, it's a way for me to satisfy my curiosity about medicine, life, and the world around me (yes I know very corny). But it's definitely not because cloning or western blots get me out of bed in the morning (though using them to answer my questions do) and I definitely am not enamored of being stuck in cloning hell.

I think that while saying all PIs write grants and do administrative work all the time is being hyperbolic, there is a grain of truth behind all that. PIs constantly have to worry about funding, about whether his animal protocol needs revision, about administrative stuff, etc. That's a fact. There's no one else to do it. As the head of the lab, it is his/her responsibility to make sure that the lab can continue to exist and function both from a financial standpoint and administrative standpoint and that requires a lot of attention and should always come first. I think it is fair to warn people that if they become a PI then much of their energy will be redirected toward those things. However, despite all this, from my observations of PIs that I've worked under, what really gets them going and keeps them engaged in being a PI is the science. Not the hands on stuff (though some has expressed envy at the "simple days of DNA preps") but, again, the process of scientific inquiry, the asking the question, planning projects, talking it over with collaborators/postdocs/students, looking at data together, drawing conclusions, finding answers, and presenting it to fellow scientists at talks and conferences. That's what really gets my mentors' gears going and I suspect that's what many PIs love about what they do.

Originally Posted by SBR249

I disagree that people go into science because they like hands on work.

I wasn't trying to imply that the hands on work was the singular reason behind why people enter science. If the only you thing you liked was the hands on aspect you'd probably be going into carpentry. But I do think that it's a big reason behind the frustration that Stevvo is observing in others.

Originally Posted by Stevvo111

I understand these students currently in their Ph.D years are feeling frustrated, but they still have a responsibility to accurately describe their work so as not to scare prospective students and give scientist a bad "rap".

Saying that these students have a "responsibility to accurately describe their work" is implying that they're lying. They're not lying. They're accurately representing their current frustration with life. Science is not always a happy and wondrous process. Sometimes you'll feel that way and sometimes you won't. When you're banging your head against the wall because the giant experiment that you've been working up to for over a year just completely failed and on top of that you got scooped and realized that the method you had been using to try to answer that question wouldn't have worked anyway, and now you're essentially projectless (this happened to a friend of mine), it's going to be pretty hard to find the perspective to say "gee, I know this sucks but science is amazing!" You gain it back eventually, but the bottom line is that, no, you will not always be loving life as a scientist. If hearing people talk about their frustrations with science is enough to make you want to avoid it, then it probably wasn't the life for you anyway. It's your responsibility to gain as many different perspectives as possible. No one should be solely relying on the opinions of a few frustrated PhD students to make their decision about their life's goal.

Originally Posted by delirium81

Saying that these students have a "responsibility to accurately describe their work" is implying that they're lying. They're not lying. They're accurately representing their current frustration with life. Science is not always a happy and wondrous process. Sometimes you'll feel that way and sometimes you won't. When you're banging your head against the wall because the giant experiment that you've been working up to for over a year just completely failed and on top of that you got scooped and realized that the method you had been using to try to answer that question wouldn't have worked anyway, and now you're essentially projectless (this happened to a friend of mine), it's going to be pretty hard to find the perspective to say "gee, I know this sucks but science is amazing!"

It does not imply that they are lying, it just means they are not accurately representing their overall experience in science. If when you get asked why become a PI, and your response is based on 1 year (or your most recent bad experience) of your whole training, then there is certainly something wrong with this, and this is what I am trying to point out. They are condensing whatever they are currently feeling as their feeling for their entire training period- that is a problem and not something anyone should offer as advice.

Originally Posted by delirium81

You gain it back eventually, but the bottom line is that, no, you will not always be loving life as a scientist. If hearing people talk about their frustrations with science is enough to make you want to avoid it, then it probably wasn't the life for you anyway. It's your responsibility to gain as many different perspectives as possible. No one should be solely relying on the opinions of a few frustrated PhD students to make their decision about their life's goal.

I don't know exactly what you are arguing here, but I never said anything about anyone saying they hated life (I'm sure everyone who has ever lived has not loved their profession at some point or another). Nor did I ever say this frustrated me beyond wanting to be a physician scientist. Furthermore, I never said I am relying on the opinions of a few frustrated PhD students to make decisions about my life. I'm pretty set on it actually. I do agree it is our responsibility as prospective students to gain different perspectives, but when we hear the same simple and (in my opinion) "hyperbolic" statement, it will push many away from it.

All that I did say was that there were some responses, both on this board and from those I've asked around at my university (and by some I mean enough for me to make a post, which means quite a few) that I thought were misguiding and haphazardly stated (particularly the one that said, you should only go into being a physician scientist if you want to write grants all the time). I think it is my responsibility to help others thinking about this dual degree by pointing out some of the responses on this board were inaccurately described (sure you had a crappy year, but if this is what you describe when an unknowing student interested in getting a PhD asks about what it means to be a PI, then "it probably isn't the life for you" cause you are not being the mentor you should be nor are you promoting a career in science as appealing or one anyone should respect or care about) (that last statement is not directed toward you delirium, although it may sound like that)

Originally Posted by stevvo111

They are condensing whatever they are currently feeling as their feeling for their entire training period- that is a problem and not something anyone should offer as advice.

The thing is that human beings do this all the time. Maybe you don't ever do this so you have a hard time understanding it when you see it? But it's not all that uncommon for people to lose site of the big picture when they're pissed off and frustrated with their current circumstances.

Originally Posted by stevvo111

I don't know exactly what you are arguing here, but I never said anything about anyone saying they hated life (I'm sure everyone who has ever lived has not loved their profession at some point or another). Nor did I ever say this frustrated me beyond wanting to be a physician scientist.

I know that you didn't say this, but I was trying to convey why people might be expressing dissatisfaction with their current circumstances. My point is that if these people are currently hating their life, they're not going to tell you that this is the best career ever and ultimately it's on you to take or leave what they have to say.

Originally Posted by stevvo111

Furthermore, I never said I am relying on the opinions of a few frustrated PhD students to make decisions about my life. I'm pretty set on it actually. I do agree it is our responsibility as prospective students to gain different perspectives, but when we hear the same simple and (in my opinion) "hyperbolic" statement, it will push many away from it.

I'm a bit confused. So, you're saying that the opinions of some currently frustrated with science aren't enough to push you personally away from pursuing a career as a physician scientist, but at the same time it may be enough to "push many away from it"? I think you're just proving my point that since you have talked to a lot of different people with different perspectives on this career, you understand the positives and negatives and are making an informed decision.

Originally Posted by stevvo111

All that I did say was that there were some responses, both on this board and from those I've asked around at my university (and by some I mean enough for me to make a post, which means quite a few) that I thought were misguiding and haphazardly stated (particularly the one that said, you should only go into being a physician scientist if you want to write grants all the time). I think it is my responsibility to help others thinking about this dual degree by pointing out some of the responses on this board were inaccurately described (sure you had a crappy year, but if this is what you describe when an unknowing student interested in getting a PhD asks about what it means to be a PI, then "it probably isn't the life for you" cause you are not being the mentor you should be nor are you promoting a career in science as appealing or one anyone should respect or care about) (that last statement is not directed toward you delirium, although it may sound like that)

Again I think I'm missing something. I haven't noticed too many people on this board saying that the only thing physician scientists do is write grants. If anyone did say that, I think most people are smart enough to figure out that there's no way that could possibly be true. It is true that you will spend a lot of time writing grants as a PI, and for some people it may be more time than they'd like, which is why they may be complaining about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing this out to prospective students. Furthermore, I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to only represent science in a positive light so that you don't discourage those thinking about it as a career choice. Some people will focus more on the positive. Some people will focus more on the negative. It's up to the person making the life choice to talk to enough different people to make an informed decision. For some people, like you, the positives will outweigh the negatives. For others they won't. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you want to point out to people that "hey, it's not all bad!" because it definitely is not all bad; far from it in my opinion. But it's not wrong to point out that it's not all good either.

Originally Posted by delirium81

The thing is that human beings do this all the time. Maybe you don't ever do this so you have a hard time understanding it when you see it? But it's not all that uncommon for people to lose site of the big picture when they're pissed off and frustrated with their current circumstances.




I know that you didn't say this, but I was trying to convey why people might be expressing dissatisfaction with their current circumstances. My point is that if these people are currently hating their life, they're not going to tell you that this is the best career ever and ultimately it's on you to take or leave what they have to say.



I'm a bit confused. So, you're saying that the opinions of some currently frustrated with science aren't enough to push you personally away from pursuing a career as a physician scientist, but at the same time it may be enough to "push many away from it"? I think you're just proving my point that since you have talked to a lot of different people with different perspectives on this career, you understand the positives and negatives and are making an informed decision.



Again I think I'm missing something. I haven't noticed too many people on this board saying that the only thing physician scientists do is write grants. If anyone did say that, I think most people are smart enough to figure out that there's no way that could possibly be true. It is true that you will spend a lot of time writing grants as a PI, and for some people it may be more time than they'd like, which is why they may be complaining about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing this out to prospective students. Furthermore, I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to only represent science in a positive light so that you don't discourage those thinking about it as a career choice. Some people will focus more on the positive. Some people will focus more on the negative. It's up to the person making the life choice to talk to enough different people to make an informed decision. For some people, like you, the positives will outweigh the negatives. For others they won't. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you want to point out to people that "hey, it's not all bad!" because it definitely is not all bad; far from it in my opinion. But it's not wrong to point out that it's not all good either.

thanks for the response, I appreciate this discussion. I guess you do have some good points. I just find humans odd I guess, I mean if I were frustrated and pissed off, the last thing I would want to do is vent to some measly undergrads wanting to go into science. How do these guys even find time or the desire to even give advice when under such stress? I talked to a lot of people because I took extreme initiative to do so (at least I'd like to think so). But I know many who, like me, would look towards boards such as this for advice prior to talking to some busy PhDs, grad students, MD/PhDs, etc. And thus my concern for other students who would be discouraged from pursuing any other advice after seeing current students spending time venting their disdain for science (I don't see how this brings any pleasure or satisfaction not to mention where the time to do this comes from.)

I agree most people do know that writing grants is not all that they do, it's just weird and concerning how this seems to be the general make it or break it advice from students ("Do you want to write grants your entire life" if so do MD/PhD). I saw a few comments of this nature, certainly not in every post or even every other post, but there were a few particular posts that had well over a few 1000 views and over 20 comments.

But I still think in this low funding state, that every ounce of positive light will show people that science isn't just people playing with rats or failing miserably wasting millions of dollars for nothing. I just call for a more balanced response. Say something good and say something bad. If you're in a bad mood, first of all why are you on SDN, second of all why are you giving advice, third of all, why are you giving advice? haha, I'd just like current students who give advice to think about the broader implications of their advice.

I guess I just view things in slippery slop format. Negative portrayal of science on boards will lead to negative portrayal of science whenever anyone random asks, leading to negative opinions on science from society, leading to less funding, leading to less respect for science. haha, yeah I think like that... problematic maybe, but I like thinking huge picture and worst case scenarios.

Appreciate the discussion, it was quite intellectually stimulating (I haven't written a thought out argument like this since I was in high school, the former posts that is)

My PI back in undergrad sees patients once a week, has meetings and writes grants / papers, and teaches. He loves the innovation, discovery, and collaboration of his job. Writing is necessary to do all these wonderful things, and my PI has a good attitude about it.

Are you getting PMs from faculty who are in the midst of doing what PIs do? Or students who think they know what PIs do?

Like any good scientist, be very skeptical of everything you hear until you find out for yourself. Another thing I learned is that even at a great department at an academically elite institution, there is a wide range of talent and personalities among the faculty. Why would you want feedback from the jaded faculty that are barely getting by? Well, actually I can see some value in that. But long story short, find the best role models who love what they do and are successful at it. Ask them.

tldr - talking to a baller PI in person > anonymous PMs

Originally Posted by erikreinertsen

My PI back in undergrad sees patients once a week, has meetings and writes grants / papers, and teaches. He loves the innovation, discovery, and collaboration of his job. Writing is necessary to do all these wonderful things, and my PI has a good attitude about it.

Are you getting PMs from faculty who are in the midst of doing what PIs do? Or students who think they know what PIs do?

Like any good scientist, be very skeptical of everything you hear until you find out for yourself. Another thing I learned is that even at a great department at an academically elite institution, there is a wide range of talent and personalities among the faculty. Why would you want feedback from the jaded faculty that are barely getting by? Well, actually I can see some value in that. But long story short, find the best role models who love what they do and are successful at it. Ask them.

tldr - talking to a baller PI in person > anonymous PMs

haha, I love that last part. I agree, my PI rocks and has given me great advice. I just hope the same for others not fortunate enough to have a baller PI.

Originally Posted by erikreinertsen

tldr - talking to a baller PI in person > anonymous PMs

This, in the other thread, is basically what I wanted to respond with:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...2&postcount=70

My observations working in several labs is that the further PIs get along in their career and/or the more successful they are, the less time they spend in the lab. There are definitely many PIs that do not ever set foot in the lab and just spend time puzzling out results that are brought to their office. There are PIs that are happy about this and PIs that are frustrated about this.

Frankly, I don't think the students giving warnings are lying, they are trying to fairly warn incoming students of something they didn't realize before they started. Painting science in only a positive light to prospective students is a good way to have people enter science without an understanding of what it entails and ultimately end up hating it and leaving. People have to be willing to take the good with the bad in any career and you are suggesting that science is special and the students should be going into it with no knowledge of what the bad is so they cannot make an informed decision for themselves.

Originally Posted by mdpdgirl

you are suggesting that science is special and the students should be going into it with no knowledge of what the bad is so they cannot make an informed decision for themselves.

False, I never suggested that, and if I did, I apologize. I simply ask for them to be more reasonable with their comments. I never said science is special, nor do I think it is (well I kinda do cause I like it). I simply said science is often times misunderstood (by both the public and students alike) and that a reasonable "science sucks because of...." should also be qualified by a "science is awesome, and I went into it because...". Any one sided response is wrong. Saying it is only good is bad but leaving this part out completely, as I meant to suggest, is just as wrong and gives people the impression that certain individuals may not have mentioned the positive aspects because they do not believe there are positive aspects to the job.

Like if there is a pretty crappy car being sold. The salesman mentions it has electronic problems, paint is falling off everywhere, the upholstery is crappy, etc. But fails to mention the fact that this car is extremely valuable in terms of its potential. It has a V12 (I'm just talking out of my ***** now), the engine is in perfect condition and has been kept functioning well by the previous owner for over 20 years. And there are gold bricks in the trunk just waiting to be discovered (unfortunately you never fully inspect the car since you are totally turned off by his initial comments- similar to what many undergrads might be inclined to do [the whole not fully inspecting the car/job] do after being shat on with only negative comments). Now you would want know the whole picture before prematurely declining his offer right (maybe you want a fashionable car but you get the point). That is all I was advocating for. I hope that is clearer after that ridiculous and laugh inducing example.

Originally Posted by Neuronix

This, in the other thread, is basically what I wanted to respond with:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...2&postcount=70

Exactly. With the faculty MD/PhD programs have you talk to, you are talking to the ones that it did work out for. You don't hear from the (probably 50% or more) who don't end up doing what they envisioned when they started.

Originally Posted by stevvo111

Any one sided response is wrong. Saying it is only good is bad but leaving this part out completely, as I meant to suggest, is just as wrong and gives people the impression that certain individuals may not have mentioned the positive aspects because they do not believe there are positive aspects to the job.

But applicants often don't hear about the negative aspects--at least I didn't when I applied. I think this is largely due to the fact that senior students interact very little with applicants. That's one of the reasons that I make an effort to participate in recruiting (I'm nearing the end of my 7th year in the program).

While I don't volunteer it, if asked I will tell them that if my goals were the same entering the program as they are now (at this point I'm not planning to run my own lab) I probably wouldn't apply MD/PhD for time reasons. On the other hand, I have never regretted my decision and think MD/PhD programs are still worthwhile. I just think applicants should be aware going in that not every graduate ends up being the 80%-research, RO1-funded physician-scientists programs like to advertise.

Originally Posted by K31

But applicants often don't hear about the negative aspects--at least I didn't when I applied. I think this is largely due to the fact that senior students interact very little with applicants.

This. I find that I always agree with your posts, K31.

Programs are trying to sell themselves. They're not going to tell you about any of the downsides. Talking to baller PIs is a great suggestion since it's important to see what it takes to succeed in the biz so-to-speak, but this is giving you some pretty obvious selection bias. I think talking to senior MD/PhD students and talking to PIs that are struggling to find funding are important ways to make sure you understand what you're getting yourself into. Yeah, potential applicants shouldn't only hear the negatives, but for most people I think the opposite is the problem.

We used to arrange for interviewees to meet with senior students, but the feedback we received from the interviewees was that they had difficulty relating to these students, many of whom were starting families, in the midst of clinical training, etc.

Originally Posted by K31

Exactly. With the faculty MD/PhD programs have you talk to, you are talking to the ones that it did work out for. You don't hear from the (probably 50% or more) who don't end up doing what they envisioned when they started.

I think talking to senior MD/PhD students and talking to PIs that are struggling to find funding are important ways to make sure you understand what you're getting yourself into. Yeah, potential applicants shouldn't only hear the negatives, but for most people I think the opposite is the problem.

These are very good points. I think having a balanced perception of the career of an MD/PhD is critical. Many forces affect your career that are outside of your control. But you can at least give it your best effort by seeking the most successful mentors, who did learn to navigate better than others.

Yes, programs want to attract the best and brightest with lures of academic stardom and job security. Although the MSTP is not an absolute guarantee of future career success, I do observe a strong correlation. I still maintain that we have it slightly better than our PhD-only peers. Correct me if I'm wrong - I have no facts to back this up, only hearsay about MD/PhD vs. PhD funding success rates. And I assume it's easier for MD/PhDs to get any research funding whatsoever (not just R01s) versus MD-only counterparts.

Originally Posted by erikreinertsen

These are very good points. I think having a balanced perception of the career of an MD/PhD is critical. Many forces affect your career that are outside of your control. But you can at least give it your best effort by seeking the most successful mentors, who did learn to navigate better than others.

Yes, programs want to attract the best and brightest with lures of academic stardom and job security. Although the MSTP is not an absolute guarantee of future career success, I do observe a strong correlation. I still maintain that we have it slightly better than our PhD-only peers. Correct me if I'm wrong - I have no facts to back this up, only hearsay about MD/PhD vs. PhD funding success rates. And I assume it's easier for MD/PhDs to get any research funding whatsoever (not just R01s) versus MD-only counterparts.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...37&postcount=8

See the links to the literature in this post.

Thanks again Neuronix! I wonder if the trend has changed in the last 7 years. I doubt significantly.

Something to take note is that there are many more PhD spots than MD or MD/PhD in 1 year. Also, the only real requirement to get into some PhD program may be very drastically different than the schools bringing in top research dollars. The "filter" is not as prevalent between undergrad and the graduate level in PhD as it is for MD or MD/PhD. Many more who do not have a realistic goal or expectation enter a PhD. Subsequently, I definitely hear and read much more negative things about the grad life, post-doc, and competition for funding.

Consider some factors at the program level: the student may not be as hard-working, may not have had a realistic expectation going into a program, doesn't really have strong motivation, and more. essentially, the continuing push for just a PhD is funding and when there are so many more candidates than spots, there will be complaining. At the PI level: the field may not be considered a hot topic, expensive upkeep, and more...

If you have a genuine interest,work ethic, and a strong drive, you can make it. I'd still talk to students and professors in happy, angry, and content emotional mediums to gauge some outside feedback; ultimately, you have to filter out some of the subjective noise, attempt to form a personal objective goal, and stick with it...