Choosing between research labs

[Halcyon32]

I have the option of choosing between 2 labs and would like you guys' advice on which lab would be most beneficial for my future application. I'm a sophomore and this will be my first research experience.

Lab A:
Pros:

• The PI has a rule that if you provide even one figure for the final report/paper, you are guaranteed to have your name on the paper and thus a publication.
• The PI and senior undergrad who's been working in the lab both assured me that by the time I graduate there is a 100% chance that a paper will get published, but not necessarily by the time I apply for med school, so I MIGHT get a pub for my app, albeit not necessarily a 1st or 2nd author one.

Cons:

• This PI requires us to read research articles and reviews relating to our research focus pretty frequently and also has a journal club meeting every week or two. These two aren't THAT big of a concern but I am worried that having to read those papers on top of working in the lab will make it difficult for me to focus on studying for classes as well.

Lab B:
Pros:

• There is an Md/PhD student who is always in lab and who I will likely be spending a lot of time with while learning procedures and stuff. He was an MCAT tutor for Kaplan for a year and a half and got into several MD programs and a few MD/PhD programs. He assured me that he can help me and give me insight with the admissions process and what things I should focus on in my university to boost my app.
• The PI for this lab can likely write me a better LOR than the PI in the other lab
• I like the people in this lab slightly better than those in Lab A
• There is no need to read research articles, as alleged by the MD/PhD student

Cons:

• The PI told me that it was essentially impossible for me to get a pub given that I'm a sophomore and that's not enough time.

Basically, the main consider comes down to is whether or not the increased possibility of getting a pub from Lab A would be more beneficial for my app than having the MD/PhD student as a pseudo-mentor for the app process and possibly the MCAT. The rest are lesser details.

What would you guys choose in my position? I considered working in both labs since they are in the same building on opposite sides, not that far of a walk, but I don't think that would be a great idea.

Thanks in advance for all your help!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[avgn]

Don't buy the hype. SDN is your mentor, you don't need some random overworked MD/PhD candidate to lead you through the process. LORs come with time; if you don't get to know PI B that well, the projected "better letter" is still going to be ****.
lmaoooooooo how do you get into research without reading articles?????? So fishy. This is your first research experience, you need to read stuff and see stuff to get into the mode of thinking. Doing Lab B with no pub and no readings and only knowledge of procedures will result in interviews where they're like "tell me about your research" and all you can do is recite some boring ass pipetting technique you learned. Contrary to premed belief, research value ≠ learning how to do stuff with your hands. It is much more valuable to sit in front of a computer running statistical models that output interesting/new/previously unknown trends with some hard-to-find dataset from a private drug company than to sit at a wet lab desk learning how pipette A beats pipette B in a certain experiment.
Lab A with a guaranteed pub (productivity matters, always) AND guaranteed learning (via the immersive readings) is the way to go. You will learn your research area super well, which is kinda the point of research to begin with.
If you're worried about an aloof PI, then don't be aloof yourself.
Do not work in both labs; your grades will tank unless you are already coasting.

Easy.

Source: I opted for an aloof but high-powered research group (not a lab) myself, never got to know the PI, couldn't even get an LOR from anyone. The returns? 4 pubs all middle author, one in NEJM. I can speak on the subject as well as any MD fellow in the field (it's a medicine specialty). Productivity matters. Getting to know people is an added bonus but does not matter.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Yea B sounds plain weird. You can't call it research if you read no papers...then you are just their pipetting *****. Also there is no such thing as a guaranteed pub so don't join labs based on that because many labs will tantalize you with the prospect of it because they get free labor from you. Work diligently and efficiently and you have a shot.

 

[thatwouldbeanarchy]

I'm somewhat skeptical of the 100% publication guarantee so if it were me, I would take that with a decently sized grain of salt. Maybe this PI is a rockstar and is constantly cranking out papers that get accepted. But there are no guarantees in research. I would ask yourself if you would happy working in this lab even if you don't get a publication out of it. Ultimately, the point is to learn something. Obviously, pubs are delicious icing on the cake. But they're also not going to make or break your med school chances. With that said, I don't think I would choose Lab B simply because of the potential for mentorship from the MD/PhD either.

Also, I'm assuming that at Lab B, although you're not required to do any formal literature reviews or participate in a journal club, you'll still be expected to read up and understand the research. I highly doubt that they're telling you not to read anything...

Just my .02, I would choose the lab was the doing the more interesting work and where I could do more interesting tasks (not simply where I had a better chance of getting a pub).

 

[avgn]

Yea B sounds plain weird. You can't call it research if you read no papers...then you are just their pipetting *****. Also there is no such thing as a guaranteed pub so don't join labs based on that because many labs will tantalize you with the prospect of it because they get free labor from you. Work diligently and efficiently and you have a shot.

Agreed. The guaranteed pub is not the #1 reason to do this, the guaranteed learning is. However when people, especially undergrads, guarantee this based on their experience, it is always a good sign because it means they are confident their productivity is high. Their productivity can easily become your productivity.

 

[ac62994]

Lab A.

 

[avgn]

Just my .02, I would choose the lab was the doing the more interesting work and where I could do more interesting tasks (not simply where I had a better chance of getting a pub).

Vehemently disagree. I personally started finding my work more interesting when I was put as an author on a paper because it was now "mine." Plenty of premeds get discouraged/disinterested in their research because they're being shuffled around on b*tch shifts and never know what project is theirs so they never get into it. Even if they were to get into it, which one would they get into? It's a huge question mark. Being able to own something is a huge mental helper. Huge generalization here but high productivity also implies faster work and thus more interesting work/tasks. The worst is that biochem lab trying to crystallize a protein over 6 years (one that if done right, may net a high-impact pub) and some poor undergrad only gets involved for 2-3 years in the middle....

 

[thatwouldbeanarchy]

Vehemently disagree. I personally started finding my work more interesting when I was put as an author on a paper because it was now "mine." Plenty of premeds get discouraged/disinterested in their research because they're being shuffled around on b*tch shifts and never know what project is theirs so they never get into it. Even if they were to get into it, which one would they get into? It's a huge question mark. Being able to own something is a huge mental helper. Huge generalization here but high productivity also implies faster work and thus more interesting work/tasks. The worst is that biochem lab trying to crystallize a protein over 6 years (one that if done right, may net a high-impact pub) and some poor undergrad only gets involved for 2-3 years in the middle....

Perhaps my experience is difference since I work in clinical research, not in a lab. I think there's probably a bit less tedium involved since I spend most of my time in a hospital, interacting with patients and providers. I've found the work interesting and enjoyable - even before I had the opportunity to publish. Also, getting published hasn't really changed the work that I do on a daily basis in any way. It's a nice perk to add to my CV and to apps for sure and I'm thankful for it. I just personally think the SDN pub-chasing mentality is sometimes overemphasized. Most undergrads just aren't doing work that justifies being published.

 

[wagonwheel23]

Picking a lab - a choice I have had to face many times before! Where to start...

Getting published as an undergrad is nice, but it isn't always necessary to show that you've learned something and made important contributions. I sat on a PhD adcom at a very prestigious research university, and papers published in undergrad were never a big plus for the candidate. Publications only became a differentiator if the candidate spent time after college in a full time research position, but even then there was the understanding that a lack of papers does not mean that one is not a good scientist.

@avgn makes the very important point in that you do not want to be shuffled between projects. A non-negotiable should be that you get to stay on one project and dive deeply. Depth in research will give you the most important lessons and will be most attractive to admissions committees and future employers.

I love that PI A holds journal sessions. Teaching moments like that that are invaluable and that kind of learning is essential if you want to get the most out of your research experience.

Do not try to hypothesize which PI will write a better letter of rec.

There are plenty of resources for MD admissions. You don't need that MD/PhD.

You say that you like the people in lab B better. Just how much better? If it's substantial, that's a good reason to think about that lab. However, if the people in lab A are solid, I say go for lab A.

 

[haaaaaaaaaaveyoumetted]

So I've worked in research for about 4 years (undergrad, summers, now paid research in gap year)... The benefit of being published as an undergrad is not huge, as others have stated. What's important is that you learn about how science works, that you are able to really contribute to the function of the lab, and are not just performing the functions required but understanding the concepts applied and learning about performing experiments, adapting them, etc (scientific method basically). In this case, a lab that has a journal club and requires reading is actually beneficial. As an undergrad my PI wanted to make sure we were all really learning about what we were doing, and becoming independent scientific thinkers, not just hands to do experiments. This helped me be able to present at conferences, talk to other professionals/doctors/others, and have confidence in my work (and secure a job after college). The environment/people are also important, as being with other passionate people makes you enjoy being there. It sounds like the second lab has this (not necessarily excluded from the first one). Choose the one where the environment will allow you to really learn about what you're doing, to think independently, and to spend considerable time on a project

 

[Halcyon32]

Thanks a lot for your advice guys! I'm now leaning towards Lab A.

A few more notes I thought of based on your replies that might make a difference:
-The PI of Lab B is part of an admissions committee at my uni's med school and was on the committee at Pritzker (one of my dream schools) in the past
-The PI of Lab B did mention that reading papers on my own would be helpful but I was wary since I felt like it would detract from my studying for class. Its just that the MD/PhD student in Lab B told me that he doesn't require it and no one really does read them. So I guess no matter what lab I go to I would be reading articles.
-Lab A's PI seemed very unenthusiastic and has broken english, so I'm afraid a LOR from him would not be that impacting and meaningful.

Also, both labs emphasized pretty heavily, and almost took pride in, the fact that they didn't want me just for grunt work but wanted me to be efficient and productive and I'm completely aware that to be able to really get something meaningful out of my research and be able to explain and understand it effectively, I need to put in the work and am more than willing to do so.

 

[avgn]

A few more notes I thought of based on your replies that might make a difference:
-The PI of Lab B is part of an admissions committee at my uni's med school and was on the committee at Pritzker (one of my dream schools) in the past
-The PI of Lab B did mention that reading papers on my own would be helpful but I was wary since I felt like it would detract from my studying for class. Its just that the MD/PhD student in Lab B told me that he doesn't require it and no one really does read them. So I guess no matter what lab I go to I would be reading articles.
-Lab A's PI seemed very unenthusiastic and has broken english, so I'm afraid a LOR from him would not be that impacting and meaningful.

1. Who cares
2. Informal meetings with PI to discuss relevant research papers like his journal clubs are far far superior than reading stuff on your own
3. Stop obsessively speculating on LORs
4. Commit to lab A already
5. Donate to SDN

 

[MaxPlancker]

Thanks a lot for your advice guys! I'm now leaning towards Lab A.

A few more notes I thought of based on your replies that might make a difference:
-The PI of Lab B is part of an admissions committee at my uni's med school and was on the committee at Pritzker (one of my dream schools) in the past
-The PI of Lab B did mention that reading papers on my own would be helpful but I was wary since I felt like it would detract from my studying for class. Its just that the MD/PhD student in Lab B told me that he doesn't require it and no one really does read them. So I guess no matter what lab I go to I would be reading articles.
-Lab A's PI seemed very unenthusiastic and has broken english, so I'm afraid a LOR from him would not be that impacting and meaningful.

Also, both labs emphasized pretty heavily, and almost took pride in, the fact that they didn't want me just for grunt work but wanted me to be efficient and productive and I'm completely aware that to be able to really get something meaningful out of my research and be able to explain and understand it effectively, I need to put in the work and am more than willing to do so.

If you will be working under the MD/PhD and he said he doesn't require reading papers, that is a red flag that he does not value nor intend to put learning first for you. He just wants someone to do the bench work so it speeds up HIS progress in lab.

I would be wary about joining Chinese (if that is the case)/foreign labs (no offense) if they are filled with Chinese people and the PI is not well known. They work like mad even on weekends/nights/etc and can be manipulative. This could be a wrong impression on my part but it is very common at my university so take it with a grain of salt.

Remember you don't have to settle between these 2 labs...why not scout a bit more?

 

[Halcyon32]

If you will be working under the MD/PhD and he said he doesn't require reading papers, that is a red flag that he does not value nor intend to put learning first for you. He just wants someone to do the bench work so it speeds up HIS progress in lab.

I would be wary about joining Chinese (if that is the case)/foreign labs (no offense) if they are filled with Chinese people and the PI is not well known. They work like mad even on weekends/nights/etc and can be manipulative. This could be a wrong impression on my part but it is very common at my university so take it with a grain of salt.

Remember you don't have to settle between these 2 labs...why not scout a bit more?

Yeah the PI is Chinese but the rest of the lab isn't (It's a small lab). Also I sent emails to like 30+ PIs and these are the 2 that met with me and told me I can work in their labs.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Yeah the PI is Chinese but the rest of the lab isn't (It's a small lab). Also I sent emails to like 30+ PIs and these are the 2 that met with me and told me I can work in their labs.

If the rest of the lab is not and they have positive things to say, then I'd say no need for concern.

 

[Halcyon32]

If the rest of the lab is not and they have positive things to say, then I'd say no need for concern.

There was on other undergrad I met who loved it and an indian postdoc who seemed pretty introverted and unfriendly. But I can get over him

 

[HybridEarth]

Definitely Lab A.

1) Having the OPPORTUNITY to discuss your research discipline with your colleagues will make it 20 times easier to discuss your research for poster presentations and interviews. Critically reading scientific papers is an incredibly important skill to have, especially because it will give you a strong background in writing papers when the time comes
2) guaranteed pub for a figure
3) Don't worry about the English. ADCOMs will likely be able to tell that it isn't his/her first language. Just do your part in the lab and be super productive

 

[NickNaylor]

I didn't read the entire OP, but when choosing a lab I'd take the following things into consideration:

-Ability to get published or otherwise produce something of substance to show for your time and effort. There is still value in doing research and being able to list that experience on your application, but being able to say, "hey, this is what my work resulted in" is far better. Understand that getting a publication as an undergrad student is difficult unless you spend a lot of time in a lab working on a project. Even things like poster presentations, abstracts, etc. are valuable.

-Ability to work somewhat independently and have a say in where your project is heading. This is unlikely to be something that you get right away as you first need to learn the ropes before being given responsibility, and you will likely always have someone looking over your shoulder even if you're "independent" - whether that be a graduate student or a PI. Having some degree of independence and responsibility is valuable as a learning experience, particularly if you're interested in research and want to spend a significant amount of time doing research, as you'll have that experiencer already.

-Ability to get a LOR from the experience. All things being equal (and they rarely are), I'd rather work with a PI that is likely to get to know me or be familiar with my work than someone that isn't. Having a mentor that is willing to go to bat for you by writing you a strong LOR is incredibly value; this is, again, doubly true if you have an interest in making research a significant part of your career.

There is no perfect lab, and other things - like time required, your interest in the work being done, etc. - should also factor into your decision. I don't think anyone can say whether "A" or "B" is a better experience - that's something that only you can decide. In making that decision, though, I'd recommend thinking about the above things.