How would you choose a thesis lab?

[DarkChild]

Well with summer rotations approaching, my thoughts are starting to turn towards how to go about choosing a thesis lab....
For simplicity's sake, say it boiled down to two choices - a) some old guy/gal with a great reputation doing work in an area that you dont think is so hot or b) some young guy/gal who doesnt yet have a well established reputation but who is doing some work that you think is potentially path breaking - which would you choose?
What role does the reputation of your PI play in academia?
Question 2: How limiting (if at all) is your choice of a PhD with respect to your future research interests? Say you did a PhD in immunology and then really took to your neurology rotation and completed a neurology rotation and then wanted to start up a lab to do alzhemier's work. Having come from a non-neuro background how much of a disadvantage would you be at for neuro post docs and fellowships?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Vader]

Perhaps the single most important aspect of choosing a thesis lab is finding an area in which you are really, really interested. You want to make sure you choose an area that even when things get tough (experiments not working, etc), you'll have sufficient interest to keep yourself motivated to continue. It is probably better to work with a rising star doing something you are really interested in, rather than a fading one that has few new ideas.

Of course, there is a whole lot more to choosing a lab than the area of investigation. For example, the lab environment, publication track record, involvement of the PI in the day-to-day affairs, location, flexibility, etc are all factors you may want to consider.

The reputation of your PI can play a big role in academia. A letter of recommendation from a big name can certainly help you. If you work for someone well respected in a field, that can certainly be a plus if they fully support you. However, what people think of you as a researcher will really boil down to the quality of your work. And you can certainly do high quality research in a lab of someone who isn't necessarily as well-known.

The PhD area of concentration does not limit your future career choices as a researcher or academic physician. There are many examples of MD/PhDs who do research in areas distinct from the field in which they did their PhD. In fact, an outside perspective can be quite valuable in science, as often the biggest insights come from those who can think outside the box. Fields are also becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Furthermore, after being out of research for 2 or more years after the PhD, your PhD field will have no doubt progressed substantially, so in some ways it is akin to starting anew.

So I would say that it is definitely best to follow your interests, no matter what. If you want to do immunology, that is fine and really doesn't limit your career options. However, I would recommend if you are also interested in neurology, getting involved with the neurology department, staying alert of the current literature by reading general neuro jouranls, and rubbing shoulders with people in the field. This will keep you aware of what is going on and make you feel less like an outsider.

And by the way, the field of neuroimmunology is in great need of good basic science researchers who have a medical perspective.

Good luck! 😀

 

[MPS]

It's always a good idea to talk to people already in the lab. There are many things that you could ask them about lab dynamics, how authorship is allocated on group publications, how supportive the supervisor is etc. There are some drawbacks to having an exceedingly prolific thesis supervisor; the chief one being that they may seldom be around. An up-and-comer will certainly be more likely to give you more attention, though you need to be careful that they won't see you as a threat: I know of instances in which supervisors have written their former PhD students poor references for this very reason.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by MPS
An up-and-comer will certainly be more likely to give you more attention,

There's seems to be a lot of support for working with "up-and-comers" but I strongly disagree. The problems with working with an assistant professor versus one with tenure (say within the past 5 years) are the following:

1) They are less likely to make you first author because they need first author themselves to help them get tenure.

2) They'll work you to death trying to get tenure for themselves. Anything to get published ASAP.

3) Less likely to have strong funding resources.

4) Most don't have the "contacts" in their area of research which I think is helpful in securing competitive residency's and fellowships.

5) They don't have a long track record for mentoring and graduating students.

These reasons are based on my own observations of the doctoral process.

 

[isidella]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
There's seems to be a lot of support for working with "up-and-comers" but I strongly disagree.

Yeah, I have been thinking about this alot. I do not mind getting worked to death, but the other reasons are enough to make me steer clear of young researchers. The prospect of striking gold though is pretty enticing. . .

 

[whodenie]

I agree that there are disadvantages to working with a new PI but there are also advantages.

1)You will not be allowed to flounder in a project that is doomed because the PI?s career depends on the success of your thesis project

2)For the same reason you will get lots of face time and your PI will not be out of town all the time

3)The lab will be smaller. (read fewer Post Docs to take the glory projects)

4)If they have their own lab then they will (should be trying to establish collaborations with other senior labs in the same field)

5)More likely to have high enthusiasm for their research

Ways that some of the drawbacks of working with a new faculty member can be reduced

1)Have ?big? names on your committee and get to know them

2)Ask out right about funding level and plans to get funding

About the 1st author point (sorry, pathdr I have to disagree) this may vary by field but the post doc who left my current lab for a faculty job needs senior (last author) papers to establish his independence as an investigator for funding and tenure reasons. This also likely varies in fields were it is common to have multiple junior researchers in a lab under a senior PI whose name is assigned to all the work done under them in the lab.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by whodenie
2)For the same reason you will get lots of face time and your PI will not be out of town all the time

I started my master's work in the lab of a new assistant professor. She was an MD that also had clinical responsibilities and she was far less accesible than the tenured professor (PhD) I completed my thesis work with (Dept. of Pharmacology)

3)The lab will be smaller. (read fewer Post Docs to take the glory projects)[/QUOTE]

This is not an advantage in my opinion. The smaller the lab the fewer people around that can help you when you get "stuck" or help you when the PI is not available. Also in my master' s lab the post-docs didn't get the glory projects we all had great projects. Just one more thing to check out before commiting to a lab.

About the 1st author point (sorry, pathdr I have to disagree) this may vary by field but the post doc who left my current lab for a faculty job needs senior (last author) papers to establish his independence as an investigator for funding and tenure reasons. [/QUOTE]

No offense but I think comparing pre-doctoral issues to post-doctoral issues is like comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different processes although all of the post-docs in my master's lab were all first authors (2 of them went on to faculty positions). Heck for that matter, we were a lab full of first authors (except the undergraduate students).

I'm not saying that working with a new professor is all bad but I didn't do it for my master's and I definitely won't do it for the PhD. Anyone else with an advanced degree, please chime in with your take on the situation. I'd be real curious to see what someone else who has "been there" thinks of the process.

 

[Vader]

The original question was between a newer, less established PI who is doing "breathtaking" work and an older, more established one who does work in an area that isn't so hot. My bottom line point was that one should pursue an area of interest rather than simply pursuing a lab for the name.

I agree, there are various factors to consider. Clearly not everyone has the same preferences. Some people may prefer a smaller lab with closer interaction with the PI, others may enjoy interacting with lots of postdocs, other students, and a bustling environment without micromanagement by the PI. Labs come in all shapes and sizes, and there is tremendous diversity in how various PIs run things.

One of the factors that pathdr2b raises is how busy the PI tends to be. MD or MD/PhD faculty can have clinical responsibilities that draw them away from the lab at times. But well-known PhDs can also travel often to conferences, and be preoccupied with administrative tasks rather than the science. Therefore, one cannot tell a priori what a lab will be like based solely on size. A thorough investigation of all relevant factors must be considered for a good decision to be made.

Another factor that pathdr2b brings up is lab support. Postdocs can often offer valuable insight into why your experiments are not working, or things to try next. Often, postdocs are a lot more directly involved with the research that the PI and can offer more specific suggestions (or a needed reagent).

Again, the bottom line is to pursue what you are interested in (so long as you can find someone who is willing to let you work on that area in their lab).

 

[whodenie]

For the sake of clarity I was referring to his career now as a PI. As a postdoc he was first author on papers.

There is clearly a number of issues to consider and is obviously not clear-cut or this thread would not exist.

Understanding what the issues are is half the battle. Choices rarely come without trade offs

 

[MPS]

I think that we've all established that there are advantages and disadvantages associated with working under both experienced and new professors. Obviously, the choice will rest with the individual: for example some people (myself included) have enjoyed working under a prolific supervisor who essentially leaves you to your own devices. Others may feel that this sort of an environment isn't supportive enough. One thing that I would stress is that you should find out as much as possible about the lab you're thinking of joining before making a commitment.

 

[mjs]

Work on projects you really believe in and for people who you can interact and collaborate with. I've been in a fairly large lab, a medium sized one and a tiny one. Whether I succeed or fail has very little to do with size, but rather how well I am work with my advisors and colleagues on the project. In a larger lab the postdocs can be as capable as young professors, and then it's like working in a lab with a couple faculty.

Also, it's not such a big deal to quietly ask around a department about somebody's reputation for training students- a lot of graduate students I know that came away bitter say that they ignored a lot of warnings when they joined their lab.

I'm sort of going through the same thing right now. One of the people I'm interested in working with has a fierce reputation for being inapproachable, but my boss, who has worked with him in the past, says that it's bunk. I'm not convinced yet...

 

[chef]

i have a q about rotations..

if u find out about a month or 2 into yoru rotation taht this lab is just not it, u dont like the atmosphere, people, etc, is it advisable to just stop or should u still try to finish the project you started? it's good to be goal oriented and finish what you started, but on the other hand you are pressed for time, adn a rotation project is not something that's publishable anyway, a rotation is after all to find out if you fit in the lab, and perhaps it's wiser to move on to your next lab?

 

[Vader]

Originally posted by chef
i have a q about rotations..

if u find out about a month or 2 into yoru rotation taht this lab is just not it, u dont like the atmosphere, people, etc, is it advisable to just stop or should u still try to finish the project you started? it's good to be goal oriented and finish what you started, but on the other hand you are pressed for time, adn a rotation project is not something that's publishable anyway, a rotation is after all to find out if you fit in the lab, and perhaps it's wiser to move on to your next lab?

I would still finish off the rotation. Rotation projects can certainly lead to publications, however, this shouldn't be the primary reason for continuing. It is good etiquette to finish the rotation and may actually be a requirement depending on your program (i.e. here at UCSF you must do a 10-week rotation, but this is negotiable with your PI, so long as he/she is willing to sign off). There should still be plenty of time to find a lab that is the right fit for you.