Most useful research skill?

[Physics of Math]

As research doctors / research doctor wannabes, what skills do you find yourself using most often while helping with / conducting research? Also, where did you learn the(se) skill(s) (feel free to suggest good books, courses, etc.) ?


Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[glutacidecarb]

Well, in terms of clinical work and basic research, I'd figure Western Blotting and overall gel electrophoresis would be really good to know.

 

[itsallthesame]

the only skills that matter are attention to detail, willingness to read a lot and ability to carefully dissect what you read.

with very few exceptions, and westerns certainly ain't one, anyone can do any lab technique with a little practice. that's why professors (who were usually technically good at them at one point) rarely bother. instead, your ability to understand exactly why lots of experiments were done, their methods and what they PROVE, not what they claim to prove will be a good start. then you just have to use that ability to ask an interesting question and find a good enough answer.

for books that teach that: i haven't read many. your best bet is to take a simple statement out of a science textbook and become best friends with pub med until you UNDERSTAND every experiment that led to that sentence's creation AND why experiments supporting a previous notion were wrong. Then take something that's still debated, read all the evidence, and try and come up with a good set of experiments to find the truth (it's out there).

finally, i would suggest reading kary mullis' dancing naked in the mind field until you realize how completely sane he is. luckily, i have a july birthday, so med school is definitely looking good for me!

 

[Vader]

I agree with the previous poster. I would just add that it is critical to know the limitations of any technique/approach you use and to be able to address these deficiencies with additional experiments.

 

[Jorje286]

I think people in general tend to underestimate creativity in science. The hardest (and the most fascinating imo) part in science is trying to come up with a novel idea/hypothesis, and you've got to have an ability to think outside the box and not to accept things because that's what X and Y thought in their paper. You also have to be extremely critical and look for faults everywhere. From my experience, natural talent is certainly important but you'd be surprised how much experience and practice could refine those skills. And to add something, depending on your technique, sometimes it's very important to have a very good background in math and statistics so you could use the right test.

 

[dl2dp2]

I think people in general tend to underestimate creativity in science. The hardest (and the most fascinating imo) part in science is trying to come up with a novel idea/hypothesis, and you've got to have an ability to think outside the box and not to accept things because that's what X and Y thought in their paper. You also have to be extremely critical and look for faults everywhere. From my experience, natural talent is certainly important but you'd be surprised how much experience and practice could refine those skills. And to add something, depending on your technique, sometimes it's very important to have a very good background in math and statistics so you could use the right test.

Interesting. I find that people tend to overestimate creativity in science. The most successful researchers I've interacted with are of two sorts. One is the factory boss who (say) maps EVERY SINGLE gene for a particular receptor. Then one of them ends up important as a Nature paper. The other type likes to tinker with new gadgets, and end up inventing the PCR.

I'm not saying science isn't a creative endeavor. It is certainly more creative than medical practice. But in the end, it is also a craft, a skill, a job. I tend to think that the more (MARKETABLE) skills or techniques you learn, the better. I tend to disagree with the notion that learning science is about learning how to form a hypothesis (what does that even mean LOL).

I'd be a bit disagreeable here and say that most biology is technique driven. Very few "high profile" papers are because of the brilliance of the idea. Most of big papers are either (1) luck (2) exhaustive fishing expeditions (3) flashy (and difficult to scoop) techniques...all there gives you the "best" paper

I think the most useful skill i learned in grad school is how to interact with scientist. PEOPLE skills are the most important. Soft skills like vague sense of what's important in the field. How to start collaborations. How to make yourself look good. How to forge alliances with famous people. How to get funding, etc. These things are sort of beside the point, and many grad students think that they are somehow "evil". But i think at the end of the day if you want to do the science you want to do, these things are important, and you might as well learn to enjoy doing them.

 

[Jorje286]

Interesting. I find that people tend to overestimate creativity in science. The most successful researchers I've interacted with are of two sorts. One is the factory boss who (say) maps EVERY SINGLE gene for a particular receptor. Then one of them ends up important as a Nature paper. The other type likes to tinker with new gadgets, and end up inventing the PCR.

I'm not saying science isn't a creative endeavor. It is certainly more creative than medical practice. But in the end, it is also a craft, a skill, a job. I tend to think that the more (MARKETABLE) skills or techniques you learn, the better. I tend to disagree with the notion that learning science is about learning how to form a hypothesis (what does that even mean LOL).

I'd be a bit disagreeable here and say that most biology is technique driven. Very few "high profile" papers are because of the brilliance of the idea. Most of big papers are either (1) luck (2) exhaustive fishing expeditions (3) flashy (and difficult to scoop) techniques...all there gives you the "best" paper

I think the most useful skill i learned in grad school is how to interact with scientist. PEOPLE skills are the most important. Soft skills like vague sense of what's important in the field. How to start collaborations. How to make yourself look good. How to forge alliances with famous people. How to get funding, etc. These things are sort of beside the point, and many grad students think that they are somehow "evil". But i think at the end of the day if you want to do the science you want to do, these things are important, and you might as well learn to enjoy doing them.

I mentioned creativty not as much that it's underestimated within the scientific community, but outside. I think people usually think of science as a rational endeavor with not much imagination involved.

As for the other stuff, I guess my experience with science has been colored with what I currently do, which is very different from the more prevalant molecular biology techniques. I work in psychophysics, and it's pretty hard to actually design an experiment and you can't just test things left and right and hope you get something. Your idea has to be grounded in theory to get anywhere, and from my experience, coming up with a decent idea is defintely a skill that you can refine. I could see how it's different though in other fields.
I agree about the communication aspect. You have to learn how to present yourself and your work.

 

[taXi]

Most important skill: the ability to BS.
Where learned: you got it or you don't.

 

[QofQuimica]

Patience and stubborness. A lot of science gets done by sheer brute force. 😉

 

[Neuronix]

Interesting. I find that people tend to overestimate creativity in science. The most successful researchers I've interacted with are of two sorts. One is the factory boss who (say) maps EVERY SINGLE gene for a particular receptor. Then one of them ends up important as a Nature paper. The other type likes to tinker with new gadgets, and end up inventing the PCR.

I think this is a pretty good summary, but in this funding environment inventing gadgets has taken a big hit. Engineering at my school is really hurting, worse than the others in science. The way I've heard it explained several times is that you need some amount of cookbook science, some niche you just keep exploiting, to stay in business as a lab. Then you can do risky projects on top of it.

I tend to disagree with the notion that learning science is about learning how to form a hypothesis (what does that even mean LOL).

Duh, getting some data and then putting some logic behind it.

These things are sort of beside the point, and many grad students think that they are somehow "evil". But i think at the end of the day if you want to do the science you want to do, these things are important, and you might as well learn to enjoy doing them.

It's not that I think they're evil, it's just not why I went into science. I thought of science as a place where my technical skills and ideas would be most important. In reality, it turned out that the marketing and sales skills were probably the most important thing. The technical skills were important, especially as a student, and I probably did spend more time on the technical aspects (barely if true). But still, it's not that I *dislike* those extra aspects per se, and those aspects of presentation and salesmanship are probably what I counsel younger students on the most.

It's just that that's not why I went into science. If I wanted to be a salesman for myself, I would have gone into business. If I wanted to be the greatest presenter, I would have gone into marketing. If I wanted to spin everything to my own benefit, I would have been a lawyer. That's not to say I'm not good at this stuff. I think I am. But I do find it unfortunate when you have to sell every piece of data to even your PI. Your data never seems to stand for itself, unless it really is something amazing and novel, which in reality only happens once and awhile. You keep have to selling your little tidbits just to stay in business. It's just never what I expected from science.

Don't get me wrong... Some amount of this stuff is expected in life. You have to sell yourself sometimes (try getting a woman without it!). You should present yourself concisely and clearly. It's just that when you look at what a PI does, that's what they do all day, every day. The quote is: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration", but I didn't expect 99% of that perspiration to be marketing and sales. I guess that's not so bad when it's your job to do it all the time and you don't actually have to collect any data yourself. I feel bad for all the people who have to do all this research themselves AND sell themselves constantly (grad students, post-docs, and young professors). It seems to me that once you get to become the PI and you have some grants you can finally relax (you know, at age 40something for a MD/PhD). We had one assistant professor who felt exactly that way. It's not my job to do ANY manual labor because now I'm a professor. He actually said almost exactly that to me one day. I'll just criticize everything YOU do. I made the mistake of making him my thesis committee chair.

Most important skill: the ability to BS.
Where learned: you got it or you don't.

I'm unconvinced that's true. With practice, you too can be a great BSer. Just go through graduate school and you'll figure it out (or leave). Or maybe I'm just so good at BSing I don't realize it 😕 I did really like Thank You For Smoking though, if you want to see a movie about BSing in life. What really irks me is all the stuff that is borderline or downright unethical that goes on. All the hiding of data that goes on in science. Show X not Y. Do this not that. Should you show the whole truth? Absolutely damn not. If you do, you will NOT get published, and my lab laughed at me for months because I was showing too much data, including stuff that was imperfect, and not getting published as a result. So if this is the system we have setup, how am I supposed to trust ANYTHING, ANYONE produces? I went into science again in part because I thought above all else honesty and truth were idealized. The reality is that is simply not true at all.

I have also realized that the farther you get in academics, the better of a BSer you are. We have these chats with the dean at my school and you ask the dean a direct question the big cheese just rambles... and rambles... and rambles... Never answering your question. You can't ever get a direct answer out of one of the big cheeses. I've tried to actually get a direct answer, and I've gotten in serious trouble for it. In other words, the bigger name you get, the bigger of a politican you are as well.

So it seems, that is one of the keys to success in academia. The only question I have is: if you're born that way, if you're brought up that way, or if you learn along the way.

 

[Neuronix]

I never clearly answered the op's question... For this I quote a great post.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=4960393&postcount=67

i disagree that you can learn much from making mistakes. most big shot researchers i know started publishing in Nature/Science in grad school and earlier on in postdoc. and the goal is not be able to "formulate independent thoughts". the goal is very concrete. it is
(1) learn to write a grant that'll get funded
(2) learn to write a paper that'll get published, and the games it involves to get it published in a high profile journal
(3) learn to manage the people and the money once you have your own lab
(4) other things, like how to give a talk (very important, and i'm not talking about the content, vis-a-vis "insights and knowledge". I'm talking about presentation, organization, "selling", articulating ideas in a clear way, making crap ideas sound sexy as hell. believe me that's not easy.) and how to form collaborations.

learning techniques is important to the extent that it'll help you accomplish the above four goals. and once the above four goals are satisfied, the "independent thoughts" come automatically. if the above four aren't satisfied, it doesn't matter if you can independently think pigs to the moon you won't get a job.

I learned these skills in grad school and will continue to develop them if I continue doing research. I don't know any other way to acquire them. Frankly, I don't think you can learn these skills from a book or a class, though I think my pre-lim course in my grad group was quite helpful. i.e. This is how a study section works, this is what I look for in a grant, now you and your peers will review each others mock grants (pre-lims...).

 

[Doodledog]

As research doctors / research doctor wannabes, what skills do you find yourself using most often while helping with / conducting research? Also, where did you learn the(se) skill(s) (feel free to suggest good books, courses, etc.) ?

The ability to coherently write your ideas into grants and manuscripts. A good high school teacher who emphasized topic sentences, themes, etc was the key for me.

No matter what type of research you do, you will need to be able to cogently explain what you do and why it is important. Actually, although you may think of this as BS, and perhaps a bit of it is, what matters the most in writing good grants and papers is NOT BSing, but being able to be brief and to the point in your descriptions, etc.

It is a bit similar to presenting on rounds. Completeness and covering every system may impress at the start, but as you move along the way, focusing on the high points and coherently telling a story in as few a words as possible matter too.

BTW, the NIH is increasingly tightening the page limit rules for all grants and even journals are beginning to set page limits....

 

[RxnMan]

...The way I've heard it explained several times is that you need some amount of cookbook science, some niche you just keep exploiting, to stay in business as a lab. Then you can do risky projects on top of it...

I am continually amazed at how few people understand that part of any job is enduring (and soliciting!) the boring, tedious, meat-and-potatoes work that keeps the doors open long enough to support fun side projects.

Most important skill: Communication/BS ability.

 

[Vader]

I am continually amazed at how few people understand that part of any job is enduring (and soliciting!) the boring, tedious, meat-and-potatoes work that keeps the doors open long enough to support fun side projects.

That's why it is called "work". 😉

 

[Vader]

Like Tildy alluded to, I think it is important to distinguish between BS and the ability to frame your ideas in a concise, logical and interesting format. Most scientists have developed keen BS detectors and can readily sniff it out.

All presenters or writers must simplify their work to some degree to make it intelligible to readers/listeners. This is obviously a limitation in scientific communication but does not invalidate the essence or core of what someone is communicating. Therefore, it is important in learning to be a scientist to develop one's own "BS detector" so that one can realize when something that is written or said is spin and to what extent it resembles the truth of what the data show.

As for selectivity in showing or hiding data, this is a more challenging problem, because it is very difficult to ever completely vet the data of another scientist. The best way this can be accomplished is through attempts at replication of the work. Unfortunately, publishing pressure dictates that most scientists will not conduct a study simply to replicate another's work. It will never get funded or published. However, studies that build on the fundamental study will often need to replicate the initial result, so in this way the necessary replication occurs.

Nonetheless, there have been cases in which whole fields have been duped and years wasted due to the way in which data was selected/presented and interpreted. Thus, we really depend on the honesty of others, otherwise everyone in the field suffers. Just look at any recent example of scientific fraud--it causes direct damage and at the very least misleads and hurts everyone in the field.

 

[Neuronix]

Nonetheless, there have been cases in which whole fields have been duped and years wasted due to the way in which data was selected/presented and interpreted.

This was 1.5 years of grad school for one of my classmates.

 

[cyclin M]

To me I think these are the most useful:

1. Knowing what techniques are out there - only when you know the tools are your disposal can you formulate a series of experiments to test your hypothesis.

2. Communication - you must understand the language of the science and without this basic knowledge of the language, reading papers will not be pleasant and you will not be able to effectively communicate with colleagues or collaborators.

3. Organization - find a way to stay organized and most importantly, one that WORKS FOR YOU. This can be electronic or a physical form. For me it's a combination of both. I use a lab notebook to jot down observations/results but I transfer all that into my computer to keep it organized and easily accessible/searchable. The hardcopy serves as a physical format that is a safe backup.

4. Intuition - this skill can be developed through experience, but every year my intuition develops to a higher degree simply because I can recognize which path of experimentation and which approach has the highest chance of yielding success.

5. Perseverance - this is beyond hard work. Research will be different from anything you have ever done because there is no manual, and if you are doing something truly novel there will actually be very few papers to turn to for direction and information. This is both exciting and challenging at the same time. Through all the ups and downs, the ability to persevere and endure through the bad results (which for those in bio know can be due to a million reasons), and other conflicts you may come across is priceless.

6. Understanding the system - there is a certain political aspect to publishing and only by recognizing this and understanding how it works can you play it to your advantage. I don't think "BS ability" is a good skill because it implies dishonestly and in science sooner or later you will be caught and punished. A better term would probably be "gift of gab" where you smooth talk your research so it is interesting to those even not in your field, and so you can get funding. This is not lying, nor is it dishonest. It is simply the ability to display your research in the best light.

7. A keen eye - again this is related to intuition and will develop with time, but the ability to distinguish between something significant out of a mass of garbage is important. This is the ability to see a diamond in a field where others only see mud and weeds. Where other think the glint in a penny, you have the curiosity to investigate further and upon closer inspection find that it is a diamond, the answer you have been searching for all along. I am not sure how to develop this particular skill, but for me what has worked (since I have gotten "lucky" more than a few times for it to still be considered blind luck) is constantly thinking about your problem and ways to solve it. You hear stories about people in the shower or dream about a great idea, but that's only because they are constantly thinking about it. It happened to me once when I was eating fish sticks and mayonnaise and just suddenly had a break through idea. It was out of the blue, but would not have been possible if it was not just constantly on my mind.

8. LAST BUT NOT LEAST - MODESTY - we all like to think we are pretty smart people and that's probably true, but we all must recognize our limitations and have the modesty to do so and know when to ask for help.

Just my 2 cents on this.

 

[Jorje286]

but for me what has worked (since I have gotten "lucky" more than a few times for it to still be considered blind luck) is constantly thinking about your problem and ways to solve it. You hear stories about people in the shower or dream about a great idea, but that's only because they are constantly thinking about it. It happened to me once when I was eating fish sticks and mayonnaise and just suddenly had a break through idea. It was out of the blue, but would not have been possible if it was not just constantly on my mind.

👍

I had an idea come up to me a couple of days ago when I got out of the shower, and I wasn't even consciously thinking about research. And you're right, it wouldn't have come up if it wasn't on the back of my mind because I spent a lot of time thinking about the basic mechanism.

 

[Lukkie]

perseverance and acceptance of delayed gratification

 

[Myempire1]

important traits that come to mind include:

1. Being extremely critical of everything (including your own research)
2. Creativity and thinking outside the box
3. Communication skills
4. Being politically and socially savvy

 

[Physics of Math]

Your input has been greatly appreciated.

😀

 

[Doodledog]

8. LAST BUT NOT LEAST - MODESTY - we all like to think we are pretty smart people and that's probably true, but we all must recognize our limitations and have the modesty to do so and know when to ask for help.
.

Being able/willing to ask for help is related to modesty but not the same thing. Although it would be nice if academic success just happened to those who deserved it, the reality is that a bit of somewhat immodest self-promotion is needed. No one will nominate you for an early career research award - you have to suggest it, etc.

I'm certainly not against modesty, but I wanted to point out that a bit of properly done self-promotion is helpful in building an academic career.

There are lots of successful scientists who are modest and plenty who are egomaniacs, and it's sure better working with the modest ones, but, I have seen folks not put themselves and their accomplishments forward due to to much "modesty."

 

[cyclin M]

Being able/willing to ask for help is related to modesty but not the same thing. Although it would be nice if academic success just happened to those who deserved it, the reality is that a bit of somewhat immodest self-promotion is needed. No one will nominate you for an early career research award - you have to suggest it, etc.

I'm certainly not against modesty, but I wanted to point out that a bit of properly done self-promotion is helpful in building an academic career.

There are lots of successful scientists who are modest and plenty who are egomaniacs, and it's sure better working with the modest ones, but, I have seen folks not put themselves and their accomplishments forward due to to much "modesty."

Yeah I agree with this. Wallflowers remain wallflowers.

 

[GliaGirl]

pipetting

nothing is more annoying than trying to teach someone a complicated procedure when they don't even know how to pipette.

 

[cyclin M]

pipetting

nothing is more annoying than trying to teach someone a complicated procedure when they don't even know how to pipette.

Not to mention those that do not know how to pipette correctly ruin the pipette because they suck up liquid INTO the pipette barrel...goodbye pipette, hello shipment for recalibration 🙁

But everyone started off not knowing how to pipette I guess, we were all beginners once upon a time 🙂

 

[URHere]

Because most lab skills can be picked up with time and practice, I'll stick to these:

1) A thick skin. Without one, research will get very old, very fast.
2) The motivation/perseverance/self-hatred required to put in very long hours when you need to.
3) An objective mind that allows you to be critical of research - and especially critical of your own, so that you don't waste too much time moving towards a dead end.
4) Good communication skills. Good research is worth very little if you can't present it well.

 

[parafilm]

1) A thick skin. Without one, research will get very old, very fast.

Definitely.

Attention to detail is important, and unfortunately I suck at it. I do a lot of stupid things just because I don't label things well or just space out. The other day I misread the label on my samples and accidentally ran protein through gel electrophoresis. I also regularly do things like forget to add something to my PCR reaction (or add it twice), throw away the wrong eppendorf tube, etc.

This is when that thick skin comes in handy... my PI seems to think I'm competent, but I've gotten a few glares in my time.

 

[Mama070609]

Labeling and organization are key to efficient research. That includes not only your samples, but all chemicals and paperwork and other supplies. I'll just list a few specific things that fall under this category:

-Establish a spreadsheet of purchases/orders. Record every order, and make that information available to everyone in the laboratory. Put one person in charge of all of the ordering and everyone else who wants to order something should check in with that person. That person should be someone within the lab who has an understanding of the research and the lab's needs (the exception being office supplies, etc...). By establishing all of this, you will have a central place to garner quick information, including catalog numbers for quick orders and information for calling about a kit that doesn't work.

-Establish a set way for all samples to be labeled, or at least the information that should be included every single time. Don't leave it up to each individual to make those decisions, or you will end up with poorly labeled items (they may be intuitive to the person who wrote the label, but if they are out sick or leave the lab, you will be out of luck). Not being able to find samples or not knowing what you have in the freezer box in front of you seriously impedes the efficiency of your research. Recording on either a spreadsheet or on paper where samples are located in each named box was helpful (reducing the amount of time freezers were open and samples were unnecessarily being thawed). Another thing we found useful, though not flaw-free, was writing down on a 'check-out sheet' the samples that were taken out of the freezer for use, especially if you have multiple labs collaborating.

Don't forget that research is not all 'hard science'. I've seen some people who get frustrated at the basic tasks that are necessary to keep the lab running well (administrative work, cleaning, etc...). While your primary purpose is either to publish papers or to discover some breakthrough (depends upon your outlook), you won't reach those goals without the basic stuff.

Never lose the drive to learn more. You can always learn new techniques and become proficient at them if you have good attention to detail and you have a desire to learn them. The same goes for new concepts or out-of-the-box ideas.

And in regards to techniques...become familiar with as many as possible. Learn about new equipment and technology. Look for opportunities for collaboration with other scientists/labs and for sharing equipment. And if/when you do use someone else's equipment, be careful with it. Be considerate.

Anyway, I know those are really basic concepts, but they were specific issues that I have come across.

And definitely do think outside of the box. Look for ways to be creative and to save money. It's typically rare for a lab to have so much funding that they are completely comfortable spending a ton of money on things that aren't completely necessary (there are exceptions, depending on the research you are performing and the institution you are performing that research at).

 

[Mama070609]

Definitely.

Attention to detail is important, and unfortunately I suck at it. I do a lot of stupid things just because I don't label things well or just space out. The other day I misread the label on my samples and accidentally ran protein through gel electrophoresis. I also regularly do things like forget to add something to my PCR reaction (or add it twice), throw away the wrong eppendorf tube, etc.

This is when that thick skin comes in handy... my PI seems to think I'm competent, but I've gotten a few glares in my time.

Everybody makes mistakes...even PI's and PostDocs. 🙂 So, yes, a thick skin is important.

I have a tendency to meticulously write or chart out what I'm doing and what components need to be added to each sample. I'm the type of person that needs that as a 'double check' of sorts to keep from forgetting things.

 

[Mama070609]

Oh, and one thing I forgot....sleep! Yes, you need to sleep! Sleeping at home is preferable, but, if you must stay, find a comfortable place to sleep for a while. Take naps. Research is great in that you have flexible hours and it lends itself to you being able to take naps when they are needed. Since the opportunity is there, take advantage. You will be more productive for it.