Quitting Research Lab--Advice needed

[Xiao]

Hi all, I'm a sort of an uncomfortable situation regarding my research lab. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

So, I'm a third year undergraduate student. I've been working in this research lab for about a year. I had originally joined planning to stay all the way until I graduate (so a full 3 years). And the PI and my post-doc supervisor had assumed so as well. However, the research going on at this lab is very repetitive and not all too exciting. And I have been doing a lot of grunt work with no recognition. I have also acquired no insight into proper experimental design/how to come up with good research proposals whatsoever. I very rarely see the PI personally. I've also switched majors from Molecular Bio. to Engineering so my interests during this past year have been increasingly shifted towards more computational based research rather the traditional molecular bio. work that's going on at this lab.

Now that I'm a third year and have taken some upper division courses (and have a more meaningful idea of my scientific/research interests), I want to quit the lab to join a new one where I can do more meaningful work and acquire more meaningful research skills (not just how to run experiments). I tried today to bring this up to my post-doc in a tactful manner...the whole too busy with MCAT studying, thank you for the opportunity, etc. His response was a little surprising:

He told me he supported my decision to take time off from lab to study MCAT. But he advised me to continue drop into lab from time to time and keep up the appearance that I'm dedicating my time to the lab so the PI doesn't notice my absence. I can come back to lab full time after my MCAT. He also told me that if I quit though, I can't expect him/the PI to write me a rec. letter.

So what should I do in this situation?

If I stay...
PRO: I will get a rec letter co-signed by the PI
Perhaps chance to do a senior thesis since I will have spent a few years with the lab
CON: Another year of same work
Not learning much new; run the same kinds of tests
Will lose opportunity to learn about other areas of research (I hope to lead a research career someday after my MD...)

If I leave...
PRO: New research experiences
Perhaps more recognition for research work
Perhaps do something more interesting
CON: None of the pros are certain
Will have wasted over a year in a research lab for no tangible gain


Please advise. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bannie22]

^ do what makes u happy in life.

if u have to be unhappy in order to get into med school, ure not going about it the right way.

 

[causalinference]

I would make sure you can upgrade to a better lab before leaving. Find out exactly what opportunities would be available to you if you leave.

 

[rowerontheriver]

I would make sure you can upgrade to a better lab before leaving. Find out exactly what opportunities would be available to you if you leave.

If you are at all interested in what the lab does, talk to the PI/post-doc and see if you can take on more responsibilities or redefine your role. If you have no interest at all in staying, be straightforward (but polite) about it. Saying "I think I should quit because I want to study for the mcat" may come across as "I like working in the lab, but I feel like I have to quit so I can study." Quitting under the pretense of not having time management and needing to study for an exam is very different than saying that you've really enjoyed your time, but have something else you are really passionate about and want to explore.

Not knowing how your department is structured, I can't say anything for sure, but I would advise against searching out new positions while continuing under the pretense of intending to stay with your old PI. My undergrad institution was very collaborative and the PIs/postdocs knew each other well and it was not uncommon for them to discuss undergrads they were considering taking into their labs, especially if someone was listed on a resume (like your PI presumably would be). Feel free to look at posted positions and work other PIs are doing, but I would speak with your PI/post-doc before applying for anything.

On that note, just starting your third year, if you start working for someone else soon you can still get a decent letter from them after working for them for almost a year. And honestly, if you explain to your post-doc that your interests have changed and you would like to explore something closer to your area of study and they won't write you a letter, either they're an a** or you haven't formed good relationships/done anything in the lab worthy of having a letter written (in which case, consider if they are going to be able to add anything spectacular a year from now).

But most importantly, if you aren't going to get anything out of the research, don't keep doing it. You're going to hate your life and it will be a waste of your time. Imagine if you don't get into medical school, are you going to regret the two years spent doing research on something you didn't care about? If that isn't enough to convince you, imagine what you could say on your applications: "yeah, i 'worked' in a lab for 3 years, except I wasn't really doing anything and didn't enjoy it or get anything out of it." It's not going to add much to your application if you can't speak passionately about it.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Do you really need a research letter of rec? If you are applying to research intensive schools it might be important but it sounds like you don't have any publications/poster presentations to pad your application with either. I have less than a year of research experience with no letter or rec, which was more than adequate at the schools I've interviewed. The question you should ask yourself is will that letter make or break your application.

 

[BlueElmo]

I think research letter helps, I had one this cycle. Plus, you can talk about research during the interview, it came up several times for me so far. Schools definitely like it.

 

[BBender716]

I think research letter helps, I had one this cycle. Plus, you can talk about research during the interview, it came up several times for me so far. Schools definitely like it.

Same for me. I also recommend what rowerontheriver suggested as well and to talk to your PI about redefining/expanding your role.

 

[ShinyDome19]

I've been working in this research lab for about a year...the research going on at this lab is very repetitive and not all too exciting. And I have been doing a lot of grunt work with no recognition.

I have also acquired no insight into proper experimental design/how to come up with good research proposals whatsoever.

I very rarely see the PI personally.

I've also switched majors from Molecular Bio. to Engineering so my interests during this past year have been increasingly shifted towards more computational based research rather the traditional molecular bio. work that's going on at this lab.

Now that I'm a third year and have taken some upper division courses (and have a more meaningful idea of my scientific/research interests), I want to quit the lab to join a new one where I can do more meaningful work and acquire more meaningful research skills (not just how to run experiments).

Okay...to me it sounds like you are actually getting a good experience of what real reasearch is. As an undergrad, especially one that is just getting into upper division courses, what did you expect to be doing? divising entire research projects, writing grants and publishing papers as first author and maybe curing cancer? I dont mean to be a jerk, but one thing you need to realize is that you dont have enough background to do anything but what your doing now. Learning to devise research projects and write papers are things you generally learn in graduate school or maybe if your lucky, as a senior undergrad. And, even if you think you have some great research ideas, no university P.I. is going to let you go off and chase your ideas...research costs a lot of money and right now there is very little to go around. Have you read all the literature that coincides with your ideas? i doubt it, because it can take about several months to get caught up on all the necessary literature for any project...The projects that go on in labs are often projects that have built up over several years and arnt just cool ideas that popped into the PI's head one day, they are/should be backed up by other research...your really lucky to be doing the stuff your doing at your level. Hell, half of the seniors that came and did research under me were stuck washing dishes because the amount of time and effort it would take to train them wasnt worth it.

No matter what lab you work in, aside from maybe clinical research, your going to be doing a lot of repetition of things. Especially when protocols are still being worked out...that little thing called the "Scientific Method" makes the process very slow. Repetition is the only way you can confirm that things work. Engineering research works the same way. I know this to be true as I had to share my time on Electron Microscopes with a ton of engineers, and they were always right there with me, doing the same **** over and over until they got it right. If you cant handle that, dont jump into an engineering lab... The grass isnt going to be greener.

As a former graduate researcher, nothing annoyed me more than a pre-med just trying to get "Research" written on their application. You dont need research to get into medical school. If your interested in research in general, then I would say stick with the lab your in. Your actually getting to do a lot more than you think. You dont necessarily have to enjoy the project your working on - hell, I hated my graduate research project - but you learn how research works, how to solve problems and get accustomed to reading literature, which is really all you can do at your level. Furthermore, if you stick in your lab, your PI/post-doc may begin to trust you with more responsibilities, or once the project makes it to the next phase, you'll get to do new techniques. Have you tried asking the post-doc for some of the literature that the project is based off of? I doubt you've taken Biochem yet, Do you understand why your running the Western Blots and how Westerns work, or DNA extraction techniques work? A lot of the techniques you'll learn are actually pretty fascinating once you break them down to their basic elements... If this stuff doesnt interest you...get out of research all together.

 

[CoolWhipp]

"Hey PI,

So, I'm a third year undergraduate student. I've been working in this research lab for about a year. I had originally joined planning to stay all the way until I graduate (so a full 3 years). And the PI and my post-doc supervisor had assumed so as well. However, the research going on at this lab is very repetitive and not all too exciting. And I have been doing a lot of grunt work with no recognition. I have also acquired no insight into proper experimental design/how to come up with good research proposals whatsoever. I very rarely see the PI personally. I've also switched majors from Molecular Bio. to Engineering so my interests during this past year have been increasingly shifted towards more computational based research rather the traditional molecular bio. work that's going on at this lab.

I hope you understand. I've learned a lot here and I hope we can keep in touch."

 

[madamebovary]

He also told me that if I quit though, I can't expect him/the PI to write me a rec. letter.

Um iono if your post doc is just stating this to make sure you stay, but usually most PI's i have worked under are usually willing to write you the rec. I mean obviously the strength of the letter depends on how significant your role has been, but i mean you should still able to get it and move on to another lab if you wanted to.

 

[Xiao]

i've lost track of this post for a while...my apologies for not responding to ur advice.

anyhow, thank you for all the advice. so i've made up my mind to quit my lab.... i am actually in the process of writing my resignation letter right now. i'll probably put it out tonight.

i go to a big research university so lab positions aren't terribly difficult to come by. but it does take some real luck and persistence to be able to find a place that is willing to seriously mentor and teach their undergrads. i will be taking a year off after undergrad so i'll have almost 2 years before i need to send out my rec letters.

to shinydome19 in particular, yes...i know how dna extractions/westerns work. maybe not all the chemical details (but i doubt a biologist would really need to know those), but certainly the biochemical principles. one thing that does kind of rubs me the wrong way though is when graduate students/PIs consider their undergraduates as nothing more than mindless peons. in my experience, this is certainly not the case. granted, undergraduates have had much less training and have taken less classes, and as a result, undergraduate may come off as "ignorant"...but it certainly does not warrant the negative stereotyping that many graduate students exhibit towards their undergraduate students. knowledge and training are things that come with experience in the field, but without the right opportunity and right mentorship, there is no way for anyone to obtain such said experience. i always wonder how graduate students can put their undergrads on dish washing all day, neglect to point them in the right direction in the literature, and then turn around and think that their undergraduates are somehow incompetent and lazy....maybe your students would have been much more helpful and much more interested in research if you had taken the time to provide them meaningful mentorship. i understand that as a graduate student, you may be very busy and are under a lot of pressure to put out publishable data ...but frankly, it does not take any more than a couple hours a week to teach someone a new laboratory technique and to pull out a couple relevant papers in your research area. even if your undergrads mess up the first few times, i guarantee you that as with any endeavor, they will get better with practice and experience.

also, reading back on my post now. i didn't mean to come off sounding resentful or bitter regarding my current research position. i've had a lot of fun and i am truly very thankful towards my post-doc and my PI for giving me the opportunity. it was the first time i've had real hands-on experience in a research lab. i just feel that since i'm at a world class research institution, there are many other opportunities out there, and many other subject areas to explore...and i feel that i should make the most of these opportunities while i'm here. i don't expect to write my own grants or chase after my own research ideas. i don't have the expertise to do that now. but i do hope to find another post where i can be directed in the literature, given some sort of more independent work, and be taught about and perhaps contribute the design process...these are opportunities i know i won't be able to have at my current lab. the reality however, is that medical schools do like to see research, and i fear that it may hurt my application if i give up my current position.

 

[r1oid]

Having gone through this from undergrad to med school/grad student I have a couple of points. They aren't really directed at the OP.

From the grad perspective, mentoring undergrads is a huge time commitment for relatively little return. It takes a lot of time to teach and then watch over their work. If they/you show commitment (coming in 4-5 days a week), competence, and a prospect for staying long enough for their training to give you some return, then a reasonable to good mentor will be happy to put in the investment. As you become more independent it is on you to ask for more responsibilities if they are not being offered. I have been assigned a few premeds in the past and when it becomes clear that they are mostly there for the "research" check on the AMCAS then they get skut work , because it is not worth my time and precious samples unless they show some genuine interest in the science. Anyone can be trained to run gels and split cells. For the grad student/postdoc they are there ~6 days a week doing many steps to get data to address a question with each day being a part of the bigger experimental question. For the premed who comes in 3 days a week they are just not that helpful until they have been extensively trained and moderately versed in whats going on.


From the premed side the first lab I joined was not scientifically interesting even though I got to do large animal surgeries so I left after 6 months. The next lab I started out washing dishes and moved my way up, it was only after another 6 months that a postdoc saw that I was dedicated and interested (coming in 5-6 days a week) that I got more and more responsibilities which eventually lead to authorship on a few papers. For me it was a lab environment (people/science) that I liked and so it was not a sacrifice to be there.


The people/science should be a big factor in anyone's decision. If the people show poor mentoring skills and interest in your education then even if the science sounds great you will not get the training/face time/authorship. The science to some basic level should interest you, keeping in mind there is a lot to learn so if you have some interest your drive to learn more about the questions will keep you interested. If you are not really interested then your time would be better spent getting a better MCAT or doing something that you really find fulfilling. The people who ask you the science/research questions at interviews can usually gauge your level of interest and involvement. When I hear premeds on interview day start out by telling me the techniques (I ran westerns and IPs) and then give a vague description of the scientific questions it is not very impressive. I'd rather hear about things they are truly excited about because about those things they will be conversant and informed about. **I don't do interviews, just help out on interview day**

 

[ShinyDome19]

Having gone through this from undergrad to med school/grad student I have a couple of points. They aren't really directed at the OP.

From the grad perspective, mentoring undergrads is a huge time commitment for relatively little return. It takes a lot of time to teach and then watch over their work. If they/you show commitment (coming in 4-5 days a week), competence, and a prospect for staying long enough for their training to give you some return, then a reasonable to good mentor will be happy to put in the investment. As you become more independent it is on you to ask for more responsibilities if they are not being offered. I have been assigned a few premeds in the past and when it becomes clear that they are mostly there for the "research" check on the AMCAS then they get skut work , because it is not worth my time and precious samples unless they show some genuine interest in the science. Anyone can be trained to run gels and split cells. For the grad student/postdoc they are there ~6 days a week doing many steps to get data to address a question with each day being a part of the bigger experimental question. For the premed who comes in 3 days a week they are just not that helpful until they have been extensively trained and moderately versed in whats going on.


From the premed side the first lab I joined was not scientifically interesting even though I got to do large animal surgeries so I left after 6 months. The next lab I started out washing dishes and moved my way up, it was only after another 6 months that a postdoc saw that I was dedicated and interested (coming in 5-6 days a week) that I got more and more responsibilities which eventually lead to authorship on a few papers. For me it was a lab environment (people/science) that I liked and so it was not a sacrifice to be there.


The people/science should be a big factor in anyone's decision. If the people show poor mentoring skills and interest in your education then even if the science sounds great you will not get the training/face time/authorship. The science to some basic level should interest you, keeping in mind there is a lot to learn so if you have some interest your drive to learn more about the questions will keep you interested. If you are not really interested then your time would be better spent getting a better MCAT or doing something that you really find fulfilling. The people who ask you the science/research questions at interviews can usually gauge your level of interest and involvement. When I hear premeds on interview day start out by telling me the techniques (I ran westerns and IPs) and then give a vague description of the scientific questions it is not very impressive. I'd rather hear about things they are truly excited about because about those things they will be conversant and informed about. **I don't do interviews, just help out on interview day**

 

[ShinyDome19]

to shinydome19 in particular, yes...i know how dna extractions/westerns work. maybe not all the chemical details (but i doubt a biologist would really need to know those), but certainly the biochemical principles. one thing that does kind of rubs me the wrong way though is when graduate students/PIs consider their undergraduates as nothing more than mindless peons. in my experience, this is certainly not the case. granted, undergraduates have had much less training and have taken less classes, and as a result, undergraduate may come off as "ignorant"...but it certainly does not warrant the negative stereotyping that many graduate students exhibit towards their undergraduate students. knowledge and training are things that come with experience in the field, but without the right opportunity and right mentorship, there is no way for anyone to obtain such said experience. i always wonder how graduate students can put their undergrads on dish washing all day, neglect to point them in the right direction in the literature, and then turn around and think that their undergraduates are somehow incompetent and lazy....maybe your students would have been much more helpful and much more interested in research if you had taken the time to provide them meaningful mentorship. i understand that as a graduate student, you may be very busy and are under a lot of pressure to put out publishable data ...but frankly, it does not take any more than a couple hours a week to teach someone a new laboratory technique and to pull out a couple relevant papers in your research area. even if your undergrads mess up the first few times, i guarantee you that as with any endeavor, they will get better with practice and experience.

1. If you do not understand the chemical details, how do you understand what your data represents? To simply know a technique gives you data doesnt hold much water when you have to explain what the data means and how you got it.

2. When your research becomes your gateway to your degree, you will likely consider any undergraduate who comes into your lab to do research (especially pre-meds) to be brainless...trust me.

3. "My Experience"...thats it right there, what experience? Most graduate students starting out dont have "Experience". When it comes to actually doing research and putting up with the tedium and boredom that is research, most undergrads have no experience with it...Hence, why they quit or only do it for a semester or two.--->which leads back to point #2.

4. Why do graduate students put their undergrads on dish-washing duty all day...simple: it can be a very important job, even though a simple one; but can effect the outcome of experiments if not done correctly. Furthermore, dish washing can take up several hours of a graduate students time every week, time that the graduate student could probably use to read/write papers or take care of other responsibilities...and he/she doesnt have to worry about the undergrad screwing up.

5. So, yeah most of my undergraduates (4/5) were lazy and incompetent. Though, I had one during my 2.5 years which was willing to come in 5 days a week, and even weekends when needed. Needless to say, she enjoyed research enough to stay on and finish a masters degree. It is not the responsibility of the graduate student to teach you to do anything really. Generally your getting paid or credit for the research...what does the graduate student get out of it..other than more responsibility? If the graduate student thinks he/she can trust you enough to handle doing something...then it would be in their interest to teach you..but you have to earn trust.

6. Actually it can take a lot more than "a couple hours a week to teach someone a new laboratory technique". Infact it took me the majority of my whole first year of graduate school to work out the bugs in a tricky PCR + DGGE technique I was using, where simple mistakes like pipetting error can scew up the whole thing...And, going back to #1 - how is a graduate student supposed to teach you the technique and how to trouble shoot it if you dont understand the underlying properties..

7. And you are right, they will get better with experience and practice, which should result in more responsibility being handed down to the undergrad...but, how many of undergrads actually stick around and gain the experience which takes a long time to obtain. Dont blame the graduate students you come across for treating you like your just going to leave after a semester or two. Blame the dozens of idiots who say you have to have research to get into medical school..which results in dozens of pre-meds wanting to do research for nothing more than a mark on their application.

I think, if you are interested in research, whether it be biological research or engineering, that leaving your lab would be a mistake. Teaching an undergrad in a lab is a big responsibility and risk on the part of the graduate student/post-doc because you cant really expect them to stick around long enough to actually "help". I definately wouldnt quit your lab and go to another lab thinking it will be any different, especially expecting greater responsibility in the new lab. You'll likely be starting from scratch. But, if your intention is just to get a mark on your resumee that says research, you are doing a huge disservice to the PI and graduate student/Post-Doc you end up being under.

 

[ziggydoc]

OP I think you deserve to be happy, but I honestly don't know if you will find better opportunities, you will most likely start from scratch, and you MUST earn trust, I work in a lab full time atm, and it takes a lot of work to get everyone you work with to trust you. If you are lucky, you may get a awesome PI who will give you some freedom, but you will still need to learn actual techniques, and every lab has their own way of doing things, and it will take getting used to.

 

[ninetynine]

Changing labs really shouldn't be a problem. Just tell the PI that you've had a GREAT time working with him "eg. I learned so much and thank you for your kindness in mentoring me - it is very appreciated," but you just read about this amazing new concept and it really excites you "so you'd like to join the lab of Dr. so and so, who specializes in this research."

Your PI will probably be supportive. PI's know undergrads are still changing their research interests, spreading their wings, so to speak, and their job is to encourage you in doing that. The "I'm too busy for you because of the MCAT" excuse isn't honest and isn't as powerful as showing that you're changing labs because you're actually interested in science. If were you, I would just change labs. It's relaly not a problem. Then your PI can evaluate you as you were while you were in his lab for the LoR, and you can leave him with a positive impression tha tyou're an enthusiastic student. People do this all the time when they're first starting out (i.e. that's why grad schools have "lab rotations" to let students try out labs).

 

[FluffyRabbit]

If you can just drop in from time to time without doing any real work and still give the illusion of being involved in the lab to the PI, I can't imagine the LoR being all that strong, to be honest.

 

[fMRI]

1) How big is the lab? How many people work there?
2) Is there an "end in sight" with the project you are currently working on? Is there a time frame? A new project emerging?

Answers to above questions can be relevant.

Say, if the "senior undergrad" in the lab is graduating, will you be doing his/her job? Is there a flow with responsibilities, or does everybody just stick to their task? What are the chances that the scope of your responsibilities will change?

You are a junior, right? It is time that you start thinking about a senior project (if your school does these).

And right, as many already said: continue to be appreciative and honest. Don't try to find a new job before talking about your worries with your boss. Ask them for advice, tell them how you feel and ask if this is "normal", if they had the same feeling as undergrad, etc. Ask them and listen, then decide. Maybe they even suggest a new lab or project for you. The point is not to come of as "unhappy" or "negative", but ask for advice. Maybe they haven't noticed that you are not really challenged?

PS: I once worked for a PI who asked me, first thing in the morning and out of the blue, if I started having nightmares. I looked flabbergasted and did not know what to say. He replied, with a grin, that I did so much brain numbing dull work the entire week, he was getting worried. And then handed me a bunch of drafts for papers to read about the very project I had just started to work on. Seeing the bigger picture makes the dull aspects of work easier to bear.

 

[fMRI]

He told me he supported my decision to take time off from lab to study MCAT. But he advised me to continue drop into lab from time to time and keep up the appearance that I'm dedicating my time to the lab so the PI doesn't notice my absence. I can come back to lab full time after my MCAT. He also told me that if I quit though, I can't expect him/the PI to write me a rec. letter.

So what should I do in this situation?

Sorry, both highlighted aspects are worrying. You should always be honest -- keeping up appearance isn't an honest thing to do. Is that how the people in this lab function, by keeping up appearances?

If they "threaten" you with not writing a LOR, that is bad. You worked there for a certain amount of time. You might have reasons to quit which should not affect the LOR which states the work you did, how long you worked there and in what capacity (student worker, volunteer), how well you worked, what you learned, how much supervision you needed, how you got along with peers and supervisors, and that sort of stuff.

 

[Watase]

I ran into the same situation as well. It's just that I haven't worked in the lab for 1 year and am just starting on doing the experiment. I am interested in the project we do, but I don't want to sacrifice my time doing research unhappily due to the intensive atmosphere there. Also, there's another project from another lab that I am interested in and it requires less time commitment and the people are able to provide suitable mentorship (to me) there. I want to tell the P.I. that I want to quit the lab (I am doing this lab for credit, but I just want to quit the lab at this point) because I feel that it's difficult to balance my classes and research, and I don't want my GPA to suffer from my participation in this research. Any advice about whether I should keep up with this lab. How should I approach to my PI about this question?

 

[FIREitUP]

why don't you get the letter and then quit? i don't understand why you have to wait...say you really want to get things in early or whatever and get out of there.