Research: Established or Young PI?

[Sunflower189]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

It's time for me to pick my summer job. I want to do research, as I'm interested in MD/PhD (still a few years out, though). And I want to pick a lab I can stay with, so I get in-depth experience / good letters / pubs etc.

So, as things are shaping up, I have a choice of two labs:

#1) Elder statesman of a PI, with "give me a Nobel" written on his forehead. He'd be making a rather large exception by letting a froshmore into his lab, meaning I can expect a summer of dishwashing. But if I stick around long enough, the work is actually quite interesting (and clinically relevant), and the rec would carry some serious weight.

#2) Young guy, just hired as an associate prof last year. But he's up-and-coming in his small subfield...the field that I most want to work in, that gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Unfortunately it's all basic science (for now...hehe, this is where I come in 😉 ) and even in three years I doubt his name will mean anything to adcoms. It's also a smaller lab, which means more attention and more freedom, but also more risk.

#3) I can be lame and stay in my current job. And watch mice pee, in the sub-basement of the bio building, all summer long. I'm not in favor of this.

I have some research experience already - 4th author in J. Med. Chem., and a couple random presentations. And I'm finishing my first year in college, so I have time to take care of business.

Advice from my fellow lab rats? 😍

 

[firebody]

it is probably a fantastic opportunity with the younger guy, considering that the pi will be much more involved in day-to-day experimental stuff. chances are that (s)he will be workign extremely hard to get those tenure-track publications in line, moreover, you will probably get on them especially if the lab is small (which it probably is). go with it.

with regards to the application process - if anything, the personal commentary the pi will be able to give from working with you will be valuable during the process. i know other applicants in this situation have also been able to convey a sense of understanding how difficult it is to start up a lab/reserach program from scratch to their benefit.

while people generally assume that letters from department chairs, lasker prize winners, NAS members etc... are better than others, remember that these people tend to be established, busy, and unless you know otherwise, spend much of their time away. though their name will carry weight, the insightful, personal commentary afforded by a closer relationship will be even more beneficial.

I started in the lab of a new faculty member over a year ago as an undergraduate and am doing a year of research with him post-bachelors. The experience you'll get is unrivaled. I've helped write NIH grants, start new projects and first author a couple of good papers. I learned very fast how difficult it is to start a lab from scratch. For instance, could you imagine making all of the buffers, media, clones etc from scratch before you could do anything....pretty tough. Actually, I think I've gotten better training in this lab than I would have in a well established one. Also, I can't forget to say that in a new lab the PI and you are more like colleagues than in well established labs. Go for it

this was discussed some time ago. being where you're at, i don't think you can go wrong with either choices, but there are clear benefits with going with the latter.

 

[XoQo]

It's time for me to pick my summer job. I want to do research, as I'm interested in MD/PhD (still a few years out, though). And I want to pick a lab I can stay with, so I get in-depth experience / good letters / pubs etc.

So, as things are shaping up, I have a choice of two labs:

#1) Elder statesman of a PI, with "give me a Nobel" written on his forehead. He'd be making a rather large exception by letting a froshmore into his lab, meaning I can expect a summer of dishwashing. But if I stick around long enough, the work is actually quite interesting (and clinically relevant), and the rec would carry some serious weight.

#2) Young guy, just hired as an associate prof last year. But he's up-and-coming in his small subfield...the field that I most want to work in, that gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Unfortunately it's all basic science (for now...hehe, this is where I come in 😉 ) and even in three years I doubt his name will mean anything to adcoms. It's also a smaller lab, which means more attention and more freedom, but also more risk.

#3) I can be lame and stay in my current job. And watch mice pee, in the sub-basement of the bio building, all summer long. I'm not in favor of this.

I have some research experience already - 4th author in J. Med. Chem., and a couple random presentations. And I'm finishing my first year in college, so I have time to take care of business.

Advice from my fellow lab rats? 😍

one thing i would be wary about -- see where the younger PI derives his funding from. It seems that he's off to a good start, but you need to see what his track record has been in the past about obtaining extramural research $ (i.e. from NSF or NIH). The risk with the younger PIs is that if they are solely funded by their department, there is a chance that should he not be approved in a year or two for a external grant, they may boot him from the department.

i myself actually worked for a summer in a well established PI's lab. It was good work and she was a great scientist (i was paired with a post-doc). She held two NIH grants and definitely would have written a great recc. But i also hated the work -- it was heavily basic science, years away from actual clinical usage which disheartened me.

I acually jumped ship after a summer there and switched to a lab where the PI was a clinical faculty member. He has a research professor who reports to him and the work is much more clinically relevant. I stayed with him the last three summers (and a few quarters during the school year). I'm in a ba/md program so the rec's i'm thinking about are for residency. But i'm staying with him probably until my clerkships start cuz things are looking for the better.

But the most nail biting thing was that his place in the department (as a researcher, not a clinician-- he's an excellent clinician!!) was always in question because he wasn't able to secure NIH funding. Granted this wasn't any fault of his own, as there is a great deal of politics involved. I spent much of my time helping to generate data and experiments to help him author a newer, better grant. And it worked -- we've heard back and he's now NIH funded. There was a dark few months where it looked like his dept chair might have shut down the lab (they couldn't keep pouring money into it if he couldn't get external funding) -- and i was worried.

It is (and will be) a gamble if you choose the younger PI. I honestly liked the experience because it was much more involved than when i was in the other lab -- and the opportunities for publication are greater since you may be doing a lot of the work. Harder to do if it's a larger lab with a really established PI since there are more postdocs/grad students who need to churn out their papers to stay afloat.

best of luck to you

 

[javert]

Personally, I would go with the smaller lab, especially if it would mean that you don't have to do something like dishwashing. The lab I've been working in for the last 2+ years is very small, just the PI, a research associate and a tech. This obviously has major pluses and minuses, but for me the freedom that it provides and the willingness my PI has shown for letting me do my own work (day 1 I was analyzing data and brainstorming ideas for a new project...no dishwashing for me!) is well worth the downsides.

There's a lot to be said about going with someone who's very established and famous in the field, but I think that at this stage having more one-on-one interactions with the PI and having the ability to really get introduced to the research world is more important.

Obviously, that's just my opinion. Ultimately, just go where you feel most comfortable. If the PIs seem receptive, you could even ask if you could spend a little time in each lab before having to decide. I'm sure you can't go wrong either way.

 

[Hallm_7]

I would definitely go with the smaller lab with the new PI. Having done quite a bit of research throughout college at different institutions and different labs, the thing I most appreciate about my experience was all that I learned...not the rec letters. Working every day as an integral part of the lab "team" will teach you more than anything you could ever do. Just washing dishes or passing cell lines all day may get you a rec letter from a well-known PI, but you won't learn anything. Also, I don't think there are many PIs known outside their institutions and outside their fields by a large percentage of adcom members, so a rec letter stating you were an integral part of the lab will mean more than a rec letter from someone who may be well-known in their field.

 

[jennifermov]

i'm going to have to agree with javert. Although a young PI does have to worry about grants, etc, let's go ahead and assume he's resourceful enough to find funding for his research. if you want to do this for several years, go with the subject matter than interests you the most. if you want this for a rec, definitely go with opportunity where you'll get to know your professor on a personal basis. what good is a nobel prize winner's signature on your rec letter if all he can say is generically neutral comments about you?

Everyone who has posted thus far has given valid points, and of course, my comments are just my opinion. but, let me give you a little perspective. for the past two years, i was a predoctoral candidate at a top-5 med school in the country. my department was ranked #1 in NIH-funding over all other virology departments. I worked for an internationally-respected scientist who has published chapters on two different viruses in Field's Virology (the Bible for Virologists). I was fortunate enough to have spent a lot of time with her and so she was able to write a very personal letter. NOT A SINGLE PERSON COMMENTED ABOUT HER REC IN ANY OF MY INTERVIEWS!?!?! I realized pretty quickly that, while she is a big deal in her field, no one else has ever even heard her name. Furthermore, that fact that I got to work in her lab doesn't mean that I'm anything special or that I deserve to go to med school more than the next kid. So, now I think that if I even had the opportunity to work for Dr. James Watson (can you believe he's still alive?!?!?), i wouldn't ask him for a rec if the only thing he knew about me was that i was the girl with brown hair in his lab...

And now for my last comment, if you've already published in J Med Chem and you're only a freshman, then you can't go wrong - no matter what you decide!!! 🙂

Good luck with your decision,

Jen

 

[dave613]

Or you might get lucky, and get a big PI with research you enjoy!

 

[scrappysurfer]

Hey, I'm heading off for a MD/PhD in the fall.

The investigator I will most likely work with is younger and still eager. Working in a less established lab is a good opportunity to learn research the most effective way -by getting your hands dirty.

I've worked in both big labs and small labs and I would highly suggest a smaller lab.

In a big lab, you will likely be assigned to a grad student or post-doc who will always get the first authorship. Your letter of rec from a big name will be far less telling than one from the PI of a smaller lab who knows you very well. Additionally, you will generally get less guidance from a big name. Most interviewers/adcoms know that working for a big PI generally (not always) involves washing glassware.

In a smaller lab, you will be required to take on a larger chunk of the research, possibly even designing and writing your own proposals and experiments. Should anyone ever question your research in an interview setting, it is much easier to discuss a project for which you wrote the proposal, carried out the experiments, and wrote the paper. Additionally, I found that carrying out my own experiments, running into my own problems, and solving my own problems was satisfying and worth the frustration.

 

[doc05]

actually, neither one is an ideal situation. the big-shot (if he's a real big-shot/dept chair-type) has no reason to work hard.

and the new guy (if he's just started), while may have tremendous motivation, will still need to establish a few projects/hire techs/postdocs, and it may take a while (1-2 yrs) for things to get into full swing, plus there's the question of funding.

If he's been hired as an associate prof though (as opposed to assistant prof), he may have been recruited away from another university, with his own grants/postdocs -- ie, he's ready to go, and this lab would be the right choice.

the ideal PI/lab is friendly/supportive, an associate prof/up-and-coming, already in the research world for 5-10 years but still motivated as he's gunning for a chairmanship/etc, not-to-big, but not-to-small either. remember that the advantage of being in a big lab is that there's always something about to go to publication, and hence, you'll have multiple opportunities to get your name on one or more papers.

good luck.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

If he/she's in biomedical research:

a) You must be able to work with people in the lab

b) You must be interested in the research

c) He/she must ideally have at least one R01

d) He/she must have a project (not scrub work) for you

e) Your project must have (strong) oversight

 

[LT2]

Just my 2 cents... as an undergraduate, i had the opportunity to work with a newly hired PI, who had a small lab etc. it was a great opportunity to get really involved with a project, and the PI always had time to spend with me. this was a great advantage to me because my LOR from her was solid.

as a master's student, i'm working in the "more established" lab with a PI who is a big name, however, he's rarely around because he travels so much. even though, my LOR will probably still be decent because i spend so much time in lab (because i'm a graduate student). the undergrads in the lab have a much harder time finding the PI to talk to etc.

all of that being said, i would go along with everyone else who mentioned the small lab. you'll be doing research as soon as you enter the lab (that's the whole point, right??), and you'll probably have more one on one time with the PI, which tends to lead to better letters. 🙄

 

[PostalWookie]

I've done both of these, so let me give you my perspective:

1) Small lab, small budget, new PI - it was awesome. I got my own project, lots of independence, but also a lot of face-time with my boss. The downside was that the lab was poor - our only equipment consisted of a fume hood, incubator, and a microplate reader, plus a few centrifuges. But if you're into the research, that doesn't matter and you can overcome any budget constraints with a little creativity. I published, but somehow ended up as the 4th author with everyone in the department getting on the paper, so that shows you a small lab is no guarantee of a first authorship.

2) Big lab - nobel-prize winning PI, 20 posdocs, multimillion dollar budget, etc. I worked uinder a postdoc, and pretty much only saw the PI at lab meetings. Having money was awesome though, as I could do pretty much anything I wanted - I spend more money as an undergrad than most grad students and postdocs get in other labs. The big letdown was how little time I spent with the actual PI, but I had a great postdoc who became an awesome mentor to me. And I got a great rec from a high-powered PI, which really did wonders (even though I suspect the bulk of it was actually written by my postdoc). Another big downside is that the postdoc trumps me when it comes to publication time - but a second authorship is plenty enough for me.

So a big lab is probably a better choice, but try to convince the PI to let you choose a postdoc to work with. Then choose the newest guy in the lab (provided you like him and his work) - he is most likely to let you have your own project as he will likely be busy with starting his own.

 

[45408]

I'm in a neuroscience lab with 10-12 undergrad research assistants and our PI. He doesn't have any grad students or postdocs working for him, so we have all the responsibility. While it might be nice to get into an established lab, it certainly takes more work to get a lab off its feet and running. There's a lot of things I have to do that I wouldn't if we had some grad students who were going to be around for a while. It's also easier to become a ranking member in the lab.

So, if I had an experiment really take off, my PI would probably be first author, but I'd be right behind him (and it would show).