Should I change lab ?

[GravityDefier]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have been working in my current lab for about 2.5 years since undergrad until now (currently in gap year). My PI is a nice person in general. However, since he has been semi-retired, the lab has shrunk significantly from a big lab into a small lab with only a few research technicians left (including me). The lab currently has only 1 project that is mainly translational science research. Each technician works on a part of the project under instructions of the PI. The project has been 2/3 finished and publication is currently prepared. The weird thing is, instead of letting one of the technicians who have been working on this since the very beginning be the first author, my PI let a previous postdoc be the first author. My PI and that postdoc meet twice or three times a month to give him our data for him to write up the paper. The other technicians, including the most experienced one, did not object this (and I heard the same thing happened before with the previous project before I joined the lab). In my point of view, no matter how long I continue to work on this and how hard-working I am, in the end I will only be working on a part of the lab project and end up to be third or fourth author. Hence, I have been contemplating on switching to bigger lab where I may have my own project and have a full-time employment. Yet, there are a few things I am concerned with:

1. I am still waiting for my MCAT score, but highly likely I will apply to MD/PhD programs this cycle. Is it worth to change the lab now, given that I will apply soon in June and after submission of application, there's only 1 year left until matriculating ?

2. Another scenario is, if my MCAT score turns out to be below average, I will skip this coming cycle and apply in the next cycle to re-take the MCAT and beef up my credentials. In this case, should I change the lab ? Within that one year from now to the next cycle, do you guys think changing lab will help my application ? Or continuing to stay in the current lab (and have around 3.5 years of experience by the time the next cycle comes) is more beneficial ?

3. The project I am working on is a translational research. I have been doing translational experiments mostly but recently I have also taken part in basic science experiments. Does a research experience in translational science give more advantage in the MD/PhD application process compared to basic science research experience ? Or vice versa ? Since my PI is not very good with basic science stuff (he is more of an expert in translational science), his instruction has not helped me produce promising data at all. Despite my proposal of new approaches, my PI always refuses them and says those experiments are expensive, and he wants to stick with the current approach that leads to nowhere.

Sorry for the long post. I am looking forward to your opinions. Thanks.

 

[miz]

I moved to a new lab after 2.5 years (no problems with my old boss/lab, just wanted to change fields) and applied MD/PhD during that gap year.
1. In my experience it was fine switching and applying in the same year.
2. Both are fine, but moving to a lab where you will be able to work more independently and talk about your intellectual contribution to your project may improve your application.
3. It's probably a bit program dependent. In my experience there was no disadvantage to being a basic-only researcher; idk about being translational-only.

A couple more suggestions...
1. Don't burn any bridges or speak negatively of your first lab in your interviews. It is valid to say that you were interested in pursuing an independent project in another lab and leave it at that.
2. I'd be more worried about having an independent project where you can discuss aims and goals than about publishing/not publishing a 1st author. Your role in the lab does not sound like you offer a significant intellectual contribution (not blaming you or your boss. It sounds like you have made suggestions but many PIs simply don't have their technicians pursue independent projects). In that case you might want to pursue another project elsewhere since research independence is typically desirable in MD/PhD applications.
Good luck!

 

[gbwillner]

I have been working in my current lab for about 2.5 years since undergrad until now (currently in gap year). My PI is a nice person in general. However, since he has been semi-retired, the lab has shrunk significantly from a big lab into a small lab with only a few research technicians left (including me). The lab currently has only 1 project that is mainly translational science research. Each technician works on a part of the project under instructions of the PI. The project has been 2/3 finished and publication is currently prepared. The weird thing is, instead of letting one of the technicians who have been working on this since the very beginning be the first author, my PI let a previous postdoc be the first author. My PI and that postdoc meet twice or three times a month to give him our data for him to write up the paper. The other technicians, including the most experienced one, did not object this (and I heard the same thing happened before with the previous project before I joined the lab). In my point of view, no matter how long I continue to work on this and how hard-working I am, in the end I will only be working on a part of the lab project and end up to be third or fourth author. Hence, I have been contemplating on switching to bigger lab where I may have my own project and have a full-time employment. Yet, there are a few things I am concerned with:

1. I am still waiting for my MCAT score, but highly likely I will apply to MD/PhD programs this cycle. Is it worth to change the lab now, given that I will apply soon in June and after submission of application, there's only 1 year left until matriculating ?

2. Another scenario is, if my MCAT score turns out to be below average, I will skip this coming cycle and apply in the next cycle to re-take the MCAT and beef up my credentials. In this case, should I change the lab ? Within that one year from now to the next cycle, do you guys think changing lab will help my application ? Or continuing to stay in the current lab (and have around 3.5 years of experience by the time the next cycle comes) is more beneficial ?

3. The project I am working on is a translational research. I have been doing translational experiments mostly but recently I have also taken part in basic science experiments. Does a research experience in translational science give more advantage in the MD/PhD application process compared to basic science research experience ? Or vice versa ? Since my PI is not very good with basic science stuff (he is more of an expert in translational science), his instruction has not helped me produce promising data at all. Despite my proposal of new approaches, my PI always refuses them and says those experiments are expensive, and he wants to stick with the current approach that leads to nowhere.

Sorry for the long post. I am looking forward to your opinions. Thanks.

If your goal is to get into an MDPhD program in the near future, I don't think there is any point to switching labs now, unless you are completely unhappy in your current situation. What you need for admission is good grades, good MCATs, and good LORs from your mentors. You could definitely get the last one from your current situation, and the first 2 are irrespective of your lab at all.

If you switch labs with the goal of getting a first-author paper, keep in mind that you could be working for YEARS before getting enough data for a paper. How does this fit with your goals since you want to enter training in a program that will give you ample time to do this later (your PhD training)?

Lastly, technicians are rarely if ever first authors on papers. First authors are typically the people who came up with the idea, put together the methods necessary, and wrote the paper. It is completely fitting that a previous post-doc in the lab gets this honor, provided they contributed in these ways. To be an author you need to contribute intellectually to the work. I would consider it a sign of benevolence that the PI even gives any credit at all to a technician, who could just be a trained monkey, repeating experiments over and over until they work. After all, you are getting paid for your grunt work, so there is your compensation. Now, if you think you contributed intellectually to the work, it would be ethical to have you as an author... but first author? It's a pipe dream.

Good luck

 

[Neuronix]

I totally agree with gbwillner on this one. It's more important that you thoroughly understand your work and the lab's work than anything else at this point. Everyone knows that undergrads are often not in a position to be an independent research, and that's okay.

 

[miz]

It depends. My area was something where I could/did have an independent project, and I worked hard, got very lucky and got a 1st author in a decent journal as an undergrad. But that is not unheard of for my field and yours may differ.
I needed to switch labs for other reasons (mostly, field of eventual interest), but I view switching as one of the best decisions I made. This may bias my answer. PM me if you are interested in the details. But it sounds like you are not entirely happy with your current lab situation?
Basically, what I'm saying is if you really want to leave I think it's fine, as long as you have a good reason for switching and remain on good terms with your PI. On the other hand gbwillner and Neuronix's points are really valid, which are that you may not have a good reason to switch, given that publication authorship is NOT a good reason to switch labs as an undergrad/postbac. If you switch labs and apply at the same time, you'd have to have a worthwhile question posed and investigated by you, submitted and accepted by April 15 of next year for it to be even marginally useful to your applications. Realistically it's better if it's done before interviews, secondaries, or even the primary, and you're probably more likely to get on a paper in your current lab in a timely manner.
I would argue that research independence is important, but it looks like they disagree. I've never sat on an adcom; they have. I still don't think it'd necessarily screw your application to move, though, and definitely think it helped mine.

 

[GravityDefier]

I did not mean to say that the honor to be the first author on that publication has to be mine or I have to have a first author publication in order to apply. I just felt weird that the idea came from the PI and the data came from the technicians' hard-work, but eventually not even the most senior technician could get the honor to be the first author. Also, what I am mainly concerned with is whether I should continue to be "a trained monkey, repeating experiments over and over until they work," as gbwillner put it, or I should switch to another lab where I may be given a smaller project but have more independence and can contribute intellectually, in a context that I may apply soon in June. That is why I asked in the first place, whether it worths.

2. I'd be more worried about having an independent project where you can discuss aims and goals than about publishing/not publishing a 1st author. Your role in the lab does not sound like you offer a significant intellectual contribution (not blaming you or your boss. It sounds like you have made suggestions but many PIs simply don't have their technicians pursue independent projects). In that case you might want to pursue another project elsewhere since research independence is typically desirable in MD/PhD applications.
Good luck!

In your experience as a post-bac and recent applicant, is it common for a pre-MDPhD postbac/technician to have an independent or maybe semi-independent project ? Or after switching, I may end up in a similar situation in which I could only show data to PI and receive new instructions without being able to design any experiments ?

But it sounds like you are not entirely happy with your current lab situation?

I like the project, but I am just concerned with the independence issue. After all, the adcom may ask me what I have contributed to the project, and I cannot just tell them I am a monkey doing what I am told to do for the past 2.5 - 3 years in the lab without contributing anything intellectually.

If your goal is to get into an MDPhD program in the near future, I don't think there is any point to switching labs now, unless you are completely unhappy in your current situation. What you need for admission is good grades, good MCATs, and good LORs from your mentors. You could definitely get the last one from your current situation, and the first 2 are irrespective of your lab at all.

If you switch labs with the goal of getting a first-author paper, keep in mind that you could be working for YEARS before getting enough data for a paper. How does this fit with your goals since you want to enter training in a program that will give you ample time to do this later (your PhD training)?

Lastly, technicians are rarely if ever first authors on papers. First authors are typically the people who came up with the idea, put together the methods necessary, and wrote the paper. It is completely fitting that a previous post-doc in the lab gets this honor, provided they contributed in these ways. To be an author you need to contribute intellectually to the work. I would consider it a sign of benevolence that the PI even gives any credit at all to a technician, who could just be a trained monkey, repeating experiments over and over until they work. After all, you are getting paid for your grunt work, so there is your compensation. Now, if you think you contributed intellectually to the work, it would be ethical to have you as an author... but first author? It's a pipe dream.

Good luck

A general advice I have seen on SDN is that in order to be a strong applicant, pre-MDPhD undergrad should take one or two years off and work as a research technician in a lab to beef up their credentials. If a technician is no more than a monkey doing what it is told to do, then I still do not understand why undergrad should apply for a research technician job during their gap years. Can you explain more on that ? I have read the mdapplicant profiles of the recent MD/PhD applicants, and most of the successful applicants had independent projects to work on and had their names on at least one or many publications, either first author or second author. I feel like nowadays MD/PhD applicants have very strong research profile, not the type of "monkey technician research" I have been in. Am I wrong ?

 

[gbwillner]

I did not mean to say that the honor to be the first author on that publication has to be mine or I have to have a first author publication in order to apply. I just felt weird that the idea came from the PI and the data came from the technicians' hard-work, but eventually not even the most senior technician could get the honor to be the first author. Also, what I am mainly concerned with is whether I should continue to be "a trained monkey, repeating experiments over and over until they work," as gbwillner put it, or I should switch to another lab where I may be given a smaller project but have more independence and can contribute intellectually, in a context that I may apply soon in June. That is why I asked in the first place, whether it worths.
....

A general advice I have seen on SDN is that in order to be a strong applicant, pre-MDPhD undergrad should take one or two years off and work as a research technician in a lab to beef up their credentials. If a technician is no more than a monkey doing what it is told to do, then I still do not understand why undergrad should apply for a research technician job during their gap years. Can you explain more on that ? I have read the mdapplicant profiles of the recent MD/PhD applicants, and most of the successful applicants had independent projects to work on and had their names on at least one or many publications, either first author or second author. I feel like nowadays MD/PhD applicants have very strong research profile, not the type of "monkey technician research" I have been in. Am I wrong ?

Quick points:
1. you are not at a stage where independence is necessary or expected. Of course it's good to be independent... but you still have a lot of time for that. Very few people at your stage have been independent AND successful in their projects. Given your time constraints (you state you want to apply next cycle), you will likely accomplish nothing by switching labs.

2. You are correct that some successful applicants take time off for research after undergrad- I was one of them (NIH IRTA). But it seems you have already done this. What more could be gained for you at this point by taking MORE time? It seems you are already likely to get a publication (albeit not first author). I will tell you that alone is sufficient (more than sufficient). As long as the grades and MCATs are good, you wil be fine.

3. The reason MSTPs want to see significant research experience is NOT because they will look better for having matriculants with 10 first author papers, but because they want to make sure you know what you are getting yourself into. I have known PLENTY of MSTPers at top places who got into with a lot less research than you. They tend NOT to know what they are getting themselves into, and drop out more readily than those with significant experience. OK, I don't have hard data to back that up, only a series of unscientific anecdotes, but I'm certain this is the way adcoms think. In the end, only a very few make it all the way through. They want to make sure you know how tedious and difficult lab work can be, and that you still like it. If you've published a paper, you've seen all the adversity and been successful, so that's a nice bonus. I never published anything until grad school. I went through this process 13 years ago, so maybe not everything is the same, but it was NEVER expected and only a pleasant surprise when a matriculant was already published.

4. As a lab monkey like you I was grateful just to be in the acknowledgments of a PNAS paper (as an undergrad, and yes, at the time I felt like I did all the work). All my time at NIH yielded ZIP, but it still got me interviews at all the top programs and several acceptances. It didn't hurt that I had an excellent GPA and MCAT- but you know those are the standards.

Good luck.

 

[miz]

You got me curious so I looked up data for the admitted class where I chose to matriculate. The program admitted 14 external students and 2 internal admits. I discarded the internal admits and one of the external admits who had an extremely common name.
Of the 13, 8 had publications (2 with one or more 1st authors) and 5 did not. Of those 5, one was a medical anthropology student and 3 were underrepresented minority students. All 13 held multiple acceptances. Most students had 1 publication with a 2nd-5th author (6/8).
A successful applicant to a top program might have one 4th author paper. For instance, several of the admits were deciding between 3 or more of the 'top 5' schools with one 4th authorship or equivalent.
I'd argue based on this (limited) data that in acceptances to top programs, having a publication is better than not having a publication unless you are an underrepresented minority student, but authorship order and number of publications doesn't matter very much. I don't think any program in this country would require more than this.


To answer your question as to why people take 2 years off to work as a lab tech, it may be to decide they are committed to research, get proficient with techniques, and yes, bolster their research credentials. It is also more possible to take on larger questions over a longer period of time. It depends on what kind of MD/PhD program you are shooting for and your other statistics.

Do you understand the overall direction of your project? Do you feel that you can have meaningful discussions with your PI or labmates? Do you feel capable of presenting your work? If the answer to these questions is no, if you were to practice presenting your work (aka give a mock seminar, research meeting, or make a poster even if you never print it), would your PI be supportive? These are steps you can take to feel that you have a good idea of what you are doing and can discuss it intelligently without being the leader of the project. As long as your PI does not discourage these efforts, I would suggest you are in a good place and reasonably independent.
It's hard to switch labs and apply, because your PI has to write a really really good letter for you up front (within a month or two of your starting at the lab) and also put up with the time you take to write your applications, travel for interviews, etc. from the moment you start in the lab. Your PI is at a stage in his career where he can accommodate your needs as an applicant. It may be prohibitively hard to find another PI for this upcoming year who will do that, especially since most people apply for IRTAs starting in Jan-Feb. If you take two years off, that solves a few of those problems, but then you have to take yet another year off and there are many reasons you might not want to do that.

 

[miz]

In your experience as a post-bac and recent applicant, is it common for a pre-MDPhD postbac/technician to have an independent or maybe semi-independent project ? Or after switching, I may end up in a similar situation in which I could only show data to PI and receive new instructions without being able to design any experiments ?
?

*sorry, I never answered your question. Yes, you might end up in a similar position if you switch and do an IRTA. Actually, I moved from a more independent project in undergrad to a lab that is more like the lab you describe for my IRTA. I now work very closely with a staff scientist and generally run experiments by him and summarize results to him before proceeding. But I find my project intellectually stimulating, I read a lot of literature for my project, I feel comfortable proposing experiments and discussing results with my supervisor, and I have good publication prospects although definitely no first authorships.
Am I a technician? I do perform the experiments that my supervisor asks me to do. But generally they are the most logical next experiments to run. Sometimes I think of things he doesn't, but not very often. Often I don't understand the logic and so I ask and learn something new. He has shot down a lot of my proposed experiments and I'm not always thrilled at the time but you get over it fast.
I have had a few small side projects of my own conception but they are expensive and higher-risk. (one failed a few times and I thought of one more thing I'll try before I'll probably have to move on; one gave inconclusive preliminary results and I shelved it temporarily to work on another project). My shared main projects are always higher priority. I'm only able to do these side projects because my PI is well funded and generous with my time as long as I get everything else done. I would stop doing them if he asked me to and still be satisfied that I was getting a great lab experience. I didn't mention any of these side projects in interviews and it's extremely unlikely they'll get published by me. Even if they work, they are preliminary results only and not enough to publish.
So my lab sounds superficially similar to yours, and I couldn't ask for a better place to learn and survey this field, and I felt supported throughout the application process. But if you don't understand what you are doing and your labmates or PI are unwilling to help you learn the material, I'd argue that is not an optimal learning environment.

tl;dr: try to understand why you do what you are doing. don't be discouraged when your PI shoots down your suggestions (there will always be more ideas shot down than ideas explored). independence is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[GravityDefier]

Thanks everybody for making comments. I feel a lot more informed now in making decision. I'll just continue to stay in my lab and hope for a successful application season, whether it's this cycle or the next.

You got me curious so I looked up data for the admitted class where I chose to matriculate. The program admitted 14 external students and 2 internal admits. I discarded the internal admits and one of the external admits who had an extremely common name.
Of the 13, 8 had publications (2 with one or more 1st authors) and 5 did not. Of those 5, one was a medical anthropology student and 3 were underrepresented minority students. All 13 held multiple acceptances. Most students had 1 publication with a 2nd-5th author (6/8).
A successful applicant to a top program might have one 4th author paper. For instance, several of the admits were deciding between 3 or more of the 'top 5' schools with one 4th authorship or equivalent.
I'd argue based on this (limited) data that in acceptances to top programs, having a publication is better than not having a publication unless you are an underrepresented minority student, but authorship order and number of publications doesn't matter very much. I don't think any program in this country would require more than this.

Thanks for sharing this. These data are quite surprising to me.