Suck at lab, Great at research, seeking MD

[DoubleHelix]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello,

your comments and advice will be greatly appreciated.

I just finished a biomedical research internship over the summer. from this experience, i found that i am really bad with wet lab/bench work and my techniques are very POOR. Although I did EXTREMELY well in labs at school, i kept making HUGE errors in lab over the summer, and it took me FOREVER to do a single task. from calculating and making solutions, running gels, performing blots, handling animals, injecting solutions, etc., I always did something wrong and/or took too long. I kept practicing, working hard and staying late hours to improve. but no progress was made, even with the generous help and patience of my mentor. was it carelessness or was there too much to consider when executing the experiments? I believe that i care deeply about my performance because my mentor was awesome, the study was very interesting and related to my future aspirations, and I always seek to deliver quality work/results. My mentor noted that i have very good analytical skills, I am able to understand studies very well, and I have the understandings to create my own experiments that is meaningful to the field. My mentor also said that i present well, have a passion for seeking knowledge and know how to get the knowledge.

Although I am bad at wetlab/bench techniques, i understand the principles and applications of what i do. not to be over confident, but my classmates and i believe that i understand the concepts and theories behind the techniques better than our biotech professor who taught them to us as i apply my logic and bio and chem knowledge to everything i do, where as my professor only knows what the techniques are used for and how to follow protocols. for me, i understand why and how each and every step of the protocol works.

To tell you how bad I was: internship was from early May to early September (last day today). Wasted almost $1000 worth of reagents/supplies before even using it on the samples. Wasted proteins that took years to collect from animals. poorly kept notebook.



Has anyone else gone through this? Does this predict the quality of healthcare i will deliver later on, if i even get to that stage? How can I improve this? how can i be a good doctor, in consideration of what went on this summer? this was not the first time. I have completed three research internships already with similar performances; however, not as bad as this summer's internship.

Please advise. Thank You!!! Happy labor day weekend.

 

[DoubleHelix]

Please help!!!!

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Hello,

your comments and advice will be greatly appreciated.

I just finished a biomedical research internship over the summer. from this experience, i found that i am really bad with wet lab/bench work and my techniques are very POOR. Although I did EXTREMELY well in labs at school, i kept making HUGE errors in lab over the summer, and it took me FOREVER to do a single task. from calculating and making solutions, running gels, performing blots, handling animals, injecting solutions, etc., I always did something wrong and/or took too long. I kept practicing, working hard and staying late hours to improve. but no progress was made, even with the generous help and patience of my mentor. was it carelessness or was there too much to consider when executing the experiments? I believe that i care deeply about my performance because my mentor was awesome, the study was very interesting and related to my future aspirations, and I always seek to deliver quality work/results. My mentor noted that i have very good analytical skills, I am able to understand studies very well, and I have the understandings to create my own experiments that is meaningful to the field. My mentor also said that i present well, have a passion for seeking knowledge and know how to get the knowledge.

Although I am bad at wetlab/bench techniques, i understand the principles and applications of what i do. not to be over confident, but my classmates and i believe that i understand the concepts and theories behind the techniques better than our biotech professor who taught them to us as i apply my logic and bio and chem knowledge to everything i do, where as my professor only knows what the techniques are used for and how to follow protocols. for me, i understand why and how each and every step of the protocol works.

Has anyone else gone through this? Does this predict the quality of healthcare i will deliver later on, if i even get to that stage? How can I improve this? how can i be a good doctor, in consideration of what went on this summer? this was not the first time. I have completed three research internships already with similar performances.

Please advise. Thank You!!! Happy labor day weekend.

relax man, just because you're a poor scientist doesn't mean you're going to make a terrible doctor. you should never use ugrad lab class performance as a predictor for real research ability anyway, and it's hard to tell whether you just plain suck at it or was just inexperienced. take a deep breath and ask your PI for his/her opinion

 

[CaliBalla]

Yes it predicts everything and you should think about switching career paths before you kill countless patients in the future. If you're like any of the thousands of Bio kids at my school (a UC), you probably study 24/7 and thus when it comes to doing something that requires coordination and dexterity, you FAIL. Might be too late to gain such basic skills generally learned from sports and mechanically challenging tasks. Me thinks over protective Asian parents? Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[DoubleHelix]

thanks for the comments! yes, overprotective asian parents is correct. but, i do not want to be doctor that does any procedures. I want to be a doctor that consults, meaning analyzing physiological information and recommend treatments to primary doctors. if medicine is not the appropriate path for me, what is?

 

[hiyaman]

How could you have done well in the labs at your school and still have a poorly kept lab notebook for research?

Maintaining a good lab notebook is pretty important, makes life easier when you want to refer to past experiments.

Are you following the protocols? It's great that you know the reasoning behind your experiments and stuff, but you should follow protocol that your research lab uses because those protocols have been tested and proven to work.

If you're following protocol and you're still messing up, maybe you are just flustered or careless or something.

 

[DoubleHelix]

for my notebook at school, we were given lab info prior to the experiment and we had time to work on it before, during and after the experiment. for my notebook at the internship, i had to write everything down as I am doing it.

I am following the protocol. I believe that accuracy and the procedures required between steps are what killed me, such as not having the solution there when needed, mixing up samples, keeping proteins cold, putting in the right about of reagents to the right solution, mixing up reagents, not being sterile, setting the timer, have preheated ovens, uneven loading of samples, etc.

 

[shouldvestudied]

Sorry to hear about your lab woes. A trick that I figured out when I was TA'ing an undergrad Bio Lab, and has helped me immensely since then, is to explain the protocol to yourself as you perform it. I have found that it keeps me focused on the task and I don't space out as much.

 

[Ischemic]

thanks for the comments! yes, overprotective asian parents is correct. but, i do not want to be doctor that does any procedures. I want to be a doctor that consults, meaning analyzing physiological information and recommend treatments to primary doctors. if medicine is not the appropriate path for me, what is?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you thinking about diagnostician like in House? I'm pretty sure there aren't any actual specialties like that. However, if you want a specialty where you have limited to no patient contact you can choose radiology or pathology. They analyze patient data and tell the PCPs what's happening and give recommendations. I hate to break it to you but in med school (3rd and 4th year) you're going to have to learn to take care of patients and get your hands dirty and YES that INCLUDES HANDS ON PATIENT CARE. No way you can get by without showing SOME competence at actually handling patients.

 

[bitnervous]

I too suck at wet lab research. However, I am awesome at computational-based research. There are many types of research out there (wet lab, animal-based, public health, translational, clinical, computational, bioethics, etc.) If you understand the principles of research and it's exciting to you, then odds are you can find a niche in some type of research. Just try out different things.

It sounds like the main areas in medicine that would be interesting to you are radiology (diagnostic, not interventional) and pathology. If you want to do research in your clinical area, then both rads and path would allow for some clinical research. Rads would also allow for some cool computational research (and public health and bioethics).

 

[DoubleHelix]

Thanks again for the replies.

Right. I followed a pathologist for a few months. He performed "consults", in which he obtained images and test results, and then, write his observations and recommendations to the primary healthcare provider. To get to his level, he had to first obtain a lot of experience as internal medicine, and then, he obtained a pathology fellowship. I am willing if i can do this.

I think radiology and pathology fit me better because of low patient contact and to prevent me from killing patients. However, I was hoping there is some consult work for neurology that also has low patient contact.

Ischemic, may you please define "handling patients". how do you show competence in taking care of patience at the 3rd and 4th year, and going forward? from my experience as a volunteer following residences, they only followed up on patients and report to the faculty doctor. Is this something I can do even with my poor lab skills?

Is there anyway i can improve my skills now so that I can help people, and not harm them?

 

[mmmcdowe]

You can chill that's what you can do. You obviously beat yourself up a lot about things like this. Chances are you weren't doing that bad on an absolute scale, but on the relative scale of someone who believes he understands a field better than his teachers you clearly hold yourself to a very high relative standard. Try out clinical medicine which is mostly just data collection and analysis for undergrads. You could also try statistical modeling and what not if you like computer science.

You could always focus on neurological pathologies.

 

[kami333]

While this is mostly anecdotal, I've read (and noticed, even when allowing for the years/decades they haven't run an experiment themselves) that most PIs tend to be those who were bad at bench work. The theory goes that because of that, during their postdoc years they spent more of their time and energy on other things like networking/collaborating and analyzing data while having other people run the experiments, and when the time comes to run their own lab it's those skills that matter more rather than whether you can properly run a Western or do a carotid cannulation. (That's why sometimes MDs can be very good at running a lab, and a PhD not so)

However there is a line between being bad at bench work (clumsy) and carelessness. Just going by what you said, such as improper sample handling, mixing them up, not following dosing and bad record keeping, these are pretty basic skills that will be important even in medicine and you might need to reevaluate how you plan things out.

FYI, my PI is a neurologist that works on a particular disease and frequently gets requests for consults from all over the US. Even though he isn't seeing those patients directly, there's still a lot of paperwork and patient samples that have to be kept in order, and mixing up two patient files could potentially misdiagnose them. Just because you don't see patients doesn't mean that you can't kill them, I would say that organization is even more important in such fields since often times all you have to go on is a ID number.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

While this is mostly anecdotal, I've read (and noticed, even when allowing for the years/decades they haven't run an experiment themselves) that most PIs tend to be those who were bad at bench work.

No.


Just......no. If they haven't personally pipetted in a decade, they may be out of practice, but to imply they couldn't ever do it is ludicrous. Do you know how much research ability it takes to get to a professorship at a research uni?


Also, I sucked at labs in class. I hated them. I own in the research lab. I think not because of innate ability but I enjoy the process of research. It's not hard to learn how to pipette or run PCR or do Westerns. A bit of practice and anyone can do it. It's the theory, the asking of questions, the analyzing and troubleshooting of data is that's the ticket.

 

[Drexon]

Hello,

your comments and advice will be greatly appreciated.

I just finished a biomedical research internship over the summer. from this experience, i found that i am really bad with wet lab/bench work and my techniques are very POOR. Although I did EXTREMELY well in labs at school, i kept making HUGE errors in lab over the summer, and it took me FOREVER to do a single task. from calculating and making solutions, running gels, performing blots, handling animals, injecting solutions, etc., I always did something wrong and/or took too long. I kept practicing, working hard and staying late hours to improve. but no progress was made, even with the generous help and patience of my mentor. was it carelessness or was there too much to consider when executing the experiments? I believe that i care deeply about my performance because my mentor was awesome, the study was very interesting and related to my future aspirations, and I always seek to deliver quality work/results. My mentor noted that i have very good analytical skills, I am able to understand studies very well, and I have the understandings to create my own experiments that is meaningful to the field. My mentor also said that i present well, have a passion for seeking knowledge and know how to get the knowledge.

Although I am bad at wetlab/bench techniques, i understand the principles and applications of what i do. not to be over confident, but my classmates and i believe that i understand the concepts and theories behind the techniques better than our biotech professor who taught them to us as i apply my logic and bio and chem knowledge to everything i do, where as my professor only knows what the techniques are used for and how to follow protocols. for me, i understand why and how each and every step of the protocol works.

To tell you how bad I was: internship was from early May to early September (last day today). Wasted almost $1000 worth of reagents/supplies before even using it on the samples. Wasted proteins that took years to collect from animals. poorly kept notebook.



Has anyone else gone through this? Does this predict the quality of healthcare i will deliver later on, if i even get to that stage? How can I improve this? how can i be a good doctor, in consideration of what went on this summer? this was not the first time. I have completed three research internships already with similar performances; however, not as bad as this summer's internship.

Please advise. Thank You!!! Happy labor day weekend.

The number one rule in lab is a clean and up to date notebook. Think of a neat and tidy notebook like patient carts. They have to be well organized with a logical thought process. As for wasting reagents / materials... you're getting trained. Labs have a responsibility to get you trained and thus they allow you to use reagents and materials ... even if it means that you're "wasting" materials because the lab is investing in your well being so that you are able to be an independent and efficient worker.

Technical errors in lab are common but as you progress and learn you'll get better and faster at it. Or perhaps you just have really bad hands eye coordination.

Research is a lot like cooking. You can think of a really creative dish that sounds very appealing. But if you lack execution then you're entire dish will be mediocre or it will fail. This is just like with research. You can think different ways you can go about solving your problem, but if you lack in execution then you're bound to fail or not get the results you want.

Bottom line: I have no idea how good you are at improving your technical skill set in lab, but I'm sure over time you'll learn to be efficient and better at it. But if you admit that you lack hands eye coordination skills then I'm sorry research may not be cut out for you. Like I was saying to truly succeed in research depends both on creativity and execution. Lacking either skill would make you a mediocre researcher. Does being bad at tech skills in lab make you a bad doctor? I would think not. Being a doctor is a lot more analytical and a bit less "hands on" unless you're a surgeon.

Best of luck

 

[kami333]

No.


Just......no. If they haven't personally pipetted in a decade, they may be out of practice, but to imply they couldn't ever do it is ludicrous. Do you know how much research ability it takes to get to a professorship at a research uni?


Also, I sucked at labs in class. I hated them. I own in the research lab. I think not because of innate ability but I enjoy the process of research. It's not hard to learn how to pipette or run PCR or do Westerns. A bit of practice and anyone can do it. It's the theory, the asking of questions, the analyzing and troubleshooting of data is that's the ticket.

I didn't mean to imply that they were incompetent at it, just that they weren't the best.

Like I said, it's anecdotal, but not completely off the wall:

In fact, if anything, there may be some negative correlation. Those PIs who are outstanding experimentalists could be highly effective post-docs without even beginning to develop some of the skills required to be a PI: leading a group, troubleshooting experiments you didn't perform yourself, being creative without being at the bench, etc.
Those PIs who are not outstanding experimentalists had no choice as post-docs but to develop these other skills, or else fail. So they developed them. And now as PIs, surprise surprise, they are effective, while many of their "better hands" compatriots turn out to have no choice but to spend most of their time at the bench themselves doing the experiments that they cannot lead others at performing, and not only have not developed talent at mentoring, but also no time for it.

http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/05/all_pis_totally_suck_and_only.php

 

[DoubleHelix]

Thank you everyone for your support and contribution!

 

[Footpain]

The number one rule in lab is a clean and up to date notebook. Think of a neat and tidy notebook like patient carts. They have to be well organized with a logical thought process. As for wasting reagents / materials... you're getting trained. Labs have a responsibility to get you trained and thus they allow you to use reagents and materials ... even if it means that you're "wasting" materials because the lab is investing in your well being so that you are able to be an independent and efficient worker.

Technical errors in lab are common but as you progress and learn you'll get better and faster at it. Or perhaps you just have really bad hands eye coordination.

Research is a lot like cooking. You can think of a really creative dish that sounds very appealing. But if you lack execution then you're entire dish will be mediocre or it will fail. This is just like with research. You can think different ways you can go about solving your problem, but if you lack in execution then you're bound to fail or not get the results you want.

Bottom line: I have no idea how good you are at improving your technical skill set in lab, but I'm sure over time you'll learn to be efficient and better at it. But if you admit that you lack hands eye coordination skills then I'm sorry research may not be cut out for you. Like I was saying to truly succeed in research depends both on creativity and execution. Lacking either skill would make you a mediocre researcher. Does being bad at tech skills in lab make you a bad doctor? I would think not. Being a doctor is a lot more analytical and a bit less "hands on" unless you're a surgeon.

Best of luck

I agree with this post. However, as a former geophysicist I know that being a researcher is not any less analytical than being a doctor. This is simply not true.