Undergraduate Research?

[roxrox]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey guys! Back in January I joined a research lab as an assistant/volunteer. I had no prior research experience whatsoever at that time so learning the basic techniques (cell culture, western blot, PCR) has been going very slow. It took me almost an entire semester to be able to run a full western blot on my own. Does it usually take this long to learn the basics or am I just going very slowly?

 

[mimelim]

Hey guys! Back in January I joined a research lab as an assistant/volunteer. I had no prior research experience whatsoever at that time so learning the basic techniques (cell culture, western blot, PCR) has been going very slow. It took me almost an entire semester to be able to run a full western blot on my own. Does it usually take this long to learn the basics or am I just going very slowly?

I would consider that to be slow progression. It could be for any number of reasons both internal and external... In decreasing order or likelihood:

Lack of time dedicated to the lab
Poor mentorship
Lack of work to do
You are clumsy/poor learner/stupid, etc.

 

[Gryffindor20]

I work in a lab as a research intern, and it took me a long time (approximately 7 months) to really master the basic lab techniques, and I'm still learning new protocols every day! Turns out my "supervisor" who was supposed to be teaching me in the beginning was not really doing his job, and I was too uninformed to really ask anyone about it. The biggest thing that you can do to succeed at that job is to be eager, ask questions, don't cut corners, and try to not get discouraged. If you feel like you could be learning faster and that you need more projects assigned to you, then just ask to meet with the PI and discuss that possibility.

 

[aldol16]

I think this is a problem of you not being proactive enough in understanding what you're doing and why you're doing it as well as not being proactive enough in asking questions when you don't understand something. In molecular biology, you can often get caught up in the protocols and not think about what each step actually means and once you start thinking about the individual steps, everything should become more clear to you. You should strive to get to the point where you don't have to follow a written protocol but instead know what to do because you understand the concept of, for example, Western blotting.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I think that's "slow" but pretty typical for undergrads. Most undergrads don't really focus when they are being taught…they just kinda stand there and just say okay to everything (and it really does seem to make sense when someone else is showing you…). I've trained high schoolers, undergrads, and PhDs. There's a noticeable difference…high schools/undergrads usually just don't seem to CARE enough…they just want to be told what to do like a robot and somehow stick around long enough for a pub. PhDs show more initiative and effort because their life depends on it…still they don't go about learning as efficient as I think is possible and often ask for help several times. (a new PhD is essentially an undergrad…)

Ideally, you should learn most molecular bio techniques after ONE time of watching your mentor and then have a few more complicated/thoughtful questions after you're on your own. Take diligent notes, bug the hell out of your mentor during that first time, reinforce your learning by looking up online material (believe it or not, there are tutorial videos on western blots on youtube…). Some techniques, there isn't sufficient time for someone to explain all the theory to you…take the initiative and GOOGLE.

As an example, this is how I go about learning a new technique:
1) I look up the technique, both experimental and theory before I'm shown
2) I take diligent notes, ask if it's okay to record the conversation while learning, and ask any questions as soon as I think of them
3) I type up a protocol for the experiment and make notes besides each step as necessary; I replay the recorded audio to make sure I didn't miss anything
4) I use Google if i still need more help but usually I'm good by then until some complex data analysis
5) I use the protocol as an aid--I try to think of the next step and only look at it to verify or if I don't remember; usually I can perform techniques without a protocol after no more than 3 trials

Yes, there are some very complex stuff out there…lots of microscopy, NMR, etc that will require a lot more effort, patience, and mentorship.

Edit: As a followup, OP if you were learning the Blot and your mentor said that you pour milk onto the nitrocellulose membrane, did you ever wonder/ask why milk?

 

[JustAPhD]

(a new PhD is essentially an undergrad…)

I agree with everything Max said (it's good advice, OP, pay attention to it) besides the above point, a newly-minted well-trained PhD should be light years ahead of that.

But anyways, yes, a semester to get a Western down is fairly slow. I'm more inclined to say whoever was teaching you did not do a good job than saying it's your fault. This is mostly based off of the opinion/fact that westerns are fairly simple, streamlined experiments. Now, getting them to work in a non-ugly-bands-all-over-the-place-what-is-that-splotch manner is a slightly different story that takes a bit of time and technique perfection but the core of it is simple.

 

[Shirafune]

Depends on what year you are. If you're an upperclassman, then yes you're going very slow probably because you're not putting in the time to understand what you're doing. If you're an underclassman, then you might not have all the background information necessary to catch on while you're learning a protocol, but the fix is the same. Just go home and read a detailed Western blot protocol; there are many many out there from various companies that will explain step by step what each step does and how to troubleshoot for it. This is the case for many protocols, but especially for the common ones like Westerns and PCR.