Unproductive Research Experience

[sp808]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,

I've been working in my lab for almost two years. I started off by helping another person with their project, from which I got a poster and publication. After wanting more independence, my PI agreed to let me design (with her guidance) and carry out my own project, for which I won a small university grant. The problem is the project she wanted me to do is essentially a fishing expedition project, and I haven't been able to get a single tidbit of useful data after working full-time over the summer and 30 hours/week during the fall semester. What makes it harder is that my PI is (understandably) extremely frugal about purchasing reagents or assay kits, so I am often stuck for weeks trying to troubleshoot a single antibody that most likely does not work in our species (we don't work with the commonly used models). Because she won't let me buy multiple reagents to try at once, I am left doing the same thing over and over again and often can't work a full day since there is nothing else to do except read papers. This has made research painstakingly slow, and the things I have gotten working have all come up with negative results.

That being said, I did extensive literature reviews to plan out this project, decide what things I should be testing, protocols, etc, and feel like this project was a good experience in conducting independent research. I loved these aspects of research and am/was excited about the prospect of discovering new knowledge.The problem is the experimental part of the research completely fell flat, and I am worrying about how this will be viewed by MSTP committees. My PI will probably write me a great LOR regardless, and I'm pretty sure I can describe my research intelligently and enthusiastically. Despite these setbacks, I really enjoy the field I'm working in and plan to continue it in my next lab and in grad school.

Any advice on how to present this experience in the best possible light when I actually apply?

(I still have a year before I apply, so I'm planning on switching labs this summer and hopefully starting another independent project)

 

[RookTookIt]

Sounds to me like it was productive enough: poster, publication, grant, great LOR

I'm not sure what else you could expect. You'll certainly be able to speak about the project knowledgeably. If you do plan on moving to a different lab, I would do it sooner than later, because it seems like you've already gotten all of the experiences that you're going to get here.

 

[justgo]

I agree, based on my experience as an applicant this year having taken on a difficult project without fear and sticking to it seems to be highly respected. It's not entirely about the research output.....it is also about the lessons you learned. So I would present it as: I planned this wonderful project knowing it would be hard, wrote grants etc, and am still working hard to get some great results. They will respect that.

 

[sp808]

Thanks for the responses guys.

The poster and publication are from another project that I helped with. The thing I'm worried about is that I only have a semester left in this lab and I'm not sure if I can get any interesting or significant results for my project before I leave. If that turns out to be the case, I'm not sure how I should tell my interviewer that I essentially gave up on my own project and left for another lab, which is a bit different from justgo's scenario. I've put in a tremendous amount of effort (and my letter should reflect that) into this project but things just aren't working out. The worst case scenario is that they'd use this experience to suggest that I wouldn't be able to handle doing a PhD.

Any thoughts?

 

[MSTPlease]

Well, the first question is how you present the scenario. If you're leaving because the project isn't working, then yes that will be a negative. As said earlier, research output is not important. My research was actually pretty successful (the better word is probably "lucky"), and so I frequently got asked to describe something that had failed and how I approached it. At the MD/PhD applicant level, research is about getting experience, not getting results. As you yourself have mentioned, you are an active participant in the research and thus can talk about it in detail. At the lab I worked at, I had to interview people to be my replacement, and let me tell you, when someone is just a set of hands and not a contributing member of the team, it is obvious, and this is what they're most concerned with. Failed projects can in some way almost be better because if you still want to pursue research, it shows dedication. Of course why the project is failing is also very important, but it sounds like in your case it is more an issue with regard to the PI/the way the PI runs the lab, not on you. If you say you're leaving because you no longer feel you're a good fit for the PI, that's very different than leaving because you're not getting results.

 

[justgo]

Maybe give us a few more details. Why are you leaving? Are you applying next cycle? I left various labs but also had various long long term experiences and many challenges that were overcome. I started in a new lab about the time I started interviewing and so far it has not been a problem. More details or feel free to PM me if you want some more insight on telling complicated stories successfully at interviews (and I have a couple top 20 acceptances come and gone so far in this season, so ti can definitely be done successfully).

 

[sp808]

The reason why I'm leaving is definitely more about my PI than about the failure of the project (though the two are somewhat related). I am getting constantly bottlenecked in terms of not being allowed to purchase reagents, not being allowed to use easily obtained samples until I run a month's worth of positive controls to demonstrate that my reagents work, having to do a month's worth of failed positive controls to convince my PI that an antibody doesn't work, and having to wait months on end to become trained to do technically difficult procedures. I have a thick skin and have no problem putting in tons of hours into research, nor do I mind coming in at night or over the weekend to run my experiments. The problem is that most of the time I don't have the opportunity to put in those hours because my PI keeps limiting the amount of work I can do on any given day - and that is incredibly discouraging. There is also the sense that the main reason why I was given this project was to test/optimize antibodies and assay kits for future projects in the lab, based on some of the things she's said to me and the things that she wants me to do.

Obviously, I don't want to repeat this rant to the admissions committee, since that would make me seem petty and ungrateful - which is untrue because I really appreciate everything my PI has done for me, and I'm grateful that I have been given the chance to conduct independent research. Our lab is also poor, and my PI has been particularly busy with grant/manuscript/book chapter writing and teaching, and so her actions are justifiable. That being said, I've spent a long time in this lab and I strongly feel that my PI is not supporting my research as well as she could/should be.

I am also switching labs because I'm interested in exploring other research topics in my field as well as learning new techniques and scientific methodologies. I'm working on development at the moment and the lab I was looking to switch to is more involved in physiological function of the tissue I study. This switch was something I planned before I even started my project, which helps to convince myself that I am not doing this because my data isn't looking very good.

I will be applying the cycle after the next one, so I'll be working in my new lab for a year when I apply, and for two years when I matriculate.

Thanks guys!

 

[K31]

Now is a good time to switch if you can get in a full year of research before you apply.

I wouldn't go into detail about why you left, but if it does come up I wouldn't be afraid of stating that it was largely due to funding issues making it difficult to make progress. That's a common issue, especially among less research-intensive schools, and a perfectly valid reason for switching labs (it can also occur in grad school, but in my experience programs tend to be better about steering students away from labs with funding problems than undergrads are). As long as you have a good letter from that PI (indicating that it wasn't actually issues with you), I don't think it should be a problem.

What I would not discuss is switching labs because your project isn't working--a major part of grad school (in fact, I'd say the main point) is learning to work through problems with your project and find a way to make it work. I'm not saying you'd get frustrated and switch labs or quit in grad school if you weren't making sufficient progress, but some may hear it that way.

It may not come up at all--when I interview an applicant, we frequently only talk about the most recent research experience unless the most recent is very brief.

 

[QofQuimica]

I agree with K31. Lack of funding is a perfectly legitimate reason to leave a lab, especially if you can get funding elsewhere. Do be very careful, however, not to burn any bridges with your current PI. You will need a LOR from her, and you need it to be a strong one.

In addition, I agree with Rook that your experience in her lab sounds very worthwhile and productive. Adcoms aren't looking for results from UG-level researchers so much as dedication, effort, interest, involvement, initiative, etc. You've demonstrated all of those qualities in more than adequate amounts.

 

[kryptonian]

Hi,

In some way, I have experienced problems similar to sp808's in regard to unproductive research. My situation is slightly different, that I'm currently working in the lab as a post-bac, not as an undergrad (i.e., I started working there as an undergraduate and recently after graduation, my status has been changed into staff researcher). As you guys mentioned that the MD/PhD adcom will not care much about the research output at undergrad level, would they be more concerned if I'm a post-bac and I don't have significant achievements and output ? In other words, is a post-bac applicant expected to have more achievements than an undergrad applicant ?

Also, is a strong LOR from a well-respected PI considered as a sufficient proof to the adcom that I have potentials in research ? Or do they really need some tangible evidence, such as publication ?

 

[K31]

As you guys mentioned that the MD/PhD adcom will not care much about the research output at undergrad level, would they be more concerned if I'm a post-bac and I don't have significant achievements and output ? In other words, is a post-bac applicant expected to have more achievements than an undergrad applicant ?

It depends on what you mean by "significant" and also how long you have been working in the lab. As a post-bacc, you do have more time to get things accomplished in lab and it might therefore be expected you can point to significant progress that you have made.

Also, is a strong LOR from a well-respected PI considered as a sufficient proof to the adcom that I have potentials in research ? Or do they really need some tangible evidence, such as publication ?

It is a distinct minority of MSTP applicants who have publications (I'd estimate less than 10%), so not having publications isn't a disadvantage in the process.

Note this is all assuming you have been in your current position for a year or two. If you have been there for longer, some may wonder why your name isn't on any pubs from the lab.

 

[kryptonian]

It depends on what you mean by "significant" and also how long you have been working in the lab. As a post-bacc, you do have more time to get things accomplished in lab and it might therefore be expected you can point to significant progress that you have made.



It is a distinct minority of MSTP applicants who have publications (I'd estimate less than 10%), so not having publications isn't a disadvantage in the process.

Note this is all assuming you have been in your current position for a year or two. If you have been there for longer, some may wonder why your name isn't on any pubs from the lab.

Thank you K31 for replying me. I had worked as an undergrad in the lab for about 1.5 years and then have started working as a post-bac for only 0.5 years. During the first 9 months, I was just learning techniques and helping someone else's project, so that means I have really worked on my independent project for only about 1.25 years, as of this point.

I have been able to generate data weekly to give my PI, sometimes quality data and sometimes bad data, but other than that, I have not had anything that's really impressive. Also, with the current progress, my name won't be on any publications when I submit my application in June 2012. There are a few reasons for me not making significant progress in the research. My lab is quite small with only few people, and in the past years after I joined, due to tight funding, it has not been as productive as before. Besides, even though now I'm graduated, I can only work for only about 26 hours/week in the lab and have to work another job to cover the living cost, as I get paid little in the lab. Though, I passionately like my current project, and my PI is really nice. That's why I decided to stay there until the end.

I'm really worried now because I know the research is a major component of the application. I am going to apply in June 2012, which is the coming summer. I'm not sure if my research experience is a weak one ?

 

[QofQuimica]

Your research experience sounds fine to me; 2+ years is a solid level of research involvement. Don't worry too much about the lack of pubs. There is quite a bit of serendipity involved with getting your name on a pub, esp at your stage of the game. What you should be doing at your level is learning about the research process.

Also, do you have any posters or presentations at conferences? If so, those count as research accomplishments. If not, I suggest speaking to your PI about presenting your work. Besides strengthening your app, conferences are a valuable research experience in their own right.

Best of luck. 🙂

 

[kryptonian]

Your research experience sounds fine to me; 2+ years is a solid level of research involvement. Don't worry too much about the lack of pubs. There is quite a bit of serendipity involved with getting your name on a pub, esp at your stage of the game. What you should be doing at your level is learning about the research process.

Also, do you have any posters or presentations at conferences? If so, those count as research accomplishments. If not, I suggest speaking to your PI about presenting your work. Besides strengthening your app, conferences are a valuable research experience in their own right.

Best of luck. 🙂

I do have a poster that I presented at a science fair at my 4-year institution along with other student presenters. Beside that local presentation, I have never gone to any conferences. I don't know if that poster would help much. Though, I will talk to my PI to see if I can get any other presentation opportunities.

Thank you very much for your feedback.

 

[Mtthw46Irish]

Also, with the current progress, my name won't be on any publications when I submit my application in June 2012.

This isn’t as much of a set back as it seems. If there are some pubs in the works you can list those on your applicant as “in prep” or if they are submitted as “submitted”. When I applied I just used a tentative title for the initial application then updated it later. The key is to email your progress to admissions offices between the time you submit your application and they accept/reject you. Every time you submit or present anywhere shoot them a quick email letting them know you are still dedicated to research even after your application was submitted. It’s the dedication they are looking for, not necessarily pubs or presentations.