Part of the book is very interesting! At the Bench
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000][img=260,260]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A6XGD7VFL._SS260_.jpg[/img]
On Kathy Barker’s “At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator”[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]A few days ago, I reviewed Kathy Barker’s “At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator”. This time I purchased her [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]another book, “At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator”. I read part of her book with great joy. These two books[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]are different from each other: while “At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator” deals with how to be a new professor[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000], “At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator” (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2005) tells how to become a [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]new graduate student.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]Although I’m not a graduate student any longer, I still feel quite happy reading this book. It tells me many things [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]my graduate advisors didn’t tell me but I should have known. It makes me recall my first days as a graduate student.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]The major part of the book deals with how to prepare solutions, etc., so they are not very interesting to me. [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]The most interesting part is on how to be a new graduate student. It tells many “unspoken rules” in the lab and how [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]to get along with others in the lab. Some of the descriptions are truly typical in real life, and many comments are [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]insightful. It seems that the author understands students’ psychology very well. Here I select some of the really[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]interesting paragraphs. They are about how to get along with others in the lab, and typical interpersonal problems [/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000]in the lab.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#000000][/color][/size][/font]
[color=blue][font=Times New Roman][size=3]“Collaborations and credit. Collaborations are a rich source of contacts and relationships, and so, as for any [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]relationship, an abundant source of disagreements. Although most collaborations are worked out before the [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]experiments really begin, they can move in unplanned directions. The usual problem is that the importance of [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]the individual experiments has changed, and the assumed first author will be relegated to another position on [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]the credit list. Ask the P.I. to mediate all disputes.” ---- Kathy Barker[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]“Confrontations. Most lab confrontations involve a lab member angry because another lab member broke a [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]piece of equipment and didn’t deal with it, didn’t do the assigned lab job, used up a reagent without ordering [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]more, or used a “private” reagent or equipment without permission. Another class of confrontation deals with [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]intellectual (and emotional) property. Lab members may become angry because they believe another lab member [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]infringed on their project, or discussed sensitive data with an outside person. It is worth the two parties trying [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]to fix this, but it is usually necessary to ask the P.I. to mediate.”---- Kathy Barker[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]“Favorites. In the lab, there always seems to be someone who has the P.I.’s attention and admiration. Look [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]carefully. Is it deserved? Maybe you can learn something. And if it isn’t deserved, mind your own business [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]and learn to not let it bother you. It is only a problem if you feel it results in detrimental treatment to yourself. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Concentrate on your experiments. The favorite could be you! If so, don’t abuse the situation, and don’t let it [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]get to your head. You might be out of favor tomorrow.” ---- Kathy Barker[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]“Gossip and bad-mouthing. Most large labs find a scapegoat, someone to blame for the missing gel combs, [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]radioactive ice buckets, and dearth of good results. Don’t jump on the bandwagon. It is also common for [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]labs to dislike the work of certain other labs, usually competitors. Do not assume this idea is right, and continue [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]to assess competitors’ work honestly and fairly. Don’t disparage other people’s results without good cause. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]It is not true that making someone bad makes you look good. Nothing is to be gained by bad-mouthing anyone.”[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#0000ff][font=Times New Roman][size=3] ---- Kathy Barker
[/size][/font]
[size=3][font=Times New Roman]“In or out. Your data are good, the P.I. thinks you are good. The data are nonexistent, the P.I. thinks you are [/font][/size]
[/color][size=3][color=#000000][font=Times New Roman][color=#0000ff]nothing. Have a thick skin, and don’t rely on results as the sole basis for your feeling of self-worth.”
---- Kathy Barker[/color]
[/font][/color][/size]
[[i] 本帖最后由 zhenma 于 2007-11-6 07:31 编辑 [/i]]
回复 1楼的 zhenma 的帖子
A great book deserves reading many times. “At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator”(written by Kathy Barker, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press) is such kind of great
book. Although the main part of the book (on how to prepare solutions for a biology
lab) is not interesting to me, I found something interesting, mostly about research
philosophy, interpersonal relationships, and communication skills. Here I glean
something interesting and put my comments.
pp. 12-17 tell how to survive in the lab if one is going to join a new lab as a graduate
student. For instance, the author mentions several things not to do during the first week
in the lab. For instance, “Don’t constantly mention, when being shown something, that
‘we don’t do it this way in class/my other lab/the hospital.’ This is an implied insult that
won’t be appreciated.” “Don’t read a newspaper or a novel, or play computers, in the
lab. During every day in the lab, especially early on, there is a lot of dead (non-experiment)
time, but reading the sports section while others are working hard will create a bad first
impression. No, it shouldn’t matter, but it does. Use the time to read relevant literature.”
“Don’t use the telephone or photocopy machine excessively for personal reasons.”
“Don’t suggest that you are working in the lab for any other reason than love of research.
If you have another reason, keep in to your self or you will be perceived as not being
serious about your work.” In addition, the author mentions important attitudes for survival
in the lab. For example, “You should not assume that someone will immediately stop an
experiment to help you whenever you need it, that someone else will deal with the alarm
on the incubator.” “Don’t discuss a fellow lab member’s results with people not in the lab.”
Chapter 4 talks about how to set up an experiment. Although I don’t want the author to
teach me on how to do experiment, I feel many of the philosophical ideas raised by the
author are very similar to mine. Of course, to be a good research, one should not only
be a good experimentalist, but also be a philosopher, scholar, designer, and manager.
For instance, one needs to know the importance of one’s research, remembers that one
must publish the results, sets oneself up as a careful and thorough investigator, and be
a critical thinker.
Sometimes the experiments don’t really work out. The reasons could be many. One of the
reasons is that the idea is doomed to fail in the first place. As mentioned in p. 85, “There
are P.I.s who care little for personnel and assign projects with little chance of success.
This is usually done because they have an idea that they are interested in, but has no
real chance of working. If you feel you are being sacrificed, do something immediately.
Talk to the P.I., and talk to others in the department: It is a character assessments as
well as scientific acumen you must judge. If the P.I. refuses to remove you from a project
that is doomed, you should consider leaving the lab.”
Then, the author mentions under which circumstances a project (or a research idea) should
be stopped and switched to something else. For instance, “The data are not reproducible.
If you cannot replicate your results, even if you heartily believe in them, you cannot further
the project.” “The project has no support from the P.I. Even if you have been given complete
free rein, it makes no sense to continue with a project that the P.I. does not believe it: It is
very difficult to work well on a project the lab head does not like.” “The direction of the project
has changed.” “It is not yet technically possible to do the experiments well. You might have
an outstanding question of major importance, but if you can’t answer that question with the
available technology, you work will merely be sloppy and incomplete.” “The project is too
difficult. The difficulty of a project has to be judged against the time you have to work on it.
If your visa will expire in 2 years, you don’t want to work on a project that will take 4 more
years to continue.”
In the above paragraph, I mentioned several circumstances under which the author suggests
the researcher to quit the project (research idea). I think another circumstance is that, sometimes
even if an experimental idea works out, it is still a routine idea and cannot lead to any good
publication. So, we’d better think better before doing experiments. If the idea is doomed to fail,
don’t do it in the first place! Come up with workable plans and work on doable ideas!
Circumvent technical pitfalls in the first place!
p. 108 talks about attending seminars. The author tells a typical picture: “It is sometimes
hard to avoid the Thursday afternoon, 4 p.m. slump. You sit in a crowded seminar room,
‘listening’ to a lecture. The lights are out, the room is warm, the topic is tepid… but be active
and pull yourself together! It is rude and grotesque to fall asleep and to lean, slack-jawed and
snoring, on the shoulder of the guy next to you. It is insulting to the speaker, and it is an image
the result of the department won’t be able to get out of their heads, maybe forever.”
In all, the main part of the book may be irrelevant to many graduate students, but some
parts are universal. I really enjoy reading part of this book!
[[i] 本帖最后由 zhenma 于 2007-11-7 00:55 编辑 [/i]]
页:
[1]