Now that it's been a few months since my second rotation, I can say that I have made my decision.
As you probably (don't) recall, my first summer rotation was emotionally great, but scientifically unsuccessful. I really felt at ease with the lab member and the mentoring style of the PI. I admired the innovative imaging techniques that the lab was developing and using to look at circuit development. The rigor of scientific thinking that occurs there is exactly what I want. I understand the power and value of the model system, but unfortunately, the development of the drosophila visual system just isn't as subjectively interesting as it is objectively interesting.
However, I know that 4 weeks is not enough time to really taste the science of a lab of that size (never mind trying to digest it). In addition, the fact that my project failed does affect my feelings about the lab. I am aware of these things. But it doesn't stop my from worrying that I will not wake up during my PhD years with the desire to push my research forward.
This past summer's 7 week experience was drastically different. The lab itself is very small, and I would be the only graduate student there. Partly due to stylistic and practical differences in running a smaller lab, this PI was much more hands-on and involved in the day-to-day progress of everyone's projects. Of course, this can be both a positive and negative thing. I did find that when I ran into problems, as long as I came to the PI having tried to troubleshoot based on reasonable analysis, he was very open to problem-solving with me. Granted, the project that I did went very smoothly, which means that unlike my first summer, I did not get a chance to see the PI react to serious scientific setbacks.
A surprise factor in my decision is the fact that another MD/PhD student recently left the lab due to personality conflicts with the PI. This is, of course, worrying. In my admittedly brief interactions, the student seemed as a friendly person who was fascinated by the work. However, I tried my best to keep an open mind since how well two-people's personalities mesh together is a delicate thing.
In the end, I really enjoyed my time in the lab. I can foresee the potential for conflict, but truly believe that the PI has learned from his previous mistakes (which he acknowledged) and that these conflicts are solvable. My program director correctly reminded me that mentors are only human, and that they too, make mistakes and learn from them. Even the PI from my first summer stated that he, too, has had people leave the lab due to personality conflict and that shouldn't necessarily reflect badly on either person.
Another consideration is the availability of the PI. I feel like because I lack experience with proposal/grant/paper writing, I needed someone who was willing and had the time to guide me in this process. I cannot intuitively figure out how to make a piece of writing better if I don't understand why a change improves the work. In talking with the post-docs in the smaller lab, I heard a lot about how supportive and encouraging the PI was in the writing process. This is not to say that the big-name PI wouldn't be, but he will simply have less time available because he has more demanding his attention.
Perhaps most importantly, I am genuinely excited by the work being done by the PI from this past summer. In the ridiculous giddy way that I felt with some of my previous research projects. Those were the times when I felt driven to work hard even if, or maybe especially if, things were not going smoothly. And I know that I am going to need that drive during my PhD years because that is a huge part of what the PhD is about. It's trying, and failing, and learning.
As you probably (don't) recall, my first summer rotation was emotionally great, but scientifically unsuccessful. I really felt at ease with the lab member and the mentoring style of the PI. I admired the innovative imaging techniques that the lab was developing and using to look at circuit development. The rigor of scientific thinking that occurs there is exactly what I want. I understand the power and value of the model system, but unfortunately, the development of the drosophila visual system just isn't as subjectively interesting as it is objectively interesting.
However, I know that 4 weeks is not enough time to really taste the science of a lab of that size (never mind trying to digest it). In addition, the fact that my project failed does affect my feelings about the lab. I am aware of these things. But it doesn't stop my from worrying that I will not wake up during my PhD years with the desire to push my research forward.
This past summer's 7 week experience was drastically different. The lab itself is very small, and I would be the only graduate student there. Partly due to stylistic and practical differences in running a smaller lab, this PI was much more hands-on and involved in the day-to-day progress of everyone's projects. Of course, this can be both a positive and negative thing. I did find that when I ran into problems, as long as I came to the PI having tried to troubleshoot based on reasonable analysis, he was very open to problem-solving with me. Granted, the project that I did went very smoothly, which means that unlike my first summer, I did not get a chance to see the PI react to serious scientific setbacks.
A surprise factor in my decision is the fact that another MD/PhD student recently left the lab due to personality conflicts with the PI. This is, of course, worrying. In my admittedly brief interactions, the student seemed as a friendly person who was fascinated by the work. However, I tried my best to keep an open mind since how well two-people's personalities mesh together is a delicate thing.
In the end, I really enjoyed my time in the lab. I can foresee the potential for conflict, but truly believe that the PI has learned from his previous mistakes (which he acknowledged) and that these conflicts are solvable. My program director correctly reminded me that mentors are only human, and that they too, make mistakes and learn from them. Even the PI from my first summer stated that he, too, has had people leave the lab due to personality conflict and that shouldn't necessarily reflect badly on either person.
Another consideration is the availability of the PI. I feel like because I lack experience with proposal/grant/paper writing, I needed someone who was willing and had the time to guide me in this process. I cannot intuitively figure out how to make a piece of writing better if I don't understand why a change improves the work. In talking with the post-docs in the smaller lab, I heard a lot about how supportive and encouraging the PI was in the writing process. This is not to say that the big-name PI wouldn't be, but he will simply have less time available because he has more demanding his attention.
Perhaps most importantly, I am genuinely excited by the work being done by the PI from this past summer. In the ridiculous giddy way that I felt with some of my previous research projects. Those were the times when I felt driven to work hard even if, or maybe especially if, things were not going smoothly. And I know that I am going to need that drive during my PhD years because that is a huge part of what the PhD is about. It's trying, and failing, and learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment