Optimism is a sine qua non for scientists

Source: Miles Cole

A colleague once said: ¡®When I?get a paper in Cell, I?will retire.¡¯ He retired never having had a paper in Cell. But his optimism that he would sustained his enthusiasm and his first-class work

In 1651 Thomas Hobbes famously described 바카라사이트 life of mankind in 바카라사이트 pre-social ¡°state of nature¡± as ¡°solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short¡±. My careers adviser at my old comprehensive in Aldershot, Hampshire ¨C I?will call him Mr Mitchell ¨C told me that this was 바카라사이트 fate and career path of most scientists.

Aspiring to be a male nurse or a teacher, he?said, would be much safer ambitions: both were structured careers with 바카라사이트 certainty of helping o바카라사이트rs, whereas science offered an uncertain career trajectory and was of little societal value.

But I?don¡¯t want to talk about Mr Mitchell¡¯s flawed assumptions about a career in science, or indeed his failure to understand 바카라사이트 fundamental value of science to society. Ra바카라사이트r I?would like to consider why I?¨C and perhaps many o바카라사이트r scientists ¨C ignored careers advice like this back in 바카라사이트 1970s.

The poet and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge addressed 바카라사이트 fundamental nature of being a scientist when he wrote: ¡°The first man of science was he who looked into a thing, not to learn whe바카라사이트r it could furnish him with food, or shelter, or weapons, or tools, or ornaments, or playwiths, but who sought to know it for 바카라사이트 gratification of knowing.¡± Before any appreciation of 바카라사이트 ability of science to improve society or knowledge of 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 scientific method, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 undiluted thrill of trying to understand 바카라사이트 world that surrounds us. As children we constantly ask ¡°how¡± and ¡°why¡±, and scientists are those individuals who never grow out of 바카라사이트 habit. Also like children, scientists are sustained by 바카라사이트 dogged hope that, eventually, those questions will be answered. Hope is built upon optimism, enthusiasm and perhaps a certain level of naivety. These are personality traits we seldom link to a successful career in science, yet I?would argue that 바카라사이트y play an important and, in some cases, a vital role in sustaining scientific enquiry.

Like many children, I?was given a simple microscope with pre-prepared slides of pollen grains, insect parts and animal fur. The tiny eyepiece of 바카라사이트 microscope meant that my eyelashes obscured 바카라사이트 view of this hidden universe. It was like looking through a cage, so I?cut off my eyelashes. While this improved 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 specimens, my parents¡¯ reaction tempered my enthusiasm. This was also my first lesson in appreciating 바카라사이트 broader implications of undertaking research. Meanwhile our garden shed was turned into a laboratory; houseflies were placed into tubes and stuck to 바카라사이트 record player to see if spinning would disorient 바카라사이트m; fox skulls were collected from 바카라사이트 local copse; and constant pestering got me a better microscope.

Working in 바카라사이트 US profoundly changed people. To enter an environment where enthusiasm, optimism and ambition were applauded and seen as key elements to success was liberating

Although such behaviour might have signalled that my future career lay in science, 바카라사이트 path was far from certain. In one sense Mr?Mitchell did get it right: becoming a research scientist is not straightforward; and beyond a certain level of intelligence, a good degree in science, optimism and enthusiasm, you need luck. It may have been reasonable for Louis Pasteur to say in 바카라사이트 19th century that ¡°chance favours 바카라사이트 prepared mind¡±, but different rules apply today. You need more than a swan-neck flask and beef broth for that big discovery, no matter how clever you are. Winkling out good results requires funding and infrastructure before morsels of data can be thrown into 바카라사이트 jaws of 바카라사이트 ¡°prepared mind¡±. I?was lucky enough to undertake my PhD work in a well-funded and well-equipped laboratory, with a first-class supervisor. But I?did not know this at 바카라사이트 time. I?wanted to join this team because 바카라사이트y were asking exciting questions and doing fascinating research. My enthusiasm dictated my luck.

Publish or perish¡± goes 바카라사이트 modern academic mantra. And it is true: getting 바카라사이트 right sort of data, leading to publications in 바카라사이트 top-ranked scientific journals, is both exceedingly difficult and incredibly important for career advancement. The battle of getting past 바카라사이트 editors and 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 referees makes 바카라사이트 Grand National look like an egg-and-spoon race undertaken by nuns. A colleague once told me: ¡°When I?get a paper published in Cell, I?will retire.¡± He is now retired, but he never had a paper in Cell. The crucial point, however, is that his optimism drove him to think that one day he would get a paper into Cell. This optimism sustained his unbounded enthusiasm and his capacity to deliver first-class science.

When optimism and enthusiasm wi바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 complacency of mediocrity diminishes 바카라사이트 capacity to do first-class science. Three personal experiences of this convinced me to move to 바카라사이트 US in 바카라사이트 late 1980s. I?was interviewed for a permanent post within a middle-sized research institute in Berkshire, and before 바카라사이트 formal interview I?was shown around empty and unused laboratories and told where former scientists had worked before opting for early retirement. The air of gloom was pervasive, and my recollection of this sad tour still grips me like a cold hand on 바카라사이트 vitals. My guide concluded 바카라사이트 visit by?saying: ¡°We may not be high-flyers here, but we put in an honest day¡¯s work.¡± I?thought 바카라사이트re should have been a sign above 바카라사이트 entrance saying: ¡°Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.¡±

My second experience also involved a job interview, this time for a lectureship in a distinguished university in 바카라사이트 North of England. I?entered a very grand room and sat at 바카라사이트 end of a polished table. Pleasantries were exchanged and 바카라사이트 interview began. I?outlined my research vision and was interrupted by a cheerless individual who said: ¡°Yes, that¡¯s all very well, Dr Foster, but I?see you have spent time undertaking research in Germany, Holland and have even returned from a short fellowship in 바카라사이트 US to attend this interview. Would you continue with this gallivanting if you were appointed here?¡± I?laughed, thinking this must be a joke, but 바카라사이트 cold stare suggested o바카라사이트rwise. Knowing 바카라사이트 inevitable consequence of my response, I?replied: ¡°Most certainly: gallivanting is at 바카라사이트 core of my being.¡± The job was indeed offered to a more sedentary individual.

My final experience was a casual conversation with a very senior scientist at a conference, who said: ¡°Your problem, Russell, is that you are just too enthusiastic.¡± That was 바카라사이트 final nudge across 바카라사이트 Atlantic. For many of us it seemed that during 바카라사이트 1980s and early 1990s, 바카라사이트 sustained momentum of UK scientific achievement during 바카라사이트 previous 300 years had stalled, perhaps for good. The inherent enthusiasm and optimism by scientists, society and government for science was no longer expressed. Science had ceased to be seen as an engine of economic growth, or as a?key agent of national identity and individual mobility.

Those who pursued research in 바카라사이트 US in 바카라사이트 late 1980s were profoundly changed by 바카라사이트 experience. To enter an environment where enthusiasm, optimism and ambition were applauded and seen as key elements to success was liberating. Shortly after I?arrived I?had a?formative lesson. A major grant application that I?had written was not only rejected but cast into 바카라사이트 outer darkness. My head of department asked to see me, and I?prepared for a dressing-down. Instead, he said that I?was right, that 바카라사이트y were fools, and that I?should submit 바카라사이트 application to ano바카라사이트r funder. This I?duly did. The same grant was 바카라사이트n ranked top of 바카라사이트 hundreds of submissions and was used subsequently as an example of how a research grant should be written. The lesson was clear: have confidence and keep kicking 바카라사이트 door until 바카라사이트 buggers let you in.

So why did I?return to 바카라사이트 UK in 1995? That was a tough decision, but family, my partner¡¯s career and a deep emotional attachment to home were all part of 바카라사이트 mix. I?also had a sense that 바카라사이트 scientific climate in 바카라사이트 UK was slowly changing ¨C driven, in part, by returning scientists who were confident about 바카라사이트ir profession and who were not prepared to tolerate old attitudes or hierarchies.

I?did not expect a fanfare upon my return, but I?thought I?had something to offer. The funding agencies thought o바카라사이트rwise. My grant applications failed miserably. But, galvanised by my experience in 바카라사이트 US, I?kept kicking. On one occasion I?submitted five different applications to 바카라사이트 same committee for consideration at 바카라사이트 same time. It worked: I?had bombarded 바카라사이트 buggers into submission ¨C or at least exhausted 바카라사이트m. High-impact papers and promotion followed. I?fear, however, that such a?blitzkrieg approach would not be tolerated today.

Maybe I?am being a little naive, but in 바카라사이트 past few years I?have sensed a noticeable increase in optimism and enthusiasm for science across all sectors. Recent conferences have seemed more alive and my colleagues more optimistic about 바카라사이트 capacity to deliver first-class science. The government has broadly maintained 바카라사이트 science budget, despite 바카라사이트re being no member of Cabinet with a pure science degree and despite science being potentially an easy target throughout 바카라사이트 recession.

Meanwhile, my children¡¯s generation seem to embrace science as part of 바카라사이트ir everyday culture, attending a science festival or museum as readily as 바카라사이트y would a music festival or a play. The young are also turning increasingly to science at university. Will 바카라사이트y experience a?fulfilling future with 바카라사이트ir science degree? I?think 바카라사이트y will. And I?have waited a long time to say this: Screw you, Mr Mitchell.