Science not for me??

[amarinthal]

I've hit an impasse in my science career. At first I went into a Biology major as an undergrad for medical school. However, seeing that I had a knack for scientific concepts and often set the curve for numerous classes in my major, I decided to look more seriously into research. My first few research stints were on a volunteer basis, for class credit, or for an undergrad senior thesis. They all turned out well, where I obtained references and poster presentations. The skills I developed eventually landed me a prestigious research fellowship right out of finishing a Master's degree in biomedicine.

Sadly, the lab I entered for my fellowship disintegrated, and I was ushered into another lab we were in collaboration with, and the PI wanted me to continue by spearheading the project. Things didn't end great as my project stalled for a year, and I was, in essence, "kicked" out of lab due to personality conflicts. This had never happened to me before, and I was distraught. My PI didn't think I was interested in the research; he said I was "unmentorable" and didn't have the "mind of a scientist."
I decided not to take the experience too personally, and I started another lab position as a lab manager/technician. Things started off great. I thought we were making leeway on my project as results were panning out as expected, but after some crucial validation steps we found out that my model was incorrect. The next day, without any warning, I was told that I had been reported to HR by my PI for falsifying data. I was so shocked, and before they could have me sign a consent form, I quit.

I feel like science may not be in the cards for me. For some reason, I can't seem to publish within a year and I don't know why. I find it so hard to give up on this career field, but I'm left feeling like I'm too stupid or too different or not cut out for research, or maybe I'm just not lucky enough. What's more, I've become disillusioned with the business of science.

I'm wondering if I can get advice from more experienced people in the field who have some mentorship experience-- Would you say I should quit the field of science?

Edited November 18, 2018 by amarinthal

[koti]

1 hour ago, amarinthal said:

I've hit an impasse in my science career. At first I went into a Biology major as an undergrad for medical school. However, seeing that I had a knack for scientific concepts and often set the curve for numerous classes in my major, I decided to look more seriously into research. My first few research stints were on a volunteer basis, for class credit, or for an undergrad senior thesis. They all turned out well, where I obtained references and poster presentations. The skills I developed eventually landed me a prestigious research fellowship right out of finishing a Master's degree in biomedicine.

Sadly, the lab I entered for my fellowship disintegrated, and I was ushered into another lab we were in collaboration with, and the PI wanted me to continue by spearheading the project. Things didn't end great as my project stalled for a year, and I was, in essence, "kicked" out of lab due to personality conflicts. This had never happened to me before, and I was distraught. My PI didn't think I was interested in the research; he said I was "unmentorable" and didn't have the "mind of a scientist."
I decided not to take the experience too personally, and I started another lab position as a lab manager/technician. Things started off great. I thought we were making leeway on my project as results were panning out as expected, but after some crucial validation steps we found out that my model was incorrect. The next day, without any warning, I was told that I had been reported to HR by my PI for falsifying data. I was so shocked, and before they could have me sign a consent form, I quit.

I feel like science may not be in the cards for me. For some reason, I can't seem to publish within a year and I don't know why. I find it so hard to give up on this career field, but I'm left feeling like I'm too stupid or too different or not cut out for research, or maybe I'm just not lucky enough. What's more, I've become disillusioned with the business of science.

I'm wondering if I can get advice from more experienced people in the field who have some mentorship experience-- Would you say I should quit the field of science?

I would definitely not make any moves for a while untill you settle down and think things through a dozen times over a period of several weeks. Secondly, there is no guarantee you wouldn’t end up in similar situations if you were in a different field than science, try getting some objective insight on yourself from people. I can tell you from my own experience and experience of others that your self esteme and your general state of mind matters a great deal - the same task can be impossible to do or can be a piece of cake depending on your state of mind. I would look into improving yourself, go see a good shrink or meet new people and discuss this with them to get insight. And remember that being a manager at a lab renders you having more knowledge than probably 1% of people on the planet. Don’t f it up and just walk away from that, use your experience and learn from mistakes/failures.

Edit: My personal view is that you should never walk away from a situation like the one you explained above where you quit before they made you sign a concent form. After all is gone, your integrity is all you got and you should fight to the death to defend it. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by koti

[CharonY]

On 11/17/2018 at 8:49 PM, amarinthal said:

I've hit an impasse in my science career. At first I went into a Biology major as an undergrad for medical school. However, seeing that I had a knack for scientific concepts and often set the curve for numerous classes in my major, I decided to look more seriously into research. My first few research stints were on a volunteer basis, for class credit, or for an undergrad senior thesis. They all turned out well, where I obtained references and poster presentations. The skills I developed eventually landed me a prestigious research fellowship right out of finishing a Master's degree in biomedicine.

Sadly, the lab I entered for my fellowship disintegrated, and I was ushered into another lab we were in collaboration with, and the PI wanted me to continue by spearheading the project. Things didn't end great as my project stalled for a year, and I was, in essence, "kicked" out of lab due to personality conflicts. This had never happened to me before, and I was distraught. My PI didn't think I was interested in the research; he said I was "unmentorable" and didn't have the "mind of a scientist."
I decided not to take the experience too personally, and I started another lab position as a lab manager/technician. Things started off great. I thought we were making leeway on my project as results were panning out as expected, but after some crucial validation steps we found out that my model was incorrect. The next day, without any warning, I was told that I had been reported to HR by my PI for falsifying data. I was so shocked, and before they could have me sign a consent form, I quit.

I feel like science may not be in the cards for me. For some reason, I can't seem to publish within a year and I don't know why. I find it so hard to give up on this career field, but I'm left feeling like I'm too stupid or too different or not cut out for research, or maybe I'm just not lucky enough. What's more, I've become disillusioned with the business of science.

I'm wondering if I can get advice from more experienced people in the field who have some mentorship experience-- Would you say I should quit the field of science?

So, some of the things you mentioned that folks describe you (e.g. unmentorable, or getting accused of falsifying data) are quite significant red flags. But without knowing context, it is difficult to tell whether you got in some unfavourable situations or whether you contributed to them. The other part are unrealistic goals. As a PhD candidate it is not typical in biomedical research to expect publications within the first year, unless you finish up someone else's work. And even then the PI  typically rewrites the whole thing, anyway. From the perspective of a mentor your description of the events mostly show that things happened and that you are upset with it. But it does not tell anything about your suitability for a science career (or any other career for that matter). 

From my perspective you have to deal with two things. The first is the emotional aspects, which Koti covered. The second is figuring out the tangibles that got you these evaluations. How was your relationship to your supervisor, what were the issues, how did you address them, were you dismissive... and so on.

[amarinthal]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

So, some of the things you mentioned that folks describe you (e.g. unmentorable, or getting accused of falsifying data) are quite significant red flags. But without knowing context, it is difficult to tell whether you got in some unfavourable situations or whether you contributed to them. The other part are unrealistic goals. As a PhD candidate it is not typical in biomedical research to expect publications within the first year, unless you finish up someone else's work. And even then the PI  typically rewrites the whole thing, anyway. From the perspective of a mentor your description of the events mostly show that things happened and that you are upset with it. But it does not tell anything about your suitability for a science career (or any other career for that matter). 

From my perspective you have to deal with two things. The first is the emotional aspects, which Koti covered. The second is figuring out the tangibles that got you these evaluations. How was your relationship to your supervisor, what were the issues, how did you address them, were you dismissive... and so on.

I've decided I'm going to keep trying to pursue research. I'm planning on volunteering in a lab more oriented towards my career interests and seeing how it goes before really calling it quits.

Both labs didn't have a lot of students that passed through as they either weren't interested in mentoring (the first lab-- it entirely consisted of experienced postdocs), or just started (the second lab, where I was tasked to build it from the ground up). In the scenario where the PI said I was "unmentorable", we had significant communication issues. I had integrated into his lab from a core and was spearheading a project using a technique he wasn't at all familiar with. I didn't know how to talk to him about it as I was a novice and struggled with troubleshooting and he'd get very anxious. Despite my skills, it really was my first real "lab job." What's more, it was a project that had stalled for 2 years, so when I came into the picture and successfully got it moving, the postdoc who I thought I'd been assigned under as it was supposed to eventually be for her project became envious towards me and things got hostile pretty quick. It was bad enough that my PI would humiliate her whenever I showed him data I struggled with, so I was told by everyone in the lab to stop communicating with him. I messed up because I didn't leave that mess of a lab right away like I should have.

With regards to the second accusation, I didn't falsify data at all. I was in an entry level position carrying out my PI's orders. I don't understand how I could falsify data when I was doing what the PI had asked. She did state a protocol in the very beginning but changed it along the way due to competing priorities, and so the protocol wasn't followed with high fidelity. I showed her data every step of the way. If there was a "right" way to do it, my PI should have told me. It irks me that the model came out incorrect and my PI did a weird backtracking, scapegoating thing and accused me of something so serious I had to quit to keep my integrity intact. I can only think it's personal; maybe I smell bad.
She also had major favoritism issues; she once compared an undergrad who I literally taught how to pipette "comparable to a postdoc." It was bewildering.

Both situations seem pretty terrible to me. Like, I'm not sure what more I can do moving forward other than protecting myself against abusive PIs and leaving hostile lab environments ASAP.

I don't know why in both situations the labs told me that I should have things published within the year.

For once, I'd just like to work in a lab that won't screw me over.

And in retrospect, I feel like the main issue was my PIs not being able to manage their own emotions (anxiety or anger); am I supposed to manage their feelings for them; that's ridiculous.

Edited November 20, 2018 by amarinthal

[CharonY]

As someone who has been in working very toxic environments there are a couple of comments I have. But first, let me preface it by stating that obviously by only having a part and only one side of the story I will have to make many assumptions. The hard aspects that are telltale signs of toxic situations are when the boss humiliates their students or postdoc. The first thing of note is of course not to get into that situation in the first place. Abusive PIs have to be avoided and I would understand if as a novice you will have a hard time navigating that.

One thing in your description that strikes me is that you describe how folks have behaved toward you, but you present yourself entirely in the passive. I am obviously not asking you to describe things in detail. But it would be important to reflect on how yo communicated with whom and how it may have appeared to them. For example, how did yo manage the apparent conflict between the postdoc and PI? To provide perspective, I was often in situations where I was swooping in to rescue a failing project. What I tried to do was building win-win situations and discourage the PI from assigning blame. I.e. ensure and communicate early on that one wants to go for shared authorships etc.

Obviously this is a bit easier as postdoc or perhaps even as senior grad student but trying to build a collaborative atmosphere, even if the PI poisons the atmosphere can mitigate a number of issues. The other half is of course managing the PI's expectations. Especially with regard to changing demands, it is useful to communicate a part in writing. E.g. if in a meeting some changes to a protocol are made, you go back, write up the changes (i.e. not only the data) and send it off to have the PI validate them. That way you have an audit trail of sorts that would show the changes but also would make sure that you may not have misunderstood anything.

Or to put it differently, even as a student you can and you should be proactive in managing interactions and expectations but also reflect on how your behaviour would be viewed through the lens of your supervisor. Of course it is much more difficult with toxic PIs and sometimes outright impossible. However, it is important not to view oneself as entirely passive in that situation. Even unintentionally (and sometimes even by being passive) one can deteriorate a bad situation.

[amarinthal]

Yes, you are right. Thank you, CharonY. 

[CharonY]

19 hours ago, amarinthal said:

Yes, you are right. Thank you, CharonY. 

You are very welcome. One thing I should add, despite the fact that I talked about from an academic perspective, you will find similar challenges in all areas of work. I.e. the ability to identify and avoid or deal with these situations are pretty much needed everywhere. It is not so much whether it is science or industry or any other field. It really is all about the folks you interact with.