phd -- genetic manipulation techniques.

[Dak]

Im thinking about what to do for my PhD, and i'm pretty sure that i want to steer clear of the 'whats this?' science, and go in the direction of the 'how do we do this?' science.

 

I love molecular genetics, and would like to play about with, and figure out, genetic manipulation techniques. for example, at some point someone would have had the problem of how to sequence genomes past 'poison genes', and so developed the technique of chromosome jumping. That's the kind of thing i'd like to do -- develop new techniques, improve existing techniques, etc.

 

I also like studying HIV, and would like to have a retrovirus-based PhD (useful in vectors and whatnot), and would also like to leave my options open to go into HIV research if i want to at the end of my PhD.

 

Anyhoo... i'm a tad confused by the titles of all of the PhDs available (and what they mean re: my carreer).

 

so...

 

given the above, am i right in thinking that i want to end up with a research title (research area?) of something like 'genetic engineering', 'genetic manipulation techniques', 'molecular genetics and HIV' or whatever, and so want to do a PhD that covers molecular genetics and HIV?

 

So any PhD that molecular-genetically investigates an aspect of HIV would be a good PhD to take, that would allow me, after geting my doctorate, to go into either basic or applied HIV research, or into the development of genetic manipulation techniques? so, for example, 'the use of RNA interferance in inpeding HIV replication' or 'blah blah blah HIV pseudotyped FIV gene vector' would be a good PhD for me, as they cover molecular-genetics and HIV?

 

Or am i getting confuzzled?

[ecoli]

Obviously, I'm not a Phd student, so I'm qualified to give offical information. But, I'm pretty sure how it works, is that your school would have different departments you can enter into (yours would be the dep't of genetics, for example). Than, you do rotations in different labs to learn an array of techinques and figure out what you like via hands on experiance. Then, you look for a proffesor doing what you're interested in.

 

does that sound right?

[Genecks]

I would email professors. If one doesn't respond within a week, go up to his or her office and ask for advice. I've learned that asking professors for career advice is a sound decision on many levels. Although one may not have the answers for you, you could ask him or her for resources, people, or other information directories to obtain answers.

 

Email people from different universities and colleges. Don't restrict yourself to a local environment. I've emailed people from different spots on the planet when I don't find a question suitable for SFN.

 

I've learned some professors hold the (would have)-(could have)-(should have) mentality. Those professors would be willing to help you if you ask enough questions.

 

*I have always wanted to get a list of people. in accordance to post-secondary degree level, on my messenger list*

 

I've even emailed Kevin Warwick once about what I should do to get into the University of Reading. He told me it was about location. Go figure. However, what I'm saying is that even some busy, special, and important people have time to help those in need.

[zyncod]

Most PhD programs that I got into (Wash U, Yale, Berkeley, etc.) will allow you the full option of transferring into a lab that interests you. Especially multidisciplinary programs. As someone who's also interested in viruses, I would say to pick the places with the maximum number of PIs doing things that interest you. Because:

1. Some PI's are going to be asses. It's a fact of life. You don't want to tie your grad career to one specific person.

2. You honestly do not yet know what you want to do. Unless you're one of the lucky 1/1000 who moves from grad school directly to a faculty position, or industry is what interests you (blecch), you still have time to explore your options even as a postdoc.

 

It's actually good that you have a range of career interests. Most of the other interviewees that I met were interested in doing something solely relegated to what they had done volunteering in undergrad labs. As somebody who has worked with plants, then in immunology, and has decided that I want to do something not entirely related to either of them, I have to say that people are far more impressed by a willingness to explore other options than being shoehorned into a career when you're 19-20.

[sophster]

Gosh, lots to say about your post and first of all Good Luck finding something.

 

I think the first thing is that don't pay too much attention to the specific title of the PhD projects you see advertised. Virtually everyone I know doing a bioscience PhD has had to change the title of their projects from the one they started out with! My PhD was meant to be totally molecular biology led and using phage display techiques but I've ended up with a very, very different thesis to write up which doesn't mention phage display at all (although I'm quite an extreme case of how much projects can change!)

 

Make sure that you get a project in a lab where there is at least one other person who will be using the same techniques as you. Doing a PhD is an extremely hard, lonely and difficult time. Also check stuff like your potential supervisor has a good publication record and well equipped lab (things like size of the lab/equipment can be checked out when you go for interview).

 

If you are interested in the techniques side of things then you might want to look into one of the 4 year PhDs (there are a few Wellcome trust funded 4 year PhDs that are quite competitive but very well regarded as they provide you with lots of extra training). Alternatively have you looked into doing something like an MRes which would be a chance to really consolidate your practical skills and get more of an idea about which techniques and areas you are really interested in.

[sophster]

I don't want to put you off doing a PhD but I'd recommend you have a look at this, the most honest description of what doing a PhD is like I've ever seen.

 

http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/richardb/PhDtalk.html

 

Still forewarned is forearmed or something.

 

Ooh one last thing (for now) is make sure you do a PhD in a department that got a 5 in the last RAE grading.

[CharonY]

If you want to learn techniques you should obviously look for groups that employ. Of course developing new techniques can be interesting, too, but such projects have several pitfalls. A) the technique might not work at all. B) budget confinements might hamper your progress.

 

Other than that you should look for a topic with a biological question (rather than technique) that interests you. You'll learn the techniques on the fly. So esentially you probably want to look for a group that goes in the direction of viral infections (probably primarily human pathogens). In that case you have to keep in mind that experiments with human pathogens require a certain lab security level, which is not available in many universities.

You probably do not want to drift too much in the direction of virology/microbiology, though.

Other examples may include certain aspects of immunology, medical research, for instance.

So basically check out the topics of interest and then look, if the groups are employing techniques you want to learn (either ask them or read their papers).

[Skye]

You could look at developing patentable techniques and tools.

[scicop]

First let me congratulate you on having such a great desire to pursue basic science! You been given some great advice in the above posts and I'll fill in the gaps a bit.

 

1. Do not pay attention to what "title/program" your PhD is affiliated with. It has no bearing on what can study. At the end of the day, a PhD in any of the biomedical sciences is just a PhD. The distinguishing features of your PhD include

1. whose lab you did you're studies in,

2. your research project

3. your publications

4. ability to secure a grant.

5. did i mention whose lab you did your studies in?

 

2. If you've narrowed your research interest down to the level you have, look for professors you may be interested working for and contact them. Apply to only the schools were there are faculty you would like to work with.

 

3. Do not think of your PHD as an "final goal". You will set your self up for dissappointment.

 

4. Realize that it is a very daunting task and you should alway keep in the back of your mind what career path you want AFTER your phd and how you will get closure to that path DURING your PhD.

 

5. Also understand, that although studying the "RNAi based mechanism for reduction of HIV RT expression" may sound all fancy and stuff, the reality is that the skills and techniques you will use to study that system will NOT BE COMMERCIALLY VALUABLE in today's pharmaceutical environment as well as tomorrows.

 

6. So really think about pursuing the PhD. its tough and the rewards can be very little. You must LOVE EXPERIMENTAL PURSUIT of science to enjoy the phd experience, because if you don't, you'll be in for a miserable time.!!

 

Take that..from one PHD, to a future Phd!

[Dak]

Cheers everyone. between you guys and two of my lectureres, im alot clearer about the whole PhD thing now.

 

one of my lectureres suggested doing genomic sequensing for a PhD. said it was quite booring, but would give me a solid knowledge of the current genetic manipulaiton techniques.

 

So looks like my PhD might not be a non-stop rollercoaster of exitement, eh

[CharonY]

ehm. Sequencing? I hope it is not the whole scope, is it? I mean the usual work in this field is the creation of libraries (either BAC or shotgun, depending on strategy). If you are really unlucky you'll gonna have to do the sequencing, too (hopefully with a capillary sequencer, or maybe a pyrosequencer system?).

After that it is only computer work (until you get to the polishing phase, depending on what you sequence).

Of course it is something different if you do postgenomics, that is, you already have the sequence and start working from there. In that case you can utilize genome information to do targeted genetic manipulations.

[scicop]

Cheers everyone. between you guys and two of my lectureres' date=' im alot clearer about the whole PhD thing now.

 

one of my lectureres suggested doing genomic sequensing for a PhD. said it was quite booring, but would give me a solid knowledge of the current genetic manipulaiton techniques.

 

So looks like my PhD might not be a non-stop rollercoaster of exitement, eh [/quote']

 

The other thing you should also consider is that you DONT need a PhD to pursue science. You may need it to perhaps one-day, (if you're lucky) run your own academic rsearch lab but that's it. Pharma, biotech and some cases academia can have some really great science jobs that you can pursue with a BS/MS. And, believe it or not, these days a BS/MS is more competitive to have than a PhD, at least for industrial (pharma/biotech) science.

 

You think the people who are doing all the shot-gun genome sequencing at PhDs? nope!! some don't even have a college degree. They just push buttons and add a couple drops of liquid into the machine from time to time.

How about High Thoughput Screening...PhDs?..nope..BSs/MSs.

 

I'm know some great scientist without PhDs, I even known some without college degrees, who made myself and other PhDs look like idiots. They may not have been the boss of the lab, but the still did excellent science and knew what they were doing and enjoyed their job! I would have given them an honarary ph.d. anyday. ....Hell I tried to give them mine but they told me they'd rather have their left arm severed off.

 

And you're probably young, so you may think having a PhD may make you seem smart. Well, that's not true. PhD does not mean you're smart one bit.

 

a PhD means that you've worked VERY HARD and PERSISTED in the face of failure.

 

PhD also means that you could be kinda dumb. Spend so many years in academia to have very little commercial value?? hmm...yup..i'm dumb.

 

and by the time you're done and somebody calls you "doctor"..you'll wince at the term and beg never to be called by such title ever again!

[sophster]

I wish I'd had someone like you to point out stuff like that before I signed up to do a PhD scicop. I think there is a definite tendency, in the UK at least, to railroad good undergrads into doing a PhD after they graduate - afterall consider how biased your lecturers are. Doing a PhD is really, really hard work. Not just thinking hard, but it's emotionally hard, or can be if you aren't in a really good and supportive research lab.

 

I would really strongly recommend anyone who wants to do a PhD to take at least a couple of years out and get used to working in a lab/research environment and be 110% sure that they are doing a PhD in an area they are really interested and passionate about. Doing a PhD just because it's something to do/might improve your career prospects (essentially my reasoning) will not get you through it.

 

Also if it's just techniques which you are interested in have a look at something like an MSc/MRes where you get to experience lots of different experimental techniques (I managed to learn more experimental skills in a 1 year MRes than in 4 years as a PhD student).

[CharonY]

PhD also means that you could be kinda dumb.

 

I think you can safely scrap that "could". In addition the lack of money you have to add that after getting phd it is even harder to keep your job. In quite a lot of countries there is a time limit in which you can be employed in universities unless you get tenure or something equivalent. So even if you wanted to (and who would?), you cannot stay postdoc forever. And finally especially in most biological areas there are far more scientists than positions. So for your career's sake you have to work even harder after your phd (if you want to stay in academia) to get a good publication record. PhD students routinely work at least 60 hs a week, (more during the "crunch time"). Depending on your position as postdoc more often than not you have to do some administrativa, teaching and training of students in addition to reasearch. So expect 70 hours or more, depending on your field and lab.

 

The only weird thing is that for my live I cannot imagine doing someething else. I suppose the solvents you use eventually degrade your brain...

[scicop]

I wish I'd had someone like you to point out stuff like that before I signed up to do a PhD scicop. I think there is a definite tendency' date=' in the UK at least, to railroad good undergrads into doing a PhD after they graduate - afterall consider how biased your lecturers are. Doing a PhD is really, really hard work. Not just thinking hard, but it's emotionally hard, or can be if you aren't in a really good and supportive research lab.

 

I would really strongly recommend anyone who wants to do a PhD to take at least a couple of years out and get used to working in a lab/research environment and be 110% sure that they are doing a PhD in an area they are really interested and passionate about. Doing a PhD just because it's something to do/might improve your career prospects (essentially my reasoning) will not get you through it.

 

Also if it's just techniques which you are interested in have a look at something like an MSc/MRes where you get to experience lots of different experimental techniques (I managed to learn more experimental skills in a 1 year MRes than in 4 years as a PhD student).[/quote']

 

yeah same reason I went for mine..career prospects. Instead nobody told me that pharma companeis would be more interested in finding new indications for thier already marketed drugs than put more money into drug discovery.

 

Nobody told me that the NIH would slash grant money, an onlyfund 9% when I graduated.

 

No one told me that employers look for business accumen and value experience rather than "degree".

 

I won't make the mistake a say a PhD is education, that stopped when I stopped taking course work and learned the techniques i was to use thoughout grad school.

 

However, there is hope and the hope is to go where the scientist arn't! I think alternative-alternative careers are the path for new PhDs these days, if they can get their foot in the door.

[Skye]

Interesting figures quoted in a magazine called Australasian Science. Annual growth of the number of people enrolled in a "PhD by research" programs in Oz is 13.5%. This compares with annual growth of the number of researchers of 3.5%. Less than 25% of US post docs completing fellowships obtained a tenure-track position. 22% of Euro PhD graduates get tenure-track careers.

 

The author is the president of the Australian Academy of Science, so it's not just some embittered post doc. He pins part of the blame on supervisors who want cheap student labour and part on governments for not funding more intermediate level positions. But he says that science students need to be advised of other career options.