“Each man has his own vocation,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. “His talent is his call. There is one direction in which all space is open to him.” Science is often portrayed as a vocation, a calling — as something more than just a job. Underlying this portrayal is the notion that scientists have an intrinsic curiosity about the natural world; indeed, this is probably the most commonly shared attribute among successful scientists of the past and present.

I'd like to tell you that I have an insatiable curiosity for my new field, and chose my project because I couldn't dream of anything else. But frankly, other factors, such as the chance to live in the same city as my fiancée, came into play.

Do we all need to have rabid inquisitiveness in order to be scientists? I can't help pondering this question on those days when the passion for discovery, the longing to know more, is absent. Perhaps a short holiday might provide a chance to recharge. But then I hear Eleanor Roosevelt gently reminding me, “It's not more vacation we need — it's more vocation.”

During those periods of drought, is it okay to treat science as if it's just a job, rather than a vocation? Maybe if I just keep turning up at the lab, day after day, the discipline alone will sustain me until the next Earth-shattering breakthrough gets me back on track.