Moments of true excitement are pretty rare for researchers. Often I find myself at a dead end, staring at growing stacks of notes on initially exciting ideas that didn't work out. Failure is especially demoralizing when it results in abandoning a manuscript — something I have experienced twice.

Such disappointment is, of course, inevitable. But too often my research frustrations stem from feeling pressured to generate results, rather than make new discoveries. Take a hot topic, apply ready-made techniques, analyse the results, fight to publish, repeat. Whatever happened to the dreams of pushing the boundaries of knowledge that got me into science in the first place?

Academic research has its own economy of sorts, although not the type that runs on sales revenues. Grants, mostly from government, turn its wheels: grants produce publications, which in turn measure a researcher's suitability for future funding. This structure has created a colossal pressure to publish, which sometimes trumps the motivation to actually solve interesting problems. As a postdoc, I feel this pressure every day: 'Publish or perish,' as the motto goes. What if I were to go without publishing for a year? Could I still hope to get a job?

Soon I will have to make a decision about how long I can stay in research and follow my calling as a scientist. Should I consider other options? I could get a teaching job, or switch to a field in which outcomes are more applied and tangible, such as engineering or medicine. I have persisted so far, but I feel that the crunch time is near. As I send out applications for faculty positions, I choose to stay optimistic about my options in the system of publish or perish — for now.