The Good Guys of Science
Dear friends,
I received this suggested Forum topic from Susan Forsburg, who recently guest-posted on our Forum about the Tournament Model of Scientific Research here: (http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/tournaments-and-jousting-in-research-ten-years-15658884):
From a recent issue of THE SCIENTIST:
"I was having a particularly good time with some younger colleagues at a meeting last month when the subject of career goals came up. ..Solving challenging and significant scientific problems was at the top of their lists. Interestingly, they were also motivated by a desire to become one of the "good guys" in science.
Good guys are concerned with the welfare of the field in addition to personal research goals.
....The fact that being an important contributor to the scientific community can be fulfilling should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, what I do consider surprising is how rarely this seems to be discussed with students and postdocs.... Knowing how to do our jobs well is indeed essential for any kind of professional success. However, achieving the right balance in our ambitions is also important for our happiness. ... Being a good guy is what we do for ourselves. "
http://www.f1000scientist.com/article/display/57701/
Do you aspire to being a good guy?
A. Yes. It's how I can look at myself in the mirror and be proud of what I've done, regardless of external recognition. And it sets the right example for my students.
B. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
C. No. I don't see many Good Guys among the most accomplished scientists whom I aspire to emulate.
A, shading to B at times. I guess it's when I am very busy that worrying about science in general gets shelved, but it always tends to come back. I might be that kind of person Scifemista mentioned who drifts away and then might return to caring about these issues. FBP
Hi Laura,
I agree that people don't seem to move from neutral to good guys easily. But some people lose interest in being good guys during grad school/postdoc period. Maybe they come back, I don't have a longitudinal study!
Hi Helen,
I agree, some people start out wanted to help science in general and later lose that emphasis, while others are never interested. I've never personally noticed anyone who gets interested later after not caring early on, unless he goes through a serious illness, auto wreck, or similar opportunity for deep reflection. But luckily, there are still those who start out interested in being good guys and can stick with the program, despite the evident success of many who don't care. I am pleased to hear most of those who responded feel they can be a good guy at least some of the time.
cheers,
Laura
B for me. I feel that if I did too much emphasis on this area, I'd lose out in the reward system where I am. But I am not willing to completely give up helping others.
A. One of my biggest worries as a graduate student and young postdoc was if I stopped being a "good guy" and couldn't feel proud of what I saw in the mirror. When you're surrounded by so many "no-so-good" guys during your training you get the idea that good guys just don't win very often. And the big question I thought about was "Were they always like that? Or did the job change them?". After watching friends advance through the years in academe, I think its a mixture of both. Some people you can see early on have "flexible ethics". And others who are moderate find themselves compromising under the pressure incrementally, and one day find that they have fallen very far indeed from their ideals. Those who are passionately committed to being "good guys", often find it difficult to stay the course too when "everybody else" is doing it. I think it's one area where discussion would be helpful for trainees so they can put that goal front and center if its important to them.
I think it's a matter of being able to face yourself in the mirror, frankly. I often wonder about those who are not Good Guys and who put their own interests and ambition over everything, and how they actually face themselves.
Perhaps I have an overdeveloped internal morality.
A for sure. Part of advancing science is successfully mentoring students/grad students/postdocs/fellow colleagues. Our legacy is not only the number of articles we leave behind, but the number of scientists who follow in our footsteps. Being ethical, socially conscious, sensitive to gender and race issues - those all fold into being a "good guy" and mentoring effectively. If nothing else, being a "good guy" will help the public eye see science as something they want to fund, something they want to support.
I feel bad that my first example was not a woman, so I thought about women who have been Good Guys. One that I'd mention is Ruth Sager. She encouraged my friend Kathy and me by hiring us to work in her laboratory at Columbia in summers during college, and I remember being excited by her championing of allowing French scientist Piotr Slonimski into the country for an International Biochemistry meeting when the government had denied his visa because he was a communist. As Ruth pointed out, scientists from Russia were granted visas with no problem.
cheers,
Laura
B for me. I think it's probably my second emphasis, rather than the top job. The most important thing is finding the answer to my scientific questions convincingly and with style. Then comes being a Good Guy of science. I can't think of any examples right now, maybe I'm too tired.
A for me too. I think about Jon Beckwith, his social activism is important for the credibility of science, as far as I'm concerned. I suspect it was not always good for his career to care how science is used, but he stuck by his principles.
When I was in graduate school, we talked a lot about being a scientist like someone in our department who was a Good Guy: Joseph Gall. He later came to the notice of the American Society for Cell Biology because so many of his female graduate students became very important in science. His mentoring extended beyond merely helping them find a position. He reached out to recommend them as speakers and for awards after they left, and in her biography, Elizabeth Blackburn, recent Nobel laureate, was quoted to the effect that without him, she would not have done as well in science. Gall mentored men too, and he was always ready to talk with anyone among the graduate students who had a scientific idea or who needed help of any kind. So when I think about a Good Guy of science, he's the first one to come to my mind.
cheers,
Laura
