Is my marketability more important than my curiosity?
Sitting in an empty lab, surrounded by a dark campus, I think to myself: “Why do I want to be a scientist?” I recall a story my father told me. Unclear about the practical application of a difficult measurement, someone asked physiologist A. V. Hill: why did you do the experiment? Hill paused, then said: “Because it amused me.” I want to be a scientist to satisfy my curiosity about the world.
Staring at my first assistant-professor application, I think of what amuses me and satisfies my curiosity. I started my current project with a complex conceptual model for muscle activation. Recalling Henry David Thoreau's advice to “simplify, simplify”, I stripped away the complexity with careful assumptions. Then I found an analytical expression whose taut curve hugged the numerically generated points of the complex model. This process of making a problem, in Einstein's words, “as simple as possible, but not simpler” is what amuses me.
I send my application into cyberspace and wonder about my prospects. Late last year, theoretical and applied mechanics at Cornell, the department where I received my PhD, ceased to exist. The dean merged it into the more experiment-driven (and more fundable) mechanical engineering department. Is there a place for someone whose passion lies more on the theoretical side? Must I ignore what amuses me in favour of what makes me marketable?
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walcott, S. As simple as possible. Nature 458, 374 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7236-374c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7236-374c