How important PhD will be?

[Lindenberg]

Hey guys, I would like to know a few opinions on this. How important do you guys think a Ms or PhD degree will be in the next 10+ years in life sciences? Because many of the people I know working on their Ms or PhD in molecular biology, is that they learn a few techniques in 1 year or so and then they just look like machines, just repeating a few protocols over and over again. And they also get too concentrated on a specific subject...

I also read on Wired about a guy that left his PhD to run his DIY bio lab. Do you guys think it's crazy?

Except for the practical part, today with the internet and easy access to books we can study whatever we want, when we want, we don't need to be trapped on a specific course anymore.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lindenberg <ff.lin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I also read on Wired about a guy that left his PhD to run his DIY bio lab. Do you guys think it's crazy?

Nope, Wired is not crazy in this instance. That person probably exists and he probably indeed did that. You don't need a PhD to work in your own lab.

However, you might be asking a different question, like about employment possibilities in the life sciences without a degree. There's a lot of available biology labor on the market that has a degree and is already willing to work for low wages (because "science isn't about money".. which is fine, more money for me I guess). These trends in hiring might change if the science industry starts hiring more for science talent rather than degrees, but that won't become a trend in the industry on its own.

You could run miles around the average biology graduate with your own lab, or even your own company, but if you want to get a job as a fifth-level pipettor, then I would say that working on your own lab, doing everything yourself, is an extremely round-about way of getting that job..

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[C.R.S.]

I found very early in my medical laboratory career that without a B.S. you have the status of a cockroach. After I got my B.Sc I then found out if they couldn't call you Doctor you again had the status of a cockroach. Fortunately at that time one could own and be a director of a medical laboratory without formal education in the medical sciences or even a degree. I opened my own laboratory and accepted work from physicians' offices and small hospitals before the greed of the physicians who demanded kickbacks or special favors soured me on clinical laboratories.

Ed

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Ravasz]

Isn't that person Cathal? He is here on the list and answers questions quite frequently. I'm sure he can tell you more about his story if you ask. Its a real success story.

I have to add though that when I did my master degree I had a few nice lab skills and could complete assignments if guided by a supervisor. I didn't feel like an independent researcher yet. Now I'm currently finishing my PhD, and now I can say that I am able to build up my own project from scratch. That is, I can apply for grants and even get them, I can build up a lab and supervise students or technicians, and most importantly, I am now able to design my own projects. This is something I really had to learn, and my PhD time really prepared me for it.

If you feel that you learn new methods for a year and then turn into a robot, then you are not doing what you should be as a phd student. You should learn to become an independent group leader in the process, not just do labwork like crazy. If you omit the PhD completely then it will be a great challenge setting up your own lab. Not impossible, but you'll be learning the hard way.

[Jeswin]

On 5/6/2013 4:06 PM, Lindenberg wrote:
>
> I also read on Wired about a guy that left his PhD to run his DIY bio
> lab. Do you guys think it's crazy?
>

Is this Cathal? Nah, he's not crazy; just crazy brilliant. And guts of
steel to start his own bio lab+business.

You're probably better of getting a degree that will help you move up in
bioscience management positions. Lab work is more repetition now, and
less R&D. Run this machine, do this assay, etc.

[Dakota Hamill]

I don't think any PhD student will tell you graduate school is easy,
but I also don't personally know anyone who has gotten their PhD that
said they wouldn't have if they had the choice again. There are
horror stories you will hear from time to time of a terrible adviser,
but I believe for the most part there is a great deal to learn in grad
school, and many people I've spoken with say it was a time period
where they really developed as scientists, so to speak. The most
important aspects to be taken from grad school, as Ravasz mentions,
and what I've heard from friends in PhD programs, is learning how to
plan out and manage a project consisting of many different experiments
that span years worth of time, and having the ability to manage all
that data and turn it into something useful at the end.

Different advisers have different philosophies on what their grad
students are there for;

to be a "robot" and pump out data to turn into papers to pad the PI's
CV and bring in more grant money

or

http://people.bu.edu/dougd/studentInfo.html

Read the 9 bullets of advice from that person's lab. I came across
that one day looking at programs and it sounded like a great
philosophy for an adviser to have!

Many many people have succeeded in life without attending grad school,
or any school at all, and a few have become quite wealthy. There are
also many many people who have succeeded in life and attended grad
school, and a few have become quite wealthy.

I don't think (though there are always exceptions) that many people
get a PhD simply to get a better job, I think you really have to enjoy
what you are studying to make it an enjoyable experience. Many people
I know in programs just simply love science, and while that might make
the 10 hour days bearable, it doesn't mean it's all going to be easy
going from day 1.

Figure out what it is you want to do in life and then decide if a MS
or a PhD, or neither, would be a good choice.

An extremely over simplified way of looking at it would be (and this
never applies in 100% of cases, it's just what I've seen personally
and heard through the grapevine): BS degree = bench monkey for life
with the potential to move up the ladder if you stay at the same
company for 30 years. MS = can be a manager of a small lab perhaps,
but I've never heard of a full professor with just an MS, and probably
never a senior scientist.. PhD = full professor at any university in
the world, highest research positions in companies, can manage their
own labs and supervise PhD students.

[Josiah Zayner]

There are mainly two types of people in science. Those that do science and those that are Scientists. You will find both in graduate school and both in DIYBio. As I am months away from finishing up my Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Biophysics I would tell everyone who wishes to pursue science to obtain a Ph.D. or in the least an MS.

Why?
People think they know science. Alot of people think they do and maybe some of them do. Sure, everyone wants to be Good Will Hunting but in reality that is almost impossible. The knowledge you gain and the depth and breadth of science you are exposed to in graduate school you will not experience anywhere else. I had an MS going into my Ph.D. program and the amount of things I learned was insane. You cannot communicate with people you do not understand. I have a feeling a good portion of DIYBio people could not pick up a random paper in the field of Biological Sciences and explain what is going on. Are you familiar enough with NMR, Flow cytometry, Mass spec, STORM or any of the other thousands of techniques that you could judge a figure or paper on its scientific merit? It takes years for someone to obtain a Ph.D. because it takes years to learn all these things with some of the best and smartest teachers. How much longer do you think it would take to learn it on your own?

If you truly have a passion for science you will learn how to be a scientist. How to think of projects that are both feasible and new and creative. You will learn to have direction. I think the main problem with people in DIYBio is that because they lack formal training they lack direction. They want to do X Y and Z without even truly knowing the basics of how X works.

Anyone can do PCR and anyone can pipette and clone. A Scientist can come up with creative experiments that add to the overall knowledge of wo-mankind.

Look at DIYBio there is not much complexity in the experiments people do. This is not to say that there are not people out there at the moment doing complex experiments that we don't know about but even a first year graduate student is doing more complex experiments most of which are not cost/equipment prohibitive for DIYBio.

Maybe you are the DIYBio Bill Gates but what do you lose obtaining a Ph.D.? Most schools will pay you to obtain a Ph.D. in the sciences. 4-6 Years of a reliable job in which you are paid to learn. Yeah, it is hard work and yeah it is stressful but being a Scientist is not easy.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with doing DIYBio without formal training there are plenty of people who do stuff but I would recommend formal training if possible.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Josiah Zayner <josiah...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a feeling a good portion of DIYBio people could not pick up a random paper in the field of Biological Sciences and explain what is going on. Are you familiar enough with NMR, Flow cytometry, Mass spec, STORM or any of the other thousands of techniques that you could judge a figure or paper on its scientific merit?

Yes, I am familiar enough with that equipment and those methods. You should feel bad for assuming otherwise. What do you think people outside of academia do, sit around twiddling their thumbs every day? bleh

[Josiah Zayner]

No, I don't think that people sit around twiddling their thumbs.
That is great that you know that stuff. If you reread that paragraph and my email I specifically refrained from being strictly inclusive or exclusive.
However, I think the "I know so much" is one thing that holds much DIY back not just Bio. I am sure many people on here know alot but how much? I think one thing that is drilled into us in graduate school is that you don't know enough, you never do. Do I know just what NMR stands for or can I explain why the Hahn echo is the basis for a Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill pulse sequence? Or what a CPMG pulse sequence measures and how the results can be missused?

A Ph.D. teaches you more then just things. It teaches you a mindset. Something that is very difficult to gain otherwise.
I am not saying one is useless without a Ph.D.
I am saying that a Ph.D. provides skills and opportunities that it is difficult to obtain otherwise.

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diybio/0xt_XvHjqEk/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[SC]

 

Hi Lindenberg,

The decision to get an MS vs. PhD depends on what you want to do. An MS will generally be a technician or work for a principal investigator, and these types of jobs vary from someone who does the same technique all the time to someone who has a lot of responsibility, trains others, and learns new things as project needs change.

If you want to run your own lab at a University or government agency, you will ned a PhD.  This will allow you to direct the entire lab, and decide which projects are done.  There is also a lot of responsibility to this type of position, involving grantwriting, hiring (and firing) employees, writing publications, and if you're at a university, teaching and serving on committees.

.

It's up to you to decide which of these types of positions you find attractive.

.

Disclosure: I have a PhD and it was a loooong haul.  If you're not extremely enthusiastic about it at the start, you'll never get through it.   A PhD program is typically 5-6 years, and involves long hours, minimal pay, and difficult situations.  An MS degree is normally 2-3 years, and mostly classes and learning techniques in a lab.  A much easier degree to get.

.

I wish you the best of luck with your future studies!

[David Murphy]

A pro for an MSc: you the the title "Master Of Science" thus qualifying you for positions in any reputable coalition of supervillains.

Disclosure: I have an MSc and it was tolerably quick vs a PhD

I considered going for a PhD but I was already sick of college, I'd watched how PhD students were worked like dogs for years for very little money and I already knew very well that I knew almost nothing.
 

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/cDzD4u25wyYJ.

[Dakota Hamill]

A Ph.D. teaches you more then just things. It teaches you a mindset. Something that is very difficult to gain otherwise.
I am not saying one is useless without a Ph.D.

I am saying that a Ph.D. provides skills and opportunities that it is difficult to obtain otherwise.

That's what I was trying to get across and Josiah described it quite well.  I can relate to the NMR analogy having just finished my BSc and getting my first real position at a chemical startup, boy was I humbled!  I came to realize how very little I actually knew (and how relatively useless 30 minutes on an instrument during a college lab course is) to really understanding how to use the piece of equipment, and make sense of the data that comes out of it.  There are many things you just cannot learn from a book, or at least, learn well, and grad school seems to represent a massive opportunity for learning many different things very well.

[jlund256]

> sciences? Because many of the people I know working on their Ms or PhD in molecular biology, is that they learn a few techniques in 1 year or so

> and then they just look like machines, just repeating a few protocols over and over again. And they also get too concentrated on a specific

> subject...

In addition to the many useful replies others have given, let me toss in a few more elements scientists learn on the way to a PhD.  One learns how to plan an experiment, why experiments are being done.  A student learns what control experiments are necessary and why, often by omitting them and learning from the experience.  Often times experiments fail, and early on most student's work is so lacking in needed controls that no one can tell why it failed. 

Presenting results and listening to research talks, you hear work dissected for having the wrong approach, or not having enough controls to accept the results, or needing additional experiments to buttress interesting early data.  You read 100+ papers a year for a couple of years, many of them word by word several times, and hear published work praised and criticized.  You read papers in your field, try to reproduce part of the results, and thereby learn surprising things.

Jim Lund

[Bryan Bishop]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM, jlund256 <jlun...@gmail.com> wrote:

You read 100+ papers a year for a couple of years, many of them word by word several times, and hear published work praised and criticized.

Hey, so, I don't mean to be rude, but is 100 papers/year typical? That seems like a really low amount of reading to be doing. I am not in an institution anymore, so I don't have my finger on the pulse. Also, I think "ability to plan and execute experiments" is probably not the best benefit you can attribute to a PhD; you can do those things elsewhere, and still mingle with people going for a PhDon't.

[Paul Schroeer-Hannemann]

Personally I took a wide variety of classes in University and nearly all of them seemed to emphasize protocols over running your own experiments.  The Post-Bacc certificate program I'm taking at a tech. school because I can't get past a phone interview with my B.S. even more so.

On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:06:38 PM UTC-5, Lindenberg wrote:

[SphericalMouse]

It may be most effectve if the DIYBio mentality shifted away from trying to do science.  Take the results of professional scientists and use them to create new and useful applications. Programmers don't need to be trained in the design and fabrication of semiconductor integrated computer circuits. Nor should a DIYBio programmer be necessarily be laboring under the delusion that they are scientists. You need to have access to the appropriate analytical techniques and knowledge. Go into it with the goal to extend human accomplishments and abilities, not the limits of knowledge.

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:13:02 PM UTC-7, SphericalMouse wrote:

It may be most effectve if the DIYBio mentality shifted away from trying to do science.  Take the results of professional scientists and use them to create new and useful applications. Programmers don't need to be trained in the design and fabrication of semiconductor integrated computer circuits. Nor should a DIYBio programmer be necessarily be laboring under the delusion that they are scientists. You need to have access to the appropriate analytical techniques and knowledge. Go into it with the goal to extend human accomplishments and abilities, not the limits of knowledge.

That's just bull. You're assuming that people in DIYbio are *not* professional scientists! Many of us actually do have PhDs, or have equivalent experience in a research environment. No "delusions" here. There's plenty of reasons why "real" scientists may want to work in a DIYbio setting, including being between jobs, playing around with research ideas without having to give away IP rights, or just the enjoyment of interacting with people from a wide range of different backgrounds and areas of expertise. And yes, "real" science can definitely be done in that kind of setting, even if it may sometimes be more difficult due to lower resources or involvement of people with developing expertise levels.

Patrik

[SC]

Folks seem to be trying to draw a line between PhD-level "real" science, and mindless repetitive action in a lab.   In my experience, "real" science does include a lot of boring labor work.  It isn't one exciting discovery after another, and anyone trying to decide which degree to do for should be aware of that.

.

I had a beginning PhD student once (with very good credentials) who couldn't make it past her first year, because the tasks she was given were "boring and a monkey could do them."   Cleaning glassware, waiting for PCR, pouring gels, and keeping track of barcodes on tubes is incredibly boring, and yes, you will have to do it, as part of your PhD and probably well beyond.   The data you get at the end of the experiment has to be worth it to you.  If it isn't, you might want to rethink your goals.  (And really, sometimes it's worth it and sometimes it isn't, we've all been there.)   :)

 

 

[SC]

SphericalMouse,

 

I do "extend the limits of knowledge" on a regular basis, but gee, thanks for the advice.

 

 

[John Griessen]

On 05/07/2013 07:14 PM, Paul Schroeer-Hannemann wrote:
> Personally I took a wide variety of classes in University and nearly all of them seemed to emphasize protocols over running your
> own experiments. The Post-Bacc certificate program I'm taking at a tech. school because I can't get past a phone interview with
> my B.S. even more so.

So, it sounds like for biologist jobs an MS or PhD is necessary as I hear from all of you with bio training.

I think there is still plenty of decent development of lower cost semi-standard processes
that can be contributed to by diybio people.

The mainstream biology work needs speed and profits, so using protocols
to "stand on shoulders of giants", etc. is the way they go.

I've studied smatterings of science
and electrical engineering and designed systems and chips, so I'm not going that way, but am
interested in innovation and selling of equipment for others to
use for even better "standing on shoulders" since the equipment can be
openly adapted, programmed, redeveloped for truly novel experiments.
There's not much response when I mention ideas along these lines here, but maybe some day
I'll find more of those people...

Alternatively to a PhD, for the original poster, one could
develop skill at small business survival and be independent of the need for extreme specialization,
and help out developing more open science and experiment possibilities with the right attitude
and whatever university training you've been able to stand so far.
So, along with getting access and reading hundreds of science journal articles one
could get a self paced bookkeeping course and install a copy of gnucash and learn
to document sales and income for business survival and be ahead in some sense.
If you can stomach that. Web site development is a necessary thing in small tech business today,
so that too... And without going for a PhD, you might stray from the focus of
a grad advisor/PI and read outside a narrow field even...

[John Griessen]

On 05/08/2013 04:10 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
> That's just bull. You're assuming that people in DIYbio are *not* professional scientists!

I didn't get bull or that assumption in what he said... I got that it's a mixed group, and the OP is
wondering where a PhD will lead and about alternatives.

And
> yes, "real" science can definitely be done in that kind of setting, even if it may sometimes be more difficult due to lower
> resources or involvement of people with developing expertise levels.

Sure, and building blocks to experiments can also be developed instead of just the "leading edge advancement
of knowledge" focus of all PhD's. Innovation to make some of the steps easier is a good goal as well
as what most mean when they say, "real science".


On 05/08/2013 06:49 AM, SC wrote:> couldn't make it past her first year, because the tasks she was given were "boring and a monkey
could do them."

I have heard about this a lot and it's where we can make a difference in techniques versus the usual industry supported university
research setting where grad students are treated as expendable slaves, knowing that a good percentage will drop out
and not complete a PhD and the PIs just shrug. A little lab automation innovation available at low cost would go a long way
to changing some of the low dollar funded grad-student-slavery. I'm thinking of 3D printed reaction chambers like
chemists are starting to use, but with some of the bio apps in mind. All of it needs to be smaller than any standard lab glass
though.

[Lisa Thalheim]

"If you truly have a passion for science you will learn how to be a scientist. How to think of projects that are both feasible and new and creative. You will learn to have direction. I think the main problem with people in DIYBio is that because they lack formal training they lack direction. They want to do X Y and Z without even truly knowing the basics of how X works."

Just from parsing this paragraph, it sounds as though you're equating "having a passion for science" with "getting a formal science education", which is a bit muddled. It's also an old discussion in the philosophy of science - it seems like you're a bit of an adherent of the authoritarian approach to the question "what is science".

I can neither tell whether I have what you call formal training, nor whether this biases my take on the matter either way, but I do believe that it is entirely possible to gain a deep understanding of the relevant subject matter, of what would be new and relevant as a contribution, and to develop experiments that can yield sufficiently reliable results to make such contributions. That being said, it'll always require a huge amount of work and time to put in, PhD or no PhD. Rephrased: I don't think there's a line to be drawn between PhD or not-PhD if you want to actually do science; instead, the question is one of dedication.

To the OP: If you want to have a career in science, I'd wager that the easiest way is to get a PhD in the field you want to have your career in, even in the next 10+ years. If you have very good reasons for not wanting to be in institutional science, other paths are possible, but they're not going to be easy, either. You will still have to put in a lot of work, much of it boring and frustrating, and you'll have to deal with a whole lot of questions and issues that are sort of taken care of on a regular academic career path - direction, indeed, being one of them.

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/R3RkiSZLpLUJ.