[HN Gopher] How I turned seemingly 'failed' experiments into a s...
___________________________________________________________________
How I turned seemingly 'failed' experiments into a successful PhD
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 45 points
Date : 2024-07-05 12:16 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| prashp wrote:
| This is just a regular PhD experience, but the author has made it
| sound like some special sort of skill only they and a few others
| know how to master.
|
| Everyone has to turn failed experiments into a successful PhD
| because they have to finish and graduate by the time funding runs
| out.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > This is just a regular PhD experience, but the author has
| made it sound like some special sort of skill only they and a
| few others know how to master.
|
| Making a regular experience sound like a special sort of skill
| only you have is itself a special sort of skill that it's
| valuable to have if you want to apply for grants.
| nxobject wrote:
| I don't think she's saying "only _I_ can do this!!" - it just
| read to me like a "this is a what happened and what I learned
| from it". Actually, I think I'll send this article to my high
| school physics teacher - he was a good mentor, and he might
| enjoy giving it to his students.
| vikramkr wrote:
| That's not really true. They don't have to finish and graduate
| by the time funding runs out - nearly half of students simply
| fail to graduate (in the us).
|
| It's also extra untrue because this author is describing
| running into a null result and turning that into a PHD when
| usually null results don't go anywhere, either to a thesis or a
| publication.
|
| But it becomes true again in the context that the null result
| is nice framing for this article but isn't the framing in the
| intro/contents of the thesis. And also because:
|
| "A turning point came when another graduate student suggested a
| dramatic change to my protocol. I was skeptical, but I thought
| it was worth a shot. It turned out they were correct: After
| trying yet another experiment, the results started to look
| better--and after a few more changes, I eventually got the
| protocol to work. "
|
| doesn't sound like a failed experiment to me!
| glitchc wrote:
| PhDs are more about perseverance than anything else, as
| highlighted in this story.
| vikramkr wrote:
| well, also luck. Plenty of people have a PI change which
| can be devastating especially on a visa, or wouldn't have
| gotten the recommendation for the other protocol to get it
| to work, and also for the current crop - giant global
| pandemic shutting down all the labs - did you pick a topic
| that's essential research/not lab based? And strategy. If
| you chose a field based on passion instead of practical
| considerations like grant availability - life might be more
| complex in infectious disease research than in oncology
| lol. And academia politics. Though for some obviously
| politics is a plus
| analog31 wrote:
| Oddly enough, my PhD was also saved by a fellow grad student
| suggesting a different experiment that used the same
| equipment. I was ready to drop out and apply to the
| engineering school.
| peppertree wrote:
| I don't think the author was trying to position herself as
| "special". It's a pretty universal experience to try something
| unkonwn and feeling like a failure. I think the author is
| trying to convey that it's ok to feel that way.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Why a failed experiment needs to be turned into success?
|
| The outcome of the research (experiment) could be both success
| and failure, right? That's why we study it, experiment with it,
| we do not know it yet, we want to see if it is as believed or
| not. The important is to grow the body of knowledge here - and
| knowing if something does not work the way we thought will is
| knowledge -, not to pretend being successful, right? For
| pretending there are countless other (much much better paying)
| occupations anyway.
| gus_massa wrote:
| It's too easy to get unsuccesful results. (Does listening to
| Macarena for 8 hours per day cure brain cancer in mice?)
|
| So unsuccesful results are very difficult to publish and to
| be the base of a thesis. So you must find a twist or
| secondary result and make it the central part. (Does
| listening to Macarena for 8 hours per day cause brain damage
| in mice?)
| IvyMike wrote:
| If you're curious, here's her PhD thesis. (It's dual-language
| German/English): https://publishup.uni-
| potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver...
| lqet wrote:
| You really shouldn't start a PhD without doing the PhD simulator
| first [0]. Sadly, people who haven't yet been through the PhD
| experience think that this game is exaggerating for comic effect.
| It really isn't.
|
| [0] https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html
| senkora wrote:
| Discussed on HN here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597534
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| its more amusing than accurate, IMO
| lamename wrote:
| In all seriousness, I think you're lucky then.
|
| (I can only speak for my experience and those of my peers in
| my field, at the end of the day)
| IshKebab wrote:
| I agree, but my estimate 90% of my peers' PhDs (including
| mine) were essentially 3 years of work on an idea that did
| not work, or trying and failing to find an idea that did
| work. Then writing up your work as if it was great. The 10%
| of "successful" PhDs were on ideas that were almost
| guaranteed to work - more development than research.
|
| This was in a proper hard engineering field though. I think
| in other fields can be much more likely to be things that
| can't really fail. For example in computer science, a lot
| of PhDs are just like "I implemented this thing" where
| there's very little risk of it simply not working.
|
| An exception in computing is AI research where it is very
| much like the "try some stuff; it didn't work" experience
| of engineering and science research. I imagine a PhD in AI
| is not a fun experience...
| impossiblefork wrote:
| I liked the aspect of it where you get an idea, and then work
| on it to get a result, and then a major result, supporting
| figures etc.; and while this rigidity in finishing the ideas
| one starts may not be optimal there's at least an element of
| it which could motivate people to finish things first, before
| moving on.
|
| I think this is often useful. Maybe it's obvious, but it can
| be very tempting to develop ideas, or develop new shiny
| results, when you still have other ideas that haven't yet
| been turned into definite packages of well-supported results.
| Johnbot wrote:
| Wow, I lasted exactly as long in the simulator as I did in real
| life, with many of the exact same circumstances (less a global
| pandemic and family tragedy plunging the hope meter into the
| negatives).
| hi_dang_ wrote:
| 5 years and 2 months. I assume this is about average?
| noman-land wrote:
| That was fun. I earned my PhD in 5 years 11 months. Got so
| engrossed I didn't even notice the hope meter but finished with
| a 56. That seems like a long time but I also enjoyed reading
| all those papers.
| gwervc wrote:
| That's the most realistic simulator I ever play; and that's not
| a good thing.
| mturmon wrote:
| This column, which appears as the last page in the print
| magazine, is generally pretty good and often fun to read
| (https://www.science.org/topic/careers-overline/working-life).
| IIRC the stories never end on a down note (perhaps not true to
| life).
|
| But, taken as a whole, they offer some ways out of the single-
| track-grindset that some people in the academic system have --
| and that the system promotes.
|
| It turns out that there are a lot of stories out there of people
| who had to give up on something, change fields, recognize their
| strengths or weaknesses, etc. People don't talk about this stuff
| as much as they should.
| webel0 wrote:
| I would be interested to hear more about how much they were
| discussing their failures/challenges with others. It sounds like
| this might be a case of, "I finally talked to someone about it
| and they unblocked me in an hour."
|
| When I was in grad school I was very hesitant to ask others for
| help or feedback. Big mistake! I see similar things with interns:
| they'll wait until a daily or weekly check-in to raise problems.
|
| My approach now is to set a time budget; if I don't figure it out
| myself within X hours, then I have to ask someone for help.
| mihaaly wrote:
| It was refreshing to read. A research world producing
| (publishing) mostly success and breakthrough is not creadible
| anyway. I belive this improves the reputation of the academic
| world too.
| groos wrote:
| I think the real takeaway is that collaborating/bouncing ideas
| off other people is the most important part of research. Few
| people can work isolated on their own without idea exchange.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Nice story about perseverance. But I do not know how helpful this
| is to young researchers.
|
| My advice for young researchers is read more articles - like at
| least a solid month of reading and journaling full time (40 hrs
| per week) before you even start to think about what you want to
| start off with by replicating.
|
| The other related mistake I see young researchers make a lot is
| not leveraging pre-existing work / results and wasting weeks or
| months reinventing the wheel.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-08 23:00 UTC)