Am I romanticizing scientific research?

[torquemada]

Hi everyone!


I'm new here. I'm currently doing undergraduate work in biology and part of me is thinking about going into grad school, but I'm afraid i might be very misinformed about what it's like. I love science and nature, but part of me thinks I'm romanticizing scientific research. If anyone has any answers or links to what research is really like, I'd love to hear them.

See, right now when I imagine myself in a lab I'm thinking of the ultra-clean sterile white walled labs where everything is state of the art and futuristic looking. (like in movies I guess?) If anyone has played the PC first person shooter Half-Life, that's a good representation of what I'm thinking of (minus the sci-fi technology of course). This is probably a false mirage I'm conjuring in my head, so I want to know what labs are really like.

As far as fieldwork goes, it's probably grueling physical work with hair-splitting data recording and attention to detail. You're not in the field to daydream about the wonders of biodiversity or contemplate the magnificence of wherever you are or whatever you are studying, are you? Fieldwork isn't going to be my own personal Voyage of the Beagle, is it?

I also really enjoy reading and learning about science, but I find articles in peer reviewed journals extremely tedious and boring to go through. A lot of it is over my head as well, as is to be expected. Is this lack of interest in grinding through a dense peer-reviewed article a sign that scientific research isn't for me? Or do a lot of scientists find the task necessary but dry as dust?

I guess I'm partially answering my own questions, but I also want to hear from real people in research (and preferably in biological research, both lab-focused and field-focused types) what it's really like. Because if it isn't all that glamorous then I guess I can just choose another career and fulfill my above desires/illusions through eco-tourism and casual reading of popular science materials, am I right?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide :)

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Attention to detail as a job requirement isn't restricted to scientific research. And the types of details are as varied as the number of different jobs there are.

Scientific research is about 90% checking on past studies, thinking about and designing new studies, and only 10% actually conducting the hands on experimentation. Think of how boring it is to run a thousand acceleration measurements on an inclined ball track to refine your calculation of G at your nearly sea-level university, and then do the same thing in a 2000 foot deep hot and humid mine, and again the top of a 15,000 foot mountain.

You do get to daydream, you just have to keep most of that reserved for after the work day when you're chugging down an ice tea or a beer with the other researchers.

And I don't think you'll find jobs requiring clean labs in 90% of the science fields. And even those that do, often rent the facilities for the few times they actually need one.

 

[twofish-quant]

I love science and nature, but part of me thinks I'm romanticizing scientific research.

One thing that would be very good for you is to get some undergraduate research experience so that you can see what goes on for yourself.

See, right now when I imagine myself in a lab I'm thinking of the ultra-clean sterile white walled labs where everything is state of the art and futuristic looking. (like in movies I guess?) If anyone has played the PC first person shooter Half-Life, that's a good representation of what I'm thinking of (minus the sci-fi technology of course). This is probably a false mirage I'm conjuring in my head, so I want to know what labs are really like.

A lot depends on the field. In astronomy, you are either in some sort of instrument room next to a telescope, or if you are staring at a computer screen in an office with piles of papers all around you. You'll also find yourself a lot in libraries, committee rooms, and the occasional coffee shop.

As far as fieldwork goes, it's probably grueling physical work with hair-splitting data recording and attention to detail. You're not in the field to daydream about the wonders of biodiversity or contemplate the magnificence of wherever you are or whatever you are studying, are you?

You do do quite a bit of problem solving. The process usually goes like, think of a clever idea, doesn't work, think something else clever, repeat. The other thing is that you there's always a bit of wonder even with the grunge work bits.

I also really enjoy reading and learning about science, but I find articles in peer reviewed journals extremely tedious and boring to go through.

Peer reviewed journals articles are written in a style that is intentional tedious and boring. It's tedious, because the articles need to have a fairly complete description of what is going on. The style of journals is intentionally boring, since you want the quality of the article to be based on the data rather than on the "bells and whistles."

Once you get into the game, it gets interesting, because you start learning why someone wrote an article. It also interesting to get into "gladiatorial fights." Sometimes in physics you get into friendly matches of intellectual boxing.

Is this lack of interest in grinding through a dense peer-reviewed article a sign that scientific research isn't for me? Or do a lot of scientists find the task necessary but dry as dust?

Once you learn what the article really is trying to say, it gets a lot more interesting. Also the process of writing articles can be quite interesting.

Because if it isn't all that glamorous then I guess I can just choose another career and fulfill my above desires/illusions through eco-tourism and casual reading of popular science materials, am I right?

I think it's really glamorous myself. The problem with reading through eco-tourism and causal reading is that in the end, you are getting something filtered by some one else. Climbing a mountain or running a marathon is hard, tough, grueling, frustrating, and painful. But if you get to the finish line or the top of the mountain, you are sweating and dead tired, but you see and feel things that you can't see and feel through someone else's eyes.

It's tough and frustrating, but I find the fact that science is hard to be part of the romance.

 

[MagnetDave]

Everyone enjoys different aspects of it. What you have to learn is that you have to fight for the parts you love. You fight for funding. You fight for space. You fight through the drudgery of papers. You fight through the 10 hours of analysis for every half hour of lab work.

The mountain climbing analogy is very apt. "The moment" takes untold amounts of work and dedication. And lots of people never get there. Almost everything you try will be a dead end. The achievements you do make will almost always be impossibly incremental.

In a slightly different context, Philip Greenspun wrote this brilliant article about science and research:

http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science

Again, I'm not saying it's not worth it, but it's best to disabuse yourself of your illusions now, so you can make the smartest decision sooner.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing is that once you find out what research is really like, you may find out that even though it is different from what you expected, it's still totally cool and something that you want to spend the rest of your life doing.

 

[Monte_Carlo]

I can recommend to read "An Advice to Young Investigator" by Santiago Ramon y Cajal: an excellent admonition to beginners in biology. Many things said there apply to science in general.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I can recommend to read "An Advice to Young Investigator" by Santiago Ramon y Cajal: an excellent admonition to beginners in biology. Many things said there apply to science in general.

Seconded.

 

[turbo]

^ Though, using the title of the most current version (Santiago Ramón - Advice for a Young Investigator) will give better results in search engines.