I went back reading Peter Drucker’s book on strategy and upon reread there is one thing that jumped at me: his statement that unexpected failures and successes are a key source of innovation. The reasoning behind this is quite straightforward. If you have put your best efforts in and you fail, there is a good chance you are being sent a message, which may not always be easy to decipher or swallow. Similarly, if you succeed in something you had not expected to succeed in, you are – so Drucker argues – quick to dismiss it instead of studying the circumstances that enabled the success.
When I read this, as always, my thoughts quickly shifted to how this message may apply to science and in particular my group. For example, how do we even define success in science. A high-impact paper? Hopefully not! A new cure developed? You wish. Perhaps, discoveries made and knowledge acquired? Then I realized that science is too different a world and this seemingly convincing statement by Drucker may not quite apply. Unless, of course, we take a more entrepreneurial view and focus for a moment on the shallow measures of success (papers accepted, grants funded, awards won). This might be the right level since in this case we now have a product, our science, and some quantifiable metrics of how well it is selling. Disgusted with this commercial viewpoint? I understand. But let’s think it through since such “commercial success” largely dictates how much research we care for we can actually do (at least most of us who are trapped in the career-long struggle to keep funding for our scientific vision going).
So here are some potential unexpected events of success to watch out for:
As a follow up post to yesterday's thoughts on productivity, I would like to reinforce some of the points with the focus on meetings. I have previously written about some of this stuff, but I thought a brief synthesis may be of help.
I hope of these strategies will make your day a bit less painful when it comes to meetings.
As you may know, I always enjoy thinking about how to organize my work/life in a more productive way such that my energy invested results in maximal gains in terms of advancing our science. I have recently reflected on the key elements and strategies that have consistently paid off over the last 7 (wow!) years at UNC leading the Frohlich Lab.
Have you recently put an incredibly amount of work in a grant proposal and got rejected? I know how it feels. I have recently received twice in a row the dreaded "not discussed" from the NIH. I am writing this piece as a counterpoint to all the "look how I great I am" posts of twitter. Yes, I have been rejected. Yes, it hurts. And, yes, it will get better.
Research grants are the core of our existence as scientists. They pay for our staff and students and thus any grant application that fails puts us a step closer towards not knowing how to cover the salaries. That does cause worry! Also, it often pays for our own salary, so every grant rejection also has the implication of a potentially reduced income (this is more prominent in medical schools). Also, of course, we are convinced that our ideas are really cool and worth pursuing. What I find is that for scientists there is often no real (healthy?) divide between their own personal existence and the science they do. As a result, any rejection (paper or grant for that matter) feels very personal despite it is (hopefully) never meant that way. Despite all this, we need to learn how to constructively deal with (grant) rejections. Below I am listing some pointers and ideas that I hope will help!
I would like to ask your opinion on something that has fermented in my mind for a long time. What I present to you today are not my own ideas but something that has been inspired by numerous people over the last few years who have engaged in conversations about the topic of scientific publishing. Too many to list to give fair credit but you know who you are. Thank you for all you do for the science community!
I am getting truly fed up with commercial scientific publishing. It just feels so wrong that the tax payer enables our research and once it is done (and has passed peer review), we are asked to pay again for publication and to give ownership away at the same time (copyright). Even worse, the science is then hidden away from the tax payer behind a paywall. What adds to that is how many hours we are spending on additional free work for the publishers by reviewing papers. Now, if academic publishers were struggling to keep the lights on, I would perhaps understand. But hey, they are doing financially really well! Yes, margins are close to 40% in this business!
I think it may be the time to get organized and agree on what on a manifesto along the following lines.
(1) I will not review papers for for-profit publishers unless I am fairly paid for my work. An initial review costs $200 and a re-review costs $100.
(2) I will not submit my papers to journals of for-profit publishers. Instead, I will favor journals by our scientific societies and other not-for-profit groups who fully support open science.
(3) I will not judge scientists (promotion, grants, etc) by the fancy names of the for-profit journals they have published in, but rather by their actual science. No more "Great scientist, she published 3 papers in XYZ the last year. What a smart person."!
What are your thoughts - agree/disagree? Are you ready to sign this? Just wondering.
This past week, I had the privilege to teach a series of three lectures entitled "Short Course in Network Neuroscience" to a diverse audience of neurologists, psychologists, medical students, and neuroscientists at the 1st Sleep Science Winter School in Switzerland (by the way, this is a yearly event and I highly recommend it). My teaching style is perhaps best described as "interactive" and "whiteboard instead of slides." Today, I would like to share with you some of my experiences and observations of what happens if we stop lecturing but instead start building a dialog with the people who we are asked to teach. I have structured it as a Q&A - hope you will enjoy this.
Q: Isn't it nerve wracking to stand in front of an audience without the emotional safety of slides?
A: Yes, it is. Though, with practice the fears subside since they are unfounded. The reward of excited students who are engaged in the discussion is worth the price of being perhaps nervous when you first start teaching like that.
Q: What do you do to get students to engage?
A: I often start my lectures with a little funny, self-deprecating story about myself to make sure that nobody forgets that we are all just humans with all the baggage we have as humans but that we have come together to teach and learn since we are passionate about the content. I also openly acknowledge that my teaching style is a bit different and that it takes time to get used to.
Q: What do you do if you have one participant who engages "too much"?
A: There is often one person who is eagerly engaged (for whatever reason, does not matter). In principle this is great but if it becomes too much it unfairly reduces the learning and participation opportunities of the other students. I thus usually say something along the lines of "Thank you very much for all your contributions. I am delighted to have you be so engaged. I am sure you understand that I would like to make sure that others also get the chance to participate so for the next question I would like somebody else to answer."
Q: What if through dialog you get to a point where you as the teacher do not know the answer?
A: Very simple. I often say something along the lines of "Great question. This is well beyond of what I wanted to focus on today and in fact I need to think myself what the best/correct answer is. Are you cool with us revisiting this after the lecture?"
Q: With slides I can communicate so much more material per unit of time. So I use slides!
A: Fair point. But then, are you sure your "communication" actually reaches your audience? Also, I find that our main responsibility is to teach how to reason through problems and questions. The interactive teaching style works really well for this because students are engaged (better learning, you know, acetylcholine and all that) and can model after you how you reason through a question.
Q: Is your teaching style in essence the Socratic method?
A: In some ways, as I am trying to find the limits of existing knowledge to build on that. In some way no since I never insist with a single student and I always make sure it is not stressful but rather very rewarding to participate and engage during my lectures.
Q: I am curious to experience your teaching style.
A: Come and join us for the tACS/tDCS workshop at the Carolina Neurostimulation Conference. You will see me in action. I am looking forward to meeting you there.
As you may be aware of, scientists enjoy controversies. After all, spirited discussions are often the source of innovation, intellectual advances, and inspiration. Also, let's face it, sometimes they are not. In any case, recent papers have started to seriously question some of the assumptions that build the foundation of many tDCS/tACS studies. Some of the objections are likely appropriate, others I would disagree with (this is material for another post). One thing that is clear to me is that the field has grown so fast and attracted so many researchers with little background in using brain stimulation, or even neuroscience, that I often see studies that are unfortunately tainted by some newbie mistakes. So here is my mission: let's talk about some of these challenges to improve the quality of our studies.
As some you may know, I love to steal ideas from the business world and see how they could be applied to my research group. We had a long meeting for planning our epic brain stimulation conference in May, after which I decided to mix things up and start a conversation about a near-philosophical question: "What is our reason for being (as a research group)?" The conversation that ensued was truly inspiring. The "reason for being" is often also called the core purpose (in the language of Collins and Porras) and is defined as something which cannot be reached within anyone's lifetime. It is not to be confused with strategy or goals of an organization.
The reason for being of our Carolina Center for Neurostimulation is to develop innovative treatments that heal patients with CNS disease.
I am sure you pick up on the not-so-subtle distinction to how today's medicine is mostly turning patients into patients with chronic illnesses that require lifelong medication treatment. Our reason for existence is to develop treatments that surpass current (pharmacological) treatments and heal patients by restoring brain function and structure. Tough challenge. YES! Solvable in the next few years? NO! A core purpose that motivates us to work extra hard and smart. YES!
What is your organizations reason for being?
Where does innovation come from in academic science labs? How do research projects become innovative? I find the answer to these questions not as trivial as it might seem at first glance. As the principal investigator (PI) of a group of about 20 scientists in training (mostly graduate students and postdocs), these are key questions for me. After almost seven years in my job as faculty at UNC, many of my original (crazy back then) ideas have transformed into solid research programs (e.g. use of tACS in clinical applications, mechanism of action of tACS). Thus, it is particularly important for us not get stuck with these ideas and concepts but to aggressively innovate, and find and explore the next frontiers in addition to these established lines of research. Here is how I think about the required innovation process.
My experience and expertise should allow me to generate new ideas (on most days I think I can succeed in this task). Inspiration comes from our ongoing work, comments and feedback by peers through grant review, paper reviews, questions when I give talks etc. Also random thoughts at random moments are not to be underestimated! I look at these ideas as seeds that ultimately will have to be grown into trees. My responsibility as the PI is to provide the resources to grow the tree, but the responsibility - I think - of the actual process should be in the hands of a graduate student or postdoc. Growing the tree from a seed (of innovation) requires a lot of hard work at the bench, intense literature study, and uncountable moments of thought and discussion. This is an ideal opportunity for my trainees to take on an important leadership role early on. As a mentor, I am focused on guiding the process, providing feedback, and creating a constructive and supportive environment. To take this one level further, in an ideal world trainees are inspired, creative, and passionate about science - quite likely some truly innovative ideas originate from them. Now that is paradise! I am privileged to have experienced these moments in my role as the PI of the Frohlich Lab and the director of the Carolina Center for Neurostimulation.
I am thrilled to announce that registration is now open for our Carolina Neurostimulation Conference (May 21-23). We have an amazing speaker lineup. We are pleased to offer a hands-on tDCS/tACS course on May 21 (separate registration).
We are committed to an inclusive and diverse meeting. To ensure that a broad range of academic participants can join us, we have set the registration fee (ridiculously!) low. Thanks to multiple generous sponsors, we are able to offer registration for $95 to trainees and for $165 to everyone else. We have designed this meeting to address several urgent needs that we feel the community has: