I was invited to give a talk at a local symposium, and I’m
working on my presentation. In my lab’s
short history, we’ve managed to get two papers out. One of them is so much more appealing to
present to a general audience than the other that it makes me wonder whether I
should be asking myself, “will I ever want to present this work?,” before
starting any new project.
The project I don’t want to present was an esoteric
extension of past work that I did. The
question was: Does this protein related
to the one that I study do similar things?
The answer was yes and no, and none of it was really surprising. This was published in a decent journal and
was even highlighted by the journal. But,
I’ll never ever present this anywhere because its importance would only be
appreciated by specialists, and it’s boring.
Should we have bothered with this set of experiments at all?
Well, the reason I did this work was that it was easy and
quick given my expertise and tools, and it was a good way to train my
technician. It was also really awesome
to get a completely independent publication out the door within six months of
arrival at my new university. And it
counts towards tenure. So yes, it was
probably worth it at that point in my career.
On a sidenote, I just mentored a med student who won a fellowship
to work in my lab over the summer. I
honestly had a tough time coming up with a two month project that he could
actually complete. So again I fell back
on a really obvious question: Does this
homologue from another species of the protein I study do similar things? Indeed, he got some data, and we’re repeating
some experiments so that we can submit it for publication. But again, it’s totally boring, I envision
the paper writing being total drudgery, and it’s not something that would keep
a seminar audience’s interest for very long.
So what am I going to talk about??? The talk-worthy project we published was a
completely new set of experiments designed to understand an unexplored aspect of our
protein’s trafficking. One of my
students really just ran with this on her own as a side project. We ended up getting cool data and what is
even more awesome is that the results almost magically led us to another
totally new discovery.
So how do I predict in advance which projects will give the
exciting talk-worthy results? At face
value it seems that pursuing low hanging fruit rarely gives an exciting result. But should that exclude
us from doing the more obvious work and getting easy (but only mildly
interesting) publications? The
conclusion that I’ve come to is that at this critical point in my career, I absolutely
need to keep the core of my lab (my grad students and technician) working on
the cutting edge stuff, the stuff that I’ll want to include in my tenure talk,
and maybe have undergrads or summer students pick up some of the more obvious
projects just to boost our total publication output. Ask me in four years if this strategy actually worked.