A little crazy was good for my sanity – a heterodox reflection

Controversial tweets are not uncommon in the Twitterverse, and science Twitter is no exception. A controversial opinion appeared a while ago on chemtwitter, which stated rather bluntly that it was “more damaging to suggest it’s possible that anyone can do world-class science in 38 hrs per week …”. This question opened, yet again, a pandora’s box of arguments about how much time scientists should spend on lab work to be productive? Since no two research projects are the same, there can never be a universal formula for success and like all creative endeavors, research output depends a lot on the researcher’s intellectual acuity and momentary flashes of insight. This tweet was largely perceived as an attack on the progress made toward achieving a healthy work-life balance in academia. This issue becomes particularly relevant in the backdrop of multiple reports of deteriorating mental health among graduate students and the nationwide movement to recognize graduate students as employees. There are arguments both for and against the tweet’s claim, and a long legacy of over-worked students and post-docs warrants serious reflection on what the academic research experience should be like; but back to Twitter (and why this essay).

One comment (a part of it) by a graduate student in the thread read, “Research is like a state function: it doesn’t matter the path to get there, just the end result”. Having had a semi-grueling five- and half-year Ph.D., I knew this was inaccurate, but I had a nagging thought – not only did it not reflect the realities of research, but this sentiment took away its beauty. Almost nothing in life is a state function – the path taken is what provides value, but more so in graduate research as most of us flounder from idea to idea and experiment to experiment till we hit upon something that works, picking up important skills and ideas along the way.

Almost nothing in life is a state function – the path taken is what provides value, but more so in graduate research..

 

Ph.D. experiences vary greatly as a function of the place it is conducted, the field of study, the student’s life circumstances, and importantly, their personalities and intellectual abilities. Many Ph.D. students live under constraints that do not allow long work hours – family and health being the most common. I consider myself to have been somewhat representative of an average, international STEM Ph.D. student and would like to share my stories that I rarely find represented in work-life columns, without assuming the role of an arbiter.

Looking back at your Ph.D. life may unearth some unpleasant memories – it certainly does for me. I remember the long days bleeding into each other as I felt marooned in a graveyard of failed experiments. Most of my ideas were duds and I felt time outrun me at every step. But I still look back at my Ph.D. with satisfaction – this is not fond nostalgia. Some rare moments of scientific clarity and excitement made those long stretches of uncertainty and failure worth it. And for me, none of these moments would have come if I maintained a strict 40h/5 day-a-week schedule.

My first publication resulted from a project that was unlike any my lab had worked on previously. It was based on a nugget of an idea that needed testing; however, that would require time away from my dissertation research, where I was not doing so well. I worked on my idea over weekends before presenting it to my advisor and got the work published a year later. Not only did this project give me opportunities to present my research at conferences, but I also gained the confidence to push my other (more important) projects forward. Ultimately, those late nights and weekends lifted my spirits and helped counter the many frustrations I had with my less successful projects.

Another personal highlight from my Ph.D. was one Saturday evening when I was alone in the lab creating movies with crystal structures of an enzyme I had obtained recently, hoping to identify structural changes between its different states. As the movie played on repeat, I felt a rush as I realized I might be on to something. I spent the rest of the day, and the next, furiously reading relevant papers and writing the first draft of the manuscript, where I refined my proposed model, which could potentially resolve a long-standing problem in the field. I couldn’t wait to present the draft and my thoughts to my advisor on Monday. That weekend was not an example of perfect work-life balance but helped restore balance to my research life that has always tilted toward failure and uncertainty.

Critical insights are often mysterious visitors on a stormy night – a few knocks on the door, and you might never hear from them again. It is up to you to get up from the comfort of your bed and open the door. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it’s just the wind – but that one time is all that matters! Now, years into my postdoctoral career, I have grown older, less excitable, and no longer live on cheap takeout. But the ‘little crazy’ has refused to quit. I feel a tremendous sense of calm when I go to sleep thinking about experimental results that don’t add up. Not because I expect a breakthrough when I wake up, but because I can gather my thoughts in the comfort of my bed and plan my next day in the lab. The Notes app on my phone is a testament to its efficacy. Recently, stumped by a problem I started to walk back from work instead of taking the train – to let my thoughts marinate (and to lose a few pounds) during the two-and-a-half-mile walk home. I stopped at an ice cream shop and had just dug in when all the unexplained results fell in place beautifully. That insight has formed the foundation for a major grant proposal and a couple of manuscripts.

Critical insights are often mysterious visitors on a stormy night – a few knocks on the door, and you might never hear from them again.

 

Creating a good work-life balance is important; however, to achieve that one must be efficient at work (and in life), which requires extensive trial and error. Going into academic research with a fixed-hour mindset might not provide the luxury of exploration and the cushioning needed to fail repeatedly. Most researchers, like myself, are not superstars and need time to absorb new skills and concepts. The early years of constant struggle can be made worse when you are told – you shouldn’t need to be in the lab this long to get the work done. This, to me, translates to – you are not competent. No one should be allowed to feel this way. Good intentions can often have bad consequences.

This is my experience; these are my thoughts. Not every Ph.D. student will find value in this work style, but I want to ensure that it’s not discounted wholesale. How many of you have read an interesting novel or watched a thriller deep into the night? How many of my fellow scientists have lost track of time writing poetry or music or creating something that truly imparts value to their being? All I ask is: why should Ph.D. research be any different?

Sometimes a little crazy is good for sanity.

Author

Saurja Dasgupta is originally from Kolkata, India. He obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, where he studied the structure, function, and evolution of catalytic RNA. He is currently doing his postdoctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he is trying to understand the biochemical milieu that could have given birth to life on earth (and elsewhere) and reconstruct primitive cells. One of his scientific dreams is to observe the spontaneous emergence of Darwinian evolution in a chemical system.  When not thinking about science, Saurja pursues his love for the written word through poetry and song-writing (and meditating on Leonard Cohen’s music). His other passions are trying to make science easier to understand, and fighting unreason and pseudoscientific thinking with a mixture of calm compassion and swashbuckling spirit.

Editors

Roopsha Sengupta is the Editor-in-Chief at ClubSciWri. She did her Ph.D. at the Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna and postdoctoral research at the Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, UK, specializing in the field of Epigenetics. During her research, she was involved in many exciting discoveries and had the privilege of working and collaborating with a number of inspiring scientists. As an editor for ClubSciWri, she loves working on a wide range of topics and presenting articles coherently, while nudging authors to give their best.

Andreia Rocha did her M.Sc. at Universidade do Algarve in Faro, Portugal, in Oncobiology and moved to Vienna to complete her thesis at IMBA where she studied stem cells and focused on working with organoids while using them as cancer models. Currently, she is a research assistant at JLP Health, a startup company based in Vienna, Austria. She is also passionate about communicating science through art and illustration and wishes to combine the two careers in the future. You can visit her website and follow her on instagram.