Jonathan Yewdell is a renowned immunologist, but he is better known amongst students across the globe for his outspoken views and his “mantras” for making it happen in science. I recently had the joy of listening to his talk on ‘How to succeed in science’ and engaging in a conversation with him.
Clad in summer shorts and a T-shirt, he sure did take the German scientific audience by a delightful surprise with his casual attitude and in his own words, “the American naivety.” Jonathan Yewdell, an MD/PhD, currently leads the laboratory of viral diseases, NIH. For someone entwined in the business of research for more than two decades, his thoughts and beliefs were astonishingly refreshing. In his talk, Jonathan reflected on the difficulties of being a scientist, the importance of choosing the right lab for a good career, the significance of collaborating, enjoying discoveries (big or small), and more importantly, sustaining the love for science and a positive outlook. His candid admittance of the pressure of publishing and the shortcomings of a system that is so focused on the outputs resonated very much with the views of the audience, which primarily consisted of PhD students and post-docs. His essays based on his ‘success in science’ talks have already been published in Nature, and they do make for good reads and guides for anyone wanting to take up a career in science.
Encouraged by his outgoing personality, I requested him for an interview and he agreed gladly. When asked how he got into science, he told me that he had originally intended to study medicine, and then accidentally stumbled upon life science. He admited that he was very lucky in having chanced upon an excellent research environment, and having worked with researchers who were great success stories themselves. From an undergraduate thesis to a major career path, immunology thus became his area of expertise. Supported by the US government and never having to apply for a grant, he is relatively at peace with regards to funding his research.
The conversation thus naturally shifted to how most scientists these days are being forced to create almost fiction on their grant applications, just to keep the money flowing. “Basic research should not be underestimated,” says Jonathan, who believes that research does not always have to have social benefits, and that everyone should be given an opportunity to conduct research - especially the ‘young ones’. “Give them money and see what they produce in four years. If they have been unproductive, stop their funding – misuse of academic freedom should not be encouraged.”
On hearing this, I told him how a few weeks ago my colleagues and I were discussing about how a regular assessment of PIs should be conducted by the universities. Post-docs and PhDs suffer badly at the hands of their own PIs, and many are simply left discouraged about science in the end. It is surprising how scientists, who were once students themselves, who may have actually gone through the same difficulties as their students, fail to empathize. “People are imperfect. And you have to think from the perspective of the PI as well. PIs are just like parents. Our parents were once kids, too,” insisted Jonathan. “Try and make the best out of the situation. It’s not just me, but many of us scientists do feel that the situation with all the unfairness surrounding science is unacceptable. And it is the responsibility of older people like me to bring about the changes in the current system,” he reassured, and added, “but, of course, it is easier to be outspoken when you’re not in the grant system.”
“In the end science should be fun. Students should be given independence, and there should always be a compromise between the PI and the members of the lab. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Balance your selfish needs with the needs of others. We’re (all) in this together. Happiness factor is very important.”
Even in his talk, Jonathan constantly mentioned joy in conjunction with research. Cynical as I am, his upbeat nature made me instantaneously ask him how he coped with failures. In return I received a puzzled expression. I persisted that in science we faced failures routinely, and then he replied: “There is no choice in life. You have to face failures. There is no point being depressed. Sometimes it’s even good to be a little hypomanic. Be curious, be naïve, and take joy in what you do. Only make an effort when you can make the change. The experiments you do may not produce great results. What you discover may not even be immediately useful. Be positive, always. The important thing is we need more science.”
I then went on to ask him the clichéd work-life balance question. “Marry someone rich,” he joked. “I did not sacrifice anything for my career. My kids have grown fine. They are well educated. I have always found time to be with my family. You just have to find the balance between work, family, hobby, and friends,” he emphasized. We then continued to speak a little bit more about his family and the conversation eventually ended.
A take home message for me that day was to never lose the love for science, and that a scientist is not morally obliged to conduct research with the prospects of marvelous social benefits - it’s OK to carry out research for the fun of it! Achieving success in any field is difficult, and it is unimaginably tougher in science. Not everyone outside of science recognizes that, but as a researcher you have to accept it. Pursuing a career in life sciences is indeed a daunting task, and success does not come easily. As Jonathan said, “Do a lot of experiments. Read papers, not to judge, but to get new ideas. Collaborate. And always enjoy what you do.”
Cover image: Success (Flickr creative commons)
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 1913
- Comments 0