How do you find inner direction while doing science?

Hello! I am back after sometime now to write this blog on direction in doing science.

Direction means depth, direction means that we have proven XXX using the known techniques, now what next? What next that we need to look into is also a matter of understanding and direction. Most of the times, it becomes very boring and monotonous that people fail finding the right direction in proceeding further in science. Rather, it becomes a copying business just to get some experiments done in the same direction that somebody else has done. The quest for knowledge is missing in such cases.

The question is: 

1. Should you continue in science if such phases arise in your research?
2. Why do such phases arise in research?
3. Is it common to all to have such phases in research?

Well, the answer is 'YES' to all of the above if you are not spending enough time with yourself pondering about your science and reading enough literature and synthesizing information together to come to a conclusion. So, what one should do to stay motivated in science with proper direction? The answer is

1. Think about the science that you are doing. It has nothing to do with proving your science to your peers.
2. Once you think enough you will have sufficient questions to answer that can actually guide you in the right direction.
3. Once you have sufficient questions, you start looking for the solutions and believe me, one automatically gets subconsciously attracted to the scientific answers.
4. And the answers are: Relevant literature that helps one to synthesize information for obtaining the answers or just logical answers.
5. Hence, spending time with your science and voracious reading are the most important criteria to stay focussed and motivated in science.

Best wishes to all for doing focussed science!

How to know if your scientific superior is exploiting/cheating?

 Bright young minds jump into the water called scientific research to find the pearls called more profound scientific knowledge. Such young people-boys and girls have an inclination to details, to understand how the life's process or universal processes work. Indeed, they want to make a career in research. Such young minds are indeed different from the rest of their peers who want to settle down with not so difficult or challenging tasks.

Most of the time, or preferably all of the time, the young aspiring scientists have to work under the supervision of some acclaimed senior scientists. If the young aspirants are lucky, they get considerate scientific supervisors/mentors who are interested in their mentee's progress. However, such near-perfect cases are rare in some of the developing countries which have high records of scientific corruption.  Although India has been spoken ill about regarding scientific misconduct especially plagiarism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_India), scientific exploitation is also not an exception here. Myself being an Indian and having worked in International and Indian laboratories, as well, and even with Indian origin senior Principal Investigators outside India (http://dishonest.biz/forum/index.php?topic=111.0), I have gained ample experience in identifying whether the scientific supervisor the young scientist is working with is fair/honest or is cheating. Here are the indicators that your supervisor is exploiting/ cheating:

1. Asks the young researcher/scientists to carry on the experiments and report to him/her and behaves extra busy and unapproachable.
2. Even if the young scientist/researcher carries out the experiments as directed/advised by the senior supervisor, the supervisor comes with an excuse to blame the young researcher of not having done the work well.
3. When the supervisor tries to overburden the student/young researcher with tons of work without proper direction and tries wasting his/her time and does not engage in scientific discussions.
4. Tries to create political rifts with other labmates and disharmony.
5. Tries to waste the time of the young scientist/researcher by giving all his/her personal work most of the time.
6. Tries to micromanage the young researcher about the time spent.

Isn't it atrocious? Most of the times, the young scientist/researcher keeps mum to such behaviors of the supervisor and treats him/her with much of reverence and respect. However, it's time for the young researchers to identify such conduct within the first three months of working so that his/her scientific career is not jeopardized.

Thank you for reading!

Watch out for my next blog "Reasons why the scientific superiors exploit/cheat the young researchers/scientists?"

How much you accumulate in doing science???

Accumulation is a practical term, such as accumulating material, possessions, land, cars, etc.... and the list goes endless. However, in the context of doing science, what does an individual accumulate? Is it a bunch of degrees, research papers, laboratory infrastructure, awards, research funding??? Well, apparently, 'YES.' Indeed, it is a matter of great pride for having worked/working in the world-class research laboratories, having bagged a bunch of high rated awards, having a grand laboratory infrastructure, lots of money in the form of research funding. Moreover, fat salary is another option, but it is much less, as compared to high rated white collar jobs. 

Scientists are crazy.................. Why do they spend their precious time doing something that is entirely incomprehensible to the common folk???!!! If you ask a scientist, who has been regularly doing science for the past ten years or more, they have something to say. The accumulation they look for is more than one can describe and comprehend. It is definitely not an accumulation, but a free flow of something. Something that increases gradually over time, the more you do it. It is none other than knowledge and perspective towards unknown. That is how scientific discoveries are made. Accumulation of knowledge builds up over a period, that improves the vastness of mind of a real scientist. Moreover, such wisdom is unfathomable to an ordinary man who passes his day in mundane daily activities in a not so attentive manner.

Hence, although it appears as an accumulation, it clears out the entire being of a scientist that is far beyond the intellect and the ego. The moment one is too excited about his/her scientific achievements and unable to balance the energies becomes complacent and egoistic, the stagnation starts setting in. This is the plateau most of the researchers or scientists attain that is very difficult to cross in the entire life after that. After this plateau, a scientist most of the times, exists, without further doing and the day, months and years fly away.

So, to, continue doing science for a more significant/subtler meaning with a sense of contribution to the field, and not so much for the sake of accumulating worldly pursuits is the key. With the right mindset of continuing doing science, the entire being of the scientist is uplifted with greater joy. The worldly accumulation is definitely the by-product that anyways comes.

Know-how for getting a good recommendation

As a famous saying by John F Kennedy goes, "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" holds good everywhere.

The scientific community is mostly very well knit amongst like-minded helping people.  However, there are some exceptions. Most of the things, work out of recommendation, in addition to proof of one's work in the form of publications and manuscripts.

When I say, recommendation, it's the recommendation of the seniors such as senior scientists/mentors, laboratory heads, and sometimes your peers, as well.  Mostly, people/scientists who hire other junior scientist ask for 2-3 recommendation letters from the senior scientists/mentors with whom the junior scientist/researcher has worked. Once a researcher finishes her/his tenure in one laboratory, moves on to work in different laboratories. Usually, the move of a junior researcher to another laboratory in the scientific community takes place due to a change in location and her/his movement to the area of preference, or else, to a laboratory of a higher significance/repute. In either of the cases, it is vital for the junior researcher to have a backing up with a good recommendation letter from the previous workplace/mentor/boss/senior.

The trick in getting a good recommendation letter is straightforward. A person is judged on his/her day to day dealings, in addition to, the scientific aptitude, attitude, work ethics, discipline and helping nature. For all the above mentioned, the person should have contributed enough to earn the points. Many of the times, interns come for a brief time, behave over-ambitiously and try moving to another laboratory of good repute. In a lot of instances, such short timers over-represent their contributions and training/learning and try shortcuts to get a good recommendation. However, such behaviors are highly discouraged, and often such recommendation letters can be counterproductive, as well. On the other hand, any long timer (at least two years), who has contributed not only to his/her growth, but the growth of his/her fellowmen in the laboratory, as well as, towards the research goal of the mentor is given a good recommendation letter.

Finally, the bottom line is being selfish does not fetch you anything, and instead can be counter-productive. The mentor/boss is smarter than the junior researcher, and is always watching! Last, but not the least, it is advisable to evolve oneself as a real scientist with a real passion to do science, and not for the sake of show-off. Finally, simplicity,  helpfulness uplifts every individual and pays you in every way in the long run.  

Why is scientific research evaluated?

Is it that, you are free to do anything as a scientist? Or else, you have some responsibilities. For a layman, a scientist is a crazy individual who keeps herself/himself locked in the laboratories away from a public/domestic life doing some intellectual stuff that is beyond understanding. Gone are the days when the scientific research used to be funded by the individuals themselves, or else by any other private source. However, today's fact is, most of the scientific research is supported by the public money (taxpayers money), and hence, scientists are more responsible for what they do with such funds. Moreover, it is a massive sum of money that is poured into a research project. The amount of money given for a scientific research project by a funding agency, mostly a governmental source sometimes runs in millions of dollars/crores of rupees!!!

Accordingly, it is clear why the scientific research needs to be evaluated. Primarily, everything boils down to money. If the funding is given, it needs to be accounted for. Various factors such a novelty of work/knowledge generation-basic research, accountability with the financing, further funding decisions and translational application underline why every scientific research project needs to be evaluated.

Scientific peer review and quality of work

Humans are talented with the ability to create good pieces of work. At the same time, humans are gifted with the capabilities to co-operate, combine, compile and synthesize ideas. In the first step, every creative work, be it art, be it science, is created in isolation, maybe by only one individual. In this blog, I am giving particular emphasis to scientific literature, a written piece of work, precisely a research article. A scientist carries out research work, first with his own group comprising of a few scientists/researchers. The work is further commented by her/his individual group members, or colleagues called the internal peer review. Most of the times, internal peers are very critical, so that the quality of work improves drastically. Such kind of internal peer-reviewed work sets its stage to face any criticism or comments from the entire world.

However, various mindsets of people enable the peer review process either to improve or else to stagnate the work quality. For example, highly egoistic, self-centered scientists often tend to shield off themselves from internal peer review, and hence get stagnated. Such scientists are not well equipped emotionally to take up challenges. Thus, the result is a mediocre quality of work that gets published but remains inconspicuous. Also, not many people get interested in such kind of work, and the progress of such work gets stunted. The number of publications of such scientists although might increase, but such work fails to attain significance.

The second scenario is for the open-minded scientists who do science for the passion for doing it. Their main aim is to contribute to significance with their work. Such scientists invite people to be more critical, especially to the internal peer review team from the very beginning. Also, such scientists, not only stay motivated to appreciate but also continuously implement the internal peer review comments. Hence, the work now becomes a center of interest for the entire internal peer review team. Thus, everyone including the peer review team gets involved with the final outcome/significance and quality of the work. As a result, in the long run, when such work gets externally peer reviewed tends to remain often flawless and achieve the highest recognition.

Rigorous internal peer review team-Combined strategy-THE BEST ONE!!!

Taken together, peer review is very important for improving the quality of a manuscript since it includes the ideas of the scientists and the peer review team. Last, but not the least, peer review also safeguards the scientific community from research fraud.

Love for books versus internet.................

Internet, internet everywhere.........................

Who reads books????

Well, the days I grew up, there was no internet. So, we had to be with books, love the books, read them. In fact, most of my generation people had developed an interest to read books whether young or old. However, in the current times, reading books has to be a learned behavior. Unless it is mandatory, very few of the present generation people read books. When I am talking of people, I mean general people and not the particular category of people who are into brainy professions.

It is straightforward to browse the internet. However, it is challenging to stay focused on the internet because a lot of distractions keep popping in, and it usually becomes a continuous episode of mindless browsing. However, with books, one can only be successful in reading the book if one can hold on to the attention. So, the crux of the matter is the internet is a focus destroying element while reading books is a focus building element.

Finally, one needs to practice the habit of reading a book by avoiding the distractions of the smartphone and the internet. Most importantly, reading a book or a research paper improves your visualization towards the subject, in contrast to the internet. I do not say that the internet is terrible, but the fair use of the internet is advisable.

Dealing with contradictory results in research

Most of the times, scientists start working with a certain hypothesis based on the published literature. It is likely that the experimental findings correlate with the earlier published research. The work becomes very straightforward. In other words, the work becomes a validation of earlier published result.

On the other hand, the story becomes more interesting, if the experimental results obtained contradict the hypothesis and do not match the earlier published results. This is all the more interesting!!! Most of the times, it so happens that contradictory results challenge a young researcher, especially a Ph.D. student when the Ph.D. student tries giving up or else changes the topic of research for ease or convenience. However, this is not the right temperament for doing science.

When confronted with contradictory results, it becomes all the more interesting for adding life to the piece of work. By adding life, I mean to make more sense out of the data. During such times, one needs to relook into the data, of course, validate the same with enough replicates and then do a brainstorming. Most of the times, one can reach a very interesting mechanism that might be responsible for the contradictory result.

I am giving a specific example. Breast Cancer Stem cells and triple negative breast cancer cells express high levels of pluripotency markers such as Oct 4, Nanog and Sox 2. This is a blanket statement. However, single cell analyses from breast tumor tissue samples have shown a hierarchical presence of CSC markers, pluripotency markers and EMT markers depending on the stages of differentiation. Also, it varies as per the type of breast cancer that correlates with the cell lines, as well (ER-positive/Luminal-MCF7 cell line and ER-negative/Basal-MDMMB231 cell line) (Akrap et al. 2016). In this work, the authors demonstrated that in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) CSCs, proliferation is associated with differentiation, accordingly, quiescent CSCs maintain CSC phenotype and proliferating CSCs lose CSC phenotype. More recently, the role of Vitamin C in enhancing the CSC phenotype has been published by Ramezankhani et al. (2018). Ramezankhani et al demonstrated the downregulation of pluripotency markers such as Oct 4, along-with an upregulation of cancer stemness/aggressiveness in the TNBC cell line MDAMB231 when treated with Vitamin C + miR 302/367 (mi RNA that have been established to reprogram a cell into a pluripotent stem cell). The dose of Vitamin C used by Ramezankhani et al is 100 ug/ ml that corresponds to 0.56 millimolar. 

Hence, the above two literature have contradictory findings in which one is stating the upregulation of pluripotency markers in breast CSCs and the other one is stating downregulation. Accordingly, one needs to check the differentiation/quiescent status of the breast CSCs, especially in case of TNBCs. Moreover, the threshold concentration of Vitamin C that can cause the upregulation versus downregulation of pluripotency and/or stemness markers. In fact, our own work has shown an opposing effects-proliferation versus apoptosis of colon cancer stem cells when treated with low (5-25 micromolar) versus high (100-500 micromolar) concentrations of Vitamin C respectively (Sen et al. 2017).

Taken together, it all boils down to how one can assimilate the information, the published one, as well as, their own data to reach the final conclusion.

References:

1. Akrap, N., Andersson, D., Bom, E., Gregersson, P., Ståhlberg, A., & Landberg, G. (2016). Identification of distinct breast cancer stem cell populations based on single-cell analyses of functionally enriched stem and progenitor pools. Stem cell reports, 6(1), 121-136.
2. Ramezankhani, B., Taha, M. F., & Javeri, A. (2018). Vitamin C counteracts miR‐302/367‐induced reprogramming of human breast cancer cells and restores their invasive and proliferative capacity. Journal of Cellular Physiology.DOI: 10.1002/jcp.27081
3. Sen, U., Shenoy P, S., & Bose, B. (2017). Opposing effects of low versus high concentrations of water soluble vitamins/dietary ingredients Vitamin C and niacin on colon cancer stem cells (CSCs). Cell biology international, 41(10), 1127-1145.

Your scientific aptitude depends on............YOUR ATTITUDE TO DETAILS

Are you the types who will just see the gross things, or else, have an attitude to details 👀? If you are the one with an approach to gross things and tend to lose focus when it comes to the more delicate features, you may not be the types who will succeed in doing science. For a person to be reasonably successful, or preferably one who will reasonably enjoy doing science is the one who has an attitude to details and who gets triggered by many questions.

The questions that you may ask may be "Why XYZ observation is so and so," and mechanisms behind the same. Once you are successful in deciphering the mechanism, you might try to correlate the same to an existing phenomenon. Correlation to a current aspect becomes some novel finding. Also, that is a relatively standard way of doing science. 

However, if one is extraordinarily lucky in science, or in other words, vigilant, one may end up with an entirely novel phenomenon. Such a unique aspect has a potential to be called as a new discovery. Observing an innovative event is just not enough to be named as a new discovery. There is a lot more to it. One needs to validate this novel phenomenon very rigorously using scientific methods, or sometimes using mathematical models, as well. Such an established novelty then becomes a groundbreaking discovery.

Hence, doing science becomes an ingrained habit. It becomes an indelible personality that motivates one to continually look for newer observations and proving them using various ways. Scientists are not just born, scientists are nurtured and developed. In other words, scientists nurture and develop themselves continuously throughout their lives in the quest and proving of new knowledge.

💐

👀👀👀👀👀

An attitude to do life sciences and cell biology…………………….

Life sciences or Biology is none other than ‘LIFE ENERGY’ put into physical matter in an organized fashion.  The keenness to understand and appreciate this ‘LIFE ENERGY’ put into the individualized unit is called the attitude to do life sciences or cell biology.

The earth with its atmosphere is composed of earth/soil, water, and air. All living beings are composed of matter materialized into a highly organized system. The unit of life is a ‘Cell ‘that was discovered by Robert Hooke 353 years ago in the year 1665. Much later, 175 years from 1665 that is in the year 1889 the ‘Cell Theory’ was formally put forth by Matthias Jakob Schleiden (a German botanist who used to earlier earn his livelihood by practicing law) and Theodor Schwann (a German physiologist).

It was only during the proposition of the cell theory, the multiplication component of life/living organisms as preceded by the prior generation came out from oblivion. The cell theory states that:

1. A Cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all life.
2. Living organisms are composed of one or many cells.
3. All cells arise from pre-existing cells.

 There is a much complexity in the life that makes the exploration of cell biology all the more interesting! Although the inanimate objects such as planets and galaxies are also following a systematic pattern by maintaining their dynamics (rotation of the planets on their respective axes, the revolution of planets, etc.), along with, their energetics, the gross physical inanimate matter much more influences the life/living organisms.

Physical laws grossly govern the entire living systems. A simple example is the blood flow to the brain that has to take place against gravity and for that reason one pump is needed. The pump that facilitates the blood flow to the brain in the human body is the heart. It follows the same principle wherein the underground water has to be pumped against the gravity of the earth to the overhead tanks of the tall buildings. Also, to maintain a fluid blood supply in the human body; the heart pump is a critical component. Moreover, the major portion of a living organism is composed of water that is purely a physical entity.

Accordingly, the crux of the matter is the study of life/cell biology does not exist in isolation, but with the physical sciences or principles of the physical matter of this universe. A student of life sciences or cell biology can study the components of a cell, its interaction with the other cells, the role of organelles and various modern discoveries. However, the understanding of life sciences, cell biology is incomplete without understanding and integrating the principles of physical sciences into life sciences. Hence, the correct attitude to do life sciences and cell biology is to dissect the knowledge of cell biology into the smallest bit and then integrate it with the principles of physics.

Finally, when an organism dies, the body decays and is again lost to the environment in the form of gross physical components. Hence, in my opinion, inanimate physical elements come together in a systematic pattern to form a life/living organism, and the understanding of cell biology is incomplete without the knowledge of the basic principles of physics.

Teacher's day special-Difference between a teacher and a Guru

You are your own "Guru," or you are your "own teacher"!!!! Both the statements sound synonymous. However, in reality, are they interchangeable? If we see the dictionary meaning in English, the word ‘Guru’ means teacher, counselor, master, mentor, leader, and even, ‘Hindu spiritual leader.’ However, there is a lot more in a ‘Guru’ than just being a teacher. The word ‘Guru’ has its origin in the Sanskrit language that can be literally divided into two portions ‘Gu’-Darkness and Ru—Light. In other words, a Guru is a person who dispels darkness and knowledge is the tool that dispels darkness. So, ‘Guru’ is one who leads a person from darkness of ignorance to light of knowledge/wisdom.

In the current days of information overload, the conventional teachers try to fill the mind of the students with tons of information. That makes life complicated, isn’t it? Already, the life is so involved with data, information everywhere that we tend to miss out on the essential points. So, to get the gist of everything, we need to unlearn certain things. To make us understand the essence of everything is precisely what a ‘Guru’ tries to do. I love calling a ‘Guru’ as a mentor because it is a big responsibility to be a ‘Guru’ or a mentor. Accordingly, more information overload given by a teacher might lead to the darkness of ignorance. So, a ‘Guru’ will strip you of all your existing ego of being an information bank and guide you towards your inner core of light. This inner core is light/knowledge is vast and unfathomable. There is an answer to every possible question in this inner core of every human being towards which can only be guided by a true Guru.

When I say that ‘You are your own Guru,’ I mean that the pure, inner core present amongst all of us is the guiding ‘Guru’ present in all of us. So, on this teacher’s day, let’s pay our gratitude to all the teachers who have confused us with tons of information. Also, let’s extend our gratitude to the entire Gurus’ who have made us unlearn all the information overload thereby stripping us off our ego of being intellectuals. Finally, those who can identify the true Guru within you have been lucky of having being guided by a true Guru!

Here are some contrasting features of a teacher and a guru, in my opinion:

A teacher gives information; A Guru strips you of the information overload!

A teacher appreciates; A Guru challenges!

A teacher gets satisfied easily by your progress; A Guru makes you work till your fullest potential!

A teacher boosts your ego; A Guru strips you of your ego so that you can touch your most creative inner core!

In the short run: A teacher is loved and a Guru is hated!

In the long run: You may turn indifferent to your teacher but will develop reverence and gratefulness to your Guru.

In the long run: The teacher will forget you and will be indifferent to you, but a Guru will always be guiding and loving!

Hence, it is most important to connect to your inner Guru as guided by the external Guru.

Can a scientist be a teacher?

There is an ancient saying by Buddha, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” In the same way, when the young minds get ignited, the senior scientists appear before them as teachers. Well, many misconceptions are there regarding a scientist's ability to be a teacher or vice versa.  Anyone who can transfer the knowledge, mind ‘knowledge’ and not just ‘information’ to the seeker can be called as a teacher.

In the current times, there is an overload of information from everywhere, especially the internet. Accordingly, the internet should be eligible to be called a ‘teacher,’ but we cannot call the internet as a teacher. In India, the teachers were once respected for being so very selfless to impart the knowledge to the students. However, nowadays teaching has become a business, and anybody who use his words and presentation skills to throw out the information becomes a successful teacher is schools, colleges, and coaching classes. Also, students have turned from knowledge seekers to customers/clients who are looking for good grades and a job. So, it is an easy task to be a teacher in the present times. Teachers are not respected in these days in India because of the attrition of moral values in the current society. Moreover, teachers look out for making more and more money by giving lectures, presentation, and notes.

The discussion topic for the current blog is ‘Can scientists teach?”. The answer is, ‘Of course, Yes’ and also in a far better way, as compared to the regular so-called teachers. The reason for the scientists to be a potentially a better teacher, as compared to, the teacher in a college because the scientists are gifted with their scientific experience that is shared with the students in the form of real knowledge.

Finally, the endpoint is such teachers who are scientists, as well, do not hanker for getting more and more students for making a business. However, they look for initiated minds as students who are waiting to be ignited. Bright minds get attracted to bright masters/teachers/scientist-teachers.