Over dinner with a distinguished parasitologist, our PI told us that something very important about science is that it makes you meet very interesting people. The formal PhD experience is generally seen as the process of doing experiments, analyzing results, publishing papers, and taking courses. While this is what is usually seen in your CV, other very important pieces of training happen outside these visible structures. Some of the most important parts of scientific training happen in moments that leave no official trace. A dinner after a seminar, coffee after a talk, or an informal conversation with visitors are instances where nothings “official” happens, but they shape how one thinks about science. Scientific education is not merely technical; it is also cultural and intellectual journey. This journey is enriched in informal discussions with scientists and intellectuals and often undervalued.
Science as a living culture
Modern science is very different from the romanticized stories of scientists in previous centuries. Modern science operates under strict rules represented by the scientific methods in addition to unspoken rules of contemporary paradigms of the field. Scientists in a specific field take for granted certain rules and standards of what is considered solid/convincing and what is not. In addition, the act of doing science is a habitus (coined by Pierre Bourdieu and defined as the deeply ingrained habits, skills, dispositions, and physical bearing that individuals acquire through their background and social experiences) passed from one generation of scientists to the next. Such habitus includes deciding what questions to ask, when to go or not go for something, and when to decide that something is a dead end. All these cannot be learnt in a classroom.
Published papers show the polished final product. The young scientist must learn how to evaluate and question claims. Furthermore, he/she must learn what makes a result conceptually important and frame it in the light of current knowledge. This is where the scientific taste develops. Methods can be taught directly, but scientific taste is often absorbed by proximity.
The privilege of proximity
I am calling it a privilege because not everyone gets the chance to experience it for reasons, most of the time, they can’t do anything about it. Being in certain laboratories or institutions gives access not only to equipment and projects, but also to people, conversations, and intellectual atmospheres that many students never encounter. The connections of the PI can significantly increase the chance of meeting famous (and great) scientists.
Meeting this kind of famous scientist informally demystifies the scientific world. When you meet scientists, you used only to read their names on landmark papers in the field, they become real people with stories, doubts, opinions, mistakes, and unfinished questions. This gives young scientists career calibration and intellectual confidence. It drastically helps in building this scientific taste. The privilege is not only about meeting important scientists, but to hear science spoken before it hardens into papers and publications.
Turning encounters into formation
To make use of such opportunities, a young scientist must not treat them carefully and intentionally. These are not shallow networking events, these are chances to listen, to learn, and to gradually enter the scientific conversation.
One must pay attention to what experienced scientists find exciting, doubtful, risky, or beautiful. Listen carefully to career stories that help shape his own career. A PhD is not only about producing a thesis; it is also about becoming someone capable of thinking and speaking within the scientific community. Years later, a young scientist may forget the exact seminar slide, but remember a sentence spoken over dinner or coffee and discover that it quietly changed the way he/she thinks about science.
Best regards,
Fadel
The image is from magnific.com.
RNA Stuff 