The real pleasure of science is discovery. You may be alone in the lab late at night, no doubt wishing you were somewhere else. Perhaps the last few months have not gone so well, but this is the crucial experiment. If it works, those hours of hard work and despair evaporate away and it all becomes worthwhile. Even if your finding is just a small piece in a very big jigsaw, it means that your hard work has paid off, you have that longawaited result – and hopefully something publishable. Publishing data, whether we like it or not, is a key step in successful research. In academia the phrase ‘publish or perish’ is of course exaggerated. But realistically, however good your research may be, and however important your next paper will be (and everyone believes that their next paper will be their best), success in most areas of science rests on what you have published.

WHY AND WHEN TO PUBLISH

While science is, at least to most dedicated researchers, a personal activity, its ultimate success depends on collective effort, on the achievements and interactions of a vast community of scientists with varied and complementary skills.

Who owns science seems like a simple question, but the answers can be complex and varied depending on the situation. As a student or post-doc you might believe that you and your boss (supervisor or lab head) jointly own the results, as a company employee it will seem obvious that the company has ownership (in most cases that is how they make their money) and as an independent scientist in academia the common belief is that the results are yours. In fact there are many stakeholders, particularly in academic research. The scientist who had the ideas, secured funding, supervised the work and inevitably analysed and disseminated (e.g. published) the results is of course a major stakeholder. But so too is the host institution which provides the facilities and support and often the salary of the scientist. The funding bodies (of which there may be several) may also have a claim on ownership. In most cases these issues do not matter. You, as the scientist and your team, will publish the results and use them as you see necessary for securing future funds, developing new hypotheses and plans, submitting for higher degrees or presenting at meetings. It does, however, matter when the findings have potential commercial value and can be exploited, when patents may be filed or when agreements are in place with companies.

CHANGING CULTURE

Traditionally, research within the commercial sector has been clearly aimed towards developing products or processes of value which will generate revenue (profit) for the company and the shareholders. In contrast, research in the academic sector has been called ‘pure’, i.e. curiosity driven with no obvious application or commercial value.

The early phase of research can be somewhat bewildering and varies considerably between countries, institutions and labs. In some institutions, the first year or so is spent on taught courses, with only short lab projects, to be followed by a gradual introduction to the research project. At the other extreme, the student is launched into their own research project on day 1 and expected to produce some results by day 3. Both approaches are valid, have benefits and disadvantages, and each poses challenges and frustrations. For any new research project there always seems to be too much to take in at once: new colleagues, new techniques, numerous papers to read – most of which seem unintelligible or at best irrelevant – talks to attend and, most importantly, results to obtain. There is so much to do and learn, but as soon as you are in the lab, try to do an experiment.

LIFE IN THE LAB

The lab is not just a physical structure, but also a group of people each acting and interacting in different and specific ways. No two lab structures are identical because they are determined by the personalities and activities of the staff, the size of the lab (people, funding and space), the type of work being undertaken and the style of the lab head. You need to know about the physical structure, the individuals, what they do, i.e. ‘how the lab works’.

Research is expensive and funds normally need to be sought from external bodies. General infrastructure, things like buildings and their maintenance, libraries, computing facilities, administration, personnel, cleaners, porters and car parks, are usually funded by the institution. Increasingly, though, such costs have to be recovered from external sources, usually as indirect costs (or overheads) charged on grants. The direct costs of a research project pay the salaries of researchers (and sometimes part or all of the lab head), equipment and running costs (reagents, disposable items, computing costs, animals, cells, etc.). These will almost certainly have to be paid through grants sought by the principal investigator. Without such grants, very little research can be undertaken. The extent of funding required varies considerably from theoretical studies which may need just people, libraries and computing facilities, to astrophysics where large radio telescopes are extremely expensive and are almost always shared by a large consortium of scientists.

Securing external funding is also used as a measure of success in science. Significant income from peer-reviewed grants is an important part of a CV which greatly improves prospects of jobs and promotion. Money talks – even in science. Getting such grants is not so easy, particularly for the inexperienced. There is great competition for such funding, and award rates for some sources can be as low as 10%.

WHAT CAREER?

Completion of a research degree usually takes several years, considerable hardship and very hard work (but hopefully also enjoyment and reward), yet in research this is just the first step on the ladder. Addressing the question of what career may seem unusual and even depressing after spending so long in research training, but it is practical and necessary. Within research there are a number of ultimate career paths – academia (ideally a tenure- track or tenured, faculty position), research institute or industry. It is often too early to make that decision at, or even soon after, completion of a Ph.D., but a view on your ultimate (and realistic) ambition is helpful. It would be unfair and untrue to say that all (or even most) Ph.D. students achieve the goal of a career in full-time research. Such positions are highly competitive and relatively few compared to the number of successful Ph.D.s. Many who choose to undertake a Ph.D., do so with uncertainty about what they want to do. For some it is simply a way of putting off a decision. But even those who undertake a Ph.D. with a burning ambition to secure a life-long position in research may eventually do something else which they had not planned, either through choice or necessity. This can be viewed as failure and a waste of extensive training, but this is a rather negative and even naïve view. Experience in research and acquisition of the numerous skills involved in this activity is enormously valuable for a range of challenging careers, and puts research-trained scientists at the forefront of many career opportunities.

Maybe it is hard to decide if you want to be a scientist because there are so many aspects to science, and scientists do so many different things. As Medawar noted (above) scientists come in every shape and form. The stereotypical scientist – the ‘man’ of logic, careful judgement and assessment who has a logical view of the world, sets up hypotheses and then tests them – is far from reality. Successful science demands imagination, and insight, sensitivity and common sense, as well as a passion for discovery.

This book has, by necessity, focussed on the potential problems faced by scientists moving up their careers, and has tried to provide some advice. Most scientists will hopefully encounter few, if any, of these problems and will rely simply on their own drive and initiative, on friends and colleagues and a sense of fair play. To highlight the potential problems may lead to a rather pessimistic view of research, which is not well founded. Few scientists encounter serious cases of fraud or plagiarism, unfairness or unwillingness to share, discrimination or prejudice. For the most part, the scientific community is remarkably open, friendly and welcoming – and a pleasure to work with. Some of the issues mentioned in this book are ones which you should be prepared for, but do not look for them around every corner.

The primary means of communication within and between the vast scientific community (and those outside science) is through publication – papers, reviews, books, general articles (see Chapter 5), but there is much more to it than just the written word. There are many forms of oral presentation – short and longer talks, poster presentations, personal interactions, group discussions and ‘networking’. All of these are important (and becoming more so) for a successful scientific career and for getting known in the scientific community. Each one of these, whatever the size or composition of the audience, should be approached in the same way, taking time and effort to prepare a clear and professional (but not too flashy) presentation. As with writing, available technology – such as sophisticated graphics software and audio visual facilities – leave no room for excuses about sloppy presentation.

Few students or young scientists (and equally many older and experienced ones) have the natural flair and confidence to speak to a large audience, but practice, training and constructive criticism can turn even the most timid and mumbling speaker into a polished presenter. Most graduate training programmes now provide many opportunities for oral presentations – lab meetings, departmental or group sessions, posters and talks to a wider group in your university or research facility.

Hard luck on spouses?

To many people scientists are rather odd. Most of the population look forward to Friday evening – the end of the week – and dread Monday mornings, living in anticipation of the next holiday. Scientists tend to be rather different. They generally like going to work and consider themselves lucky to have a job which is so enjoyable. This is just as well, since success in science is rarely achieved by working from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., for five days a week. There will be many times when it is necessary to work late into the evenings and at weekends, and to travel to meetings away from home. This of course brings problems for scientists and their families.

PARTNERS AND FAMILIES

The Nobel Prize winner Dorothy Hodgkin commented that one of the most important things for a scientist is to find is a sympathetic and understanding partner; someone who will put up with the many hours you will have to spend in the lab, working on a paper or popping into work at the weekends, which inevitably takes longer than planned; someone who is happy to plan the family holiday around international conferences, to read page after page of thesis or paper and hear talks being practised. There are many jobs that are demanding on time and effort. The competitive areas of business, finance, running your own company, all need commitment outside normal working hours, but in most cases the benefits for your family are a little more obvious. It is not surprising that many scientists partner other scientists who at least know (or should know) about the pressures of research.

Securing the job you had been aiming for – perhaps an academic post in a University or a scientific position in a research institute or a company – brings a great sense of achievement and relief. It also brings new responsibilities, exciting challenges and significant changes in your working life. It is likely that you will have the sole, or at least the major, responsibility for the direction of research in your lab and of all those working with you, securing funding, managing finance, publishing and writing reports.

DIRECTING RESEARCH

In theory, if you have secured an independent position, you will probably have been successfully directing your own research for some time. In reality, it is likely that you will have done this with regular advice from the lab head or other senior staff. It can be a little frightening to realise that you are now the lab head (even if it is a very small lab at first), who makes the decisions and is responsible for the successes and failures. There is a temptation to totally ‘go it alone’ and stand or fall on your own abilities. A few will do this very well and achieve great success, but most young scientists will benefit from continued advice. Indeed some of the most successful senior and experienced scientists seek the advice of respected colleagues on their draft papers or grant applications, on ideas, project plans and results throughout their career. You may remain in contact with your previous mentor or talk regularly to senior colleagues in your new environment.

Summary

Ecologists starting research for the first time have many questions about the scientific method. This chapter gives examples of these questions and classifies them into three groups: those concerned with the analytical process of research; those concerned with the special problems of ecology, particularly how we synthesize knowledge and develop ecological theory; and those concerned with the social aspects of research. The chapter describes how these groups of questions will be answered in successive sections.

A distinction is drawn between what scientists do in research (the progress they make) and how it should be done (the processes that should be used).

Summary

Our value systems help us to maintain consistency in our lives and lead us to adopting identifiable standpoints on particular issues. People with different value systems are likely to adopt different standpoints. The fourth and most fundamental stage of criticism applied to a piece of research is standpoint criticism – how it looks to people with different value systems. This is particularly important in defining the most basic assumptions made.

From their differing standpoints, scientists, resource managers, and policymakers can each limit the type of research that may be attempted and the management or policy to be implemented. Some scientists value scientific research for its own sake: some politicians value science in terms of its tangible benefit for solving identified problems in society. These contrasting values lead to different standpoints in the way that science should be organized and funded and particularly in the relative importance of peer review in the assessment of research programs and individual proposals.

Decisions about environmental policy and management of natural resources are made from particular standpoints. How scientific research can influence these decisions most effectively remains uncertain. Examples are given where scientific analysis was central to a particular resource management policy, and where it was excluded. Major changes became inevitable in both cases. In the first, society's demands changed the objectives of management – despite scientists concerns. In the second, environmental catastrophes occurred resulting in policy changes that some scientists had been urging.

The relationship between science and society is discussed from the perspective of ecology and how this relationship may influence what science is done and how it should be analyzed critically.

Recall nine questions asked by beginning researchers about working in the research community:

1. 26. Can I get funded?

2. 27. Funding!

3. 28. I am interested in funding and individual recognition.

4. 29. How do I choose a committee that will give me a broadly based opinion?

5. 30. How can I get my committee to stop suggesting things to do?

6. 31. What if my committee steers me incorrectly?

7. 32. How can I analyze, integrate, and present to the outside world?

8. 33. How can I choose a research topic of value? Or if you have chosen a research topic how can you persuade someone to fund it?

9. 34. How can I make research relevant to current topics of theoretical and practical interest?

Obtaining funding, achieving recognition, selecting and working with a committee, finding a topic of value and relevance, and seeing work through to publication involve social processes. Funding decisions are frequently made by panels of scientists and, while a research proposal should have scientific merit, the panel must be persuaded that what it offers is better than comparative proposals. Achieving recognition requires more than doing effective research – the research must be acclaimed by others. Working with a supervisory committee requires actively seeking criticism and support for a research proposal, and for the research itself. Writing a paper for publication requires that you present an argument that persuades referees of its correctness and value, and that it will be understood by the scientific community reading the particular journal.

Summary

Theories are generalizations. The theoretical constructions used must explain what is true in common between particular examples, and must be suffciently detailed to explain what may be different between them, and how commonalities and differences may be resolved. Theories contain questions. For some theories the question(s) are explicit and represent what the theory is designed to explain. For others the questions are implicit and relate to the amount and type of generalization, given the particular choice of methods and examples used by researchers in constructing the theory. Theories continually change, as exceptions are found to their generalizations and as implicit questions about method and study options are exposed.

The development of a theory about vegetation and climate changes in central Alaska during the late Quaternary illustrates the following approaches: disconfirmation of a simple postulate, exploratory analysis in constructing new postulates, research to refine those postulates, and synthesis with knowledge from different types of investigation that give confirmatory support.

The use of a theory developed for one situation and applied to another requires particular care. Apractical example, in which a theory about mate selection in one species of fish provided the starting point for investigating other species, illustrates the need to specify axioms very carefully when using theories.

Theories may develop in a progressive or regressive way. Development is progressive if the generality of a theory increases. It may be regressive if the theory becomes unable to incorporate the conclusions from some investigations without its originator making ad hoc adjustments that invoke special exceptions for particular circumstances.

Introduction

We use theory when we analyze an ecological problem, no matter how practical or field oriented the problem may be.

Summary

Models are analogies representing important features of a system. By constructing and then studying a model we hope to explain how the system functions. However, mathematical models are made using particular rules and procedures of construction. These determine both the types of simplification made and how the model can be assessed. Rules and procedures for constructing three types of ecological model are reviewed and their use in ecological research is discussed.

Dynamic systems models have a defined mathematical form, usually differential or difference equations. They have a long history of describing idealized ecological interactions and speculating about general properties of ecological systems. Their use has been criticized because of diffculties in assessing how effectively they can represent particular ecological systems. Statistical models have a mathematical structure specifically designed for fitting to data and calculating error. Parsimony is an important procedure in construction – using no more complicated a model than is needed to describe patterns in measured data. An example of a model of a stochastic process is described. Statistical models have been criticized because of diffculties in interpreting ecological significance of parameters and lack of uniqueness, i.e., that different models may fit a data set equally well. General explanations have to be built up by comparing models constructed in different instances.

Systems simulation models take advantage of increased computing power and flexibility in computer languages to make more comprehensive representations of ecological processes than either dynamic systems models or statistical models. However, the potential for complexity can lead to difficulty in deciding a model's bounds, what should, and should not be included, and how to assess the model.

Summary

The problems encountered in ecological research, and diYculties in solving them, have led to substantial criticisms of the subject, and particularly its methods. These criticisms, and some proposals for improvement, are discussed. Criticisms of general methods and objectives for a science are most frequently based on the critic's ideals. As science has developed to study new problems, particularly those not associated with the physical and chemical sciences, our understanding of what can be studied, and how best it can be done, have changed. Some criticisms of ecology are based on the ideals, for both objectives and methods, more suitable for the physical and chemical sciences.

Progressive Synthesis has two ideals. (1) Progress in ecology requires the development of theory for integrative concepts. This is an ideal for the subject of ecology, enabling construction of scientific explanations for questions about communities, ecosystems, and populations. (2) Progress in ecology requires dominance of the behavioral norms of science over the counternorms. This is an ideal for research methodology. The use of upward inference as a process of reasoning is made by discussion and debate and may not be resolved definitively by clear-cut measurement or experiment. This requires that social processes in research must proceed effectively and not be restricted or biased.

Introduction

Criticisms made of ecology have sometimes been acrimonious about its achievements, or perceived lack of them, and about its methods. Improved analysis or new, and hopefully improved, research can meet valid criticism of a particular investigation or research finding. But criticisms about general levels of achievement, or the methods used, are more fundamental and can not be responded to through additional research.