Questioning past decision based on the present level of satisfaction, especially when the present is not as we had pictured it, is typical of human beings. I’ve understood there could be two ways to face the reality of what we perceive as a “failure” (which, by the way, it is not to be ever considered as such): deny that we failed and carry on by convincing ourselves it’s what we always wanted to do, it’s the right way to do things, or accept that we are humans and it is OK to try something different if that makes us feel better (re-entering the decision-satisfaction loop).
While working towards a PhD degree, and later as a postdoctoral researcher, I mulled over a change in my career a few times. I had joined a research institute, a fresh master degree in computer science, to do oh my! bioinformatics. I liked the sound of that, as I saw bioinformatics as probably the most interesting and greatest application of computer science. I didn’t know whether I’d like it or not in the long run, but the beginning was just learning and amazement.
After several years my curiosity somehow started to decline, and I couldn’t understand what the underlying cause was.
More or less at the same time I was suggested to try a publication-based PhD. It sounded a good deal: no need to attend classes, no tuition fees, work a full time job as before but with the intention to publish something. I knew about this PhD deal since the beginning of my career, but I didn’t take the chance at that time, I wasn’t ready just yet. But years later, a little demotivated but willing to try a new challenge, I jumped on the bandwagon. After all, how do I know whether I like to do a PhD if I have not even tried?
The more I worked towards obtaining the degree, the more I thought it was not exactly what I was after. I even went further, thinking I should have not picked computer science at all to begin with (PhD blues, perhaps?)…But, see, I love science, I love research, but somehow I didn’t feel I was good at it. You may call it imposter syndrome, or maybe just not enough of the commitment the role requires, or maybe the specific environment I was in…I don’t know. But two things were clear to me towards the end of the course: that I didn’t want a career in academia, and that I loved to review/edit manuscripts.
The latter was a pleasant discovery, and the more I wrote and co-wrote papers, the more I enjoyed the activity, and I started thinking that I had found an alternative path to science. I finished the PhD, although it caused me a serious meltdown (as I guess it did to many of us), because there is no way I leave something unfinished if I can help it. Besides, no matter what one goes through during the course, no matter how easy or difficult it is, at the end we earn a degree, a qualification that is there to stay and shows we have tried and succeeded.
Nearly at the end of my PhD I thought I was ready to then leave academia. Well, not completely, as I was still considering to become a scientific editor: becoming an editor meant keeping a strong connection with science, it meant to be exposed to science and learn constantly, without the toxicity of the whole academic system (yeah, well, to some degree). I finally came to terms with my past decisions: I enjoy DOING science, contributing to science, but I can only do it in an environment where the harsh rules of academia don’t apply.
However, while I tried to get closer to being an editor, I started a postdoc. After all I have said about not wanting a career in academia…was I crazy? Not at all. I simply couldn’t find another job while still living in the same city (wasn’t yet thinking of moving elsewhere)…so I resorted to try and stay where I was (given they wanted me), which was, all considered, one of the best workplaces I could be. So, yes, I was somehow repeating a pattern, trying the ultimate test: do I really, really want to leave academia? Would I actually like to be a postdoctoral researcher? Would it be better if I instead joined a different organization? I had to know, and there was no other way of knowing except trying, so I jumped on this bandwagon as well.
The result was, again, that I did like the research bits, the doing science and contributing to research bits, I just didn’t like the pressure within the academic setting…the publish or perish dilemma is rubbish to me, the impervious and ever narrowing road to tenure is simply not a road I want to be on. Meanwhile, as a postdoc I was invited to review papers as well, which got me more convinced that a scientific editor job would suit me more. I recently managed to enter that world, even though not as my primary job…let’s call it experience building activity. More on this to come.
Eventually I left the organization, and the country, and I am living everyone’s nightmare: the search for a new job, clearly oriented towards academia nemesis, the industry. Am I still trying to get on the scientific editing bandwagon though? Yes, of course. Do I want to keep using my bioinformatics skills? Yes to this, too. Would a hybrid role as a biotech bioinformatician with an eye on research publishing be what I am after? Will I be able to merge the two professions or will I face a choice eventually?
No comments:
Post a Comment