Research and Industry

In general, research is about expanding the breadth of human knowledge, and there is rarely an end-point or measurable outcome. Furthermore, science itself needs to be reactive and adaptive because researchers around the globe are constantly making discoveries.

This is not something I fully appreciated when I entered academia, and I found the fast pace with which new projects were undertaken, and their scope, to be staggering. New projects tend to be all about excitement, diversity and innovative ideas. However, many projects do not actually get started, others change beyond all recognition as the science underpinning them evolves and some last only until the first publication. This means that there is often little consideration for the feasibility of a task or the available resources.

This lack of certainty (and in many cases, lack of management structure) means that coordination is wanting and inefficiency is rife. It is generally expected that groups of people will spontaneously organize themselves around ideas without any formal mandate or structure—a style some have called 'managing from below'. This can be entirely frustrating, but attempts to change it are futile.

For example, once I had arrived at the institute, I found I was able to manage multiple ill-defined projects with ever-changing priorities and goals while avoiding bottlenecks—a useful skill. But I also tried to quell the chaos by introducing formal project management and process, and in this I failed miserably. I could not demonstrate the usefulness of structure and strict planning for the short-focused, siloed projects that typify research, and I realized that any management practice that introduces a burden to research will stifle creativity and be met with hostility [..].

After moving to academia, I was surprised to find that the principal investigator (PI) has nearly unlimited authority. As in any monarchy, problems arise if the leader is not benevolent, experienced and well adjusted. Academia is full of horror stories of PIs hiding under their desks and refusing to come out, flying into rages if other researchers dare take public holidays or rebuking random individuals because they cannot find the person they really wish to yell at—these tales are all true [..].

[B]ut I have few regrets about moving back into academia. Looking back, I realize it took me a good two years to adjust and slip back into the academic way of doing things. Over that period, I grew a thicker skin to cope with the complex personalities and wayward attitudes I encounter in academia—today, any bizarre rudeness just amuses me. My job gives me the freedom to explore new ideas and the chance to score grants to fuel the research. I work with passionate and creative people, and the flexibility in my schedule allows me to see more of my children.

Of course, the largest benefit will always be the work itself—it has been all I wanted it to be. In one frantic month, I was tasked with mapping thousands of cancer genomes to look for common variants, investigating global health issues from five geographically distinct laboratories and analyzing five years of mass spectrometry experiments to look for disease-related biomarkers. I have been given the opportunity to try my hand at nearly anything, and I am able to reach out to experts to provide assistance. The challenges that academics face are enormous and the resources meager, but there is unbridled enthusiasm to explore the problems and a willingness to try different approaches. For me no other job (and I have had more than a few) has the same level of personal reward.