Skip to main content

Navigating Collaborative Science

“As you navigate through the rest of your life, be open to collaboration. Other people and other people’s ideas are often better than your own. Find a group of people who challenge and inspire you, spend a lot of time with them, and it will change your life.”  - Amy Poehler

Although this quote is from a Hollywood star and not a scientist, the sentiment rings true in our profession as well. Like actors, scientists who can think outside the box and push the limits can make paradigm-shifting discoveries. But we can’t do it alone.

Good collaborations can be incredibly fruitful. In practical terms, collaborations can allow the addition of complementary expertise to a project, allowing one to work more efficiently, removing the time it would take to establish new techniques or build novel reagents in your own lab. In less tangible terms, collaborators can be sounding boards that you can bounce ideas off and who push you to consider concepts you might not have otherwise. Good collaborations can also motivate, inspire and encourage all participants. Collaborations often originate from friendships and mutual interests. Nobel laureates Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein are a great example of this. In the 1960’s, they became friends during their fellowships, started collaborating as junior faculty, and eventually merged their groups in 1974 into one lab that has been productive for more than 40 years.

Although most collaborations are not this intertwined, mutual respect, trust and effective communication are hallmarks of successful partnerships of any scale. In a highly competitive environment, it is sometimes difficult to fully trust other scientists. However, this is the essence of collaboration and long-term it is worth the effort.

In order to establish a foundation of respect and trust, it is important to understand what your colleagues goals are, and whether your goals are well aligned. You need to have a clear understanding about who will do what and about timeliness or urgency of the work. Consider discussing authorship issues in advance- if not specifics, then general approaches like what constitutes co-first authorship. These upfront discussions can be motivating to the trainees who are in the trenches doing the science. That said, fixing authorship in advance could be problematic since the direction of the science changes as the project progresses, so some flexibility is warranted.

Along these lines, be generous with giving credit.  When we are working hard on something, we usually assume we must be putting more hours in than the other side. But they probably feel the same way. And if they bring distinct expertise, we may not have a clear sense of how much effort they are contributing. So when it comes to discussing authorship and attributing effort, err on the side of being generous in acknowledging the efforts of your collaborators both in talks and publications. This will pay off in the long run.

In my experience, establishing effective and frequent routes of communication is critical. Instituting regular meetings or phone calls will force all participating members to see the progress of each other toward the common goal. This will help keep everyone on track and continue to envision the end products.

Hearing what isn’t said is also critical to successful communication. When collaborating it is key to pay attention to your colleague’s actions as well as their words. When things are good, collaborations propel science forward in a synergistic and dynamic way and both sides work hard towards the common goal. But like any relationship, sometimes it is not a good fit and even previously productive partnerships can simply fizzle out. When things just don’t work out the way you expect, be sure to have an open discussion to determine the best steps forward. If you have to completely abandon the project, don’t drag out the “break-up”. Explain the reasons to your collaborator in a timely fashion. There is always a positive and friendly way to say “this isn’t working”, or “we have decided to take another direction”, so work on your diplomacy skills when navigating a collaboration!

Whether your past collaborative experiences have been good, bad or ugly, don’t shy away from trying again. In addition to moving science forward, scientific collaborations are also a great way to make new connections and new friends who share common interests. The fruits of effective collaborations and friendships are littered among the pages of notable journals and Nobel Prizes. Keep trying until you find the right fit!


Margaret “Peggy” Goodell                                     
Former President ISEH                              
Professor and Director, STaR                   
Baylor College of Medicine                                   
One Baylor Plaza                                        
Houston, TX, USA                                      


 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to Make the Most Out of Your Lab’s Move

“The lab is moving!” I must confess, when I heard these words from my mentor about a year and a half ago, my heart dropped. Lab relocation experiences are some of the worst horror stories that you hear from fellow researchers: precious samples lost, mouse colonies never recovered, months spent re-establishing protocols. Moreover, it also meant I would have to leave San Francisco, a beautiful city that I loved to live in, and where I found many friends. Being a scientist often means not having much choice of geographic location of your work. The choice of a particular subject or even broad field usually requires a move to a new city, or even a new country. Moving with the lab means making this choice again – do I leave my project and all the progress behind, or do I accept the delay in my research and go ahead. Now, two months after our move to New York, I would like to reflect on my experiences and that of my fellow lab members on our cross-country relocation from the trainee perspect…

The cost of a postdoctoral experience and its impact on STEM diversity

Academic diversity in the biological sciences isn't what it should be.  At the most basic level, representation by underrepresented groups in the top research universities in the United States is less than 5%1.  Despite gains in enrollment of underrepresented students in the biological sciences at the undergraduate and doctoral levels, these gains do not extend to the tenure-track realm, where representation has changed very little over the past three decades. 

At another level, because of the ferocious degree of competition in science today - for publication in high impact journals, for limited grant funds, for fewer tenure-track positions -- one might argue that academic diversity is slowly been shaped by a "1%" mindset.  Perhaps more than ever before, the institution you come from-- even the lab you come from-- influences where you will publish, whether you will attain funding, and ultimately whether you will succeed. My purpose here is not to grumble; I'm sure th…

When people can…

As long as I can remember, there were people marching on the streets, either protesting or celebrating or even supporting the topic of the manifestation. It always fascinated me how powerful people can be, when they come together. In cases of manipulation of the public opinion this is of course not good. However, many times this can influence things in a positive way. Coming from a country like Greece, I have to admit that it was fairly frequent for me to see people getting together on the streets for a variety of reasons. Then, when I moved myself and my life to Boston, these events happened less frequently. I remember that I joined a protest in Boston once (although maybe this is not the right time to admit such a thing). It was about the Gulf war and people wanting their children to come back home. The subject of the protest was noble, however only a few people participated. Thus, it was to my great surprise and satisfaction when on April 22nd, 2017 the March for Science was organi…