Nature asked scientists to recommend one thing that institutional and laboratory leaders could do to make science more productive, rigorous and happy.
DAVID NORRIS: Make lab health someone’s job
Just over two years ago, our institute created a new position: sustainable-science officer. The job is to improve the working environment for everyone at our research centre. The effort succeeded.
The impetus grew from an internal colloquium about the future of science that took a surprising direction. More than 100 scientists attended, and both senior and junior researchers opened up about how trapped they felt in the current system of chasing publication credit to secure career prospects. Discussion spilled well over the time allotted. It was like people had finally been given a forum to say what they had previously kept to themselves.
The institute’s directors decided to take action. I was then chair of the board, and we set out to identify what we could do ourselves, without waiting for action by funders or journals.
I canvassed the institute, e-mailing our 600 researchers an analysis of the discussion and asking for their thoughts. Problems fell into about 20 themes, including a disconnect between PhD graduation and academic positions, lack of incentives for multidisciplinary collaborations and a reward system that can penalize high-quality science. We formed workgroups around each theme to set tangible goals. Once people realized that the leadership was prepared to act, there was no shortage of volunteers.
Next, we crafted the role of science sustainability officer, and hired Claudia Lüttke, a graduate student who had moved into science management. Her job, just over half-time and supported by internal funds, was to hold us accountable to our ideals. She was also someone whom trainees and faculty members could approach to talk through concerns and ideas.
The changes were broad (see go.nature.com/2kt3ka3). The institute, backed by the university, created a data-management programme to share and archive experimental results. We now assess scientific output on the basis of quality and do not have quantity as an explicit criterion. To encourage team science, we allow publications to feature in more than one student’s PhD thesis, provided that joint authors made clear and distinct contributions. We established peer coaching teams of 4–6 researchers, run by volunteer facilitators who receive professional training. We instituted career-development plans for postdocs that give them the time and resources to devote to their own future. Everyone at the institute can access designated contacts outside their lab group to discuss good scientific practice informally (generally someone who is also an assistant or associate professor).
Even more importantly, we established a culture of openly discussing community issues across lab groups and among junior and senior researchers. Topics such as burnout, data-sharing dilemmas and PhD pressures have featured alongside neuroscience topics at weekly and monthly all-institute seminars. At meetings set up for trainees, principal investigators (PIs) talk about issues such as how they maintain work–life balance or make decisions about hiring postdocs. Our graduate students have been surprised that qualities such as enthusiasm and insight during job interviews could outrank the prominence and quantity of papers.
Unless specific people are charged by the institution with specific duties, sustainable science will not sustain itself. Lüttke has moved on to become a policy officer at another university, and her former role has been incorporated explicitly into a new senior position.
I believe that our scientific output is now as good or better than it was under the conventional system. It certainly generates less stress and wasted effort.
ULRICH DIRNAGL: Train the PIs
I teach statistics, experimental design and good scientific practice to PhD students and postdocs. They are all fascinated with their scientific projects, and simply want to do ‘the right thing’ regarding the reproducibility, robustness and rigour.
Too often, my students tell me how steps to improve the validity of their work are obstructed by their supervisor or group leader. Quotes from their PIs include “I have published in Science and Nature”; “This will jeopardize our chances for acceptance”; or “This would take longer, and we might get scooped”.
The importance of some techniques I teach, such as blinding, randomization and transparent analysis, are only now being emphasized in basic research. Methods for storing and analysing data have transformed in the past ten years. It makes no sense that senior researchers are exposed to this only haphazardly, if at all.
I canvassed the institute, e-mailing our 600 researchers an analysis of the discussion and asking for their thoughts. Problems fell into about 20 themes, including a disconnect between PhD graduation and academic positions, lack of incentives for multidisciplinary collaborations and a reward system that can penalize high-quality science. We formed workgroups around each theme to set tangible goals. Once people realized that the leadership was prepared to act, there was no shortage of volunteers.
Next, we crafted the role of science sustainability officer, and hired Claudia Lüttke, a graduate student who had moved into science management. Her job, just over half-time and supported by internal funds, was to hold us accountable to our ideals. She was also someone whom trainees and faculty members could approach to talk through concerns and ideas.
The changes were broad (see go.nature.com/2kt3ka3). The institute, backed by the university, created a data-management programme to share and archive experimental results. We now assess scientific output on the basis of quality and do not have quantity as an explicit criterion. To encourage team science, we allow publications to feature in more than one student’s PhD thesis, provided that joint authors made clear and distinct contributions. We established peer coaching teams of 4–6 researchers, run by volunteer facilitators who receive professional training. We instituted career-development plans for postdocs that give them the time and resources to devote to their own future. Everyone at the institute can access designated contacts outside their lab group to discuss good scientific practice informally (generally someone who is also an assistant or associate professor).
Even more importantly, we established a culture of openly discussing community issues across lab groups and among junior and senior researchers. Topics such as burnout, data-sharing dilemmas and PhD pressures have featured alongside neuroscience topics at weekly and monthly all-institute seminars. At meetings set up for trainees, principal investigators (PIs) talk about issues such as how they maintain work–life balance or make decisions about hiring postdocs. Our graduate students have been surprised that qualities such as enthusiasm and insight during job interviews could outrank the prominence and quantity of papers.
Unless specific people are charged by the institution with specific duties, sustainable science will not sustain itself. Lüttke has moved on to become a policy officer at another university, and her former role has been incorporated explicitly into a new senior position.
I believe that our scientific output is now as good or better than it was under the conventional system. It certainly generates less stress and wasted effort.
ULRICH DIRNAGL: Train the PIs
I teach statistics, experimental design and good scientific practice to PhD students and postdocs. They are all fascinated with their scientific projects, and simply want to do ‘the right thing’ regarding the reproducibility, robustness and rigour.
Too often, my students tell me how steps to improve the validity of their work are obstructed by their supervisor or group leader. Quotes from their PIs include “I have published in Science and Nature”; “This will jeopardize our chances for acceptance”; or “This would take longer, and we might get scooped”.
The importance of some techniques I teach, such as blinding, randomization and transparent analysis, are only now being emphasized in basic research. Methods for storing and analysing data have transformed in the past ten years. It makes no sense that senior researchers are exposed to this only haphazardly, if at all.
Source: www.nature.com