As scientists in training, we develop throughout a long process. This process is dominantly affected by the research groups that we choose to train with. In this short post, I would like to propose thinking about this journey, and these choices, in a similar way to how we think about gene evolution.
In this metaphor, each trainee is a gene, with a certain enzymatic function. This gene (trainee) is constantly subjected to the selective pressures of the environment (the lab). When the gene (trainee) is able to provide, or improve, a function that benefits the cell as a whole, it is more likely to survive.
The decisions we make dictate what sort of evolutionary changes we will go through, by choosing our environment, and so we are choosing the selective pressures that we are under.
In one scenario, during the transition between a PhD and a postdoc, a trainee may decide to go to a relatively similar lab (same methods/organism/approach). A similar environment would mean that the trainee is already relatively "fit" for it, and may undergo measured adaptations (mutations) during the training, likely sharpening their skills, just like an enzyme improving its activity, getting closer to optimal kinetics. The chances of the gene/trainee to survive the change, assuming scientific functions are the only driver of outcome (which is of course not true), is likely higher. This is not an obvious outcome.
In another scenario, a trainee may decide to "jump" to a different scientific realm. In this case, the trainee (gene) is not "fit" to survive in this environment, and will need to evolve new functions in order to succeed and survive the local selective pressures. This may mean the trainee/gene would need to evolve new functions (e.g. a new enzymatic domain that helps deal with the new environment). When thinking about it in terms of the trainee, this includes learning new skills, whether lab skills, scientific skills, or soft skills, which would help the trainee survive and then thrive, in the new environment. In our gene analogy, it would have brand new protein domains. The gene may then be composed of different, probably non-optimized, skills/enzymatic domains, perhaps making an odd, yet beautiful, combination. One of the biggest risks of this process is that if not done fast, or efficiently enough, the gene may be lost - or in other words, the trainee may not be able to successfully transition.
As a community, we all function as genes - each one created in a different evolutionary process. Some underwent the harsh process of neofunctionalization - with a unique combination of skills, able to provide novel functions. Others, perhaps are a more similar, "sharpened" version of their training environment, with scientists truly the experts of their fields for many years. These divergent strategies and paths in science is what builds the scientific community as a whole, and allows different types of scientists to function together, like the cell, as a scientific community. This also underlines the importance of having different types of scientists within the scientific community, each providing a unique insight and skill set to tackle a biological problem. This is what enables the scientific community to make tremendous leaps in knowledge, with every part of the community, and their evolutionary journey, important and contributing to the communal function.
Comments