We live in an extremely competitive society in which labor productivity takes precedence over almost every other aspect of life, and the academic world does not escape this frenetic pace . In fact, it is one of the areas in which competition can become fiercer.
To progress in the precarious research career, young PhD candidates must publish, a lot. ‘ Publish or perish ‘ , says a very widespread maxim among scientists. If your work does not appear in academic journals, you will not have the option of obtaining new scholarships or contracts that allow you to continue within the system, nor will you get funding for your projects.
If you are able to survive and follow the rhythm set by the canons, perhaps you will get, after 40 (or 50 …) and after having changed your country of residence every few years, a position as research staff that brings you the desired stability. But, even if you already have the bread insured, you will want to continue investigating, and for that you need money, and to get financing you need to continue publishing, so the pressure to produce will continue to be a constant in your life, and above all you will dedicate a large part of your time as group leader to do administrative tasks , prepare budgets and request projects that allow the continuity of your research lines although, paradoxically, you have fewer and fewer hours available to put on your coat, go out to the field to collect samples or analyze your data .
A system that expels you if you are not up to the task
In the collective imagination, the scientist is a dedicated person, a lover of his profession and whose eagerness to expand knowledge makes him abstract from everything else. We have that stereotypical and mythologized image of the clueless scientist, addicted to work and neglected in other aspects of life. While it is true that science is vocational, it happens that the hectic pace of laboratories around the world is the result of this fiercely competitive system that it expels you if you are not up to the task. Taking a break or slowing down your career for things as basic as having children, taking care of a dependent family member or simply trying your luck in another workplace is penalized with expulsion from the system. If you spend a certain time without publishing, you no longer exist.
In addition, this pressure and competitiveness ends up having an impact on health and causing, in addition to anxiety and stress problems at the individual level, a bad generalized environment within work teams. Fortunately, things are changing, and many voices are raised to demand a more rational system that respects the fundamental right of all people to have life beyond the laboratory.
Fernando Maestre is a Distinguished Researcher at the ‘Ramon Margalef’ Multidisciplinary Institute for the Study of the Environment of the University of Alicante. He specializes in the study of ecosystems in arid zones and has directed a multitude of research projects related to this topic. However, he recently published an article in the journal PLOS Computational Biology that is not directly related to ecology, and which has already accumulated more than 90,000 downloads. It’s titled ‘Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs’ . It echoes the problems generated by the enormous productive pressure in the academic field, and invites to apply some simple rules with a clear objective: to improve the work environment in work teams and prioritize the health and well-being of people .
Respecting vacation periods, leaving flexibility in the schedule, being understandable with the personal and work circumstances of each team member, thanking or fostering a more collaborative environment are some simple, but effective guidelines that Maestre applies in his own group. and that show that, in addition to making life easier for researchers, it also improves their productivity. And it is that creativity and good results do not come from burned scientists.
We have spoken with Maestre about some of these great problems that the academic career drags and what would be, according to his point of view, the measures that could help solve them.
One of the great difficulties in an academic career is the pressure to publish. As much as managers try to get their lab members to take time off or go on vacation, while the system is so competitive, scientists are forced to do marathon hours of work. What would be your proposals to achieve a more humane system, what criteria could be introduced in addition to the publications?
In a country like ours this is the million dollar question. I try to make the members of my group as comfortable as possible but I am aware that the system is very pressurizing. There will always be people who work long hours in the spirit of being more productive, and those people could have more competitive advantage.
The first thing, obviously, is that the number of places must be increased. The extreme competition we have is the result of scarce resources. The number of places is so low that to enter the lowest category requires an exorbitant curriculum. It cannot be that, for example, for a Juan de la Cierva scholarship, which in theory is for people who have just finished their thesis, seven or eight publications are required.
Second, the university squares have to be really public and open. We all know that this is often not the case, and many positions already have a name and surname.
Another big problem is that in Spain a lot of emphasis is placed on the number of publications, not on their quality , and this is one of the main things to change. We become machines for making articles, whether they are relevant or not.
In your article you collect some of the most frequent problems in laboratories, which of them have you had to deal with the most or which you think is more widespread?
I think that one of the most serious problems, and one that is unfortunately more widespread in almost all countries, is that of authorship in publications. Many PIs (principal investigator) say who has to sign an article and in what order.
It may happen, for example, that you have written an article as a result of an experiment for your thesis. And that your boss comes along and tells you that this publication, which is yours, is going to be signed by someone else first because they want to promote it. Many IPs thus have absolute control over the people who work in their labs. It is a huge problem that ends up undermining the spirits and health of the people who suffer from it and is also self-perpetuating , since many people who are trained in these environments reproduce the same work scheme when they form their own research group and begin to have people in charge.
These practices involve not recognizing people’s work. Each article should include the people who have participated in it, and who have also had a relevant contribution.
Many scientists put off or abandon the idea of starting a family because it can hinder their research careers, and this issue is especially damaging to women. How can we facilitate conciliation in the academic field? What measures can be taken so that taking a break in the race to have children does not penalize?
One of the first measures that should be taken would be to imitate the calls of the European Research Council, which grant an extension of 18 months for each child. For many post-doctoral contracts there is a limit of years that cannot pass since the thesis has been completed, but to take into account the cost of maternity, the minimum that should be done is to give extra time , and this must be greater for mothers who are the ones who generally assume a greater burden in the first months.
It is common sense, fatherhood should not penalize your career, it is something that cannot happen at this point in the 21st century and more so in a country with such a low birth rate as Spain . It is absurd having to decide between starting a family or continuing to investigate.
Many people leave the research career because they cannot – or do not want to – keep up or sacrifice their personal lives ‘for the cause’. Do you think many brilliant minds have been lost along the way?
Undoubtedly. This pressure – or almost madness I would say – to publish, leads many people to leave. Science is a vocational job, most of us do it because it is what we like, but if to get a position you have to make such an extreme sacrifice that you do not have another life outside of your work, it is normal that you consider leaving it and dedicate yourself to another thing.
Many people say: “It is that when I was doing my thesis I did not take vacations …”, but we cannot hold on to that. Years ago people also rode donkeys … we are evolving and we cannot evaluate things today as they were evaluated in the past.
Personally, I think that excess pressure makes a lot of people quit, and a lot of very valid people. And you are not a better scientist for publishing a lot. Some of the brightest minds of our time have published very little. The physicist who predicted the Higgs boson could not have obtained a Juan de la Cierva scholarship in Spain… it’s ridiculous!
We are training many very good people, but also many people who are specialists in writing articles, because that is what the system asks of them.
Your recommendations for creating healthier labs are based on your personal experience. Can you give us an example of how you have put them into practice and the results you have seen?
As a result of the publication of this article, people from all over the world have written to me, I have had many very positive comments and some have even asked me if I have training in psychology (I do not). I do everything based on trial and error, and using common sense.
I’ve changed a lot too: at the beginning I worked long hours and my goal was to publish everything I could. But when I was the one who started hiring people, I realized that there were many people, especially technicians, who wanted to do their job well but also have a life outside of it. It also coincided with the birth of my first child, and that made me realize that life is much more than work.
In addition to being wrong and right, I have been shaping these rules or principles so that the environment in my research group is as healthy as possible. If you are happy, you will work well. If you are bitter and under pressure you are not going to produce quality science. It is no longer just a health issue, but many people under pressure end up doing things that are unethical, such as stealing or falsifying data.
People are different, with some you will get along better and with others worse. Your co-workers don’t have to be your best friends, but you do need to create a friendly atmosphere in the lab.
I always say that things can go well or badly, but if they do go wrong, let it not be because everything possible has not been done to make them go well. And an essential requirement for things to go well is that people are happy.
In your article, you appeal to the responsibility of group leaders to create healthier work environments. Many researchers put as much or more pressure on their staff than the system itself and create a very oppressive environment in their teams: what would you say to one of these people to convince him that it is better to have a laboratory full of happy people than burned out people?
I know that it is difficult to change the way everyone works, but it can be done. It is not necessary to follow my ten rules at once, but you can try some. And, above all, I would tell you not to forget that we are people before we are scientists , and as people that we are we have our problems, our aspirations, our good and bad days… and all of this affects our work.
Being around burned-out people also hurts us. Someone burned out cannot work well, and beyond that, it turns out that our way of acting also says a lot about us as people.
Above researchers, we are human. I prefer to be remembered as a good person rather than as a great researcher. In the end, as a friend of mine once said: “it’s the people who are going to take care of you, not your items.”
