Life, the universe and everything else...

SLForsburg forsburg at sc2.salk.edu
Wed Aug 10 09:41:54 EST 1994


In article <3288ob$f2s at cerberus-138.wustl.edu>, acm at pharmdec.wustl.edu (AC
Missias) wrote:

> In article <1994Aug8.200216.5035 at alw.nih.gov>
> rachelle at picard.niehs.nih.gov (Rachelle J. Bienstock) writes:
> 
> > not the number of hours a week you spend it the lab., but the quality
> > of your work...so what if your work moves at a slower pace- it is not
> > a race as long as what you do is fulfilling to you, don't look at what
> > others are doing!
> 
> I agree with most of what you said, but it is a *bit* naive to say that
> as long as your work is fulfilling you, don't worry -- this is a luxury
> that belongs to the tenured.  Short of that, you always have to
> prove/justify your productivity to your boss/chairman/granting agency,
> unless you are independently wealthy.  If your work moves at *too* slow
> a pace, you'll stop getting funded, and your perspective will change
> radically...
>                  

Absolutely.   Whether we like it or not, success and achievement as
defined by our profession demands a helluva lot from young investigators
(a recent editorial in NATURE specifically compares the US system to child
labour, being "marvellously productive yet cruel").  It may not be right
that you are expected to sacrifice your life "outside" the lab to succeed
within it, but as long as you are competing with people who do so, it
would be *extremely* naive to think that there is no penalty for slowing
down.   Ultimately you make the decisions about what is important to you,
and part of this is to decide whether to judge your success by the
standard of the profession, or by your own fulfilment. 

 It may not be fair that things are this way, but last time I checked,
neither was anything else in life.
        
susan

-- 
forsburg at sc2.salk.edu
    formerly forsburg at molbiol.ox.ac.uk



More information about the Womenbio mailing list