As a follow-up to our tips regarding what NOT to do when picking a grad school lab, here, based on our own experiences, we present 5 critical things to do when considering what school and lab to join for your graduate studies and research:

DO…

1.  Talk to the students and postdocs during your visit.  A lot.

You want a dose of reality for what a lab is really like?  Just talk to the people who work there.  During your visit, professors and graduate staff will say whatever is necessary to get you to join their lab.  Graduate students and postdocs are under no such obligation, and, in our experience, are brutally honest about sharing their grad school perceptions and experiences.  As you walk through the lab and talk to people, take note of body language, interactions with other lab mates and most of all, take note of their reflections about working for that particular advisor.  Ask to go to a group meeting, if one is being conducted during your visit.  These may be some of the most important conversations you may have in helping make your choice.

2.  A rotation.

Most biology disciplines will insist that their graduate students rotate through three (sometimes four) different labs during the course of a year before finally choosing one.  As PhD programs become more and more interdisciplinary, other departments are either changing their policies or welcoming the opportunity to do rotations in their labs.  Graduate advisors hate rotation students, because they have an incentive for long-term commitment to their projects.  However, it is in your interest to consider taking a lab for a “test drive.”  On top of the benefits of adding interdisciplinary skills to your scientific repertoire, you may discover you hate mouse work, or that you have an interest in organic synthesis that you never knew, or that your “dream advisor” is an inattentive jerk.  Likewise, several students at my graduate institution formed lucrative collaborations between two labs for their PhD studies by rotating in each.

3.  Interview the professors.

Remember, during your visit, you are as much there to interview potential advisors as you are to be interviewed by them.  Ask about working expectations, publications for graduation (and yes, some professors will admit they only publish in top journals), their views on outside collaborations, and anything you feel would make the difference in choosing (or not choosing) to work for them.  Don’t be so in awe of a Nobel Laureate or leader in their field that you forget to ask thorough questions that will affect your future.  Take it from someone that worked for a very famous chemist with a large lab—the awe wears off in two weeks.  The PhD process lasts years.

4.  Consider the impact of tenure in your decision, both ways.

If, during your visits, an assistant professor catches your attention as a potential advisor, take some time to consider how their tenure process would impact your PhD.  If they are just setting up a lab, the first six months to a year of your graduate experience might involve helping them establish their lab and set everything up.  There will likely be a huge pressure on you to produce and publish papers, which the professor will be graded on as well by their committee.  On the other hand, an assistant professor will likely give you far more attention than a more established scientist (even at the level of a peer if the age difference isn’t great), may spend time in the lab showing you techniques and may even give you a lot of control over project scope and direction.  Having worked for a second-year assistant professor, a famous tenured professor, and a couple that were in-between career-wise, there are advantages and disadvantages to each.  Consider carefully what kind of a relationship you’d like to form with your mentor and how tenure will play a role in that.

5.  Research your intangibles.

Once you get home from your last visit (and yes, keep an open mind even if your first school grabs your attention), sit down and formulate a chart to compare the pluses and minuses of all your visits.  Use our list above to detail pluses and minuses for each school.  Lastly, research intangibles that you weren’t able to get to on your visit.  Email professors and graduate student offices with follow-up questions.  Contact graduate students and postdocs that you spoke with for any other impressions or unanswered questions.  Once you narrow down professors that you would like to work for, take a look at where their alumni have landed jobs and what kind of papers they are currently publishing.  Lastly, take into account other intangibles, such as the cost of living in the city where your school is located, travel budget, and how outside interests might influence where you want to live (i.e. big city versus small college town).

Recent college graduates, and current grad students/postdocs, what do you think of our list?  Would this have been helpful for you in picking your current school?  Do you have other dos or don’ts that we should add on here?  Drop us a line in the comment box below!

Labguru recently wrote about strategic tips for thesis preparation, as spring is historically a time when labs graduate a lot of students.  But just as surely as current students leave, new students join, with April and May constituting the vast majority of organized graduate school visit weekends.  A visit weekend is a chance to get an up-close look at university programs, advisors you’ve wanted to work with, and to test chemistry with potential labmates.  Nothing can equal an opportunity to spend some time visiting schools you want to attend for graduate school, but it’s not enough to just visit.  We at Labguru want to offer additional advice to consider before, during and after your trips to make what could be the most important decision of your career in science – where you get your PhD – a little bit easier.

DON’T…

1.  Choose a school based on one dream advisor

You’d be surprised how often you hear on a visit weekend “I’d only come here to work with Dr. So-and-so.”  Nothing could be a more dangerous proposition.  Especially if your potential advisor is famous or highly sought-after, you may be competing with many other students for a spot in their lab.  Secondly, even if they informally agree to work with you, funding changes or other extenuating factors (such as universities limiting how many students can join a lab in a given year) could mean a lack of a spot for you.  And finally, while you may have an idea of what a certain advisor will be like based on publication records or interactions at conferences, the possibility exists that working for them may not be a perfect match.  As a rule, always have 2-3 labs that you’d be happy working in for any school you decide to attend.

2.  Pick a lab based on a hip/trendy/sexy science

Similar to our advice above, don’t let the Science trend du jour dictate your lab choice.  Remember when everyone was publishing a paper based on one microchip array?  Or running knockout screens with a small RNAi library?  Trends in science change, and what was a breakthrough technology yesterday becomes Figure 1 of a paper tomorrow.  Graduate school is a time to hone and craft a basic scientific experimentation and bench skill set.  You can always formulate a collaboration during your graduate studies or pursue a postdoc in a specialized area later in your career.

3.  Judge a school or lab based solely on the visit weekend

Visit weekends are some of the best times you will enjoy as a college senior.  You will be put up in great hotels, wined and dined by graduate officials, possibly pursued and flattered by your academic heroes during the one time they’re instructed to be nice to you, and taken to amazing tourist destinations in the middle of a work day.  And while these perks are all done in the attempt to entice you to attend a certain institution, they do not reflect the daily reality of graduate school life.  Have a great time and enjoy yourself, but remember the task at hand: objectively evaluating potential advisors, the quality of graduate life and student resources, and whether you can see yourself on campus and in that city for five or more years.

4.  Pick hastily or agree to anything during the visit.

When it comes to picking a graduate lab, “measure twice, cut once” is your best policy.  You have plenty of time to go back, evaluate notes, compare visits, and even get feedback from your undergraduate laboratory advisor(s).  Furthermore, no professor that pressures you into committing to them is worth working for.  It is far more difficult to switch schools and labs after you’ve already started graduate studies than it is to think carefully before choosing.

5.  Not visit.

The biggest mistake you can make in choosing your future graduate lab is to forego visiting.  Unlike undergraduate college tours, graduate laboratory visits (for most scientific disciplines) are fully paid for.  If you can’t make the organized visit weekend, most graduate schools will even work with you to schedule a private visit.  Furthermore, no Skype conversation or phone conference is equal to sitting down with a professor and their students or walking through the lab.  You literally have nothing to lose!

Now that you’ve read our “Don’t” tips, stay tuned for our next post, offering some important “Do’s” for picking your grad school lab. As always, we value your comments. Thanks for reading!

Ask the average person what they think about science and scientists, and you’re likely to get a range of responses.  Whether because of the portrayal (often translating to stereotyping) of scientists in popular media, the general mystique and mystery associated with what they do, and a general reverence for their brilliance, people carry many misconceptions and misunderstandings about what scientists are really like.  In our latest blog post, Labguru dispels our top five:

1. Failures are just failures

Let’s face it—science involves a lot of failure.  For every successful experiment, blockbuster paper and groundbreaking discovery, there are many more that never panned out.  Few fields require as much resiliency and patience, especially during graduate studies, as science.  But unlike other fields, scientists learn as much from the experiments that don’t work as from the ones that do.  In the ongoing search for an HIV/AIDS vaccine, several recent failed clinical studies were viewed as beneficial because scientists were able to change strategies for attacking the virus.  Indeed, a recent study in the RAND Journal of Economics found that “biologists who were given more time and latitude in their research—as well as the freedom to fail—before they were evaluated produced more hit papers and more duds.”  So the next time your experiment doesn’t quite work the way you thought it would, don’t despair – in the world of science, it is still considered valuable data!

2. Scientific breakthroughs are planned on schedule

Yes, it is true that science is a rigorous, empirical and highly precise field of work.  Discoveries in most, if not all, disciplines are built on the backbone of hundreds’ of years of other smaller experimental discoveries, ideas and even failures (see above).  However, groundbreaking breakthroughs are not always the result of a linear progression of knowledge, nor are they often made on the timeframe that either scientists or their funding institutions would like.  Did you know that many seminal scientific cures and discoveries were entirely serendipitous?  A list of some of the best includes penicillin, Coca-Cola, Teflon, plastic, and (yikes!) radioactivity.  It was even more recently that a Pfizer chemist named Ian Osterloh, self-admittedly doing research “in the hope of improving people’s lives,” accidentally discovered that a pill being developed for the treatment of heart disease had some rather unexpected side effects.  That little blue pill turned into Viagra, with a profit of over $2 billion per year.

3. Science isn’t creative or fun

Easily the biggest misconception about science, it’s also one of the least true.  Science is thought of as austere, serious, dedicated and repetitive, but sadly, rarely creative.  Recent neuroscience research suggests that “connections between the frontal lobes and temporal lobes are more important than those between left and right hemispheres” for creativity and idea generation, reversing the age-old misconception that right-brained, artistic people are creative, while left-brained science-types are more number oriented.  Scientists have to constantly think outside the box, come up with ideas and hypotheses that have never even been imagined before, all while often managing their own projects at a very young age.  It is no wonder that the creative process in scientists and artists is remarkably similar!

4. Scientists’ objectivity means they lack emotions

There is a huge difference between objectivity and lack of emotions.  Scientists must be open-minded, fair, unbiased, and dedicated to inquiry via the scientific method and peer review.  But it requires a lot of passion to devote upwards of a decade to a specific field of study (in many cases a highly specialized subset thereof), to work the long hours required to execute projects on a multi-year (or multi-decade) timeline.  In addition, the rigorous tenure process in academia requires many personal and professional sacrifices.  This is usually the reason that if you ask the average scientist about his or her research, they could opine for hours about it and its potential benefit to mankind.  In fact, leading scientists in India recently told aspiring students that it is “passion for a subject and not marks to pursue brilliant careers in science.”

5. Scientists have to work in traditional scientific fields

It used to be that choosing to pursue graduate studies in science meant a pre-decided career track in either academia or industry, usually at the bench.  To this day, many professors and programs continue to groom their PhDs for these traditional paths.  But with programs worldwide producing too many PhDs, compounded by an academic job market with too few jobs to employ them, there has been a steady rise in alternative and non-traditional careers for scientists, including patent law, science writing, journalism, finance and business, and yes, even the arts, among others.  Many PhD programs now include joint areas of study, the ability to take classes outside of one’s field (even in non-science fields) and speaker series where they bring back alumni and notables who have successfully pursued non-science careers.  If you have an inkling that you’d like to apply your graduate training beyond the bench, or even beyond science, take advantage of these opportunities.  It will not be long before scientists and engineers will have a plethora of options across many fields after their graduate studies.

What do you guys think?  Have we covered the biggest and most common misconceptions?  Do you have any that you’ve encountered and would like to add to the list?  Drop us a comment or feedback below!

When it comes to listing the dreadful tasks on a PhD’s to-do list, writing a dissertation is always ranked among the top ones. And for a good reason. This document needs to cover all the ground you have covered while working hard on the bench, including thorough discussion, detailed methodologies and an illustrated results section that will make your 5-years’ work worthy of the Doctor of Philosophy title stuck right after your surname. And worse, you need to write it all by yourself. So, how does one approach and prepare a document that summarizes 5 years of hard work?

When to start?

It really depends on your writing abilities and the pedantry of your PI when it comes to reviewing manuscripts (I know of graduate students who were six months behind their last submission deadline due to a strict PI). Usually between 3 to 6 months is a fair amount of time for writing your thesis; make the effort to focus on solely writing and not performing complementing experiments.

Where should I begin? What sections should be included? Is it like writing a paper?

Like with writing an article, you should first read the thesis writing requirements before commencing any serious writing. These requirements will answer some of the questions above as well as instruct you on the thesis language, length and judgment process.

While thesis chapters can vary among universities around the world, it is common to have the following chapters, much like an article:

• Introduction including aim/motivation
• Materials and methods
• Results
• Discussion and conclusion

Of course, you should discuss the outline with your supervisor and get his approval.

Article vs. Thesis

Unlike writing an article (see “Write an Article a Journal will Love“), here each section should be more expanded and discussed more thoroughly. Another important difference between writing an article and a thesis is the fact that a thesis can include several publications, connecting them into a complete research story. In many cases a thesis will contain several sub-projects that are loosely connected and will require a certain creativity to connect them together under one roof.








To make your thesis writing experience easier, here are some tips for how to write an excellent thesis while maintaining your sanity:

Time – Writing requires creative resources and it demands energy and time. See that you start writing ahead of time so that you will not write under time stress (which surely won’t help your creative capabilities).
Batch mode – Do your best to work on the thesis without any distractions such as performing side experiments or talking to lab mates. If you feel you find it hard to write at the lab, go home. If you find it impossible to write at home, find a place at the lab or at the library.
Pass the block slowly but surely – Writer’s block is very common to novice writers. Usually, the most difficult part is to pass the first couple of sentences of each section (introduction, results), then usually the writing becomes more fluent. The way to pass this block is to be persistent but if you feel you’re not progressing, stop for breaks and do something else. Many times after doing a break from writing, our brain generates new ideas and avenues.
Start with basic formatting and table of contents – The basis for good formatting in minimum time is to integrate it from the start and not leaving it to the end. Decide on a font and paragraph style for each header and the body text and implement it through the table tool in Word. It will make your life easier later on.
Figures – The easiest technique is to add a two-cell table into the position you want the figure to fit and then paste your figure into one of the cells and into the other you paste the legend text. The table will restrain the image and text from floating around while you change pages or copy the text to another document.
Bibliography – It will be easier to “cite-while-you-write”, a function that I found very handy with Endnote. Note, though, that there is Mendeley software which is a rising star in the niche of bibliography collection generating and organizing. Whatever your choice, this will be far better than to manually type all the literature by yourself and working with these softwares is recommended from the day you start your graduate studies.

In addition to the suggestions here and in “Tips for Writing Your Thesis,” do you have any other tips that can aid in writing the dissertation easier? Let us know!

There are a handful of procedures which almost all life science researchers encounter at a certain point along their work. These common techniques can be difficult to troubleshoot and in many cases lead  to the stall of research progression. Since some of these techniques serve as the basis for future experimentation, many employers (in academia as well as industry) expect their candidates to be proficient and master them well. While there are many basic molecular biology techniques, we’ll discuss the five most common techniques:

1. PCR
Without doubt the most widely used technique in life science research. Since its invention in the early 80s, PCR has profoundly reshaped and advanced molecular biology techniques. Advanced techniques of PCR, such as reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and qualitative PCR (qPCR) have pushed forward the analysis of gene expression across different samples and today are common tools in molecular biology research labs. Thus, comprehensive knowledge of how each component of the reaction affects the reaction efficiency and efficacy can tremendously help troubleshoot problematic PCR experiments and is regarded as a must-have knowledge.

2. Molecular cloning
The need to genetically engineer a gene to manipulate molecular, cellular and whole animal physiology has generated a multitude of tools and techniques. The most common technique of the whole ‘molecular cloning’ lot is ligation-dependent cloning, which utilizes the restriction of a DNA fragment and subsequent ligation into a linearized and compatible vector/plasmid. With time, and the advent of the PCR methodology, researchers developed alternatives such ligation-independent cloning (LIC), restriction free (RF) cloning and sequence independent cloning (SLIC), all of which bypass the need to restrict and ligate DNA fragment. These techniques are frequent impediments to research progress due to the difficulty in controlling the process of restriction/ligation or amplification by PCR.

3. Transfection

While the term “transfection” originated from virology, it soon conquered the cell biology field by enabling the delivery of plasmids containing genes of interest into the target eukaryotic cell. Several methodologies have been developed for the transfer of plasmid DNA into eukaryotic cells such as calcium phosphate protocol, liposomes vesicles delivery, cationic polymers and magnet-assisted nanoparticles delivery. Viral-based transfection methodologies have also been developed though the construction of the vector itself, though it is much more time consuming than a regular transfection-aimed vector. The ability to select clones that stably express the gene of interest opened up the field for intensive, prolonged and reproducible experimentation. Sound knowledge of how to generate stable and transient transfected cell lines (and primary cells as well) are a must for every molecular biologist who works with cells.

4. Western blotting
A basic immunoassay technique that allows the detection of picograms amounts of protein in a sample through the use of a specific antibody. This method verifies the presence of a protein, its relative abundance and its sequence-based molecular weight. The major drawback of this technique is the necessity of a specific antibody; since most endogenous proteins don’t have a commercial antibody, especially those that are novel, it is common to generate polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies through animal vaccination or through hybridoma generation. Even so, western blotting is a vital and common technique in many articles as a mean to prove the presence of protein expression/presence.

5. Protein and Chromatin Immunoprecipitation
Life scientists are mostly interested in the interaction between molecules within the cell, mainly protein-protein and protein-DNA/RNA interactions. This is one of the reasons why immunoprecipitation is a highly popular technique for demonstrating molecular interactions. As with western blotting, there is a need for a specific antibody to bind the bait protein. Mastering this technique will enable detection of specific interactions rather than non-specific ones, which is crucial for proving complex formation.

Download our FREE 8 Plasmid Cloning Procedures Every Molecular Biologist Needs to Know (And Some Tips for Mastering Them) whitepaper.

Do you have any method/protocol which should also be added to this list?