Knowing when to go down the rabbit hole

One of the things I’ve found challenging in graduate school is the sheer number of things I need to know, and also, how much to know about each thing. A lot of times I’ll be stepping into unknown territory by trying a new experiment or technique and I’ll be faced with a dilemma… do I learn just enough to do what I have to do for my specific project, or should I spend more time making sure I completely understand everything?

For example, say I wanted to write a script to process some images in a folder… something small that would automate a tedious task that I have to do often. I don’t have a background in coding so I watch some tutorials and do some learning in order to get started. Doing this leads me to write a script, but it’s pretty crude and is only usable in a narrow and rigid context. Now, I could continue with this little script and only think about the short-term (i.e. it can process my data right now), or I could spend more time learning about how to write better codes that will ultimately save me more time in the end, and possibly be something that the rest of my lab-mates will use as well. In the end is it worth the loss of my time at the bench? Do I need to know all about writing a flexible code that’s efficient and organized, or should I just hack something together that works for my specific problem right now?

Same goes for microscopy. There are so many different types of microscopes, and each one has a multitude of options for the hardware and software. I know which settings I should use for my specific experiments, and what to do in the event of a problem, but in the grand scheme of things, I wish I knew more about the ins and outs of these machines. Today I watched someone changing a filter set on a microscope, because although I understand the theory and the light-paths, I had never actually seen where the physical filters were or how to get at them! It amazes me that many of us use these complicated instruments but have a narrow understanding of what all the bells and whistles actually do. I think it’s because most of the microscopes I use are part of a shared core so someone else manages them, but I really wish I could know more about things so that I can be self-sufficient someday. I feel like many times if there is a problem, they just fix it when we aren’t there, or call in someone who would troubleshoot it and tell us when it’s ok to use again. But in the grand scheme of things, I’d like to be able to diagnose and fix the problems myself. I don’t want to finish my PhD, go to a job or postdoc somewhere, and seem like I only know how to do a very narrow set of tasks that are optimized for my old lab. I want to be able to branch out and be well rounded!

So, my goal for this year is to start taking an active role in understanding my protocols, techniques, and instruments. I know I don’t need to be an expert or an engineer, but I want to be well-rounded and really know things outside of the cell biology aspect of my project. That way, depending on what my future career options are, I will have a broader skill set that isn’t hyper-specific to my current field of study.

The hard part comes from knowing when to dive deep into the details, and when to just learn enough to accomplish a task. Sometimes, it’s less productive to follow the rabbit hole, and you need to seek out the help or collaboration of someone who specializes in a particular area. Other times, although it might feel like you’re spending too much time away from the bench and your experiments, you need to invest some time upfront to get a long-term payoff.

These are my thoughts for today, but I’m curious about what you think.

Has there been a time when you needed to follow the rabbit hole? Did it pay off, or did you just get lost?

Queen of the Bench is a PhD candidate in Cell and Molecular Biology. This story was published on October 19, 2018, on the blog Queen of the Bench (available here) and has been republished here with permission.