Michael Stryker 是UCSF 桑德勒神经病学中心的一位大牛教授，在一次午餐会上，他给年轻的学者分享了成为学术大牛的11条军规。这其中有些观点虽然与世俗不同，但却字字珠玑，句句箴言，直击我等小年轻的内心。
Remember that the most important thing to your future is the papers you publish.
Evaluate all travel in the following terms: is this going to be more valuable than spending the same amount of time on a new experiment or new paper?
A lot of young people, particularly young women, get invited to fun places. It seems like an honor, and it is seductive, and people away always seem to appreciate you more that do your local colleagues. But a 3-day trip takes a lot out of you, and if it delays a paper by a week it is almost never worth it. No one will remember which trips you took in 5 years time. A few (2 or 3 per year) invited seminars to important meetings or good places is all you need on your CV for promotion
Some travel can be really useful, however, when you learn new things that are useful to your research long before they are published, so the decision of whether to accept an invitation is often not clear.But the decision in your early years should always be on the most selfish basis, of the benefit to your research careers and can afford to slough off sometimes.
You can be envious of all the fun that senior people take, but they are at different points in their careers and can afford to slough off sometimes.
While the least publishable unit is a poor strategy, publish frequently, whenever you make a real discovery.
Don't wait for the Nature, Science or Cell paper. Give those places a shot, if you like, but it is much more important for you (and better for your students) to publish good, sound work. Too many assistant professors are self-destructive in waiting to publish a magnum opus, and the longer you delay, the better it has to be just if the delay. It is a vicious circle.
- 不要为了 Nature、 Science 或 Cell 文章而等待。
Putting real effort into classroom teaching since it is evaluated seriously at the time of promotion, but do only a modest amount of it very well, and not take on a large amount. Teaching can be immediately and intensely rewarding, when the class claps at the end or even stands up and claps, or even when you just see those bright young eyes light up. The rewards of your scientific work come slower and harder, so don't get addicted to the candy of teaching and devote yourself to it at the expense of research.
Be even more restrained at taking on service activities.
Ad-hoc'ing at a study section once only before tenure may be valuable in cluing you in to the bizarre criteria that can be used to evaluate your grant applications, but do not do more. Departmental and university service, and national service organizations (like reviewing for HHMI), should be done only in moderation at most one thing each, and only if it does not take much time. For much of the past 30 years there has seemed to be a conspiracy to destroy the careers than the young men would be appointed. These activities are worthwhile, and someone should do them, but let it be someone else. Your career depends on the research you do, not on whether the community though that you were a bright young man or woman who could be so useful to one of your communities.
- 这些活动是有价值的， 需要有人去做，但让别人去做。
Same for reviewing manuscripts. Do a small amount well, and have no fear about refusing.
Be honest with your student.
Do not keep them in your lab if you think that they can't hack it or are more needy (personally or scientifically) than you have time to satisfy. My own biggest two regrets about students are people whom I took out of pity, because their original advisors left or had difficulties. They took 4 times as much of my energy as the other students, ad h huge amount of my lab's money, and at the end there was little to show for it for either them or me.
Also, trust your instincts on dealing with laboratory personalities. An MCP almost destroyed the happy and productive laboratory environment. Fortunately, the women in the lab at the time were strong enough to take care of themselves without murdering him, and he soon finished up and left. I had followed my instincts, I would not have taken him on.
I have absolutely no regrets about the two students whom I kicked out of my lab. Though they were many tears at that time, both were grateful to me some years later.
Be even more honest in evaluating your employees.
A great technician is a huge asset to lab (and I was blessed with one for many years), but do not let a technician or other employee someone get past a probation period without reconciling yourself to the likelihood that you will have them for life and never be able to get someone better to replace them. Bad employees have difficulties getting another job and so they stay. It is very hard to dismiss them, and your department may not be willing to put in the effort.
Don't let paper writing become a trap.
Scientific manuscripts need not be literary creations. Their only necessary quality is clarity-concision and wit are purely optional. If it taking you and your student more than a week to write a paper after the figures are made, then reserve a couple of days to sit down with them in your office and write the paper together, line by line. It is a discipline that gets the manuscript done in less than a week, and in my experience, the product is usually very good. Sitting down like this is also a great time view primary data and at least sanity-check all the analyses with the person other than you who was involved the experiments. Passing papers back and forth between you and the student or postdoc can drag on forever with little or no benefit. All this stage of your career, getting published is the most important use of your time.
Doing something important rather than whoring after what you thing is the most fundable is what you should aim for.However, you may need to bootleg the thing that you think is the most important thing you want to do and get funding for something else that will keep your lab going along a related but better appreciated line. You can try a couple of times, but if something is poorly received, even if you know it is great, give up and propose something else. You can still do the poorly received thing, so long as you have some product at the end.
When a grant does not score high enough to be funded, talk to your Program Officer as soon as possible after the review. He or she can be your most helpful friend because they can tell you what the study section seemed really to care about. The SCR person is generally useless. When the review come back, it is generally best to remove portions of the application that reviewers do not like and to say that you will do everything that they suggest on the parts that they criticize but thought had merit. Often the review of the reviewer are really stupid, and you know better, but you have nothing to gain by arguing with them. You need the money from a successful grant application, and changing your proposal to make it most likely to be funded is the way to get it. You can still do something you want to do-These are grant, no contracts with deliverables. No one will ever care about (or probably even read) what you propose to do in detail; at renewal time they will only take note of published papers that convey your accomplishments.
Be in your lab and stay out of your office.
You were hired because you were good scientists. You may not a good manager. So do science with your own hands, and you will attract and inspire the best student. They will make your lab great.