Science's Golden Rule: Give Back To The Community

Date: December 7, 1992 I am sometimes asked, in the course of my proposal-writing workshops, "Why would someone want to serve as a grant reviewer? It's hard work for only a small honorarium." I answer that it's a way for senior scientists to pay back the scientific community for what it's done for them. Alan Schoenfeld, a professor of education and mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks similar dynamics in family life provide a good analogy. "Children do not repay their parents directly, but rather by being good parents to their own children," he says. "The same sort of thing holds for scientists, their mentors, and their students." But the best time to repay your "debt" is probably not when you are--perhaps simultaneously--beginning a challenging career, starting a family, and coping with financial worries. The inherent urge to solve research problems, as well as competition at work, impose immense pressure to spend long hours at the lab bench. Many scientists would concur that it is appropriate, at this stage, to get as much help as possible from senior people-- to take more than to give. These same scientists believe, however, that once you have reaped the benefits of a successful career--perhaps when you have tenure and your children are grown--it is time to help younger colleagues in the same way that your teachers and mentors may have helped to ease your way up the steep career ladder. Even if you had a hard time of it, that's no reason to make someone endure the same hardships. Many scientists agree that the most valuable way to repay the community is by doing good research and passing their knowledge on to the next generation. But there are many more ways to pay back--and additional responsibilities to fulfill: Serve on grant review panels, referee journal articles, be on an editorial board, do administrative tasks that can profit from your maturity and perspective, foster the careers of others, and work to make the science community a more productive--but also a more humane and caring--environment. Finding the time is a matter of setting priorities. Perhaps by the time you're 60, promoting others should take precedence over promoting yourself. Being a grant reviewer is an arduous and time-consuming job that is sometimes a criterion for promotion. But a more important reason to accept this responsibility is that it's a job that must be done. Others have reviewed your proposals, enabling you to get funded; now it's your turn. "The broad perspective of senior people is sorely needed on study sections, site visit committees, and editorial boards," says Lawrence Grossman, a professor of biochemistry at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, "yet many older scientists refuse to serve because they are `too busy,' while others, who say they'd be happy to serve, don't get asked. These older scientists could be more effectively used in such important advisory capacities." The same arguments apply to refereeing journal articles. Although some scientists may be tempted to use reviews to illustrate their superiority and to fan the flames of professional rivalries, others realize that it is better for the future of science to be a constructive reviewer. It may be more expedient to simply list what's wrong with a piece of work, but an experienced scientist can improve the quality of the scientific literature by outlining ways to enhance the outcome of experiments and the presentation of data and by helping to make manuscripts more readable. Administrative responsibilities, such as serving a turn as department chairperson or on various committees, run the gamut from being important and effective to generally boring and a waste of time. But policies and decisions must be made. The difficult task of organizing new departments, interdisciplinary work alliances, strong research groups, and even new institutions hospitable to student growth and collegial interaction needs to be carried out by mature scientists who are rich in perspective and scientific, political, and general life experience. "We must recognize the opportunities that scientists of our generation were given and our res- ponsibility to contribute back to the profession," says Susan Leeman, a professor of pharmacology at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM). "The science community should be a participatory democracy that provides unselfish guidance to younger scientists. Many successful scientists are going into business nowadays and capitalizing on what they have achieved. This is fine, but it competes with activities that `give back' to the community." I am often asked in my workshops, "How, and when, can I collect preliminary data to get a first grant of my own funded?" I suggest to young scientists that they negotiate with potential mentors to enable them to reserve 25 percent of their lab time in the second or third year of a postdoctoral fellowship to work on an independent project--that is, one that will not have the lab chief's name attached to it and that can be freely "exported" to the postdoc's next job. Senior scientists should be generous and foster students' careers by encouraging this practice, because it is extremely difficult to get funded without substantial preliminary data. An important way to serve the research community is via political action at both the local and national levels. Scientists, as a group, have generally been unwilling to lobby for their own causes--for example, to increase funding for research. Says Daniel Goodenough, a professor of anatomy at Harvard Medical School: "Once you succeed, consider what you can do to help the broader community, and get involved in geopolitical issues. Use your maturity and confidence to speak out on issues about which you have gained wisdom." Write to your congressional representatives about the needs of the scientific community whenever appropriate. If you have the verbal ability, help educate the lay public about what scientists do--why it's worthwhile, and why it may have dangerous consequences in some cases. If you are so inclined, compete for a one-year congressional fellowship (sponsored by about 20 national engineering associations and coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; see Elizabeth Pennisi, The Scientist, Oct. 2, 1989, page 17) to work directly with members of Congress and help bridge the gap between scientists and policymakers. Become active in professional societies to help formulate policies that affect the science community: Run for office, vote in the elections, help organize meetings, chair sessions, and give younger colleagues the opportunity to chair or cochair meetings. It's important to further your own research program--but be sensitive to the needs of students, colleagues, and the community as a whole. Students cannot readily predict what skills they will need in the future. When I had barely crossed the threshold of my first academic job, the scientist responsible for hiring me said to me, "Now you're going to apply for a grant, and I'm going to teach you how." This "rite of initiation" was a gift that helped me tremendously in my later years. Says Marjorie Lees, a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School and a senior scientist at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center for Mental Retardation in Waltham, Mass.: "We must give younger people credit for their contributions to science and encourage established scientists to resist the temptation to take all of the credit for findings made in their laboratories." The more senior a scientist is, the more likely he or she is to have access to information about opportunities. Be generous with such knowledge: Nominate worthy colleagues for membership in professional societies and on important committees, as well as for prizes and other honors. If you become aware of an interesting opportunity, think about who might benefit and alert that person. Harvard's Goodenough suggests an even larger responsibility involving "informal educational content, such as teaching students how to avoid pitfalls both within and peripheral to their careers. There is no need for students to repeat your mistakes. Students should be encouraged to reach beyond the accomplishments of their professors." Lynne Reid, a professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and pathologist-in-chief, emerita, at Children's Hospital in Boston, thinks that "senior people should take a more positive role in mentoring, particularly with women, minorities, and anyone from a disadvantaged background." BUSM's Susan Leeman agrees. "It's important to support diversity," she says. "If you recruit faculty, organize a meeting, or edit a book, etc., consider capable young people, women, and minorities." Be a good networker; if you meet someone whom your student or colleague might benefit from knowing, help facilitate the contact. If you have access to information that might be useful to someone you know, alert that person to it. Although it's important to treat students as adult equals, if a student has a personal crisis, try to help--or steer the person to appropriate professional help. You don't have to be a surrogate parent, just a caring human being. Reid says: "When giving advice, make it clear that following the advice is not mandatory; people should feel free to come back to you even if they didn't follow your suggestions." The reputation of scientists has been sullied in the public eye in the past decade because of the transgressions of a very small- -one hopes--number of people with poor judgment. An important role for the elders of the community is to help reverse the public's impression about the extent of misconduct in science. "The senior people in the community should be responsible for teaching ethics and criteria of behavior in science," Reid says. Andrew Streitwieser, a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, believes that the scientific community's most important responsibility is to "assure that its most important product--students--learn to think and have reasonable standards of ethics." Everyone cannot do everything that needs to be done. Each scientist should "repay" the community primarily in ways in which he or she can contribute most effectively and congenially. Janet Rasey, a professor of radiation oncology and director of the Research Funding Service at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle, says: "I consider service to my profession a critical part of my career. We serve best by doing something we're good at. Unlike many scientists, I love to write grant proposals and know a lot about the grants process. "I started the Research Funding Service at the University of Washington to meet the needs of the faculty, particularly junior investi- gators. The service has been a successful and rewarding venture that helps the health sciences faculty get grants from a wider variety of sources, and with a higher success rate than would otherwise be possible--and my role as director is totally compatible with my other professional obligations." The science community is flexible enough to allow for the few individuals who fit the stereotype of the scientist who is incapable of doing anything other than theoretical calculations or experi- mental work. If you're really not suited to helping others, at least don't stand in the way of their progress. The lore of science abounds with unpleasant tales of exclusion, withheld information, and the like. Says Harvard's Reid, "If you can't practice the Golden Rule, at least follow the Silver Rule: Don't do unto others what you would not want others to do to you." Liane Reif-Lehrer is the author of Writing a Successful Grant Application (2d ed., Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, 1989). A past member of a National Institutes of Health Grant Review Board, she gives workshops on grant proposal-writing, time management, and related subjects. She is president of Erimon Associates, a consulting firm based in the Boston area.

Science's Golden Rule: Give Back To The Community

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of