Don't Tell Anyone I Gave This To You

In a previous post, I described an ethical dilemma, one that probably occurs fairly frequently. I've encountered variations of it during my career.  A full description of this dilemma along with an expert opinion can be found here.  The following is my modified version that is similar to one of my experiences:

Cynthia is an ambitious post-doc having a problem with one of her laboratory techniques--extracting an enzyme from plant tissue containing lots of phenolic compounds (which bind proteins).  She's been trying for weeks to resolve this, but has been unsuccessful.  She is at her wit's end and finally goes to her PI to ask for help.  After listening to her tale of woe, he tells Cynthia not to worry--that he'll have a solution for her tomorrow.  The next day, she finds a manuscript on her desk with a note from the PI.  It says, "Check out the methods section...it has the solution to your problem.  However, don't make a copy of this or give it to anyone else.  Also, don't tell anyone that I gave this to you." She tries the method described in the paper and lo and behold, it works! When she excitedly reports this to her PI, she says, "I've scoured the literature and can find no mention of this technique.  Where did you get this paper?" The PI smiles mysteriously and says, "I've got dozens of them in my files."

I asked if the PI's actions were unethical.  The answer is, it depends.  Here is a summary of the expert's opinion (see the link above for the full version):

The moral dilemma hinges on the source of the paper.  Was it one of the PI's old, unpublished papers? One of his student's unpublished papers? Or was it a manuscript he got for review?

1. If the paper was written by the PI (and based on work done in his lab), then the PI is free to give the information and data to the post-doc to use.

2.  What may be less clear is why the former student's paper might also be given by the PI to the post-doc.  In this example, the student never published the paper and has left the university.  The post-doc can be given access to the contents because the PI's university likely owns the student's work as intellectual property.  According to the expert, the only way the student can claim the work is if s/he had previously gotten university permission to copyright the material.  Contrary to what many people think, the work conducted by a researcher (including their ideas) at an organization such as a university becomes the intellectual property of that organization.  In this case, the former student had no such copyright, so the PI, acting as the university's representative, has the authority to give the post-doc access to the contents of the paper.  It would be appropriate to contact the student to notify them that their unpublished information is to be used--and then cite them as the source in the acknowledgments section.  Unless the student makes a substantial contribution to the writing of the paper and a major intellectual contribution to the current work, then it is not appropriate to make them an author (the post-doc and the PI could potentially offer this option to the former student).

3. If the paper is one that the PI received for review, then giving it to the post-doc without the permission of the journal or the author is unethical.  The PI may be conflicted over his desire to help his stressed-out post-doc--and this may take precedence in his decision.  However, doing so is a breach of the confidentiality agreement that he entered into in accepting the role of reviewer.  In other words, the confidentiality agreement takes precedence over the PI's "moral" obligation to help the post-doc.  Furthermore, the PI is not exercising good judgment about how they will eventually use the information in their own publication and how to acknowledge the source of the information.  Giving the paper and the method to the post-doc may solve her immediate problem, but has created an even bigger problem for her in the future.  Unauthorized use of intellectual property obtained by privileged communication (review process) in another paper or proposal is plagiarism.  If they publish based on this method, they would be representing these ideas as their own, but which were taken from someone else's work.  If caught, both the PI and the post-doc could be subject to severe sanctions.

The expert opinion goes on to point out the likelihood that the plagiarism will be uncovered eventually.  If you think about it, any future paper by this PI and post-doc containing the plagiarized material will likely be read by the author of the original paper.  The author and the PI clearly work in the same specialized field, which is why the PI got the paper for review.  Isn't it just as likely that the author will get the PI's future paper for review?  In any case, the author will eventually see it when it is published.  This outcome is especially likely in a highly specialized field in which there are few experts.

My take on this scenario is that it is probably more common than you think.  I'm aware of colleagues who pass around papers they are reviewing or discuss the contents with others.  When confronted, they may admit they shouldn't do it, but then act as if it is nothing of great consequence.  Some pass on papers to students or post-docs (e.g., as exercises).  They may remove the author's name and affiliation, but the content of the manuscript is still confidential and should not be shown to anyone else or copied.  What if your student copies something from that paper without your knowledge, and it eventually ends up in a proposal or paper--where it is later recognized by the original author?

Sometimes you hear about reviewers asking journals for permission to have their post-doc or students review a manuscript (or maybe even do so without asking).  I don't think this is a good idea either.  If you don't have time to do a review, then decline and provide a list of people to substitute for you (you can suggest your post-doc); then, the journal can decide if your recommendation is a suitable reviewer, and the review will occur without your direct involvement.

The ethical situation described above and the hypothetical actions of the PI (#3) illustrate how easy it is for someone to get into deep trouble if they fail to take the time to consider the consequences of their actions.  I can easily imagine a PI who might make such a decision hastily and/or without thinking--but with no real malicious intent to injure the author.  However, such a decision commits at least two ethical transgressions--passing along confidential information without permission and putting another person into a tenuous and potentially liable situation (plagiarism would be the third, if they take the final step and publish).  The PI's moral obligation to "help" his post-doc clouds the larger ethical issues, and in the end, his action could instead seriously harm his post-doc's reputation and career.

Perhaps you have done something similar to this--we all make mistakes at some point, especially when we are inexperienced or under pressure.  Most people, though, would likely have a nagging feeling in their gut that such an action is wrong.  If you have this feeling about something you are facing or that someone else is telling you, pay attention.  Your gut is probably right.

Image Credit (modified from http://www.uwo.ca/nca/education/images/student_3.jpg)

A Difficult Decision

Did you guess which one was the real situation?  It was number 3, which I've reproduced below:

Beth is an assistant professor and has an undergraduate student worker (a senior) who is discovered to have been falsifying his time sheets.  Let's say that Beth's lab technician has reported this to her.  Beth contacts the head of student affairs for guidance.  She is told that the student's actions, if guilty, are considered by the university to be a crime and will be turned over to the campus police; the student will also be expelled.  Let's say Beth is reasonably certain that at least a portion of the time he claimed has been falsified.  Reporting this student will lead to his possible arrest and prosecution and definitely terminate his academic pursuit.  She is hesitant to cause this student to be arrested and expelled.  What if she just fires the student, but does not report him to authorities?  Is that ethical or unethical? What would you do?

I won't reveal what my role was (except to say that I wasn't the student!).  Here is what actually transpired and the reasoning behind the decisions.  Beth went to great effort to document the falsified time claimed by the student.  She compared all work hours against the student's course schedule, and found many instances in which he was in class (confirmed by the course instructors) when he claimed to have been working.  She also found that work hours were claimed for times when the lab was closed (for holidays, etc.) and determined that the student could not have been there (confirmed by graduate students who were working after hours).  All of this information was carefully documented.  Beth also determined that the approval signatures on some of the time sheets were forged.

Beth and the technician decided to confront the student, who confessed to them when shown the evidence (to both the falsified time and the forgeries).  Although Beth felt some reluctance about turning in the student (because of the severe consequences), she ultimately decided that she had no choice.  She turned over her documentation, including signed statements by her and the technician as to what had transpired in their confrontation with the student, to the university business affairs office and to student affairs.  The case was given to the campus police who proceeded to arrest the student.  Beth had advised the student to pay back the funds, which he did; the prosecutor consequently decided not to pursue the case and the criminal charges were dropped.  However, the student was expelled in his senior year.

If Beth had failed to report the student's theft (that's what it was), she could have found herself in trouble with the authorities.  Once she was informed about the theft by the technician, she had no choice but to investigate and then act on her findings.  In fact, the funding that paid the student came from a Federal grant, a situation that might have triggered an even bigger investigation if there had been any attempt at a cover-up.  Regardless of the funding source, Beth was obligated to report the misuse of funds and to try to recover them.  Beth may have felt sympathy for the student, but the student was solely responsible for his actions and, moreover, was clearly aware that what he was doing was wrong (the forgeries).  Furthermore, if Beth had simply fired him, he would have likely gone on to work for someone else at the university or elsewhere, possibly repeating this crime.  Reporting the student to authorities may have been painful for Beth, but failing to do so and stopping him from doing further harm would have been unethical.

Image Credit (Modified from http://www.onlinedegreesaccredited.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/medical-lab.jpg and http://www.writeshop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Teen_boy_writing.jpg)

Swimming with Sharks

When we start out in science, there are many things that will influence our careers.  We are aware of all the obvious technical skills that must be mastered in order to succeed in our particular science field, but less aware of other challenges that may be our biggest obstacles.  In the previous post, I talked about social anxiety and how this might greatly affect one's ability to function professionally.  

Another area that we don't think about much in the beginning and may be neglected in academic programs is ethics (and dealing with unethical people).

In every profession, there are people who try to get ahead by engaging in unethical behavior.  This type of behavior seems to be exacerbated in situations where competition is intense.  When resources are scarce or where there are "territorial" issues, people who cannot prevail based on their skills may resort to under-handed measures.  My sense is that there are only a small number of "true sharks" in science fields--people who have no scruples and will stop at nothing to get what they want.  They exist, but do not predominate.  I don't think scientists are more ethical than the average person, just that the field does not particularly attract people who are unethical.  At the opposite end of the spectrum are people who cannot be tempted under any circumstance to make an unethical decision.  Perhaps more common are those people who under normal circumstances would not do anything unethical, but when put under pressure will turn into sharks, i.e., they are "latent sharks".  The breaking point obviously varies from person to person and with the situation.  

Most of us tend to focus on the "true sharks" and what harm they might do to us and our careers.  However, it's possible that the "latent sharks", who are more abundant, may be more likely to harm us.  Or possibly the ethical choices we make ourselves, if wrong, can do far more damage to us than any deliberate act by someone else.  You may be thinking that you would always know the right thing to do and would not make an ethical mistake, but are you sure?

That shark threatening your well-being may not be a person, but an ethical dilemma.

When we start out in our careers, we often don't realize the difficult ethical choices that we may face as scientists.  I'm not talking here about falsifying data or other obviously fraudulent actions that normal people recognize as being wrong.  We all know these are not only unethical, but absolutely not tolerated in science.  No, I'm talking about situations that scientists (and other professionals) face, but in which some people might find it difficult (under pressure) to do the right thing.  Perhaps even more challenging are those situations in which the correct response is not always clear. 

Here are a few examples to get us thinking about these ideas:

1.  Mary is an assistant professor who receives a research proposal for review that focuses on the exact same questions she is currently pursuing.  The proposal describes a unique approach that is far superior to what she has been using in her own project and addresses a key issue that has been a stumbling block for her.  Imagine further that she has not been as successful as she needs to be and will not get tenure unless she publishes more and gets a decent sized grant--soon.  She's already invested all her time and start-up funds on this research question, and it's too late to start over.  Solving her methodological problem would clear the way for her research to take off.  Let's further say that the proposal author already has a lot of funding (information revealed in the current and pending support).  Mary rationalizes that she would have eventually come up with this technique and decides to use it in her own research.  She also decides that the proposal author already has had more than his share of funding and won't be hurt if he doesn't get this grant. She gives it a "good", rather than "excellent" score, knowing that this will probably sink it and perhaps give her some time to implement the new approach.

Would you find it difficult, if you were in Mary's situation, to do the right thing?  Is taking another scientist's ideas a form of plagiarism? Was there ever any possibility that Mary could have provided an unbiased review of this proposal?  What, if any, are the possible negative repercussions of Mary's actions (for her)?

2.  Here's a variation on first example.  Cynthia is an ambitious post-doc having a problem with one of her laboratory techniques.  She's been trying for weeks to resolve this, but has been unsuccessful.  She is at her wit's end and finally goes to her PI to ask for help.  After listening to her tale of woe, he tells Cynthia not to worry--that he'll have a solution for her tomorrow.  The next day, she finds a manuscript on her desk with a note from the PI.  It says, "Check out the methods section...it has the solution to your problem.  However, don't make a copy of this or give it to anyone else.  Also, don't tell anyone that I gave this to you." She tries the method described in the paper and lo and behold, it works! When she excitedly reports this to her PI, she says, "I've scoured the literature and can find no mention of this technique.  Where did you get this paper?" The PI smiles mysteriously and says, "I've got dozens of them in my files."

Cynthia's PI was trying to help her by giving her this method, but is what he did unethical?  What if he won't tell her the source (author) of the paper?  If she uses this method and describes it in her paper without acknowledging the source, is this unethical?  What might happen to the two of them if others find out?

3.  Here's a very different dilemma. Beth is an assistant professor and has an undergraduate student worker who is discovered to have been falsifying his time sheets.  Let's say that Beth's lab technician has reported this to her.  Beth contacts the head of student affairs for guidance.  She is told that the student's actions, if guilty, are considered by the university to be a crime and will be turned over to the campus police; the student will also be expelled.  Let's say Beth is reasonably certain that at least a portion of the time he claimed has been falsified.  Reporting this student will lead to his possible arrest and prosecution and definitely terminate his academic pursuit.  She is hesitant to cause this student to be arrested and expelled.  What if she just fires the student, but does not report him to authorities?  Is that ethical or unethical? What would you do?

One of the above examples is real, the others are fiction.  In the next post, I'll describe the outcome of the real example and try to explain what might happen in the fictional scenarios.

Image Credit (modified from http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-4/great-white-shark-2.jpg)

Socially-Inept Scientists

I'll come back to the Blue Ocean Strategy a bit later, but I thought I would say a few more words about social interactions.  A few commenters have mentioned that they really appreciate advice about social situations.  For example, I talked in a previous post about how to approach a Famous Scientist at a conference mixer. People who are naturally comfortable in social situations perhaps think everyone is like this and do not realize how awkward some of our colleagues feel when they venture outside their laboratories.  Those of us who have learned through experience how to navigate socially are aware of this, but soon forget what it feels like to be in an awkward social situation.

As a young woman, I suffered from social anxiety--big time.  I could barely bring myself to speak in front of more than one other person.  And if there was someone present who was intimidating--a Famous Scientist or someone in authority--I was paralyzed.  It took many years and forcing myself to learn how to interact with people and to lose my self-consciousness, but I finally overcame this problem. It not only held me back socially, but professionally.  I rationalized that it did not matter--that I could do my research alone or with close collaborators and would succeed.  I did not realize how crucial it was to my career development.  Only after overcoming (to an extent) this social anxiety have I realized what an impediment it was.

I'm still not a social butterfly and people probably do not view me as someone they would really like to get to know, but I am now comfortable in social situations.  Even if others don't feel totally at ease with me, I feel comfortable talking to strangers or just standing or dining alone.  It just doesn't bother me any more.  At conference mixers, I often look around the room for someone who is alone and looking uncomfortable.  I will strike up a conversation with them and try to make them feel more comfortable. 

At most of the conferences I typically attend, I know a lot of people and am fairly well-known myself.  I am approached frequently by students who have read my papers and want to meet me.  However, I just recently attended a conference where I did not know many of the attendees, and the conference focus was somewhat outside my field (so no one had heard of me or my work).  This was a small conference--about 150 people.  I chatted with the one or two people I knew (distant acquaintances).

Most of the other attendees seemed to know everyone else and naturally congregated in animated groups during breaks.  It would have been very difficult to approach one of these groups as a lone stranger.  There were very few people standing around alone--as I was.  I decided this was an interesting situation--one in which I was a total stranger to most of the people--and decided to do a little experiment.

During the session coffee breaks, I stood by myself to see if anyone would spontaneously start up a conversation with me.  When people passed by, I would smile or nod, but not initiate a conversation myself.  The first day, no one approached me--despite the obvious fact that I was alone and knew few people there.  Then, on the second day, I gave my presentation (in the plenary session), which was something of a departure from the other talks.  After this, people began approaching me during breaks.  Some had questions about my work.  Others just seemed to feel more comfortable about approaching me since I had been "introduced" via my talk.  In one case, I was invited to come give a seminar later in the year.

There are a couple of lessons here for the socially-disadvantaged.  One lesson is that no one is going to come to your rescue in a semi-social setting like a conference mixer.  Part of the reason is that people want to feel comfortable, and talking to strangers is usually not comfortable--especially if you have to make the first move.  Another reason is that people are there to make important contacts and to make themselves known to potential advisers or employers.  They don't have time to waste on someone they view as being "unimportant" to them.

If you want to meet people, you have to make the first move.  The experience I described above showed that people only felt comfortable approaching me (a stranger) after 1) they became aware of me, 2) had been "introduced" to me via my talk, 3) had something specific to discuss with me, and/or 4) saw me as someone important to meet.

The second lesson is that if you give an oral presentation, you become "known" to other people, and they feel more inclined to approach you in a professional or semi-social setting.  They may be interested in your work or impressed with how you delivered your talk.  If someone comes up to you after your talk and compliments you, try to start up a conversation.  Don't just say, "Thanks." and then turn away tongue-tied.  You might ask what they enjoyed most about your presentation or if they have any questions.  Mention some aspect that you thought might have been unclear and ask for an opinion.  Always ask if they do similar work and to tell you about it.

The key to engaging people is to get them talking about themselves.

A final point is to realize that scientists as a group tend to be more socially inept than other groups.  So the chances that someone else will rescue you from a socially awkward situation is much lower at a gathering of scientists.  The motives behind people's behavior at a professional gathering are also different from those in a social setting.  It's important to be aware of these distinctions when planning your strategy.  The lesson here is that you have to change your behavior instead of waiting for others to change their behavior toward you. 

How do you begin to change if you are really paralyzed in social or professional settings?  What ways might you meet people at conferences and other gatherings of scientists?

One very easy and less painful way to meet people is during the poster sessions.  There are lots of people standing by their posters expecting (hoping) others will approach them.  It's very awkward for poster presenters to stand there waiting for someone to approach.  So they will often be relieved when someone comes along and starts up a conversation.  You also have lots of opportunities to meet many people--especially people doing work in your field.  However, I've found it's sometimes easier to talk to people who work on topics I know little about.  By confiding to the poster presenter that you don't know anything about their field puts them at ease.  Students and young scientists are especially afraid some expert is going to come along and ask them a question they can't answer or will disparage their work.  So, they will be especially open to someone who knows little about their topic.  Ask them to explain their work to you (you can say you've always been fascinated with the topic, but that it is outside your field). By doing so, you put them into the role of expert and you in the role of interested listener.  Few people can resist an opportunity to be looked upon as the more knowledgeable in a conversation.  You must be sincere, of course.  If you are not, people will see right through you.

You can also approach speakers after their presentations, but this is sometimes difficult if they are surrounded by other people also wanting to talk to them.  However, in every session, there will be the "stars" who are immediately surrounded during the break and the "unknowns" who won't be so tied up.  Approach the unknowns and ask them a question about their talk.  They'll be grateful to you. After you gain some practice, then you might try approaching Famous Scientist after their talk or at the coffee break.

I also make a point of complimenting students who have given especially good talks.  I do this both for students I know, but also for students that I do not know and/or who are in other fields.  When I was a student, it would have meant a great deal to me to have an established scientist compliment me.  So I know it has an effect on their self-esteem.  You can do this also--even as a student.  Compliment other students or even established scientists.  I guarantee you even the most Famous Scientist will be pleased if someone comes up to them after their talk and tells them how much they enjoyed it.

Finally, don't get discouraged if you get rebuffed initially. You are learning a very difficult skill.  It's to be expected that you'll make mistakes at first and that it may take some experience before you become successful.

Blue Ocean Strategy for Scientists

In the previous post, I introduced the Blue Ocean Strategy, a business strategy that creates new market space in which the competition becomes irrelevant. In a red ocean, the competition sharks are circling; when they attack, the water turns bloody. In a blue ocean, you create a space in which you operate with little or no competition.  The sharks don't exist in that world. 

In science, we compete for external funding, for resources within our institutions, and for journal space. In this post, I'll briefly go through some of the steps required to develop a Blue Ocean Strategy.  If you are interested in getting the full story and detailed examples, the book is available on amazon.com.  Even if you are not interested in business books, this one is quite readable due to the many interesting examples that give the background story on some businesses/products that you may have heard of and why they have been so successful (Cirque du Soleil, [yellow tail] wine).

The strategy involves four actions to identify the changes that need to be made to create a blue ocean.  These actions are expressed as questions to get you to begin formulating the necessary changes.

1. Which of the factors that the profession takes for granted should be eliminated?
2. Which factors should be reduced well below the profession's standard?
3. Which factors should be raised well above the profession's standard?
4. Which factors should be created that the profession has never offered?

I'll use one of the examples from the book to illustrate how this works and then see how this idea might apply to science fields.

Casella Wines is an Australian based company that created [yellow tail], which differed from the typical wine profile.  By applying a blue ocean strategy, the company created a wine that became the fastest growing brand in the history of the wine industry in both Australia and the US.  First, they realized that most Americans and Australians rejected wine as their drink of choice because its complex taste was difficult to appreciate (tannins, etc.) and its reputation as an elite drink was unappealing to the masses. Beer and mixed drinks were sweeter and easier to appreciate...and were appealing to the average person. So [yellow tail] was created with a new combination of wine characteristics: uncomplicated in structure, soft in taste, and up-front fruit flavors. Buyers did not have to have years of wine experience to enjoy drinking it. So the company eliminated all the factors that the wine industry typically competes on: tannins, oaks, aging. The company next turned to the bewildering array of wines that customers usually face in the store--an intimidating choice for those unschooled in the complexities of wine.  They reduced the choices to two wines: a white (Chardonnay) and a red (Shiraz).  They removed all the technical jargon from the label, created a bright logo, and put the bottles in a striking but simple display. This move streamlined the business (reduced stocks, manufacturing, selling)--reducing their costs of production. They promoted the wine as a fun drink anyone could enjoy (i.e., you don't have to be a wine snob to drink it).  They priced it above the budget jug wines, but below the bottle wines at $6.99.  By making these moves, they reached a new set of customers that were not typical wine-drinkers.  Bottles literally flew off the shelves.

In science, we are all competing in similar ways for journal space, for funding, and for recognition--all of which have feed-back effects on each other.  Students and very naive junior scientists often seem not to recognize that there is any competition (or behave as if there is no competition).  They think that funding for their research will arrive--all they have to do is write a proposal; their papers will get published--all they have to do is write it up and submit it; they will land a great job and become well-known--all they have to do is work hard.  In other words, they have no strategy.

More savy science practitioners recognize that competition exists and attempt to best others by working harder and spending longer hours in the lab.   For example, some of us spend an enormous amount of time writing proposals (usually for only one or two years of funding).  I know some scientists who routinely submit five to ten proposals per year in order to get one or two funded.  That time could have been spent writing papers, of course.  Is there a blue ocean strategy that reduces or eliminates competition for research funding?  That may seem like a nutty question.  Of course scientists have to compete for funding.  Or do they?

One blue ocean solution that a few scientists have discovered is to self-fund their research.  I wrote about this idea in an earlier post.  These researchers essentially donate a portion of their income to keep their labs running.  Some started doing it when funding temporarily dried up and continued the practice. They set aside some of their income to cover research expenses or did a bit of consulting on the side and used that income to fund their research and that of graduate students.  The advantage is that they no longer compete with other scientists for funding, they don't suffer the indignity of having reviewers and panelists bashing (or stealing) their ideas, they don't give up part of the funds to overhead, and they can research whatever topics they fancy.  The disadvantage, of course, is using personal income and losing the "prestige" that comes with grants.  This would not work for everyone, but could be a blue ocean strategy for some.  It might be a temporary solution to get you through a difficult patch, rather than a long-term strategy.  I offer this example because it's an approach that most scientists never consider and is a perfect example of a blue ocean strategy.

Another idea is to target sources of funding in which you may be more competitive or in which the total competition is small.  This is an obvious suggestion, but one that is sometimes overlooked.  Instead of going after NSF or NIH funding (a red ocean), for example, look for other funding sources with less competition or in which your proposal stands out.  I once got a fellowship by applying to a funding source that did not get many ecologists applying--thus, my application stood out.  Smaller grants, especially those with limited eligibility, are sometimes easier to get than the usual research grant.  Career advancement fellowships for women and minorities, for example, are available from government agencies and private foundations.  To make these decisions, you must have a really good idea of your competitive profile (more about this later). 

These are just a few ideas for creating a blue ocean strategy for a science career.  The point is to create a space for yourself to do science in which you make the competition irrelevant.  You can probably think of other ideas that would work for you and your situation.  In the next posts, we'll look at some other strategies as well as additional criteria that tell you whether your blue ocean ideas are viable.

Image Credit (modified from a still image from the film "Open Water")

Swimming in a Blue Ocean

A book that I've found to be helpful in thinking about personal career strategies is called "Blue Ocean Strategy".  It's a business book, but the idea applies to any competitive situation.  The concept that the authors promote is that "companies should break out of the red ocean of bloody competition by creating uncontested market space that makes the competition irrelevant".  Instead of trying to capture an increasingly smaller share of the market space, a company can break away from the competition by creating an entirely new market (in which there is little or no competition, at least for a while).  You can probably think of some research organizations that have done just this.  Instead of trying to compete with other research institutions for limited funding, they've focused on a specific area that other researchers have ignored (or not yet recognized) and/or developed unique expertise. 

The book, Blue Ocean Strategy, is an interesting read, since the authors use some fascinating examples to illustrate their concept.  The information and the strategy they present are based on fifteen years of research.  One of their examples is Cirque du Soleil, which started out in 1984 as a group of street performers.  They created a new market, catering to adults, rather than children (the typical market for circuses).  This group achieved revenues in only 20 years what it took Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey more than 100 years to attain.  The remarkable aspect of this example is that it took place in an industry that was in serious decline.  This latter feature is a repeating theme throughout the book: a company succeeds dramatically despite being in an unpopular or failing industry.  This point is relevant to us as scientists who have invested a great deal in our training in a particular field--changing fields is often out of the question.  However, changing how we approach our work in that field is possible.

An individual can apply the blue ocean strategy to their own career.  In a red ocean, your boundaries and rules of the game are known and accepted by everyone in science.  In this red ocean, each scientist tries to outperform rivals to get a share of the market (funding, space in journals, etc.).  As more people crowd into your specific field, your prospects of getting funding or published in top journals decline, and you have to work harder just to stay even. Weaker competitors become desperate and resort to unscrupulous behavior (stealing ideas, fabricating data, sabotaging colleagues).

In the previous post, I talked about copycat scientists.  What they are doing is the exact opposite of the blue ocean strategy.  Instead of carving out a niche for themselves, they are going head-to-head with someone in their own workplace who is already established.  It's an uphill battle.  Worse, they are duplicating work and approaches that are being used by their rival instead of developing their own.  A really poor strategy all around--but the copycats never seem to recognize this.  

In a blue ocean, the competition is irrelevant because you've gone outside the typical boundaries of your profession and created demand for what you have to offer (that no one else is offering).  At one time, automobiles, aviation, computers, and cell phones did not exist--in fact, had never been heard of.  These are now multi-billion dollar industries.  Although they exist today in a red ocean, they operated in a blue ocean in the beginning, and the innovators who took the initial risks reaped the benefits.  The risks involved in pursuing a blue ocean strategy can be large (although there are ways to minimize risk), and the outcome is not always clear.  Can you predict what products or companies will be the big winners twenty years from now?  So, embarking on a blue ocean strategy is not for the faint-hearted.

How does one apply the blue ocean strategy to a science career?  I imagine you are already thinking of some examples for your particular situation.  I may elaborate in later posts.

But for now, the concept applies to the theme of this series--self-promotion.  Scientists are competing for the most part within a strict set of boundaries.  Most scientists rely on their publication records, their citation rates, their teaching evaluations, etc. to speak for them and their success.  If you take a more active role in developing your reputation, you will be stepping outside the normal boundaries of the red ocean.  I'll give you an example.

Most of us (scientists) are expected to engage in professional service activities such as reviewing, editing, serving as officers in professional societies.  Many of us are evaluated based on service (in addition to science & teaching), but service often gets short-shrift.  I realized that this was one area that I could develop beyond the normal things scientists do--and stand out from the crowd.  There were a number of options, but I decided to focus on science communication.  One of the skills I've developed in this regard is making videos that describe aspects of my research and that of collaborators.  I've gotten some of these published online as audio-visual products of my agency. The reactions I've gotten from the general public (and from colleagues) tell me that these videos are not only providing a service but are getting me noticed in a new way.  I'm now learning animation techniques so that I can better illustrate scientific concepts.  I'm finding this activity fun, challenging, and fulfilling.  It's allowed me to combine my artistic abilities with my science training to come up with a blue ocean strategy.  You may have some particular skill or natural talent that can be tapped in a similar way. 

The above is just one example of how you can self-promote while fulfilling professional goals.  It also works as a blue ocean strategy because it replaces the typical service activity with something few other scientists do.  Service is expected by many science employers, but doesn't seem to get much emphasis during evaluations (unless you don't do it).  If you participate only in the typical service activities, no one is much impressed.  However, if you do something really unique, it can bring you recognition.  Don't think you have time to do something other than the usual?  Instead of spending two hours per week anonymously reviewing papers or sitting on yet another committee, why not invest one of those hours doing something unique that meets your service duties and makes you stand out among your peers?    

If you develop a good blue ocean strategy and apply it consistently, you will likely enjoy swimming a lot more.

Photograph by Paolo Curto

The Copy-Cat Scientist

You've worked hard, published some important papers, and have a lot of great ideas.  Unfortunately, Julie, a new scientist in your department, has been copying your research approaches and is using them to compete with you for funding.  You realize that some overlap in research topics is inevitable, but Julie is methodically duplicating your program.  She has been busily talking up her work to the higher-ups and has managed to get resources to facilitate her move into your research territory.


Julie, whom you suspect has few original ideas of her own, is copying your research because it is so successful and has brought you a lot of attention and funding in the past.  You also discover that she has been getting detailed information about your methods from your technicians and students--without your permission.     

Competition in the scientific community is normal and necessary for the field to move forward.  However, within a research organization, too much competition and overlap in research areas can lead to a toxic, suspicious environment.  People are reluctant to talk freely about their ideas and projects with co-workers for fear of someone taking their ideas and passing them off as their own to superiors.  Such a situation often arises when science managers encourage competition among researchers (thinking that this will result in greater funding and science output).

Most scientists prefer to establish their own unique area(s) of research, but sometimes there will be one person who can only survive by copying what others do. 

Most of us have so many questions and ideas to try out, that there just aren't enough hours in the day to address them.  I thought everyone was like this until I had a conversation many years ago with a post-doc who asked me where I got all of my research ideas.  At the time, I was a master's-level research associate, but was writing papers and proposals.  I had been rattling on about some ideas I had for a study I wanted to conduct, when I noticed this post-doc staring at me with a strange look on his face.  He seemed quite mystified as to how I had thought of these research questions and then how I came up with a set of experiments (so quickly) to test the questions.  At first, I thought he was just surprised that someone without a Ph.D. could do this, but his later comments told me that he simply had difficulty thinking of new questions to ask.  I've later discovered that this lack of creative spark/curiosity is not that rare. When such people no longer have an adviser feeding them ideas, they must turn elsewhere. 

In other cases, some people are so competitive that they actively steal ideas to scoop a colleague.  I knew someone like this once.  He particularly liked to prey on graduate students who would unwittingly tell him their ideas.  This scientist would then quickly do the study and publish it before the student could finish.  He also targeted women, minorities, and visiting scientists from foreign institutions.  It was a game to him, and he even bragged about it.  Classic bully. Picking on the weak who could not fight back.

This type of situation is probably one of the most distressing that a research scientist can face.  Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but when it goes too far, you need to take action.  So what do you do?

You cannot really say much against someone like this because you will look defensive and territorial, and it's really easy for the imitator to counter with the claim that they are simply focusing on important issues of the day and their work has nothing to do with you and your research.  In fact, any complaints from you (to superiors) will likely backfire.

As I've been trying to point out in this series, self-promotion may not only be a good idea, but essential to protect yourself against just this type of situation--or combat it if it develops.  The suggestions I made in this previous post about making sure you document your ideas or only provide them in front of witnesses so that the copy-cat cannot claim them later will certainly work in this situation.  However, you may need a more comprehensive strategy.  More in the next post.