IUBio

PhD in neuroscience for a mathematician?

Paul B. Cook, Ph.D. pbcook at bio.bu.edu
Thu Feb 10 10:09:17 EST 2000


Dear Leon,

I'm sorry to read of your disappointing experience in your effort to bridge
the gap between wet and theoretical neuroscience.

For what it's worth my experience is mostly positive.  There is a
tremendous enthusiasm for incorporating computational work into the life
sciences - from the sub cellular (look at what Hodgkin and Huxley did for
our understanding of voltage-gated channels) to the systems (the use of
information theory in understanding coding nervous systems - i don't like
it but it exists).

So this statement...

> First, conventional neuroscientists consistently avoid conceptual
> problems posed in mathematical terms, whether in meetings or in written
> communications. Moreover, I’ve perceived overt hostility toward
> theoretical work or theoretical people among ‘wet’ people in
> neuroscience. Why? I will never know.

...is that you've either had some bad luck in making contacts, been
misguided by your advisor, or you've been unable to express yourself
clearly or in a way that can appreciated by your audience.

Not everyone understands diffEQs, not everyone understands shunting
inhibition, not everyone understands the importance of CBP-alpha
regulation.  If the party you're addressing doesn't understand then adjust
your discussion so the material is accessible.  It's very easy to present
information in a way that is inaccessible.  The skill is presenting it in a
way that becomes understandable.

Note, however, that ANYONE can run amok in neuroscience (not just
mathematicians and physicists) yielding basically inaccessible
information.  I've sat through many painful talks on some aspect of
theoretical neuroscience and left with absolute NO appreciation for what
the investigator was addressing or why it was important.  If i were to come
across this person's grant in study section (i am not on study section) i'd
be very likely to reject it.

Keep in mind that when i take the time to go to talks outside my immediate
area of expertise i typically attend minisymposia  - meaning the talks
should be accessible to the general neuroscience audience.  These talks can
be a good way to catch up in a field i haven't had time to follow.  It's
always frustrating when they miss the mark.

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT TO BEING A
GOOD/SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIST.


> The bottom line is that it is
> very unlikely to get a job from that people if you state on your resume
> that you handle differential equations, nonlinear dynamics or
> information theory, even if that means a couple of years learning those
> subjects from scratch. On the other hand, if your CV says that you know
> how to handle an electronic microscope (something that could take you
> three months or so), that counts a lot, and could make you a lot more
> attractive to them.

This is partly true.  If you apply for an EM job, then you'd better know
how to handle a scope.  If you've applied for a molecular neuroscience job
you'd better know how to handle gels.  If you've applied for an
electrophysiology position you'd better know how to handle a patch clamp
amplifier.  If your a theoretical person and want to move to wet labs, then
seek out a lab, volunteer to wash glassware and start asking questions
about how to do experiments. - don't expect to get a job that requires
skills you don't have.

> Second, if you plainly want to join theoretical people, they won’t want
> you either if you don’t have a degree in Physics or Math, which is not
> my case. Having a high degree in biology seems to be completely
> irrelevant for them.

This may be true, but my knowledge of the employment practices in these
fields is limited.  I do know that the wise mathematicians and physicists
interested in neuroscience turn to the biologist (who spends most of
her/his time in the lab doing experiments) for perspective on how to keep
their models relevant while the wise biologist seeks out the theoreticians
because they have the background to handle diffEQs and think in
computational terms.

JMHO

Paul B. Cook






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net