Preparing to interview my p.i., Dr. Nicolas Buchler, was admittedly a daunting task. After all, I had asked him to squeeze thirty minutes out of his tremendously busy schedule so that I could pick his brain with questions that were completely unrelated to the grant proposal that he was doubtlessly in the middle of feverishly writing. What should I ask in my limited time? What information or insight would be most valuable? Luckily, as our conversation transitioned from discussing the factual aspects of his career to conversing about his subjective experiences as a prominent researcher, the more important topics and questions made themselves self-evident. By the end of the interview, I walked away with three especially helpful insights that I want to share in this blog. But before I share them let me summarize (as best I can) his career and the path Dr. Buchler took to become a primary investigator in the Duke Institute for Genome Science and Policy.
Dr. Buchler–a little to my surprise–majored in physics at UC San Diego (which he sheepishly admitted he chose to attend partly because of an obsession with the LA-based band, Jane’s Addiction) . When I asked him why he chose physics, he replied that he entered UC San Diego knowing that he wanted to study science, and that his decision on physics stemmed from several factors. First and foremost, he liked the extra attention and student-teacher interactions that he had as a physics major due to physics being a much less popular than biology or chemistry. Secondly, he greatly disliked the pure memorization required of chemistry majors, especially during their studies of organic chemistry. He did, however, say that he views a molecular biology course as being a defining course of his undergrad career (which I found both serendipitous and appropriate given that Dr. Buchler was one of the teachers of the molecular bio course I took last semester). His enjoyment of this course motivated him to pursue graduate studies in biophysics at the University of Michigan, where he earned his Ph.D. while using computer simulations to model and study how proteins fold.
Up to this point in his story, Dr. Buchler’s path to researcher-hood followed a route I had more or less expected. But given the a-typical histories of several of Duke’s top researchers, I knew Dr. Buchler probably had a few unexpected steps up his sleeve. And he didn’t disappoint. After completing his doctorate, Dr. Buchler “crashed” (as he put it) a six-month genomics workshop in Santa Barbara where he met his first post-doctoral advisor. This workshop, he said, set the trajectory of his career toward becoming a genomics scientist. Having decided on that field, Dr. Buchler then decided to take a summer course at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory that is dedicated entirely to teaching the theory, procedural techniques, and experimental designs needed for studying genomics in yeast. This class, which enabled him to dive into the world of yeast genomics, led him (thankfully both for me and science) to eventually become the primary investigator in the Duke Institute for Genome Science and Policy under whom I am now working.
Now that I’ve recounted his journey a bit, I’ll share some of the especially useful and helpful bits of conversation that I had with Dr. Buchler. Three pieces of insight/advice stand out in particular. The first is his response to my question: “what do you think is an important or essential step for undergraduates hoping for careers in research?”. His response, not surprisingly, was “do research.” He said that the increased opportunities for undergraduates to do research are a resource of tremendous importance because they give undergraduates not only the chance to confirm that they enjoy research, but also the chance to figure out which type of research they most enjoy and what field most appeals to them. He also said that doing research as an undergraduate teaches hands-on skill and how to think like a researcher, both of which will be essential tools in grad school.
The second tidbit of insight Dr. Buchler shared pertained to the transition into grad school. “Don’t expect to be a great grad student just because you were are a good undergraduate student. Some of the best grad students weren’t that great of undergraduate students and that’s because the mode of thinking in grad school is much different from the mode of thinking in undergraduate.” He elaborated that he feels this is because one has to switch from “learning mode” to “generating mode” upon entering grad school, which is (returning to his first insight) why he feels that undergraduate research is so essential. It helps students to realize whether or not they are compatible with grad school.
The last piece of insight that I would like to share came from Dr. Buchler’s response to two questions that i asked at the end of our interview. The first was, “What is the transition from being a grad student or post-doc working under another person to being a primary investigator in charge of others like? I was especially eager to ask this question because I have found myself wondering more and more if I would enjoy being a primary investigator, most of whom seem to spend the majority of their time writing grant proposals and performing administrative tasks and very little time being directly involved in the research they oversee. Dr. Buchler’s response was a mixture of comforting and disenchanting. Firstly, he said that no one really enjoys grant proposals (I cringed a little inside), but writing them is an essential component of any p.i’s job, which you eventually learn to accept. He also said that the severity and enjoyability of the transition depends largely on the person making it. Some people, having spent six years doing hands-on work, welcome the chance to solely work on theory and project design while only overseeing the hands-on work. Others keep their labs smaller so that they have time to perform some of the research directly themselves. His last reassurance was that if I enjoyed the science and work that leads up to becoming a primary investigator, that I would find overseeing and getting funding for the continuation of that work by others to be worth the transition.
