Introducing Series 2 of ‘Science Without Anguish’

Why Series 2?
It’s fair to say the response to Series 1 of Science Without Anguish has greatly exceeded my expectations! I’m extremely pleased with the high number of reads, the level of engagement in social media, discussion in the webinar, and the many enthusiastic comments I’ve received. People I’ve never met before approach me at conferences and start a conversation with “I really like your blog”. I really never expected this to become an ice breaker! And I’m hugely grateful for this feedback.
 
Writing it has also clarified my own thoughts even more than I expected. The thoughts I wrote about were already there, swirling around in my mind with the everyday noise, but I always find writing a great way to clarify them. And it’s given me more courage to speak openly with other scientists about topics that normally feel off limits, like how many of us feel overwhelmed, the many roles of luck in research life and how we define ‘success’. I hope it’s had the same effects for you too.
 
But there is definitely more to say, and some topics to revisit. So what can you expect in Science Without Anguish Series 2?

​Common themes
These articles cover many different topics but you have probably spotted common themes running through them.
 
Despite today’s very welcome focus on improving research culture, many of the biggest problems we face in research will not be going away anytime soon. There will never be enough money to fund all good ideas, nor enough time to follow them. Science publishing is undergoing a chaotic and painfully slow transition to a new model that is not yet clear, and this is straining authors, reviewers and funders. And like any career, not everyone in science is respectful of others.
 
But here’s the irony: the moment we accept that we have no control over these harsh truths, and remember that other careers have their problems too, is the moment we realise we can, after all, deal with them. If we choose to ‘accept and adapt’ rather than ‘grin and bear it’, we can stop wasting energy, and become more resilient. Understanding our emotions, and managing our response to them, is the key.
 
Scientists don’t usually talk about emotions. We’re supposed to be rational after all but we are not! Every rejection, every failed experiment, every argument and every bout of interview nerves confirms this. From a scientific perspective, emotions are ‘just’ our body’s way of channelling our limited supplies of energy and focus but they evolved to handle a very different environment from today’s complex society. By choosing which emotions to act on, and which simply to acknowledge and park, we can direct our energy where it will make the most difference. We can harness the extra energy of excitement and ambition to help us write a paper or present a talk,  but stop wasting energy railing against grant rejections, administrative challenges and people we don’t like.
 
Specific topics
 
Overwhelm
I knew overwhelm was an important topic but I had no idea how important. The Series 1 post on overwhelm was accessed more than any other – twice as many as the next highest in fact. When I asked in the webinar which blog topic had been most relevant for audience members just within the preceding week, overwhelm was again the clear ‘winner’.
 
I feel it too, even since I wrote the first article. Once in that irrational state, a single administrative hiccup on any other topic (an everyday occurrence for a busy PI) is enough to trigger me into the overwhelm spiral. Recognising rationally what is going on, and the damage it does, is the first step to managing it. So for my own sake, and for everyone who struggles with overwhelm, I will say more on this topic in Series 2.
 
Security
I said insecurity was the elephant in the room. It is an ever-present threat for early career researchers, with downsides that go far beyond everyday stress and worry. I would argue that it even affects the projects we choose and prevents us questioning the status quo as much as we need to. Insecurity also compounds overwhelm. It is hard enough to have our heads swimming with endless task lists if we have a secure job. But is altogether harder to say “no” to something if a voice inside your head insists that this could be the very task that decides your future. There is a fundamental flaw in that way of thinking - the false idea that we have only one route to ‘success’. This topic needs another visit too!

​Values and purpose
Security and scientific achievements do not solve everything. Even tenure, game-changing as it is, can be a double-edged sword once the need for security is satisfied and we reassess our motivations. A good solution at any career stage is to ensure we live by our values and to have a sense of purpose as part of something larger than ourself. This is not unique to science – there are so many examples in sport, business and elsewhere. Sports psychologist Katy Mobed sums this up with the comment: “Success itself does not interest me; it’s what you do with it that matters”.  I will devote two articles to values and purpose.
 
The drama triangle: who are we letting run our lives?
Once I had introduced the Karpman Drama Triangle in Series 1, I began to see this dysfunctional behaviour pattern everywhere I looked, including in myself.  We all see ourselves as a victim of something or someone, a bad reviewer or an unreasonable boss for example, we love to think of ourselves as ‘heroes’ rescuing other ‘victims’ from their ‘villains’. What we struggle to see is how this erodes the sense of agency in those we seek to help, overloads us and creates new conflicts. For every problem it solves, it creates several more. But there is a way out, which I will illustrate with a number of research life examples.  
 
Psychological safety: can we truly think without it?
Psychological safety came up briefly in Series 1. Elon Musk apparently thinks it is a bad idea, so let’s put that to the test. If you needed to calculate 3 x 21 x 7 as quickly as possible without a calculator, are you more likely to get it right with your boss looking over your shoulder or sitting in a quiet room by yourself? If that is true for school-level maths, how much truer is it when developing a new hypothesis about cutting edge science? In a psychologically safe environment, our colleagues can help develop it but respect that the hypothesis is ours. In the opposite situation, it gets strangled at birth only for someone else to resurrect it and claim credit for it. Which works better for research? What are the lessons here for hybrid working and open office environments? But can we go too far? What happens when we get too comfortable, or too wrapped up in our dreams to actually move towards any of them? How do we find balance?

Cognitive dissonance: the everyday tax on our energy
In Series 3 next year, I plan to explore how our cognitive biases (we all have them!) impact on our scientific thinking and wellbeing. As a prelude, I will touch on how we deal with conflict in our minds. What stories do we tell ourselves when we apply for a grant with the project most likely to be funded and not the one we believe is more novel and important? Why is it so hard to accept data that go against our hypothesis? What does that good, or bad, peer review mean about our capabilities as a scientist? Why do we fall into the trap of seeing a working model as the full story nearly 50 years after George Box told us: “All models are wrong but some are useful”? We crave certainty and resolution, but research is all about dealing with the unknown. Why does that scare us?
 
I hope you enjoy reading this new series and I really look forward to hearing your feedback!