Object-Level
What does a normal day in your field look like? Can you give me a “day in the life” kind of run-down?
“I start working at about 8:00 AM and go up to about 12:00, then an hour break, and then again from 1:00 until 4:00. On most days I’m working again at about 6:00 or 7:00 PM, until 10:00 or so. On a typical day I work about 10 to 12 hours. It all consists of just getting one task after another completed. My work is dictated by task creation and task completion, and I've reached a point where subsequent tasks sort of dictate themselves.”
How does your time split across different kinds of activities?
“Aside from my own scientific effort, I oversee a few other researchers, and I direct them about what to do. It is 70% ‘in’ the process, and 30% ‘on’ the process.”
What does a bad day in your field look like, and how does your definition differ from the average person’s?
“A bad day? Well, if something interrupts my work, or makes it so that I can’t complete what I’ve set out to complete then… but I guess I don't classify my days as good or bad.”
What is your physical environment like?
“Unlike most of my labmates, I don’t work in the wet lab – handling viral cultures and looking under a microscope. (I'm glad because it's an HIV-1 lab.) I work in a fairly comfortable environment, in a cubicle with a computer, desk, and chair. I have the freedom to do a large part of it at home, which is why I can work for 10 to 12 hours a day – I don’t have to spend two hours driving to work and back.”
Do you find that your science has any “hair-raising” moments or adrenaline rushes? How common are these acute thrills? If not, what in your work makes you feel alive?
“There are no hair-raising moments, but I do get a rush out of making progress.”
Can you give me an outline of an average day during your PhD and postdoctoral life?
“It was really quite flexible for my PhD, but the flavor of my work changed throughout. In the beginning of a PhD, you survey the field, and find out what other people have discovered. After that, you try to see what opportunities exist for you to develop a new idea for your doctorate. Those two parts consist of lots of literature review. Around the middle of the year of my PhD, when I was done with background research, the flavor shifted, and I began to focus on my own work of getting new data out, making the connections, and taking things in a new direction.”
For students about to start a PhD or go into research – what has the potential to go most wrong? How could someone otherwise competent squander their career?
“Let’s leave aside those people who may not find the right fit in terms of advisor or research lab. Those are secondary issues, and they can still be managed. If you don't find the right advisor or lab, you can change that. The main danger comes from personal commitment. You have to be able to identify what it is that really matters to you. That's going to take you through – your commitment will make everything, really. It’s what makes it so you don't consider the challenge ahead of you as a negative thing.”
Meta-Level
Do you find your work meaningful? Is meaningness contingent on specific things, or is it intrinsic to the work?
“I don't work for the meaning of it. Meaning is only in my head. Nowhere else in the universe does meaning exist. But it's in how I do it – the intensity of the work, the way I work – not in what I do.”
What is the rate of change of information, important paradigms, and established thought in the field? How often do earth-shaking things get introduced?
“I’ve only been working on HIV-1 for two months – not enough time to go through 40 years of research. The people I work with who've been in the field will be able to answer this better. What I can say is that, if you compare HIV-1 with SARS-CoV-2 – they were able to come out with a vaccine for the COVID virus in about a year or so. But no one has made a vaccine for HIV-1 in the 30, 40 years it’s been around. That itself should give some idea about the nature of the virus, how difficult it is. Now, there aren't as many people dying from AIDS as there were initially because we have been able to find therapeutics against it. Someone can live with AIDS for many, many years.
Regarding earth-shaking things – well, the population of humans on the planet is like 8 billion, right? If earth-shaking things were happening all the time with most people, then society would be changing rapidly, right? So in my estimation, earth-shaking ideas are probably quite rare.”
Did your years in school prepare you for how the field changes?
“I’d say yes and no. The most valuable thing I learned in my PhD was how to exercise my mind, and adapt to change. Nothing is going to stay the same, so you need to get comfortable with flux. And learning to confront challenges turns out to be a general skill. It transfers over to new things quite well.”
Domain
How could someone find out if they have talent or potential in science, specifically the kind of work you’re involved with?
“I went into science upon the suggestion of an advisor. And that advisor based her suggestion to me on my work in her lab for some time – which I guess you could say is my talent. So perhaps sometimes you need external confirmation. But that has to be well-rated. The person making the judgment has to know what they're doing, and they have to know you as well. It's true that it takes an external set of eyes to spot somebody's talent, but then the individual with the talent has to have trust in those eyes and self-awareness.”
What prevents talented people with a good fit to your science from becoming top performers?
“It's just a matter of commitment. At what level is a person willing to set a boundary for himself or herself, where the person settles?”
Contrarianism
What is something you believe about your field that other scientists don’t?
“Well, I would say not all of the scientists, but a lot of them feel that science is a religion. That's not really the way to do it, because, well, earlier you were eulogizing God, now you're eulogizing science. What's the difference? One should not be a blind follower, but an active seeker. And because that's what science fundamentally is. It's seeking. And if one loses sight of that and says, oh, that scientist is saying this or that, so that’s what I believe – then you defeat the purpose of it, and you're not really doing science. You're just creating a belief system. And science should be the antithesis of belief. That is not clear to a lot of scientists that I have met.”
How does public perception of what it’s like to be a professional researcher align with reality? What do people not in the field definitely get right, and what do they get wrong?
“That’s a basic question that needs to be looked at more. Science educators and entertainers are out there making a religion out of science, and that, to me, is doing a disservice to the public that they are trying to reach out to. People get the right idea that science will solve some problems, but sometimes it goes too far, and they think science can solve all their problems. Science today is serving survival needs. It cannot serve higher needs which go beyond survival. I think people need to be able to see the limitations of science in that sense.
What do people get right about science? When this virus struck, people looked to science and scientists to come up with a vaccine. They got that right. Nobody else could have done it. Scientists were equipped with the capabilities, and they delivered.”
Are there things people adjacent to your field misunderstand about what you’re trying to do?
“Yeah, well, even within the field. Sometimes that can be a factor of miscommunication. Sometimes it can have to do with political reasons or competing commercial interests.”
What is one reason people go into science that they don’t talk about?
“Prestige.”
Conclusion
How might someone figure out more about what being a scientist involves? What books, interviews, or nontechnical media would you recommend they check out?
“I can’t recommend any specific media, but interviewing people yourself – like what you’re doing here – will lend better information about what science is really like. Talking to willing scientists is the best way to do it. Pop culture pushes a slanted view of what being a scientist is like – with the glasses and eccentricities – but scientists are just regular people.”