Forum

Well it's a little too late for me to post this question, but I decide to post it anyway so perhaps others can learn from my "mistake".

I am currently finishing up a postdoc at a major university, working under a well-established and recognizable name in the field. Before I accepted the offer, I made it very clear to my advisor the nature of the project that I would like to work on, and the type of training I would like to receive that would facilitate entering the next step of my career, i.e. entering the biotech/pharma industry. I also applied and was awarded an NRSA fellowship; the work I described in my proposal would have given me the type of training I desired. However, when I first started in the group, I was assigned to a very different type of project. I didn't say anything at the time, because my advisor gave me the impression that after my first year, I would be able to work on my NIH proposal. Also, since I was trying to establish a good relationship with my advisor, I decided to do as he asked without complaining too much. Given his stature in the field, I was also a little intimidated.

As I began my second year of postdoc, it seemed less and less likely that I would be able to work on my proposal and received the kind of training that I had hoped for. The project that I've been working on does provide me with good training, but not really what I had initially asked for. I tried to talk to my advisor about possibly starting to work my proposal or related projects, but he basically said that he wasn't really interested in my proposal, and that he needs me to stay on the current project.

So basically for the last two years I ended up working on something completely different from what I set out to accomplish as a postdoc. I wouldn't call it a complete waste of time, but it certainly has been a very disappointing experience. What makes it worse is that the training I had initially asked for would have made it a little easier for me to obtain the type of position I'm currently seeking in the industry.

I apologize for writing such a long message. My question is: What should I have done before getting into this situation? Should I have talked to my funding agency about this?

why don't just quit your lousy postdoc job and apply to medical school, optometry school or pharmacy school?

Most big-name PI's manage their labs like a plantation and use their postdocs and grad students like indentured slaves.

In an effort to provide a more constructive answer ....

When you were in your initial discussions about joining this group, you probably should have written a "memorandum of understanding" that you and your PI would both sign. This would cover at a minimum your understanding of the project that you would be working on and how the funding for that project was to be handled (both where the money was coming from and where it was going). If you were willing to work on his projects as needed, this memorandum would also address the circumstances under which this could happen and the restrictions that would limit how much time you would have to spend on that work.

I don't know how much help your funding agency would have been on this issue - it depends on the details of your grant, I imagine.

Hi M.J.P.,

I should point out that you did many things right: Discussed your goals with your PI, and found funding. I think where this might have turned out a bit differently is that after it became clear 6 months in, 9 months in, that your PI was not going to live up to your understanding of your agreement (you contribute to his/her lab, after first year you switch and start working on your project), that you didn't start seeking a new postdoc.

I don't think this is easy - the power dynamics between PI and postdoc, concerns that it 'might not be better' in another lab, getting a reference, inertia, hopes that things will get better, other factors keeping you where you are, like a lease, family, etc., all serve as barriers to making a change.

But as soon as you realized he was not interested in your project, and you realized the skills you needed to pursue your career choice, I think you should have considered other options. I think this is where Emil's link to the article about "being responsible for your own career" comes into play.

That said, I'm sorry about your experience. It sounds frustrating.

Bill L. & Naledi S.

"Most big-name PI's manage their labs like a plantation and use their postdocs and grad students like indentured slaves. "

Unfortunately I have to agree with C. Uba (it is, however, a relief to hear that I'm not alone in my opinion of big-name PIs). I would leave your current position as gracefully as possible...maybe contact the Provost of the university before doing so, however, and describe to him/her what has happened during your time at the school.

Good luck

Rich Lemert wrote:
"When you were in your initial discussions about joining this group, you probably should have written a "memorandum of understanding" that you and your PI would both sign."

To that I ask: what are the chances that the PI would have hired M.J.P when he/she was asked to sign this "memorandum of understanding"? I think the PI may have laughed at the prospect and just moved to the next post-doc (i.e., cheap labor) candidate.

Thank you for all your feedbacks. I agree with the previous reply, that perhaps the better thing to do was to find a new postdoc as soon as I began to realize what was going on. Unfortunately my PI kept giving me the impression that I would eventually get to work on my own project, up until the beginning of my second year. By then I was only a few months away from the fall job recruiting season. In addition, with the NIH fellowship, I was always under the impression that it would be difficult for me to change advisor (after all my current advisor was my sponsor).

Thanks again for all the comments.

Mike

So what if the PI did laugh at MJ for raising the issue. If that was the case, it would be a huge red flag for MJ to consider going some place else.

Remember, you are not going through the post-doc to further your PI's career. You are doing it to further your own career! If more people would keep this in mind, a lot of the problems we see discussed here would evaporate (see EC's thread on "taking charge".)

As Ann Landers (or maybe her sister) used to say, no one can take advantage of you without your permission.

Dear M.J.P:
I am sorry for you situation. I have a friend who experience exactly the same thing. before she joined her lab, she made it very clear to her boss what she wants to learn. But once in the lab, all the projects assigned to her is for her bosses needs. After trying to communicate with him without any change, she left the lab after a year.

Unfortunately this is also happening to me, albeit I am in industry. I find it really strange that one gets hired only to provide that extra pair of hands and not because of the extra edge that the person brings due to his/her special skills and passion in certain fields. It's easy to say "you should talk to this and this" because it takes two to tango and at the end of the day, your boss has the final say. All I can say is that I am looking at other options where my skills will be appreciated. Good luck!

I agree with the comments of Bill and Naledi: as soonas as it became clear that you were not going to get the type of training you wanted (sometimes the situation of a PI changes; sometimes you need a body on a project that is more important to the overall lab) you should have found a new advisor. Individual NRSAs are portable to some degree. It is important to discuss this with your current PI, work out a transition that inlcudes compelting a project for them (while putting the NRSA funding on hold) and a good reference for you and then moving on.

I'm going to express something here which is not meant to draw flames. Instead, it is a simple reality that all trainees must come to terms with: it isn't all about you.

Graduate and post-doctoral training is not all about you and your needs, what you want or your career. This doesn't mean your needs should be totally disregarded ALL the time but labs are about getting science done; that's the mission. Your training has to fit in along the lines of this mission. Remember, a PI usually has 4-6 people that also think, it's all about them. It gets really tiresome. Furthermore, in order to keep a lab running, you have to keep it funded so certain projects have a priority; they may not be your personal priority but you are part of a team. There are other members of this team who also would like to go off and do the project of their heart's desire but then pretty soon the things that keep the lab funded aren't getting done. Individual NRSAs do NOT keep a lab funded. They don't "help;" they can be more of a pain than they are worth since one gets to listen to the oohhhh I have my own money; I should get to do what I want. Fine, go do it in someone else's lab and take your NRSA with you. NRSAs don't come anywhere near the cost of doing science; your NRSA pays your salary and that is it; walk into the lab this morning and take away every single thing that your NRSA didn't buy (including pencils); take a minute and calculate capitalized equipment costs; your NRSA for "your" project doesn't even pay depreciation on capitalized equipment: it is the R01s that keep a lab functioning and whether you like it or not, you need to be prepared to contribution to the community pot in terms of keeping the lab running so you can take advantage of my generoisty in allowing you to use my lab and my equipment to do a project that gains me little to nothing (except maybe a paper if we are lucky), takes my time and my space away from people doing work on my R01s who want to do that work and may require me to sit and listen to you complain about how you should get to do what you want in MY lab.

So find a lab that is a good fit where what the lab NEEDS to do, matches with what you what to do. Someone else's lab is not there to meet your training needs. It is there to do science.

One theme for the aspiring pipeliners: in way too many post doc situations, the PIs motivation is not to train you for your next jump to industry or academia, but to merely keep the funding, prestige, points for the PI. I may be extreme, paranoid and very cynical about the motivations of PIs who themselves are not supervised in a consistant manner. Nor are they given a lot of points for doing a good job at mentoring. That is actually a side effect of keeping the lab functioning, and keeping the funds flowing.
Recently, there have been a number of posts urging the individual to take charge of their careers, and at a very early level.
Do not assume there is a fair and merit fair system. It is actually fairly chaotic and lasse faire.

Hi all,

I agree with Kelly on this one, and I do so from my postdoc perspective. I started my postdoc in my current lab 2.5 years ago. My lab is very well known in my field, beside for the good science, for a set of techniques we use. They are difficult to master, require lots of training (I am talking 8-12 "unproductive" months here) but, in part for this same reason, they seem to have been a great selling point for people to move on to both academic and industry careers.

When I interviewed for a postdoc here I told my PI that I absolutely wanted to learn these techniques before leaving; she got a little tense there, and told me that it would have taken me a year just to get up to speed with the technique, let alone producing reliable data. So she suggested instead that I would start off on a project not involving directly the technique (we both needed papers!), and after strenghtening my CV a little I would take maybe 3 days off a week to learn. I think this is an example of a good compromise. Now, 5 papers later and 2 more in the makings, I am learning what I want and applying what I learn to my experiments.

So my point is: you can do it, you can get the training that you want within reason. But you need to be firm, it's so easy for a PI to "forget" things, expecially if she's forgetting things that will make you temporarily unproductive! Along these years I kept reminding my PI of our agreement (saying things like: after this paper is out, how about I start learning this part of the technique? It will be very useful for step 2 of the project!"), I read and made a point of discussing with her the literature relevant to the technique, I took any chances I got to show interest, went to seminar and technical sessions of conferences, talked to salespeople for the companies that make the instruments we use and discuss new advances with everybody in the lab, etc...

Be firm and positive, show entusiasm and KEEP REMINDING THEM!!!!
Best of luck,
Rita

"the PIs motivation is not to train you for your next jump to industry or academia, but to merely keep the funding, prestige, points for the PI. I think that message is implicit in Kelly's post about certain Post doc initiated and funding options. "

John, you are taking the most negative interpretation of what I wrote. I said the lab isn't all about training and the training must fit in around the larger goals of the lab or THERE WON'T BE ANY LABS. Training must be a natural extension of keeping a lab up and running to do science (not "merely keep the funding, prestige, points for the PI"). I never wrote anything like that.

Most PIs are about doing science, or at least most I know. There are some for whom the science is merely a vecihle for their egos but to write as though this is the rule is unfair and incorrect.

The fact that someone's lab isn't exclusively focused on training doesn't make the PI evil or the process corrupt. I doubt any PI would say the major goal of my lab is to train people. For most PI's the major goal of their lab is to do science and people are trained in the context of this larger goal. There's nothing wrong with that as long as both sets of needs are met and admittedly some labs balance those needs better than others.

I think the qualifier "is implicit" somewhat gets me off the hook here. I apologize for taking too much licence.
Nevertheless, the point for the potential pipeliner , is to take charge, and be aware of conflicting motivations why any PI hires a graduate student or a postdoc.
As for being negative, I lived being under some pretty exploitive PIs, including drunks and extreme egotists. I always assume the worst in the overlords motivations.

The drunks and egoists do exist. I will not deny their existence. I also will not deny the liars, manipulators and the just plain bad seeds that can grow in the academic environment and any environment.

However, publishing letters on line of dubious source that name individuals in a public forum and disparage institutions as a whole is not acceptable. If there is one principle that I firmly embrace it is that one does not publically speak ill of any institution under any circumstance, ever. If there is one thing that I remain ever confident of, that has always been true in my experience, it is this: most institutions do their very best and most negative experiences lay at the hands of individuals not the institution as a whole.

Naming names and publishing confidential letters here merits immediate censorship, pro or con.
The problems of attribution are beyond the scope of a forum such as this.

Kelly is spot-on in describing the reality of academic science! No money = no science...

Let's paraphrase: Its not about you and your needs..its about my generosity, my lab, my equipment, my time and my space...(Me, Me, Me)

sounds awfully selfish...

"Naming names and publishing confidential letters here merits immediate censorship, pro or con."

Just follow the posted guidelines on this forum, that's all we ask. We don't post anything here which has the potential to be libelous.

Please think of this site as an online Career Day meeting at your institution. Would you stand up in the audience of the auditorium, point to a senior faculty member, and spout off some nasty editorial comments, even if they were true? Nope. Most mentally healthy individuals would not do that. THIS IS WHAT THE FORUM IS ALL ABOUT. Thank you.


Dave Jensen, Moderator

When I was a postdoc, I hated my PI saying, "You guys don't understand what it takes to run this lab." Ditto for my mother for "You never understand what parents go through until you have your own." Now that I'm a junior faculty, and I spend less time doing experiments myself but more time worrying about somebody else's experiments. Reagents not working, proper controls missing, oh, why can't you do it right!? Same for the grant parts postdocs write. You ask a postdoc to summarize his experiments so that they can go into the preliminary result section of the grant, but he writes mostly about the background of the whole field and critical details of his experiments are missing. I have to go back to him, get the exact details I need, and rewrite pretty much the whole thing.

No, no, I'm not complaining. Long back when I was a little girl, I promised to myself that I won't say certain things when I grow up. One of them is "You never understand what parents go through until you have your own." But maybe I can change my mind once in a while.

"No money = no science" (by Jay)
..is sooo true and is the single most important message I believe should be emphasized on this forum, especially since (as one postdoc in the lab puts it "hundreds of RO1's are being dropped in Iraq on a daily basis"!). Kelly effectively illustrated this "simple reality" in one of her responses. To summarize, someone in the lab has to maintain a steady "income" for the well being of all occupants of the lab. And who would do that? the PI.

However, that being said, I really do feel bad for MJP as well, as the PI should not have made false promises. It seems to me that the best senario would be to carry out a postdoc with a mentor that already work in a field that you plan to spend at least 7-8 years in (2-3 for postdoc + 4-5 for first grant as junior faculty). But I suspect that MJP did exactly that (only difference is that he planned for industry).

This is one of the places where describing the woes of PI'dom can have benefits, not for woe-ing but for helping older post-docs out there understand how to make the transition and maybe get younger ones to start to cut the PI a bit of slack on some things.

For example, MJP's guy probably didn't mean to lie. he probably had the expectation that MJP would be able to do his NRSA project. But sometimes, it just doesn't happen. I have had to "go back" on a project issue before. Things just happened and we need to make a change. I tried not to make it a mystery: I told them; I am in this jam, I need you to take this other thing on for me, I will try to make it up to you later but right now we really need X to get done. We got X done (about 3 weeks ago) and are now back to the regular plan. It stinks when you have to do this on a personal level, most PIS do not feel too good about it and I know it is disappointing to the trainee on a project level.

I understand that as a postdoc (trainee), you have to do what your mentor wants in regards to your project. I realize that PIs are under extreme pressure more than ever with the current funding situation. The few times I get to interact with my boss, I realize the chaos, the pressure, and the miracle our lab is still functioning. I wish the academic system would reward PIs for being good mentors (ie give incentives for this to happen), because we (trainees) would greatly benefit.

My Master's advisor was a reasonable name and good mentor. My PhD supervisor was a big name and not at all a mentor, more of a tormentor. My first post-doc advisor was a pretty big name and did little/no mentoring (he had a big lab and was a chairperson but I got what I went there for).

My second post-doc mentor was a young person and with all of the above under my belt, he was a pretty good mentor for ME but for some others it hasn't done so well. So it really depends on the fit.

There is no requirement for mentoring, you are right about that. It is left up to the individual PI. But the person whose lab you are in doesn't have to be your mentor. My mentors other than 1 and 4 have been from outside my research labs.

I think this thread has been very interesting. What it points out to me is that there is a failure of communicating expectations in scientific training. It is similar to the frustrations subordinates have with the obstinance of their managers. Of course, there is very little that is done in an academic setting to make the working relationship work... it's just all about the grants, the pubs, and the experiments.

How do you actually measure mentoring? How do you know your mentor is giving you "quality" mentoring? That's a tough question... but not an impossible one to answer.

If a subordinate in an academic setting is unhappy with the mentoring they recieve, they can always vote with their feet. I knew 4 graduate students that were unhappy with their alcoholic professor who was being less than engaged in their projects, so they all quit working for him. Last week I saw one of those students give a killer presentation with the title of Full professor.
It is also possible to work for the disappointing advisor in name only. Find mentoring by working in collabortion with someone else. I knew one PhD student of the alcoholic professor that actually did most of his work in another lab for another professor , but kept the drunk as his his official chief advisor because that guy had connections and a big name. He must have developed his soft skills further as he went on to a major plant scientist industry company (begins with an M, then an O, ) and then become Vice President of research for a research branch of a major seed and lawn supply company, where they are trying to produce GMO lawn plants.
Added note, sadly my darling ex-wife went to work for the alcoholic professor against my advice, hence leading in part to her ex status.

To Val's point about power disparity and other things, I have to go back a bit into discussing what the managerial environment is of a research laboratory. Actually all I do is go back to managerial/organizational behavior theory.

So the question points at how a laboratory is run. A lab is like any other multiperson organization. Whoever the "leader" is sets the tone for the rest of the subordinates. If we're looking at the military or the police, there's a sargeant commanding the subordinates to execute orders. Well, with that comes a particular mindset of the assumptions the manager has about the needs of the subordinates. What motivates a subordinate? What will make the subordinate an efficient member of my team? What does the subordinate need to know? The manager's assumptions are then carried out in his/her managerial style over the subordinates.

Douglas Macgregor wrote a book in 1960 about corporate climates and managerial systems in "The Theory of Enterprise." In it, he discusses two major groups of organizations. The first group runs using "Theory X". As I write in my paper (that I am distributing at the NPA meeting Saturday): In short, managers in Theory X saw their average subordinate as being interested solely in money and job security, being self-centered and unconcerned about the company, and would rather have his/her duties be dictated to them rather than share responsibility. Consequently, Theory X managers motivate their employees by either threatening punishment (coercion, implicit threats, close supervision, and other “command and control” techniques) or providing passive incentives (seeking a harmonious solution hoping that the employee will cooperate). Essentially, the employee is simply expected to fulfill the job description and is perceived as “another pair of hands” than can be easily replaced. As a result, high turnover and dissatisfaction are characteristic signs of a Theory X business.

The other group of businesses (which were rare at the time of Macgregor's publication) used "Theory Y" techniques. In it: The managers expected each employee to decide his/her own work objectives and seek responsibility. Commitment to their objectives was rewarded with opportunities to address higher needs, such as self-fulfillment. In this environment, creativity and ingenuity become trademark characteristics of all employees, and both managers and subordinates equally participate in performance appraisals to establish new work objectives.

That's why one cannot put a blanket statement on "all big name PI's are bad" or that "all graduate students or postdocs wouldn't understand the trouble PI's go through." If we begin to accept that each stakeholder may actually want things to work in the laboratory with his/her own individual skills, then we can change the mindset from "slavedriver" to "colleague" easily. Postdocs should not be shielded from the problems PI's have in managing a research program; they're going to need those skills when they launch their own labs. Within certain limits of decorum and professionalism, PI's should not be afraid of sharing their delights and frustrations with an academic life. Developing a scientific culture of trust -- a Theory Y scientific culture -- starts with one PI, one department, one dean, and one institution. It may take a large number of years and a lot of persistence, but if there is a commitment to this change, it will happen. So challenge your assumptions about the way interpersonal interactions are "supposed to be" in your laboratory... organizational theory predicts that you will be happier about it.

Emil Chuck wrote:

> ... there is a failure of communicating expectations in scientific training.
> It is similar to the frustrations subordinates have with the obstinance of their managers.

[smarty pants mode on]

By the same token, the slavery was happening in the USA two centuries ago probably because the Africans could not communicate expectations to their white managers.

[smarty pants mode off]

What about the inherent disparity in power between the scientific manager and scientific worker ?

Val.

Val,

Every relationship has inherent disparity. The question is how severe is that disaprity and what is your level of power to do anything to improve your situation in the face of that reality. Also, occasionally I note the use of extreme language or particularly colorful and dramatic imagery superimposed over an unfortunate situation, and I don't think it adds to the discussion. Let's talk about what the experience is, rather than comparing it to other realities, like slavery, for example.

In MJP's case, the PI has the power to dictate what happens in his/her lab. The PI also has the ability to go back on his/her word. MJP, who clearly was treated poorly by the PI, had choices at several moments: when s/he chose the lab, when s/he recognized his/her dissatisfaction because s/he was not working on his/her project, and every moment after that. This does not mean those were easy choices, or that they were fair, but is isn't clear that there was not a possibility to move to another lab. I am not "blaming the victim" - MJP says they had an agreement, the PI broke it, and the difficult part is that the PI broke it without any good faith effort to meet MJP halfway. In that caseEmil, I don't think the argument holds about a failure of communicating expectations in scientific training. This is about broken promises without good-faith efforts to negotiate a solution.

Naledi S.

"This is about broken promises without good-faith efforts to negotiate a solution."

Well said. And this can happen anywhere else, not just in academia.

PIs often make some promise to bait trainee to work for them and they are always in an advantageous position to manipulate their promise. For MJP, the boss may continue let him to do the project s/he doesn't like (broken promise) or let him to do her/his pet project in the last year (keep promise). Either way, the boss always win. In the latter situation, the boss at least used MJP for one or two years free.

When I finished my Ph.D, my grad advisor (chairman in the department by that time) told me if I would stay in his lab to do the postdoc, I will be guaranteed with an academic job in the future. Since I was pretty tired to stay in one place for so long, I didn't take his offer and walked out to find another post-doc position. My advisor in my first postdoc was also a chairperson in another institution by that time. When I was interviewed by him for the post-doc position, he also promised me that if I work with him, my faculty position in the future could count on him. Three years later he left science to become a head in one national organization. I had to find another post-doc by myself. When my current advisor made the similar promise to me, I almost believe that is one of strategies that used by PIs to hold people to work for them. He is really in a position capable of helping me that way. But I am just wondering how many years it will take me to pay the due, since there is no free lunch in the world. Therefore, do not trust too much the promise made by PIs. Sometimes, the promise is just a trick for them to manage people in the lab. Yourself is the only person you can trust.

I would strongly suggest that every single graduate student and post-doc should print the above post from Wendy and tape it up somewhere.

Do NOT believe under any circumstance EVER any individual that promises you a faculty position.

Even if they are the chairman, they cannot promise a t-t position. There are commitees to determine this and there must be a national ad for the position. Unless you're in a dept where everyone loves each other, he/she will never pull it off. I was promised a similar thing as a RAP. The PI just cannot do it, no matter what. He was so mad when I left after a year and a half. Just because he would have to find someone else to run a project that he didn't care about except that it brought a large amount of money into his lab. This is total B.S. In the majority of cases, this promotion can never happen. Maybe twenty years ago it happened, but not now.

James is exactly right: these things did happen rather easily 20 years ago. Thus, many people who "promise" these faculty positions aren't actually lying; they really think they can do it. But they can't and when they can't they are sorry but that doesn't help you when you have made your career plan around this.

If you are not made an offer in writing up frontm signed off on by the Dean, this is merely wishful thinking. no matter how powerful you think your PI or a chairperson might be. It is doesn't come from the institution (aka the Dean) don't buy it.

Kelly wrote:

"So find a lab that is a good fit where what the lab NEEDS to do, matches with what you what to do. Someone else's lab is not there to meet your training needs. It is there to do science."

------------------------------------

Well I decided to check back today and see if there will a couple more feedbacks to my original post, and I surely didn't expect 35 =)

Thanks for all the input, there were a couple of good ones, and some that weren't bad, but not quite applicable to my situation, which is understandable since I decided to make this a general post and I did not specify exactly the type of research that I was involved with. Anyway, one of my favorite comments is that "Remember you are doing this to further your own career, not your advisor's career." That is so true. I should have taken action when I had the chance. A response to Kelly's "unpopular opinion" post who thought I'm disappointed because I didn't get to work on my own little pet project, that's certainly not true (please read on). The project that I asked to do is EXACTLY the ones that have the highest priority in the group, the ones that support the group financially, the ones that give this group is reputation in the field for the last few decades.

Here is a little more details to my situation (especially for those of you who are familiar with organic chemistry research). For my Ph.D. research, I was involved with the development of a novel synthetic methodology, which is unique in its own way but it's not all that "mainstream", so it hasn't received a lot of attention. I did apply it to some fairly small natural products and got a couple of decent papers out in decent journals. But because I wanted a job as a synthetic medicinal chemist in the industry, and a lot of companies prefer to hire someone who has done natural product total synthesis with greater complexity, I decided to pursue a postdoc in this area. I was offered a position by my current advisor, who is one of the most established researchers in the field of complex natural product synthesis. Naturally, my NRSA proposal was also a proposed total synthesis. I thought I had found, as one of my reviewers put it, an "ideal training ground" for what I had hope to accomplish.

While >80% of my advisor's research is in total synthesis, the rest of his research interest is very bioorganic in nature (which seems to be the trend these days). The project that I was assigned to was exactly one of these bioorganic projects. Yes I'm learning a lot about medicinal chemistry, and I am probably doing a lot of the same type of work that I would be doing in the industry. However, this is not what many companies are looking for. During interviews, they all admit that my work is pretty much what I would be doing at the company, but guess what? They are looking to hire someone with experience in total synthesis in grad school or postdoc with a higher level of complexity (even though that might not be what they do at the company) During my interviews, as soon as people see the name of my advisor, and then see my research, they would ask "Why in the world are you doing this with Professor XXXX?", a natural question because he's much better recognized for his research in total synthesis. So in response to some of the posts above, I came to this group and asked to do something that the group has been doing very successfully for many years, and continues to be the main focus of the group. I did not ask to do something in which the group doesn't have as much interest, or something that doesn't "pay the bills". I don't mind not getting to work on my NRSA proposal -- I would be perfectly happy if I had been assigned to any of these major projects in the group, because they would have given me the same training. But instead, I was asked to work on one of these "side projects."

So yes Kelly, I did find a lab in which what it needs to do DOES match with what I want to do. But I was asked to do something else. Now, perhaps you understand my disappointment.