Medical How should I pick between two research positions - big prestigious lab or smaller lab?

[lord999]

I just graduated and will be taking two gap years before MD/PhD programs (applying at the end of the first gap year). I have experience in one lab during undergrad (last 2.5 years) but wanted to move elsewhere for my gap years for personal/professional reasons. Right now, I have the option of choosing between two labs. One is the lab of a very, very big PI in one of my two fields of interest: they have won several major career awards (on the level of MacArthur, Japan Prize, etc.) and will most likely win several more as they approach retirement. I would almost never interact with this PI but instead be paired with a postdoc who I would work very closely with (understandable). I would probably get some sort of publication out of this but most likely as some sort of middle author. Overall, I would be straying from my current work to start something new but much of this work would not be so independent. For what it's worth, this lab is also at one of my top choice programs.

The other option is a great but much smaller lab in the other of my two fields of interest. The PI seems really great and would work with me on a project: they have had quite a bit of success in the last ~10 years but not necessarily at the stage of their career as the other lab. Admittedly, I am much more excited by the work done in this lab (the other lab has great work, just not as great). Additionally, the past technicians who have been there have had some level of independence and have had opportunity to publish both as co-authors and first authors. Here, I would have more of an opportunity to show independent productivity and the work lines up much more closely with what I hope to study during my PhD. This lab is also at one of my top choice programs (perhaps not as much of a top choice as the other institution).

For reference, I hope to get a good LoR from my current lab, I have one middle author publication now, and hope to get one or two more from my current work. I guess my question comes down to whether I should go for a good fit and really big lab or great fit and not as big lab. Does it make that much of a difference in MD/PhD admissions? Thanks!

Congratulations, this is a good problem to have! But here's the question, which laboratory would you be most productive in? It's better to be productive than famous at this stage is my usual advice. The other piece of advice would be the group that would be the firmest advocate into MD/PhD studies, which can be either (some smaller labs have very serious connections as feeder labs or as collaborative ones).

You might want to ask some lab members about the laboratory dynamics before committing either way. Also, it is said (and I agree to some extent) that there is a finite amount of credit in a functional laboratory. If one person sucks it all, what's in it for you?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lord999]

If you don't mind, could I ask you to clarify the last point a bit? Do you think the chances of one person getting the lion's share of credit is more likely in a big lab or smaller lab? Thank you so much again!

Sure, there are two ways to look at rewards, cooperative or competitive. Some laboratories run with the idea that everyone wins together and others run with the idea that the PI determines the share of the wins. No lab is too far on one side or the other (well, except Whitehead where its expected to be that way), but you need to be part of a lab that you can be recognized for your contributions. It is somewhat unlikely that the work that you do will result in career awards later on for a gap year, but it's likely the way that you represent matters that the more prestigious laboratory will not grant as many resources or time, but the smaller one will.

The question reflecting on you is the following, if you get into the prestigious laboratory, are you willing to fight like a competitor for a piece of the victory pie, or are you more interested in personal development in the smaller laboratory? It can work either way, and who dares wins. I spent my graduate school laboratory experience within a nurturing but low-key lab, but spent my early career in a predatory one and learned much at both. I half-jokingly refer to my former lab as my "American parents" and my latter lab as my "Asian parents" for the lessons they imparted to me about the research career field, which were both valuable, but my ego is such that I'm not an open competitor (I like backroom politics much more).

What you write is too nonspecific to give much more specific advice than that, just be productive and it'll be fine either way. What is worth reflecting on is what lessons do you want to learn from your gap year experience: the essential zero-sum competitive game of professional begging and stealing or the positive sum cooperative game of patience?

Your problem reminds me of Cliff Stoll's The ****oo's Egg in the sense that the knowing your own preferences is probably more important at this stage than is any particular choice. I think you'll make it work either way, it's just which way do you actually want to work?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

When it comes to MD/PhD applications, you must be able to communicate your understanding of a physician-scientist and your enthusiasm and motivation to the challenges of the training. The critical connections with fantastic mentors, you'll get that once you are in the MD/PhD program, so the level of fame of the PI isn't so impressive when you apply compared to having a champion-mentor write your LOR and vouch for you. Your self-awareness when it comes to the "soft skills" working in a lab are going to be very important for you as well. That's what I would be interested in, knowing many people who have completed the MD/PhD path.