The other day, during a conversation with a radio station journalist, the journalist asked: In science, what qualities shape a successful scientist? This is a great question, and it seems to have caused many people to think deeply. I’ve also observed my colleagues and considered the following qualities…
A “successful scientist” here is a “successful scientist”. When it comes to success, there will certainly be people who immediately ask: based on what criteria? That’s a legitimate question. Interestingly, scientists seem eager to solve the world’s problems, but when it comes to their own issues, they are often confused. The first confusion is what indicators to use to evaluate the impact of a research project. It took almost 20 years, starting with someone who wasn’t even a scientist (Eugene Garfield), for the scientific community to reach some acceptable metrics. But when it comes to more personal questions, like what criteria to use to assess whether a scientist is successful, the problem becomes even more challenging. Few, especially those who have spent their entire lives pursuing a specific issue, are willing to admit failure.
But the issue has become a research topic for sociologists. In 1998, two sociologists, Feist and Gorman, conducted an overview of studies on qualities related to scientists’ creativity. These studies often rely on qualitative methods focusing on well-known individuals such as major award winners, members of scientific journal editorial boards, etc. Comparing the qualities of scientists and non-scientists, they concluded as follows:
They also compared famous/creative scientists with less famous and less creative ones. They concluded that successful scientists often have the following characteristics:
On a practical level (i.e., without research), the factors that make a successful scientist, in my observation, differ slightly from the above personalities. It’s true that successful people are often “arrogant,” ambitious, but they have reasons because they are genuinely talented. Anyone who has ever interacted with James Watson will see that he looks at others as if they are … trash! The journal Nature conducted a survey on factors leading to a scientist’s success, and in my personal opinion, the factors they listed are very consistent with reality. A scientist who wants to succeed must possess the following qualities:
First, creativity in generating new ideas or new methods. When a scientist has new ideas, discoveries, or creates new methods, by nature, many people will follow, and thus, the scientist becomes a pioneer. In English, this is called being a leader, not a follower. If you only repeat what others have done or follow in their footsteps, it’s very difficult to succeed.
Second, expand knowledge and research areas. While focusing on one issue, scientists should also think about expanding their research area (considering the potential applications of the field they are pursuing); read more to gain additional information; participate in multiple projects at once; use multiple methods; find new mechanisms. Working in cardiology, but also expanding “borders” into other fields, including … art!
Third, persistence in pursuing ideas. Focus on a main issue; never give up in the face of difficulties; always find ways to cope with challenges.
Fourth, choose topics that society cares about and have practical impact. This seems obvious because no one wants to pursue trivial topics unrelated to society. Therefore, socially relevant topics with practical impact are very important factors in making a mark and achieving success.
Fifth, independence and leadership in the field. A scientist cannot be considered successful if they are not independent and autonomous. Independence here should be understood as creating their own “school” and leading research projects.
Sixth, attracting a new generation of researchers. An important factor is training the next generation. A scientist who does not leave behind a new generation cannot be considered successful.
Seventh, collaboration. Science today is about international collaboration. Therefore, to increase the chances of success, scientists need to collaborate with colleagues both within and outside their field. Collaboration is also a great way to generate new ideas.
Eighth, international publication. In science, there’s a famous formula:
Research = Experiments + Publication. Publish research in good, top journals in the field. In reality, no one recognizes someone as a “scientist” or “researcher” if they don’t have work published in professional journals.
Ninth, awards. In the field and at conferences, awards are a sign of success. Of course, winning a Nobel Prize is great, but in reality, very few are awarded, even to deserving individuals, so awards from professional associations are also a measure of success.
Tenth, attracting funding. In countries like Australia and the U.S., success in science can also be measured by the amount of funding a scientist attracts from scientific funding agencies. Looking at a scientist’s profile, if there’s no funding, it’s a sign that the person is not yet independent and is still striving for success. But this is controversial, as many believe that attracting funding for research cannot be a measure of success.
These are the criteria and qualities that shape a successful scientist. I think there are probably many other qualities, but because I haven’t thought about them thoroughly, they are not complete. You can add to the list to make it more comprehensive.
Source: http://tuanvannguyen.blogspot.com/2012/11/to-chat-cua-mot-nha-khoa-hoc-thanh-cong.html
NEEC is a reputable U.S. study abroad consulting unit, supporting and advising students on detailed pathways to apply to top universities in the United States. Please chat with us, or leave your information for detailed consultation.
