Professor shot down my proven idea. Should I even be coming up with ideas?

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I am not sure how I should feel about my ideas being dismissed without consideration or feeling like I cannot come up with my own ideas about how to solve the problems given to me. I feel like that I am very limited in the things I'm allowed to pursue to solve my project's problems. It's as if not only the goals are set for me (which is expected) and that I have to obey the limitations of budget, lab theme and time, but even within these constraints, I have to do exactly what the professor is asking even if it is questionable.

Situation:

The idea was generated from a postdoc in my lab who came up with it independently and ran preliminary experiments to demonstrate that it worked, but had no idea why it worked. We have all the materials needed, all materials are extremely inexpensive and plentiful, and the analysis uses routine instrumentation in our lab that's almost always open for use. This, I assumed, was why the postdoc worked on this.

I noticed these promising results and designed a set of experiments that would elucidate the physical principle behind these ideas. I carefully read my project guidelines that my professor had set for me and noticed that these experiments 1. if successful, would fit the end goal of the project 2. do not divert significant time and attention away from current experiments and require no additional budget 3. do not entail any additional safety hazards (all chemicals used are routine) 4. fit the theme and goals of our laboratory 5. is a promising approach but with many open questions left in recent literature and would likely lead to publications.

From this, I expected that my professor would approve of me taking the initiative to do a literature search, find relationship to unsolved problems in our group's research, take the existing results of our group and expand on them, design a set of low cost experiments and getting out results in a relatively "hot" area that fits within our project constraints.

Unfortunately the professor dismissed my ideas without consideration. He said something about a complication, did not elaborate, and before I could refute, gave me another assignment that I knew the answer to from the literature. Then he left. I don't understand why this happened.

Now I am wondering: am I allowed to come up with my own ideas at all? I fully understand that within a PHD, the end goals, materials and methods of my project must fit with that of my group. I accepted that coming in. However, when I am given a problem, I expect to come up with my own potentially publishable ideas about how to solve the problem within the constraints given.

Was I wrong? Is it that being a PHD is just using your professor's ideas and running experiments for him?

What should I do?

[fuzzylogician]

I'm in a different field but some questions that I bet are relevant are: what year are you? would this be your first independent project, or have you done others? Also, more generally, what is the atmosphere like in your group -- are students encouraged to develop their own ideas and follow them through, or do they have to clear them with the PI before getting started, or is everything handed down from the PI? Seems like these would be relevant bits of information for how to think about your situation. And I'd also bet that at the end of the day the answer will be that it depends and practices vary across fields and labs. But I'll leave that for people with more relevant experience 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

1. I am a 2nd year and already hold a MS where I did an independent project with minimal supervision from my professor that I am writing a paper for and has been presented at a conference.

2. I have done an independent project before. However, I am not totally familiar with the laboratory techniques of my current field (even though my previous field and my current field are both materials science/semiconductors, I am not a wet chemist and this lab involves some wet chemistry) so I am sometimes clumsy with the fabrication parts of my experiments. I am good at physical measurements and theory, and I don't have any problems with those. This experiment will primarily be based around measurements and theory; the fabrication is extremely simple and being "hard to make" was NOT the given reason for dismissing my ideas, especially since the postdoc already PROVED that these ideas at least work on some level.

3. I do not know. The postdoc seems to be clear to do anything he deems relevant to our final goals. The other senior graduate student in my lab does minimal changes without the PI's supervision but mostly works with the postdoc anyhow. Then there's me.

Edited January 16, 2016 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[St Andrews Lynx]

From my experience in chemistry...this happens, sometimes a lot. I can think of a few reasons why this might have happened.

• Your PI wants to concentrate their research into something else. Even though what you proposed is a hot topic, there might be other things at stake. Maybe finishing up some established projects that can get turned in to publications before grant-writing season. Or even though it seems on paper to fit with what the group does, maybe in fact it is a little too different and would involve going into a research area that the PI doesn't want to go in to. Or else the hot topic field is too saturated and the PI doesn't think they can compete.
• The use of the word "complication" suggests that there is something else going on that you might not be aware of. Maybe the postdoc's initial experiment design was flawed, or the results didn't seem as conclusive to the PI as they did to others. Or maybe the experiments you proposed wouldn't go far enough to properly answer the research question.
• Some PIs are more hands-on with the direction of research. There are PIs in the sciences who encourage you to pursue your own research plan (with their approval, of course), and there are others who will ask you to try experiment X, or see if reaction Y works. It can vary from PI to PI. Some PIs only like to hear about research ideas that come out of their own mouth.
• There are different expectations about what a new grad student should be doing. A postdoc might have free reign to design their own experiments, since it doesn't really matter from the PI's perspective if the postdoc generates publications or even if the interesting ideas even work. However, a grad student in the sciences needs positive data to get their PhD. A PI might therefore want to closely control the student's research in the beginning - putting them on a proven, half-finished project to get good data quickly, or start a new project that the PI thinks will give a definitive does/doesn't work result without wasting too much time. If you obtain good data from the "safe" projects, the PI might then decide to give you more risky projects to try.

Personally, I'd go ahead and do what the PI tells you without arguing. If you finish the allocated tasks to their satisfaction, work hard and earn their trust then there is a greater likelihood that they'll let you pursue your own ideas. Or maybe the PI will come back to the unanswered question later once they've thought about it some more. Or just do the experiments you want without telling your PI (if they really won't detract from the other stuff you're doing).* 

You can try to ask the PI about the "complication" from the perspective of trying to understand the science/field better, rather than arguing to get what you want. It will depend on the PI's temperament whether you get a detailed answer, though.

 

*I've done that. Turned out to be the best way of figuring out that my PI was right in the first place...

[TakeruK]

I think that ultimately, you have to do what the PI wants because the PI chooses the direction of the lab and also your research.

However, I think the PI is not acting in good form here. The point of training PhD students, in my opinion, is to develop them into independent researchers, not to use them as cheap labour for your own scientific goals. I also think that this is a big sign of a bad fit between the level of independence you want and the level of independence your PI is offering.

I don't know if this is the only problem you've had with your PI so far? If it's not, then I would seriously consider switching to a different lab. When I worked for a PI that was a bad fit, it made my life miserable, impacted my ability to do science and impacted my ability to be happy even outside of the lab. No science is worth that, to me, so I switched. In my case, the prof wasn't a bad person, just not a good direct supervisor for me---that prof still mentored and advised me in other ways.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

5 hours ago, St Andrews Lynx said:

From my experience in chemistry...this happens, sometimes a lot. I can think of a few reasons why this might have happened.

• Your PI wants to concentrate their research into something else. Even though what you proposed is a hot topic, there might be other things at stake. Maybe finishing up some established projects that can get turned in to publications before grant-writing season. Or even though it seems on paper to fit with what the group does, maybe in fact it is a little too different and would involve going into a research area that the PI doesn't want to go in to. Or else the hot topic field is too saturated and the PI doesn't think they can compete.
• The use of the word "complication" suggests that there is something else going on that you might not be aware of. Maybe the postdoc's initial experiment design was flawed, or the results didn't seem as conclusive to the PI as they did to others. Or maybe the experiments you proposed wouldn't go far enough to properly answer the research question.
• Some PIs are more hands-on with the direction of research. There are PIs in the sciences who encourage you to pursue your own research plan (with their approval, of course), and there are others who will ask you to try experiment X, or see if reaction Y works. It can vary from PI to PI. Some PIs only like to hear about research ideas that come out of their own mouth.
• There are different expectations about what a new grad student should be doing. A postdoc might have free reign to design their own experiments, since it doesn't really matter from the PI's perspective if the postdoc generates publications or even if the interesting ideas even work. However, a grad student in the sciences needs positive data to get their PhD. A PI might therefore want to closely control the student's research in the beginning - putting them on a proven, half-finished project to get good data quickly, or start a new project that the PI thinks will give a definitive does/doesn't work result without wasting too much time. If you obtain good data from the "safe" projects, the PI might then decide to give you more risky projects to try.

Personally, I'd go ahead and do what the PI tells you without arguing. If you finish the allocated tasks to their satisfaction, work hard and earn their trust then there is a greater likelihood that they'll let you pursue your own ideas. Or maybe the PI will come back to the unanswered question later once they've thought about it some more. Or just do the experiments you want without telling your PI (if they really won't detract from the other stuff you're doing).* 

You can try to ask the PI about the "complication" from the perspective of trying to understand the science/field better, rather than arguing to get what you want. It will depend on the PI's temperament whether you get a detailed answer, though.

 

*I've done that. Turned out to be the best way of figuring out that my PI was right in the first place...

Thanks for the tips, I'll do just that for now. I guess there's just a gap between my expectations and my PI's expectations, since I "feel" like a senior due to my previous MS but I'm actually kind of new to the group, and haven't fully proven myself yet.

[aberrant]

I would like to know if there are any updates regarding OP's situation by chance.

I think there are some good speculations made by St Andrews Lynx, but ultimately, OP will have to ask that "Why" question to his (my assumption) PI. One thing for sure is that nobody is "wrong" in this case. Not the OP, nor his PI.

Although I maybe (very likely to be) the confrontational type of person, I would have ask my PI why did he/she dismiss my proposed research without consideration. A simple "it will distract you from your current work" is an acceptable answer to me, although I may disagree with it and may find ways to do it anyway (e.g. extra hours in the lab). [The other day, my PI and I had a discussion on one of the experiments that I'm rushing to push for a publication. My PI speculate that my specific experiment will suggest a certain conclusion that I strongly disagree with -- prior performing a thorough experiment and collecting any experimental data. With a follow up back and forth Q&A, I determined to prove my PI wrong by doing an extra experiment that ultimately took me (an extra) 3 hours (results = to be determined, will fit my data tomorrow). I think the key is to communicate clearly and directly with your PI, and work without any wonders that may negatively impact you in any possible way.

I also think that it is valid to be skeptical and question your PI's words / decision(s) when you have reasons to support your skepticism / argument. There are certainly times that you know your research/project better than your PI, and sometimes your PI can be wrong/make mistakes, too. Nobody is perfect, and us PhD students are certainly not sheeps that blindly follow whatever our PI says.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited February 4, 2016 by aberrant

[Ethan M]

My advice to you is to get in touch with your professor and ask him kindly to explain what was wrong with your idea. Don't get disheartened or agitated until you hear his reason to shoot down your idea. This will not only help you understand the flaws in your idea but will also help you in dealing with criticism better.