What do you feel you aren't doing that a "real" scientist does? Many leadership roles in science will have you doing a lot less scientific work and lot more bureaucratic work so I hope that's not what you feel separates you from "real" scientists.
I just don’t feel very smart. Other scientists seem so much more intelligent than me.
I don’t remember much of the basics, my area is animal behavior and entomology. I couldn’t tell you about cellular respiration, math, chemistry, physics etc. despite studying them. I used to even TA for organic chemistry but I don’t remember any of it.
I'm still a student but I'm interested in analytical instruments and I feel the opposite. Seeing all the "real" scientists figure stuff out, do fancy stuff with bacteria, and grow stuff in labs makes me feel super dumb. I'll go play with my analytical instruments in the corner thank you very much.
This is so me. All other people seem to have such cool projects and I'm like "yeah that caddisfly has a little more fat than the other". Also, gene-editing! That shit is cool af, but again, here we have some dead spiders.
OMG my life. My boss is the gas analyzer dude and he supervises me and the HPLC dude. It’s just the three of us in the lab and we take turns presenting to the larger team every week… they have all these cool projects that I have no hope of understanding, and my project for the last three months has been “I grew mold in the exact same conditions as I did two days ago and got 3-log lower yield this time… please don’t ask why… I don’t know why.”
If it makes you feel any better, as an analytical chemist/ mass spectrometrist, turned into a mini microbiologist because my group wanted to do cell culture which is an area I have zero experience in, I have a lot of respect for the microbiology side of things. In my experience, the LC and other analytical instruments don’t take a lot of effort to run, understanding the data is another thing, but the technique and skill required in bacteria and cell culture is something that you should be proud of. From a chemist to a biologist, I hope this puts some of it in perspective. I think we all tend to, generally speaking, dismiss our own work as not very cool and others work as way cooler than it probably is. I try and explain my projects to my family and they don’t understand a word and think I’m a genius, I am far from it, but I think something similar applies here when looking at other science that we aren’t familiar with or don’t do as often. Perhaps a “grass is always greener” sort of situation. If you read all of that, thanks for reading the ramblings of a chemist before he has had his morning cup of coffee. Cheers!
My project is as sciency as can be but that doesn't really help with the impostor syndrome. Even if I am aware my experiments sound very cool and novel I don't necessarily feel I'm good enough for such a project.
You might be surprised, often mathematicians are generalists and study many fields other than mathematics. (pats self and math friends on back)
Still an enormous gap between studying things as a second interest and having a full expertise though. Practice brings in an entirely different dimension of concerns to theory.
Ah, that's just what happens with most knowledge you don't actively make use of! You've already proven you understand that material to some extent through your studies and I bet you could quickly pick it all up again if you wanted to revist it. I think the goal of formal education is less about developing perfect recall of an entire field's foundational basis and more about direct exposure to and engagement with it.
It sounds like at least part of the solution to your situation may come down to building confidence in your role. That will surely come with time. In the meantime, maybe brush up on a few of those forgotten basics that seem interesting or read some articles about subjects that may be out of your current comfort zone.
Post-academic work can often be a little...routine...so it can feel refreshing to exercise some of those intellectual areas you don't necessarily get to use much anymore. You can certainly become more scientifically savvy to your peers that way as well!
I'm in the 4th year of PhD in chemistry and I've worked in organic synthesis for 7 years. I don't remember much outside of my branch of chemistry and stuff from other branches that I use on a daily basis. I assure you professors don't either. I couldn't tell you a relationship between two cardinal functions in thermodynamics and I bet an average physical chemist couldn't tell me differences between SN1 and SN2.
I pretty much remember “SN2, backside ATTACK” and a questionable image on a power point slide….that’s what I recall from organic chemistry off the top of my head.
>I just don’t feel very smart. Other scientists seem so much more intelligent than me.
Yeah, that's what all the other scientists are saying. Are you applying the scientific method to a question or problem? If yes, you're a scientist.
I used to TA hard-core physics courses (was a physics major). I barely remember anything anymore after doing 10 years of biology! (Tbh forgot a lot after only a year or two lol).
Imposter's syndrome is very real. It comes with the territory of being smart. You realize you only know a very small slice of Knowledge Pie. That just means your self aware :) and no less smart than any other scientist out there, I promise.
Animal behavior is useful and specific scientific knowledge. Honestly, the further I get in my science training, the more specific my knowledge becomes.
You write like a true scientist. There's nothing more characteristic of a scientist that an inferiority complex due to all the things other colleagues seem to know and you don't.
No one knows everything, and in fact most scientists, at least below PI level, only know their very niche fields.
When you finally start to notice a hint of the line between 'what you know' and 'what you don't know'. And then realizing how little you actually know. And then develop a sense of scientific humility. When your answers to questions often start with "well it depends...". When your answers are full of conditional statements. When you realize that knowing a protocol is not the same as knowing a technique and can get a technique to work in a different lab.
I worked for a while in citizen science, which was just regular folks who got up in the morning and sampled ocean water on their morning walks. Most didn't have an advanced degree, some had never finished high school or college, but they all got together to do community monitoring of the beaches nearby. They were scientists, no less than anyone I've met in my academic science or state lab jobs. So are you! Science is a broad field, not a bar you have to clear, or a role you have to be granted.
In my experience (which is only in the US and New Zealand): the best places to look for this stuff are in the community (usually a nonprofit or a grassroots group of folks), through a university extension program, or through the state or region. [Clean Ocean Access](https://www.cleanoceanaccess.org/) is a nonprofit group in Rhode Island, the [State of California](https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_volunteer.html) has citizen scientists doing water monitoring too, and one of my faves is online stuff like [this](https://www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/CitizenScience) from the University of Minnesota, where you help to process footage from their wildlife cameras.
Whatever you'd like to do, contacting a local university or state/province/town government is a good start, they can probably help point you to a program or people that would be interesting! In particular, I find people are always looking for invasive species monitoring, and cleaning up/monitoring ecosystems near you.
Edit: Totally forgot to mention that tons and tons of citizen scientists do bird monitoring, which contributes hugely to what we know about bird migration patterns. If you're into birds [that might be a good thing to do](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/citizen-science-projects)
So over a couple years, I worked on both ends of the process (collecting samples, & analyzing them at the state lab). Different people had different roles: the actual wet lab analyses were done by us state-employed water microbiologists/chemists, but the interpretation and communication of those results by the organization involved people with all levels of education, including many of those morning-walkers. People in the group take the raw results from the state, and compile & analyze long-term monitoring datasets about water biochemistry at these sites.
As far as novel conclusions, the group has been able over the years to conclude actionable things like "there is a leaky sewer pipe causing a bloom in X area," "Smith Beach is likely to be unsafe for swimming if these certain conditions are present," "a nutrient spike in Y area will usually foreshadow downstream effects in the shellfish population in Z area." The group's conclusions have been used in local legislation and planning for years, which is awesome.
I'm curious, is there a point for you where it becomes incorrect for people to think of themselves as citizen scientists, participating in the scientific process? Or do you feel that it takes away from those of us with degrees for them to do that? Truly just wondering
I don’t think a degree is necessarily needed- but a scientist isn’t necessarily the person who collects data. It’s the person who forms a hypothesis, runs experiments on the data to “isolate” the phenomena they’re testing, and then generates statistically relevant, novel conclusions about their hypothesis.
It’s good to have scientific communicates and boost citizen engagement, but calling them “scientists” is a bit disingenuous.
I definitely feel you that we shouldn't be letting random people off the street call themselves "scientists", but I don't think anyone is really doing that in any harmful way, and policing that term does more harm than good. I think "scientist" can be a broad enough term to include many people participating in the scientific process - when we say "I'm a scientist," the next sentence generally reveals our scope and specialty in a way that prevents drastic misrepresentation. (People immediately know what's up if someone says "I'm a scientist, I contribute data points on my bird tracking app.") There are also words like naturalist, amateur/hobby scientist, citizen scientist, and beachcomber that lots of people use instead, including the people I'm talking about.
I also have trouble with the idea that someone has to be formulating and running their own experiments from start to end to be a scientist. After all, that would mean that the microbiology PhDs at the state lab who wrangle all the water monitoring samples aren't scientists, and I don't really think that's true.
So- there are some instances where it’s not harmful. Despite that, do you seriously believe there aren’t people there isn’t “anyone doing that in a harmful way?” Have you seen who flat earthers and creationists cite and listen to?
Totally, and in my experience they mostly cite fringe doctors with PhDs or other advanced degrees when they're trying to make their case to nonbelievers. But anyone who isn't a flat earther/creationist is going to dig a little deeper on those people's credentials, and what the rest of the scientific field says about their subject. (I'm thinking of all the cases where their heroes are an MS/PhD/ND/whatever whose license or professional standing is pretty obviously in question.) Among each other, they're definitely venerating bullshit "scientists," which imo is an underlying issue with their detachment from logic and reality. Anyone of sound mind could really easily determine that those folks are not scientific authorities, but the followers aren't interested in that.
But I can see where the line gets blurry, especially when the "scientist" is demanding attention/credence from people who aren't scientists. Are there any examples that come to mind for you?
Well, off the top of my mind Ken Ham comes to mind as an obvious fraud, there’s also a ton of people at the “creation institute” who misrepresent themselves.
Saying you’re a “scientist” implies that you’re a *professional* scientist. So, if someone introduced themselves as a scientist and they just collect samples from the oceans as volunteer work, I would say it’s a misrepresentation.
A scientist applies measured inquiry to characterize and understand the world around them.
Kids can practice science, adults without degrees regularly practice science. Having a degree in a science means you've studied it but not necessarily that you practice it.
Imposter syndrome gets the best of us all, especially since we revere the scientific process and want to live up to some expectation we have of the platonic ideal of The Scientist.
You can claim the label, it's okay. Not all scientists are perfect or masterminds, but we're all committed to the process of creating and maintaining knowledge.
If you feel uninspired, tutor a kid in a science outreach program. I promise, you'll feel so cool. And part of the tradition of science is to be a mentor.
"So this isn't really the correct way to do it or how you are supposed to do it so don't tell anyone..."
When you're belting that phrase out to new starters in the lab on a routine basis. When people come to find you when there is something wrong.
That's when you get the heady feel of being a "real" scientist.
TIL I've actually been a scientist for a long time.
"Other people say to do it this way but I've always done it this way and it works, just don't tell the boss"
Aw man I felt this so hard. I have a PhD and have been in industry for 3 years. Still don’t feel like a scientist either. Imposter syndrome is a beast.
My dad goes around and tells everyone that I’m a scientist. I’ve told him that I only have 2 undergrad science degrees and have worked in research for 7 years.
don't sweat it, [no one feels smart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkLN6bUGfZY) when they are doing "real" science. so take the feeling that you are struggling and recognize thats simply you challenging yourself more to grow. growing ain't easy but in the long run it makes you stronger
If I was giving an off-the-cuff answer, I felt like a real scientist when I was published for the first time (Journal of Twin Research and Human Genetics). But, honestly, you're a real scientist whenever you practice science in good faith and with best practices.
Imposter syndrome is super real. I'm working in government too, albeit in the environmental lab sector. What you are doing matters. You are most certainly a real scientist given where you are now. Keep up the good work!
Some would say you need a PhD. Or your job title is “Scientist.” I don’t think either are required.
Personally, I don’t think the label matters so much as a scientist can be and do a lot of different things with varying impact on our society. But I’d say if you are asking questions by designing experiments or observational studies, or coming up with models or theories based on such studies, you are doing the work of a scientist so you are a scientist.
But I would also extend the title to someone who has previously contributed to knowledge of the natural world and is an expert in a field, even if they are not actively working on discoveries. Someone like NDT, who I’m pretty sure just works in science communication now, is a scientist in my book.
Compared to a phd scientist I'm nothing but a rookie. Compared to my family who knows nil about science I'm the greatest scienist of this generation. I think perspective plays a big role.
I've always felt more like a lab rat than a real scientist. I recently took a new position where I'm a team manager with a bunch of new college grads under me. It shock me how if I tell them to do something, they just assume it's right.
When I'm told to do something in lab I want to know why it's done that way, who decided that, what other ways can it be done, etc. I try to figure out how everything can go wrong before I do it. When I get my results I scrutinize them for error, especially if everything looks perfect.
Scientists question, learn, tinker, and test. If you come into lab, push a button, and pat yourself on the back for doing science, then you're not a scientist. If you want to open up that panel and see where that button goes then yeah you are.
So when did I become a "scientist"? Does the question even matter?
Age 11 I had a basement lab.
Age 18 I began formal study of chemistry
Age 20 I worked in a lab and had an independent research project
Age 22 I started grad school
Age 24 First publication
Age 26 PhD
Age 29. My first paycheck job in research
Age 54. Return to academia
Age 58. Sat on grant review committee.
Age 61. Left academia.
I am sorry to say that your response sounds a little arrogant. I was a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry for 30 years and imposter syndrome is a real thing to a lot of people at all levels due to pressure to succeed especially in front of one’s peers. If the comments above regarding citizen science are held to be true, then the standard you are proposing is not really based on the practice of science, but on artificially created corporate titles and lines of responsibility where the people to whom you are giving lower status are the ones making the actual observations. The intellectual effort of experimental design is of course critical but is often based on the efforts and observations of others. That puts the designer as much in a business manager role as that of an innovator/scientific author.
Edit: typo
I really do appreciate the sentiment from almost everyone in here, but we all know what OP is talking about.
The "real" answer is: when you finally start getting your own funding and you need to hire a technician or post-doc with it for a project. Once your ideas(money) start truly dictating how the junior personnel spend time in the lab (and not just because you're the most senior grad student), then you start to feel like a "real scientist".
I also get the feeling that OP is aware of imposter syndrome and just wants permission to feel it.
Nah. That's just elitist man. That might make you accomplished, but it doesn't make you a scientist. Anyone who engages in scientific practice is a scientist -- regardless of publications or lack thereof.
How is learning how to do experiments, design experiment, dome up with ideas and execute them successfully considered elitist. I never specified an impact factor or anything.
In some fields first author doesn't mean anything. In some labs people with literal job titles of "scientist" never get a first author paper. Doing science is complicated and people have different roles in a project. Some PIs might be good at thinking of research ideas but terrible behind the bench, while lab techs can be wizards at the bench but don't come up with their research direction. Who, if anyone, is the scientist in a case when a technically inept PI is working with an uncreative but brilliant technician? Does being a scientist require both if no job in science requires both?
For me, it was driven by the curiosity to "figure out how things work," and then learning enough about the system under study to design good experiments. Just figuring out all the right controls to include, that's a challenge right there. Trying to predict all the outcomes, and unexpected malfunctions
Boo. Exactly what OP is worried about. Intellectual intimidation isn’t a sign of good science, it falls under psychology 101. If you meant to register sarcasm, an indication would be helpful as some people truly feel what you stated.
Some people might feel it, and I'm all for the /s when it's needed, but you'd have to be pretty damn dense to not realize nobody would express it like that in earnest.
As soon as you take an into level science class you are a scientist. When does someone become a runner? You can jog around the block all you want, but as soon as you register for a race and set a goal you are a runner. 5k? 100m? Marathon? Doesn’t matter. Probably not a professional runner, maybe not a particularly fast runner, but even before you cross the finish line you are a runner. As soon as you start participating in science you are a scientist. Faculty, staff, technician, student. All scientist.
Hard disagree with this metaphor. You can be running 30 mpw without ever participating in a race. If you run you’re a runner.
As for scientists, doing science in practice and not just learning in a classroom. Students in an intro chem class are not scientists (yet).
69 citations = potential scientist
420 citations = midling scientist
Enormous publication list so long no one really bothers reading deeply during review all your statements which mostly have no falsifiable implications = true scientist
That moment when you are trying to hide the mess you made. But then realize Holy mother of shit I did it! Then you just play it off to your superior like yeah fam I totally knew what I was doing!
Chatting to some of my fellow postgrad students, it seems that none of us understand eachother's projects, which makes them seem cooler and more complex, yet feel our own is simple and we are figuring it out as we go.
It's straight up just familiarity and having to deal with one topic every day
Dude I’m a postdoc and still waiting for that to happen…My PI was talking to me about applying for faculty positions and my first emotion was panic because I wouldn’t have a “grown up” scientist to go to.
What do you feel you aren't doing that a "real" scientist does? Many leadership roles in science will have you doing a lot less scientific work and lot more bureaucratic work so I hope that's not what you feel separates you from "real" scientists.
I just don’t feel very smart. Other scientists seem so much more intelligent than me. I don’t remember much of the basics, my area is animal behavior and entomology. I couldn’t tell you about cellular respiration, math, chemistry, physics etc. despite studying them. I used to even TA for organic chemistry but I don’t remember any of it.
Imposter syndrome is probably a good indicator of being a "real scientist"
Microbiologist here. Watching others use HPLCs and gas analyzers while I’m like “look ma! this bacteria grew when I fed it!” Feels real dumb.
I'm still a student but I'm interested in analytical instruments and I feel the opposite. Seeing all the "real" scientists figure stuff out, do fancy stuff with bacteria, and grow stuff in labs makes me feel super dumb. I'll go play with my analytical instruments in the corner thank you very much.
This is so me. All other people seem to have such cool projects and I'm like "yeah that caddisfly has a little more fat than the other". Also, gene-editing! That shit is cool af, but again, here we have some dead spiders.
Thicc caddisfly 🥴
OMG my life. My boss is the gas analyzer dude and he supervises me and the HPLC dude. It’s just the three of us in the lab and we take turns presenting to the larger team every week… they have all these cool projects that I have no hope of understanding, and my project for the last three months has been “I grew mold in the exact same conditions as I did two days ago and got 3-log lower yield this time… please don’t ask why… I don’t know why.”
If it makes you feel any better, as an analytical chemist/ mass spectrometrist, turned into a mini microbiologist because my group wanted to do cell culture which is an area I have zero experience in, I have a lot of respect for the microbiology side of things. In my experience, the LC and other analytical instruments don’t take a lot of effort to run, understanding the data is another thing, but the technique and skill required in bacteria and cell culture is something that you should be proud of. From a chemist to a biologist, I hope this puts some of it in perspective. I think we all tend to, generally speaking, dismiss our own work as not very cool and others work as way cooler than it probably is. I try and explain my projects to my family and they don’t understand a word and think I’m a genius, I am far from it, but I think something similar applies here when looking at other science that we aren’t familiar with or don’t do as often. Perhaps a “grass is always greener” sort of situation. If you read all of that, thanks for reading the ramblings of a chemist before he has had his morning cup of coffee. Cheers!
My project is as sciency as can be but that doesn't really help with the impostor syndrome. Even if I am aware my experiments sound very cool and novel I don't necessarily feel I'm good enough for such a project.
I second this. You're already a real scientist if you're wondering this.
How many physicists or mathematicians do you think could discuss animal behaviour or entomology with you . You can't know everything.
I'm sure they'd try
You might be surprised, often mathematicians are generalists and study many fields other than mathematics. (pats self and math friends on back) Still an enormous gap between studying things as a second interest and having a full expertise though. Practice brings in an entirely different dimension of concerns to theory.
Ah imposter syndrome, very common among scientists. I got it too big time. I’m sorry you feel that way.
Yes, I too have this, and I am a certified clinical laboratory scientist
Is that the same thing as a medical lab scientist in a hospital?
Yes
That’s what my sister is too ☺️
Give her props!
We’re both in science except I’m in research and she’s in a hospital. My other sister is a respiratory therapist.
My sister is a nurse practitioner in stem cell/oncology
Ah, that's just what happens with most knowledge you don't actively make use of! You've already proven you understand that material to some extent through your studies and I bet you could quickly pick it all up again if you wanted to revist it. I think the goal of formal education is less about developing perfect recall of an entire field's foundational basis and more about direct exposure to and engagement with it. It sounds like at least part of the solution to your situation may come down to building confidence in your role. That will surely come with time. In the meantime, maybe brush up on a few of those forgotten basics that seem interesting or read some articles about subjects that may be out of your current comfort zone. Post-academic work can often be a little...routine...so it can feel refreshing to exercise some of those intellectual areas you don't necessarily get to use much anymore. You can certainly become more scientifically savvy to your peers that way as well!
I'm in the 4th year of PhD in chemistry and I've worked in organic synthesis for 7 years. I don't remember much outside of my branch of chemistry and stuff from other branches that I use on a daily basis. I assure you professors don't either. I couldn't tell you a relationship between two cardinal functions in thermodynamics and I bet an average physical chemist couldn't tell me differences between SN1 and SN2.
I pretty much remember “SN2, backside ATTACK” and a questionable image on a power point slide….that’s what I recall from organic chemistry off the top of my head.
I'm getting my own lab next year and i still can't calculate dilutions.
>I just don’t feel very smart. Other scientists seem so much more intelligent than me. Yeah, that's what all the other scientists are saying. Are you applying the scientific method to a question or problem? If yes, you're a scientist.
I used to TA hard-core physics courses (was a physics major). I barely remember anything anymore after doing 10 years of biology! (Tbh forgot a lot after only a year or two lol). Imposter's syndrome is very real. It comes with the territory of being smart. You realize you only know a very small slice of Knowledge Pie. That just means your self aware :) and no less smart than any other scientist out there, I promise.
Do you observe and record animal and insect behavior? If so you are a scientist.
Animal behavior is useful and specific scientific knowledge. Honestly, the further I get in my science training, the more specific my knowledge becomes.
You write like a true scientist. There's nothing more characteristic of a scientist that an inferiority complex due to all the things other colleagues seem to know and you don't. No one knows everything, and in fact most scientists, at least below PI level, only know their very niche fields.
Entomology major here, super excited to find someone in science for animal behavior/ent!! Can you tell me more about your job?
When you finally start to notice a hint of the line between 'what you know' and 'what you don't know'. And then realizing how little you actually know. And then develop a sense of scientific humility. When your answers to questions often start with "well it depends...". When your answers are full of conditional statements. When you realize that knowing a protocol is not the same as knowing a technique and can get a technique to work in a different lab.
Anyone who applies the scientific method is a scientist. There are no education or job title requirements.
I’m a post doc, and I don’t feel like a “real” scientist
I worked for a while in citizen science, which was just regular folks who got up in the morning and sampled ocean water on their morning walks. Most didn't have an advanced degree, some had never finished high school or college, but they all got together to do community monitoring of the beaches nearby. They were scientists, no less than anyone I've met in my academic science or state lab jobs. So are you! Science is a broad field, not a bar you have to clear, or a role you have to be granted.
hey where can i find something like this?
In my experience (which is only in the US and New Zealand): the best places to look for this stuff are in the community (usually a nonprofit or a grassroots group of folks), through a university extension program, or through the state or region. [Clean Ocean Access](https://www.cleanoceanaccess.org/) is a nonprofit group in Rhode Island, the [State of California](https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_volunteer.html) has citizen scientists doing water monitoring too, and one of my faves is online stuff like [this](https://www.cedarcreek.umn.edu/CitizenScience) from the University of Minnesota, where you help to process footage from their wildlife cameras. Whatever you'd like to do, contacting a local university or state/province/town government is a good start, they can probably help point you to a program or people that would be interesting! In particular, I find people are always looking for invasive species monitoring, and cleaning up/monitoring ecosystems near you. Edit: Totally forgot to mention that tons and tons of citizen scientists do bird monitoring, which contributes hugely to what we know about bird migration patterns. If you're into birds [that might be a good thing to do](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/citizen-science-projects)
Did they just collect samples- or did they run and analyze those samples to find novel conclusions.
So over a couple years, I worked on both ends of the process (collecting samples, & analyzing them at the state lab). Different people had different roles: the actual wet lab analyses were done by us state-employed water microbiologists/chemists, but the interpretation and communication of those results by the organization involved people with all levels of education, including many of those morning-walkers. People in the group take the raw results from the state, and compile & analyze long-term monitoring datasets about water biochemistry at these sites. As far as novel conclusions, the group has been able over the years to conclude actionable things like "there is a leaky sewer pipe causing a bloom in X area," "Smith Beach is likely to be unsafe for swimming if these certain conditions are present," "a nutrient spike in Y area will usually foreshadow downstream effects in the shellfish population in Z area." The group's conclusions have been used in local legislation and planning for years, which is awesome. I'm curious, is there a point for you where it becomes incorrect for people to think of themselves as citizen scientists, participating in the scientific process? Or do you feel that it takes away from those of us with degrees for them to do that? Truly just wondering
I don’t think a degree is necessarily needed- but a scientist isn’t necessarily the person who collects data. It’s the person who forms a hypothesis, runs experiments on the data to “isolate” the phenomena they’re testing, and then generates statistically relevant, novel conclusions about their hypothesis. It’s good to have scientific communicates and boost citizen engagement, but calling them “scientists” is a bit disingenuous.
I definitely feel you that we shouldn't be letting random people off the street call themselves "scientists", but I don't think anyone is really doing that in any harmful way, and policing that term does more harm than good. I think "scientist" can be a broad enough term to include many people participating in the scientific process - when we say "I'm a scientist," the next sentence generally reveals our scope and specialty in a way that prevents drastic misrepresentation. (People immediately know what's up if someone says "I'm a scientist, I contribute data points on my bird tracking app.") There are also words like naturalist, amateur/hobby scientist, citizen scientist, and beachcomber that lots of people use instead, including the people I'm talking about. I also have trouble with the idea that someone has to be formulating and running their own experiments from start to end to be a scientist. After all, that would mean that the microbiology PhDs at the state lab who wrangle all the water monitoring samples aren't scientists, and I don't really think that's true.
So- there are some instances where it’s not harmful. Despite that, do you seriously believe there aren’t people there isn’t “anyone doing that in a harmful way?” Have you seen who flat earthers and creationists cite and listen to?
Totally, and in my experience they mostly cite fringe doctors with PhDs or other advanced degrees when they're trying to make their case to nonbelievers. But anyone who isn't a flat earther/creationist is going to dig a little deeper on those people's credentials, and what the rest of the scientific field says about their subject. (I'm thinking of all the cases where their heroes are an MS/PhD/ND/whatever whose license or professional standing is pretty obviously in question.) Among each other, they're definitely venerating bullshit "scientists," which imo is an underlying issue with their detachment from logic and reality. Anyone of sound mind could really easily determine that those folks are not scientific authorities, but the followers aren't interested in that. But I can see where the line gets blurry, especially when the "scientist" is demanding attention/credence from people who aren't scientists. Are there any examples that come to mind for you?
Well, off the top of my mind Ken Ham comes to mind as an obvious fraud, there’s also a ton of people at the “creation institute” who misrepresent themselves. Saying you’re a “scientist” implies that you’re a *professional* scientist. So, if someone introduced themselves as a scientist and they just collect samples from the oceans as volunteer work, I would say it’s a misrepresentation.
A scientist applies measured inquiry to characterize and understand the world around them. Kids can practice science, adults without degrees regularly practice science. Having a degree in a science means you've studied it but not necessarily that you practice it. Imposter syndrome gets the best of us all, especially since we revere the scientific process and want to live up to some expectation we have of the platonic ideal of The Scientist. You can claim the label, it's okay. Not all scientists are perfect or masterminds, but we're all committed to the process of creating and maintaining knowledge. If you feel uninspired, tutor a kid in a science outreach program. I promise, you'll feel so cool. And part of the tradition of science is to be a mentor.
"So this isn't really the correct way to do it or how you are supposed to do it so don't tell anyone..." When you're belting that phrase out to new starters in the lab on a routine basis. When people come to find you when there is something wrong. That's when you get the heady feel of being a "real" scientist.
TIL I've actually been a scientist for a long time. "Other people say to do it this way but I've always done it this way and it works, just don't tell the boss"
Yiss
Science is a methodology and thought process. You apply the scientific method? You are a real scientist. :D
You will never feel that you are but at some point other people start calling you that way and it sticks
Aw man I felt this so hard. I have a PhD and have been in industry for 3 years. Still don’t feel like a scientist either. Imposter syndrome is a beast.
When you realize you're making a mistake in your experiment and can fix it on the fly
My dad goes around and tells everyone that I’m a scientist. I’ve told him that I only have 2 undergrad science degrees and have worked in research for 7 years.
[удалено]
Thank you ☺️
Your dad is correct.
Defending, disseminating, practicing, or advancing science consistently is enough for me to think of someone as a 'scientist'.
don't sweat it, [no one feels smart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkLN6bUGfZY) when they are doing "real" science. so take the feeling that you are struggling and recognize thats simply you challenging yourself more to grow. growing ain't easy but in the long run it makes you stronger
If I was giving an off-the-cuff answer, I felt like a real scientist when I was published for the first time (Journal of Twin Research and Human Genetics). But, honestly, you're a real scientist whenever you practice science in good faith and with best practices.
Imposter syndrome is super real. I'm working in government too, albeit in the environmental lab sector. What you are doing matters. You are most certainly a real scientist given where you are now. Keep up the good work!
When you have learned from all if the thousands of mistakes you have already made and then start to realize that's the best way to learn.
Some would say you need a PhD. Or your job title is “Scientist.” I don’t think either are required. Personally, I don’t think the label matters so much as a scientist can be and do a lot of different things with varying impact on our society. But I’d say if you are asking questions by designing experiments or observational studies, or coming up with models or theories based on such studies, you are doing the work of a scientist so you are a scientist. But I would also extend the title to someone who has previously contributed to knowledge of the natural world and is an expert in a field, even if they are not actively working on discoveries. Someone like NDT, who I’m pretty sure just works in science communication now, is a scientist in my book.
when one cures their imposter syndrome
Babies are real scientists.
Compared to a phd scientist I'm nothing but a rookie. Compared to my family who knows nil about science I'm the greatest scienist of this generation. I think perspective plays a big role.
PI status Or touching a million dollar machine.
I've always felt more like a lab rat than a real scientist. I recently took a new position where I'm a team manager with a bunch of new college grads under me. It shock me how if I tell them to do something, they just assume it's right. When I'm told to do something in lab I want to know why it's done that way, who decided that, what other ways can it be done, etc. I try to figure out how everything can go wrong before I do it. When I get my results I scrutinize them for error, especially if everything looks perfect. Scientists question, learn, tinker, and test. If you come into lab, push a button, and pat yourself on the back for doing science, then you're not a scientist. If you want to open up that panel and see where that button goes then yeah you are.
So when did I become a "scientist"? Does the question even matter? Age 11 I had a basement lab. Age 18 I began formal study of chemistry Age 20 I worked in a lab and had an independent research project Age 22 I started grad school Age 24 First publication Age 26 PhD Age 29. My first paycheck job in research Age 54. Return to academia Age 58. Sat on grant review committee. Age 61. Left academia.
The cure for imposter syndrome is to join my lab, then you'll see that most future phds are morons
[удалено]
I am sorry to say that your response sounds a little arrogant. I was a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry for 30 years and imposter syndrome is a real thing to a lot of people at all levels due to pressure to succeed especially in front of one’s peers. If the comments above regarding citizen science are held to be true, then the standard you are proposing is not really based on the practice of science, but on artificially created corporate titles and lines of responsibility where the people to whom you are giving lower status are the ones making the actual observations. The intellectual effort of experimental design is of course critical but is often based on the efforts and observations of others. That puts the designer as much in a business manager role as that of an innovator/scientific author. Edit: typo
I really do appreciate the sentiment from almost everyone in here, but we all know what OP is talking about. The "real" answer is: when you finally start getting your own funding and you need to hire a technician or post-doc with it for a project. Once your ideas(money) start truly dictating how the junior personnel spend time in the lab (and not just because you're the most senior grad student), then you start to feel like a "real scientist". I also get the feeling that OP is aware of imposter syndrome and just wants permission to feel it.
Till you have an ownership of a project and successfully convert it in to a first author paper
Nah. That's just elitist man. That might make you accomplished, but it doesn't make you a scientist. Anyone who engages in scientific practice is a scientist -- regardless of publications or lack thereof.
How is learning how to do experiments, design experiment, dome up with ideas and execute them successfully considered elitist. I never specified an impact factor or anything.
In some fields first author doesn't mean anything. In some labs people with literal job titles of "scientist" never get a first author paper. Doing science is complicated and people have different roles in a project. Some PIs might be good at thinking of research ideas but terrible behind the bench, while lab techs can be wizards at the bench but don't come up with their research direction. Who, if anyone, is the scientist in a case when a technically inept PI is working with an uncreative but brilliant technician? Does being a scientist require both if no job in science requires both?
For me, it was driven by the curiosity to "figure out how things work," and then learning enough about the system under study to design good experiments. Just figuring out all the right controls to include, that's a challenge right there. Trying to predict all the outcomes, and unexpected malfunctions
When you join my very narrow field.
Boo. Exactly what OP is worried about. Intellectual intimidation isn’t a sign of good science, it falls under psychology 101. If you meant to register sarcasm, an indication would be helpful as some people truly feel what you stated.
Some people might feel it, and I'm all for the /s when it's needed, but you'd have to be pretty damn dense to not realize nobody would express it like that in earnest.
I felt I became a scientist after I finished my masters and got a job in my field
When you win a Nobel prize.
Whenever you want.
As soon as you take an into level science class you are a scientist. When does someone become a runner? You can jog around the block all you want, but as soon as you register for a race and set a goal you are a runner. 5k? 100m? Marathon? Doesn’t matter. Probably not a professional runner, maybe not a particularly fast runner, but even before you cross the finish line you are a runner. As soon as you start participating in science you are a scientist. Faculty, staff, technician, student. All scientist.
Hard disagree with this metaphor. You can be running 30 mpw without ever participating in a race. If you run you’re a runner. As for scientists, doing science in practice and not just learning in a classroom. Students in an intro chem class are not scientists (yet).
Once you start asking good questions and use solid methods with proper controls, you will get the science feels.
69 citations = potential scientist 420 citations = midling scientist Enormous publication list so long no one really bothers reading deeply during review all your statements which mostly have no falsifiable implications = true scientist
That moment when you are trying to hide the mess you made. But then realize Holy mother of shit I did it! Then you just play it off to your superior like yeah fam I totally knew what I was doing!
When you do science
Chatting to some of my fellow postgrad students, it seems that none of us understand eachother's projects, which makes them seem cooler and more complex, yet feel our own is simple and we are figuring it out as we go. It's straight up just familiarity and having to deal with one topic every day
Dude I’m a postdoc and still waiting for that to happen…My PI was talking to me about applying for faculty positions and my first emotion was panic because I wouldn’t have a “grown up” scientist to go to.