Yale professor Stephen Stearns gives rather cynical yet apropos advice to graduate students regarding their training to become independent scientists (http://stearnslab.yale.edu/some-modest-advice-graduate-students ).
Stearns says if you want to be treated as a colleague, then act like one. Furthermore, he says to read the primary scientific literature and think exhaustively; think critically which requires extensive and active engagement, not passive absorption of information.
Wright State University Biomedical Sciences' PhD student Joseph Santin and Neuroscience, Cell Biology, and Physiology masters program graduate Shaker Dukkipati have exemplified these characteristics in their recent peer-reviewed commentary on a proposed novel mechanism for pH regulation: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2016.00513/full.
While initially excited about the story, as Joe and Shaker talked about it together, they realized that there were fundamental flaws in the broad interpretations of the data regarding homeostatic regulation of pH. This realization comes from their continual practice of critically thinking about science. With careful crafting, Joe and Shaker wrote an argument for why the novel pH regulating mechanism proposed could not broadly apply as the authors of the article had claimed. This is impressive because Joe and Shaker had to look beyond the well-established and well-deserved reputations of the authors who have made tremendous contributions to neuroscience over their careers. It would have been easy to simply accept the novel mechanism proposed as valid based on reputation, but this would have been a disservice to readers not so familiar with homeostatic regulation of pH. Joe’s and Shaker’s independence and thoughtful approach to science are to be commended and will serve them well as they continue making significant contributions to their respective fields. Congratulations to them both!
