In 1983, when I was a budding young student heading off to Princeton to do a physics Ph.D. I had the privilege of spending some time with an elderly John Edsall, an eminent Harvard biochemist, who was friend and collaborator of my father. I asked him if he had any advice for me. I expected him to say something profound and give me a long list of suggestions. He thought for a while and said, "Well I am not sure but I guess it is important to know the literature on what you are working on."
I am not sure to what extent I took on board this advice over the next decade.
But, now I think this was very good advice. The reason is knowing the literature can save you a lot of time. If you are trying to do something someone else has already done then
-perhaps there is no point in trying it yourself
or
-you may be able to use what they have done to do something even better.
It is amazing what a discerning Google Scholar search can pick up. On the other hand, you need to be careful you don't spend all your time downloading and reading papers. Also, don't assume your supervisor knows the literature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What criteria should be used to evaluate theories of emergence properties?
What criteria do people use to decide if a theory in physics is successful? For special relativity, general relativity, and quantum theory, ...
-
An interesting and controversial question for Ph.D's in science and engineering is too what extent students should be expected to have ...
-
Some of my colleagues and I have started an interesting discussion about how to teach quantum theory to undergraduates. We have courses in t...
-
As years go by the PhD thesis in science and engineering is less and less of a ``thesis'' and more just a box to tick. There was a t...
No comments:
Post a Comment