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)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
No comments:
Post a Comment