- [Neal] When I look back, the very best projects in the lab
in the last nine years, have been those
that you've made initial discovery and then you've
followed up on that discovery to find something new
and then you've brought in some other collaborators
and it's opened up a new area.
This kind of in-depth study instead of
just kind of scheming and looking for different
things where you publish one paper and then
you drop a project and so I'm really now
focusing on trying to think while I'm putting
the project together is how far along
will this go and how in depth do I want to take this,
and will I still be interested in this five years from now?
(soft music)
- [Kevin] Welcome to Strategy for Scientists.
This is a podcasts for scientists interested in learning
about the fundamentals of business strategy through stories.
I'm Kevin Hartman, at the University
of California, San Francisco, UCSF.
Today, we hear from Neal Alto, Neal is an associate
professor at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center.
Neal was just describing what
he looks for in a new project.
Neal shares with us the process he has gone through
of building his lab from setting the initial
scientific direction to evaluating project
viability and ensuring the success of each
new graduate student who joins, by sharing
his philosophy of how to be a successful scientist.
First, we hear about how Neal made
the transition from a contributor
in a lab, to the head of a lab.
- [Neal] I don't think I was given
a lot of advice, you kind of show up
and you are in this environment
where people now expect you to do something
and you have nothing in your lab and you're like,
okay, I've got to figure this out.
I do know some of the things that I feel like
have made me successful, I really thought to myself,
if I can replicate what I did as a post-doc,
I'm gonna be fine, and I think I was successful
as a post-doc and I said, okay, just myself
and this technician, if I can do this,
all on my own, without student or a post-doc
or anybody and produce the papers, high impact
science on my own, then I can, then I'll be fine.
That's the mindset I went into it with,
is that I'm the only one who's responsible
for my success, I can bring in students
in post-doc, but they are not at all responsible
for my success and so I would say our first
five, six papers, I was heavily
involved in, as if they were my projects.
- [Kevin] The transition from post-doc
to professor sounds pretty daunting.
Neal made this transition easier on himself
by remaining hands on with the research.
So Neal would actually be in the lab, running experiments
alongside his students and technicians
because his lab didn't have that
body of knowledge yet, but eventually,
the core function as a head of a lab,
is to select what projects to pursue.
Neal explains the origin of his
lab's first project and how this
got him through the transition.
- [Neal] I had a certain technique
that I had done since a graduate student.
I wanted to do some exploratory projects,
some screening type of projects.
There's really just, I'll do the experiment,
it will be a bonus if it works, if not, it will
just be the method by which I get the lab up and going.
But, I just did the one experiment, but actually,
it turns out, the experiment works
and it ended up being a couple of projects
in the lab and I would say we got
it done in a month and it was all
because of just 100% focus on one thing.
And I think that's a really good lesson is the more you
focus on one particular thing, the better they go.
- [Kevin] Neal made it through his first month
through laser like focus on relatively short-term objectives
in an area where he already had expertise.
As his lab has flourished and more people have joined,
Neal picks projects to accommodate longer term goals.
- [Neal] When I'm starting a new project, globally,
so, here's an area of research we're interested in,
I ask myself as we go along, is there enough here
to do three papers on this project?
Like, okay, initial discovery, then a mechanism,
then maybe some kind of in vivo kind of thing.
And am I interested in it enough in this project area
to go that far, to spend that much time to go that in depth
on it and if the answer is no, I'm starting to think that
I'm not gonna go in those directions.
- [Kevin] Neal is looking at the potential
gains of each project, and comparing that to the
investment required to get there.
He is then prioritizing which projects to pursue.
In a business context, this sort of analysis
is referred to as return on investment or ROI.
So, how does Neal distinguish a project
that would have a good return?
- [Neal] I find when science is correct, it
all just falls in place and experiments
are very easy to predict what to do
and they often work when you're on the right track.
When you're really struggling with experiments,
you know, you see it working a couple
of times and then not another time.
Usually, you're going in the wrong direction
or at least there's a missing component and
you need to figure out what that is.
- [Kevin] Neal is still focusing
on areas of technical expertise
and the real strength comes from
selecting topics where he can go into great depth.
In order to achieve this depth,
Neal has to staff his lab strategically.
He brings together a unique breath of competencies
in one lab in order to tackle the entire scope of a project.
- [Neal] Each person while they're working independently
one might be, for example, working on a particular
cell biological process and the molecules
involved in that and then someone might be working
on a structural biology portion of that
molecule interaction, so I'll have a structure
biologist working alongside a soil biologist
and biochemist on a single project.
So they can collaborate, but they're
really working on different aspects of that model.
And so, I think a lot of times,
partitioning up your projects into these
different areas of depth that you'd be interested
is I think a really good way to do it.
It becomes very productive and cost effective
as well because a lot of their re-agents
will be shared between the two projects.
- [Kevin] We have heard how Neal considers
the impact and scope of a project,
but what role does risk play in his considerations?
- [Neal] I ask the question whether I think it's an area
that there's really not a lot known in science.
The less that's known, obviously, the more fruit there is,
but it's also the less that's known,
it's also a higher risk for the post-docs
or students that are working on the projects
and so you really have to weigh that.
I talked to my post-doctor students,
what kind of risks do you really want
in your projects and certainly some people
have different goals and I think depending
on the different goals, the different risk
amounts that they're willing to take on.
I think those that really want to go
into academia generally will take riskier projects
because they know if they break something open,
something new, that's something that they'll be
able to hopefully take along with them.
If you're gonna get into an industry, I mean,
it's a different consideration, you really want to
master a certain area of expertise not only
scientifically, but also technically, to make
you valuable for industry and so then
you might want to do a little bit different project.
But, then ultimately, the scientific question is,
what's unknown and how do we solve the problem?
- [Kevin] When Neal evaluates whether to grow projects,
his criteria include how much scientific potential
they have, their risk and how well
they fit the needs of their trainees.
Neal is looking all the way to his trainee's next steps
and how certain projects would give them
the experiences they will need to get there.
Once the lab had multiple projects underway,
Neal's role shifted to deciding where to allocate
resources to make sure projects could succeed.
And with that, came assessing which projects were viable.
- [Neal] I've always felt like my job
is to get the money to do whatever's necessary
to allow the people to move forward on.
I found that if I run into budget problems,
what I need to do is contract my projects
because that means that we're
not viable anymore in that area.
Usually that will correspond with somebody
leaving the lab, like finding a job
or something like that and I'll have to ask,
do I really want to pursue that line any further?
And because, it's taking money, it's taking resources,
not only monetary resources, but intellectual
resources as well and so usually in terms of the projects
that I feel like are moving forward, I don't
find budget restraints because I try to
cut out other projects which they are.
- [Kevin] Neal mentioned the challenge
of limited human resources in a lab,
but he also had a rather unique approach
to ensuring that each new member of the lab
has the opportunity to contribute.
- [Neal] So, I have a document that
I give them, that I've outlined what I think
it takes to be a successful scientist.
For example, what is successful scientist look like?
What do they read?
Well, they read about their individual project,
but they're probably also reading, picking up
Self Science Nature or other high profile journals
and looking through those and looking
at the papers that are not in their field.
I emphasize attitude in science, bench science
is really challenging, but ultimately
it's the optimist that ends up winning the day.
Those that can really have the experiment
fail or even the project fail and of course
you're gonna be upset by that for a day or
something, but the faster your recover from that
and are genuinely excited about the next aspect,
next discovery or next project, those are the ones
that really do the best and so really trying to
have an optimistic attitude about science.
I talk about collaboration, particularly
within the lab for new students, I ask them
to actually help usually a post-doc
or another senior student with a particular
part of their project to actually build good will
and say you know, you can do these couple
of experiments for them while you're trying to
start your own project and then when they get
to be a senior person, they'll remember that
and that just builds the training aspect
and you know sometimes it builds cohesion
in the lab as well, where people know what's going on.
So, collaboration with the lab, I'm really big on and
I think it helps the morale and keeps people talking.
- [Kevin] From his first days working alongside
technicians and students at the Bench, Neal has created
a collaborative and teaching culture in his lab.
This document takes that a step further in actively
coaching his students on proactive learning,
perseverance and collaboration.
Neal demonstrated very thoughtful project management
in terms of positioning his lab in areas of growth,
evaluating potential impact in risk and monitoring
the progress and viability of projects.
We thank Neal for sharing his
experiences in building a new lab.
Thank you for listening to Strategy for Scientists.
If you're interested in learning more,
check out the online lectures co-produced
by iBiology and the UCSF Office
of Career and Professional Development.
We would like to thank the Burroughs Wellcome Fund
and the NIH, National Institute of General
Medical Sciences, NIGMS, for grant funding.
Thanks also to the PRX Podcast Garage for studio space
and helping us get started with this production.
Tune in here for more stories
about scientists using strategy.
(soft upbeat music)