Advice for a Young Investigator (Mit Press)

The perspective of the writing is that of viewing Spain asclearly lagging nations like France, Germany, England and Italyin education and scientific capability. The author has anunforgiving view of Spaniards as lazy, calling laziness a'religion rather than a vice.'In the foreword, Cajal has an interesting description of his viewpointthat almost anyone can succeed in science, that it's more aboutpassion, hard work and chance than intelligence. He uses the phrase"to sculpt your own brain" to describe this flexibility, rather than having been born with aparticular mental ability. He backs up his claim by stating that almost allof the top-of-the-game scholars he has met during his manyinternational travels were men and women ofquite average intelligence. He also notes that most of them are"driven by an ardent longing for fame." This is an interesting observationof the motivation of people in the scientific field almost 150 years ago.Chapter 1Cajul starts out by describing the mission of a scientist as describing HOWand not WHY. He means this at a deep level; at the very end, we cannot hopeto explain any deep meaning with the universe, but can just observe how thingshappen, classify them, and figure out systems to predict how things will playout in other circumstances. There is another sense in which the word why canbe used, such as "why does the earth go around the sun?", which does havean answer "because the force of gravity". In this use, the word "why" relates to"how can I understand this in terms of fundamental physical law"? This we cananswer. What we cannot answer, is at the deepest level, "why is there gravity?"Cajal celebrates Descarte's principle "Do not acknowledge as true anything thatis not obvious, divide a problem into as many parts as necessary to attack itin the best way, and start an analysis by examining the simplest and mosteasily understood parts before ascending gradually to an understanding of themost complex."CHAPTER 2 - BEGINNER's TRAPSCajul's views of error often commited by the beginner:* Exaggerated awe and admiration for past "great minds" (oftendriven by the superficial "elegance" of the papers rather thanthe true science behind them). Cajul has a clear view that thereis no such thing as a "genius", scientists have moments of geniuous,but each person is incomplete and has weak papers and moments as well.I would strongly agree with this view..during the first few years as aresearcher one tries to sort out people into "good" and "bad" scientistcategories...over time it becomes clear that just as fiction writers ormusicians, the quality of almost everyone varies strongly from work to work.* Exaggerated belief in one own's inadequacy* Exaggerates modesty when new claims are finally made (undue modesty)Cajul also states his (rather sad) observation that there has almost not beenany example in history where a scientist doesnt "prefer the lie invented byhimself to the truth discovered by someone else" - a warning about the ferociousnessthat scientists will fight with to defend their theories from attack.Cajal returns to his ideas that we can change our brains a lot by eduction, hard work,and concentration. He even uses the modern word of "plasticity", warning that"education must occurs at an early age, before the plasticity of the brain cells declines."A good tip, which I find very useful myself, it to read and think about "masterpieces",focusing not on the actual conclusions but on the methodology, guiding principles,and style. From this one can cultivate a much improved sense of how to structureand deal with a research problem, how to keep uncertainties under contantsurveillance and check, etc.Cajul has a view that one must conserve and focus the mental energy on the researchproblem, minimizing time and effort spent on politics, literature, music and gossip.CHAPTER 3 Intellectual qualitiesCajul starts out by describing again how a first read through a scientific work is dominatedby the style, and one is often left believeing the work is better than it is. Repeatedreadings tend to clarify shortcomings in logic and method. The scientifically inclined personreads nothing out of worship, but always in a judging way.Cajul decribes the value of thinking long and hard about the problem at hand, taking allopportunities to focus on it in a prolonged period of concentration that can lastmonths or years. If one gets stuck, a change of environment or company can triggernew ideas and get rid of stuck loops.An interesting passage is his description of how research has gone from being some sortof tranquil process of comtemplation to a frantic and competitive race (in 1898 already!)Cajul warns against being put down by other researchers scooping us - his experience isthat one should keep working as normal. Indeed from my own experience it is almostalways the case that the fastest results are shallow or wrong, people's production ratesare not that different so quality is quite proportional to time spent working.Cajul recommends the view of Payot : "A little each day is enough, as long as a little isproduced every day." This is another philosophy I agree strongly with. One should try tomove projects along a little bit every day, and be patient. The return per hour drops with thenumber of hours spent per day, so the best strategy is to spread the work over many daysbut never skipping any. This is a much better strategy than squeezing in 14 hour work dayswith several days off in the week.I also totally agree with Cajul's observation that the problem with distracting activities is notthe actual time they take, but in their disruption of the mental state one must get into tobe scientifically productive.At the end of the chapter Cajul raises a rather interesting viewpoint that a successful scientistMUST have a strong passion for establishing a reputation.An interesting quite from Kepler "The die is cast, and with this I finish my book, caring littlewhether its read today or by posterity. After all, did God not wait 6000 years to find in mea beholder and interpreter of His works?"Cajul then adresses patriotism. Tolstoj had a view of patriotism as a horrible and egocentricrelic that leads to endless warfare and is destined to vanish, to be replaced by universalbrotherhood. Cajul partly agrees with this, but also sees patriotism as an importantmechanism for promoting competition, which in turn advances the quality of everythingincluding scientific results. He predicts that patriotism will remain in people's psyche nomatter how "cosmopolitan the world may become", because its roots are too deep.P.J. Thomas writes in his book that "the idea of country, like the idea of family, isnecessary, as are the feelings involved in both."CHAPTER 4 - WHAT NEWCOMERS TO BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH SHOULD NOWIt is useful to study fields adjascent to one's own, to better grasp guiding principlesand methods of attack. Laplace said "To discover is to join together two ideas thatwere previously unlinked." Cajul describes discovery as 1) Fitting a piece of data toa law 2) Wrapping it in a broader theoretical framework or 3) Classifying it.He summarizes "To discover is to name something correctly."Cajul sees training in philosophy as important, particularly in its foundations ofestablishing truth and critical judgement.Some people have strong intellects but personalities characterized by restlessness, indiscipline andinability to concentrate for long periods. These people will be great encyclopedic knowers, writers, conversationalists, and orators, but rarely good in discovering things.Cajul warns against trying to master a too wide field. A lifetime is barely enough to mastercompletely one or two small subfields within any of the sciences. Any other hopesare illusions that will lead to frustration and disappointment. One can easily get mislead bythe giants of history, but much less was known about the world a few hundred years agoand it took much less time to aquire all the previous knowledge. Strong specialization isneeded due to the extraordinary amount of time required by the testing and masteryof new techniques reported almost daily, the growing volume of the literature andby the many scholars working simultaneously on each topic.The investigators library must contain the important books of the field. The focus should beon methodology/technique, as well as unsolved research problem. Broad/populisticreviews are less useful.Another activity highly recommended is to keep observing nature first hand, rather thanconsuming everything through books and second hand descriptions. This has an importantinvigorating effect on the psyche.Again Cajal emphasisez the value of mastering a research method, either inventing a newone or completely mastering an old one. This is the key to new discovery. Simply applyingmethods of similar accuracy as old ones to old data cannot yield new insights.(such a reanalyzing an old data set with your own 'favorite' model assumptions withinthe same model framework.)The new techniques need, intrinsically, to be difficult. Simple ones will already have beenexploited, and will leave you in intense competition with countless others who canapply them easily.An interesting discussion of the role of chance highlights the fact that 'chance favors thosewho are prepared'. Only if you grasp an opportunity when it comes along can youharvest the potential of chance. (Or vice verse, if you are ill prepared for negativechance events they can cause unnecessary damage). Thus, while it may often seemon the surface that people have been lucky or unlucky, the underlying mechanismfor grasping or losing out on the chance encounters are less visible, as are the actualnumber of trials attempted.Phenomenonphile - likes to observe nature and its charms but only for the splendid phenomena themselves, does not care much for the underlying physics.Bibliophile - overly string focus on reading the literature and other's theorems.Megalomaniacs - these people are in it for the fame and glory. To this end, they become quite proficient in their science. But they aim to produce revolutionary masterpiecesfrom the start. They are therefore fevershly active in twisting and turning schemes to comeup with the magic solutions. But the years go by and little of value comes out. Eventuallyscooped by others, the megalomaniac turns to another subject with the same feverishentusiasm, only to fail again. The mistake of the megalomaniac is to tackle too large problems,to fantasize of explaining or revolutionizing a whole field, rather than doing small problemsone at a time. This path does not lead to any particular fame, but to relevant science andthe respect of peers.Instrument addicts - these people love the technical aspects, the telescope, the computeror the microscopeMisfits - some people just end up in the wrong job for whatever reason. There is no curehere but to find the energy to break out and change course.Theorists - people that usually dislike the actual observing part of science, favor booksover articles and dissertations. The essential thing is beauty of concept and frameworkrather than concrete and reliable results. The theorist is usually a lazy personmasquerading as a diligent one. "He unconciously obeys the law of minimum effortbecause it is easier to fashion a theory than to discover a phenomenon." Leibzigadviced "Dont make hypothesis. They will bring the enmity of the wise upon you.Be concerned with the discovery of new facts." I would subscribe to this view : as longas one stays focussed on trying to estimate basic quantities, good science comes out.If one tries to motivate and validate some grand hypothesis, failure usually follows.Cajal stringly advices to start by becoming a useful workman, deriving some breadand butter numbers, and perhaps later in the career attempting architecture on agrander scale.

Modern scientific publishers unduly constrain modern observers. Much like the growing gulf between rich and poor, the gulf between the peer reviewed and the independent investigator is widening. Peers can usually accept incremental improvements on what is already accepted, and their role is to maintain those views. However, their own reputations may be at stake if a true paradigm shift is found that weakens the foundation on which their decades of work has been founded. So peers frequently block progress at great expense to the scientific community.Some bridge this gulf by making their own money and then breaking the rules, like Jeff Hawkins or Mike Lazaridis. Such men can write books or start their own schools, using money to prevent the dismissal that they might otherwise suffer.But others, with less money, must travel a perilous path with the potential of instant and permanent dismissal when they make wrong guesses, en-route to a breakthrough. For these observers, there is no clear path to "legitimacy", regardless of any talent they may have.Cajal is a remarkable guide to those who labor alone. His "Advice" is precisely what is needed to avoid most of the mistakes that lead to dismissal. He is both respectful towards predecessors and insistent that the work of all predecessors is to be passed.Although this book is often criticized for "quaintness" or being "Cajal-centric", I believe that it is more important now than when it was written, and, like Shakespeare, rewards those who can tolerate the differences of language and circumstances that must be accepted to understand it. It is nowhere near as distant as Shakespeare in this regard.I thank the Swanson and Swanson team for their excellent light and explained editing of this book, and of Cajal's two volume "Histology", leaving Cajal's meaning as untouched by modern theory as possible.

Got this for my boyfriend. He is an advisor now, so a neuroscientist for a while. He had read this when he was a fresh student many years ago, but glad to have a new copy. If you're a new scientist or buying it for a new student. I would recommend it!

I am a graduate student (not in biology-ralated field) looking for general advice from this book. To my surprise much of Cajal's advice is still applicable not just today but in different disciplines. However, this is not a run-of-the-mill advice book for graduate students, and definitely not kind of advice my advisor will give me. Cajal is very passionate about doing science, and he doesn't hesitate to point out (sometimes very harshly) what he thinks the wrong ways of doing science.It's expected that part of books are dated (remember it's first releasesd in 1897), but should not deter interested readers from reading it. Sometimes Cajal made comments upon which any readers today will frown, like "A woman [...] is in different to all work related to change and progress". But don't call Cajal a sexist, and don't interpret his work in the value system of the 21st century. Cajal is so enthusiastic about science that few other things matter to him. Anyone can easily feel and understand his commitment to science after reading few pages of the book.

Great book providing advice to a scientist early in their career. I am a graduate student studying neuroscience, and this helped me greatly overcome some of the stress involved in academics. Ramon y Cajal provides some great advice and entertaining quips here and there.

This is the second time I read the book after a few years and it still resonates ever so deeply. I think it is a must read for all researchers in the early phase of their careers.

The insights provided by Ramon y Cajal have not only lasted a century, describing and distilling the cellular anatomy of the brain, but they were remarkable for the dogma that they overturned at the time. Most famously this was exemplified by the fierce debate between Cajal and Golgi (whose staining technique Cajal employed to such success) over the neuron doctrine, coming to a head when they were jointly awarded the Nobel prize in physiology in 1904. In this book, the sheer ambition and rebellious spirit of Cajal is laid bare for all to see. In so doing, however, he provides one of the best accounts of how to have a lasting impact as a scientist, and the priorities that should be at the forefront of every scientist's mind.Cajal encourages his reader to challenge and overturn existing ideas, whilst becoming masters of technique and self-discipline. He counsels that even in poorer scientific conditions (as was the case, comparably, in Spain at the turn of the last century), a great impact will be achieved by those with sufficient will-power and stamina. But this will only be achieved if one does not fall victim to one of the several 'diseases of the will' he outlines - types of scientists who, despite determination, have the wrong sets of goals in mind as they set out on their scientific career. The advice is at times gentle, at times didactic and fierce, but always insightful.Some sections may have dated slightly, and some of the patriotism he encourages is largely driven by his targeting of a Spanish audience when he first wrote the book. But even here the book provides an interesting view on science at the turn of the last century, at which time the book's popularity was clear by its translation into multiple languages and reprinting several times over. A must-read for any neuroscientist early in their career, it would also appeal more broadly to scientists in other disciplines.

Unacceptably bad quality. I returned it due to the bad printout where the margins were all displaced and wrongly cut. I ordered it again and received again a defective book with all margins misaligned and wrongly cut pages. Very poor manufacturing, anybody can make a better job with their own printer at home. These books should be removed from stock.

Santiago Ramon Y Cajal est une des personnalités les plus fascinantes de la science; chercheur et pionner-inventeur en histologie cérébrale, écrivain, véritable artiste et enseignant de la fin XIXième-début XXième.... C'est lui qui a montré que le Système Nerveux Central (SNC) est constitué de neurones individuelles qui communiquent en eux avec des caractéristiques précises via des synapses ... Mais son œuvre est vraiment polymorphe, ses centres d'intérêt multiples, à la fois précurseur des polymathes modernes, pédagogue humble, constructif, il est de ces hommes su peu nombreux auquel le monde moderne doit tant, dont l'idéalisme humaniste est inséparable de la lucidité sur ses propres limites ou la nécessité de partager....

I wish I had read this in my childhood, this is a book with immense value for any person, specially early in life. Will definitely recommend it...

Solid advice from one of the big names in neuroscience. His advice is valuable because he talks from his experiences as an investigator