News Hub

Joaquim Vives, PhD
Contributing Editor, Telegraft

Banc de Sang i Teixits

Barcelona, Spain

I earned my doctorate in 2002… that’s over 20 years ago, now (!)

Throughout this time in research, I had the privilege of mentoring a diverse array of pre-doctoral and post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, and laboratory technicians, in the context of national and international collaborations. This journey has been a fascinating exercise in management, adaptation, and personal growth, shaped by both my own successes and failures, as well as those of my mentees. However, becoming a Principal Investigator (PI) is also a challenging career transition, where the skills crafted throughout the previous scientific training stages do not necessarily cover those required to successfully run a research group (1).

Further to my previous editorial focusing on the pre-doctoral stage (“To PhD or not to PhD”), I wanted to revisit, again from a personal point of view, how the PI navigates the evolving dynamics of research environments, generational shifts, and changing social values, requiring continuous recalibration of leadership strategies to foster scientific excellence and professional development of junior scientists.

What makes a research lab unique is its dynamic environment, where professionals of diverse ages, cultures, and disciplines collaborate, bringing together a rich blend of perspectives and expertise. In this context, fostering open dialogue, strengthening team cohesion despite individual differences, and creating a supportive setting for all members are crucial objectives, not only for well-being but also for maximizing scientific output. Equally important is the ability to recognize when a researcher is not a good fit and to guide them toward alternatives, rather than forcing an untenable situation (2).

The individuals I have supervised span the full spectrum of scientific skills and competencies, from the brilliant, self-motivated researchers who have gone on to successful careers, to the more everyday contributors who, with support and structure, found fulfilling and productive roles, and even some occasional disastrous cases who challenged both my patience and leadership skills. For those with exceptional talent, the challenge was often to ensure that they did not become complacent or overconfident, while also providing the opportunities that matched their ambition and capabilities. For the more regular performers, the key was to instill resilience, offer structured guidance, and help them find their niche within the scientific ecosystem. The few disastrous cases (whether due to lack of work ethic, poor teamwork, or simply a mismatch in career expectations) were difficult but invaluable lessons in the necessity of early intervention and decisive action when mentoring efforts failed to yield progress. Each of these experiences has reinforced a fundamental truth: leadership in academic research is not only about advancing science but also guiding people toward the paths that best fit their abilities and aspirations.

Creative people tend to be more autonomous and self-motivated than the average employee. They often don’t want to be told what to do, therefore PIs might not be able to rely on hierarchy-based authority (3). Although I subscribe to some aspects of the traditional hierarchical approach (where expectations are clear, work ethic is assumed, and success depends largely on the individual’s ability to respond to the demands of research with minimal hand-holding), I use a more flexible, individualized approach, which I found useful particularly as generational values shifted. Millennials, for example, a generation characterised by their emphasis on work-life balance, feedback-oriented work environments, and strong sense of collaboration, required a leadership style that emphasized mentorship over directive management. Regular meetings, constructive feedback, and clear career development pathways became crucial. Unlike earlier generations, who often tolerated long hours with little direct reward, millennials valued purpose and professional development as much as scientific achievement. Well… all that, and those rare chances to take a “career break” to travel across Southeast Asia or Costa Rica (you know who you are!). Now entering the CGT workforce, Gen Z brings yet another set of values and expectations. Digital natives with an unparalleled adaptability to technology, they expect immediacy in communication, thrive on inclusivity, and demand transparency in leadership. They are more entrepreneurial as well as more conscious of mental health (4, 5). While their independence and tech-savviness can be assets, their expectations for rapid progression and immediate impact often clash with the slow, meticulous nature of scientific research, the heavy administrative burden in academia, and the sector’s lower salaries and precarious employment conditions compared to industry (6).

In any case, young researchers can be reassured that the skills and knowledge they acquire during their training are useful in a range of careers both inside and outside academia. Indeed, career paths in the life sciences have changed dramatically in recent decades, partly because:

 i) The number of early-career researchers seeking permanent research positions has continued to exceed the number of positions available
ii) Institutions have built an increased proportion of project-based funding to hire professionals
iii) there is a greater awareness of careers outside academic research (7).

To me, a career in regenerative medicine is not just about growing cells in the lab but also about fostering personal and professional growth, both for ourselves and those we mentor. Beyond publications and funding, true success in academic leadership is reflected in the careers nurtured, the lessons learned, and the lasting legacy of mentorship that extends beyond one’s tenure. Ultimately, the impact of our research on the patients’ health also depends on cultivating healthy, efficient, and fulfilling lab environments.

Reference

1.         de la Fuente AG. Navigating the transition to Principal Investigator. Immunology and cell biology. 2024 Oct;102(9):766-74. PubMed PMID: 39282863.

2.         How to grow a healthy lab. Nature. 2018 May;557(7705):293. PubMed PMID: 29769685.

3.         Kwok R. How lab heads can learn to lead. Nature. 2018 May;557(7705):457-9. PubMed PMID: 29769688.

4.         Levecque K, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Van der Heyden J, Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy. 2017 2017/05/01/;46(4):868-79.

5.         Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, Vanderford NL. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Mar 6;36(3):282-4. PubMed PMID: 29509732.

6.         Smithers K, Spina N, Harris J, Gurr S. Working every weekend: The paradox of time for insecurely employed academics. Time & Society. 2023;32(1):101-22.

7.         Lu J, Velten B, Klaus B, Ramm M, Huber W, Coulthard-Graf R. The changing career paths of PhDs and postdocs trained at EMBL. Elife. 2023 Nov 23;12. PubMed PMID: 37994719. Pubmed Central PMCID: 10666930.