Question: When did you realise you where smart enough to become a scientist

Angus Cook answered on 12 Jun 2016:

---

Oh boy, this could be the essay question on an exam paper!
(I was never very good at essay questions…so sorry, in advance.)

In true academic form, let me deconstruct the question (please don’t misunderstand, this is an EXCELLENT question, in fact it’s too good a question for me to be able so answer without breaking into three bite-sized pieces:
‘When did [1]YOU realise you were [2]SMART enough to become a [3]SCIENTIST?

Short answer below. More detailed answer to each of the three points ([1], [2], [3]) after that.

SHORT ANSWER:

My teachers thought it of me first. Really, it was a year after I became a scientist (that is, a PhD student (so, scientist in training)) that I figured that I was smart enough to do this job.
To be more precise I should say ‘capable’ to do the job, because there’s more to being a scientist than just being smart (and there are more important skills you need to be a scientist, you could be a MUCH BETTER scientist than I am even if you’re “NOT AS SMART” as I am).

LONG ANSWER:

[1]
I never really realised it myself. It was through interactions with other people (more experienced scientists than I) who told me that my work was interesting, and worth pursuing.

When I was in school I was usually told I was smart by my test scores and my teachers. Not in everything, by a long-shot:
In Year 5 I was told that my English level was like that of a Year 3. (I wasn’t very good at writing lots of words, my Mum struggled to get my book reports to anything more than ‘It was good’, and I HATED writing stories.)
In Year 7 I was put in the bottom set for maths (out of 6 sets).
In Year 8 I chose not to carry on with studying Music and Drama, because I wasn’t very good at them (I did still play the drums, and perhaps that’s telling about the musical ability of drum players…)
But in general I got good results in science and maths (after Year 7).

When I was asked what I wanted to keep studying at A-Level (when I was 16), I chose Maths and Physics, because I was good at the subjects. (I also chose History and German, because I was NOT good at them (I still found writing difficult). I really wanted to keep learning History because it was so INTERESTING. I wanted to keep learning German because I knew that it was the best way to drill it into my head, and I thought (and STILL think) that knowing another language is such a fantastic skill to have!).

At university I chose to study Physics, because: 1) usually you can only choose to learn one subject at university, and 2) I was good at Physics, and 3) It promised to teach me a lot about how the world worked (which was true on a fundamental level, but I’ve learned that there’s so much more to the world than just physics).

When I was finishing my studies in Physics, I asked my supervisor (my teacher) if there were any opportunities to keep studying for a PhD in the university. I was lucky because: 1) he thought I was able enough to do a PhD and 2) he put me in contact with my current supervisor, Alison, who also thought I was able enough to do a PhD in her research group.

So really the main thing that’s made me think that I’m clever enough to be a scientist is all my teachers, lecturers, and supervisors (who are ‘actual’ scientists) telling me that I look like I’m capable to be a scientist.

[2]
There are many different skills that you need to be a good scientist. At its heart, being a scientist means that you need to be able to:
1) Find a question that we (humanity) don’t have the answer to yet
or: (Find a question that we (humanity) could answer BETTER).
2) Figure out how to answer this question (or answer it BETTER).
3) Answer the question (BETTER).
4) Tell people what the answer is AND how you answered the question (BETTER).

Of the four points above, ONLY 2) and 3) really need any sense of ‘cleverness’.
Part 1) comes from READING and UNDERSTANDING the work of people that have looked at this area of research before you.
Part 2) does need CLEVERNESS, but it also benefits from EXPERIENCE. A clever person might say: ‘a tin of paint can be used to paint a wall!’ An experienced person might say: ‘a tin of paint can be used to paint THREE walls, and know that one tin of pain won’t be able to paint 26 walls.
Part 3) again needs CLEVERNESS to understand and interpret the results that Part 2) gave (i.e. why did the ball bounce 4 times instead of 3 times after being soaked in Chemical A. For this you need CLEVERNESS to understand: a] the ball, b] Chemical A and c] how Chemical A interacts with the ball.
Part 4) needs a person who is able to TALK to other people, who knows how to COMMUNICATE. It’s no use finding out something yourself if you can’t explain it to anyone else.

All four parts are important to being a scientist. I know scientists who aren’t too CLEVER, but are great at TALKING and COMMUNICATING, and getting other people to understand their ideas. I also know scientists who aren’t great at TALKING, but are great at READING, COMPREHENSION and RESEARCH, who know what things to have a go at investigating, and where the unanswered questions are.

I guess, in short, there’s a balance of skills that you need to be a scientist, and that if you’re really good at one of the skills, you can compensate for not being too good in another of the skills.

[3]
In my mind, the SMART people are the ones that have figured out what they love doing in life, or what they are happy doing in life (for example you might like: feeding people, going to new places, making new things, making wonderful things, teaching people, playing videogames, whatever!), and who then push themselves to follow that path to end up doing a job that they really enjoy.

For example, you might love to feed people, BUT you’re a terrible cook. You could then learn to be a better cook, OR you could learn to be a restaurant manager, OR you could learn to be a farmer, OR you could learn to be a food scientist.
In my mind a SMART person would find a job, or a vocation which allowed them to be happy while they were doing it.

So I hope I’ve answered the question (to be honest it’s currently the question I’ve taken the most time to answer), and (more importantly) I hope the answer is satisfactory to you.