Every rockstar scientist has an origin story

Six years ago, during a science communication session at a conference, we were given the task to explain “why we do what we do” to people unfamiliar with our research. While having this chat with a fellow postdoc, I told him I’m curious about how the human body works, and that is why I became a scientist. For me, the drive has always been a mix of curiosity, fascination and purpose: I want to understand how this extraordinary and mysterious thing (in this case the immune system) works, and at the same time, do what I can to help elucidate it. 

I was surprised when he said he cannot relate. 

He then went on to explain that he needs a more concrete motivation “anchor” to do research, such as the potential to find a cure to a disease. 

Okay, that works too. A noble cause to become a scientist.

It took me years to realize that there is actually a wide range of reasons why people become scientists. And some of these reasons are difficult for me to grasp, including:

- to make money (good luck).

- to be “the best” (this deserves its own post).

- Or fame. 

Incidentally, managing to do two or more of these makes one a “rockstar scientist”.

We all know those gigantic labs with two-digit numbers of PhD students and postdocs, consistently churning out high impact publications. The PIs in charge of these labs can almost always be found at conferences with a constellation of students orbiting them at coffee breaks and social events. 

How did these PIs become rockstar scientists?

This could happen to scientists intentionally or unintentionally. And that depends on whether getting there was a goal or a side effect of the process. 

Let’s go through both scenarios.

Ambition-fueled strategic rockstars

This is all calculated. 

Already as a PhD student or a postdoc, this overly ambitious fellow has planned their career. They select trendy topics and high-impact subjects and work towards getting a position at “top” labs. They know how to network and will take every opportunity to interact with current big names in their field. 

THE area they truly master is the academic publishing game. In fact, they tend to work towards “getting” those career-changing papers. These key publications open doors to generous grants, starting packages and professorships. 

Once they are the monarch of their own lab, it is time to aggressively recruit talented students and expect them to go above and beyond for their lab. And in the meantime, they pursue multi-year multi-million megagrants, not just for running costs but for the prestige that comes with them. As they accumulate money, networks and fame, they often move further and further away from the science, relying heavily on the members of the lab, who are overwhelmed with the pressure to “provide” results.

To them, it’s the only way to do research. To everyone in their field, in every measurable way, they are a rockstar.

“Accidental” rockstars

Genuine interest (sometimes even obsession) and curiosity can lead to breakthroughs and maybe unexpectedly impactful findings. Scientists responsible for these are passionate about their research, forming real connections with their colleagues in their field and beyond, just out of pure intrigue.

Usually their authentic character inspires and attracts talented people,and their lab grows organically. Their relentless pursuit of their subject lands them large grants and leads to important publications.

They often get “caught off-guard” by awards and recognition, which were most likely not on their radar and this newly found fame may even bring them discomfort.

To them, it’s nothing but a side effect of their research. To everyone in their field, in every measurable way, they are a rockstar.

They are not the same

I am sure it’s obvious that as much as we like to organize and categorize things/people, nothing is black or white. And while these may be the two extreme poles of being a rockstar scientist, there is a spectrum spanning from one to the other.

On that same spectrum, we can find the experience of the students/trainees that work with these scientists. These mentees may be exposed to a dedicated mentor forming and training them, or a boss benefiting from the workforce they feel entitled to. The drive behind their mentor’s success often shapes their future as well.

And, in the end, the main difference between these two types of rockstars is the way they perceive the value of the next generation of scientists.

One sees students as stepping stones to personal glory.

The other sees them as the future of science itself. 

So when their time in the spotlight is over, guess whose legacy and “lineage” actually last?