next »

[acetylcholine]

(Please bear with me; I know my post might be a little disorganized in its construction, but I'm an undergrad and this is something of a brainstorm which I'm asking for some input on.)

Hi.

So, as has been discussed before, my main interest is the neurogenetics and developmental neurobiology of cognition, particularly as pertains to intelligence.

I have had an interesting progression in how I have thought about it; I used to focus entirely on twin-study type stuff, which I'm beginning to think might (or might not) be too narrow for my interests.

I then progressed to an interest in the development OF intelligence, or characterizing intelligence as a whole; what happens in the brain to produce what we think of as 'intelligence'?

This, of course, led me to think, particularly spurred by a discussion I had recently about cephalopod intelligence: We have not sequenced the cephalopod genome.  Cephalopods have convergently evolved cognition which has been compared to that of a housecat or a three-year-old, depending on who you talk to.  What genes are important in the development of the cephalopod brain, and how does it compare to the development of the vertebrate brain?  (This might suss out, ultimately, the general requirements - of a sort - for the production of relatively highly organized cognition.)  This falls more under the broader spectrum of developmental/evolutionary neurobiology and is a far more basic topic.

What I'm asking from you, the forum denizens, is help brainstorming, or alternatively answers about who I might ask to help me brainstorm about how to narrow down putative research topics enough for picking a lab for undergraduate research and for thinking about where to apply to graduate school (the latter particularly because lots of people have different approaches to what I want to study).  Currently, I'm having a real tough time figuring out who to go to about this; I'd go to a professor at my institution about it, but I'm a little leery about approaching them without them knowing me well just for the sake of hashing all this out.  I'm also not sure if my advisor's much help.

[greyscale]

It's great that you're motivated by an overarching question. But as you've realized, cognition is so broad a subject, studied from so many angles, that you don't know what type of department would be best for your graduate work. A psychology department where you'd study cognitive development by doing experiments with kids? A neurobiology lab where you'd culture neurons in petri dishes? You can break this down along a lot of axes.

-What type of research work do you enjoy day-to-day? This is hard to discover without trying a few things out. I haven't read your earlier posts, but since you're an undergrad, can you try out two different lab settings?

-What things excite you the most in your upper-level classes? Have you really enjoyed learning about a biochemical pathway? A theory of language acquisition? The amazing diversity on the various branches of the tree of life? This is best determined by taking good upper level or graduate classes, because survey classes usually provide you with lots of information but not much insight into what it's like to discover that information through research.

I think a graduate program is organized around a set of broad questions, a set of methods and approaches, a set of necessary knowledge, and a set of ways of thinking about the world. Two programs that look at the same overall topic from different angles would have different required classes and different standard approaches, and it's important to end up in the department that fits your approach. (Sometimes this means choosing not to go to the school that has one professor doing exactly what you want in a department where no one else does anything similar.)

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm not a neurobiologist, so I don't have any insight for your actual research questions. What undergraduate research opportunities are available to you?

[gpduw]

It is hard to know exactly what one wants to do without first trying something out.  I'm currently a graduating senior (will graduate with a B.S. in biochemistry) and had an internship that dealt with proteomics/optimization of plants for biomass production.  I now work in a lab that does virology research.  I'll apply to graduate schools this fall for a Ph. D.  As far as how I'm going about choosing..do I want to pursue virology in grad school? No.  Do I want to do optimization of plants for biomass production?  Maybe.  I do know that I hope to join a program and work with a faculty advisor who does mass spectrometry.  I'm very interested in a lab that looks at post-translational protein modifications on histone proteins.  First of all I think that topic is very interesting.  But secondly, gaining experience in identifying low-abundance post-translational could have many applications in many different fields.  I am also interested in metabolomics as it relates to optimization of microorganisms for biofuel production.  My goal in graduate school is not just to blindly continue the same project I worked on as a grad student, but take what I've learn and apply it to my own ideas.  I work with a post-doc now who worked on lipid droplets and their role in embryonic development in drosophila for her Ph. D.  She doesn't do that anymore...she now works in a virology lab and takes her previous knowledge and applies it to the fact that lipid droplets are thought to be the site of replication for our virus.  I know what you mean about feeling limited, and that is why I am interested in mass spectrometry as it relates to proteomics/metabolomics.  I don't want to go to graduate school for 4-5 years, spend 2-4 years on a post-doc, and have some top scientist in the field thats been researching the virus I'm working on now for 30 years develop a vaccine and end my career.  I want to choose something that I am excited about and personally see potential in.  In summation, I think the most important thing is to first gain some experience in a field you are interested in, but keep in mind that you are not choosing your career at this point.  For me, a lot of undergraduate research was figuring out how to read a journal article, trying to formulate my own ideas, developing the concentration and focus it takes to perform an experiment with many samples, how to analyze data, and lastly helping me narrow down what I do and don't like.  I've chosen pretty specifically what I would like to do...and it's not the lab I currently work in.

[acetylcholine]

Well, I pretty specifically want to do my work in the neurogenetic aspects of this and do something that involves working with genetic material and information, but there's still so many ways to approach what I want to do.  A psychology department, I don't think, would be a good idea unless the lab itself was more biological in scope.

I suppose what I'm talking about more or less is something alone the lines of such:

1) What model organism?  Do I want to examine the genetic aspects of cognition in humans, nonhuman primates, nonprimate vertebrates, or cephalopods?  Each of these animals/groups of animals has its own advantages and disadvantages, and I need to hash these out a little.

2) What specific approach do I want to use?  This is a little harder to suss out, but for example, with cephalopods I'd guess one would be using the approach of 'hm, octopuses do this and these genes are expressed in this part of the brain and also expressed in vertebrates', since their brains evolved convergently, and with vertebrates you would be looking at differences in the genetics in more homologous structures, and with humans there's figuring out what specifically made the jump from our common ancestor with chimpanzees through hominids all the way up to humans.  All these approaches are awesome, but I need to figure out which one I like most.

[cgfunmathguy]

All these approaches are awesome, but I need to figure out which one I like most.

Not necessarily. You need to find an approach with which you're willing to work. You won't know which approach you like most until you've tried nearly all approaches, which won't happen unless you do rotations similar to the ones done by med tech and medical students.

[gpduw]

It sounds like you have pretty much answered your own questions.  The most important thing, I think, is figuring out the approach that you find most interesting and personally see the most potential in.  Don't think you're limiting yourself to too specific a field right now, and I'd say if you could get involved in ANY lab that uses any of the methods you just mentioned (a wet lab focusing on biology and not, as you said, something more along the lines of psychological) that would be a step in the right direction.  Worst comes to worst if you join a lab and end up not "agreeing" with their approach that is still progress on your quest of narrowing down an exact research interest because you figured out something you wouldn't have otherwise.

[collegekidsmom]

I would really also spend some more time with the literature. See who is citing whom, what areas might be emerging or of great interest. Make sure you search all major subject databases and see where (in various fields, institutions, and publications) you can see a pathway for your interests. Identify important researchers and read their work. You will need to search various indexes that focus on the topics in very different ways. For instance, PsycINFO covers major cognitive neuroscience material, but Zoological Record or BIOSIS would have a different type of subject coverage. You may be drawn in a certain direction.

Also, your at an age where there are more questions than answers, and that's a good thing.

[acetylcholine]

All these approaches are awesome, but I need to figure out which one I like most.

Not necessarily. You need to find an approach with which you're willing to work. You won't know which approach you like most until you've tried nearly all approaches, which won't happen unless you do rotations similar to the ones done by med tech and medical students.

Which sounds a little like lab rotations, but that happens after I've picked a grad school.

[acetylcholine]

I would really also spend some more time with the literature. See who is citing whom, what areas might be emerging or of great interest. Make sure you search all major subject databases and see where (in various fields, institutions, and publications) you can see a pathway for your interests. Identify important researchers and read their work. You will need to search various indexes that focus on the topics in very different ways. For instance, PsycINFO covers major cognitive neuroscience material, but Zoological Record or BIOSIS would have a different type of subject coverage. You may be drawn in a certain direction.

Also, your at an age where there are more questions than answers, and that's a good thing.

Sure, I can spend time with the literature and search major subject databases and go through PsycINFO and Zoological Record and BIOSIS and everything else that my institutional affiliation entitles me to, but I have some questions.

1) How does one keep track of who's citing whom?  This seems fairly straightforward, but honestly, references can be looooooooooooong.  I am sure there is probably some website somewhere which keeps track of citation amounts and would like to know where it is.

2) At my stage, how do you identify emerging areas and people who are important?  To me, everything looks equally important.

[scampster]

1) How does one keep track of who's citing whom?  This seems fairly straightforward, but honestly, references can be looooooooooooong.  I am sure there is probably some website somewhere which keeps track of citation amounts and would like to know where it is.

Web of Science links citations and all that, but it is still a lot of information to digest.

2) At my stage, how do you identify emerging areas and people who are important?  To me, everything looks equally important.

I kinda think that trying to identify emerging areas isn't a winning strategy. You need to figure out what excites you and what you will be passionate about. By the time you finish, those emerging areas may have fizzled out or be past their exciting stage anyway.

As for who is important, I think the best way to figure this out is to talk to the professors at your current university who will be writing you letters. I think it is very hard for any newcomer to jump into the literature and figure out these things. The people already in the field can rattle off the important names in much less time than it takes you to wade through papers upon papers.

It is commendable that you are doing all this legwork ahead of time and it will serve you well in a broad knowledge sense, but I don't think any amount of grad school research can replace talking to trusted mentors. Also, those mentors can help weed out the treacherous people to work for. Dr. BigShot might be the most cited source in the field, but may also have a reputation for chewing up and spitting out grad students and you can't find that out from a database.

I know you said you are leery of approaching a faculty member at your current uni, but you really really really need to work on building some of these relationships. Your letters will be generic if you don't, even if you are a great student. Having some of these conversations with those future letter writers might even help them craft a better letter for you.

[collegekidsmom]

As far as identifying "best"papers on a topic, especially in biology or medicine, it might be helpful to see the kinds of papers that are recommended by faculty experts in "Faculty of 1000 Biology" (or Medicine) if your institution has that. It is a way to see what's hot in the areas you mention. Might be worth a look if your library subscribes.
http://f1000biology.com/browse/8015