The Truth, Respectfully

So you're listening to a talk, and the speaker introduces a crucial step which you know -- or perhaps only suspect -- to be completely incorrect. What do you do? Do you raise your hand and point out the mistake? Or file it away momentarily, planning to ask them about it in private afterwards? And does your answer change if the speaker is a senior scientist who will some day be writing you a letter of recommendation? What if it's a fellow graduate student giving their first-ever technical seminar, and you know them to be intimidated by all these smart people in the room? A Lady Scientist and PhysioProf have been talking about these issues. The former wonders whether there shouldn't be some solidarity among grad students not to make each other look bad during journal club presentations, while the latter says that good perceptive critical questions are always in order. My own attitude is pretty straightforward, and close to PP's: it's never impolite or out of order to ask appropriately probing questions about the material being presented at a scientific talk, regardless of the status of the speaker or the audience. It's science, and we're all on the same side; it doesn't do anyone any favors to hide the truth in order to save someone's feelings. Science is bigger than any of us, no matter how young and inexperienced or old and respected (feared) we may be. Not only should listeners feel free to ask any reasonable question of the speaker, but speakers should be honest enough to admit when they have said something that might be incorrect, rather than twisting around to find justifications for a slip-up. We've all made them; or at least I have. To the extent that there is any sort of competition going on, it should not be "speaker vs. audience," but rather "all of us vs. the natural world." However, having staked out that absolutist position, it's extremely important to recognize that we live in the real world. For one thing, many audience members tend to blur the distinction between "asking a good question" and "being an asshole." There are people out there, one must admit, who tend to view seminar questions as a venue for them to demonstrate how smart they are, rather than learning about the subject matter in an open and collegial environment. There's no excuse for that, and the guilty parties deserve to be smacked around, if only symbolically. Still, it's no reason for the rest of us to equate hard questions with egotistical puffery, nor to soft-pedal questions that really are sincere. The biggest benefit of a talk, from the viewpoint of the speaker, would be to actually learn something from the questions and comments offered by the audience. The other complication is that there is a competition going on, whether we like it or not. I personally don't like it, and would vastly prefer to live in a utopia of unlimited resources where such competitions were unnecessary. But in the real world, there is a limited collection of goods -- jobs especially, but other rewards of the profession -- and a large number of people competing for them. And that competition never turns off. Academics are always judging each other, inevitably, and will use those judgments when it comes time to recommend or hire or give prizes to each other. So a real seminar is not simply a value-neutral examination of the facts; it's a social milieu, in which interactions have real consequences. Which is not to say that we should ever shy away from asking hard questions. But there are different ways to ask hard questions, and there's nothing wrong with choosing the tone in which such questions are asked to match the occasion. Graduate students giving their first seminars need to learn that they will get asked tough questions, and that it's okay -- it's not a devastating critique of their worthiness as scientists, it's simply part of the process to which we are all ultimately subject. A common technique to help students ease into the responsibility of giving talks is to have students-only seminars where the faculty are not permitted. The motivation for such things is admirable, but ultimately I don't think they are a good idea. (As a disgruntled senior colleague once said, "Sometimes I learn something from listening to the students.") Breaking down the barriers between "faculty" and "students," and beginning to think of everyone as "researchers" and "colleagues," should be an important goal of graduate school. It can all be intimidating at first, but it's ultimately beneficial to learn to treat these artificial hierarchies as administrative annoyances, not natural categories. The most successful graduate students are the ones that start thinking of themselves as colleagues right away. Go to the seminars, sit in the front, ask good questions, participate in the informal discussions afterward. It's a big universe out there, and we're all struggling to understand it, and working together is our only hope.