從我的兩次半經曆談選專業--後記

我覺得這個例子比較經典，不吐不快。

一次，一個剛剛獲得諾貝爾獎的以色列教授到我們那兒講學。 引用了一篇幾十年前的文獻。 文獻上很明確地說：這是以前別人做出的結果，我們重複不出來。 這個教授感歎人心不古，你看前人多實在，做不出來就是做不出來，end of the story. 要是換到了現在，為了能發表，就得拐彎抹角，牽強附會，討論來討論去，到處地扯，看得人一頭霧水。 這就說明寫文章得能寫能吹。

這個有時做得出來，有時做不出來， 不可重複，經過多個實驗室多年的努力（具體多少忘了）， 用教授的話說， 他自己就犧牲了幾個博士後，終於發現是實驗室最常用的酵母粉造的孽。 事後諸葛亮地說原因再簡單不過了： 他們研究的是泛肽， 酵母是真核生物，用了酵母粉就汙染了整個樣品。

當時，我在底下聽著，心裏就想，我可不願意做那個被犧牲的博士後，結果確找出這麽烏龍的原因。

[Rainbowfriend]

I have had similar career path, from physics to biology to actuary (giving up wall street in favor of raising children in between). Thinking back on my friends who are still physicists and biologists, I realize that these risky research projects would only be carried out by postdocs and graduate students who are completely reliant on their advisors for their future. If they had any choices, they wouldn't be willing to risk their 5,10,15 years of life on these projects.

But science is a cruel field like that. Without the sacrifice of hundreds/thousands of failure, there'd be no success. It's just that those people who had done the failed experiment shouldn't be considered failures themselves, and should be able to go on and get decent academic jobs.

[名牛]

有幸拜讀了您這個係列的文章，雖然和您所學的學科以及從事的工作完全不是一個領域，還是非常感謝您對於自己事業選擇經驗的一些分享，受用了。