Prospective PhD students might not fully grasp the importance of selecting the right host lab and could find themselves in the wrong lab or institutional setting. Being aware of potential red flags is crucial. Here are some issues I’ve witnessed over the years.
Hyper-competitive environment
While a certain degree of competition can be stimulating, overly competitive labs where students do not support one another can hinder personal and collective growth. There are instances where new students are relegated to supporting roles, mainly aiding in the research and thesis work of others, which can stifle their own academic development. Hyper-competitive labs where collaboration and communication are lacking can lead to a sense of isolation, which is particularly detrimental as science thrives on intellectual exchange and teamwork.
Sink or swim supervision
In the challenging journey of a PhD, an engaged supervisor is crucial. PhD students with absent supervisors face a “sink or swim” situation, lacking critical guidance and support. Without regular feedback, mentorship, and academic engagement, students may feel isolated and overwhelmed, struggling to advance their projects or integrate into the broader academic community.
Lack of transparency
Some labs and institutions practice top-down decision-making without clarity or justification, undermining a culture of respect. Students might find themselves following inexplicable directives, such as a PI who instructs not to present any experiments until they are replicated three times. A lack of transparency can lead to misunderstandings, misaligned expectations, and a lack of trust between students and supervisors.
Lack of work-life balance
Labs that expect students to work incessantly, including nights and weekends, without recognizing the need for downtime, can lead to burnout and mental health issues. A caring PI demands dedication and intellectual engagement but also helps the student identify their optimal work-life balance.
PI rewards “Deliveroo” students
In some labs, the culture fosters a dynamic where students who produce desired results are favored, regardless of quality of the work or even research integrity. If you find yourself in such an environment, seek a healthier academic setting as soon as you can.
Publication expectations
It’s concerning if a lab does not anticipate students to publish, especially as first authors. Some PIs consolidate data from several PhD students before considering publication. This approach can demotivate students and leave them feeling exploited rather than mentored. PhD students from such labs will be at a disadvantage compared to students who publish their work.
Questionable authorship decisions
While authorship norms can vary, fairness is paramount. Be wary of PIs who allocate authorship based on internal politics, nepotism, or whims, undermining meritocracy and ethical standards. When students contributions to publications are overlooked or undervalued, morale and motivation will be affected.
Reluctance to preprint
Despite the growing acceptance of preprints in the scientific community, some PIs remain sceptical. For early-career researchers, preprints can significantly enhance their visibility and career prospects, contrasting with the established norms some PIs still cling to. A couple of preprints on your CV may very well end up making the difference in whether you get the fellowship or job.
OPS (Obsessive Publishing Syndrome)
Be cautious of academic environments dominated by the relentless pursuit of “high-impact” publications at any cost. Look for more balanced settings where contributions to academia, community service, and broader societal engagement are valued. These are generally nurturing environments that foster personal and academic growth compared to those that suffer from OPS (Obsessive Publishing Syndrome).
PI’s indifference to your career
A supportive PI should take an interest in your career aspirations. Lack of guidance or interest in your future, exemplified by a PI who neglects to engage in career discussions or even to show feigned interest in their student’s prospects, can be detrimental. There are PhD supervisors who have never engaged in career discussions with their students. There is this one PI who neglected to attend their student’s viva or to follow up with a call or message afterward. At a minimum, students should anticipate a basic level of empathy from their supervisors.
History of questionable integrity
The reputation of a lab matters. Engaging with a group known for dubious practices risks your work’s credibility and your future in the field. Would you want to publish a bad or worse fake paper? Would you want to be party to the next scandal?
To conclude…
Being aware of these potential pitfalls can help you make informed decisions about your PhD journey, aiming for a nurturing and ethically sound research environment.
Note to PIs: Addressing the issues above and fostering an inclusive, supportive, and respectful environment is essential for the success and well-being of your PhD students.
Acknowledgements
I’m thankful to the students and supervisors who inpsired this post. I’m grateful to Saskia Hogenhout and Stephen Bornemann for their input and critical suggestions. The article was written with assistance from ChatGPT.
This article is available on a CC-BY license via Zenodo.
Cite as: Kamoun, S. (2024) What’s a toxic environment for a PhD student?. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10732659
Suggested readings
11 tips for choosing the right PhD
https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-opinion/11-tips-for-choosing-the-right-phd-for-your-career
Four timeless principles of success.
Even in a great orchestra, you will only hear the bad player.
Time management for academics.
