On Scientific Input vs. Output Goals

Hey Neurons,

Over the past few weeks, I have been spending a lot of time preparing and writing for the submission of my first larger grant: a Dutch scientific grant called the Rubicon. If you are currently a final-year PhD student in the Netherlands, I would highly encourage you to check it out. I think my chances of getting the grant are quite slim. If you have been following scientific news in the Netherlands, you might know that there have been quite significant budget cuts over the past few years. This means that less funding is available for these grants, and fewer people will be able to receive funding through this scheme. However, this did not deter me from submitting, and who knows, maybe this will be my once-in-a-lifetime golden ticket.

Following this intense period of grant writing, I reflected a lot on output goals (getting the grant, finding a significant result, getting a paper published) and input goals (hours spent writing, time protected for an analysis, etc.). In science, there are many output goals that are almost completely outside of our control. Perhaps the biggest of these is finding a specific result or outcome. We might ask the right questions, do the right experiment, and finish with the perfect analysis. However, there are still multiple factors completely beyond our control that can limit our ability to progress scientific knowledge.

During a PhD, this can be a particularly frustrating experience. Even though you put in the hours and show up every day, your project can seem stagnant. And, to add to this, your colleague might be progressing at an unprecedented rate (aka publishing all their results in the biggest journals). One of the factors that exacerbates this focus on output goals in science is the fact that, as scientists, we are primarily rewarded for our output. For example, we get judged on our H-index, grants received, and number of invited talks. All of these output goals are further reinforced by deeming individuals who are successful within this system as geniuses. This makes it such that those who have early success, or sometimes just a few arbitrary wins, can progress much faster.

However, as a PhD student, you have unique circumstances and research questions that cannot be measured with such simple metrics. Your specific PhD questions might require a few rounds of experiments that cannot be published within one or two years. Or maybe your lab has less funding, meaning you do not have a research assistant or an IT team helping you and thus your research will progress slower. Now that I am a postdoc and have worked in a couple of different labs, I can say with confidence that all of these factors matter a lot when it comes to your seeming success.

Moving from output to input goals

Thus, what I would like to propose this week is a slight mindset shift: from output goals, which are often not in your control, to input goals, which are things that you can control. Input goals can be hours worked, words written, experiments done, etc. Instead of waiting for success from output goals, we can focus on these input goals ourselves and also decide to celebrate them. I have found over the years that moving from output to input goals helps with comparison anxiety and imposter syndrome. It makes tasks more manageable and also allows me to work within my current circumstances.

Translating output to input goals

Translating your output goals into input goals can also be a very helpful exercise. For example, if you want to publish one paper a year, the input goals to make this happen could potentially be spending a certain amount of time each week in the lab working on your experiments, writing a specific number of words, or reading and reviewing a certain number of papers. All of these things can be tracked and measured. When I had to finish the discussion section of my PhD thesis, I religiously tracked the number of words I wrote every day instead of focusing on the overwhelming goal of finishing the PhD. This meant that each day, I had just one small task, write 500 words, as opposed to one immense goal: creating the perfect thesis.

I would also encourage you to share these input goals with fellow team members and during your lab meetings. So instead of saying, “This week I plan on finishing this experiment,” as this may not happen if the experiment fails, for example, you can state, “This week I plan on working on this experiment every morning and writing up the results in the afternoon.” The second goal is much more within your control.

Celebrating input goals

Lastly, something I have also been trying to do is celebrate input goals. For example, when I worked a full week on a grant and submitted it at the end, I took an afternoon off to explore some of London, where I currently live, and visit a musical. I try not to celebrate outcome goals too much — in this case, getting the grant — because even if I do everything I can, the outcome is completely out of my control and is also often dictated by a certain amount of luck. Of course it feels nice when I get a certain outcome goal, but I think as these are already naturally rewarded in our scientific system the one thing we can change is our focus on our own input.

I'm curious, neurons, what you are working on this week and whether you have certain input and output goals? What do you think about the scientific reward system, and during your studies, how did you manage these differences?