Future
F is now in the US. We chat with each other every day through Skype. He tells me a lot about HY's lab there. 1. Students work from 8/9 am to 5/6 pm. There are no people in the lab at night or on weekends. 2. jsx and zf are assigned to teach him the basic technology in their lab. And jsx works on DNA Computing (?). 3. Most of students in the HY lab are from China so that they speak Chinese most of the time. 4. Every student in the HY lab has his own refrigerator and a pair of pipette. 5. Fan does not need to do rotations or TA. HY's lab may have a lot of differences compared with A's. And every time F tells me about the HY lab, I really admire him and feel worried and confused about my own future.
Here I want to list part of the emails I got last year and I hope I can get courage every time I see them.
From SW S. Feb 4th, 2013.
DNA nanotechnology is an interdisciplinary subject that combines many different areas of research such as bioengineering, chemistry, computer science, control theory, and many more. However, it is not expected in general that you necessarily have a strong background in all of those subjects (which would be very difficult if you're not E). In fact, many researchers in the field are initially expert at only one or two of those areas and only later develop other skills as they collaborate and communicate with other researchers with different skill sets.
The goal of DNA computing is very different from that of traditional computer science, and thus knowledge in programming languages like C++ won't necessarily be a huge plus. Rather, what is required of a researcher in DNA computing is the ability to think abstractly about concepts in computation such as algorithm, correctness, complexity, etc. (And often even that is not necessary.) If by any chance you were introduced to the field by my thesis, I'm afraid that it may give a very inaccurate impression about the field, because I approached the field in a purely CS way as that was the only thing that I knew how to do when I started in E's lab. Since you say you are in chemistry, I presume that you are interested in experimental aspect of the field also. Thus I would suggest that you read a few other recent experimental papers from the group and understand what they are trying to achieve. You will realize that the problems that people are currently studying do not require heavy background in computer science.”
From XC. Nov 1st, 2013.
I think we can conclude our first round of Q&A regarding motivation and philosophy of research. You did a great job! You defended yourself exceptionally well.
My true purpose was to see whether you truly love science, or simply love the publications. I asked this because graduate school in science is only for those who truly love science, and I'm convinced you are one of them.
From XC. Nov 8th, 2013.
I don't believe in any numbers (IF, H-Index, etc). I form my own judgement based on his/her papers and talks.
From Da. Nov 15th, 2013.
It was great to talk to you. I think it's perfectly reasonable at your stage in life to not know exactly what drives you and what your ideal career would be— I certainly didn't. It's a good time to starting thinking though, and at some point (around when you get your Ph.D.) you will need to make a choice.
From E. Jan 9th, 2014.
I think the Bioengineering admissions committee is meeting this week to make their initial decisions. I have heard that your application has been examined and made it to the short list being considered more carefully, but as you know Caltech is very competitive so I can't make any prediction at this time as to who will be selected in the final round. Best of luck to you, though. Regardless of the outcome, it's an achievement to have made it this far through the process.
From L. Jan 9th, 2014.
I looked over your application, and I am impressed, mostly because of your personal statement and Dr. Xia's letter. I’ve let the admissions committee know that I’d like to interview you. Let’s hope for the good news.
From HY. Jan 29th, 2014.
Good and valid questions. Sure, the field is inspired by mother nature's beauty of complex structures and networks, but we are also aiming to develop enabling technology that can be useful. Several emerging applications has started to show promises. For example, I have learned (not published yet) that people have been able to use DNA origami nano scaffolds to template proteins and use Cryo-EM to solve protein structures to close to 3 Angstrom resolutions. This is exciting as DNA templating will one day be used widely by scientists to solve protein structures, a dream come true after 30 years of DNA nanotechnology research. Another exciting application we are pursuing is to use DNA origami chips for single cell analysis of immunoreceptor diversity without single cell sorting (work in progress). This could, like PCR, revolutionize the field of immunology and cell stem cell research. DNA computing is different from the old days, people are spinning out companies using strand displacement techniques for in vitro and in vivo diagnosis. I personally see lots of exciting utility of DNA nanotechnology in biology and medicine. These examples are only a few representative ones. The key thing is that DNA nanotechnology and DNA computing, different from nano particle or carbon nanotube research, is intellectually inspiring due to the nature of the research which is bio-inspired and information driven.
Of course, many research does not need to have immediate applications and it is totally driven by curiosity. For example, why do we need to spend so much time to send robots to Mars, why do we care about Mars as we will never be able to live there. The principles we learned from one field and research can potentially not only lead to future development of other technology but also impact people's thinking.
From E. Jan 29th, 2014.
My fundamental belief is that it is seldom a waste to expand the frontier of human knowledge and to seek deep beauty and deep understanding. I think much of the greatness we see in human history was achieved by seekers of beauty and understanding. I have no claim to greatness, but I am driven by a similar urge.
I have little interest in applications. They are, in my opinion, a side effect of knowing the universe better. The symptom, not the cause.
There is much written on this topic. You would do well to read it. One example — which comes to mind because I was originally trained as a mathematician — is William Hardy's “A Mathematician's Apology”. The same concepts and values can, I think, be applied to all areas of science.
That said, DNA nanotechnology is beginning to have applications. Look at the work of A at UT, PY and WS at Harvard, Da at Rice. I can't say when or where these embryonic technologies will have commercial value, but it does appear that a lot of things are growing.
From P. Feb 16th, 2014.
I actually tried very hard to schedule with you, especially since L specifically asked me to. But the administrators did not connect me with you through email, I should have just done that first. Tomorrow, the 16th of February is fine. Would it be possible to meet at Moore Laboratories (where you met with E) at 12:00 (noon)? Since you do not have a key I will be outside. If there is some difficulty you can call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. We could, if you desire, get lunch. If noon tomorrow is not good, then please suggest an alternative time on the 16th, my schedule is fairly flexible.
From E. Feb 25th, 2014.
It is a hard choice every year, because we always invite a very talented group of students. It was a privilege to meet you, and I am confident you will have a successful start to your research career elsewhere. Also, you are right that often students who aren't accepted for graduate school later come back to Caltech as postdocs or even faculty members. Myself, I was rejected when I applied to do my undergraduate at Caltech.
From L. Feb 25th, 2014.
I think it was a good decision to invite you. I saw your potential in becoming a good researcher in our field. All of us did. But we also agreed that Caltech may not be the best place for you. I know that you are willing to learn math and computer science, but it is obvious that your strength is in chemistry and your interests relate to biological applications. Working with me would probably not allow you to use your full strength and satisfy all your interests. I personally think that you would be a good match with A or Da. I hope your visits to their labs went well.
From HB.
Duke is a premier research institute. The research environment is the best one that I have ever experienced yet. I'm majoring in Computer Science and I get to work in wet labs. Prof. R has his own wet lab plus all the shared facilities at Duke. That means all the high-tech equipment (e.g., TEM, AFM, cleanroom, laser setups, UV-Vis, fluorometer, etc.) that are necessary to carry out an experiment can be used by graduate students. In the R's lab, everyone gets to interact with the professor on the regular basis via group meeting and one-on-one meeting. I'm so fortunate to be mentored and advised by Prof. R. He is well-known in the DNA nanotechnology field for his innovative approaches and creativities. I believe his insight is incredibly vital to future research directions. Prof. R research is highly interdisciplinary so I do get to interact with other professors from Duke Pratt School of Engineering, Department of Physics, Department of Chemistry, etc. All I can think of now is that I've made the right decision to go to Duke and I'm so grateful for what I'm researching right now under the guidance of Prof. R.
Students are free and encouraged to come up with their own creative ideas. Prof. R would provide guidance and point to a right direction. It's a feedback loop process. The ultimate goal is that upon your graduation, you will master and be an expert in your research area. In general, Duke Computer Science professors do not impose or assign projects to students. It's all about student initiative.
I'm glad that you have set your future goal to be faculty. All I have to say is that students graduated from Prof. R went on to do postdoc at great places (i.e. PY at Caltech, ShP at Caltech, N at Harvard) and now faculty at great places (i.e. PY at Harvard, ShP at Sungkyunkwan University). Other went to industry like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. (which I know you are not too keen about). HY was his postdoc and now a professor at ASU. These examples indicate that a faculty position is not uncommon from Prof. R's students.
Again, I would like to congrats you to make to the Duke CS admitted list. Every year the admission process is getting tougher and tougher and only a very small selective group gets to be chosen to study at Duke. Please take your time to make your decision and I hope to see you in the upcoming Fall 2014.
C++ is not the requirement to be a computer scientist. In general, as long as you would be able to implement a function using any programming languages should be a good starting point. Learning Python is also a good starting point. The qualification exams are required however you could take qualification courses in the replacement of the qualification exams. In addition, you can take or audit undergraduate computer science courses for additional background plus if you think you learn better in the traditional way (i.e. classroom and whiteboard).
Although your background is in chemistry, you have demonstrated your competence level at learning something new and being good at it via your chemistry degree. I don't think you would have to worry too much about courses/qualification exams given that you are a smart and hardworking individual. Plus our group and Prof. R have done these computer science materials in the past, so we could be there to assist you.
If you would like to leave a comment, feel free to contact me at Mastodon @bios@moresci.sale