Hi,

I am a UK Ph.D student in the final 4 months of my funding. My Ph.D has been a bit of a disaster. I have built a genetic circuit in yeast that had fundamental design flaws (homologous recombination, untested component parts, multiple interacting promoters and repressors with no characterization) that my supervisor would not change despite protest from myself and numerous post docs. I managed to get this built, but the assays are also flawed (antibodies don't work for western blot (or exist), banned from using qPCR because it's "not reliable", banned from high throughput assays with gfp because of inter-department feud) and some initial luciferase expression data looks like the whole circuit isn't working anyway. The project also contains a modelling component that has struggled to progress due to my biological background and no access to computer science expertise or training. I also presented models of my system which I was told to stop working on due to lack of scientific value, which later got published in Cell and PNAS by other groups. My supervisor also actively blocks any of his staff from publishing any of their work too, so publication strategy has been non-existent (no publications from anybody for over 5 years).

So I have plenty of theoretical understanding of my field and lots to write about in terms of how the project should have been done, but as I stand now I have no results.

Is it possible to write a thesis based on how the study should have gone and justify any of this with being forced into the direction it went? Will I be examined purely on the results I have generated and publications I have produced?

thanks for any assistance.

This sounds like an horrific display of supervision from your so called supervisor. Unfortunately I can't see how you would be able to get a PhD from what you've stated here. To gain a PhD you need to essentially find out/come up with something new, even just a small advance. I'm not sure that you can claim to have done that, maybe someone with more knowledge of biology than I will be able to give a happier prognosis.

As it is it sounds like you have a real case to take forward with your university regarding your supervisor. Not letting you publish and refusing to change track when everyone else in the team says it's the wrong method sounds incredibly pig headed and ignorant - not the kind of open minded approach required for science. If he has been blocking staff from publishing then he is not only hurting their careers but also bringing down the research reputation of the university (which is measured on publications) which will in turn lead to less money for the uni. His department head should be outraged.

Obviously you need to be very careful if you do make a complaint. Supervisors obviously wield more power than post grads, perhaps someone else on here who may have been in a similar situation can give advice on this count?

Basically, assuming that all you have said is true I'm not sure that you can make a PhD thesis out of your work and you may have to have serious words with your university.

I hope I'm wrong.

Thanks for your reply. I was hoping that I could somehow demonstrate a good scientific rationale in the way I had gone about attempting what I had done, even though the underlying approach was flawed. Some people have told me that data is not important, it's the justification of the research time, but others have told me it's just down to what you achieved.

My supervisor has recently jumped ship to another University after a new dean level administrator was about to investigate the progress of the faculty and they were about to be called into question. I was forced to move to continue my PhD, where unfortunately this person now answers to nobody. This has also happened to my colleagues where their PI's flip faculties and schools to avoid reprimand.

I will continue for the next few months and attempt to gather any data I can, and then face whatever comes.

Hi Micronaut, I must admit I'm not really sure exactly what the focus of your work is on, so I can only advise from my 'social sciences' perspectives. Anyhow, I think you must get advise from others in your university, or even other experts in your field outside your uni. Have you not got a second supervisor, for example? My view would be that it is not a lost cause and you may be able to get something from this process. Unless your PhD is 'by publication' which most are not, then it is not necessary to have produced publications during the PhD process, though your work and writing should show the *potential* to do so. I had no publications (and none yet!) but I passed my Viva no problem. On the results side of thing, yes of course it is important to find things. Do you have time to run another experiment? Can you collaborate with another research institution outside? Can you get an extension on the time needed for submission? If no, then you must be prepared to show in great detail what you wanted to find and why you think you did not get the results you were looking for. The PhD process, in my opinion, is more about showing you're an independent researcher/academic and less about the minutiae of results... That said, of course I know nothing of your field and you must go and discuss this asap with somebody who can help.

I was talking about something similar with my supervision team at a conference last weekend. There was a presentation of a not very impressive study (methodologically weak) that was from the thesis that had been recently successfully defended at viva.

It was explained that if a thesis demonstrated an in depth knowledge of the study, what was going on round it and how it fitted into the existing literature then it could be acceptable. Just as a fantastic study well designed and with good results but which was poorly described and discussed and with little insight into how it related with existing science could mean a fail. In an ideal world of course we would all have a bit of each.

I would suspect that if you could put your trials into a solid context and describe why they may have failed, and if you are able to rescue a snippet of something new from them or conduct a small trial so you can say something new you would be in a more positive position.

However you absolutely need advice from someone who both knows your area of work and understands the PhD process.

Dafydd

======= Date Modified 13 Jul 2011 11:13:45 =======
======= Date Modified 13 Jul 2011 11:12:56 =======
Thanks for the replies. I'll continue to try and get some data (any data) to justify the thesis submission. I've spoken with the University student services but they don't really want to get involved. It's all damage limitation as far as they're concerned, especially with the current press attention around student fees. I am seeking legal advice at the moment but as a student I exist in a kind of limbo state from any kind of employment law or rights. My supervisor already has a string of existing cases against them however, so I will add mine to the pile. In terms of publications it is indeed damaging to the university and the faculty, but as this person is now heading the faculty they answer to nobody, and we were told in a lab meeting last year "I have my career already. You need me more than I need you" so there's not much room for negotiation.

I guess it's been an experience whatever the outcome, and I hope to at least have transferrable skills I can use to ensure I never put myself in this position again. I hope somebody somewhere can one day clean up the mess that academia is getting into, and prevent the unnecessary stress and career damage that Ph.D training can bring.

Hi Micronaut,

just to say that I empathise with you. I can only imagine how difficult this situation might be. I cannot offer any practical advice, apart from wrap it up as good as possible and focus more on the things that actually worked. I don't think that (although true) the excuse ' My supervisor made me do it!' can work.

And this bit that he doesn't need you, would have been my defence in court after I had murdered him.