Interested in joining the Whiteman Lab?
April 2021: Note to prospective students--thank you for your interest. Our lab is currently not accepting new MS or PhD students for several years because we are full! Still, the below might be helpful in some other way, so I will leave it up.
My mentoring philosophy:
I expect mentees to take graduate school seriously and to pursue grant proposals, scholarships and fellowships (see bottom of page for links) that will allow them to focus on their research and take ownership over their dissertation projects. Having deep familiarity with at least one taxon by the time they take their comprehensive exams is ideal (e.g., bacteria, birds, insects, or plants). All lab members are asked to present their research plans and findings at weekly laboratory group meetings and to present at scientific conferences at least once a year. Students will leave the lab with a broad skill set in ecological and evolutionary genomics, population genetics and molecular biology, and will be comfortable working with a variety of organisms, including plants, insects, bacteria and/or birds, depending on the research project that they pursue. We try to go as low and as high as we can, across levels of biological organization, in understanding adaptation, but the interests of the student are what is most important in determining the scope of a project. I also expect students (and all other lab members) to get along with each other and work out their differences together in a constructive way...It is safe to be your authentic self in my lab--we have students, postdocs and researchers from all over the world, from many walks of life, from first-generation, LGBTQA+, liberal, libertarian, religious and agnostic, under-represented minority, urban, rural, etc. We value human diversity in all its forms and value respect for each other as diverse humans above all else.
My mentoring approach is to deeply engage with students but to take cues from them rather than foist my ideas upon them--so I take a laissez-faire approach overall--but I am as involved as students would like me to be in their projects--I usually see students each day, but we might have an in-depth meeting every week to every month. I don't have all of the answers and encourage students to find other mentors inside and outside our graduate program, including international collaborators whenever possible. Six years is a long time to be working with somebody and I get to see remarkable professional growth in all mentees--this is rewarding to me--and they also help me grow as a mentor because I make mistakes too and can always do better, learn and grow. So, I encourage mentees to be honest with me about how I am doing as a mentor and when their needs aren't being met. My goal is to reward them when they are honest about their feelings in this regard by trying to change my side of the equation when it isn't working as well as it might.
The days of students being completely independent in their Ph.D. research (something common 20+ years ago) are over--biology has become extremely collaborative and this is a good thing. Usually in my lab, the first chapter of a student's dissertation is based on a dataset that picks up where somebody else left off. This allows students to get their feet wet before moving onto more intellectually independent research for the rest of their dissertation chapters. This model has worked well so far, but there are challenges, especially because it requires working closely with a more senior colleague who is now doing other things. But, usually it is worth it. It also allows for students to gain a sense of accomplishment relatively early--usually they publish their first chapter sometime by the end of their 4th year. The modern view of the dissertation is that these are papers that should be published as pre-prints and then in the peer-reviewed literature as quickly as possible--few people will read your dissertation--hopefully many will read the pre-print and published papers that are found in it! Most students leave with one or two chapters that are not yet published and they work on getting them published after they leave the lab. This is very difficult because they are ready to move on, they are getting paid to do something exciting and new and they simply don't have the time. But, it is possible and in the end the professional thing to do. My goal, therefore is to push students to submit papers for publication sooner rather than later and to avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Reviewers always find problems (a good thing) and they are often not the ones you thought they would find! In other words, adding that last experiment or dataset is often not as critical as you would think. I am bad at reading the minds of others and my guess is that you are too! Move it forward, get the reviews, etc. Science writing is always iterative until you see it in print in a peer-reviewed journal, and better to iterate with the reviewers' comments rather than a mythical set of comments in one's head! Having said all of this, the peer review process can be demoralizing because it can take a long time to unfold or because your paper might get rejected, but usually I find that it works well in the end--reviewers' comments are almost always helpful in my experience. I do find that some mentees get stuck after cycles of review and revision and find low motivation to push it to the end--this is completely understandable, but on the other hand, there isn't another option, we must persevere to get it in print and this is why publications matter so much. They are difficult to achieve.
An aside on awards (just my personal views, please take with a grain of salt): Be wary of one-off awards or fellowships from scientific societies and private foundations as a source of a sense of accomplishment or as a way to buttress your self-confidence. It is a great idea to apply for ones that come with resources for research though, don't get me wrong. But most awards and fancy foundation fellowships are given to those already with similar awards, who have Ivy League (or similar) degrees, and who find themselves in elite academic networks. I've been on enough of these committees to know. The usual limitation of these awards is that they require nominations (usually not self-nominations), which sometimes results in a tiny pool of nominees or a skewed one that perpetuates the Matthew Effect. I have found that these awards are nice pats on the back, but in terms of substance are flashes in the pan usually. They matter far less than peer-reviewed publications and grants, and aren't necessary for having a successful career, despite what you may think. For example, I have never won a single society or foundation award as a grad student, postdoc, or professor except one involving student presentations at meetings. I have been elected as a fellow at three scientific societies/institutes, but this is a bit different. All of my major fellowships were from my institutions or from federal agencies, and I would recommend that you focus your effort there.
The biggest mistake you can make is to tie your self-worth to the opinions of others when it comes to awards and fellowships but it is very hard not to do this. Fight it. This is different that not caring about the opinions of others in science, I'm not saying that at all, especially when it comes to your research (we should care a lot about that because that is the essence of modern science). Awards and fellowships do help people advance their careers, there is no doubt, but they are neither necessary or sufficient for achieving most career goals associated with the Ph.D. Publications and grants are what really matter in the end because this speaks to the quality of your peer reviewed work and the quality of your ideas.
I encourage applications from self-motivated, creative and enthusiastic individuals who have a passion for ecology, evolutionary biology and molecular biology/biochemistry at the nexus of the former two fields. I take an active role in mentoring students but expect students to develop their own research projects and I look for students with whom I can collaborate; I look for future colleagues. Prospective graduate students should examine the Integrative Biology, Molecular & Cell Biology, Center for Computational Biology, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and Graduate Group in Microbiology websites.
My perspective on training future biologists is encapsulated by what Professor Doug Futuyma (Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at SUNY-Stony Brook) called a "scientific naturalist" approach in his address to the American Society of Naturalists [Futuyma, D.J. (1998) Wherefore and Whither the Naturalist. Am. Nat. 151, 1-6]: "I think of a scientific naturalist as a person with a deep and broad familiarity with one or more groups of organisms or ecological communities, who can draw on her knowledge of systematics, distribution, life histories, behavior, and perhaps physiology and morphology to inspire ideas, to evaluate hypotheses, to intelligently design research with an awareness of organisms' special peculiarities. Even more, perhaps, he is the person who is inexhaustibly fascinated by biological diversity, and who does not view organisms merely as models, or vehicles for theory but, rather, as the raison d'etre for biological investigation, as the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, that excites our admiration and our desire for knowledge, understanding, and preservation."
If interested in applying, please send me your resume or CV, a statement of research interests, undergraduate and graduate GPA, undergraduate major, and the names of two or three individuals who can evaluate your potential as a research scientist. Note that I am *not* supportive of using GRE scores to determine admission into graduate school or for any other purpose, including for fellowships and scholarships, because they are *not* helpful as predicting success in science and in fact, using these scores may bias admissions decisions: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a. However, there are cases where they might be useful additions to your file, especially if you had a rough go of it academically for whatever reason.
Although I have a nuanced view of awards, fellowships that you can apply to are a different story. Obtaining an outside fellowship is the most ideal way in which to fund your graduate and postdoctoral research, because these usually provide one with a stipend and research expense allowance.
Here are some potential funding avenues:
My mentoring philosophy:
I expect mentees to take graduate school seriously and to pursue grant proposals, scholarships and fellowships (see bottom of page for links) that will allow them to focus on their research and take ownership over their dissertation projects. Having deep familiarity with at least one taxon by the time they take their comprehensive exams is ideal (e.g., bacteria, birds, insects, or plants). All lab members are asked to present their research plans and findings at weekly laboratory group meetings and to present at scientific conferences at least once a year. Students will leave the lab with a broad skill set in ecological and evolutionary genomics, population genetics and molecular biology, and will be comfortable working with a variety of organisms, including plants, insects, bacteria and/or birds, depending on the research project that they pursue. We try to go as low and as high as we can, across levels of biological organization, in understanding adaptation, but the interests of the student are what is most important in determining the scope of a project. I also expect students (and all other lab members) to get along with each other and work out their differences together in a constructive way...It is safe to be your authentic self in my lab--we have students, postdocs and researchers from all over the world, from many walks of life, from first-generation, LGBTQA+, liberal, libertarian, religious and agnostic, under-represented minority, urban, rural, etc. We value human diversity in all its forms and value respect for each other as diverse humans above all else.
My mentoring approach is to deeply engage with students but to take cues from them rather than foist my ideas upon them--so I take a laissez-faire approach overall--but I am as involved as students would like me to be in their projects--I usually see students each day, but we might have an in-depth meeting every week to every month. I don't have all of the answers and encourage students to find other mentors inside and outside our graduate program, including international collaborators whenever possible. Six years is a long time to be working with somebody and I get to see remarkable professional growth in all mentees--this is rewarding to me--and they also help me grow as a mentor because I make mistakes too and can always do better, learn and grow. So, I encourage mentees to be honest with me about how I am doing as a mentor and when their needs aren't being met. My goal is to reward them when they are honest about their feelings in this regard by trying to change my side of the equation when it isn't working as well as it might.
The days of students being completely independent in their Ph.D. research (something common 20+ years ago) are over--biology has become extremely collaborative and this is a good thing. Usually in my lab, the first chapter of a student's dissertation is based on a dataset that picks up where somebody else left off. This allows students to get their feet wet before moving onto more intellectually independent research for the rest of their dissertation chapters. This model has worked well so far, but there are challenges, especially because it requires working closely with a more senior colleague who is now doing other things. But, usually it is worth it. It also allows for students to gain a sense of accomplishment relatively early--usually they publish their first chapter sometime by the end of their 4th year. The modern view of the dissertation is that these are papers that should be published as pre-prints and then in the peer-reviewed literature as quickly as possible--few people will read your dissertation--hopefully many will read the pre-print and published papers that are found in it! Most students leave with one or two chapters that are not yet published and they work on getting them published after they leave the lab. This is very difficult because they are ready to move on, they are getting paid to do something exciting and new and they simply don't have the time. But, it is possible and in the end the professional thing to do. My goal, therefore is to push students to submit papers for publication sooner rather than later and to avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Reviewers always find problems (a good thing) and they are often not the ones you thought they would find! In other words, adding that last experiment or dataset is often not as critical as you would think. I am bad at reading the minds of others and my guess is that you are too! Move it forward, get the reviews, etc. Science writing is always iterative until you see it in print in a peer-reviewed journal, and better to iterate with the reviewers' comments rather than a mythical set of comments in one's head! Having said all of this, the peer review process can be demoralizing because it can take a long time to unfold or because your paper might get rejected, but usually I find that it works well in the end--reviewers' comments are almost always helpful in my experience. I do find that some mentees get stuck after cycles of review and revision and find low motivation to push it to the end--this is completely understandable, but on the other hand, there isn't another option, we must persevere to get it in print and this is why publications matter so much. They are difficult to achieve.
An aside on awards (just my personal views, please take with a grain of salt): Be wary of one-off awards or fellowships from scientific societies and private foundations as a source of a sense of accomplishment or as a way to buttress your self-confidence. It is a great idea to apply for ones that come with resources for research though, don't get me wrong. But most awards and fancy foundation fellowships are given to those already with similar awards, who have Ivy League (or similar) degrees, and who find themselves in elite academic networks. I've been on enough of these committees to know. The usual limitation of these awards is that they require nominations (usually not self-nominations), which sometimes results in a tiny pool of nominees or a skewed one that perpetuates the Matthew Effect. I have found that these awards are nice pats on the back, but in terms of substance are flashes in the pan usually. They matter far less than peer-reviewed publications and grants, and aren't necessary for having a successful career, despite what you may think. For example, I have never won a single society or foundation award as a grad student, postdoc, or professor except one involving student presentations at meetings. I have been elected as a fellow at three scientific societies/institutes, but this is a bit different. All of my major fellowships were from my institutions or from federal agencies, and I would recommend that you focus your effort there.
The biggest mistake you can make is to tie your self-worth to the opinions of others when it comes to awards and fellowships but it is very hard not to do this. Fight it. This is different that not caring about the opinions of others in science, I'm not saying that at all, especially when it comes to your research (we should care a lot about that because that is the essence of modern science). Awards and fellowships do help people advance their careers, there is no doubt, but they are neither necessary or sufficient for achieving most career goals associated with the Ph.D. Publications and grants are what really matter in the end because this speaks to the quality of your peer reviewed work and the quality of your ideas.
I encourage applications from self-motivated, creative and enthusiastic individuals who have a passion for ecology, evolutionary biology and molecular biology/biochemistry at the nexus of the former two fields. I take an active role in mentoring students but expect students to develop their own research projects and I look for students with whom I can collaborate; I look for future colleagues. Prospective graduate students should examine the Integrative Biology, Molecular & Cell Biology, Center for Computational Biology, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and Graduate Group in Microbiology websites.
My perspective on training future biologists is encapsulated by what Professor Doug Futuyma (Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at SUNY-Stony Brook) called a "scientific naturalist" approach in his address to the American Society of Naturalists [Futuyma, D.J. (1998) Wherefore and Whither the Naturalist. Am. Nat. 151, 1-6]: "I think of a scientific naturalist as a person with a deep and broad familiarity with one or more groups of organisms or ecological communities, who can draw on her knowledge of systematics, distribution, life histories, behavior, and perhaps physiology and morphology to inspire ideas, to evaluate hypotheses, to intelligently design research with an awareness of organisms' special peculiarities. Even more, perhaps, he is the person who is inexhaustibly fascinated by biological diversity, and who does not view organisms merely as models, or vehicles for theory but, rather, as the raison d'etre for biological investigation, as the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, that excites our admiration and our desire for knowledge, understanding, and preservation."
If interested in applying, please send me your resume or CV, a statement of research interests, undergraduate and graduate GPA, undergraduate major, and the names of two or three individuals who can evaluate your potential as a research scientist. Note that I am *not* supportive of using GRE scores to determine admission into graduate school or for any other purpose, including for fellowships and scholarships, because they are *not* helpful as predicting success in science and in fact, using these scores may bias admissions decisions: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a. However, there are cases where they might be useful additions to your file, especially if you had a rough go of it academically for whatever reason.
Although I have a nuanced view of awards, fellowships that you can apply to are a different story. Obtaining an outside fellowship is the most ideal way in which to fund your graduate and postdoctoral research, because these usually provide one with a stipend and research expense allowance.
Here are some potential funding avenues:
- Graduate:
- NSF Graduate Fellowships
- NSF Minority Graduate Fellowships
- National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (DOD)
- EPA STAR Fellowship
- American Association of University Women
- Hertz Foundation
- Ford Foundation (for minorities, dissertation fellowship and predoctoral fellowship available)
- NIH F Awards
- Postdoctoral:
- NSF - Postdoctoral Fellowships in Biology
- NSF - Postdoctoral Fellowships in Polar Regions Research
- NSF -Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biological Informatics
- NSF - Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowships
- USDA Postdoctoral Fellowships
- Marie Curie Fellowships
- Life Sciences Research Foundation
- NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program
- NIH K Awards
- Fulbright Scholar Program
- Human Frontier Science Program
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
- National Science and Engineering Council Canada (NSERC)
- BARD - The U.S./Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund