To some extent, the image of a university researcher is not necessarily attractive. For some students, a researcher is an elderly individual with long, disheveled and dirty hair, usually wearing an old pair of glasses worn and deposited on the nose. When the students finish their bachelor's degree and want to continue their study to do a Master’s degree, a PhD and later a Postdoc. Many questions enter their minds like: What is life in a laboratory? What is a scientific article? What is an impact factor? How to choose a good research project? In this article, some ideas will be discussed to help students start their careers in their research fields.
Laboratory research is conducted in a room or building equipped for scientific experimentation or research. A laboratory is where all researchers bring ideas related to the professor’s directions. It allows researchers to have time to explore and share their discoveries with others. We can find participants such as (a director, researchers, technologists, and a secretary). The director of the laboratory is considered to work as a full-time investor. He ensures investments in research will be used for student related work, that results are credible and that the laboratory receives maximum grants and funding sources. A laboratory technician (technologist) is a person who performs the practical works and his mission includes (receiving, processing and analyzing) the data and take care of various types of equipment. The secretary must facilitate administrative tasks for researchers, document procedures, and prepare orders and invoices. Several psychological conditions such as shyness, lack of confidence and the feeble mind of the student remains an obstacle for a new researcher’s integration. The role of the professor is to organize a meeting to present the new researcher, in order to familiarise him with the family mentality in his laboratory. How can we ensure that such research is performed in the laboratory? This requires researchers to work in a collaborative and interactive environment.
Have scientists ever created life in a laboratory? Julie Overbaugh, an HIV researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington mentioned that “success is not necessarily based on the amount of time spent in the laboratory” [1]. Sometime, researchers can generate new ideas during breaks. The professor can discuss with research in the university cafeteria, scientists are more likely to be motivated when they aren't in the office or the laboratory. Today, DIY labs can help research and harness their talents. It helps to perform their projects without the need to be in the laboratory.
What's pushing researchers to work on a particular field in a particular laboratory, to write articles, build new technology and participate to conferences? During his training, a researcher is marked according to standards to reach career goals. The researcher must consider economic measures: the time he needs to invest into a research topic as well as what this research will bring him in terms of articles.
The question arises: How can we choose appropriate scientific journals for our work? The choice depends on the article’s subject and the intended audience. For a beginner researcher, this choice may be limited to some reviews, those of his discipline, usually those in which already publish the members of his laboratory, these journals are known by the supervisor. All journals are not equally famous, it depends on the members of their committee, their value and their orientation. The best journals are classified according to their impact factor calculated by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and published in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR).
To publish in the best journals, the researchers must choose a good scientific problem. According to Alon [2], the choice is based on two basic concepts which are feasibility and interest. The feasibility depends on several factors such as the ability of researchers, the technology and the overall context of environmental work. It encourages scientists to think in quantifiable term of the actual dimension problem and to deeply think about the descriptions of problems and solutions. The feasibility isn't an obvious task, sometimes the scientific problem discussed in laboratories is supposedly easy. The question of the relationship between a scientific problem proposed by teachers in laboratories and the reality (practice) is an epistemological problem. The scientist doesn't need to choose a complex problem to attract the attention of others. Sometimes there are problems which are easy, but they have a great interest in society. Time plays a very important role in the feasibility of scientific problems. Feasibility is related to objectivity in scientific research. It comes to characterize the difference between science and non-science and found the criteria of ''scientificity'' in the logic. The feasibility depends on the way to define reality. Some physicists refuse idealism and enhance the concept of "open realism". For example, Bernard Espagnat offered the metaphor "veiled reality" [3]. In classical physics, each measure is proposed to have an intrinsic quality like mass, location, speed, etc., but in quantum mechanics, it's totally different.
For a successful scientific career, we need certain characteristics to be an excellent scientist. Mediouni [4] discussed the key aspects to be a charismatic scientist which needs some features including: vulgarization, honesty, intuition, and curiosity. First and foremost, for humanity and regardless religion, honesty is a virtue. Science is the one area of social functioning in which truth is the primary value, and truthfulness is the core evaluation. Does this mean that a researcher never lies? Researchers are not earth’s angels. How can the camouflage finish the career of scientists? The reason we subsidize scientists is finding out and telling the truth, just the truth. It is unclear to what extent professors and their students feel properly bound by this duty. To some degree of honesty, scientists must use the results which are published in the journal that have a high level of impact factors. Many examples in 2014, Haruko Obokata, a Japanese young scientist at the heart of a controversy over a falsified discovery in the cellular field, agreed to withdraw its two communications published by the renowned scientific journal Nature. Dr. Naoyuki Nakao is probably considered as being one of the fraudsters researchers in the field of therapeutic. In his article, a treatment is justified using the data that never existed. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2008, 140,000 US patients were treated by the treatment. Removing the articles published by scientists in journals does not limit this scientific camouflage, we must ban the scientific to publish definitely. A scientific result is a matter of life or death, the justification for providing a false result does not add any value to science, the damage is already done. The apology of the scientist is a noble gesture to the scientific community and to humanity. The apology is not a weakness, the example of Dr Matt Taylor when he felt remorse for wearing a ''sexist'' shirt covered in half-naked cartoon women, shows his high morals.
What does it take to get a good discovery? It is curiosity, says Nobel laureate Ahmed Zewail [5]. The discoveries like MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is the result of curiosity about the nature of electrons in semiconductors. Curiosity is one of the vital ingredients which seem to be necessary to make a scientist. Curiosity prepares the brain for better learning, motivate the scientist, and help him to remember what he discovered. A beginner scientist is like a young child trying to discover his field of research. The mentality of infant scientists and young explorers thrive through free propositions and with total confidence to grasp the world.
How does intuition in science allows students to acquire knowledge? In the eye of Max Plak, scientists must have a vivid and intuitive imagination, because new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by an artistically creative imagination. Sometimes scientists can learn by observing others in the laboratory and listening to scholars in the seminars. Nowadays, the majority of science is deductive, but intuition can contribute to analysis inductive. Faced with complex phenomena, scientists must build a new theory from assembling many ideas and experiences. The role of intuition in research is to provide the "educated guess," which may prove to be true or false; but in either case, progress cannot be made without it and even a false guess may lead to progress.
When, the department of computer science sends me a message to speak about my thesis project (orthopeadic simulation in the CAVE), I have a mixed emotions while I am feeling joyful, I am also fearful. Since this is my first experience and it' is not easy. Some questions come to mind: How can I begin my speech? How can I simplify it? How can I summarize my work in a few sentences? According to Peters [6], a scientist is considered as a public communicator. Much research has focused on the possible effects of psychological factors. We need to train scientists to be prepared to interact with the media.
With the complexity and diversity of science, traditional research training becomes increasingly complex. The scientist has a great responsibility to challenge for the future. He will must be able to continue recalling the grateful world. Dr. Taha Hussein when he said in Arabic: ''ويل لطالب العلم إن رضي عن نفسه'' which approximative meaning ''The end will begin, seekers of knowledge become satisfied with their achievement''.

References


[1] QUIRIN SCHIERMEIER. Lab life: Balancing act. Nature, 492, 2012, page 299-300
[2] U. Alon, How to choose a good scientific problem, Molecular Cell 35, pp. 726–728, 2009

[3] B. D’espagnat, Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts. Westview Press, 2003.

[4] Mediouni, M. THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS: IT’S CHARISMATIC. Proceedings International Internet Conference. Volume 16, Number 1, page 73-77., 2014

[5] Ahmed Zewail. Curiouser and curiouser: managing discovery making. Nature, 2010, 468, page 347.

[6] Hans Peter Peters. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20; 110 (Suppl 3): 14102–14109