Learning to handle failure is just part of scientific life, wrote Eileen Parkes.
"Good science can require a leap in the dark — and that leap might not be made if we’re too afraid to fail."
Life as we know it, is a journey of trials and errors filled with many failures and successes. It is in this context, I argue that failure is also something that all entrepreneurs, as well as for intrapreneurs, experience from the day we kickstarted our venture to the day we are to retire. According to the Harvard Business Review, 75% of startups fail. This is a staggering high failure rate.
Therefore in order to effectively embrace failure, I would like to suggest a radical approach for most of us early-stage founders to consider… that is to conceive our startups as failure until proven successful through a validated product-market fit.
Why would we do that? Well, I truly believe with such realization, we will be able to face failure better during our process of experimentation and market validation in achieving our business’ product-market fit.
However, please do not misunderstand me for advocating us all to fail. Reason being, I believe that if we plan to fail, we inevitably and unconsciously will. Rather, I am merely suggesting that while we all plan and strive to achieve success, we remain an open mind and heart towards embracing failure. In this manner, I believe that it will enable us to be bold in testing our craziest ideas and will not be afraid in letting our imagination go wild.
Therefore, I am recommending you to read Eileen Parkes' article, 'Scientific progress is built on failure', as she shared about her experience and perspective on failure in her scientific career. I suppose that most of us can also relate to failure in a similar fashion as we have experienced failure at some point of our lives, no?
(Two cents’ worth from Paul at Flipidea)
When I moved from medicine into research, the biggest shock to me was failure. I had spent years going home fairly satisfied at the end of the day — a clinic had been completed, treatments prescribed, patients reviewed. Now, I could do weeks of work and yet see no tangible success. I moved into research thinking that this was where the real progress would be made — where I could make a difference. But at times, looking at the most-recent in a long and time-consuming line of failed experiments, I was not so sure.
Failure is something that all scientists experience — but it is hard to tell, looking at our shiny conferences, polished presentations and glossy journals. Yet the whole point of science is that it is cutting edge. Comfortable science is an oxymoron. If we want to make new discoveries, that means taking a leap in the dark — a leap we might not take if we are too afraid to fail.
During my PhD, I was lucky to be in a group where failure was discussed and resilience encouraged. My supervisor offered opportunities that I often felt were beyond me from early in my PhD. He encouraged me to stretch my limits, to try new techniques and not to take ‘no’ for an answer easily. Others in my group shared how they had coped with setbacks — when I was disappointed in an experiment, a postdoc took me for coffee, and told me she had had nearly the exact same experience, but a failed experiment had eventually formed the basis of a paper. Another postdoc was persistent in encouraging and working with me on a tricky experiment until we got it optimized.
With perspective, I can see that my experiments were not failures. I learnt a lot, including precision and the importance of clean technique. I learnt how to develop alternative approaches — how to make a plan B. Most importantly, I learnt persistence and resilience in the face of discouragement. These are skills I now rely on as an early-career researcher — to try again with a grant application, to summon the courage to contact a potential collaborator, to reformat my rejected manuscript for another journal.
Science is high-stakes. We all fail and experience rejection much more often than we do success. The realization that I’m far from alone in failing has been eye-opening for me. I find I now talk more openly with other postdocs and early-career researchers about the struggles of science, and how to deal so frequently with rejection. That is not to say I don’t still get disgruntled when an experiment does not turn out as I hoped, or that I don’t need to remind myself of the 24-hour rule (giving myself 24 hours to wallow and recover, then moving on) when I absorb the feedback from my rejected grant. But being open about the fact that my grant was described as “underwhelming” takes the sting out of it, prompts others to open up about their rejections (see the Twitter hashtag #GrantReviewGreatestHits for some harsh yet hilarious feedback) and helps me to move on with a touch more grace.
I hope that, when I start my own group and a PhD student sighs at their western blot, I will be able to help. Not just with the technique — I want to be able to share that failure is normal and expected in science. To share that just because an experiment failed, does not mean an individual is a failure. And to share a laugh about the sense of failure until it fades away.
Eileen Parkes is an early-career researcher at Queen’s University Belfast, UK, studying the immune response to DNA damage. Outside the lab, she loves spending time with family & talking about all things science on social media.
Disclaimer: Any information, data and content on our business intelligence platform, web applications or websites are for general information use only. The information and analyses presented on our web applications and websites do not constitute any legal, business, investment or tax advice. Even though certain information are cited from third-party sources while believed to be reliable, Flipidea has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for any given situation. References to any securities or charts or graphs and all materials provided in connection with Flipidea’s web applications or websites are provided strictly on “AS IS” basis, which should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, recommendations, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.
Our proprietary data retrieval systems scan the Internet to monitor, gather and clean relevant, aggregated, and public information from news articles, websites, press releases, regulatory filings, and so on. Flipidea’s idea checker, tools, simulations, intelligence and algorithmic systems are powered by artificial intelligence and advanced analytics using our own proprietary data and synergised public data. Flipidea does not warrant the completeness or accuracy of data provided, so you would need to independently verify the information. Nevertheless, we encourage you to check the accuracy of our information before its use. We also gently advise that you obtain sufficient knowledge, market understanding, professional advice and experience to make your own evaluation of the merits and risks of any actions with the information.
Last edited on 5 January 2022.