10 Simple Rules for a Supportive Lab Environment

Alexandra C. Pike1

, Kathryn E. Atherton2, Yannik Bauer3, Ben M. Crittenden4,

Freek van Ede5

, Sam Hall-McMaster6

, Alexander H. von Lautz7

Paul S. Muhle-Karbe8,13

, Alexandra M. Murray9, Nicholas E. Myers10 ,

Frida Printzlau11,12

Lev Tankelevitch15
Dante Wasmuht17, and MaryAnn P. Noonan13

, Ilenia Salaris13, Eelke Spaak14
, Darinka Trübutschek16 ,

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
J

Ö
C
N
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

3
5
1
4
4
2
0
6
1
2
6
4

/
J

Ö
C
N
_
A
_
0
1
9
2
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Abstrakt

■ The transition to principal investigator (PI), or lab leader, can be
challenging, partially due to the need to fulfil new managerial and
leadership responsibilities. One key aspect of this role, which is often
not explicitly discussed, is creating a supportive lab environment.

Hier, we present ten simple rules to guide the new PI in the devel-
opment of their own positive and thriving lab atmosphere. Diese
rules were written and voted on collaboratively, by the students
and mentees of Professor Mark Stokes, who inspired this piece. ■

EINFÜHRUNG

In academia, there is a constant progression of individuals
into new careers and roles. For many, one of the most chal-
lenging is the transition to principal investigator, or PI, als
this involves undertaking additional leadership and mana-
gerial responsibilities, while simultaneously developing an
independent program of research. Many opinion pieces
about this transition have focused on negotiation, acquir-
ing funding, or teaching (Martin, 2022; Tregoning &
McDermott, 2020; Pain, 2018; McAlpine, 2016; Scheiffele,
2002), but have overlooked one of the most important
aspects of a PI’s new role: creating a supportive and posi-
tive lab environment (although note Madan, 2021;
Chaudhary & Berhe, 2020; Ruben, 2020; Maestre, 2019,
which cover focused topics about the lab environment).
Inspired by Professor Mark Stokes, who modeled these
characteristics and goals in his own lab, Wir, his students
and mentees, attempt to capture here what makes a lab

1University of York, Heslington, England, 2Behavioural Insights
Team, London United Kingdom, 3Ludwig Maximilian University
of Munich Faculty of Biology, Deutschland, 4Babylon Health,
London, Großbritannien, 5Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Der
Niederlande, 6Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development,
Berlin, Deutschland, 7Freie Universität Berlin, Deutschland, 8Univer-
sity of Birmingham, Großbritannien, 9University Medical Cen-
ter Hamburg-Eppendorf, Deutschland, 10University of Nottingham,
Großbritannien, 11Universität von Toronto, Ontario, Kanada,
12University of Toronto Missisauga, Ontario, Kanada, 13Univer-
sity of Oxford, Großbritannien, 14Radboud University, Nijme-
gen, Die Niederlande, 15Microsoft Research Ltd, Cambridge,
Großbritannien, 16Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aes-
thetics, Deutschland, 17Conservation X Labs, Washington, Gleichstrom

not only successful, but also a place for emerging scientists
to thrive.

METHODEN

To reflect the motivation of this piece and model inclusiv-
ität, current and former trainees of the Stokes lab were
asked to submit at least one “rule,” along with a short
description. In Summe, 27 rules were initially submitted by
13 individuals. Related rules were amalgamated during
an editorial preprocessing step before the final 18 war
put to a democratic vote. Co-authors selected their favor-
ite 10 rules, which then underwent further compilation,
Bearbeitung, and revision. The results are presented below,
clustered by theme (not necessarily popularity).

THE TEN RULES

1. Encourage Critique But Not Competition

Discussion of scientific ideas and projects is often critical
to their success. The best laboratories have a culture that
encourages anyone to contribute opinions on an emerg-
ing study via both formal and informal forums. Inquisitive-
ness should be encouraged, particularly asking questions
and contributing without fear of appearing uninformed or
unintelligent. In this process, any feedback given should
be constructive, focused on improving the research, Und
never include personal attacks, “point-scoring,” or demon-
strating intelligence or superiority. There is increasing rec-
ognition that a competitive scientific environment might
have unwanted negative outcomes, including lack of reli-
ability (Tiokhin, Yan, & Morgan, 2021), and that a more

Zeitschrift für kognitive Neurowissenschaften 35:1, S. 44–48
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01928

collaborative environment promotes progress (Fang &
Casadevall, 2015). Letzten Endes, the culture of science overall
is unlikely to be modifiable by a single PI, but within a lab,
members should grow within an environment of mutual
respect, support, and celebration—not competition. Das
includes celebrating all lab members’ successes. The lab
leader should set this tone, both implicitly and explicitly,
von, Zum Beispiel, laying out these expectations in a lab
manual (Aly, 2018).

2. Model “Failure” and Celebrate Honesty
Don’t pretend you never applied for the grant you didn’t
get, and don’t pretend you didn’t submit that paper to six
journals before it was accepted. Being honest about the
academic system and culture allows junior scientists to
have a more realistic understanding of the environment
they are operating in, and makes it less debilitating and iso-
lating when they experience these “failures” for them-
sich selbst (Parkes, 2019). One approach a PI could adopt
would be to share a “failure CV” with trainees (Landauer,
2017; Stefan, 2010), which includes all the rejections
alongside the traditionally noted successes.

Modeling failure also applies to mistakes within day-to-
day research, which are inevitable in the difficult pursuit of
trying to make sense of the world. It could be an EEG cable
that should have been plugged in but wasn’t, or a bug in
the analysis code that invalidates weeks of hard work. A
supportive lab celebrates the moments when people find
mistakes and correct them: moments in which people
act to make their science more accurate, robust, Und
replicable. The same is true when experiments produce
inconclusive results. A supportive lab prioritizes honesty
and integrity above flashy findings.

3. Be Approachable

Allow trainees time and space in meetings to discuss what
matters to them, be that science, work-based issues, oder
future career paths. A lab will run more smoothly if
trainees feel able to disclose problems early: It will be
much easier to pre-emptively readjust timelines and dead-
lines than to reshuffle things after a situation has become
unmanageable. Ähnlich, their career trajectory, welche
you hold in trust, will be facilitated by them knowing they
can ask your unbiased advice and that you are happy to
offer it. As a PI, you’re often best placed to advise your
trainees about job applications, career paths, and inter-
Ansichten. Let trainees know that you’ll offer practical support
by sitting on mock interview panels and reading applica-
tionen, and that if you don’t know the answers you will try
to find someone who does.

The most powerful mentor relationships reflect the
long-term commitment made by a PI. These relationships
do and should persist long after the scientific work has
been completed, and are frequently most impactful at that
Zeit. It’s a sign of a good lab if former trainees reach out to

share some good news or ask for advice 10, sogar 20, Jahre
down the line. Critically, this rule applies even when the
sought advice doesn’t align with the PI’s own career goals:
The best mentors will offer supportive advice, even when
it has no benefit for them, or is actively harmful in the short
Begriff (z.B., a member of the lab wants to leave for a better
opportunity).

4. Facilitate Communication and Ensure There Are
Minimal Barriers to Asking Questions

Communication is critical for a team to work effectively
and efficiently. Trainees will need answers to big as well
as small questions, and it is often easier to ask for direct
help in person rather than over e-mail. What’s more, use-
ful ideas and creative thinking are more likely to arise
over an informal and relaxed conversation or at the coffee
machine than during formal (on-line) meetings or e-mails
(Brucks & Levav, 2022; McAlpine, 2018).

Communication can be optimized in a number of
ways: Erste, by ensuring lab members are physically pres-
ent in the same space at known times/days (if possible,
given pandemics, flexible/at-home working, and/or caring
duties); zweite, through regular meetings with all lab
members, individually and as a group; and finally, by set-
ting up an inclusive on-line team communication plat-
form that works for your needs. When in-person attendance
is not an option, informal communication routes are
invaluable.

Außerdem, communication shouldn’t always be
mediated by the PI. Just as in real life, on good on-line plat-
Formen, everyone should have an equal say, and those with
relevant expertise should feel able to respond as easily as
the PI. This will bind the lab as a team and avoid a many-to-
one relationship between the PI and each lab member.

5. A Supportive Lab Is a Social Lab

A great way to establish yourself as an approachable lab
leader is by holding social events; primates are social ani-
mals after all. These excursions should be relatively regular,
so that they support the formation of a community, Und
could take the form of crazy golf, picnics, drinks, movie
nights, walks, or barbecues.1 Planned events should con-
sider the inclusive needs of the lab members—be these
cultural, religious, or caring responsibilities—so that every-
one can enjoy something. After a while, the lab leader can
(and perhaps should) make a graceful exit, leaving the
socializing to others. This allows lab members the chance
to bond among themselves, thereby increasing available
support beyond what is on offer from the lab leader alone
and facilitating good lab communication. Endlich, the soci-
ality of the lab need not fully depend on the PI, and lab
members should be encouraged to be active in shaping
their social culture.

Pike et al.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
J

Ö
C
N
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

3
5
1
4
4
2
0
6
1
2
6
4

/
J

Ö
C
N
_
A
_
0
1
9
2
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

6. Give Timely (and Constructive) Feedback

Some researchers are naturally good at this, and others
might need to work on it, particularly the timing side.
Oft, even relatively short time delays have an impact
on the careers of those more junior. For someone apply-
ing for a postdoctoral job, or a travel bursary, or a grant,
even a few weeks’ delay to that latest paper might make
all the difference. This is even more critical when there
are hard deadlines, such as for paper revisions, or thesis
submissions. Work with your trainees to identify reason-
able deadlines for you to send feedback (and stick to
ihnen), make sure they are aware of any upcoming leave
or pinch points you have, and ask them to identify as early
as possible anything that may have a tight turnaround.

When delivering your own feedback, don’t neglect
to mention the things that trainees have done well, oder
the progress they’ve made (note that there are many
existing resources on good assessment and feedback,
z.B., Ferrell & Ritter, 2022). Supporting learning and
development is not just about the things that can be
improved on—and motivating those improvements—
but about identifying the areas in which an individual
excels. Endlich, remember that nothing is certain in
Wissenschaft: A trainee’s great work may nonetheless yield
disappointing results. Praise and encouragement are
even more welcome in such cases.

And remember: Feedback is a two-way street. Soliciting
feedback from your trainees will help you develop as a PI,
and you should ensure that your trainees know their
views are welcome.

7. Respect Others’ Time and Expertise

All lab members bring their own expertise to the group,
which can benefit the whole. Respecting every member
of the lab is therefore critical and should not be under-
bewertet. There are two areas that are especially worth keep-
ing in mind: respecting the expertise of trainees and
respecting their time.

It is sometimes easy to dismiss the expertise of those
who might not have your level of career seniority, but all
lab members will bring different skills and experience,
often in areas complementary to your own. Neglecting this
fact can lead to micromanaging, while not trusting lab
members with important tasks will lead to inefficient lab
practices and create resentment. Stattdessen, using these
strengths, and sign-posting support within the lab, Wille
enable problems to be solved more effectively and collab-
oratively. Zusätzlich, if a trainee’s findings or theories dif-
fer from current consensus, consider the fact that they
may be right. Trusting a trainee’s sound logic over estab-
lished thought is risky, but treating previous “established
truths” with a healthy amount of skepticism may be what
leads to scientific progress. Perhaps more importantly,
your support can encourage trainees to think indepen-
dently and trust themselves, as you trust them.

Ähnlich, respecting lab members’ time will ensure each
individual feels valued, as well as facilitating efficient prog-
ress. Don’t be the PI who is constantly running late for
meetings, canceling calls, or expecting others to reorga-
nize their schedules to suit you. If you are occasionally late
to meetings or miss deadlines, you should apologize and
rectify the situation.

8. Have Career Conversations That Cover Both
Academic and Nonacademic Paths, Prioritizing
Individuals’ Career Goals and Aspirations

Many people who begin on an academic path will ulti-
mately pursue careers outside of academia. The narrative
around this is often unhelpful: It can be painted as a
“failure,” or as a suboptimal choice. Although PIs by defi-
nition have chosen to stick it out (for now), das tut nicht
mean everyone else should. Research experience pre-
pares people for a variety of interesting and impactful
careers. Have open conversations that normalize nonaca-
demic careers: Encourage lab members to share their
ideas and plans, and discuss honestly the pros and cons
of each path. Where possible, link trainees with past col-
leagues outside of academia. Signpost trainees to depart-
mental and institutional career support services. And
finally, remember that your best interests may not match
your trainees’—rather than finishing a paper or writing a
gewähren, they may benefit more from additional training
opportunities or internships.

9. Keep Track of, Suggest, and Create (Tailored)
Opportunities for Trainees

Great mentors help trainees identify appropriate opportu-
nities and pursue them, while being mindful that some
groups of people are less likely than others to put them-
selves forward. As trainees are likely to have different
potential career paths, it is important to tailor these
opportunities to their aims and goals. Jedoch, critically,
everyone should be provided with the same level of
Gelegenheiten. We might be unaware of some of the biases
that lead us to give more opportunities or time to some
trainees. Zu diesem Zweck, keep a record of opportunities
provided, like meetings, inclusion in projects or collabo-
rations, conference support, and career support, Und
ensure budgets for trainees’ research, travel, and confer-
ences are equal and not contingent on performance, Kneipe-
lications, or source/quantity of funding. When resources
are scarce, try to prioritize underfunded students with
departmental or institutional support.

10. Be An Advocate

It can be an uncomfortable position to be in, but PIs
may be required to stand up for their trainees. Perhaps
there’s a reimbursement problem, or the trainee is
experiencing inflexibility in an institutional system.

Zeitschrift für kognitive Neurowissenschaften

Volumen 35, Nummer 1

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
J

Ö
C
N
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

3
5
1
4
4
2
0
6
1
2
6
4

/
J

Ö
C
N
_
A
_
0
1
9
2
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perhaps relationships with co-supervisors need navigating
if projects change or disagreements arise—whatever the
issue, it’s important to advocate for the trainee’s needs.
Although no one wants to be seen as a troublemaker in
their institution, it’s important to act as a buffer against
these challenges. Actively trying to solve these problems,
or explaining clearly why you can’t if you know this is not
möglich, will show trainees you are on their side.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It’s incredibly exciting to start a new lab and to have the
privilege of being able to guide and mentor trainees.
Jedoch, it’s a complicated process during which, bei
mal, you will make mistakes and poor decisions. Get-
ting feedback from trainees will help, but you will not
get it right all the time, and should therefore cut yourself
some slack. Most importantly, do not stretch yourself too
thin. Growing a lab too fast too soon means you will be
less able to implement the rules above at the same time as
supporting your own well-being. You now have far
greater financial and management responsibility than
you’re likely to have experienced before. This can feel
überwältigend, particularly given that many new PIs, von
virtue of the typical age at which they are recruited and
the increased financial stability afforded to them, may be
experiencing increased responsibility in other domains
(z.B., caring for elderly relatives or young children, or get-
ting a mortgage and buying a house). It’s only possible to
create a thriving lab if you have more to give than the
mere survival of each academic term. A PI’s ability to
embrace these rules fundamentally depends on being
part of an inclusive and supportive Department and Uni-
Vielseitigkeit. We therefore conclude by proposing a final rule
as an adjunct to the above: If possible, position yourself in
a supportive environment, and make sure you yourself
are also well supported.

Hall-McMaster: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung.
Alexander H. von Lautz: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension
& Bearbeitung. Paul Muhle-Karbe: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension
& Bearbeitung. Alexandra M. Murray: Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Rezension & Bearbeitung. Nicholas Myers: Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Rezension & Bearbeitung. Frida Printzlau: Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Rezension & Bearbeitung. Ilenia Salaris: Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Rezension & Bearbeitung. Eelke Spaak: Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Rezension & Bearbeitung. Lev Tankelevitch: Ressourcen;
Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Darinka Trübutschek:
Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Dante Wasmuht:
Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. MaryAnn P.
Noonan: Konzeptualisierung; Untersuchung; Methodik;
Projektverwaltung; Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension &
Bearbeitung.

Vielfalt in der Zitierpraxis

Retrospektive Analyse der Zitate in jeder Artikelveröffentlichung-
in dieser Zeitschrift aufgeführt von 2010 Zu 2021 offenbart eine hartnäckige
Muster des Ungleichgewichts zwischen den Geschlechtern: Obwohl die Proportionen von
Autorenteams (kategorisiert nach geschätzter Geschlechtsidentität-
Angabe des Erstautors/Letztautors) Veröffentlichung im Jour-
Abschluss in kognitiver Neurowissenschaft (JoCN) während dieser Zeit
waren M(ein)/M = .407, W(Oman)/M = .32, M/W = .115, Und
W/W = .159, the comparable proportions for the articles
that these authorship teams cited were M/M = .549, W/M =
.257, M/W = .109, and W/W = .085 (Postle and Fulvio,
JoCN, 34:1, S. 1-3). Folglich, JoCN encourages all
authors to consider gender balance explicitly when select-
ing which articles to cite and gives them the opportunity to
report their article’s gender citation balance. The authors
of this article report its proportions of citations by gender
category to be as follows: M/M = .412; W/M = .059; M/W =
.118; W/W = .412.

Notiz

Danksagungen

Something Mark in particular excels at.

We would like to thank Professor Mark Stokes for his guidance,
mentorship, and friendship over the years. We are grateful for
the support he gave to us and many others throughout his
Karriere. Thanks are also due to all the other great mentors with
whom we continue to share our love of science.

Reprint requests should be sent to Alexandra C. Pike, Universität
of York, Department of Psychology and York Biomedical
Research Institute, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, oder per E-Mail: alex.pike@york.ac.uk.

Autorenbeiträge

Alexandra C. Pike: Konzeptualisierung; Untersuchung; Meth-
odology; Projektverwaltung; Ressourcen; Schreiben-
Ursprünglicher Entwurf; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Kathryn
Atherton: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Yannik
Bauer: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Ben M.
Crittenden: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Freek
van Ede: Ressourcen; Schreiben – Rezension & Bearbeitung. Sam

VERWEISE

Aly, M. (2018). The key to a happy lab life is in the manual.

Natur, 561, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06167-w,
PubMed: 30185962

Brucks, M. S., & Levav, J. (2022). Virtual communication curbs
creative idea generation. Natur, 605, 108–112. https://doi
.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y, PubMed: 35477754

Chaudhary, V. B., & Berhe, A. A. (2020). Ten simple rules for
building an antiracist lab. PLoS Computational Biology, 16,
e1008210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008210,
PubMed: 33001989

Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: Is
competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83,
1229–1233. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.02939-14, PubMed:
25605760

Ferrell, G., & Ritter, S. (2022). Principles of good assessment
and feedback. Jisc report. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide
/principles-of-good-assessment-and-feedback

Pike et al.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
J

Ö
C
N
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

3
5
1
4
4
2
0
6
1
2
6
4

/
J

Ö
C
N
_
A
_
0
1
9
2
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Landauer, E. (2017). Scientists: Advertise your failures! Scientific
American Blog Network. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com
/observations/scientists-advertise-your-failures/

Madan, C. R. (2021). A brief primer on the PhD supervision
relationship. Europäisches Journal für Neurowissenschaften, 54,
5229–5234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15396, PubMed:
34302319

Maestre, F. T. (2019). Ten simple rules towards healthier research
labs. PLoS Computational Biology, 15, e1006914. https://doi
.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006914, PubMed: 30973866

Martin, A. M. (2022). Jumping the chasm from postdoc to PI.
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 19, 411.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-022-00633-7, PubMed: 35595833
McAlpine, L. (2016). Becoming a PI: From ‘doing’ to ‘managing’
Forschung. Teaching in Higher Education, 21, 49–63. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1110789

McAlpine, K. L. (2018). Flexible work and the effect of informal
communication on idea generation and innovation. Academy
of Management Proceedings, 2018, 15092. https://doi.org/10
.5465/AMBPP.2018.205

Pain, E. (2018). The surprises of starting as a new PI. Wissenschaft.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.aav3101

Parkes, E. (2019). Scientific progress is built on failure. Natur.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00107-y

Ruben, A. (2020). Scientists aren’t trained to mentor. That’s a
Problem. Wissenschaft. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit
.abe5807

Scheiffele, P. (2002). Taking the helm: Becoming a PI in

academia. Trends in den Neurowissenschaften, 25, 538–539. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(02)02226-9

Stefan, M. (2010). A CV of failures. Natur, 468, 467. https://doi

.org/10.1038/nj7322-467a

Tiokhin, L., Yan, M., & Morgan, T. J. H. (2021). Competition for
priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help.
Natur menschliches Verhalten, 5, 857–867. https://doi.org/10
.1038/s41562-020-01040-1, PubMed: 33510392

Tregoning, J. S., & McDermott, J. E. (2020). Ten simple rules to

becoming a principal investigator. PLoS Computational
Biology, 16, e1007448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi
.1007448, PubMed: 32078632

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
J

Ö
C
N
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

3
5
1
4
4
2
0
6
1
2
6
4

/
J

Ö
C
N
_
A
_
0
1
9
2
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Zeitschrift für kognitive Neurowissenschaften

Volumen 35, Nummer 1 10 Simple Rules for a Supportive Lab Environment image

PDF Herunterladen