As I am leaving from a conference, I check out from the hotel, and the receptionist asks me:
“How was your stay?”
I replied: “It was good”,
Right away she asked me:
“Good? What went wrong?”
Now, here is what crossed my mind: Good should be positive, good excludes wrong.
Later, I tried to describe what a good scientist’s work looks like: accurately researching, structuring and reporting data, respecting statistical significance, communicating with precision, carefully drafting content that is current on scientific knowledge.
If limited to a reactive position, we serve information as requested, we never take sides, we stay within reasonable findings, and we adhere to factuality.
We are medical science communicators, we educate, we build relationships. So then, a great educator is more than just a data dumper. It engages, it adds relevancy and makes the content interesting. Do good MSLs diminish themselves to merely data presenters or administrators?
Is good, good enough?
What about:
Good is rarely enough for progress. Most significant realizations come from the great with bold statements as catalysts. Does good lack courage? Great scientists are creative, they discover, they drive the adoption of the new. They paint a new picture, rather than reductive data administration. They are comfortable with being wrong before they are right; this is part of the discovery process. There is no successful chemist who did not fail experiments.
A well-designed educator triggers reader emotions, as emotions shape perception and help fixate information1. People remember great responses rather than lists of accurate responses.
Paul Dirac, in his 1963 Scientific American article, introduces the concept of scientific aesthetics2, where the claim is that great science has a certain elegance, resembling the beauty of art. If a response does not trigger emotions, it can be perceived as ugly or incomplete3. James Watson, another Nobel prize winner, (who proposed the double helix DNA structure back in 1953) in his book called “Avoid boring people: lessons from a life in science”, lays out his proposed lessons for scientific success4. Besides many interesting ideas, he suggests choosing an objective that is ahead of its time, something that makes you feel special.
This is not to encourage irresponsible behaviour, but rather to claim that great success comes from the bold and not from the complacent.
This reminds me of the brand – generic difference. One is new, unique, heavily researched to the best outcome, while the other is a quick and accurate enough copy. Branded medications innovate, while generics are AUC disciplined. Generics cannot deviate too much from the previously approved. One leads, the other follows. If good is only following directions, then it seems to be motivated extrinsically, while great has a drive, with motivation that comes from within. We can be honest with ourselves: What motivates us to do a better than good job?
So then, how do we proactively approach discovery of the great, while MSL positions only allow reactive medical support? Is good reactive, while great is proactive? Can MSLs be great, or should they limit their activity to being good in front of healthcare professionals?
The intent of this article is not to present a best kept secret recipe for MSL greatness, but rather to encourage curiosity and self-assessment, to motivate towards learning, towards thriving to become great, and not to settle for good.
“How was your stay?”
“It was good”
“Good? What went wrong?”
References:
- Zadra JR, Clore GL. Emotion and perception: the role of affective information. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 Nov;2(6):676-685. doi: 10.1002/wcs.147. Epub 2011 Jul 11. PMID: 22039565; PMCID: PMC3203022.
- Mathematical Beauty – Simply Dirac
- The Evolution of the physicist’s Picture of Nature, Paul Dirac, June 25, 2010 – Republished in Scientific American Blogs, Accessed Jan 8, 2024, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/
- Watson, J.D. (2007). Avoid Boring People and Other Lessons from a Life in Science, page 366, ISBN 978-0-375-41284-4.
About the authors:
Alexia Milu
Bachelor of Health Science (Honours)
McMaster University
Alexia is a second year student in McMaster’s Health Sciences program. She is part of her program satire newspaper, The Procrastinator, that tackles big and complex topics within the program through a comedic lens. Alexia is a curious and creative person with a passion for immunobiology. She currently holds a position as an undergraduate researcher in the McMaster Immunology Research Centre. In addition to her studies, Alexia enjoys hobbies one would describe as grandma-like: embroidery, crocheting, sudoku, and cooking are some of her favourites!
Mihai Csaki, MD (restricted), MCATD
Mihai practiced Emergency Medicine in a busy academic hospital In Romania,
held executive positions in Clinical Research, Sales, Marketing, Pharma distribution and Occupational medicine, both in Europe and North America. Mihai also worked in recruitment, career counselling, training and development, commercial and scientific functions, mostly in the pain and oncology-hematology Space.
Mihai co- founded and co-owned several pharmaceutical distribution centers in Romania, a pharmacy, a dental store and co-founded a Romanian pharmacy and medical software company, later acquired by the world leader in life sciences, Cegedim.
For the past 12 years, Mihai helped hundreds of Internationally Educated Healthcare Professionals navigate the complex healthcare landscape for newcomers to Canada. Today, Mihai is a Medical Lead, located in Canada.
Have an opinion on this article? Send a message to the editor.