Bill Sullivan: Uncertainty Before Scientific Success
- Jul 16
- 6 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
Uncertainty is not the enemy of success. In many cases, it’s the price of pursuing something worth doing.
By Joselyn N. Allen, PhD
July 17, 2026
There's a misconception that visible success is a product of intentionality devoid of all doubt or uncertainty — that anyone who takes up the path of science must already know which steps to take, a course set in stone. But is this what makes a successful scientist — passion equally matched by certainty? Reality, time and time again, suggests something different. The scientists who go on to build meaningful careers often share something else: a willingness to face uncertainty, and a support system sturdy enough to help them navigate the many forks in the road that arise when pursuing a career in science.
Bill Sullivan hadn't planned to pursue a PhD. Like many scientists, he never imagined he would become one. He was curious and driven, captivated by how things worked, especially the human body. He wanted to be a medical doctor — a calling that felt noble and purposeful. But an undergraduate anatomy class made one thing clear: he couldn't stomach blood. After being introduced to biomedical research by an advisor, he discovered he could still help people — just not at the bedside.
Yet that clarity didn’t make his path a straight one. During grad school, Bill came close to walking away. After a difficult lab experience, he was ready to leave with a master's degree and call it done. But sometimes, all a journey needs is the right wind in its sails. Encouraged by a professor to try another lab rotation, he found an environment where he felt aligned — backed by mentorship that was supportive, enthusiastic, and genuinely invested in his growth. He noticed something else too: the lab members were productive and happy. That combination crystallized one of his central lessons:
“Gravitate toward people, not projects.”
Nearing the end of his PhD, Bill was plagued with the question of what to do next. Like most trainees, he saw three primary options: academia, industry, or government. With government and academia experience already under his belt (Bill worked in a government virology lab during his college summers), he chose a postdoc fellowship in industry. While his time in industry was enjoyable and fruitful, two things ultimately pulled Bill back to academia. First, his passion for scientific freedom competed against the realities of pharma — large companies were phasing out infectious disease research in favor of the more profitable chronic disease market. Second, Bill’s mentors warned him that the longer he stayed in industry, the harder it would be to transition back.
So, he returned to academia but with sharpened communication skills, and a clear-eyed understanding of how financial pressure shapes research from the inside. The transition wasn't seamless, and Bill faced new challenges related to faculty life — writing grants, teaching, and stretching limited resources.
Collectively, Bill’s career was never a straight line — it was a series of forks in the road and uncertain moments. However, what outpaced that uncertainty was the encouragement and advocacy of his mentors and support system. Now twenty-six years later, Bill is an award-winning professor that runs a thriving lab focused on the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, an author, and notable scientific communicator. And if you ask him to define success today, he won't point to titles or accolades. Instead, he reaches for something simpler:
“What matters most is waking up with a sense of purpose and joy in your work.”
Interview excerpts have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: How should trainees evaluate potential mentors?
A: Do your homework. Talk to current and former trainees. Look for red flags — students who take unusually long to graduate, high attrition, an unhappy lab environment. Pay attention to whether trainees actually seem engaged and supported. Chemistry and personality alignment matter just as much as the project itself. Mentorship is a long-term relationship, so choose carefully.
Q: Should trainees build a broader mentorship network?
A: Absolutely. A strong thesis committee can serve not only as scientific advisors but as career guides too. Structured career development plans can help keep those career conversations active throughout your training. Committee members can connect you with alumni in industry, government, science writing, or other paths. Trainees should proactively leverage those networks rather than relying solely on their PI. It’s also a good idea to befriend more senior students who can give you fresh advice on what lies ahead.
Q: Should postdocs discuss taking parts of their projects with them when starting independent labs?
A: Yes, early and transparently. Those conversations are essential. Industry projects may be proprietary, but academic settings often allow more flexibility, especially if the new direction diverges from funded obligations. I encourage postdocs to start these discussions midway through their training if independence is the goal. Honestly, I view it as a compliment when trainees want to build on work from my lab. Science should be collaborative, not possessive. It’s also worth noting that carving out your own niche has its advantages, too, as it avoids the potential criticism that you are not truly independent—that you are merely walking in your mentor’s shoes and not your own.
Q: Should trainees "try different paths" after their PhD?
A: My advice is to follow your passion but temper it with objectivity and reason. Have honest self-assessments, list your strengths and weaknesses, your core values. If you play to your strengths and pursue your values, passion usually develops for whatever you're doing. As the wise ones say, "Know thyself." If academia is your passion, pursue it early. If you prefer industry or government, experience it firsthand to see if the environment is the right fit for you. What matters most is waking up with a sense of purpose and joy in your work. Careers are rarely as irreversible as they feel in the moment — there are usually more options available than trainees assume, and understanding that can take a lot of the anxiety out of the decision. Trying industry through a postdoc gave me clarity without permanently closing any doors.
Q: Should trainees explore career paths beyond academia and industry?
A: A lot of trainees only think about two options — academia or industry — but there are many other career paths available to PhD scientists. I encourage trainees to actively explore those options by networking with peers, alumni, and mentors to learn about other careers like science communication, consulting, policy, law, or bioethics. Talking to people who've taken those paths helps you understand what those careers entail and whether they align with your interests. And I want trainees to know: getting a PhD means you’ve developed robust skills that are transferrable to many types of rewarding careers.
Q: What final advice would you give trainees navigating uncertainty?
A: Surround yourself with the right people, build strong mentorship networks and follow your passion, but ground it in practicality.
Have an inspiring career story? Share it with us at info.dearscientists@gmail.com.
ABOUT THE SCIENTIST
Comments