Success in Science is Not One Size Fit All

STORY BY CHI-PING DAY, PhD 

AI Generated Image (Artlist)

Becoming a principal investigator, the holy grail of academic research, was never quite the dream goal I imagined for myself. Maybe because I felt I didn’t check all the expected boxes. I was a seasoned graduate student preparing to defend after more than five years of work, yet my publication record wasn’t impressive and I lacked confidence in grant writing. My experiments were unpredictable and my interest in exploring questions through an evolutionary biology lens wasn’t always understood or supported. I was miserable, but on the advice of a family member, I decided to continue my research journey as a postdoc at a globally respected institution. Luckily, I found an opportunity at a globally respected institution that prioritizes rigorous science without the added pressure of constant publishing or chasing funding.

There, my goal was to develop models using mice to study skin cancer, specifically melanoma. Cancer research needed systems that could reflect what happens in the human body. Mice and humans use different biological “building blocks” or genes to form skin cancer. To create a useful model in mice, I needed to choose the right building blocks so the cancer would grow and behave more like it does in people. We aimed to build a mouse model that captured how cancer spreads from a primary tumor, making that spread traceable so it could be used to test therapies against metastasis. For the next few years, I devoted myself to genetically altering mice to meet that goal, creating genetically engineered mouse (GEM) models. But the field didn’t appreciate this approach. Everyone was focused on patient-derived xenografts (PDX), where patient tissue and cancer cells were implanted into mice and viewed as more relevant to patient care. Publishing my GEM work in high-impact journals was a struggle, and finding a position back home proved even harder. Needless to say, I was anxious about my future in research. Fortunately, a few years later, two major breakthroughs in the field, cancer immunotherapy and cancer genomics, highlighted the need for GEM models, sparking a renaissance. That shift opened the door to projects that led to my first major position in the US as a staff scientist. Over the next decade, I generated many GEM cancer models and contributed to more than a hundred studies testing new cancer treatments. The demand for GEM models was at an all-time high, and I became known as the “mouse modeler,” carving out my future in the field.

I had collected a large amount of bioinformatic data from mouse and human cancers, spending a lot of time to look for the genetic features that drive cancers to develop and spread. Using that information, I simulated how tumors might evolve and how they could respond to treatment. My findings were well-received by data scientists and before long I was joining their lab meetings and helping them uncover biological relevance in their own datasets. When my PI retired, my skill set and expertise led me to join a lab where I returned to my first scientific love - studying biology through an evolutionary lens.

In my academic research career, I’m fulfilled as a senior staff scientist. I found a niche that connected different research fields, which helped me to contribute the pieces needed to move projects in my new environment forward. I have the freedom to focus on science, follow ideas that excite me, collaborate across projects, and engage deeply with the research without navigating pressures that do not align with how I work best.

There is an unspoken assumption in academia that becoming a PI is the only track toward a successful career in science. Some scientists thrive in that environment, but others, equally talented and committed, thrive elsewhere. The PI role isn’t the right fit for everyone; it’s just one of many paths that keep our scientific ecosystem thriving. Rather than aiming for a specific title, focus on where your strengths are most needed, and you’ll find opportunities to make meaningful contributions and build a fulfilling career.

Have an inspiring career story? Share it with us at info.dearscientists@gmail.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

---

Chi-Ping Day, PhD, is a cancer biologist whose work has shaped how melanoma is modeled and studied worldwide. Born in Taipei, Taiwan, he earned degrees in chemistry and biochemistry before working as a chemist and quality analyst in Taiwan’s biopharma sector. In 2000, he moved to the United States to pursue graduate studies in cancer biology at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, earning his PhD in 2005.

Dr. Day joined the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health for his postdoctoral training and has remained there as a Staff Scientist, advancing to Associate Scientist in 2020. His research focuses on replicating human melanoma in mice to unravel mechanisms of tumor initiation, progression, and therapeutic resistance. The melanoma models and reagents he developed are now widely used across the global cancer research community.

He is recognized for championing cancer modeling principles that prioritize clinical relevance, meaningful alignment with patient care, and improved reproducibility. His recent work extends these principles to in silico modeling, bridging computational and experimental cancer research.

An avid writer and historian, Dr. Day authors essays on the history and people of cancer research, maintains a science blog, and published a collection of essays, The Mandate of the Ordinary, in 2018. He also studies the history of the NIH and leads guided tours of its historic campus.

---

Joselyn N. Allen, PhD

Editor