Skip to main content


The answer for me is alone! Posting here because it’s an interesting q but everyone on Bluesky is saying how great a two-PI lab would be and I don’t want to start a flame war.
While there’s Brown/Goldstein, the Mosers, Crick/Brenner etc. I feel that these are exceptions. I think a single PI lab and collaborating as needed is the optimum. Think of the trainees! The hassle of dealing with two bosses. Maybe it’s just me (it isn’t, virtually all labs are single PI) but curious what others think!
in reply to Stephen Royle

Joint labs are the norm in France (or at least they are pretty common) and it works quite well! You share a lot more resources but individual students or postdocs are still mainly supervised by a single person. And it's not just two PIs, you can have one lab head, 3-4 other permanent researchers or lecturers, and the added lab manager / lab tech / lab engineer. The philosophy is quite different from the US - the lab is not seen as a "personal brand", more like a place with a research purpose.
in reply to El Duvelle

@elduvelle yes, single person managing each trainee solves that issue. The French system is quite different from what I understand. There’s more stability to have a lab with a research purpose. It does sound good but I know that there’s plenty of examples of the teams not being so happy and people wanting more independence.
in reply to El Duvelle

@elduvelle
this sounds like democracy in action,
where folks work together, each helping the other, learning to stand on each other shoulders and helping the others up.

In the US it its every #bigCorp stepping on each others toes try to keep the others from getting ahead.( not the students and researcher but the corps behind them).
We need publicly funded education supporting the students and front line teachers directly.

#democracy is more than voting!