1. Editorial
Ten Simple Rules for Doing Your Best
Research, According to Hamming
Thomas C. Erren*, Paul Cullen, Michael Erren, Philip E. Bourne
his editorial can be considered Rule 1: Drop Modesty the best physics ever. By turning the
T the preface to the ‘‘Ten Simple
Rules’’ series [1–7]. The rules
presented here are somewhat
To quote Hamming: ‘‘Say to yourself:
‘Yes, I would like to do first-class work.’
Our society frowns on people who set
problem around a bit, great scientists
often transform an apparent defect
into an asset. ‘‘It is a poor workman
philosophical and behavioural rather who blames his tools—the good man
out to do really good work. But you gets on with the job, given what he’s
than concrete suggestions for how to
should say to yourself: ‘Yes, I would like got, and gets the best answer he can.’’
tackle a particular scientific
to do something significant.’’’
professional activity such as writing a
paper or a grant. The thoughts Rule 6: Work Hard and Effectively
Rule 2: Prepare Your Mind
presented are not our own; rather, we Most great scientists have
condense and annotate some excellent Many think that great science is the
tremendous drive, and most of us
and timeless suggestions made by the result of good luck, but luck is nothing
would be surprised how much we
mathematician Richard Hamming two but the marriage of opportunity and
would know if we worked as hard as
decades ago on how to do ‘‘first-class preparation. Hamming cites Pasteur’s
some great scientists did for many
research’’ [8]. As far as we know, the adage that ‘‘luck favours the prepared
years. As Hamming says: ‘‘Knowledge
mind.’’
transcript of the Bell Communications and productivity are like compound
Research Colloquium Seminar Rule 3: Age Is Important interest. Given two people with exactly
provided by Dr. Kaiser [8] was never the same ability, the one person who
formally published, so that Dr. Einstein did things very early, and all manages day in and day out to get in
Hamming’s thoughts are not as widely the ‘‘quantum mechanic fellows,’’ as one more hour of thinking will be
known as they deserve to be. By well as most mathematicians and tremendously more productive over a
distilling these thoughts into something astrophysicists, were, as Hamming lifetime.’’ But, Hamming notes, hard
that can be thought of as ‘‘Ten Simple notes, ‘‘disgustingly young’’ when they work alone is not enough—it must be
Rules,’’ we hope to bring these ideas to did their best work. On the other hand, applied sensibly.
broader attention. in the fields of music, politics, and
Hamming’s 1986 talk was literature, the protagonists often Rule 7: Believe and Doubt Your
remarkable. In ‘‘You and Your produce what we consider their best Hypothesis at the Same Time
Research,’’ he addressed the question: work late in life.
Great scientists tolerate ambiguity.
How can scientists do great research, Rule 4: Brains Are Not Enough, They believe the theory enough to go
i.e., Nobel-Prize-type work? His
You Also Need Courage
insights were based on more than forty
years of research as a pioneer of Great scientists have more than just Citation: Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M, Bourne PE
computer science and brainpower. To again cite Hamming: (2007) Ten simple rules for doing your best research,
‘‘Once you get your courage up and according to Hamming. PLoS Comput Biol 3(10):
telecommunications who had the e213. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030213
privilege of interacting with such believe that you can do important
things, then you can. If you think you Copyright: Ó 2007 Erren et al. This is an open-access
luminaries as the physicists Richard article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Feynman, Enrico Fermi, Edward can’t, almost surely you are not going Commons Attribution License, which permits
Teller, Robert Oppenheimer, Hans to. Great scientists will go forward unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author and source
Bethe, and Walter Brattain, with under incredible circumstances; they are credited.
Claude Shannon, ‘‘the father of think and continue to think.’’
Thomas C. Erren is with the Institute and Policlinic for
information theory,’’ and with the Occupational and Social Medicine, School of
statistician John Tukey. Hamming Rule 5: Make the Best of Your Medicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne, Koln,¨
‘‘became very interested in the Working Conditions Lindenthal, Germany. Paul Cullen is with the
Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum fur ¨
difference between those who do and To paraphrase Hamming, what most ¨ ¨
Laboratoriumsmedizin Dr. Loer, Dr.Treder, Munster,
those who might have done,’’ and he Germany. Michael Erren is with the Institute of
people think are the best working Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine,
offered a number of answers to the conditions clearly are not, because ¨
Westphalian Wilhelms-University of Munster,
question ‘‘why . . . so few scientists people are often most productive when ¨
Munster, Germany. Philip E. Bourne is a Professor in
the Department of Pharmacology, University of
make significant contributions and so working conditions are bad. One of the California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United
many are forgotten in the long run?’’ better times of the Cambridge Physical States of America.
We have condensed Hamming’s talk Laboratories was when they worked *To whom correspondence should be addressed.
into the ten rules listed below: practically in shacks—they did some of E-mail: tim.erren@uni-koeln.de
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 1839 October 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 10 | e213

2. ahead; they doubt it enough to notice immersed in and committed to a topic, with your colleagues is often worth
the errors and faults so they can step day after day, your subconscious has much more than a trip to the library.
forward and create the new nothing to do but work on your However, when choosing your
replacement theory. As Hamming says: problem. Hamming says it best: ‘‘So the lunchmates (and, by implication, your
‘‘When you find apparent flaws, you’ve way to manage yourself is that when institution), be on your toes. As
got to be sensitive and keep track of you have a real important problem you Hamming says: ‘‘When you talk to other
those things, and keep an eye out for don’t let anything else get the center of people, you want to get rid of those
how they can be explained or how the your attention—you keep your sound absorbers who are nice people
theory can be changed to fit them. thoughts on the problem. Keep your but merely say ‘Oh yes,’ and to find
Those are often the great scientific subconscious starved so it has to work those who will stimulate you right back.’’
contributions.’’ on your problem, so you can sleep
peacefully and get the answer in the Acknowledgments
Rule 8: Work on the Important morning, free.’’
Problems in Your Field Funding. The authors received no specific
funding for this article.
It is surprising but true that the
Rule 10: Leave Your Door Open Competing interests. The authors have
declared that no competing interests exist.
average scientist spends almost all his Keeping the door to your office
time working on problems that he closed makes you more productive in References
believes not to be important and not to the short term. But ten years later, 1. Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for getting
be likely to lead to important results. somehow you may not quite know what published. PLoS Comp Biol 1: e57. doi:10.1371/
journal.pcbi.0010057
By contrast, those seeking to do great problems are worth working on, and all 2. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simple
work must ask: ‘‘What are the the hard work you do will be ‘‘sort of rules for getting grants. PLoS Comp Biol 2:
important problems of my field? What e12. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012
tangential’’ in importance. He (or she) 3. Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simple
important problems am I working on?’’ who leaves the door open gets all kinds rules for reviewers. PLoS Comp Biol 2: e110.
Hamming again: ‘‘It’s that simple. If of interruptions, but he (or she) also doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110
you want to do great work, you clearly 4. Bourne PE, Friedberg I (2006) Ten simple rules
occasionally gets clues as to what the for selecting a postdoctoral position. PLoS
must work on important problems. . . . I world is and what might be important. Comp Biol 2: e121. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.
finally adopted what I called ‘Great Again, Hamming deserves to be quoted 0020121
5. Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules
Thoughts Time.’ When I went to lunch verbatim: ‘‘There is a pretty good for a successful collaboration. PLoS Comp Biol
Friday noon, I would only discuss great correlation between those who work 3: e44. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030044
thoughts after that. By great thoughts I 6. Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules for making
with the doors open and those who good oral presentations. PLoS Comp Biol 3:
mean ones like: ‘What will be the ultimately do important things, e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077
impact of computers on science and although people who work with doors 7. Erren TC, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules
how can I change it?’’’ for a good poster presentation. PLoS Comp
closed often work harder. Somehow Biol 3: e102. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102
they seem to work on slightly the wrong 8. Hamming R (1986) You and your research. In:
Rule 9: Be Committed to Your Kaiser JF Transcription of the Bell
thing—not much, but enough that they Communications Research Colloquium
Problem miss fame.’’ Seminar; 7 March 1986; Morristown, New
Jersey, United States. Available: http://www.cs.
Scientists who are not fully In our view, Rule 10 may be the key to
virginia.edu/;robins/YouAndYourResearch.
committed to their problem seldom getting the best research done because html. Accessed 24 September 2007.
produce first-class work. To a large it will help you to obey Rules 1–9, and, 9. Erren TC (2007) Hamming’s ‘‘open doors’’ and
group creativity as keys to scientific excellence:
extent, creativity comes out of the most importantly, it will foster group The example of Cambridge. Med Hypotheses
subconscious. If you are deeply creativity [9]. A discussion over lunch 2007 Sep 3: 17804173.
PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org 1840 October 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 10 | e213