An Experiment: Lab Group Meeting (Part 1)
This summer 2026, I’m back to experimenting. Not at the lab bench like in my heyday, but with our lab group meetings. (Aside: I just learned right at this moment that it’s spelled “heyday” and not “hay day.” Clearly, I’m from Texas.)
This experiment stems from a consistent observation I’ve noticed: most PIs think their group meetings could be just a little bit better. It’s a tiny observation, but a consistent one. Have you ever interacted with a bunch of PIs? The only consistent opinion is that there are no consistent opinions. Yet, on this topic, there is an unusual amount of consensus. As a whole, it seems we feel that group meetings could be more productive, more enjoyable, and met with more enthusiasm. In theory, the concept sounds like a total party: a group of very smart people getting together to chat about their progress on cutting-edge science. In the ideal case, group meetings are a true behind-the-scenes look at technologies, data, and discoveries no one else has ever seen before. Obviously, however, we often fall short of this idyllic scenario.
Let me be clear—I think our Gonzales Lab group meetings are pretty great. It’s taken time and fine-tuning over the last couple of years, but I feel like we’ve hit a solid steady state. We take a weekly “roundtable” approach, where all full-time researchers (PhD students, technicians, summer students) provide brief weekly updates and upcoming plans. We try to keep things to about 1–1.5 hours total. That’s worked well given our size (5 PhD students, 1 technician). You’ve probably heard of other meeting structures, such as long-format presentations from a single researcher. I simply think the roundtable discussion fits within my personal goals for a lab group culture.
I had one key ideal in mind for our weekly meetings: the updates are not just for me, but for the group. In addition, the feedback is not just from me, but from the group. I want group meetings to be group-led meetings, not me driving all questions and discussion. I simply think our brains combined are better than my brain alone. (Not to mention my brain is simultaneously processing a dozen different tasks and running on the fumes of caffeine, ibuprofen, and 10 g of creatine.) What I picture in a group meeting is a lab-wide enthusiasm for each project. Ask good questions. Ask tough questions. Give advice that helps solve a problem. Hell—I’d even love to see an argument every once in a while. In a room full of smart and thoughtful people, surely it just makes more sense for us to collectively invest in each project rather than have my singular thoughts and opinions drive everyone’s next week of work.
Despite my best efforts, inevitably we condense into a ground state where I ask most of the questions and give most of the feedback. And again—I think this is fine. We’re a productive lab that, by every standard, is excelling. But, as an engineer and experimentalist, I can’t help tinkering around and trying something new.
That’s why, this summer, I’ve stopped going to lab meetings. Cold turkey. It’s one of those moments where you look around the room and think: maybe I’m the problem? If group-led meetings are the goal, there is one really fast way to get there. Previously, my approach to optimizing group meetings was like trying to solve a complex system of equations that govern human behavior. In a small epiphany, I realized I have control over the equations. I can just remove myself as a variable.
I should give some caveats about why this works for us. For one, I’m around a lot. I see most people every day. I know most people’s progress and can provide consistent help and direction without a formal group meeting. Two, I have a great group. They are hardworking, motivated, and ambitious. (We have some rascals too...but the good kind.) The only reason there is a chance of this experiment working is that they are a great group of scientists and we’re all on the same mission. I laid out my reasons for my absence to the lab, but overall gave very little instruction other than that this would last a couple of months. I think they get it.
What is the ideal outcome? I can think of multiple things.
Group discussion. This is the most obvious one. I am usually the driver of discussion. Typically, if I don’t ask questions, the room is pretty quiet. If this stays the case, the meeting will be pretty awkward. I think a group-led meeting will encourage more questions and feedback from the entire lab.
Clear weekly updates. To get good feedback from the group, members need to give very clear weekly updates. I know the details of the projects in the lab. In our usual format, weekly updates were often tailored to me and sometimes uninterpretable to the lab more broadly. In this experiment, updates need to be more accessible to the whole group.
Independence. As a PI, I want each lab member to have ownership of their projects. People do their best work when they are the main drivers of their research. This is one small way to provide that independence.
Project cohesion. I want the group as a whole to be more tuned in to each other’s long-term goals and current experiments. I think this dedicated time to discuss those things will, overall, increase cohesion across projects and promote a personal investment in each other’s success.
What could go wrong? Oh, a ton of things, and I’ve thought about those too. But honestly, it’s a win-win.
Outcome 1: The experiment is a raging success. Meeting productivity increases. Lab cohesion increases. Group enthusiasm increases.
Outcome 2: It turns out I am, in fact, a necessary component to a successful group meeting. Also not a terrible outcome. It feeds my ego.
We’re several weeks into this experiment. I think it’s working? Nothing has burned down yet. Lab meetings definitely seem more fun (ouch). More productive? Unclear at the moment. My plan is to let things run a few more weeks, then send out an anonymous survey to see where we go from here. Honestly, I’m okay with this being the new normal, but I’d also be excited to jump back in. Regardless, it’s fun to be back experimenting.
Keep an eye out for Part 2,
-Daniel
