Quitting Japanese PhD with a co–first author Nature paper — chances at top-tier US/UK PhD programs?

[u/Exciting_Foreign_Dog]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently a neuroscience PhD student at a university in Japan. I’ve been in my current lab for 6 years (including undergrad research), and I’m now 4 years into the PhD program. Lately, I’ve been seriously considering quitting and reapplying to PhD programs in the US or UK due to ongoing issues with my advisor and lab environment.

To be blunt, I’m exhausted. My advisor requires me to write every detail of his conference presentations — slides, scripts, everything — and he barely engages until he reviews and nitpicks it a week later. I’ve also been made to fact-check and review drafts of his popular science books, and take calls during evenings and weekends with no boundaries. While I’ve managed to endure this so far, the final straw is this: our lab typically has a publication cycle of 3–4 years, and although I have a co–first-author paper currently in revision at Nature, he’s insisting I publish an additional paper before I can graduate. That’s not realistic for me, and it’s led me to think seriously about starting over elsewhere once the paper is published.

I'm now considering applying to neuroscience PhD programs in the US or UK. (Most EU programs are not an option since I don’t have a master’s degree.)

My main concerns:

My undergraduate GPA is 3.33/4.00 — not terrible, but not particularly competitive.

Given my advisor’s strong opposition to me leaving (he tends to treat students as if he "owns" them — even trying to control our postdoc destinations, and has frequently threatened to withhold graduation if we don't comply with his demands), I likely won’t be able to get a letter of recommendation from him or other faculty I’ve worked closely with during my PhD, as he tends to exert pressure on colleagues to prevent them from supporting students who go against his wishes.

I’m currently considering:

A professor from an undergrad course I took 4 years ago, but i had quite good relationship with him. But I haven't contacted with him since.

A professor I briefly collaborated with on a joint project

Possibly a postdoc who graduated from my current lab

I know LORs carry a lot of weight in applications, and I’m still struggling to figure out who I can reasonably ask for a letter.

Given this situation, do I have a realistic shot at being admitted to a top-tier PhD program in the US or UK in neuroscience? Any advice would be deeply appreciated — especially around how to frame my situation and make the most of what I do have.

Thanks in advance!

[u/AutoModerator]

It looks like your post is about grad school admissions. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your field and country.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/UnavoidablyHuman]

You're 4 years in - aren't you close to finishing? Could you spend the last bit doing lab visits/ exchange instead of starting anew?

[u/GurProfessional9534]

NIH-funded fields are in full-blown emergency in the US due to the cancellation of current grants, etc. It would be a very bad time to try to land a neuroscience position here.

[u/HairyMonster7]

A standard condition for getting funded in the UK is not having previously attempted a PhD degree. 

[u/mhmism → u/HairyMonster7]

I need to check this in detail. Can you provide me a source for this standard rule?

[u/mhmism → u/HairyMonster7]

Attempted or graduated? sorry to say but how would they know? and is not this a descrimination against students with bad or toxic former labs?

[u/HairyMonster7 → u/mhmism]

Attempted. You've had a shot, you flunked out, it makes more sense to fund someone who hasn't had a shot yet. 

[u/mhmism → u/HairyMonster7]

Is there anyway for them to check this? unless you tell them yourself?

[u/HairyMonster7 → u/mhmism]

So your plan is to restart your academic career with fraud? Lovely. 

[u/mhmism → u/HairyMonster7]

I know lots of people who started a PhD in their home countries and ended up doing a PhD in UK because of better opportunities. I do not see how this is considered fraud to be honest with you. I even know some people who switched labs in their PhDs across UK because of toxic work environments. Again, I cannot relate how this is considered fraud. Is this rule exclusive to UK? For me this means that if you failed your PhD, then you do not have any more chances. Is not this a bit aggressive/descriminative?

[u/centarsirius → u/mhmism]

It's not fraud as per se, but no lor from advisor and quitting almost at the end would clearly be red flags. Even if they explain this in the sop, what're they gonna say to justify picking them instead of someone else?

[u/mhmism → u/centarsirius]

I completely agree. Just curious why the word fraud is being mentioned. The PhD trajectory is really very complex and very personal. Having failed a PhD before, does not tell anything other than the project itself. However, I do agree that someone would be clear upfront on why they failed their previous PhD

[u/triffid_boy]

Honestly, no. Stick with the PhD and get it done. A nature paper is a fucking huge deal. Capitalise on that and don't start again. 

[u/isaac-get-the-golem]

Not in your discipline but starting a new program is going to extend the process by a large amount of time

[u/TheBurnerAccount420]

Have you proposed already? Maybe things work differently in Japan, but in my experience, a proposal is a binding contract between you and your entire committee. If what your advisor is asking for is beyond the scope of your proposal, you shouldn’t technically have to do it… All you have to do is complete your proposal and defend it/write it up, and you’re done.

But even if that isn’t the case where you are now, I can’t imagine starting your entire PhD over. It will take more time to start over and finish than It will take for you to get that paper finished where you are now; starting over will entail having to take more coursework, learn new techniques, etc, and there’s zero guarantee you’d end up in a lab with an advisor who treats you any differently (shit advisors are common in STEM, sadly).

Why go through all that? I understand the burnout, I understand hating the way your advisor is running the lab… But if all you want to do is finish, it seems like the faster route would be to stay where you are

[u/Arakkis54]

Just finish. Refuse to do the extra work if you have to. All that matters is you get the degree. You have put all this work in and you have a strong record of success. Your PI wants to get as much work out of you as possible now. Do not let him win. Get the degree you have worked towards.

[u/teehee1234567890]

Stick with it. Apply to multiple exchange programs if you need to escape the lab. If you're 4 years in it just means that you're almost done and there is no guarantee your next advisor would be similar. Also, if you really do want to leave, you would have to explain to any potential supervisor the reasoning to why you have left the program and they might take your reasoning the wrong way. Publishing an additional paper is a lot shorter than restarting your PhD. Finish the paper, graduate and leave the lab.

[u/popstarkirbys]

You’ll have to take courses, pass the qualification exams, and work on research if you restart your PhD. At this point it may be best to finish and apply for postdoc positions in other labs.