Immediately. I headed for physical chemistry and
spectroscopy because I’m good at math, but immersed myself in many other
areas as well because I love novelty and the unpredictability of
scientific synergies. I’m now starting to think about fields beyond
directed evolution.

It is not at all easy at the beginning. I strove
for independence but drew on help in many forms. Friends and mentors are
there for you, and it is unnecessarily difficult to survive without
their support. This network grows as you do, and as you assume the role
of mentor yourself. You will be burdened with administrative
responsibilities over and above your academic workload, and don’t forget
the home front. Protect your store of energy and enthusiasm. Do not
allow it to be exploited as sometimes happens. In the end, it is all
multitasking, as my daughter recognized in coining an apt article title
for me: “Juggling the elements of life”.

My postdoc swung into areas relatively unknown to
me. Likewise, I advise young coworkers today to use postdoctoral
opportunities to acquire new ideas and methods. I find that the cultures
of biology and biology-related chemistry or physics expect postdoctoral
work to carry over into first jobs to a greater degree than other
branches of chemistry do. In those areas, chronological overlap is
either rare or entirely verboten. I avoided this issue in that my first
professorship returned to grad school territory.

I went straight into independent work.

It’s a bad idea to be perceived as too close to
your postdoc mentor when you start your independent career. Obviously
you’ll use techniques and training that you received in the postdoc lab,
but the problem that you elect to research should be demonstrably
different.

As soon as possible. You need your own ideas. If
you do not have what is called “original thinking” you will always be in
the shadow of your former supervisors. You have to make your own mark
and be recognized for it. This may take longer than anticipated but it
is worth the time and effort in the long run.

In my opinion first projects of our own
responsibility should not be related to previous post-doctoral work. I
think that every five or six years we should start novel projects,
although in some aspect they can be borne of the experience of previous
projects.

I discontinued my postdoctoral subject matter, though not its methods.

A clear, distinct departure, even if within the
same field, is necessary. It is key to avoid “me-too” science. Do all
you can to ensure you build productively on skills and vision over the
years. Expand wherever you can.

Familiarity feels safe, but only unique research
questions allay misgivings that your lab is less your own than an
outpost of your advisor’s. Try not to worry about formulating
distinctive questions: they are taking shape themselves at the
intersection of your intuition, the current literature, exposure to
professors and speakers, and awareness of emerging technologies – not
forgetting the literature of a generation or two ago, where pioneers
identified then-unanswerable, now-answerable challenges. What you
consider compelling is worthy of your best attention and effort. It will
become synonymous with you.

I think it is important to emancipate from your
Ph.D. and post doc advisors and find your own “label.” All the while,
you might still finish work with your previous advisors and get
publications out. Or maybe you already had a plan before choosing post
doc projects and advisors, and can now build forward with new
perspectives and independent collaborations. This would provide a
perfect connective thread.

Distance yourself from your Ph.D. environment and
supervisors during the postdoctoral period. Success in standing out
will attract strong students, grants, and collaborators when you start
your independent career.

The first aim is tenure. Rely on what you did in
your post doc, the expertise that you have, to keep releasing solid
publications. Once you are there, open your mind to other large projects
and other collaborations. Develop your questions. Start taking risks.
For example, in my first independent years I asked different questions
but used similar methodology. After tenure, I started asking other,
bigger questions and using new techniques.

You can change some aspects of your earlier
research quite quickly, but it’s also ok to keep elements of established
expertise as a part of your work.

In my opinion first projects should be as
unrelated to post-doctoral work as possible. From any point of view it
is not a good idea to continue post-doctoral projects. Furthermore,
tackling a new field will make you more knowledgeable and widen your
horizons.

I think you want to start a project that
distinguishes you from your post-doctoral advisor as soon as you can. It
is ok for a project to build on your prior studies, but from the
earliest stage onward you should also have one that is clearly
independent if possible. Expectations for an assistant professor do vary
from area to area: in synthetic chemistry, moving in a new direction is
generally assumed, whereas chemical biology regards previous work as an
important starting stone.

Training in organic synthesis opens avenues for a
variety of synthetic projects within the field. While staying in that
area, which affords so many topics for research, I evolved new and
independent projects. It is always important to pursue widening
knowledge and initiate new, challenging projects even if remaining
essentially in the same field.

I agree 100% with YY.

I don’t recommend continuing postdoctoral work in
your own lab. It will be difficult to differentiate yourself and to
establish your own area and contributions.

Asking about departing from postdoctoral work is
asking about standing out, primarily so that others can identify you.
This is a necessary but uphill trek. Research is complex, interesting
research more so. Few will take time, effort, and care to understand
another’s work. Instead they judge by indirect indicators such as what
colleagues say about you, the strength of your department and
university, your backers and friendships, ubiquitousness at meetings,
honors and invitations, your influence, sociability, and charisma. If
short on these, you can only keep plugging away on your own terms. There
are usually five or six you want to know what you’re doing. Keep them
informed. Others will have a vague idea.

It is very important to establish your own
research identity. When I began my career I started working with methods
I had never used before, on new systems. It is probably not necessary
to turn completely away from what you know best, but make a clear
statement about what you, uniquely, are bringing to an area.

I think it is better to start a new topic, a new project.

Switch immediately. Recasting, even revisiting,
post-doctoral projects is legitimate but careers make or break on one’s
own investigations.

Start your own work as soon as you know which question you want to answer.

If you continue postdoctoral work, reviewers will
find it difficult to differentiate your intellectual contribution from
your advisor’s. If you must stay in the area for whatever reason, make
some sort of a radical, visible departure from your previous work.
Better yet, cut the cord entirely as soon as you can.

I suggest initiating a new program from the start of your independent career.