Science is a world of continuous bounce back from rejection because the nature of our work is competitive and based on criticism from peers. That's true of every aspect of it. So that's why we have peer review. Peer review of articles, peer review of science proposals. So that process never ends.

But all of this is something you have to learn to cope with and put into perspective, just operationally because get over it, get back to the work, fix the work, basically detach your emotional response from your operational response so you can come back to the work, think about it in a way that does not skew your perception of the entire process so badly that you really can't be effective. You have to be able to detach yourself somewhat from that critical process and just say, "Okay, assuming that these people are all correct that have reviewed this work and made these comments, how then do I get back to this dispassionately and fix it the best possible way I can?"

And you just have to do that through your entire career. If you don't have that thick a skin and you are constantly hammered down by these criticisms, then it's difficult to keep going with it. And I think a lot of people have options, and that's a point at which they do it for a few years and decide, "You know, I'd rather just see patients. I'm a psychologist, I'm a physician, whatever, I'd rather just teach and do a little bit of personal research here and there that I can get published. And they just get out of it. They just don't like it.

You have to be, I think, at the end addicted to it because you enjoy the process of the competition, you enjoy the process of the success, of moving your ideas forward. And obviously it's self-reinforcing. If you become more successful at it, the you can take it in stride. You can take that criticism in stride. It is a tough environment. It is a tough climb, and right now with NIH funding the way it is, it's climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. But people do it, both climb Everest without oxygen and get grants.