Thanks for this response. This is exactly how I approached my PhD: I was in a group where I liked the _people_ and where I both enjoyed working with them, but a

Thanks for this response. This is exactly how I approached my PhD: I was in a group where I liked the _people_ and where I both enjoyed working with them, but also - crucially - was thinking that they could teach me something. The actual topic of my work a) shifted significantly [0], b) was barely relevant for my decision and c), while highly fascinating, very unlikely to be ever relevant, even if all stars align just the right way. If you do not like your advisor [1] or even worse if you do not have confidence in at least scientific integrity: Then you should absolutely run and quit. You won't be happy. Ever. That doesn't mean you are not "fit for science" or either of you or your advisor is a "bad scientist". Just that the two particular persons don't (and won't) work out. At least here in Germany it's also not a particularly hard decision [2]: You (quite easily) double your salary, while also (at least normally) significantly reducing your workload. But this assumes that you do the PhD because you "want it" and not because of the title. But then again: I would very much discourage anyone doing a PhD for the title. So maybe I'm not the best person to ask [0] up to the point where _after_ having written up my thesis I rediscovered the "outline" of the work that we send to the foundation and the faculty. Of which precisely _nothing_ was in my actual thesis. [1] This is not necessarily your official supervisor, as in the person that is taking you on and giving you your title. Given a large enough group size (and I very much would put that number at anything beyond 3 students) but the person you interact with daily (or at least weekly). [2] At least from the vantage of someone who _hasn't_ taken that one. FWIW