Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#31

Post by jackcosgrove »

existencebox wrote: post #18
kaitai wrote: post #13

As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and…

I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager at pharma company etc) are almost paramoun…

Wages are higher in technology compared to the sciences because productivity is higher due to greater automation. The sciences may see wage increases in the future as research tools become more automated. Whether the skill sets remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work will always be inefficient compared to a programmer controlling an array of robotic lab devices.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#32

Post by jackcosgrove »

6stringmerc wrote: post #20
kaitai wrote: post #13

As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and…

What you described, where the money is at, is commonly referred to as "industry" and yes it is "science" oriented but pursuit of profit definitely changes the dynamic away from academic pursuit of advancement of the human species that, more often than not, results in failed outcomes rather than something that can make money. Who are you to judge and deride the "stupid academic dream" from which all those industries h…

There are people in business trying to advance our species and there are people in academia trying to burnish their prestige, make money, and get a job you can't be fired from.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#33

Post by clifanatic »

dorfsmay wrote: post #2

I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. My own kids and their friends often express that science is interesting but they won't get into it because of that.

> I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science

If you have a trust fund waiting for you, you can pursue idealistic dreams of changing the world rather than worrying about what will be most likely to leave you with enough money to eat.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#34

Post by refurb »

bbctol wrote: post #10
jkot wrote: post #4

Great! Problem is not that scientists are often paid less than McDonald's burger flipper. No! It is social and gender issue! Lets push even more students into this career path.

The low pay for scientists is very definitely related to it not being an accessible path for lower classes.

That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#35

Post by davidf18 »

From the article: > Last year, Christina Quasney was close to giving up. A biochemistry major at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Quasney's background was anything but privileged.

People with little family money get free grants and low-interest government backed loans to attend college. She is attending a public university. In NYC, there are many students that are attending City University of New York and I meet some. They are studying biology, engineering, and other sciences. They generally but not always live at home.

The annual tuition and fees are less than $7000 and for transportation, the MTA subway/bus is $115 per month, unlimited rides.

Students like those mentioned in the article get Pell Grants and Stafford government backed low-interest loans. Pell Grants are $5,800 per year. Stafford Loans are 5,500 the first year, 6,500 the second year, and $7,500 for the remaining years.

In my particular case, I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. I was not eligible for Pell Grants nor any form of loans including Stafford Loans.

So, I really don't understand these arguments. Public universities provide a first class low-cost undergraduate education and of course have PhD programs and so on.

Once one has an undergraduate degree with good grades, in the sciences and engineering, if they are admitted to a PhD program so they are fully funded for both tuition and housing.

CUNY Tuition and Fees: http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-costs...

Pell Grants: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-1...

Stafford Loans: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/sta...

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#36

Post by sndean »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #31
existencebox wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager at pharma company etc) are almost paramoun…

Wages are higher in technology compared to the sciences because productivity is higher due to greater automation. The sciences may see wage increases in the future as research tools become more automated. Whether the skill sets remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work will always be inefficient compared to a programmer controlling an array of robotic lab devices.

> Whether the skill sets remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work will always be inefficient compared to a programmer controlling an array of robotic lab devices.

I've already seen this happening in certain labs. It can be an odd experience walking into an empty lab. In one particular bio lab, they employed one particularly talented tech who knew how to do experiments that weren't yet being done by robots. The other guys were all programmers or doing bioinformatics. They're all well-paid and getting papers in NEJM, Nature, Cell, etc. (I didn't get the job :-/ )

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#38

Post by jkot »

kaitai wrote: post #13

As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying "there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in patent law, become managers at pharma and…

> There is tons of money in science!

Of course there is tons of money in science. But it does not go towards scientists.

Some of my friends have PhDs in oceanography. Most of them are working in the lab, cutting fish (sampling) for minimal wage.

They are not even permanent employees, but on sliding contract extended every 6 months. Every 4.5 years they have to take one year break, because after 5 years they would become permanent employees.

Half empty building they work in has price tag over 200M euro (30M would do). Institute has over 60% non scientific stuff (all permanent of course). For example 10% of people are in HR, my corporation had 0.5% people in HR.

And if you studied 10+ years to write documentation which only needs 3 years degree... That is lot of wasted time and money.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#39

Post by sidlls »

dorfsmay wrote: post #2

I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research. My own kids and their friends often express that science is interesting but they won't get into it because of that.

I'm not at all surprised by this. A similar phenomenon exists in many other fields and areas of life. Those who have a solid financial support system are simply more likely to be able to commit themselves more deeply to whatever they focus on.

This has been the case for centuries: the wealthy simply have always had more means to do more things.

Re: Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers

#40

Post by bbctol »

refurb wrote: post #34
bbctol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low pay for scientists is very definitely related to it not being an accessible path for lower classes.

That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.

No--one of the reasons it's not a more accessible path is because it pays so poorly. Science funding doesn't follow a normal supply and demand framework; money isn't sent to scientists by customers in exchange for the benefits they provide, but by hopeful non-profit agencies giving as much as they can without expecting tangible return. There's a set pool of money to draw from (and that pool is drying up, as funding for the NIH et al. decreases) which means you can either have a small number of well-paid scientists or lots of poorly paid ones. There are societal benefits to lots of scientists, so we're all trying to be okay with pure research as a path you can only go into if you don't have large debts to repay.
Post reply on HN