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

Science needs more research software engineers

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 366 posts

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#11

Post by prpl »

I’d been active-ish in US-RSE and worked at a national lab for 10+ years. I left about a half year ago for a position at a FANG-ish company.

My pay was almost doubled (after counting bonus) and with RSUs it’s double+.

I could have squeezed out another $XXk maybe when I left the national lab system, should I had stayed.

The biggest reasons I left were as follows:

1. Too much legacy responsibility. Legacy responsibility is usually underfunded or unfunded but “important”. It’s a lot of work to keep the lights on. NASA usually handles this with contractors which are usually paid even less than a National Lab person.

2. Bifurcation at the lab towards very large projects or very small projects. Not a lot of stuff in the $250MM to $750MM which is large enough to have an effective team and go full time, but small enough to not be anonymous/matrixed out to subprojects. The high end is a very funny place

3. Related to (2) is not enough new blood or turnover. This may be a good thing but you can be hired as a junior engineer and end up as a senior engineer without anybody below you for years. Getting an intern is a dark art if your not a staff scientist

4. Institutional BS. Looking at you, security drones with professional certificates running qualys/nessus scans. and you too, data center people afraid of the cloud.

Some to zero agility in terms of compute - everything is a nail and slurm is your hammer

The university-based RSEs complain a lot about not being respected/publishing. I never really had that issue much specifically, but that may be because there’s a stronger understanding of value in the national lab system. On the other hand, poor leadership/project management means you may still be at the whim of an idiot, servicing their desire for some crappy web app project. In those cases, it’s best to ignore.

I will probably go back after some time when I’m throughly annoyed by BigCorp. In the mean time, it’s fine on the other side and at least I don’t have to patch Jenkins every two weeks.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#12

Post by philomath_mn »

toma_caliente wrote: post #9

It's already been said several times over but I'm going to throw it out anyway. I'd love to work at a university as a research software engineer. I find things like bioinformatics fascinating and even interviewed at a research university on the east coast. But, you will get paid SIGNIFICANTLY less than you would doing almost anything else, have zero autonomy, and get no respect. Those 3 things are basically what most…

> Those 3 thing are basically what most people look for in a job.

When you put it that way, it makes it so clear why nobody wants to sign up

(BTW I'm the same way, would love to work on research, especially if it is something which could improve people's lives, but I'd have a hard time switching for these reasons)

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#15

Post by JetAlone »

mywaifuismeta wrote: post #4
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

The last point is important. In my experience it's mostly about status. RSEs are always seen as inferior to researchers (research scientists) who supposedly come up with the "big ideas" while RSEs merely implement the stuff they're told to do. In reality the line is much blurrier. There can be no innovation and iteration without implementation of ideas and the RSE work is just as important. But unless this view chang…

According to a quick search for the case of researchers, and the stereotype of most staff in academia across the board being underpaid, this means academic researchers would have even less incentives/perks/reward, because now they have one less beneficial status differential.

Is there some way to make human respect feel like it's not a zero sum game? The world may never know.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#17

Post by Nursie »

The other side of "We need software engineers in research" is surely the botched covid model from Imperial College way back at the beginning of the pandemic. The group that produced it had the audacity to complain that the software industry didn't make C++ foolproof enough, and it was our fault that the modelling was wrong.

This shows the attitude that some folks in these places have - what you do is easy, and rather than your industry being exceptional as a profession that makes its tools open and shares knowledge openly, you are at fault for releasing things which I can get wrong.

"Scientists" in this view are smart people, and anything you lesser mortals do should be obvious to them immediately, or it must be your fault. Training and experience be damned.

I'd hate to work anywhere where that attitude was prevalent, or even really existed at all. And yes I realise that non-software folks often hate to work with us because of the exact same thing!

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#18

Post by ehnto »

ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

Absolutely, but I will give them the hand that achieving a good software dev experience is extremely hard inside a uni. There is a number of ways that they need to match the industry and are having a tough time doing so due to the institutionalization of all the adjacent processes.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#19

Post by FlyingRobot »

tonto wrote: post #8
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

your premise is that it's not being sold right but maybe you just need more people to give their perspective. I might be considered a research software engineer in the US. In my job, I get paid (well) to develop open source software for data visualization, and I work remotely. I get to maintain existing tools and develop new ones. there is an interesting global community that asks questions daily, and I am constantly…

I'll offer another positive perspective. I've worked as a software engineer within the Department of Energy's National Laboratory System for 15 years, and I really enjoy it. Software is a major element of much of the laboratory's work, and in some cases such as mine software is the main product. We enjoy autonomy, lead projects as PIs, and develop mostly open source software. We are also hiring https://nrel.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/NREL/2/refreshFacet/318c8....

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#20

Post by travisgriggs »

ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

This last point, and replies to this all seem to talk about the research industry. But it has been my experience that this same dynamic of being “less than” exists in any industry that is not primarily software.

I am a mechanical engineer by degree, but a software engineer by 30 years of practice. That has allowed me to thrice straddle the divide where I worked on software that was not just software for softwares sake, but rather as a value add addendum/enablement to an institution whose roots were in more real-worldly devices. I also spent time on the other side of the divide working twice for companies whose primary product was software.

This “less than” is a very real thing. Software is still a very new thing relatively and it’s taken over the world in just 30 years time. The power dynamics, entrenched in generations haven’t had time to rebalance.

I’ve seen this run the other way as well. Where companies that are primarily software, look down on the other disciplines that participate, a necessary evil, but resented.

I have yet to find a company/institution where the trifecta of mechanical, electrical, and software is balanced in mutual respect. If one such exists and you are looking for someone that would love to work in that environment, drop me a line. I’m skeptical that there are any. It seems one discipline or the other always triumphs and tramples the others down. On off axis variant of Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy .

Post reply on HN