Science needs more research software engineers

Yes, I think RSE is often viewed as a laboratory assistant.

There is simply no incentive for science to do proper software engineering. It does not directly produce papers or money, so nobody does it. I've seen it several times in my own career in several countries.

PhDs having their own version of the code, incompatible with the one of the Postdoc sitting opposite of them. Each slaving away at their niche project but nobody there to bring it all together. This particular university had really great code and they thought they could sell it. But they did not even use git and when I gave a presentation there about it, I was met with absolute rejection. They don't have an idea on how much effort it takes to maintain a commercial code, unit tests, customer support etc.

I'm now working at a company that produces simulation software spun out from university. Fantastic job and we do all of those things mentioned above. But obviously my paper output has been near zero even though we sometimes do cutting edge research.

I wish I had a solution to the problem as so much grant money is wasted that produces a paper or two and the corresponding software for that just goes to digital nirvana, it's a real shame.

SOX for the head of research. There are minimal consequences for producing poor quality software that creates erroneous results and often quite a few incentives for producing inaccurate results that can be blamed on a non-human entity (the software). Even SOX with an escape clause for "good faith effort" would be a game changer since what goes on now would never be considered a good faith effort by any court. SOX hasn't been anywhere near as successful at modifying behavior as it should have been but it still has caused a good bit of change and those at the top setting priorities and incentives for those below them to align with now know there's a possibility of some hefty consequences for reckless or negligent behavior.

Have you considered US's national labs if you are in the US?

This looks great, and I would have loved to see this when I was in the lab.

When the software industry says to you: "We will nearly triple your salary, you don't have to work weekends, and you also don't have to feed the mice on a Sunday night."

You will 100% take this deal.

I was a 10yr+ academic tool maker in biochemistry, built cutting edge microscopes, hardware, and image analysis software. My lab was successful in our field. I got some papers out of the deal. I also saw things that no human had seen before in a microscope. I worked with very interesting people from around the world. The work in academia is great. You're moving the needle, new data, new failures. These are the perks. It is also highly possible that you have complete creative control of your project. I did, and it was amazing. Custom designed UIs to streamline our experiments, derived from watching students use the system to do their work. A decathalon of software design.

Some reality: Your PI and organization will never compensate you the way the software industry will. In pay, expectations, and benefits. When you're over 30, and you don't technically have a real 401k, you are still paying your student loans that you needed to get into this field, and you're still in the same shitty apartment, something has to give.

Comparison is the thief of joy, and when you see your cohort of computer science graduates your joy will be stolen :). It's good, honest work. A short tour of duty would be useful, and can teach you the difference between splitting the atom and splitting the check.

Academia, at least in bioscience, is still very much an ivory tower. You don't have enough letters after your name to matter, and you will likely be a pet instead of a peer.

Don't stay underwater for too long. Life is short. :D