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

101–110 of 366 posts

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#101

Post by joshvm »

Azrael3000 wrote: post #54
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."

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 uni…

RSEs should not be working on, or assisting, research at the PhD level. By that I mean news/skunkworks stuff. They should be taking the output from a PhD and turning it into core software for the group. That doesn't solve the collaboration issue between PhDs/Postdocs, but there is a particular point in a research project lifecycle where it makes sense to hire an RSE.

A bigger challenge is that most PIs are not project managers and have no experience as such, so they don't know how to express what they need in a structured way, or how to steer their group to collaborate properly. Outside computer science, many would struggle to budget software development or compute properly on a grant application (and the assessors have zero idea either).

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#102

Post by pojzon »

In the world of ever increasing cost of living, sane ppl will always take best compensation offers.

Everyone has the same thinking that we will be here 40-70years and our finite time is worth more and more.

Im sorry for the ppl tho dont have options to do better for w/e reasons.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#103

Post by altacc »

throwmamatrain wrote: post #60

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…

As a counterpoint, I know someone who went back to academia after getting disillusioned with tech (academia > tech > academia). The key difference may be that they live in Europe, have no student loans and the pay disparity between a developer in bioscience and in tech is not as large as I imagine it is in the US. They are paid significantly more than the scientists they work alongside but not much less than they were paid in a good tech job. For them the bioscience work is much more interesting than anything they did in tech (they have a maths-based PhD, so were working on quite complex problems but in a relatively boring field).

Software development is important to more and more industries and the pay disparity caused by insanely large funding and little requirement to produce profits means that other sectors are being priced out of in-house development, especially niche use cases. The ongoing rise of no-code development will be increasingly useful across all sectors but will fail to deliver a lot of these niche applications.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#104

Post by inejge »

bmitc wrote: post #90
sseagull wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They call it "codes" They/We have probably been calling it that since before you were alive. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes from the 60s or 70s. Every group of people has their own terminology for stuff. There is no right or wrong.

I have never heard or read anyone, beside physicists, say codes for software code. It doesn't even make sense. Where have you seen that used?

I have never heard or read anyone, beside physicists, say codes for software code. It doesn't even make sense.

Why not? "A code" is a software package which solves some kind of problem computationally. Plural, codes. I'm sure it's been in use almost as long as the programmable computers. Here's[1] a link to an article from 1968 which uses the term in the singular ("The MENE Neutron Transport Code".)

[1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4819611-mene-neutron-transport-c...

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#105

Post by gsliepen »

I was a research engineer for ~10 years, and my experience was that my immediate colleagues were very appreciative of the work I was doing, but that the university bureaucracy system is not. In the beginning it is a very decent position (compared to a PhD); less load and better pay, and lots of autonomy. However, it is a dead end for your career, there is no promotion path. I liked working as a RSE a lot, but indeed moving to the industry will give you a huge salary rise and a career path.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#108

Post by ergl »

PainfullyNormal wrote: post #13

Where do you find these jobs? And are they only available at Universities? I'd be happy to take the pay cut to work on something that contributes more to society than getting people to click on ads, but not at a college or university.

You might be able to find research institutes or national labs (I'm a research engineer at one of these). If you're in Europe, something like the Max Planck Institute might fit the bill.

Aside, can I ask why you don't want to work at a college or university?

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#109

Post by icelancer »

altacc wrote: post #103
throwmamatrain wrote: post #60

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…

As a counterpoint, I know someone who went back to academia after getting disillusioned with tech (academia > tech > academia). The key difference may be that they live in Europe, have no student loans and the pay disparity between a developer in bioscience and in tech is not as large as I imagine it is in the US. They are paid significantly more than the scientists they work alongside but not much less than they wer…

I did this as well, but started my own company. The key for a lot of people making the switch is to make the money in your first endeavor - in tech - then transition into a lower-paying but more pleasing industry, with the money buffer you built up making it possible. I've seen it a few times lately.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#110

Post by atemerev »

I am a research software engineer, and I worked short-term contracts only, and my last contract was not prolonged due to budget cuts (with a laughable salary about four times less compared to industry — thankfully, I wasn’t there for money). The administrative personnel, on the other hand, were all working on permanent contracts.

I guess science does not need more research software engineers after all!

Post reply on HN