Science needs more research software engineers

I worked on a tech-heavy project large enough to get an NYT feature article covering its launch. For it, I collaborated heavily on the service design and logistics, and singlehandedly designed, built, administered, documented, supported, and provided training for the technical infrastructure and more than a dozen related interfaces and tools. In lines of code, it probably landed somewhere in the low 5 figures, but that was certainly way more than it needed to be. It was hackish but durable and performant. It was an exercise in pure generalism— no individual accomplishment was close to technically innovative enough to warrant a novel white paper, but I was invited to speak at a few related conferences about it.

But the professor overseeing the project didn't even mention me or my role in his launch party speech for the folks in our building, let alone anywhere that would have provided career visibility. He thanked and spoke about the contributions of every other major contributor— even the temp worker who ran the machines (he wouldn't want to appear classist after all)— but I got a hand shake and quiet thank you after his speech for my 5 year effort. I was at every related manager's meeting and largely seen as one of three "go-to" people for the project in general, not just tech stuff.

This sort of gatekeeping is a part of academic culture I just don't get. At least in business there's some predictability to people stepping on each other to get to the top, but what's the purpose of this?

No, scientists need to stop hand-waving away everything that's not their area as "trivial and not worth talking about" because yeah, I've heard that exact line from three separate individuals. When I shrugged it off and still produced tools for them that shaved off a literal 1-2h out of their day and giving them more time to do the actually creative things... they were so overjoyed they forgot to say thanks and immediately proceeded to act as if the tools were always there. They were extremely careful not to show any attribution or even basic human gratitude. Would it kill them?

Yeah, frak that crap.

A lot of scientists become severely tunnel-visioned, arrogant, conservative, downright disrespectful, and very hard to work with. Pile the extremely subpar payment and you really have to just be a bored college kid (or an adult with a huge financial safety net with a passion for the area) to engage with those people in a professional setting at all.

I won't go into details about why I think many are like that because frankly, even if I was 100% correct (and my analysis is not at all flattering) it still doesn't matter one bit. Lasting change comes only from within. Scientists should start holding each other to a higher behavioral and collegiate standards and expel those who don't comply. Peer pressure works but many are so independent and without any oversight that they gradually fall under the illusion that their insufferable quirks are a personality or a personal touch that helps them excel in their area (and it's often the case that they don't excel in it).

Looking down on people because they don't know your extremely niche physics research -- that has zero experiments attached to it, by the way -- is not helping your cause with people who usually get a lot of money AND respect AND a better working environment for actually improving your workday. In most cases these people will of course go where they are at least not looked down upon.