Science needs more research software engineers • Hacker News Board

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#301

Post by fjeifisjf » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:08 PM UTC

DrewADesign wrote: post #176

sampo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no individual accomplishment was close to technically innovative enough to warrant a novel white paper There are so many academic journals, from scammy, to bad (yet honest), to average, to good, to the top. You can publish almost anything, if you select an appropriate, less prestigious journal.

Yeah— wouldn't have helped in this situation. I was a professional and (deliberately) not in an academic career path, and at this very prestige-conscious institution, publishing in a scuzzy journal probably would have made me look worse.

No post body was provided.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#302

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

ninesnines wrote: post #271

siva7 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seriously? in what kind of alternative reality does academia live to offer 30k?

come to Denmark! you can make about 60k a year as a phd student!

But then you need to learn Danish. Brains can only fit that much stuff ;-)

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#303

Post by artwr » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

FlyingRobot wrote: post #19

tonto wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.mywor…

I will second this. The national labs are definitely some of the places who know what to do with research software engineers and treat them right for the most part. The Computer Systems Engineers and Software Engineers I had the chance to meet at LBNL had a decent amount of autonomy and were very good.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#304

Post by jrumbut » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

throwmamatrain wrote: post #262

javajosh wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next thought should be: why doesn't neo-liberal capitalism fix this problem? And: is my characterization of the problem correct? Why not start a new firm that better compensates researchers (and tool makers) for their valuable work? It seems like big tech (especially Google, and perhaps Microsoft) comes in from the commercial side and invests in R&D at reasonable rates for just this purpose! But surely if workers…

"If it always worked, it would be business. Let's go to the pub." -- Me, consoling a grad student after experiment failure #24. More seriously, if you're in basic science, your skills are valuable in transforming the work into a more useful thing to be used later. Using your science factory model, you have created a reusable widget that other people can use. The science factory model does work, you can see its result…

I would also say, and I'm surprised this needs to be said in a community that is so connected to the Open Source and startup cultures, that just because something is valuable doesn't mean it's possible to make a business out of it.

Imagine research into a technique for getting better blood pressure readings from people who are so nervous around medical settings that their blood pressure spikes (or more basic research into the mechanisms of blood pressure and anxiety). This is a valuable thing to society (more accurate data informing treatment decisions for individuals, screening for physically demanding jobs, life insurance, forecasting medical spending for Medicare and the like), but it's not worth a lot to anyone in particular.

For the field you described originally, complex imaging devices, there are only so many users of that research so it's conceivable that work could be taken up by a corporate R&D department.

There are all kinds of other very useful research topics that are very valuable to humanity as a whole but it's not clear exactly who should pay for it (I'm not saying you aren't aware of this BTW, hopefully I'm adding support to your argument). In those cases it makes a lot of sense to take a fraction of a cent from everyone and pay for it that way, as we currently do.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#305

Post by busterarm » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

myst1 wrote: post #224

busterarm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salaries in Europe are catching up...

A lot of the smarter people I know have been recruited into Europe. People say "the salaries are so much lower lol", but the reality is, you often have employment laws that remove terrible occurrences as possibilities that are commonplace in America, you have access to healthcare, being a home owner is actually possible and if you don't want that renting is better overall. European culture is usually way less cut thr…

I don't have any student debt pressure, but I'm debating trying to do the same. I have a lot of friends in Denmark and no strong ties to the US. I'm about to hit my forties and it's probably now or never.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#306

Post by photochemsyn » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

kongolongo wrote: post #234

noobermin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this thread is turning into a yet another complaints about academia thread: One of the serious downsides of working in academia is you are basically doing the industry's work for them for less pay and they will one day turn around, pat you on the back, then sell your work for millions of dollars. It gets worse honestly the closer you are to applied fields. There, you already straddle the line between what your…

I think this is only a half-truth. There certainly are examples of academic research being translated into lucrative products by industry (there are even prominent examples in software/systems engineering) but I think that many times the translation of academic research into a useable product is also a massive endeavor that deserves recognition in its own right. I see this scenario described in medical research all t…

Fundamental: the patents produced by taxpayer-financed academic research have no business being exclusively licensed to some pharmaceutical corporation. As far as the cost of clinical trials being borne by those companies, well, let's get the FDA involved in the clinical trials.

Then the competition can come in, i.e. whoever can produce pure preparations of those drugs at the lowest cost will win the most market share. This means investing in top-of-the line manufacturing platforms (much of this is now outsourced to India, Mexico, etc. for drugs being sold in the USA) instead of squatting on the patents, blocking competition, and using monopoly status to jack up prices.

Yes, this would greatly reduce the profit margins and perhaps the stock prices of Big Pharma outfits, but the overall benefits would greatly outweight this. As a practical example, look how the best Covid vaccines (mRNA types) have been monopolized, leading to low rates of vaccination in Africa etc., even though that was technology developed with taxpayer funding at public universities.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#307

Post by throwmamatrain » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

jrumbut wrote: post #304

throwmamatrain wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it always worked, it would be business. Let's go to the pub." -- Me, consoling a grad student after experiment failure #24. More seriously, if you're in basic science, your skills are valuable in transforming the work into a more useful thing to be used later. Using your science factory model, you have created a reusable widget that other people can use. The science factory model does work, you can see its result…

I would also say, and I'm surprised this needs to be said in a community that is so connected to the Open Source and startup cultures, that just because something is valuable doesn't mean it's possible to make a business out of it. Imagine research into a technique for getting better blood pressure readings from people who are so nervous around medical settings that their blood pressure spikes (or more basic research…

Totally! Most of our best equipment was stolen and modded from materials science imaging or manufacturing automation. There was a budding industry for automated fluorescence imaging, but they were still finding their legs.

We had a couple electron microscopes that we modernized from film, and the companies we contracted with mostly dealt with materials people.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#308

Post by photochemsyn » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

jrumbut wrote: post #304

throwmamatrain wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it always worked, it would be business. Let's go to the pub." -- Me, consoling a grad student after experiment failure #24. More seriously, if you're in basic science, your skills are valuable in transforming the work into a more useful thing to be used later. Using your science factory model, you have created a reusable widget that other people can use. The science factory model does work, you can see its result…

I would also say, and I'm surprised this needs to be said in a community that is so connected to the Open Source and startup cultures, that just because something is valuable doesn't mean it's possible to make a business out of it. Imagine research into a technique for getting better blood pressure readings from people who are so nervous around medical settings that their blood pressure spikes (or more basic research…

It's very difficult to tell what will become valuable in the basic research world and what will remain a curiousity. A classic example in biotech is the study of sex in bacteria - it seemed about as useful as studying the sexual reproduction of ferns at the time. Bacteria generally replicate themselves clonally, but the discovery that they were also exchanging genetic material by the use of plasmids (essentially, mating with each other) eventually opened the doors to things like cloning the human insulan gene, inserting it into a plasmid, getting a bacteria to take up the plasmid, and then, voila, human insulin could be grown in vats in bulk. That was the first real biotech business that I know of, and from there it just exploded.

The problem with universities pushing research that clearly has some short-term financial reward (due solely to patents and exclusive licenses under the 1980s Bayh-Dole law) is that they neglect basic research and so close the door to the potential of truly fundamental discoveries like that. This is generally known as the corporatization of the American academic system and it's really been a disaster for basic technological advances.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#309

Post by exdsq » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

PheonixPharts wrote: post #268

exdsq wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't totally crazy but it's only if you stretch the facts enough. An RSE at Oxford will earn 32k GBP, like a postdoc. In theory, that person could be so good they could get the highest starting salary possible at a Tier 1 paying company like a research engineer at Hudson River Trading, which can be > 320k TC. So it's possible but only for a very very small number of people. 3x-5x is much more likely.

> highest starting salary possible at a Tier 1 paying company like a research engineer at Hudson River Trading, which can be > 320k TC. You don't have to be at a "tier 1 paying company" to exceed 320k TC, that's easily achievable at any tech company that has gone public in the NYC metro or Bay Area. TC at a FAANG (MANGA or whatever they're calling it) for a more senior IC role can easily cross the $500k mark. If you'…

Oh after a decade sure. I was just interviewing with Meta for > $500k TC so totally believe it. I meant immediately after a PhD.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#310

Post by bmitc » Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #150

bmitc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, it's frustrating because there are indeed some super cool projects just waiting to have interesting software written for them, especially in the more hardware/physical oriented R&D areas. There are some areas that take software seriously, but in general, I have found it really difficult to get scientists and research engineers excited about anything that they don't know about. I don't think its malice. I think i…

It's very interesting that you say you find it difficult to get scientists excited about anything, because I am told pretty much the opposite. To give you the perspective, I'm a scientist and my partner is a GP. I obviously have many friends who also work in science and one thing that my partner noticed quite early after we met is that the scientist friends (and myself) would ask a lot of questions when she was talki…

In my experience, scientists do not like anything that they perceive as "soft". I like to say that the hard sciences are actually the easy ones and the soft sciences are actually the hard ones. (As it turns out, Herbert Simon also said this.) The point is that when you discuss things like design, complexity, architecture, systems thinking, etc., I've found that this does not stick, so to speak. Scientists do not see beauty in form equaling function. In my experience, scientists like learning about things they consider science-y enough for their tastes.

This is all painting with broad strokes, but in my experience, the most interesting intellectual conversations I've had have been with people with the least amount of degrees. I always feel when I talk to someone with a Ph.D., they're afraid to let it be known someone might know more than them and if that happens, then it's suddenly something that's not important.

The book Disciplined Minds gets at this some. It's part institutionalization and other things. My gut feeling is that it's exacerbated by publish or perish culture and the push to always be right. So people that are brought up through that are intellectually risk averse.