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

311–320 of 366 posts

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#311

Post by bmitc »

cycomanic wrote: post #153
bmitc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced of that. Because what I've seen (several times) on a somewhat small scale perhaps, is someone's code, sometimes written decades ago, never maintained upgraded or properly developed used for years on a system and eventually it gives out, forcing basically a rewrite. And state of the art can mean different things for differently scaled projects.

You have too look at the big picture though. How much time would have been needed to train the PhD student (might have been even the PI) to write more maintainable code 10 years ago, and maintain that code to "best practices" over the time, compared to write that it works once and need to rewrite once after 10 years? Moreover, people tend to forget that scientific software evolves much more slowly than commercial sof…

It's okay for things to start off rough, especially depending on the context. But there's often not much excuse for things to be taken seriously and evolved.

But to be honest, I've seen this in industry as well from software developers. So maybe it's just a law of software development that's amplified in scientific software.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#312

Post by [deleted] »

joshvm wrote: post #188
aqme28 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should be taking the output from a PhD and turning it into core software for the group. And what if the PhD’s output relies on software to even exist?

The challenge is that usually PhDs are not writing software that's designed for production, is very specific (for a single conference or journal paper) and often the utility of the code is nebulous until the end of the project. So what you don't want is for RSE's to spend ages writing code for a PhD project (which could be done by the student) only to have it thrown in the trash when the student leaves, or when they…

[deleted]

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#313

Post by jltsiren »

Frost1x wrote: post #250
jltsiren wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the academia has a lot of issues, software engineers should also adjust their expectations. First, if you choose to work for a non-profit, you should expect a huge pay cut. That's the way the society works. Or actually it's the opposite. If you work in a for-profit role, the society allows your employer to keep most of the value you create. If you create a lot of value, that gives you the leverage to negotiate…

>First, if you choose to work for a non-profit, you should expect a huge pay cut. It may be the culture in some ecosystems but it's entirely false. A nonprofit can pay competitively with organizations of its size. I've worked at nonprofits and I've seen this line towed far too many times as an excuse to lower labor costs for people producing value for the organization. If your nonprofit is service oriented in anyway…

While some non-profits may be able to pay competitive wages, especially for people whose skills are not in high demand, that's definitely not true for most of them. In general, non-profits don't compete directly with for-profit businesses. They are far more likely to serve niches where for-profit businesses are not viable for one reason or another.

Very often, the level of funding is what it is and the non-profit has very little control over it. If you choose to pay higher salaries, you get less work done. This is common in the academia, which is usually funded by taxes and tuition fees.

Sometimes there is even an inverse correlation between funding and salaries. If a charity chooses to pay higher salaries, its "administrative costs" increase. Donations may then dry up, because people consider the charity inefficient.

Many non-profits rely extensively on volunteer labor. Salaried professionals often contribute their time and expertise to a worthy cause for free. That puts paid employees in an awkward position. It's hard to argue that you deserve a higher salary when the market rate for your services is 0.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#314

Post by pugworthy »

xroja wrote: post #23

I've worked at a top research university for the past 15 years as a research software engineer. Many of these comments have some truth but a lot are definitely not universally true. Poor compensation: Yup, I'll cop to that. I could be making way more in "industry" but I make enough to live and I don't build ad-ware and do take pride in my work. Being a PhD but little respect: I actually have the opposite experience.…

I no longer do so, but I was also an RSE (Senior Faculty Research Assistant) for 13 years with a large university, and loved it. Pay was not great great, but just fine all things considered. I respected the PIs I worked for and they respected me. I was constantly learning new, interesting scientific things as I'd work with new and evolving projects. I even got my name on papers even though I didn't even know I could be a co-author.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#315

Post by microtonal »

microtonal wrote: post #245
krageon wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have spoken to quite a few that made minimum wage (which is not even close to 30k).

The situation is a bit weird in The Netherlands. Some PhD students are paid employees (AiO), their gross salary is ~31000 to 40000 Euro per year (I think this is excluding vacation money, but including 13th month). Then there are PhDs that get a scholarship (bursaal), that is only around 24000-25000 gross per year. Not too long ago, there were only employee PhDs, but some universities really love the scholarship syst…

Update: today's news is that the minister of education requires that all students on a PhD scholarship will get a regular employment from 2024 onwards:

https://ukrant.nl/minister-zet-definitief-streep-door-experi...

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#316

Post by mr_gibbins »

cozzyd wrote: post #299
mr_gibbins wrote: post #282

The pay gap is real, and a huge reason why perfectly good software folk (and scientists, data specialists, etc.) move out of academia and into industry. I have an industry job with good pay with a side of academic work stemming from my PhD. My industry income is literally more than 2x the salary of my academic PI, who holds a senior academic post. My pay, which is probably around the median of most HN readers, is sli…

> I am baffled as to why academic institutions aren't failing to recruit Because academics (hi!) aren't in it for the money. If you value making lots of money, or having work-life balance, then academia isn't for you (nor is social work, teaching, nursing, fine art, etc.). But this probably makes it hard to hire RSEs who aren't academics masquerading as software engineers...

I agree, but there has to be a balance between doing it for love and getting a living wage. One of my colleagues, an Associate Professor, works in Halfords (shop/garage chain in the UK) on the weekends. That isn't right. And many of these folk are incredibly intelligent. They are Ricks amongst Mortys. They don't deserve to be paid not-quite-enough to afford a house and kids.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#317

Post by auxym »

amelius wrote: post #52
mywaifuismeta wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Not just viewed, but literally called an assistant in the official title.

I am a licensed professional engineer (mechanical) and I work in academia (though my work is varied and does involve some code), my official title (in french) is "Professionnel de recherche", which translates to Research Professional. It is my understanding that in most of the english-speaking world, this position (someone that works for a research lab, who is qualified above the technician level, but not a PI nor a postdoc or student) is called "Research Assistant".

I write "Research Engineer" on my résumé/linkedin, because TBH for most people who don't have much experience in academia, "Research Assistant" sounds like an admin assistant (secretary).

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#318

Post by antipaul »

“I want to see RSEs as equals in the academic environment“

Not just in academia, but also in biotech/pharma, where MDs or MBAs are too often the top dog.

This largely explains why Pharma and healthcare is so behind when it comes to tech

(Exceptions are the new, small biotechs. But the larger ones are more like dinosaurs)

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#319

Post by 908B64B197 »

zahllos wrote: post #201
exdsq wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've honestly yet to meet a research software engineer without a PhD because of the academic bias you will get in, well, academia.

Ok well I can fix that. Hi, I'm a research software engineer and I don't have a PhD. I'm in Europe. My salary is definitely better than the PhD students' salaries, and I have a proper adult pension as that's a legal requirement here. My salary is approximately equal to what a graduate might earn 1-2 years after graduating in the local market, so doesn't match my actual experience, but I accepted the post for pandemic…

> My salary is approximately equal to what a graduate might earn 1-2 years after graduating in the local market

When talking about the "local market" in Europe one needs to take into account the large number of "dark matter devs" that are working remotely for SV companies, at SV salaries. They simply won't ever show up for interviews at local companies.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#320

Post by 908B64B197 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #168
sbt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't have enough letters after your name to matter, and you will likely be a pet instead of a peer. This is an underrated point. This is the case for programmers in finance as well, and requires a hefty salary premium to put up with.

It certainly echoes my experience having just left a professional dev job in academia after an 11 year stretch. Anybody without academic credentials relevant to the subject matter is "the help" no matter how much you contribute, and it's flat-out demoralizing. 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 logis…

> Anybody without academic credentials relevant to the subject matter is "the help" no matter how much you contribute, and it's flat-out demoralizing.

That's my number one advice regarding academia: unless there's a path toward a valuable visa, or it's paid work while getting a valuable degree (read, something that will have the prestige to open doors) or your co-author at a good university you're much better building something for yourself somewhere else.

> no individual accomplishment was close to technically innovative enough to warrant a novel white paper [...] 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

That's because papers are the metric by which visibility is measured. Pretty much the only way to move forward is getting your name as author on the main papers.

Post reply on HN