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

321–330 of 366 posts

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#321

Post by auxym »

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?

It's pretty widely used in "traditional" engineering, at least in mechanical/civil/nuclear/aerospace. My impression is that it's probably a holdover from the good old days FORTRAN-IV.

See for example Code_Aster (as in, "a code"), which is one of the largest projects for open source FEA (and it mostly rooted in academia).

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#322

Post by jollybean »

noobermin wrote: post #174
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…

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…

Less than 1% of 'research' ends up being commercially viable in any way.

Almost zero research is commercialized directly, in a manner that equates tech to 'product'.

There are usually enormous costs in applying research to markets - just because something 'makes a million' doesn't mean there were no costs.

As for software:

We probably need cleaner, simpler tools, better SaaS for many things.

We just can't afford to have a lot of devs doing research.

Think about the zillions in lost man hours due to Python weirdness of various kinds. It's a giant productivity sink.

Also, I hope tooling for many researchers starts to improve.

I think the target should be, in most cases, that researchers themselves have the tools available to 'do their work' without having to hire devs.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#323

Post by jollybean »

photochemsyn wrote: post #306
kongolongo wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shar…

No, if a Uni has developed some patents, and wants to 'exclusively license' them to a Pharma, that's probably a good application of that patent, they become much less worthwhile otherwise.

It's a misunderstanding of the market to suggest that somehow 'the FDA will lead the trials'. This is about as likely as a manned mission to Venus, it won't happen, and it shouldn't happen for good reason (cost vastly outweighs the benefits).

It's also a misunderstanding to suggest 'whoever can produce pure preparations of those drugs at the lowest cost will win the most market share'. The 'cost of manufacture' is most cases is not a material or relevant issue.

Your example of 'COVID' monopolization is completely upside down - companies didn't maximize their profit potential there, and may not have even developed such vaccines in a normal case, they were giving very special prices to places like 'Africa' - and none of this has anything to do with 'low uptake' in Africa.

Africa has 'low uptake' for the very same set of reasons they don't have electricity, or consistent electricity in many places.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#324

Post by zahllos »

908B64B197 wrote: post #319
zahllos wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case then I mean local local market, not devs working remotely for SV. I am aware. One of my friends does this and earns 2x what I do, in cash.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#325

Post by l0b0 »

bmitc wrote: post #35
l0b0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage you to have a look at a well-known European physics research laboratory's (rhymes with Bern) library and engineering departments ( not IT, unless they've started using version control and tests since I worked there). The salary is not as bad as academia, and there's plenty of interesting stuff going on. Most of it is accessible to anyone interested in a way I've not seen outside of academia.

Certainly cool stuff but out of the question due to location. I've worked for or met with people from similar size (at least in ambition) projects. It's a tough world to break into and especially difficult to bring a different outlook to.

I can understand not wanting to move very far, but the location is in many ways great: French alps within driving distance, Jura within walking distance, the lake, old architecture, lots of fields and forests. World-leading public transport. Geneva itself isn't very exciting, to be fair, but you're in the heart of Europe with easy access to all the rest.

As for "breaking in," I dunno. The hiring process seems very fair and international (very few locals work there in a technical capacity AFAICT), and there are plenty of people with flexible ideas. Not everyone, for sure, but then there are so many different groups there you couldn't possibly blanket everyone with that statement.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#326

Post by rfrey »

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?

All mechanical engineers. All of them. Even that guy, who corrects himself when you're in the room - as soon as you're gone, they're back to the codes.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#327

Post by bmitc »

inejge wrote: post #104
bmitc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.o…

There are plenty of words in English that have the same singular and plural form.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#328

Post by rob_c »

myst1 wrote: post #229
rob_c wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least in bioscience... BINGO! that field is notoriously horrible and interacts extremely badly with a 'when not discovered here, not important' syndrome. Biology is brutal toward bio-physicists, mathematicians as well as people who code who they are forced to work with rather than seek out to help them. I still hold up as an example nonsense discussions around p-values in bio vs actual work going on in statistic…

No there isn't good money in physics and chemistry or pure math. PhD chemists almost never make 6 figures even in high cost of living areas serving as a specialist. I made less as a senior scientist or a project manager in chemistry than I do as an entry level software engineer. I don't know how many physicists I've met who work minimum wage jobs, usually call centers, after their PhD/post doc (even finding a PhD is…

> "good money" apparently a very relative term, I think I'm in it for job satisfaction then at 5 figures, shame I'm a qualified expert.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#329

Post by rob_c »

mike_hearn wrote: post #279
rob_c wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least in bioscience... BINGO! that field is notoriously horrible and interacts extremely badly with a 'when not discovered here, not important' syndrome. Biology is brutal toward bio-physicists, mathematicians as well as people who code who they are forced to work with rather than seek out to help them. I still hold up as an example nonsense discussions around p-values in bio vs actual work going on in statistic…

"Not to criticize too strongly, but given the above, combined with it's reproducabilty crisis, and existential problem of being in the back-pocket of big-pharma, I seriously doubt the professional integrity of a lot of people in the field." Lack of professional integrity is a very real problem. Over the past two years I wrote fairly frequently about some of the nonsensical / pseudo-scientific COVID papers that got pu…

I probably shouldn't go too public with what I know of report 9 that isn't on the record, but frankly next to no code from biologists has gone through peer review and people put "experts" on a pedastle because of what they claim their tools can do.

What I can and will say (and is on record) is that reproducibility was not a concern from the Imperial College virology dept.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#330

Post by jrumbut »

photochemsyn wrote: post #308
jrumbut wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, mat…

Do you think the decline of large corporate R&D efforts is cause or effect here (or is this a false premise)?

I am wondering whether we've seen the reverse of the idea I was originally challenging (if research was valuable it would be a business), where universities captured a profitable business because it was being neglected by the business community (and were distracted from basic research).

Post reply on HN