Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Consider working on genomics

claymcleod.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 299 posts

Re: Consider working on genomics

#51

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

zach_garwood wrote: post #5

Several of the job boards linked don't have any job listings, most don't provide a salary range, several require advanced degrees, and none specify whether remote work is possible. If I can get a better salary and working conditions at some crappy no-name startup, why would I choose to work at an organization that respects my craft so little they haven't bothered to maintain their software for a decade?

> If I can get a better salary and working conditions at some crappy no-name startup, why would I choose to work at an organization that respects my craft so little they haven't bothered to maintain their software for a decade?

Amen, couldn't have said it better myself. I'm sure it's very worthy and all working on a genomics project that aims to eradicate some killer disease, but you need to live and provide for your family while you're doing it.

Re: Consider working on genomics

#53

Post by clmcleod »

RangerScience wrote: post #44
clmcleod wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your phrase here sums up how many people feel: > why would I choose to work at an organization that respects my craft so little they haven't bothered to maintain their software for a decade This is changing in my experience, albeit slowly. And really, this is what I'm calling on us, as a community, to do better on. The reason you _would_ work at these organizations is because (1) the subject-matter is really…

I think what I'd ask is: Will I be allowed to fix the parts that result in > an organization that respects my craft so little Like, it's one thing if they haven't - that can be fine, it's just more work. It's an entirely different thing if they won't .

I think the honest answer is, it depends where you work. Where I work, we have that autonomy. But we also have leadership that understands and respects the software engineering craft.

Re: Consider working on genomics

#54

Post by zach_garwood »

jghn wrote: post #43
jwilber wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out here for a second, people go where they’re most valued. Why would someone volunteer to go work somewhere where they’ll get less money, have less flexibility, be treated as second-class employees, have less work perks, etc. when so many alternatives exist? Doubly so in this economy. Maybe genetic companies should catch up in workplace etiquette instead of recommending that SWE’s lower their expecta…

At least one of the entities on that list is a nonprofit academic institution. Expecting pay equal to the standard software industry is misguided. Whether or not that's a tradeoff you're willing to make is another question.

And three of them are FAANG. They could certainly afford it.

Re: Consider working on genomics

#55

Post by jghn »

clmcleod wrote: post #46
AlbertCory wrote: post #27

20 years ago I got interested in "bioinformatics." I loved learning something about molecular biology, after all those years of hearing about DNA and not understanding it. And "Molecular Biology of the Cell" is, hands down, the greatest textbook ever written. That said: a lot of the comments are spot on. You're working in a field where the hard scientists and business people rule and you're a helper. Maybe they're gr…

> That said: a lot of the comments are spot on. You're working in a field where the hard scientists and business people rule and you're a helper This definitely was the culture when I started working in the field 6 years ago. However, the culture has shifted (at least where I work) to where biologists and engineers are equal partners that work together on solving these problems. For those organizations that are not t…

Agreed. Huge change over the last 10-15 years. My first job in the space had a view that obviously a mere software developer wouldn't be paid more than even a postdoc scientist. And as postdocs weren't paid all that well, you see where this is going.

These days more biotech companies are computationally/software focused. They understand that to pull in strong talent they're not operating in the same academic science world.

Re: Consider working on genomics

#58

Post by cratermoon »

clmcleod wrote: post #12
zach_garwood wrote: post #5

Several of the job boards linked don't have any job listings, most don't provide a salary range, several require advanced degrees, and none specify whether remote work is possible. If I can get a better salary and working conditions at some crappy no-name startup, why would I choose to work at an organization that respects my craft so little they haven't bothered to maintain their software for a decade?

I think your phrase here sums up how many people feel: > why would I choose to work at an organization that respects my craft so little they haven't bothered to maintain their software for a decade This is changing in my experience, albeit slowly. And really, this is what I'm calling on us, as a community, to do better on. The reason you _would_ work at these organizations is because (1) the subject-matter is really…

I have experience working in academia. I started out working for a medical school in fact, on bioinformatics. It's been a while, so I have kind of forgotten the problems, but I'll do my best.

1. Academic code. Not one institution would pass the Joel Test[1]. You pretty much covered some key points in your first paragraph, so I see not much has changed. The best predictor of how something will perform in the future is how it has performed in the past. Just hiring good software engineers won't change the system in which they work.

2. Academic bureaucracy & administration. I've worked for large Fortune 500 companies with less byzantine org charts. I've been matrix-managed. The siloing in academia is crazy.

3. Advancement. Because it's academia, advanced degrees are everything. My first boss in academia had a PhD. His job? He ran the student computing lab. My second boss was an MD/PhD. Great guy, but treated everyone like a lab assistant. I went to graduate school for one year and realized it wasn't for me.

4. (added after reading other comments). Completely unrealistic understanding of what developing robust, complex software is like. You touched on this by mentioning how many projects have 1 maintainer. I remember seeing a doctor shopping around his project plan. I'd say it would be a challenge for a high-performing 5-person team. He thought it was a job for a single entry-level programmer.

1 https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...

Re: Consider working on genomics

#59

Post by nine_k »

jghn wrote: post #43
jwilber wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out here for a second, people go where they’re most valued. Why would someone volunteer to go work somewhere where they’ll get less money, have less flexibility, be treated as second-class employees, have less work perks, etc. when so many alternatives exist? Doubly so in this economy. Maybe genetic companies should catch up in workplace etiquette instead of recommending that SWE’s lower their expecta…

At least one of the entities on that list is a nonprofit academic institution. Expecting pay equal to the standard software industry is misguided. Whether or not that's a tradeoff you're willing to make is another question.

If you go to academia, you're certainly are not going for the money.

People can work for less if they are visibly valued, or where they are doing some heroic stuff that appeals to them personally.

People can for some time withstand being treated as second class, being overworked, etc, if they are paid a lot.

But if it's neither, why would anyone bother?

Re: Consider working on genomics

#60

Post by dottedmag »

This field does not _need_ software engineers.

This field needs marketing, product and project managers (for-profit or non-profit variety) that could figure out:

1. what product to build to have the biggest impact

2. how to build it.

Once 1. and 2. is clear it will be equally clear that if you have a bunch of scientists you won't get a great product, as nobody will build the product, everyone will build a prototype.

So then it will follow that the project needs to hire (=attract) software engineers to be in charge of software, and attracting software engineers means giving them competitive compensation.

Post reply on HN