Life outside the lab: The ones who got away

A significantly improved work-life balance wouldn't hurt, either, but that's a societal problem outside of science too.

It's too bad, really. I've recently witnessed a ton of bright people decide to leave science for greener pastures. I'll be joining them soon.

First, the pay and benefits are awful. This could be fixed with a cultural attitude shift which favors scientific progress enough to actually incentivize people to do it. The entire "STEM! STEM! STEM!" craze has not been accompanied by increased wages, so it rings cynically hollow.

Second, the work-life balance is poor, especially for PhD students and post docs. This could be fixed by reducing expectations and shifting to less of a "publish or perish" mindset when it comes to funding research. Working too many hours is frequently lamented/glorified/humblebragged about. A lot of these people don't have a life outside of the laboratory, and it's depressing to think about them because they choose it.

Third, the political games are fierce, relentless, and necessary in order to move upward. In academic biology, sideways moves aren't really a thing-- you either move upward (which really only happens a couple of times in most careers), or tread water wherever you are. The politics of funding and who to collaborate with are part of the game, and many people get fed up with it very quickly. People are extremely territorial about any kind of resources they have, even if the resources are freely replenishable or effectively infinite. Because so much time must be spent playing politics, leadership figures are frequently uninvolved/unreachable while occupied with political matters such as securing funding, collaborations, or new personnel.

Fourth, I have observed many instances of a poor work environment. There is always far more criticism than praise in the sciences, and it wears people down. It is a common occurrence that a superior will make a tender-hearted subordinate cry from the extensive criticism of a minor mistake. Part of the scientific process is presenting your work to your superiors and peers, and having them attempt to pick it apart. The gaps in your knowledge will be found by questioning in public. The faults of your experiment will be exposed, and discussed. It's humbling, and not in a good way. Science isn't particularly meant to be a feel-good enterprise, but the research culture is too vicious.

On the other hand, when the life of science is good, it's great. Currently I have tons of funding, a good work-life balance, effective leadership, and outrageously interesting research projects. The pay is still awful, and there are still a lot of vicious politics, but there's absolutely nothing like being able to plan an experiment, execute it, analyze the results, and then explain your results to others, thereby actually expanding human knowledge in some small or large way. That sensation is what keeps people in science, putting up with the bullshit-- the bad things just don't seem so heavy if you're one of the people who are electrified by the science.

3 of them decided to go back to Germany mainly for the vacation culture. All big travelers with no interest in the US work environment. The 4th integrated into American culture more but is also the biggest traveler. While he wants to go back to Germany, he is currently working in the US because he says he still doesn't know what he wants to do and he doesn't think he could get away with that lack of direction anywhere else but the US.

For completeness, hes one of the phd maths and does research for an acturial software company. But he will be switching to something else soon.

You may like that the physics guy was doing post doc in the US and then decided to bail and joined a telecom consulting company in Germany. That's not as unrelated as chem to finance but for him it was a huge switch. The company was just willing to take on a long ramp-up time and teach him.