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

Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

chemistry-blog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#11

Post by jostmey »

arcanus wrote: post #8
jostmey wrote: post #2

Hacker news has seen a lot of posts on this subject. The usual advice is to work in industry, where people are apparently treated like human beings. I am sure this is true, but the advice isn't helpful to me. Society benefits from scientific research. Dismiss its wage problems at your own peril. Sadly, a lot of research is outsourced to universities because labor is cheap. Why pay someone loads of money when you can…

> Dismiss its wage problems at your own peril. It's far worse than this. In my field, even in industry I have had far more lucrative offers from quantitative hedge funds than any industrial research labor. Let alone staying in academia, where it literally starts to become a factor of four (or more) difference in salary between a postdoc and finance. The only reason I did not bite is because I am fortunate enough to h…

Don't count on your research job in industry remaining stable if it can be outsourced to a university lab. The ceiling on your pay is that of a postdoc's plus university overhead.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#12

Post by dnautics »

guelo wrote: post #7

It's a violation of labor laws. Universities argue that they can bypass labor laws by calling it education but there have been some recent rulings against that argument in postdoc unionization cases.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment.

Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay has to get done after you prep, and the prep is an 8 hour block of time after your cells are ready, and you have to do 10 hours of enzyme kinetic work... So you stay up all night. And it took you 10 months to figure out that this is the correct procedure, and now you have one year left in your contract, and you probably ought to be publishing and getting ready to give lectures for academic positions... So that's a straight month of 6 nights a week 100 hour a week work.

You hold postdocs strictly to labor laws, and they are going to be at a disadvantage to the postdocs that are crazy enough to do what needs to be done. You hold all postdocs strictly to labor laws, and hard science simply doesn't happen.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#13

Post by yomly »

The problem with academic science is threefold:

1: you are expected to feel privileged for doing something you vaguely enjoy. (how many people actually enjoy running columns and NMRs at 12am?)

2: you are expected to be altruistic in your ambitions. Curse those vaguely better paid lizard people who are working in industry to forward some profiteering enterprise rather than "science"

3: there are huge barriers to entry (tech excluded) so you will not do something entrepreneurial and make a name for yourself without the university. To make sure of this, we will name claim on anything you do for the next 10+ years anyway.

It's no wonder to me that many of the talented people. Leave to go do banking or consulting - they work less for more!!

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#14

Post by tnecniv »

Thriptic wrote: post #3
jostmey wrote: post #2

Hacker news has seen a lot of posts on this subject. The usual advice is to work in industry, where people are apparently treated like human beings. I am sure this is true, but the advice isn't helpful to me. Society benefits from scientific research. Dismiss its wage problems at your own peril. Sadly, a lot of research is outsourced to universities because labor is cheap. Why pay someone loads of money when you can…

> We cannot dismiss these problems in science if we want research to continue. The sad reality is that right now, those concerns can be dismissed. There is a huge supply of good researchers (especially foreign researchers) who are willing to work under poor conditions just to get a shot. Until there is more money in the system / more positions / fewer people in academic science, you are going to see PIs with unreason…

> PIs with unreasonable expectations because they know they can get away with it.

Not only that, but they know the next lab down the road is working just as many long, hard hours.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#15

Post by sndean »

dnautics wrote: post #12
guelo wrote: post #7

It's a violation of labor laws. Universities argue that they can bypass labor laws by calling it education but there have been some recent rulings against that argument in postdoc unionization cases.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment. Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay…

> You hold postdocs strictly to labor laws, and they are going to be at a disadvantage to the postdocs that are crazy enough to do what needs to be done. You hold all postdocs strictly to labor laws, and hard science simply doesn't happen.

I experienced this as a grad student, too. You essentially were at a disadvantage if you had a social life.

But you can extend this all the way down to high schoolers (or before?), where the kids out partying/socializing would be at a disadvantage to the kid studying alone in his room.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#16

Post by zimzam »

dnautics wrote: post #12
guelo wrote: post #7

It's a violation of labor laws. Universities argue that they can bypass labor laws by calling it education but there have been some recent rulings against that argument in postdoc unionization cases.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment. Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay…

Some tasks aren't fit for a single person: why can't one post-doc do the prep shift and a second post-doc do the enzyme work?

The way we structure our research institutions is arbitrary: we can and should restructure them if they aren't working.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#17

Post by cshimmin »

yomly wrote: post #13

The problem with academic science is threefold: 1: you are expected to feel privileged for doing something you vaguely enjoy. (how many people actually enjoy running columns and NMRs at 12am?) 2: you are expected to be altruistic in your ambitions. Curse those vaguely better paid lizard people who are working in industry to forward some profiteering enterprise rather than "science" 3: there are huge barriers to entry…

1. That's like saying you couldn't possibly be passionate about cooking a big fancy meal because nobody really enjoys doing the dishes afterwards. If you're not passionate enough about chemistry/cooking to run NMR/do dishes, you're in the wrong place anyways. So you shouldn't worry about "feeling privileged", you should just do yourself a favor and get out.

2. Many forms of basic science cannot be done in industry. Take my field, high energy physics for example... there's only one supergiant particle smasher in the world and it's not owned by IBM. Anyways doing public science may or may not be altruistic, but I don't see that as a problem of science. In my case I just _actually_ enjoy what I'm doing (see 1) any benefits for the public good are just a bonus.

3. Entrepreneurial options vary pretty widely depending on the field. Regardless, I don't think most people get into science with the master plan that they will make a magical new discovery and then sell it and become a billionaire. If that's your plan, again you're doing it wrong.

Also a lot of people you find in the sciences simply aren't that motivated by money. Many of the ones who go into banking either found out along the way that they weren't into it. Or regrettably often, they just got forced out of their field by competition so had to take a fat paycheck and boring job as a consolation prize.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#18

Post by rayiner »

cshimmin wrote: post #17
yomly wrote: post #13

The problem with academic science is threefold: 1: you are expected to feel privileged for doing something you vaguely enjoy. (how many people actually enjoy running columns and NMRs at 12am?) 2: you are expected to be altruistic in your ambitions. Curse those vaguely better paid lizard people who are working in industry to forward some profiteering enterprise rather than "science" 3: there are huge barriers to entry…

1. That's like saying you couldn't possibly be passionate about cooking a big fancy meal because nobody really enjoys doing the dishes afterwards. If you're not passionate enough about chemistry/cooking to run NMR/do dishes, you're in the wrong place anyways. So you shouldn't worry about "feeling privileged", you should just do yourself a favor and get out. 2. Many forms of basic science cannot be done in industry. T…

You've accurately described the status quo, but I'm not sure you've presented a good justification for it. There is no reason to believe the folks motivated by money are any less talented than the folks that aren't motivated by money. If science excludes people who don't want to work long hours for low pay, that's probably detrimental to society.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#19

Post by Someone »

sndean wrote: post #15
dnautics wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment. Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay…

> You hold postdocs strictly to labor laws, and they are going to be at a disadvantage to the postdocs that are crazy enough to do what needs to be done. You hold all postdocs strictly to labor laws, and hard science simply doesn't happen. I experienced this as a grad student, too. You essentially were at a disadvantage if you had a social life. But you can extend this all the way down to high schoolers (or before?),…

All the way down to kindergarten. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-china-schools-6ccb...:

"When Doudou Wong from Shanghai was four, she began attending additional math, Chinese, and English classes outside of her weekday kindergarten"

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#20

Post by cshimmin »

zimzam wrote: post #16
dnautics wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment. Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay…

Some tasks aren't fit for a single person: why can't one post-doc do the prep shift and a second post-doc do the enzyme work? The way we structure our research institutions is arbitrary: we can and should restructure them if they aren't working.

Often times at the bleeding edge of research, that one postdoc is literally the only person in the world who can do both tasks.

Also, most research projects are short enough on funding as it is. So what if you declare that this lab either has to 1) hire two people do to this job in shifts or 2) simply not do the research at all? You get back to the same situation dnautics mentioned where the truly passionate/competitive researchers are going to be doing whatever it takes to get it done (or, with strict enforcement, the science just doesn't get done).

Post reply on HN