Live data from Hacker News

Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

chemistry-blog.com

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#21
This reads like someone complaining about the time requirements to be a member of a top athletic club or top kitchen or top theatre or any other highly demanding discipline.

The only way this behaviour would be "wrong" is if candidates were mislead when they entered about what would be expected of them.

If you aren't willing to sacrifice, then don't. You can make a rational choice and walk away with your pride and future intact. But don't pretend someone was wronging you by asking you to sacrifice.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#22
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…

Sounds like this just needs automation.

Further people working 100 hour weeks make so many mistakes their work flat out can't be trusted. And should automatically be rejected by any sane review board on that basis alone. Not that it will be but as has been shown many times 'modern' science is fairly broken.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#23
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, as a scientist, if you want to throw more money at science (to attract the population of talented people who are also money-motivated), I'm all for it! It would be interesting to see if it would "trickle down" and make the research better.

It would also be interesting to see if you get an influx of grifters chasing after a piece of the pie, resulting in lower-quality science ("Trump laboratories! We have the best tubes, and we have the best numbers! You're gonna really love our science, buh-lieve me.").

Not saying I really think that's what would happen. But at least with the way things are right now, the only cheaters in science are usually after some kind of bizarre notion of obscure fame/glory (see e.g. [1]). And they are rather rare.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#24
post #5

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Caltech has a reputation as one of the best research universities in the world and getting a degree or doing research there requires a lot of work because it's so competitive. I've spent many nights as a kid running around Caltech in the dark while my mother worked on her experiments till midnight or later (all of the turtles come out at night!). Publish or perish goes tenfold for…

I used to be in a long-term relationship with a chem undergrad at Caltech. I saw her all-nighters and stress first-hand. The workload drove her to attempted suicide (and had she gone through with it, hardly would've been the first suicide at Caltech).

We split up and it took years for both of us to recover.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#25
post #19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

And the worst part: This sort of draconian training regimen doesn't even work. If it did, China would have far more Nobel Prizes than it does.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#26
post #6

From what I can tell, this is much more common in synthetic labs than physical or analytical labs. I think most of the physical chemists I knew in two different universities worked fairly normal hours, the labs were mostly empty on nights and weekends.

Computational chemist here: I agree. I still put in long hours sometimes, but my "lab" is just one ssh away, so hours actually in the office are a bit flexible.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#27
post #22

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…

Sounds like this just needs automation. Further people working 100 hour weeks make so many mistakes their work flat out can't be trusted. And should automatically be rejected by any sane review board on that basis alone. Not that it will be but as has been shown many times 'modern' science is fairly broken.

You are correct that automation would help out a lot technically, at least in some science fields.

There are two cultural issues, though:

1) Automation won't be used in many cases since automation is not how the advisors did things when they got their PhD. They usually don't care if the student has a better idea for how to do things than theirs, even (especially) if the student is technically correct.

2) Even in cases where they do automate some procedure and save a lot of labor, the grad student is simply expected to use that time to do that much more new / additional work.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#28

This reads like someone complaining about the time requirements to be a member of a top athletic club or top kitchen or top theatre or any other highly demanding discipline. The only way this behaviour would be "wrong" is if candidates were mislead when they entered about what would be expected of them. If you aren't willing to sacrifice, then don't. You can make a rational choice and walk away with your pride and fu…

It is indeed partially true that doing high level work simply requires extended hours and unusual dedication to achieve anything. However, that is not what is primarily at work here.

The main factor is a sort of culturally normative and ingrained rite of passage / hazing ritual / bullying / dominance effect, which primarily serves to inflate the boss professor's ego at the expense of the grad students. Getting a PhD was difficult and grueling for the professor, so they are damn sure going to make sure it's difficult and grueling for their own students.

The only way they themselves got through it was internalizing the attitude that a grueling work and study schedule is simply normal and simply the price of success.

This exercise of extreme and essentially arbitrary power over how the students live their lives, far beyond what any normal job could remotely require, is very gratifying to many professors. They've worked so hard, suffered themselves, and now THEY have this absurd power over others.. It makes them feel important and powerful at a very primal level to tell their students they have to live under these extraordinary conditions, and then see them obey.

They can literally choose whose career will live and whose will die, whose dreams will happen and whose will be broken and swept away without a thought.

To fix this, the professors need to have a lot less arbitrary power over their students. There needs to be another route to a PhD besides enduring poverty and years of ritual self-humiliation and long form ass-kissing. Only then will the culture shift, as the "grind mode" professors are replaced by new professors who didn't have to grind.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#29
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like this just needs automation. Further people working 100 hour weeks make so many mistakes their work flat out can't be trusted. And should automatically be rejected by any sane review board on that basis alone. Not that it will be but as has been shown many times 'modern' science is fairly broken.

You are correct that automation would help out a lot technically, at least in some science fields. There are two cultural issues, though: 1) Automation won't be used in many cases since automation is not how the advisors did things when they got their PhD. They usually don't care if the student has a better idea for how to do things than theirs, even (especially) if the student is technically correct. 2) Even in case…

Exactly. They will be put to work figuring out how to automate thing, and we will be back to where we started.

In order to automate something, you have to actually discover and refine the process first

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#30
post #22

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…

Sounds like this just needs automation. Further people working 100 hour weeks make so many mistakes their work flat out can't be trusted. And should automatically be rejected by any sane review board on that basis alone. Not that it will be but as has been shown many times 'modern' science is fairly broken.

Won't happen while labor is cheap
Post reply on HN