Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#51

Post by Tannic » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:01 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #48

zimzam wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

well, when you do that, the second post-doc does the enzyme work, and doesn't notice one little thing that the first post-doc does that messes up the experiment, 30% of the time. It's like why do hospitals make doctors and nurses pull long shifts? One of the major sources of errors is handoff error, where passing a patient from continuous care by one person to another results in loss of experiential knowledge accumul…

Interesting...seems short-sighted though. Presumably handoff errors could be reduced by staggering shifts so that important information has the proper time to be relayed.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#52

Post by WhoBeI » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

Isn't this involuntary servitude? That's how I see it anyways. Whenever you are expected, and in this case required, to work against your will and for, I'm assuming, no pay under the threat of losing your livelihood it's involuntary servitude.

Maybe I'm wrong about the "no pay" but even then I would still consider it involuntary.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#53

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

saryant wrote: post #24

akiselev wrote: 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.

[deleted]

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#54

Post by dekhn » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

akiselev wrote: 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 went to one of the greatest grad schools in the world- UCSF- and while there were lots of people who worked absurd hours, I can't say I found it was necessary. Some people in academia just overwork without it leading to greater productivity.

I don't mind once in a while having to start growing cells in the morning and hanging around for until evening to collect the results. The expectation that you should always be working that kind of hours... well, it doesn't make any sense to me.

The one that really bothered me is that some of the professors would come in on Saturday morning and call their students. It wasn't that they needed them. They were just bored and lonely.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#55

Post by Noseshine » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

yyhhsj0521 wrote: post #50

pjlegato wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It works [1]. The problem is that Nobel Prize has little to do with kindergarten and average people. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-r...

Test scores are a strange definition of "it works" in the given context.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#56

Post by sseagull » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

yomly wrote: post #47

cshimmin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bes…

10/10 times I would rather scientists conducting nebulous research than crunching spreadsheets for a bank. The point is you have a pool of people who are talented and can do things that other people can't, they're contributing more to society than most and they're expected to do this for free.

I've always thought of it as the economy will always take advantage of people who enjoy doing something like this. Ie, If you love science, you may be willing to take a lower wage. Eventually, it becomes very exploitative, with long hours and lower wages "just because" it's something you enjoy (even though it is quite beneficial to society).

I wonder if there is a term/concept for this in economics or sociology. I've been looking to nail down the idea a bit.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#57

Post by Noseshine » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:18 AM UTC

jknoepfler wrote: post #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 fu…

The letter wasn't about results, it was merely about "being there". Similar to programmers being judged for sitting in front of the computer x hours per day instead of on their work. There was not even the slightest hint that the focus of the person writing the letter was the actual result of the work.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#58

Post by throw_away_777 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

This problem is very much prevalent in physics too. The mentioned article https://psmag.com/the-real-science-gap-f00edae57ba1#.tlnbcqb... is well worth reading.

I am currently transitioning from academia to industry, having just recently finished a PhD in high energy physics (looking for a job in data science). When I mention the lack of a job market in academia as a reason I am transitioning, people don't understand and look at me funny. If anyone is young and thinking of going into high energy physics, do yourself a favor and just don't. The glut of postdocs needed by the LHC, combined with the terrible failure of the SSC, has created a particularly terrible job market for high energy physicists in the US.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#59

Post by jwatte » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:34 AM UTC

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?),…

Except if they create social connections that last, because social connections are a better predictor of success than raw academics.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#60

Post by anbende » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 2:44 AM UTC

WhoBeI wrote: post #52

Isn't this involuntary servitude? That's how I see it anyways. Whenever you are expected, and in this case required, to work against your will and for, I'm assuming, no pay under the threat of losing your livelihood it's involuntary servitude. Maybe I'm wrong about the "no pay" but even then I would still consider it involuntary.

Except that it is in no way involuntary. It's never against your will, and its generally not for no pay. It's just long hours for low pay.

It's hard to see what you mean by involuntary here. It's a work for education arrangement, and the amount of work is large, but people are free to leave. It's a bad deal in a bad system, but its hardly involuntary.