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

Science needs more research software engineers

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 366 posts

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#81

Post by sseagull »

bmitc wrote: post #24

I don't think scientists want research software engineers. PIs typically like to assume any and every role on a project, including software design. They don't like handing things off and letting people build modern, best practices software. You start talking about source code control, package managers, a language used in industry that they've never even heard of and don't care enough to learn about, etc., and you jus…

> They call it "codes"

They/We have probably been calling it that since before you were alive. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes from the 60s or 70s.

Every group of people has their own terminology for stuff. There is no right or wrong.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#82

Post by wombatpm »

saghm wrote: post #48
stackbutterflow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this infamous discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6l2esd/d_w... Tldr: They view software as just a tool and don't see how they'll benefit from following best practices.

Oh wow, looking at that Python code they linked to brings back memories of my ML course in college. We had skeleton code given to us to fill in for the assignments, and often times it took longer for me to understand what the code they gave was even doing so I'd know what to fill in than it took me to actually write the code. Occasionally there would be random semicolons at the end of the lines, but the author seemed…

You can write FORTRAN code in many languages

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#83

Post by prpl »

xroja wrote: post #23

I've worked at a top research university for the past 15 years as a research software engineer. Many of these comments have some truth but a lot are definitely not universally true. Poor compensation: Yup, I'll cop to that. I could be making way more in "industry" but I make enough to live and I don't build ad-ware and do take pride in my work. Being a PhD but little respect: I actually have the opposite experience.…

I kind of alluded to this, but my experience was slightly similar.

B.S. in Physics (w/ years of significant undergrad research), but worked with PhDs+ in national lab scenario. At some point everybody assumes you have an PhD.

Little to no micromanagement. It was more professional scenario.

IMO an RSE at a mid-ranked state school hired by a PI and embedded into a research group, compared to an RSE at a top-tier research University - at a lab or institute that employs many engineers, they will have vastly different experiences and probably pay as well. There's exceptions to the rule, but this is generally my experience.

There's a good chunk of both jobs, but I would not work the former.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#84

Post by lliamander »

mywaifuismeta wrote: post #4
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

The last point is important. In my experience it's mostly about status. RSEs are always seen as inferior to researchers (research scientists) who supposedly come up with the "big ideas" while RSEs merely implement the stuff they're told to do. In reality the line is much blurrier. There can be no innovation and iteration without implementation of ideas and the RSE work is just as important. But unless this view chang…

I actually wouldn't mind being lower status than the scientists, so long as my particular expertise was respected and I had a reasonable degree of autonomy within my domain.

I did tech support at a university for a bit. I certainly wasn't as high status as the professors, but they mostly respected me and the value I provided (especially when you do things like help them recover that next book they were working on, or whatever).

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#85

Post by robbomacrae »

This hit pretty close to home for me, as I started as a programming oriented PhD and then transitioned into a SV full software engineer over 10 years. I am exactly like they mentioned "Many RSEs started out as PhD students or postdocs who worked on software to support their own project. They realized that they enjoyed that part of the job more than the actual research."

I think the advice in the interview is pretty sound. OSS is a great way to contribute and become in demand.

But the main issue here is that there are not enough RSE's. "If RSEs can get the recognition and rewards that they deserve, then the career path will be that much more visible and attractive."

Here are my two cents:

1) Academia will never compete in salary with big tech (except maybe in the big Ivy League schools). Universities should promote spin offs, help with patents, run regular hackathons and an incubator program. That will give engineers an incentive to at least start their career in an academic lab.

2) Some of the best science happens in startups and org x labs, not just academia. But even here I found there are very few companies that value an RSE. You're either an RS, or an SE and the extra R or E is in title only. They will see you as a researcher who knows a bit of python, or as an engineer who wasted years in graduate school. You will be interviewed as one or the other. You will be paid as one or the other. I've never seen a company appreciate the value of fully grokking or contributing to the researchers algorithms and Jupiter notebooks and then architecting an efficient implementation at scale. You will also be kept in your swim lane. Researcher? Can't touch the production systems. Engineer? Good luck getting a patent application going. If there is a hiring manager out there reading this... please consider making a true RSE interview and role.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#86

Post by lliamander »

jltsiren wrote: post #72
ethanwillis wrote: post #2

Well, then science needs to do more to create an environment where software engineers would want to be an RSE. From my experience "science" does not appreciate RSEs, the compensation is bad, the freedom is bad, and you get all of the big company bureaucracy from the University. It's just a bad environment and to top it off, even if you have a PhD many will see you as "less than."

While the academia has a lot of issues, software engineers should also adjust their expectations. First, if you choose to work for a non-profit, you should expect a huge pay cut. That's the way the society works. Or actually it's the opposite. If you work in a for-profit role, the society allows your employer to keep most of the value you create. If you create a lot of value, that gives you the leverage to negotiate…

> Third, many people in the industry fail to realize that you don't really work for your employer in the academia. You work to build a reputation for yourself, which makes you valuable to the employer.

That feels like how it works outside of academia as well.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#87

Post by j7ake »

Research software engineers should be PIs themselves so they can choose what they want to work on, who to work with, and hire trainees to mentor the next generation of research software engineers.

RSEs are a different breed from SEs from industry, the work is not about scaling to a billion people but being nimble and adaptive to new results and ideas.

If one wants to see change, then hire senior PI positions who do research software engineering. This will help create a hub and prevent the feeling of being a “pet” in an experimental lab.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#88

Post by jxramos »

throwmamatrain wrote: post #60

This looks great, and I would have loved to see this when I was in the lab. When the software industry says to you: "We will nearly triple your salary, you don't have to work weekends, and you also don't have to feed the mice on a Sunday night." You will 100% take this deal. I was a 10yr+ academic tool maker in biochemistry, built cutting edge microscopes, hardware, and image analysis software. My lab was successful…

totally this. I had a boss once who took me aside in her office to probe interests and direction. Somewhere she quipped about work in academia being paid peanuts. It was a pretty shocking statement and attitude to hear it so bluntly, especially being so close in time to my own graduation and years at the university and admiration for that world. But in all honesty I never heard it challenged much.

Later as I started to hear more about how economies function and how revenues really build up and stem from consumers in volume I came to realize that things that ultimately benefit a lot of people generate a lot of money. I saw an intermediary of this working at Apple and seeing how much funds they had to spend vs biomedical companies that were more conservative with their funds. Consumer electronics and consumer products in general have a lot of customers, benefit a lot of people, and ultimately earn a lot of money.

Academia is much more limited in its scope and immediate benefit. That delay in benefit shapes the money involved in all sorts of surprising ways that aren't immediately apparent while still under the wings of the academic world and the "currencies" they operate with be it notoriety, prizes, grants, etc etc. Ultimately the results and products of academia are suspect and risky since they're often in the prototype unvetted phase of birthing into existence. Those thoughts Elon Musk shares while touring Starbase about design vs manufacturing in the gauntlet of tests against reality where the two forms get vetted side by side come to mind here. His statement of "design is overrated" probably has a close analogue in academia. Products of the mind are essentially untested and may not stand up to reality along whatever dimensions one needs to evaluate them against, or as is probably more often the case simple don't scale to the degree needed to impact a large number of people in a short time frame to translate to paying customers.

Re: Science needs more research software engineers

#90

Post by bmitc »

sseagull wrote: post #81
bmitc wrote: post #24

I don't think scientists want research software engineers. PIs typically like to assume any and every role on a project, including software design. They don't like handing things off and letting people build modern, best practices software. You start talking about source code control, package managers, a language used in industry that they've never even heard of and don't care enough to learn about, etc., and you jus…

> They call it "codes" They/We have probably been calling it that since before you were alive. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes from the 60s or 70s. Every group of people has their own terminology for stuff. There is no right or wrong.

I have never heard or read anyone, beside physicists, say codes for software code. It doesn't even make sense. Where have you seen that used?
Post reply on HN