patrick.net

Yes I learned that lesson the hard way. I wanted to do meteorology & climate research, but I realized very quickly that there were far more scientists than the funding could support.

I switched to mechanical engineering. I now do meaningless work that pays well.

freak80 says

I wanted to do meteorology....

"“There’s not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy.”"
***
For all days beyond the next day out, viewers would be better off flipping a coin to predict rainfall than trusting the stations on days where rain was possible."

We do need a lot more research. Instead, at the behest of PhRMA, the bipartisan sequester protects Obamacare and reduces research into potentially disruptive technologies. And the Republicans oppose science altogether, because they oppose evolution.

A broader cultural problem is the celebration of conspicuous consumption. Celebrities are expected to spend vast fortunes on flashy cars and jewelry and yachts, apparently to encourage consumers to go into debt to buy smaller versions of those consumer goods. That generates economic activity, but not real wealth and certainly not progress. Bill Gates is a rare exception; there is generally no expectation that people of great wealth should apply their talent and other resources to improving the human condition.

John Bailo says

Or else they'll steal your findings and label you a crank while they accept their prizes. I guess if you're rich though, who cares.

Yes, that's it. If you're rich, who cares. You've got your grand daddy's fund & in the end, that's your livelihood. The other stuff is your hobby.

a regular business-type of job/career

where do you find one of those?

MershedPerturders says

a regular business-type of job/career

where do you find one of those?

Accountant, Bank Loan officer, Salesperson, Insurance Adjuster, RE Appraiser, Headhunter, HR representative, Auto Mechanic, HVAC operator, Dental Hygienist, the list goes on.

Rin says

Accountant, Bank Loan officer, Salesperson, Insurance Adjuster, RE Appraiser, Headhunter, HR representative, Auto Mechanic, HVAC operator, Dental Hygienist, the list goes on.

Pop quiz: how many of these do anything meaningful?

Answer: those that pay the least.

JH says

Pop quiz: how many of these do anything meaningful?

The thing here is that any of the aforementioned, could be making little to a lot of money, depending upon the business circumstances whereas scientists, on the whole, aren't going anywhere, any time soon.

For example, a mechanic who works at a Toyota Dealer for scraps, could shift into customizing antique or Muscle cars and suddenly, find himself in a six figure gig. And then, there are plenty of places in the middle, between extremes. All and all, once his reputation is formed, he'll always be employed.

The director of human resources, quite possibly the most useless person in a corporation, by virtue of keeping secrets for the CFO/COO types, also earns six figures.

Rin says

All and all, once his reputation is formed, he'll always be employed.

While I agree, I would also argue that there are far fewer people who can get a gig like this by doing good work, whereas the other "jobs" (eg, HR director, etc) are a dime a dozen. So the median good mechanic will be stuck in a shitty job, while the median headhunter will make bank just by making calls all day from home which we could easily do using monster/ladder/etc.

But this thread is about scientists. I would say that scientists fall into the same category into which I placed mechanics...unfortunately for my pocketbook... Except I totally agree with you that it may be harder for the scientist to find that sweet gig that rewards your hard work!

JH says

I would say that scientists fall into the same category into which I placed mechanic

The only place where I'd diverge from your line of thought is that the role of a mechanic is a part of an essential business flow. And that's getting a vehicle in shape and back on the road, while at the same time, only having to have a GED (with some ASE certificates) vs university education.

The billing rate for any auto work is $50 to $85 per hour. Now granted, Toyota dealers and a host of other places, really stiff their employees and give 'em crumbs but even the existence of what's actually, not a bad business valuation of one's skills, makes 'em have upward potential, regardless of present-day crappy situations. Thus, that ancient/classic car specialist, $125-$170/hr, isn't needed if you have a regular two to three man shop. The various two man shops I've gone to, have the mechanics earning $60-$80K. And only one of them, an ex-Soviet immigrant, has some college work from some Soviet Polytechnic. The others are just HS graduates.

JH says

Rin says

Accountant, Bank Loan officer, Salesperson, Insurance Adjuster, RE Appraiser, Headhunter, HR representative, Auto Mechanic, HVAC operator, Dental Hygienist, the list goes on.

Pop quiz: how many of these do anything meaningful?

Answer: those that pay the least.

this is what America is all about. Distracting you from a meaningful existence so you can buy products. It's like the modern equivalent to idolatry. American technology doesn't solve problems, it MAKES problems. Are we more carefree, less stressed, more time than we were even 50 years ago? not even close things are much less enjoyable these days.

MershedPerturders says

Are we more carefree, less stressed, more time than we were even 50 years ago? not even close things are much less enjoyable these days.

Good grief. Quit whining on the WWW (invented 20 years ago) and go back to rotary dialing anyone who will listen to your ridiculous complaints about the 21st century.

curious2 says

Quit whining on the WWW (invented 20 years ago) and go back to rotary dialing anyone who will listen to your ridiculous complaints about the 21st century.

One thing is that back in '88, when the NSF said that there would a shortage of 650K scientists by the early 2000s, few really questioned it. And part of that was there weren't these blogs and websites with a lot of ppl saying that it was a big lie and thus, a lot of the postdoc stories were just that, word of mouth.

Today, many STEM shortage myths are getting blasted, left and right, as the general Joe/Jane realize that execs would rather outsource jobs than hire stateside. And that universities are just grant machines, with postdocs as a form of highly skilled but low waged worker bees.

Rin says

Today, many STEM shortage myths are getting blasted, left and right, as the general Joe/Jane realize that execs would rather outsource jobs than hire stateside.

That's happening to multiple professions, for multiple reasons. Part of it has to do with the misallocation of public funding: guaranteed student loans have produced more advanced degrees than the private market can absorb, while public funding has failed to provide enough appropriate jobs. The sequester reducing science, at a moment when tremendous advances are within reach, is typical. People who could be developing new cures or restoring lost limbs can't get public funding, so they're working for hedge funds or developing fast food additives. I don't know if in 1988 the NSF could predict the sequester. As I type this, I'm also listening to Hillary Clinton talk about her early career as a young lawyer and wanting to promote legal aid for people who couldn't afford it; the Constitution says you have a right to counsel, but good luck with that if you aren't either rich or destitute. (But I would point out there's always plenty of $ to prosecute drug cases, including throughout her husband's two terms as President.) There isn't a lack of work to be done, there's a misallocation of funding in the most wasteful ways possible, and that's both a cause and a consequence of a context where the most wasteful policies have the biggest markups that can be shared out to political patronage networks.

Anyway my comment to turdpile was an objection to his endless complaints that life was more "enjoyable" before the civil rights act of 1964, and his endless ridiculous claims that there has been "virtually no progress" since then.

curious2 says

People who could be developing new cures or restoring lost limbs can't get public funding, so they're working for hedge funds or developing fast food additives. I don't know if in 1988 the NSF could predict the sequester.

NSF's report was based upon lies

http://www.aea.org/documents/tax/nsf_effects_legislation.pdf

And today, such a thing would never have taken off.

As for hedge funds, I work for one today. I'd never give this up for anything because in a few years, I'll be retired and then, I could attend medical school, on my own dime, and pursue whatever research I like.

The point is that no one makes a living, doing science. This fact needs to be made clear to the public. If you're a scientist, you are owned by your university, national lab, or private firm. If you're "owned", then for the most part, your work reflects the desires of your owners. And from my p.o.v., that's not science, that's being a shill of an organization and its mission statement.

The only reason we have this blog is because of a line of individuals investing in science.

And some countries who are now leading in Science, Technology, R&D, plan to do more investing in citizens in science:

http://opentoexport.com/article/south-korea-new-basic-plan-for-science-and-technology-july-2013/

"No one makes a living as a scientist"

WTF? Seriously?

It's true that you aren't guaranteed a cushy job just because you have a PhD in some scientific field...you have to be worth a shit, be entrepreneurial and / or political, and know what to focus on. If you can't hack it, you won't find yourself making a lot of money in a secure job...but plenty of people make quite good money doing research at the university level.

I'm not saying we do have a shortage, but if you are good and in an area that's hot, you can make good money. If you are a superstar, you can get rich. As a professor. Really.

swebb says

I'm not saying we do have a shortage, but if you are good and in an area that's hot, you can make good money. If you are a superstar, you can get rich. As a professor. Really.

Good, meaning pulling in grant money. That's a game onto itself.

Also, changing terms like surface chemistry to nano-catalysis, doesn't make someone hot.

Science is a lot like pro-sports. Only the best 1% make it big; the rest end up working at McDonald's.

That's why I got out of science.

freak80 says

Science is a lot like pro-sports. Only the best 1% make it big; the rest end up working at McDonald's.

That's why I got out of science.

Yes, but that top 1% to 5% isn't really "top". I know a number of them and what they do is *spin* the work, which used to fall into applied chemistry or applied physics, into new paradigms, wherever the funding hype is oriented like nano*, green/renewable, etc. Biogradable polymers, which was studied, long before I'd entered college for Applied Chemistry/ChemE was later turned into a green phenomena.

In sports, at least for the most part, we know that a top tier player like let's say Kobe Bryant, can pretty much beat many of the world's players, one-on-one [ with a few blown games here and there ] and then, on a well staffed team [ with solid defenders and role players ], win a championship or two. And just like that, many NBA players (minus the ones who got cut during rookie/sopho years) can play quite well in international leagues.

Today, ppl who get money for the sciences tend to be showman than scientists. If you took that elite 5%, chances are, you won't find the superstars of VonNeuman, Tesla, Maxwell, etc, in there like only a couple of generations ago. In a sense, it would like if you took NBA players and suddenly found out that they couldn't play against the Malaysian clubs but because they were dubbed *NBA*, via David Stern, ppl would refuse to accept the fact that the Malay teams actually outperformed them. Stern simply wouldn't give the Malaysian squad the airtime. Collectively speaking, the funding agencies are the metaphorical *David Stern* of the sciences.

Rin says

Today, ppl who get money for the sciences tend to be showman than scientists. If you took that elite 5%, chances are, you won't find the superstars of VonNeuman, Tesla, Maxwell, etc, in there like only a couple of generations ago.

True. That's another reason I got out of science.

Maybe science is more like show-business than pro-sports.

Remember, Tesla died penniless at the hands of big business assholes.

freak80 says

True. That's another reason I got out of science.

Maybe science is more like show-business than pro-sports.

It's gone from being the NBA to the WWE, within a couple of generations.

freak80 says

Remember, Tesla died penniless at the hands of big business assholes.

First, had his bonus eaten by Edison.

Then, ripped off by Westinghouse. That was a billion dollar heist.

And finally, blacklisted by JP Morgan for Wardenclyffe Tower, as Morgan never wanted anyone on the Street to finance a power transmission technology without cables.

I think that either guilt or more likely, bad publicity, is why Westinghouse Co paid the New Yorker hotel to let Tesla stay in one of their rooms than in dying on the streets, like Columbus Circle or under the Brooklyn Bridge.

donjumpsuit says

All of humanities intellectual talent continues to pour into jobs involving finance and law, and to a lesser degree, entertainment (think web more than movies).

Yes, but if you're good and when I say good, I mean authentic (not a showman), would you rather be in finance/law and actually have a decent standard of living or would you rather risk living under the Brooklyn Bridge in your 40s & 50s, when your grant gets cancelled.

As a scientist, I can tell you that most scientists and engineers are in fact idiots. The more educated they are, the more likely it is that their learning slowed dramatically after school. It is often stymied by their belief that they are better than others.

Additionally, there is an strong inverse correlation between intelligence and social skills. Unfortunately for scientists, it is the interface of science with sales and marketing that controls the flow of money into their pockets. As a result, inferior products that are effectively marketed are viewed as superior to other more technologically superior products. Additionally, the interface of science with law is entirely in the hands of the lawyers who simply wordsmith without any understanding. So, patent claims that make no sense from a scientific standpoint are upheld preventing real progress.

Take all of this together, and the cost/benefit analysis for science as a whole changes dramatically. As someone who has obtained good value for my time working as a scientist I can tell you that it is not easy to do. There are huge hurdles to overcome in order to be valued. One of the greatest hurdles though is actually becoming valuable as a scientist.

It is much easier to sell real estate, or manage people, or really do just about anything other than bend materials and reality to your will and produce things and understanding that have never existed before. Seriously, go write some code and sell an app. At least in that context you can be creative, use an existing platform, and your mode of marketing is straight forward.

Sakman says

Seriously, go write some code and sell an app. At least in that context you can be creative, use an existing platform, and your mode of marketing is straight forward.

I concur with this.

donjumpsuit says

I do my best to enjoy what we have now, because I am young enough to come face to face with the day when it all crumbles.

I pretty much feel the same way.

Half the country is just "waiting for the rapture" or "second coming" so you and I are in good company.

Sakman,

That's one of the best posts I've seen on Patnet in a long time, IMO. Bravo.

Some of my bitterness is directed inward toward myself. I realize that I'm just not good enough to be "the best of the best"...which is pretty much a requirement to be a paid scientist.

freak80 says

"the best of the best"...which is pretty much a requirement to be a paid scientist

Perhaps it's just me but I simply don't accept this statement.

I know plenty of paid scientists and I don't see this Kobe Bryant halo. And yes, despite hating the Lakers, I do acknowledge that KB is a great player, top 5 of his generation.

But sure, in order to prove my hypothesis, I'll need to first retire from this hedge fund (which is in the queue), attend medical school (guaranteed graduation date plus clinicals to fall back on), and then, start my own work, outside of the NIH money grubbing system.

If I can produce good work, on my own dime, that's enough for me to say that science work and science funding are often orthogonal than causal.

I noticed the attachment of medical arts to science, but did not comment. If the connection that you are drawing between the two comes from the angle of medical research then, hurrah I say! Drawing the correct conclusion through the fog of war created by populations and matrix effects that are present in medical research is, in my opinion, one of the most challenging endeavors in modern science. This is why the results from medical research often fail so spectacularly when we ask them to stand the test of time.

However, there is another reason they fail. The interface of funding with science is not altruistic. Funding institutions pay for the results that they desire, and stop funding to research that provides results that are unwanted. Medical research is a shining example of this tilt in my opinion.

However, if the connection between medicine and science is related to the practice of medicine, I can only say that you are mistaken. There is little science or understanding in the practice of medicine. My many conversations with doctors has shown me that the vast majority know nothing other than standard of care. There is no fundamental understanding of the states that they treat. They act as authorities, but as I'm sure many of you can attest. . . Your ability to self diagnose via the internet is often more accurate and faster than getting the correct diagnosis from the slew of general practitioners and specialists you must pass through to be treated for a state that you could identify on your home computer.

That said, general medical practice is a routine that a trained money could perform. I look forward to a day when software replaces all of them. That said, the well being of too many medical professions depends on the incessant repetition of the simple routine that they are paid so well for. So, the day I hope for may never come.

Rin says

If you are financially independent then sure, please do scientific research. Otherwise, forget about it; get a regular business-type of job/career and move on with life.

The following is a documentary of a bunch of Trustafarians and their guild-ed lifestyles.

Yes, because spoiled rich kids will make the best scientists, and they have the most motivation to enter science. I mean, why would you want to have an orgy party on a yacht with supermodels when you can be a social pariah in a laboratory somewhere while those same supermodels look down on you with disdain. I'm sure science will advance leaps and bounds under that system.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

If you are financially independent then sure, please do scientific research. Otherwise, forget about it; get a regular business-type of job/career and move on with life.

The following is a documentary of a bunch of Trustafarians and their guild-ed lifestyles.

Yes, because spoiled rich kids will make the best scientists, and they have the most motivation to enter science. I mean, why would you want to have an orgy party on a yacht with supermodels when you can be a social pariah in a laboratory somewhere while those same supermodels look down on you with disdain. I'm sure science will advance leaps and bounds under that system.

I'm pretty sure the point is that scientists make small wages with erratic job security in this country. Why would our best and brightest settle for a lab job with low wages and little hope of advancement, less of paying off exorbitant student loans for the doctorate which is now the requirement for consideration? How do we convince our next generations to accept these drawbacks for no material gains? And the smarter the kids are, the more likely they are to wise up to the fact that the system is broken, join the world of finance, and start raping homeowners! It's a crying shame, but that's the world in which we live.

Sakman, I'd mentioned medical school because for all intensive purposes, the world of research allows an MD holder to publish in journals. So thus, even though you and I know that it's really a Masters in Applied Physiology with clinical rotations, that's not the point. The point is access to submitting journal papers and two, a chance to work in a clinical setting, as a fallback to let's call it basic 'bench' support, and finally, unlike a PhD in let's say Applied Chemistry, one's guaranteed a degree in 4 years whereas getting all the work collected and approved and so forth, for a dissertation committee, could take anywhere from 5 to 10 years.

Rin says

for all intensive purposes

Ouch.

Dan8267 says

and they have the most motivation to enter science. I mean, why would you want to have an orgy party on a yacht with supermodels

Well, watching the 'Born Rich' documentary, I believe that that's exactly what some of these kids need.

The basic complaints heard is that their great grandparents had all this success in business but then, as offsprings, they have nothing to add to the pie. Well of course, they're bored.

Now, this is where science comes in. If a trustafarian has any inkling, or even a slight interest in the sciences, he can do something, esp if he's the type of person who needs to channel his energy into something.

You see, the Hamptons aren't going away. As a rich man, you can have supermodels, high class escorts, a brothel in Amsterdam or Rio, whenever you want. But then, what do you do, when you're not boinking away? And that's the thing. These kids simply need a focus and then, they can genuinely *feel* like they're *better* than their ancestors. The attitude being, "Take that, J.P. Morgan!"

You and I, however, don't have a way of doing both things, because for the most part, our jobs keep us in a 50 mile radius of the office, 50 weeks per year. If I had millions, I'd fly from my lab in let's say Boston, to Amsterdam, have an orgy for four days, and be back on Weds, to do more work. And during that earlier Mon or Tues, a lab assistant will do some data collection for me. You see, this is the difference between being middle class and being rich. We see the world as a work prison, not a play pen.

Quigley says

How do we convince our next generations to accept these drawbacks for no material gains?

We don't. It's unethical to convince teens and young adults to enter science when it is not in their best interest because science isn't valued by our society. The solution is to value science more. Short of that, America's future is screwed and rightfully so. You reap what you sow.

Quigley says

And the smarter the kids are, the more likely they are to wise up to the fact that the system is broken, join the world of finance, and start raping homeowners!

This has already happened. The best mathematicians are already in the financial fields making mathematical models that maximize profits and socialize the risks. If we took even half the effort that we put into financial modeling and put it in finding a cure for cancer, we'd have the cure already.

That's one of the fundamental problems with capitalism. It's extremely short-sighted.

Rin says

If I had millions, I'd fly from my lab in let's say Boston, to Amsterdam, have an orgy for four days, and be back on Weds, to do more work.

You must be over 30. Males between the ages of 11 and 29 would go for the orgy 7 days a week.

Dan8267 says

You must be over 30. Males between the ages of 11 and 29 would go for the orgy 7 days a week.

Not a problem, start a lab in Rio :-), issue solved.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

If I had millions, I'd fly from my lab in let's say Boston, to Amsterdam, have an orgy for four days, and be back on Weds, to do more work.

You must be over 30. Males between the ages of 11 and 29 would go for the orgy 7 days a week.

In the lab

Dan8267 says

It's unethical to convince teens and young adults to enter science when it is not in their best interest because science isn't valued by our society. The solution is to value science more.

Dan, being a scientist in today's time, is akin to that of an artist of sorts. For the most part, kids from middle class backgrounds do not want to be 'starving artists' and thus, that crayon sketch, never blossoms into anything other than a poster in some family's den. Many parents encourage their kids to find a money making profession.

On the other foot, which is why I brought up the Born Rich movie, is that science is seen as *Euro chic* (can't come up with a moniker for this notion), by the elites around the world, provided that you're financially independent and not someone struggling in some lab.