Beware: "Loving Science" Is Not The Same As Being A Scientist
Frank Heasley
I've seen a number of posts recently in which the authors claim to "love
science", and I've felt a bit uncomfortable when reading them, but have
refrained from responding until now because I really couldn't put my
finger on the reason for the discomfort.
But now I realize that simply claiming to "love science" bothers me
because the phrase is ambiguous and potentially misleading.
As a young person growing up in the late 50's and early 60's, I too
thought that I loved science. The harnessing of energy, the beauty of
nature, and the understanding of the underlying principles seemed to me
to be among humanity's highest undertakings. The space program, the war
on cancer, and the generally high regard for education seemed to bode
well for career success and security.
Now more than 30 years later, with full graduate degree and well into my
second career, I reflect back on those times and realize that my love of
science was really an admiration for the results of science. In fact, I
had no idea what it would be like to actually be a scientist.
Let me expand on this theme a bit more. It's one thing to respect and
admire the results of popularized scientific work. BUT it's quite
something else to love the results of everyday science and doing the
work itself as a scientist.
The scientific results we see in the media are almost always dazzling
and unusual. That's because they are newsworthy. However, the work
itself is almost always tedious and exacting. To get a single result
may take months or years in the making. And then reproducing the work,
just to be sure, takes even more time. So the rewards of attaining your
goals can be very few and far between. Even worse, it often happens
that when a result is achieved, further work disproves the original
result. Was it an artifact or real? The results publicized in popular
magazines and on television represent only the tiniest percentage of the
work that is actually going on. The fact is that scientific work is far
different from the way it is popularly portrayed. Sadly, many young
people with no access to better information base life and career
decisions on these misleading portrayals.
So I've learned that to love the results of science is a far cry from
loving being one. Consider your own proclivities before you embark on
this career. Are the rewards of positive results important to you? How
important? Can you sustain the effort of months or years of tedious
work, and the possible, even likely, disappointment that your hypothesis
was incorrect, or that your positive results were flawed? Do you think
that you can keep up these efforts in spite of soft or no money, and the
inevitable politics of academe or industry? If so, then you may have the
personality to enjoy, and perhaps even love, science.
If not, then I'd suggest finding a career that is less demanding, and
more rewarding.
Frank Heasley, Ph.D., Principal
FSG Online http://www.chemistry.com
Jobs and Employment Resources for Professionals in
Biotechnology, Pharmaceuticals, Science and Medicine
The Franklin Search Group, Inc.
(305)434-5332 (Voice)
(305)434-4840 (FAX)
Dave Jensen
An excellent post, well written.
Loving science and doing science, successfully, are obviously two
different things. But don't you usually find that the best scientists
you've ever met have a love for what they do that goes beyond the desire
to work 9 to 5 and draw a paycheck?
regards
Dave
richard
In article <3221B2...@Chemistry.com>, Frank Heasley <DrHe...@Chemistry.com> says:
>
The fact is that scientific work is far
>different from the way it is popularly portrayed. Sadly, many young
>people with no access to better information base life and career
>decisions on these misleading portrayals.
>
>So I've learned that to love the results of science is a far cry from
>loving being one. Consider your own proclivities before you embark on
>this career. Are the rewards of positive results important to you? How
>important? Can you sustain the effort of months or years of tedious
>work, and the possible, even likely, disappointment that your hypothesis
>was incorrect, or that your positive results were flawed? Do you think
>that you can keep up these efforts in spite of soft or no money, and the
>inevitable politics of academe or industry? If so, then you may have the
>personality to enjoy, and perhaps even love, science.
>
>If not, then I'd suggest finding a career that is less demanding, and
>more rewarding.
>
I too have been uneasy with the many references to this group on
love of science, and I think Frank has articulated the problem well.
Frank is right on here.
I work in a research lab and have for more
than 21 years. I have a research career spanning 3 decades.
Doing DISCOVERY research is a very different activity from anything else
I can think of. Through the years I have seen many people (including
myself) burn out. Several have literally walked out out of our place
to pursue other avenues. These were not flunky folk.
I want to comment on Baker's suggestion concerning pharmacy school.
I think it is article s11614.
One of the guys who left here had a BS degree in Pharmacy (graduated
at the top of his class), a DVM degree (CumLaude)
and a Masters. Today he works in a retail pharmacy. When we see each
other he always makes a point of saying, 'when I close the shop at the
end of the day, I'm through.' He points out that the rewards are
immediate; money in the register at the end of the day, or a smile from
a client who has sought and received advice.
In discovery science there is often little reward for lots of hard
work. We can't all make big discoveries, and most of us won't.
It takes months to years from the time a project is completed to the
time the manuscript is actually published. The reward, the publication,
is temporally remote from the effort. The financial rewards are usually
meager. There is little job mobility, especially in todays environment and
usually the only real promotion track lies in shifting to adminstrative
and management duties.
Loving science, and doing science are really very different matters.
Frank Heasley
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure helps along the way.
The most successful scientists I've known are generally also happy with
their positions. This is reasonable, as it is difficult to be
successful doing something that you don't enjoy. A corollary is that it
it's difficult to be unhappy and successful at the same time. Success
is a powerful reward.
On the other hand, there are lots of examples of excellent scientists
who made momentous discoveries and ended up rather unhappy in the end,
for a variety of reasons. One of the most compelling and common reasons
is that scientific endeavor is one of the most intrinsically UNrewarding
careers one can choose. Breakthroughs are few and far between, and
result from a combination of luck, being in the right place at the right
time, intelligence in choosing a problem and a means to explore it, hard
work, and incredible persistence. Just because you were successful once
doesn't mean that you will be again.
Frank
Arthur E. Sowers
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Frank Heasley wrote:
> I've seen a number of posts recently in which the authors claim to "love
> science", and I've felt a bit uncomfortable when reading them, but have
> refrained from responding until now because I really couldn't put my
> finger on the reason for the discomfort.
>
> But now I realize that simply claiming to "love science" bothers me
> because the phrase is ambiguous and potentially misleading.
>
> As a young person growing up in the late 50's and early 60's, I too
> thought that I loved science. The harnessing of energy, the beauty of
> nature, and the understanding of the underlying principles seemed to me
> to be among humanity's highest undertakings. The space program, the war
> on cancer, and the generally high regard for education seemed to bode
> well for career success and security.
I'd have to say that I felt a lot of deja vu reading this.
> Now more than 30 years later, with full graduate degree and well into my
> second career, I reflect back on those times and realize that my love of
> science was really an admiration for the results of science. In fact, I
> had no idea what it would be like to actually be a scientist.
Bingo!
> Let me expand on this theme a bit more. It's one thing to respect and
> admire the results of popularized scientific work. BUT it's quite
> something else to love the results of everyday science and doing the
> work itself as a scientist.
>
> The scientific results we see in the media are almost always dazzling
> and unusual. That's because they are newsworthy. However, the work
> itself is almost always tedious and exacting. To get a single result
> may take months or years in the making. And then reproducing the work,
> just to be sure, takes even more time. So the rewards of attaining your
> goals can be very few and far between. Even worse, it often happens
> that when a result is achieved, further work disproves the original
> result. Was it an artifact or real? The results publicized in popular
> magazines and on television represent only the tiniest percentage of the
> work that is actually going on. The fact is that scientific work is far
> different from the way it is popularly portrayed. Sadly, many young
> people with no access to better information base life and career
> decisions on these misleading portrayals.
You hit on all the "clean," "sanitized," and "reasonable" reasons and
pitfalls of scientific careers and avoided mentioning the dirt, the scum,
the cesspools that fill up a part of our real world. This goes under the
heading "politics" to keep people from otherwise commiting homicide (eg.
student shooting profs who flunk the student [from recent posts], or
students who get flunked out by a prof who is out of touch with reality,
etc.). Part of the success that some people have involves a twisting of
cognitive dissonance. To "put up with" the crap that goes on in the
academic career paths, a lot of profs, understandably, go into a type of
"denial.." Postdocs, after putting in a lot of years are "committed" to
pursuing that career just as a side is committed to war in a military
confrontation. In industry, where the lofty noble pursuits of
knowledge, truth, and wisdom often come out way down the priority list
from profits (=the bottom line), people often rationalize that they "only
work here" and thus dispell their moral obligations to ethics (viz. the
discussion on a segment of this larger issue dealing with job offers and
acceptances/withdraws that have gone on the last few days). However, as
the industry path is identifiably less lofty and noble than the academic
path, never the less its going to end up being the ONLY place for the
excess PhDs to go looking for work if they want to pay the rent and eat
hamburgers. So, lots of people better start getting used to that idea.
> So I've learned that to love the results of science is a far cry from
> loving being one. Consider your own proclivities before you embark on
> this career. Are the rewards of positive results important to you? How
> important? Can you sustain the effort of months or years of tedious
> work, and the possible, even likely, disappointment that your hypothesis
> was incorrect, or that your positive results were flawed? Do you think
> that you can keep up these efforts in spite of soft or no money, and the
> inevitable politics of academe or industry? If so, then you may have the
> personality to enjoy, and perhaps even love, science.
Also, don't forget to talk to people 10-20 years older than you for
"observations on real life" and make sure they don't have a vested
interest in what they tell you.
> If not, then I'd suggest finding a career that is less demanding, and
> more rewarding.
I would put it a little differently: if you can't get your dream job, then
look for occupations that you can "live with" and then look for
personal joys in hobby activities, your spouse (or significant other),
your children, your pets, etc.
> Frank Heasley, Ph.D., Principal
> FSG Online http://www.chemistry.com
> Jobs and Employment Resources for Professionals in
> Biotechnology, Pharmaceuticals, Science and Medicine
>
> The Franklin Search Group, Inc.
> (305)434-5332 (Voice)
> (305)434-4840 (FAX)
>
Art Sowers
(going out to the garage to look for that astronomical telescope I built
years ago)
Marc Andelman
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> I would put it a little differently: if you can't get your dream job, then
> look for occupations that you can "live with" and then look for
>
> Are there any restrictions that you would put on the enjoymentof pets?
Marc
Igor Fedchenia
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> I would put it a little differently: if you can't get your dream job, then
> look for occupations that you can "live with" and then look for
>
> Are there any restrictions that you would put on the enjoymentof pets?
Marc
Sure, you like huge hypopotams and your house too small house to
keep them.