5 reasons why science sucks (as a career choice)

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-10-27 02:09am

So, I was crusing the net today and I stumbled upon this little not naked link about science and why it sucks as a career choice. ANd now for your reading pleasure:

know you're thinking, "Dude, aren't you like, doing this science thing man? How can you diss it?"

My friend, I've been in this business for five years. Not quite a battle-hardened veteran yet, but certainly no starry-eyed puppy.

So I know what I'm saying. I'm not denying that some parts of science are fun. Like when an experiment works out perfectly and the data matches your expectations. And those entertaining, bawdy intellectual discussions between fellow researchers.

Then there are... the other parts.

Fresh Brainz counts down the top five reasons why doing science sucks!

5. Moolah: The Lack Thereof

Few people do science for the sake of getting rich. Even so, I think people fail to realize just how little money they will make by this career route. This is especially painful when you're in graduate school.

When I saw my first student stipend, my heart sank. It was about the same as the salary of a factory worker. I'm telling you, being a geek, I had always thought that money didn't matter to me.

I was wrong. That hurt.

Should you intend to do science, there will come a day when a "less educated" friend drives up to you in a shiny new Honda, complete with an impressive job title, exclusive club memberships and wads of dough.

While all you have is instant noodles to keep you alive.

Did your eyelids twitch there for an instant? Please think twice.

4. What Job Security?

I know some Singaporeans look down on contract work. They prefer to be offered a permanent position.

Here's the real deal: in science there is no such thing as a permanent position. Research assistants typically get 1-3 year renewable contracts.

Post-doctoral fellowships last three years each. Even assistant professors are on three-year contracts. Only tenured professors get some semblance of permanence.

Very, very few scientists become tenured professors.

Your performance is always being assessed, so it's hard to tell how long you can stay employed. This is one reason why researchers always try to save money when they can.

In Singapore, administrators drive big cars and eat at fancy restaurants, but scientists - even the directors of research institutes - take public transport.

3. The Devil Is In The Details

When I was a little boy I loved drawing, so my mum took me to an arts class.

I drew stars as little dots because I knew they are faraway suns. My teacher insisted that they should be drawn with five corners, because "we" see them with five corners.

Well I don't. And I have never drawn stars with five corners ever since. I told my mum, "I don't want to have more arts lessons. If I learn too much about it, I will not love art any more."

Unfortunately, doing science is all about details. You have to check all of the nitty-gritty bits about your research. Previous work, the methods: technology, reagent, protocol, experiment approach, conclusion... lots and lots of painful details. There are often exceptions and ambiguities.

It can become too much sometimes. BORING!

Ultimately, Mother Nature is the Boss. A complex, messy model that is supported by evidence is always chosen over a simple, elegant model that is unsupported.

Amidst all these rules and details, is there any room for creativity in science?

Pffft, sure.

It's like manoeuvering a unicycle on a tightrope.

2. Failure Inc.

Do you like failure? How do you like it ten times in a row? Or 100 times? Science is about the cutting edge. Which means that there is no guarantee of success.

To make things worse, experiments usually have numerous steps. If you're lucky, failure strikes you at the first step. If you're not... there'll be a massive amount of troubleshooting to do.

Many times in your research career your self-confidence will be tested to its limits. In fact, my own morale was so devastated after my qualifying exam that I created Fresh Brainz out of sheer frustration!

The public fantasizes about smart people in white lab coats having a quick answer for everything. They have no idea how much work is required just to understand a tiny detail in science.

I think this is the main reason why scientists loathe creationists / intelligent design theorists so much. Those assholes think that "doing science" is sitting on a high pedestal and criticizing everything that scientists do while producing absolutely no experimental evidence of their own.

No it isn't.

1. Where Did My Youth Go?

And the Number One reason why science sucks is - the long duration of training.

Young, chirpy idealists enter the profession with dreams of greatness. A few years as an undergraduate. A few years of graduate school. A few more years as a first post-doc. Then the second post-doc...

Year by year your youth trickles away.

One day you will look back and discover that while other people were spending the best years of their life building their families, gaining wealth and generally having fun - you were alone in the lab accompanied only by flasks of bacteria.

Always waiting... waiting for stuff to equilibrate, incubate or terminate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-27 02:13am

A lot of those complaints apply to many fields, really. I think he'd find that if he could magically undo everything and take another career path, he'd find plenty of annoyances on the other side of that fence as well.

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-10-27 02:42am

These are rather common complaints our local science grads. It's why a lot of them end up going into sales rather continue in science research. If you are always looking at money, science is probably not the ideal field. It is true that in Singapore, science grads are generally paid lower than engineering grads in their first job.

Job security -- it's the same in every field. I don't think there is such a thing as staying in one place for the rest of your working life anymore. Routein hospital labs are secure, but as this person will likely to find them to be boring. There are research institutes that offer permanent positions after the initial 1-3 year contract is over.

His question regarding creativity in science is likely a local problem, not a global one. Creativity is encouraged but it depends on the attitudes of your lab head and/or supervisor, it also depends on how hard you are willing to push your ideas forward.

Amidst all these rules and details, is there any room for creativity in science?

Pffft, sure.

It's like manoeuvering a unicycle on a tightrope.

It feels like that, not so much as the fault of Mother Nature, but the fault of those higher-ups who run the lab and the staff. Some heads still have old fashion attitudes where they don't trust their younger staff. They create this negative atmosphere where there is a lack of tolerance to failure, causing younger staff to feel like they have to keep depending on someone to tell them what to do and they lose their self confidence.

The public fantasizes about smart people in white lab coats having a quick answer for everything. They have no idea how much work is required just to understand a tiny detail in science.

One wonders if it is because the author has bought into the idea of answer-alls-in-white-coats in those good looking posters promoting careers in science, only to find out that doing science is actually a lot of hard work and not just standing around in white coats looking clever. Nobody promised him an easy life.

What's the point of researching something if the answer is easily obtained?

- you were alone in the lab accompanied only by flasks of bacteria.

Funny, this is what I like about my job.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-10-27 08:15am

Anyone who thinks this is a valid complaint about a career choice should just go out and win a major acting or modelling contract right the hell now, invent a new break-through miracle product, sign a long-term deal with a major sports team, or win the lottery.

Lots of jobs require constant re-training to keep up with the industry. Lots require years for payoffs. Lots require you to screw up a few prototypes or have projects cancelled out from under you. But as with ANY profession the value is in the reward, not the process. Very few people, even in the porn industry, enjoy the hard work part of the job as much as the fame or money or satisfaction they take home afterwards. And if you still aren't happy, well, do something else; career flexibility is what having higher education is supposed to allow you.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-10-27 09:10am

Science doesn't suck. It's fucking idiots who suck.

Your performance is always being assessed, so it's hard to tell how long you can stay employed.

Oh for the love of Pete. This is exactly what's good about science/technics. You can't just sit there and be a fucking asshole, still earn a lot of money. You have to fucking prove you're a smart, educated scientist, or you fly off real fast.

If career building in America is built around "how much money I can get" instead of "how can I realise myself intellectually", no wonder american science is degrading.

And the Number One reason why science sucks is - the long duration of training.

Number One only for stupid, anti-intellectual shitheads who belong to the monkey type of primates, not the fucking human type, who cannot endure even some 5-6 years of training. To these people only a big fuck you.

Which means that there is no guarantee of success.

Which means whoever wrote this is a scared consumer-mentality shithead. Of course there's no fucking guarantee. But there's the chance of getting new horizons. For most who go into science, that's enough. Being there. Cutting the fucking edge. Is that so hard to understand? Fucking losers.

It can become too much sometimes. BORING!

Oh fuck, someone who can't just get his ass down and work. Color me impressed. That's not an objection - that's a self-worthlesseness note.

Not quite a battle-hardened veteran yet, but certainly no starry-eyed puppy.

This man is a fucking disgrace to science. I've known such. Worthless piece-of-shit cowardly scum. Better to kill yourself that live such a worthless, science-hating life. There are plenty of people who enjoy science and get a kick out of it, people who work in nuclear physics, constructions, biotech, anywhere - this guy is a fucking loser and disgrace. "No puppy"? He's just a piece of puppy shit.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-10-27 09:30am

Stas Bush wrote:If career building in America is built around "how much money I can get" instead of "how can I realise myself intellectually", no wonder american science is degrading.

It says it right at the top of that guy's blog - he's the ONE and ONLY science blog in SINGAPORE.

Not the United States, Canada, Mexico, or any nation in Central or South America. He ain't fucking American!

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2006-10-27 09:30am

I can't help but wonder how many write-ups like this I would've posted since getting my first job at a fast-food restaurant to certain classes in college, to getting passed over for the internship and having to go back to the old job, if only due to the emotional slump that inevitably comes about in any field.

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2006-10-27 09:32am

Ghetto Edit: ...if I had a blog to write them on...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-10-27 09:38am

The crux of his argument assumes that anyone in the science field is going to grow up to be a researcher or a professor. That right there is what shatters his argument. It's implied in his argument that people in science related fields won't be doing practical things and will get the paycheck of researchers. That is absurd. Does he think that weather resistant car paint is designed by some guys in suits throwing stuff into vats or by chemists? Or that cars that the paint goes on spring into existance rather than being designed by engineers? Or the better, higher quality food that we eat is just good farmin', rather than biologists figuring out how to make plants that aren't half eaten by insects and at the same time, safe for us to eat?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-10-27 10:41am

Just as well I don't really intend to go into research like that. I'm quite happy going in for working on production, or managing lab teams or the like. Course, I've got to get on the ladder first, but R&D is always tough because so much is at stake.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 11:10am

Gil Hamilton wrote:The crux of his argument assumes that anyone in the science field is going to grow up to be a researcher or a professor. That right there is what shatters his argument. It's implied in his argument that people in science related fields won't be doing practical things and will get the paycheck of researchers. That is absurd. Does he think that weather resistant car paint is designed by some guys in suits throwing stuff into vats or by chemists? Or that cars that the paint goes on spring into existance rather than being designed by engineers? Or the better, higher quality food that we eat is just good farmin', rather than biologists figuring out how to make plants that aren't half eaten by insects and at the same time, safe for us to eat?

There are lots of people who study science in university but do NOT carry on in a science career. Frankly, I do not consider such people to be scientsts. By definition, a scientist has to be a researcher in order to carry out useful science.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-10-27 11:19am

There are a great many scientists who don't research. Not everyone has to be trying to find new things to be a scientist, just like not every engineer has to invent some new machine or build a bridge in their lives to be considered one. That's really oversimplifying science a bit.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 11:44am

5. Moolah: The Lack Thereof

Few people do science for the sake of getting rich. Even so, I think people fail to realize just how little money they will make by this career route. This is especially painful when you're in graduate school.

When I saw my first student stipend, my heart sank. It was about the same as the salary of a factory worker. I'm telling you, being a geek, I had always thought that money didn't matter to me.

I was wrong. That hurt.

Should you intend to do science, there will come a day when a "less educated" friend drives up to you in a shiny new Honda, complete with an impressive job title, exclusive club memberships and wads of dough.

I'm not quite living on instant noodles, but what I'm being paid as a grad student (which is actually one of the more generous stipends around) is considerably less than I could be earning on the types of jobs I could have gotten on the basis of my undergrad degree. Also, my funding is guaranteed for the duration of my PhD, whereas the majority of grad students are less financially stable.

The lack of money continues after the PhD. If a math or physics PhD decides to leave academia and go into Wall St., it's easy to get a 6 digit starting salary, whereas post-doc salaries are usually less than $50k. Having said that, upper-tier scientists (as in people working in better institutions) generally have sufficient financial security to live comfortably, while people on the lower rungs really have to struggle.

No, we're not doing this for the money, but it would be good to not have to worry about money.

Here's the real deal: in science there is no such thing as a permanent position. Research assistants typically get 1-3 year renewable contracts.

Post-doctoral fellowships last three years each. Even assistant professors are on three-year contracts. Only tenured professors get some semblance of permanence.

Very, very few scientists become tenured professors.

It's generally true that it's not easy to find job security in science, although the situation is probably worse in Singapore than in most western countries. Again, I'm fortunate to be in the upper crust of science, and almost all the PhDs produced by my department eventually get tenureship somewhere if they want to carry on in science. People coming out of lesser universities would have to struggle a fair bit.

However, what's difficult is the lack of permanency until one gets tenured. Most people working in normal jobs can expect to live in one place for years, but scientists lower down in the ladder have to follow the jobs since there are very very few places where a theoretical physicist can work, for example. This is especially true if one is ambitious and really wants to be doing cutting edge science.

I literally have no idea where in the world I will be in 5 years time, and I can expect to have to move at least 3-4 times in the next decade.

Unfortunately, doing science is all about details. You have to check all of the nitty-gritty bits about your research. Previous work, the methods: technology, reagent, protocol, experiment approach, conclusion... lots and lots of painful details. There are often exceptions and ambiguities.

It can become too much sometimes. BORING!

Ultimately, Mother Nature is the Boss. A complex, messy model that is supported by evidence is always chosen over a simple, elegant model that is unsupported.

Amidst all these rules and details, is there any room for creativity in science?

Pffft, sure.

Generally, a grad student doesn't have much scope for creativity simply because he's still learning the ropes. One must first know the rules before breaking them. Again, this is probably worse for a lab chemist at a mediocre university than a pure mathematician at an Ivy League university, but the scope for originality generally increases as one goes up the academic ladder.

Do you like failure? How do you like it ten times in a row? Or 100 times? Science is about the cutting edge. Which means that there is no guarantee of success.

To make things worse, experiments usually have numerous steps. If you're lucky, failure strikes you at the first step. If you're not... there'll be a massive amount of troubleshooting to do.

Many times in your research career your self-confidence will be tested to its limits. In fact, my own morale was so devastated after my qualifying exam that I created Fresh Brainz out of sheer frustration!

The public fantasizes about smart people in white lab coats having a quick answer for everything. They have no idea how much work is required just to understand a tiny detail in science.

I think this is the main reason why scientists loathe creationists / intelligent design theorists so much. Those assholes think that "doing science" is sitting on a high pedestal and criticizing everything that scientists do while producing absolutely no experimental evidence of their own.

No it isn't.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this one. My first month in grad school has made me feel like a total retard. I now feel like I know absolutely nothing.

And the Number One reason why science sucks is - the long duration of training.

Young, chirpy idealists enter the profession with dreams of greatness. A few years as an undergraduate. A few years of graduate school. A few more years as a first post-doc. Then the second post-doc...

Year by year your youth trickles away.

One day you will look back and discover that while other people were spending the best years of their life building their families, gaining wealth and generally having fun - you were alone in the lab accompanied only by flasks of bacteria.

Always waiting... waiting for stuff to equilibrate, incubate or terminate.

It sucks to still be a student at the age of 26, and this is a lot worse because of the lack of job security I mentioned above. It's hard to have a stable relationship or a family when after a few years one has to uproot everything and move to somewhere new and alien.

Science is a difficult career path, and really requires a lot of determination and discipline. Personally, I cannot see myself working in a normal job, and there are times when I have to pinch myself because it seems so unbelievable that I'm being paid to do astrophysics. There is a lot of frustration and hard work involved in it, but at the end of the day, it just seems worthwhile.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-27 11:54am

The problem is that everyone wants glamour work, and in the real world, very few people get glamour work. I spent 5 years in the soft-drink bottling industry. We made Sprite and Pepsi bottles. Oooh, how glamorous! But it pays the bills, and that's what matters.

If one's objective is to have a job you can brag about at cocktail parties in order to impress the wine-and-cheese set, then you'd better become a surgeon, an actor, or a politician. Otherwise just accept that your job exists in order to pay your bills, not give you bragging rights.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 01:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem is that everyone wants glamour work, and in the real world, very few people get glamour work. I spent 5 years in the soft-drink bottling industry. We made Sprite and Pepsi bottles. Oooh, how glamorous! But it pays the bills, and that's what matters.

If one's objective is to have a job you can brag about at cocktail parties in order to impress the wine-and-cheese set, then you'd better become a surgeon, an actor, or a politician. Otherwise just accept that your job exists in order to pay your bills, not give you bragging rights.

Actually I think scientists have a fairly high social stature simply from having a doctorate, and certain fields have their own panache, e.g. nanotech or genetic engineering.

And if what a scientist has to go through is just to pay the bills, it's frankly not worth it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-27 01:57pm

kheegan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The problem is that everyone wants glamour work, and in the real world, very few people get glamour work. I spent 5 years in the soft-drink bottling industry. We made Sprite and Pepsi bottles. Oooh, how glamorous! But it pays the bills, and that's what matters.

If one's objective is to have a job you can brag about at cocktail parties in order to impress the wine-and-cheese set, then you'd better become a surgeon, an actor, or a politician. Otherwise just accept that your job exists in order to pay your bills, not give you bragging rights.
Actually I think scientists have a fairly high social stature simply from having a doctorate, and certain fields have their own panache, e.g. nanotech or genetic engineering.

You're forgetting that not every science major gets a doctorate.

And if what a scientist has to go through is just to pay the bills, it's frankly not worth it.

Do you not regard people with Masters or Bachelors' degrees in science as "scientists"?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 02:12pm

Darth Wong wrote: You're forgetting that not every science major gets a doctorate.

Do you not regard people with Masters or Bachelors' degrees in science as "scientists"?

I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-27 02:15pm

kheegan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're forgetting that not every science major gets a doctorate.

Do you not regard people with Masters or Bachelors' degrees in science as "scientists"?
I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

Ah, so your definition is more restrictive than the usual dictionary one. OK, so what do you call the people who have Bachelor's or Master's degrees in science?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-10-27 02:20pm

kheegan wrote:I would define 'scientist' as someone who is carrying out scientific research or some other form of R&D. And most people who do this for a living tend to have doctorates.

Many individuals actually working at, say the CFIA labs in Ottawa, have B.Sc. degrees. They aren't at the top of the research ladder, but they have good jobs, make good money, and are doing the bulk of the actual work needed in real scientific research.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 02:22pm

Darth Wong wrote: Ah, so your definition is more restrictive than the usual dictionary one. OK, so what do you call the people who have Bachelor's or Master's degrees in science?

I tend to call them by whatever profession they're doing. E.g. some of my classmates in undergrad physics have gone on to work in investment banks or accountancy firms, so I would regard them as bankers and accountants respectively.

Conversely, Paul Dirac had a degree in electrical engineering, but the world remembers him as a physicist because that's what he did in his career.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-10-27 02:23pm

kheegan wrote:There are lots of people who study science in university but do NOT carry on in a science career. Frankly, I do not consider such people to be scientsts. By definition, a scientist has to be a researcher in order to carry out useful science.

I'm shocked. See, here I though chemical engineers were performing useful science by turning petrochemicals into plastics and such, but I guess since it isn't research it isn't useful science.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 02:26pm

Lagmonster wrote: Many individuals actually working at, say the CFIA labs in Ottawa, have B.Sc. degrees. They aren't at the top of the research ladder, but they have good jobs, make good money, and are doing the bulk of the actual work needed in real scientific research.

Well, I was talking about general trends. Also that you have to realise that all research institutions need to have non-doctorate staff members who aren't actually carrying out science, e.g. the people who run the computing resources in my department aren't scientists (not that I'm implying that your example is completely invalid).

Let's put it in another way. Not many papers in peer-reviewed research journals are authored by people with just a B.Sc. or M.Sc., unless it's a student.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-27 02:28pm

kheegan wrote:Let's put it in another way. Not many papers in peer-reviewed research journals are authored by people with just a B.Sc. or M.Sc., unless it's a student.

And not many of those studies were conducted by teams composed exclusively of PhD holders. Never mind all of the research that goes on in corporate labs for directly commercialized applications.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 02:32pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: I'm shocked. See, here I though chemical engineers were performing useful science by turning petrochemicals into plastics and such, but I guess since it isn't research it isn't useful science.

A typical definition of science is: the systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Whereas engineering: the application of knowledge, mathematics, and practical experience to the design of useful objects or processes.

I'm talking about scientists, not engineers. No one is denying that engineers do useful work, but it isn't science. They are using the scientific knowledge to carry out their work, but they aren't actually contributing to the body of scientific knowledge.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-27 02:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:
kheegan wrote:Let's put it in another way. Not many papers in peer-reviewed research journals are authored by people with just a B.Sc. or M.Sc., unless it's a student.
And not many of those studies were conducted by teams composed exclusively of PhD holders.

I never claimed that all scientists have PhDs. I merely stated that most of them do.

Never mind all of the research that goes on in corporate labs for directly commercialized applications.

A lot of that is what I'd describe as engineering, and even then a lot of that is done by doctorates.