If you don't like science, GTFO.

[Elite Engineer]

So the company I've been working at has been wearing me down. I recently graduated college in May with a BS in Biotechnology, and started my first job in June. Still working at the same company. My company makes point-of-care kits for infectious diseases..nothing cutting edge.

 

I work with several scientists as my job is R&D. I don't know if it's the private industry or whatever, but the people I work with seem to shrug any kind of science off their shoulders. Trying to go deep into thinking to solve a problem is quickly dismissed with "it's not my job/ we don't do that here", or no solutions are really investigated...just make the product "work" enough.

 

Any on the spot science confab is quickly dismissed with a one word response or clear disinterest. My co workers seem very reserved and calculating (as I've been told what the corporate culture does to you).

 

I'm convinced these "scientists" I'm working with only got jobs in their field because they thought it was going to be goods money or decent job security. Instead of real science talk, all these hacks talk about is work-politics, work related grievances, and how inefficient the company is run. Everyone is too busy making political alliances with higher ups (going out to dinner, sucking up), and trying to elevate their job title to "blank" manager. It sickens me.

 

I used to work in a uni research lab, and I LOVED it because there was constant exchange of ideas and real thought processed as play. My PI loved his work and tried to expand what he knew about his project. There was never any discourse of politics and getting the upper hand. I swear my co workers are only there for a pay check.

 

Have any of you come across something similar to this in your careers? Is academia/ public research vastly different from private industry?

 

~EE

Edited January 28, 2017 by Elite Engineer

[Phi for All]

Trying to go deep into thinking to solve a problem is quickly dismissed with "it's not my job/ we don't do that here"

 

Can you find out where they do "do that"? That's where you want to transfer.

[CharonY]

Could you give examples of the problems you wan to be solving? Is your job in developing new kits or more toward quality assurance/certification? It has to be said that timely and cost-efficient fulfillment of a project is of highest priority more so in industry as compared to academia. If a pipeline exists, you'll have to come up with something fantastic to make anyone even consider replacing something that actually works (and often with good reason).

 

In academia the students are supposed to learn and are thus allowed to "play" more (assuming that funding does not run out). Also note that students are mostly insulated from actual politics (issues inside a group does not really count). The real politics starts much later but is at least equally vicious.

On that note there is another thing that may play a role. You are likely very junior in the job and with a BS it is most likely a technical job. If you are not good friends with your co-workers they may just be completely disinterested in talking science with a junior (assuming they have higher positions and degrees) or are not interested in science per se (if they are technicians).

In academia even senior scientists take time to chat with undergrads as we are interested in foster individual growth as part of our job. In companies that is usually not the case, or not to that degree at least.

Edited January 28, 2017 by CharonY

[swansont]

So the company I've been working at has been wearing me down. I recently graduated college in May with a BS in Biotechnology, and started my first job in June. Still working at the same company. My company makes point-of-care kits for infectious diseases..nothing cutting edge.

 

I work with several scientists as my job is R&D. I don't know if it's the private industry or whatever, but the people I work with seem to shrug any kind of science off their shoulders. Trying to go deep into thinking to solve a problem is quickly dismissed with "it's not my job/ we don't do that here", or no solutions are really investigated...just make the product "work" enough.

 

Any on the spot science confab is quickly dismissed with a one word response or clear disinterest. My co workers seem very reserved and calculating (as I've been told what the corporate culture does to you).

 

I'm convinced these "scientists" I'm working with only got jobs in their field because they thought it was going to be goods money or decent job security. Instead of real science talk, all these hacks talk about is work-politics, work related grievances, and how inefficient the company is run. Everyone is too busy making political alliances with higher ups (going out to dinner, sucking up), and trying to elevate their job title to "blank" manager. It sickens me.

 

I used to work in a uni research lab, and I LOVED it because there was constant exchange of ideas and real thought processed as play. My PI loved his work and tried to expand what he knew about his project. There was never any discourse of politics and getting the upper hand. I swear my co workers are only there for a pay check.

 

Have any of you come across something similar to this in your careers? Is academia/ public research vastly different from private industry?

 

~EE

 

 

I work in a government lab. Part of the reason I stay is the job security, the pay and the benefits. We discuss work-politics, work-related grievances and how inefficient the place is run. There isn't much in the way of sucking up or political alliances, as the promotion potential is very small (personally I am not interested in a managerial position anyway, and did not apply when the opportunity arose a year or two ago) and my bosses have run our group in a way that does not reward such behavior.

 

The thing is, I think you're going to get that, in varying amounts, wherever you go, especially in any medium-to-large organization.

 

The people I work with are very interested in science, and we have scientific discussion. We have visitors who come and and talk about science, both formally (i.e. colloquia) and informally. But there are times where it's just the grind. Why hasn't our money come in? What's the hold-up with purchasing? What's the latest IT SNAFU? It just comes with the job.

[rangerx]

Any on the spot science confab is quickly dismissed with a one word response or clear disinterest.

 

Even the first cave man using a stick to pry a rock applied scientific principles to objectively forward a task.

 

Anyone unwilling to accept those tenets still lives under that rock.

[DrKrettin]

. I swear my co workers are only there for a pay check.

 

Have any of you come across something similar to this in your careers? Is academia/ public research vastly different from private industry?

 

 

I used to work for the European Space Agency, in data processing. I can say that virtually without exception, nobody but nobody cared for the science involved, they were only interested in their own advancement in the agency and their pay cheque. The few people who just did their job without fuss did not progress as quickly as those who spent most of their energies in political manoeuvering and undermining their colleagues. When a new project was introduced, I would try and identify the issues and propose the cheapest solution, and I would be openly criticised for not blowing it up into something as big as possible so that the department could employ more staff, hence get more power and underline their importance.

 

It was a peculiar situation in that it was not academically driven, but neither was it commercially driven. And it was populated by people who were greed-driven. I suspect that this is the driving force behind almost all institutions. Cynical? moi?

[ecoli]

This is a common institutional problem. Low-level scientists have made a bad economic bargain and are trying to do the minimal amount of work that keeps them employed.

 

This is predicted by the 'Gervais Principle' or 'the office, according to The Office'.

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/

[Sensei]

This is a common institutional problem. Low-level scientists have made a bad economic bargain and are trying to do the minimal amount of work that keeps them employed.

 

Who said it's low-level scientists who are problematic?

Low-level, soon after graduation, like Elite Engineer, are full of energy, are full of fresh ideas (at least, they should!), just recently gained knowledge on University.

They don't have wife/husband, children, yet, so shouldn't run for money and employment for any cost.

 

Check age of scientists who made progress of science late-XIX century, early XX century, when they revealed discovery/theory.

They were pretty young. Wasn't afraid to be laughed to reveal their ideas, theories.

Such young people were the most influencing progress of science in the past.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Sensei

[CharonY]

Well, it depends. The most important work of scientist, which is usually the first major work that cemented their reputation are made roughly at the equivalent level of mid-late assistant professorships (i.e. when there is some level of independence). Depending on discipline and decade this translate to roughly the early to mid-forties (with notable exceptions, of course). Whether that is considered pretty young, is probably a matter of interpretation. Things are likely to get worse, as over time there will be less and less basic discoveries. Instead one has to dig on the extremes, which is usually more time consuming and especially in experimental sciences, increasingly expensive. The latter is especially true if one wants to compete with well-funded cutting-edge labs. For young scientists (that is, tenure-track or equivalent) this is a double whammy, as they have a harder time to get funding.