Advice from our scientists

[TimeTraveler]

I was thinking, we have alot of diversity on this board, many are scientists, many are college students, many are Highschool students and many are

 

But we are all interested in science.

 

Sooooo

 

I thought I would start this thread for the current, and professional scientists to share their thoughts and advice to us that are up a coming in the profession of science.

 

Anything you would do different? What political interferences do you face in your line of profession? What would be the most important advice you would give to anyone wanting to become a scientist?

 

Or even if you want to share a work related story of how the new guy blew up the lab!

 

Thanks!

[MolecularMan14]

I would like to know any pro's opinion on stem cells, and the morals it involves.

[Jake712]

Any forensic scientists out there?

[Ophiolite]

I liked the idea of this thread, started by TimeTraveler, but there seems to have been little enthusiam for it. I thought it might be worth trying to jump start it again.

 

I am not a working scientist, but I trained as one and certainly use that training on a daily if not hourly basis.

I do not know, other than by anecdote, what proportion of say chemists, go on to work as chemists and are still doing so ten or twenty years later. I can tell you that for geologists the figure is low, very low. I suspect it to be true of most sciences.

What is the relevance of this? Those of you who are in or embarking on a degree level course in a science will find that the majority of your colleagues are not working as scientists in ten years time. Be prepared for the possibility that the same will happen to you.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, unless you were planning on winning a Nobel prize. (You could still take up writing or stopping wars.) I would presume that one of the things that has attracted you to science is a curiosity about the Universe and how it works. Not being actively engaged in science in no way reduces the opportunity to develop this curiosity. In some ways it may even enhance it. Just be aware that you may wind up as an investment banker or airline pilot or plumber rather than a scientist.

[Ophiolite]

I liked the idea of this thread, started by TimeTraveler, but there seems to have been little enthusiam for it. I thought it might be worth trying to jump start it again.

 

I am not a working scientist, but I trained as one and certainly use that training on a daily if not hourly basis.

I do not know, other than by anecdote, what proportion of say chemists, go on to work as chemists and are still doing so ten or twenty years later. I can tell you that for geologists the figure is low, very low. I suspect it to be true of most sciences.

What is the relevance of this? Those of you who are in or embarking on a degree level course in a science will find that the majority of your colleagues are not working as scientists in ten years time. Be prepared for the possibility that the same will happen to you.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, unless you were planning on winning a Nobel prize. (You could still take up writing or stopping wars.) I would presume that one of the things that has attracted you to science is a curiosity about the Universe and how it works. Not being actively engaged in science in no way reduces the opportunity to develop this curiosity. In some ways it may even enhance it. Just be aware that you may wind up as an investment banker or airline pilot or plumber rather than a scientist.

[TimeTraveler]

Great Post! Thanks Ophiolite.

 

Those of you who are in or embarking on a degree level course in a science will find that the majority of your colleagues are not working as scientists in ten years time. Be prepared for the possibility that the same will happen to you.

 

What would you say is the main reason why this is?

[mak10]

what is the scientific career, that is one of the highest paid in the industry, could one pursue, should he have a keen interest in 'making stuff' (from facial creams to weight loss inducer to any sort of complex useful gadgetry) using principles of biology, physics and chemistry ??

 

-mak10

[badchad]

what is the scientific career' date=' that is one of the highest paid in the industry, could one pursue, should he have a keen interest in 'making stuff' (from facial creams to weight loss inducer to any sort of complex useful gadgetry) using principles of biology, physics and chemistry ??

 

-mak10[/quote']

 

Well in previous posts I've always been somewhat blatant about the financial (or lack thereof) expectations of a career in science. If you were looking for a high paying job I wouldn't suggest science. That being said the "higher paying" science jobs are usually located in industrial settings (e.g. for profit companies, and not academic institutions). In my personal opinion the best way to make money is to gain a foothold in an industrial corporation as part of a "research group", then attempt to slowly make a transition to a managerial type position. This would be especially important if you do not obtain a higher degree. Just my two cents though.

[Mokele]

what is the scientific career, that is one of the highest paid in the industry, could one pursue, should he have a keen interest in 'making stuff'

 

Engineering. It's basically "applied science", with more job openings and *much* more pay.

[Crash]

Any forensic scientists out there?

?

[Perennial]

What would you say is the main reason why this is?

 

As weird as it seems even some of the most passionate guys just seem to lose the spark for "pure science". They get held up in pursuing applied like, commercial , assignments and research, project management, and management overall, and it seems that the working life is doing its best to make it easy to avoid doing any "real work" (=science) by flooding with all sorts of junk (=a la red tape and related, once you attend for example a company strategic workshop you start to act a bit like Wally in Dilbie). Then there are these guys who just keep pushing for the science and don't care about the fuss around them, I suppose one of the most affecting factors is why you started pursuing science in the first place ... passions don't die out that easily, surely situations in life can affect but I think you get the picture. The whole "transition" in my mind is a really sad thing, people end up doing more or less trivial stuff and after a couple of years that is all they can really do.

[bloodhound]

how come noone here is talking about mathematics. Mathematics graduates have consistently the highest starting salaries. and with a mathematics degree is relative easy to get a foothold in the financial sector, or management etc.

[Ophiolite]

Engineering. It's basically "applied science", with more job openings and *much* more pay.

Is it science? If it is, then I am still working as a scientist, I just didn't know it. The two fields are obviously allied but they are not the same. I saw a quote recently, possibly on this forum.

"When the results of an experiment are unexpected this delights the scientist and horrifies the engineer."

Engineers like to work with the known, the quantifiable, the predictable. Scienists like the unknown, the uncertain. A good engineer pushes the limits of the envelope. The good scientist rips the envelope up and starts again.

Certainly an engineering career can offer great prospects, excellent challenges and financial reward. I like mine. But it isn't cutting edge science. (Most of the time.)

[Mokele]

I meant "applied science" in the sense of applying what science has found to devices we can use. There is still, of course, some level of science involved, but engineering is primarily the application. However, the divide is kind of fuzzy, and gets fuzzier the more recently a field cropped up. Nuclear and aerospace engineering are both kinda close to science, and often do scientific experiments (though more along the lines of understanding subtle intricacies of the known than exploring the unknown), while civil engineers... Well, back when I was in aerospace, we joked that civil engineers were people who dropped out of engineering after 2 years to study dirt. Not that CE isn't important, just that it's become pretty much entirely application.

 

However, for some, application can be more fun than exploration. It's a matter of personal taste and priorities, I think.

[Severian]

They get held up in pursuing applied like, commercial , assignments and research, project management, and management overall, and it seems that the working life is doing its best to make it easy to avoid doing any "real work" (=science) by flooding with all sorts of junk

 

This is unfortunately very true. The government and universities are really piling all the admin jobs onto academics these days so they have very little time to do research. Considering the pay is often 1/3 or less what a similarly qualified person can earn there seems little point in staying. If you are not going to get to do any science anyway, why not do a better paid 'normal' job?

[TimeTraveler]

This is unfortunately very true. The government and universities are really piling all the admin jobs onto academics these days so they have very little time to do research. Considering the pay is often 1/3 or less what a similarly qualified person can earn there seems little point in staying. If you are not going to get to do any science anyway, why not do a better paid 'normal' job?

 

That sounds pretty unfortunate. Im planning on majoring in both physics and engineering. I am hoping to get a job where I can work making new aerospace technologies,(Aerospace engineering) I don't really care about how much money I make, as long as it is enough money for me and my family to live comfortable. Does that seem realistic? Is the job market in that field open enough where I should be able to find a job?

[Mokele]

Is the job market in that field open enough where I should be able to find a job?

 

It depends when you ask. The aerospace industry seems to move in about an 8-year cycle. At the bottom of that cycle, you couldn't find a job if you were Werner von Braun himself. At the top, you couldn't stay unemployed if you insisted on coming to work dressed as the Green Goblin. Last downturn began summer 2001, but I dunno how the current state of affairs has affected things.

 

From the experiences friends of mine have had in this field, I can definitely say that you *need* an internship or co-op while in college, and a Master's degree might help too. Also, the MS is very useful as an "economy dodger"; if the aerospace hiring sucks when you get your BS, just go hide in MS for a while until things turn around.

 

Mokele

[Perennial]

That sounds pretty unfortunate. Im planning on majoring in both physics and engineering. I am hoping to get a job where I can work making new aerospace technologies,(Aerospace engineering) I don't really care about how much money I make, as long as it is enough money for me and my family to live comfortable. Does that seem realistic? Is the job market in that field open enough where I should be able to find a job?

 

As above, I think getting a Master's is a good start. I think it is unfortunate how things go, but it also means that researchers/engineers etc. get profiled more than they used to ... previously you had all guys doing scientific or otherwise heavy duty assignments, now e.g. in our department (research centre) you got like 20% doing admin, 60% doing projects, and the remaining 20% are responsible for the basic science (and actually know what is going on in the scientific front). Someone's always got to know how things really are (if you're in a place where that is required naturally) ... and the scientifically oriented guys will for that very reason be able to dodge quite a bit of the "crap" flying your way, and enjoy the science & work as it is.

[Severian]

... and the scientifically oriented guys will for that very reason be able to dodge quite a bit of the "crap" flying your way, and enjoy the science & work as it is.

 

Not from where I am sitting. There is so much crap flying around here that if you dodge it on the fly past it will still get you on the rebound. I have special government funding which is supposed to reduce my admin and teaching (so I am one of your scientifically orientated guys), but the crap is still flying my way...

[Perennial]

Not from where I am sitting. There is so much crap flying around here that if you dodge it on the fly past it will still get you on the rebound. I have special government funding which is supposed to reduce my admin and teaching (so I am one of your scientifically orientated guys), but the crap is still flying my way...

 

OK, I'm willing to say that its a VERY special case if you can dodge it (I've had a pretty good year, that's probably the reason for my optimistic argument). Just reminds me that got to do some funding applications for next year ... that is really gonna hit a bull's-eye. Weird enough, a year or two ago I was under the impression that the amount of crap just can't exceed the levels it had back then ... but been proven wrong bigtime.

[Sidewinder]

i'm still a high school student, so i'm not sure if I want to go on to study astronomy or aerospace engineering. could someone please point out to me what are the main advantages of each profession and the specific skills I would need to be sucessful in either one.

[coquina]

The idea of starting out as a scientist and ending up in management is a good one. A manager is a science-based corporation will be much better at the job if he has the background.

 

I own a machine shop - I work continually with mechanical engineers, and I also work with nuclear physicists, most of whom have never seen the inside of a machine shop and wouldn't be able to turn on a machine tool, much less manufacture something with it. However, they think if they can draw it on paper, I should be able to build it. Most of the time I can for enough money - but many times if I can talk to the end user I can find a way to accomplish the same purpose economically.

 

I think this is true of any profession one enters - you will be a better manager if you learn the job from the ground up.