Why are engineers paid more than cancer researchers?

[Elite Engineer]

I remember reading a magazine article from the early 1980's, talking about how the DOE was funding NASA to build a stirling engine to be used in a car. The engine was designed and built just over a year.

 

 

- Is this why engineers are paid more than cancer researchers (i.e. Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical Biotechnologists, Biochemists), because of mere product saturation? Any engineer, given the funding, and tools has the express capability of designing and building, any engine, bridge, exhaust system in a relatively short window of time. Your just limited to parts and imagination.

 

But to cure a disease or make an effective drug/vaccine takes lots of research, lots of trial and error, creative thinking minds, FDA regulations. The way I see it:

 

75 mpg engine; with unlimited support and funding; required time ~ 2-4 yrs.

 

Drug that can eliminate cancer or vaccine that eliminates ebola/ HV ; with unlimited support and funding; required time ~ 7-25 yrs.

 

-The way I see it, shouldn't the latter be more important, and therefore paid more?

 

(The only thing a 75 mpg will do for you in a virus outbreak is get you to the hills more efficiently).

 

~EE

[Endy0816]

Engine efficiency problem is vastly simpler from an engineering standpoint.

 

With cancer you are at war with an evolving problem, looking for malfunctioning components mixed in with a vast number of nearly identical components, dealing with malfunctioning components co-located with vital components and dealing with the natural defenses often hindering the repair/removal of malfunctioning components.

 

Assuming government action wasn't distortionary though and you are talking about whether society as a whole values health treatment to the same extent as it does engine efficiency. Generally my experience is that society focuses on the most immediate concern.

 

We could wipe out most diseases in a few generations through little more than worldwide mass quarantine, but we're not likely to do so.

[Klaynos]

As a society we tend not to pay people based on how important their work is to society.

[Prometheus]

Are you comparing like for like?

 

According to a very quick google search average UK pay for an engineer is £30,000 and average pay for a cancer researcher (post doctoral), is £32,000. Both seem underpaid if that is correct.

[StringJunky]

If a post-doc has their own novel research they can set up their own biotech company, list it and draw the necessary investment, the rewards can be in the stratosphere. It amazes me that these companies pass around billions like they are mere thousands. Lots of biotech companies only have one product.

Edited July 22, 2015 by StringJunky

[ajb]

-The way I see it, shouldn't the latter be more important, and therefore paid more?

You will have to argue this point.

 

Anyway, do we have evidence that on average an engineer makes more money than a cancer researcher? I imagine both are comparable and do not vary that much and for sure fall a lot lower than those who practice medicine or work in banking.

[CharonY]

It depends where. In academia both are paid similarly (especially on the postdoctoral level). However, outside academia the salaries can rise massively. Thus, the whole comparison is a bit silly as you are comparing a whole discipline (engineering) that has a large set of job opportunities outside academia with a specialized sub-discipline (cancer research) that is much more limited. For a more apple to apple comparison you have to only look at industrial jobs, for example. In these cases the salaries will vary by company. For example the petroleum industry tends to have better salaries than most biotech ones, but (IIRC) some pharmaceutical tracks are at least comparative, if not higher paid.

Edited July 22, 2015 by CharonY

[Elite Engineer]

Are you comparing like for like?

 

According to a very quick google search average UK pay for an engineer is £30,000 and average pay for a cancer researcher (post doctoral), is £32,000. Both seem underpaid if that is correct.

In the states here, its more like this: Engineer ~ $100k; Cancer Researcher ~$45k

If a post-doc has their own novel research they can set up their own biotech company, list it and draw the necessary investment, the rewards can be in the stratosphere. It amazes me that these companies pass around billions like they are mere thousands. Lots of biotech companies only have one product.

But how many start biotech's even make it past the first 3 years w/o bankruptcy? You're talking about entrepreneurs, with little odds to begin with. I'm talking about why overpaid mechanics get paid six figures while cancer researchers get paid the salary of a high school economics teacher.

You will have to argue this point.

 

In an ideal world they would be paid more, merely for utility and importance. Doctors get paid a hefty salary for diagnosing and treating you; cancer researchers should get paid a fair amount for making those life-saving drugs.

It depends where. In academia both are paid similarly (especially on the postdoctoral level). However, outside academia the salaries can rise massively. Thus, the whole comparison is a bit silly as you are comparing a whole discipline (engineering) that has a large set of job opportunities outside academia with a specialized sub-discipline (cancer research) that is much more limited. For a more apple to apple comparison you have to only look at industrial jobs, for example. In these cases the salaries will vary by company. For example the petroleum industry tends to have better salaries than most biotech ones, but (IIRC) some pharmaceutical tracks are at least comparative, if not higher paid.

I suppose its not a completely fair comparison.

[CharonY]

In the states here, its more like this: Engineer ~ $100k; Cancer Researcher ~$45k

 

 

And the numbers are clearly not from equivalent jobs. In academia 45k is a decent postdoc salary (usually 30k up to rarely 50k), whereas 100k is only made maybe by a full prof.

 

Outside academia entry level engineering tends to be around 65k which is comparable to biopharma entry-level jobs. There are, of course, specializations that may pay more or less.

[ajb]

And the numbers are clearly not from equivalent jobs. In academia 45k is a decent postdoc salary (usually 30k up to rarely 50k), whereas 100k is only made maybe by a full prof.

I am having similar thoughts here...

 

In the UK 100k (in USD) would be for a good professor. The UK postdoc market 45k (USD) sounds about right.

 

The question has to be worded differently. Something like the average pay for someone in the industry with x number of years experience. There will always be anomalies and individuals paid too much and individuals paid too little. But what people are interested in is 'what will I likely be paid'.

In an ideal world they would be paid more, merely for utility and importance. Doctors get paid a hefty salary for diagnosing and treating you; cancer researchers should get paid a fair amount for making those life-saving drugs.

/

And how does this importance compare to engineering? (or scientists, mathematicians, English professors and historians? )

[swansont]

In the states here, its more like this: Engineer ~ $100k; Cancer Researcher ~$45k

 

Where are you getting these numbers?

 

An NIH biologist at GS-13 would be making about $100k. A GS-14, around $120k

[Elite Engineer]

 

And how does this importance compare to engineering? (or scientists, mathematicians, English professors and historians? )

I would believe someone who makes the life-saving drugs would be "more important". However, jobs like mathematicians which high demand but low supply may be equal to or more important than the cancer researcher, depending on the job (accountant v.s. mathematician working on Mars colonization).

 

- Scientists. Social Scientists (sociologists, psychologists) - not as important; Chemists/ Biologists- importance is relative of the area of study.

 

In a different scenario, if Earth were tremendously overpopulated and we needed to colonize on Mars ASAP, then I'd believe engineers should be paid more than cancer researchers. It's just right now CR are more important than engineers.

 

Where are you getting these numbers?

 

 

 

Mostly from www.indeed.com and friends who work in both industries (4-6 yrs +)

 

But you also site an NIH makes 6-figures. I'm talking about the average private industry salary. Gov't salaries are usually higher than private industry.

 

I can also see where I may have indirect. I'm comparing CR's and engineers both with bachelor degrees, not a cancer researcher with a PhD at the CDC. I find, consistently that an engineer with a bachelors ALWAYS has a higher salary than a CR with a bachelors (biochemistry, biotech, bioinformatics), even with equal experience.

 

I believe this is due to product turnover.

[swansont]

Gov't salaries are usually higher than private industry.

 

 

Pardon me while I clean up the soda I just spit out over my keyboard. That's not true in physics.

 

Possibly in some areas of biology, though. The industrial/private mean salary of biology in general (series 19-1020 in the links below) is around $89k. Biochem and biophysics are higher than the mean, microbiology less. Federally employed biologists average around $80k, though microbiologists make more. Engineers (17-2000) in industry average over $100k.

 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_541710.htm#19-0000

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm#19-0000

 

I can also see where I may have indirect. I'm comparing CR's and engineers both with bachelor degrees, not a cancer researcher with a PhD at the CDC. I find, consistently that an engineer with a bachelors ALWAYS has a higher salary than a CR with a bachelors (biochemistry, biotech, bioinformatics), even with equal experience.

 

That's the big issue. I don't know how many bachelor's level biologists are conducting research, but they are probably considered more like technicians rather than researchers. At the bachelor's level, engineers make more than scientists, in general. It's been like that for as long as I can recall.

[Delta1212]

I would believe someone who makes the life-saving drugs would be "more important". However, jobs like mathematicians which high demand but low supply may be equal to or more important than the cancer researcher, depending on the job (accountant v.s. mathematician working on Mars colonization).

 

- Scientists. Social Scientists (sociologists, psychologists) - not as important; Chemists/ Biologists- importance is relative of the area of study.

 

In a different scenario, if Earth were tremendously overpopulated and we needed to colonize on Mars ASAP, then I'd believe engineers should be paid more than cancer researchers. It's just right now CR are more important than engineers.

 

Are they, though? Engineering is a broad field and covers the construction, maintenance and improvement of all of the infrastructure and much of the technology of modern civilization. There's a decent argument to be made that if you eliminated all of the engineers from the face of the Earth, the consequences would be much more dire than if you eliminated all of the cancer researchers.

 

I don't want to denigrate cancer research, far from it as someone who has immediate family who might not be here without it, but I think it's important to look at actual results when talking about a professions importance to society rather than lofty, feel-good ideals. Garbage collector doesn't seem like the most socially critical job in the world until you see what happens when they aren't around for a week, after all.

 

There is a pretty good argument to be made that cancer researchers would have a much more difficult time doing their jobs without the products of engineering work. And aside from this, perhaps an engineer with a BS is simply capable of doing more for their field than a cancer researcher with a BS.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Delta1212

[CharonY]

 

Pardon me while I clean up the soda I just spit out over my keyboard. That's not true in physics.

 

Possibly in some areas of biology, though. The industrial/private mean salary of biology in general (series 19-1020 in the links below) is around $89k. Biochem and biophysics are higher than the mean, microbiology less. Federally employed biologists average around $80k, though microbiologists make more. Engineers (17-2000) in industry average over $100k.

 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_541710.htm#19-0000

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm#19-0000

 

 

 

Even in biology industrial jobs pay significantly more at the PhD level in high-tech areas, including biotech, pharma or bioanalytical companies (although they are also often competing, and losing, to biochemists and pharmacists).

In the traditional outdoors biology areas it may not be true.

But there are not that many jobs that are specific to Bio bachelors that I am aware of and even technicians often hold a Masters nowadays.

(Also there will be no cancer researcher with a BS, they will have a BS in cell biology or something like that, cancer is a highly specialized branch).

 

 

Edited July 27, 2015 by CharonY

[waitforufo]

How many people have cancer?

 

How many people have a mobile phone?

 

How many jobs are created by the cancer research?

 

How many jobs are created by the mobile phone industry?

 

How many lives are saved due to cancer research?

 

How many lives are saved because nearly everyone has a mobile phone?

[MigL]

If its a matter of 'who's job is more important to society', then why is Christiano Ronaldo making so much ?

 

I'm not an engineer so I will never be upper management where I work. But I do make a comparable salary with a BSc in physics.

And as I always tell the engineers that I work with...

"All those little equations and formulas for stresses, strains, heat transfer, etc. that you use.

I derive them from first principles."