Comments for Science Brainwaves http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:41:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on So I have a Ph.D. by Eileen Leung http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/so-i-have-a-ph-d/#comment-26 Eileen Leung Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:41:25 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2011/04/15/So-I-have-a-PhD.aspx#comment-26 Thank you for this post - this is a topic that many PhD graduates, graduates-to-be and academic staff will be concerned about in the coming months and years. Academia is a profession where the highly qualified are poorly paid and easily discarded. To make it one really has to embrace the nomadic lifestyle and rely on the good grace of the God that is presiding over your project. But that said, undertaking a PhD opens your eyes to much more than just research. You develop personally and intellectually. You gain skills, many of which can be applied to a wide range of jobs outside academia. What I found most satisfying from the whole experience is that you work with people; lots of people, from different backgrounds and from different walks of life. There are not many professions that allow for this. Thank you for this post – this is a topic that many PhD graduates, graduates-to-be and academic staff will be concerned about in the coming months and years. Academia is a profession where the highly qualified are poorly paid and easily discarded. To make it one really has to embrace the nomadic lifestyle and rely on the good grace of the God that is presiding over your project.

But that said, undertaking a PhD opens your eyes to much more than just research. You develop personally and intellectually. You gain skills, many of which can be applied to a wide range of jobs outside academia. What I found most satisfying from the whole experience is that you work with people; lots of people, from different backgrounds and from different walks of life. There are not many professions that allow for this.

]]> Comment on So I have a Ph.D. by Michaela Livingstone http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/so-i-have-a-ph-d/#comment-25 Michaela Livingstone Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:57:44 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2011/04/15/So-I-have-a-PhD.aspx#comment-25 I was talking about this for a bit last night with someone who has a science background (not to Ph.D level) but now works in a comms team for a science institute - they were saying that they'd far quicker take on someone with experience than a Masters or a Ph.D, so really I think it definitely depends on what field you're going in to, and yeah - what your boss wants. I was told when offered my job that it was in my employer's interest that I get those two letters before my name ASAP (depsite it not being a research or science job - though still being related to science, purely because it lends an air of credibility to... well me). It takes a certain type of person to WANT the uncertainty and insecurity that goes in hand with doing academic research because of short-term contracts, so kudos to those who make it to the top, but there are massive bottle-necks at each progression stage, and it can only get worse with the belt-tightening... but it's probably true that other industries have a similar situation - but then how many of these industries require you to do a 3/4 year qualification that is fairly hellish (at least) to even get on the bottom rung. You do a PhD because you want to work in research, and then unless you get a permanent position "at the right time" then you're screwed, unlike in other industries where there's still a (pretty much equal) chance that if you try again next time a more senior position opens, that you can get it. It's just a whole big mix of factors. I don't regret doing my PhD though - when I started my motivation was because I wanted to work in research in my field, but when it came clear I wasn't suited to it, didn't enjoy it at a fundamental level, and enjoyed doing other things far more, it was time to accept it, move on - but having a PhD hasn't done me and ill at all. I was talking about this for a bit last night with someone who has a science background (not to Ph.D level) but now works in a comms team for a science institute – they were saying that they'd far quicker take on someone with experience than a Masters or a Ph.D, so really I think it definitely depends on what field you're going in to, and yeah – what your boss wants. I was told when offered my job that it was in my employer's interest that I get those two letters before my name ASAP (depsite it not being a research or science job – though still being related to science, purely because it lends an air of credibility to… well me). It takes a certain type of person to WANT the uncertainty and insecurity that goes in hand with doing academic research because of short-term contracts, so kudos to those who make it to the top, but there are massive bottle-necks at each progression stage, and it can only get worse with the belt-tightening… but it's probably true that other industries have a similar situation – but then how many of these industries require you to do a 3/4 year qualification that is fairly hellish (at least) to even get on the bottom rung. You do a PhD because you want to work in research, and then unless you get a permanent position "at the right time" then you're screwed, unlike in other industries where there's still a (pretty much equal) chance that if you try again next time a more senior position opens, that you can get it. It's just a whole big mix of factors.

I don't regret doing my PhD though – when I started my motivation was because I wanted to work in research in my field, but when it came clear I wasn't suited to it, didn't enjoy it at a fundamental level, and enjoyed doing other things far more, it was time to accept it, move on – but having a PhD hasn't done me and ill at all.

]]> Comment on Got milk? by Michaela Livingstone http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/got-milk/#comment-40 Michaela Livingstone Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:00:48 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/08/03/Got-milk.aspx#comment-40 This is reminding of a comment made on Monday's Horizon: Science under attack, where a scientist investigating GM crops says he just doesn't understand why people worry about GM (he's either being dismissive or being a person working on GM has somehow missed the millions of comments to news stories featuring it over the last decade!!), and then Paul goes, "a lot of people don't want to eat genes"... blatantly this cloning faff and that statement indicate that a part of the population at least have either missed out on some simple information about biology, or have somehow missed the point of what's been given to them. This is reminding of a comment made on Monday's Horizon: Science under attack, where a scientist investigating GM crops says he just doesn't understand why people worry about GM (he's either being dismissive or being a person working on GM has somehow missed the millions of comments to news stories featuring it over the last decade!!), and then Paul goes, "a lot of people don't want to eat genes"… blatantly this cloning faff and that statement indicate that a part of the population at least have either missed out on some simple information about biology, or have somehow missed the point of what's been given to them.

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by Martin Turner http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-32 Martin Turner Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:02:47 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-32 I wasn't aware of public money going to private companies either, but it's what Terence Kealey claimed was the situation so I merely said I didn't have much of an opinion on it. Tax breaks to encourage private research enterprise in the public good is probably a good idea, assuming it's properly monitored which I doubt it is. How do you ensure that beneficial research is actually being done by these companies? I wasn't aware of public money going to private companies either, but it's what Terence Kealey claimed was the situation so I merely said I didn't have much of an opinion on it. Tax breaks to encourage private research enterprise in the public good is probably a good idea, assuming it's properly monitored which I doubt it is. How do you ensure that beneficial research is actually being done by these companies?

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by Frank Bierbrauer http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-31 Frank Bierbrauer Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:22:57 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-31 There is a comment in the article by Martin Turner that industry is paid to do research by the government. I have not heard of this but there is the far more common approach whereby research done by large companies, e.g. BHP-Billiton, GSK etc are allowed to spend money on research and get a tax break for it. This is a strong incentive to many companies who would otherwise not pursue research if they did not have to. Some companies need to pursue reeearch constantly to stay ahead of the competition and so they would continue to do so no matter the incentives. But some companies, especially those easily surviving on products made for primary industries such as minerals and ores do not need to. In those cases these tax breaks induce extra research spending and so extra jobs are created, nothing wrong with that. I agree that some governments appear to be very short sighted when it comes to a crisis and they slip into crisis mode in the same way that the UK government is doing now; they start with reducing funding for just about everything they can get away with. They fail to realise that it's just in these situations where they have to invest to ensure job and economic growth. Another point that comes to mind is that those banks which were saved from financial oblivion by the use of public funds should be forced to invest in people to aid the creation of new busninesses and so more jobs and economic growth. Currently, banks too are very cagey with their money especially those that were salvaged by the public purse. It is these banks that actually are far more accountable to the people than others. There is a comment in the article by Martin Turner that industry is paid to do research by the government. I have not heard of this but there is the far more common approach whereby research done by large companies, e.g. BHP-Billiton, GSK etc are allowed to spend money on research and get a tax break for it. This is a strong incentive to many companies who would otherwise not pursue research if they did not have to. Some companies need to pursue reeearch constantly to stay ahead of the competition and so they would continue to do so no matter the incentives. But some companies, especially those easily surviving on products made for primary industries such as minerals and ores do not need to. In those cases these tax breaks induce extra research spending and so extra jobs are created, nothing wrong with that.

I agree that some governments appear to be very short sighted when it comes to a crisis and they slip into crisis mode in the same way that the UK government is doing now; they start with reducing funding for just about everything they can get away with. They fail to realise that it's just in these situations where they have to invest to ensure job and economic growth. Another point that comes to mind is that those banks which were saved from financial oblivion by the use of public funds should be forced to invest in people to aid the creation of new busninesses and so more jobs and economic growth. Currently, banks too are very cagey with their money especially those that were salvaged by the public purse. It is these banks that actually are far more accountable to the people than others.

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by Michaela Livingstone http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-30 Michaela Livingstone Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:52:41 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-30 Well the problem isn't essentially what poeple are willing to get paid, it's more to do with whether they can get a job at all - it has always been, and always will be the case, that there's not actually that many jobs in science, and extremely little job security - there's a massive bottleneck between PhD, postdoc and then PI, so many people fail to find a job eventually - if you start cutting money, there are going to be even less jobs available - more people who have been highly trained in a very specialist area and going to be out on their arse trying to find a new career. You could of course cut the pay substatially, I agree scientists don't do what they do for the money, but there's going to be a point where working a million hours a week for little recognition and little money isn't going to sound attractive and people are going to say enough is enough. Well the problem isn’t essentially what poeple are willing to get paid, it’s more to do with whether they can get a job at all – it has always been, and always will be the case, that there’s not actually that many jobs in science, and extremely little job security – there’s a massive bottleneck between PhD, postdoc and then PI, so many people fail to find a job eventually – if you start cutting money, there are going to be even less jobs available – more people who have been highly trained in a very specialist area and going to be out on their arse trying to find a new career. You could of course cut the pay substatially, I agree scientists don’t do what they do for the money, but there’s going to be a point where working a million hours a week for little recognition and little money isn’t going to sound attractive and people are going to say enough is enough.

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by David Farmer http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-29 David Farmer Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:04:03 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-29 Airfist @Martin. Perhaps scientific innovation continues beyond economic slumps because it is by and large the result of the efforts of a group of highly skilled and educated people who even in periods of economic wealth choose to eschew substantial financial rewards - which would undoubtedly be well within their reach should they have chosen to work for private businesses - and work for academic institutions. They accept a comparatively menial material reward because, while everyone needs to pay their bills, they're interested in something more fundamental than economic return. The application of free market thinking to organisations such as the MRC seems redundant given this context. Increasingly it appears that the current government understands neither this point nor this subset of the population and apparently, neither does Dr. Kelly. Airfist @Martin.

Perhaps scientific innovation continues beyond economic slumps because it is by and large the result of the efforts of a group of highly skilled and educated people who even in periods of economic wealth choose to eschew substantial financial rewards – which would undoubtedly be well within their reach should they have chosen to work for private businesses – and work for academic institutions. They accept a comparatively menial material reward because, while everyone needs to pay their bills, they’re interested in something more fundamental than economic return. The application of free market thinking to organisations such as the MRC seems redundant given this context. Increasingly it appears that the current government understands neither this point nor this subset of the population and apparently, neither does Dr. Kelly.

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by Martin Turner http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-28 Martin Turner Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:54:54 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-28 I hope you mean Terence Kealey! I hope you mean Terence Kealey!

]]> Comment on My response to Dr Terence Kealey by Michaela Livingstone http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/scienceinmodernworld/scienceandsociety/my-response-to-dr-terence-kealey/#comment-27 Michaela Livingstone Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:38:28 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/2010/10/11/My-response-to-Dr-Terence-Kealey.aspx#comment-27 This guy's an idiot. This guy’s an idiot.

]]> Comment on Neurological disorders and science funding: a plea. by Michaela Livingstone http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/blogs/biology/brain-and-behaviour/neurological-disorders-and-science-funding-a-plea/#comment-6 Michaela Livingstone Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:23:13 +0000 /BlogEngine.NET/post/Neurological-disorders-and-science-funding-a-plea.aspx#comment-6 Having been reading up on Huntington's and see how confusing it is trying to work out what Huntingtin does (the protein that's abnormal in the disease), the fact that it seems to interact with just about everything ever, and is involved in a range of various cellular processes, that to me at least, seem to be far-removed and disconnected from each other, I'm not surpised that so many people are trying to work on it - and it'd be a shame if we couldn't continue the blanket approach to working on such a busy-body of a protein, cover all our bases, and hopefully one day come up with various disease-modifying treatments that could help make the disease a little less terrifying for sufferers and their families. Having been reading up on Huntington’s and see how confusing it is trying to work out what Huntingtin does (the protein that’s abnormal in the disease), the fact that it seems to interact with just about everything ever, and is involved in a range of various cellular processes, that to me at least, seem to be far-removed and disconnected from each other, I’m not surpised that so many people are trying to work on it – and it’d be a shame if we couldn’t continue the blanket approach to working on such a busy-body of a protein, cover all our bases, and hopefully one day come up with various disease-modifying treatments that could help make the disease a little less terrifying for sufferers and their families.

]]>