From this week's issue of Chemical and Engineering News, a letter that strikes a bit of jealousy in a young chemist's heart:
While it's certainly tempting to focus on the nostalgia in Mr./Dr. Howard's letter, there is a real truth in his statements. Near-permanent employment in one place allows chemists to join a community and be influential for chemistry. Itinerancy, while good for some corporations and lots of moving companies, does little to grow chemistry's "soft power".
...When I graduated in 1948, chemist supply balanced demand, so I had constant employment with one company at one site for 60 years, which gave me a stable life. After 56 years, I still live in the same house; have experienced financial stability; learned an enormous amount about my company's widespread technology, allowing me to contribute to many areas; and enjoyed some successes during my career.
This would be a rare expectation for today's graduates who, in their career, may be constantly moving from job to job and have no substantial roots. This situation will hasten the sinking esteem of chemistry in general because a chemist with only temporary roots in many communities will not be permitted to make significant contributions to local problems. [snip]
One influential politician with a chemistry background can have more influence than all the promotional programs ACS can produce. He or she can preach chemistry and protect us from the outrageous antichemistry statements circulating today in the media. Such local involvement is impossible for chemists whose roots are no deeper than those of itinerant farmworkers. Even those with permanent employment are so heavily loaded with work today that an exceedingly small number enter politics—it takes courage to request the necessary time off from work to enter politics at the risk of facing unemployment.
The American Chemical Society should be commended for its programs to help students, but the society should revisit the programs. Is it right to encourage the young to expend years devoted to the study of chemistry, plus the personal sacrifice, only to end up selling tools or appliances at Sears? Is it right for ACS to request financial support for these programs from chemists who are searching for employment? Is it possible that ACS might put the program on hold until equilibrium between supply and demand is reestablished?
In summary, we need to encourage chemists to enter the political arena to protect our reputation, and it cannot happen in today's environment where only ephemeral employment exists.
Edward G. Howard
Hockessin, Del.I confess to being a little jealous of people like Mr./Dr. Howard. I certainly long for the ability to put down roots in a community and have time to love my neighbor (to borrow a phrase.) Maybe that time will come, but in our post-modern economy, staying in one place seems to be the greatest of luxuries.
While it's certainly tempting to focus on the nostalgia in Mr./Dr. Howard's letter, there is a real truth in his statements. Near-permanent employment in one place allows chemists to join a community and be influential for chemistry. Itinerancy, while good for some corporations and lots of moving companies, does little to grow chemistry's "soft power".
Even coming from the industry's point of view, staying in one place for a considerable amount of time can seriously help an individual advance that corporation. I loved his anecdote about learning and contributing to his company's "wide spread technology" after being indoctrinated into it.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a variation on the recently discussed 'entrepreneurship' theme- it's great work, if you can get it. But you can be sure the ACS won't provide it.
ReplyDelete.....When I graduated in 1948, chemist supply balanced demand, so I had constant employment with one company at one site for 60 years...well what can I say ? I mean these day the companies are ready to chuck out of the windows employees with just 20 years of service. That is not the choice lot of people would make, but companies have other plans.
ReplyDeleteI hate having to move from place to place. I spent 5 years in grad school in one city, became involved in civic and community groups, and was forced to abandon all my friends and responsibilities when I had to move across the country for a postdoctoral position. Now, 3 years into a postdoc, I've again reestablished my positions in the community and political world in this new city. For the past two years all my free time was put into establishing a local non-profit group for one of my personal passions. I worked to get funding and build support for this group. Now I'm again looking to relocate since the chemical/bio industry in this city is non-existent outside the university setting, and I can't be a postdoc forever. I feel a bit like a nomad that moves around planting asparagus.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the mighty Wellcome Research Labs of years long gone. I listened to former colleagues talk of life at Wellcome with more than a stab of jealousy. To have worked for a company like that, feeling part of a community, must have been quite something. Instead I got 3 painful years at GSK. Haha, what a comparison.
ReplyDeleteThis also affects the relationship of the company with the community. If the workers are considered "transients" and aren't a part of the community, then the local government might not be inclined to extend a hand to that company when needed. I used to work at a company that had once been a small local company. It had been deeply involved with the community - most of the people who worked there lived nearby and stayed long term, there were local charity events held on the grounds, and the relations were good between the local community and the company.
ReplyDeleteThen the company was bought by big pharma. The company didn't want to spend the time and effort on local events. The policy toward lower level workers was "hire them cheap and expect most of them to leave in a couple of years." Housing prices and salary cuts led most younger workers to live further away and commute long distances. And so the local community started to see the company as hostile (and vice versa) and there were a lot more conflicts about "chemicals in our community", zoning changes, etc.
It was bad for the employees but it was also bad for the company as a whole. (Of course, that site is now being shut down, so it's no longer an issue.)
Doing a quick Google search on Edward Howard shows that he worked for DuPont at their main research labs in Delaware. Given his longer than average time with the company, I suspect he was a research fellow, i.e. someone who made it to the top of the research career ladder (approx. 10% of the chemists at DuPont). Anyone at the middle levels of the career ladder would have been forced to retire by age 65, if not earlier. Or laid off.
ReplyDeleteAt least he is aware of the issues of chemists having a much more difficult time settling down in one place, because of all the job uncertainties. Then again, DuPont has been laying off chemists off and on over the past 20 years. Did Mr./Dr. Howard ever speak up about this while he was on the job? Or was he one of those higher ups who just went about their business like nothing untoward was going on.
As you might expect, I worked for DuPont, though I left for both personal and career reasons. If I hadn't left, I would have been laid off as well, since the site I worked out closed several years ago.
At least C & E News published his letter.
I had worked for Ed Howard for around 15 years. He was a DuPont Corporate Fellow when I first started to work for him, back in late 70s. He was still a corporate fellow in the early 90s when I stopped working for him. If I remember right, when I started working for him, there were only around 8 or 9 corporate fellows, and maybe 11 or 12 when I stopped working for him
DeleteHe was an average guy, but likely the most respected chemist in the company. More people picked his brain every day than you can believe. He knew most all the big shots in the company's research, and spoke with them a lot.
Anyway, just so you know, he was not management, I don't think he was interested in seeking that type of position, he was a chemist for the love of Chemistry.
He was also the most well rounded person I've ever met, he seemed an expert on almost any subject. One of the most liked individuals you'd ever come across, everyone got along with him, a gentleman in every way.
Anyway, I just write on this subject so that you can understand the type person that he is.
Thomas Bonnes, Wilmington, DELAWARE
There are quite a few chemists who have job security and roots in their communities. They're called "tenured professors," and every one of our thousands of colleges and universities has a raft of them. However, hardly any of them has spoken up for their profession as Dr. Howard suggests they should. And as Anon 6:08 suggests, it's doubtful that even Dr. Howard piped up when he was essentially a tenured industrial chemist.
ReplyDeleteSo who, exactly, are our friends? Or more to the point, who's in a position to actually make a difference?
Huh. Are those crickets I hear?
@Anon602
ReplyDeleteNo crickets here (my seat in academia) as CJ and others will attest. But, I'm certainly not far enough along to be of any influence. For the young profs who see things first or second hand - they're too busy trying to stay afloat. The older profs don't have much perspective on this issue, I think.
This is a problem that almost NO ONE is talking about. It certainly has gotten more play in the media recently. But it's still not enough.
"The older profs don't have much perspective on this issue, I think. "
ReplyDeleteThis is why it is important for industrial chemists to keep in contact with their graduate school PIs. I keep my PI up-to-date on the state of the chemical industry. My former group (and the entire department as well) has dramatically decreased in the size of admissions. It appears that they are attempting to do the right thing.
Other schools are not taking similar measures. In fact some are dramatically increasing admissions, whether through sheer ignorance or greed. A simple email to PIs can change the former.
I am an "older professor" of chemistry at a top university. I have had hundreds of people train in my lab at the undergraduate, graduate Ph.D., and postdoctoral levels from the US and many countries in the world. I have taught chemistry to thousands of undergraduate and graduate students at two great universities. Almost all are very happily employed, albeit not necessarily in a traditional chemistry post. Some are doctors, some lawyers, others administrators, school teachers, and government officials. Most are chemists, however, equally distributed across academic and industrial positions. So I post this comment from that perspective.
ReplyDeleteChemistry is the discipline that makes new molecules and nano constructs and works to interconvert them and understand their reactions. It is by no means for everyone. Most people simply do not have the intuitive, artistic nature of the synthetic chemist combined with the strong analytical skills of a mathematician. Together and in the right person these traits can breed creative inventions and the ability to understand nature deeply. So what if chemistry is not popular? To say it is "useless", as Newsweek did, simply reflects on the utility of a magazine whose pages are smaller and fewer.
There will always be a small fraction of our population who will be chemists. To them it is irresistible.