Ask CJ: transition to data science

From the inbox (redacted for privacy): 

I was wondering if you have any advice on getting OUT of Chemistry? After [3-6 years] of industry after grad school [with a master's] I have found I liked coding & analyzing data a lot more than doing R&D and the issues that come with it in an industrial setting.

 I was just wondering if you know a lot of people who HAVE transitioned to data science/data analytics, so I can manage my expectations on if I should expect a paycut, how long the process takes, how much technical experience people had when they left, etc. [redacted]

A lot of my technical skills are self-taught and not on-the-job experience. I don't think my career path is unheard of, I was just wondering if you have any advice coming from an R&D synthetic chemist perspective that might help me get to an interview.

For past data science questions, here's an old post. 

I don't have much expertise in this, and so I will leave it to the commenters. I think that what a person needs to demonstrate interest in moving to a new field is the basic educational background (which probably can be made clear with some kind of programming/coding certificate) combined with sufficient on-the-job/off-the-job experience in the field to the point that you've demonstrated some kind of level of understanding. 

Readers, I'm genuinely not familiar with this, so do you have any thoughts? 

Polymer chemist turned soy sauce maker

From Google News searches for the keyword "chemist":

NORTH STONINGTON, Conn. — North Stonington could stake the claim that they are “Flavortown”. Bob Florence thinks so.

Florence is a trained polymer chemist who has worked for companies like Apple and GE all over the world. But four years ago, Florence started Moromi Artisanal Shoyu, “Moromi” for short– a high end soy sauce that is now finding its way into store shelves and restaurants. 

“I started making soy sauce out of curiosity,” Florence said. He even ventured to Japan to learn from some of the master soy sauce makers and decided to take the leap and bottle his own product back home.

Moromi, which translates to “mash” in English, is a combination of Florence’s passion and professional knowledge as a chemist. The small batch artisanal soy sauce is made inside an industrial building where Bob has all the high-tech machinery and barrels needed to produce Moromi, which now comes in seven varieties.

“This is an art,” he added, “It’s very similar to beer making -- in beer what you’re doing is using yeast to drive the reaction and what you’re doing with Koji, (the mold responsible for creating soy sauce) is that Koji is just a different mold, a different organism to make good stuff.”

Food manufacturing seems to be one of those classic backup careers for chemists later in life...  

Chemist/lawyer to psychedelic entrepreneur

Via a random Google search, this profile in the ABA Journal of Dr. Andrew Chadeayne, a lawyer and PhD chemist: 

From a desk in the back of his garage in Issaquah, Washington, a suburb of Seattle, Andrew Chadeayne is quietly, steadily spearheading the convergence of science, law and psychedelic drugs.

Chadeayne, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, is also a patent lawyer. His experience includes intellectual property work for pharmaceutical companies and a major freight forwarder. But it was his work for the revolutionary cannabis research company Ebbu that ignited his interest in developing and commercializing the mind-altering properties of much-maligned plants.

In 2018, Ebbu sold in a deal valued north of $330 million, and Chadeayne decided not to stay with the company. Instead, he founded a company called CaaMTech to explore another pharmacological edible: the magic mushroom.

Pretty interesting stuff - read the whole thing.

Research chemist/regulatory professional turned ceramic artist

Cool article in the San Diego Union-Tribune: 

It’s not an accident that Bounaud has explored new solutions to turning his abstract concepts into visual reality. The San Diego-based ceramic artist — born and raised in the Provence region, about an hour north of Marseille — had a longtime career as a research chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from New York’s SUNY Stonybrook. He moved to San Diego to work at the Scripps Research Institute and then at a biotech company.

“But I was getting burned out doing research and I needed an outlet,” Bounaud said. “I needed something else to take my mind off the pressure. My mom recently retired from being a schoolteacher and had taken up pottery and she would tell me about it. I had a chance encounter at the Hillcrest Farmers Market with a pottery teacher who had a booth there. She was teaching at the Educational Complex Center. I took her flyer and thought, ‘Why not try it?’ I did, and got hooked right away.”

Interesting how so many former bench chemists get their kicks out of creating in other media. 

Tennessee chemist starts food truck

Via Nashville TV station WSMV: 

LEBANON, TN (WSMV) – A Lebanon woman has left behind the world of environmental chemistry to run a food truck.

For 20 years, Gina Hayes worked as an Environmental Chemist in Nashville, making sure the water was drinkable. One year ago, Hayes dumped the lab coat for an apron.

“I was a chemist at an environmental corporation,” Hayes said. “Important work, good pay, and prestige, but out here seemed better.”

Her food truck Hillbilly Shack Delights is between Carthage and Lebanon. She makes cheeseburgers, bacon cheeseburgers, quesadillas, burritos, and chicken Philly cheese steaks.

“It was my dream actually from the beginning,” Hayes said. “Making people happy with food.”

Gotta say, Hillbilly Shack Delights sounds like a good place to have lunch. I would really like to own and run a 24-hour diner someday, but I imagine it's pretty hard work.  

#chemjobs, #altchemjobs and the center of the central science

Marshall Brennan is a long-time denizen of the chemblogosphere. He’s written many years at Colorblind Chemistry. After his postdoctoral position, he’s taken on editor positions at Nature Chemistry and now he is the founding publishing manager of ChemRxiv, the ACS/RSC/GDCh open-access preprint server. He’s a tireless advocate of preprints for chemistry on Twitter.

If you haven’t had a chance to read his piece on the tag #altchemjobs and why he hates the term, you should. Marshall is not the only person who feels this way, and the piece is an eloquent cri de coeur on why he feels excluded when people use the tag. I’ve summarized his points below:

1. Marshall believes that, as of late, the #altchemjobs tag has become a bit of a joke on Twitter. He believes it is rude, and dismissive of non-laboratory jobs. 
2. He also believes that we overly focus on what is the central "thing" and bucket the rest of these things as "alternatives." 
3. He dislikes the overall feeling in graduate school that you can 1) get a research track job (industry, academia or government or 2) "something else." 
4. He notes that many people feel that there is some level of stigma or shame associated with expressing interest in non-research jobs during graduate school, citing the many messages he gets where people will privately express their interest to leave the laboratory (as he has), but are unwilling to express this to their advisers. 

So, as with many blog posts about conflict, I’m going to start with an apology: as the main poster of the #chemjobs and #altchemjobs tag, I hadn’t noticed that that the #altchemjobs tag had become increasingly jokey and outré. For that, I apologize to Marshall and the undoubted many people on Twitter who were offended/put off by this. I am sorry.

I am also going to indulge myself in some definitional discussion, which I am very fond of.

I find this statement by Marshall worth examination: “I have an “altchemjob” that I feel makes very good use of my chemistry background and has a measurable impact on chemistry research.” As a main arbiter of what is and isn’t in #chemjobs tag or the #altchemjobs tag, I am not sure I agree with Marshall’s characterization. I can see both sides: he works for the American Chemical Society, which is the professional society for chemists. In that regard, Marshall is part of the “chemical enterprise” (another frustratingly vague term that the American Chemical Society is fond of).

But what is the “chemical enterprise”? Marshall works for ACS Publications (I think), and they are a publishing house and (to throw out one definition) they are not part of the chemical manufacturing subsector (NAICS 325). Then again, neither are professors (NAICS code 611310 - Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools.) If chemistry professors aren’t part of the “chemical enterprise”, then no one is.

I would like to put all of this definitional folderol aside and just settle on numbers. As I never, ever tire of reminding people who meet me in person, you can look at the Census Bureau’s 2012 study of those who have gotten a science and engineering degree and discover one true fact: the majority of people in the United States who have physical science undergraduate degrees do not work as physical scientists. In other words, most of the people who have a chemistry degree do not work as chemists. As the (few) people who have heard me speak in person on this topic have heard me say: this is not good or bad, it just is. It’s not what should be, or what ought to be, it is what IS. One more time: to the best of my interpretative ability, I believe the Census Bureau has determined that most of the people in the United States who have gotten a chemistry B.A. or B.S. do not work as chemists. If that’s the case, this should free people from any burden that they are doing something not normal by not working in the laboratory.

[This means YOU, grad students and postdocs who are forwarded this post.]

However, we have no idea if this is true for those who hold master’s or doctoral degrees in chemistry. In fact, this is one of the most frustrating aspects of my discussions with people, including my dear friend and debating partner Lisa Balbes. How many chemists leave the lab? I have no idea. When do they do it? Don't know. Is it growing? Don’t know. Are more people going straight from graduate school into non-research careers? Don’t know. (Probably?) Are careers in laboratory chemistry getting longer or shorter? Don’t know. What is normal for Ph.D. chemists? Don’t know. What is abnormal for chemists in terms of careers? Don’t know. We just don't have the data.

But here’s what I do know - this is a solvable problem. There are numbers that can be quantified. Let’s quantify them, dammit. Because if we find that 95% of Ph.D. chemists go into research careers in industry, academia and government, and only 5% of them do something else, that’s a minority, and that’s worth noting, and worth taking into consideration. If we find that it’s 50% research careers, and 50% something else, that’s sure as heck worth noting as well. (Until that day, we’ll be stuck having this same f------ debate.)

I’d like to end by questioning a final statement that Marshall makes and I strongly disagree with. He says “I don’t think we’re going to be at a point where we equally revere and celebrate the folks who are currently under the #altchemjobs umbrella as those who do lab work anytime soon.”

So here’s my perspective: I don’t talk about my work much and what I do, but suffice it to say I work at a chemical manufacturer. What many people don’t know is that I too have transitioned out of the laboratory to a position that I charitably describe as “chemistry-adjacent.” Because I actually work at a plant (which is a relative minority of the chemical enterprise by employment), I have never forgotten who pays the bills: the chemists who invent the molecules, scale them up safely and economically, and the chemical operators who manufacture the products. No chemists, no product. No product, no money.

Laboratory chemists are central to the central science. If laboratory chemists do not produce the new products and new knowledge they do, Marshall doesn’t have a job and neither do I. All those alternative/non-traditional/non-research/non-laboratory jobs that we like to highlight? No lab chemists? No fancy IP lawyers. No smelly greasy lab coat wearing goob? No EHS consultants. No pedantic research fellow? No business development BMWs. That’s why laboratory chemists are special to the chemical enterprise, and that’s why they are celebrated as “the main thing” and that’s why they should be.

So here’s what I’m going to do: As Marshall has noted, the #altchemjobs tag has gotten dismissive and jokey (honestly, neglected), and because of that, I’m going to increase my posts on the tag, with the non-research/non-laboratory posts that I hope he and others will find appropriately respectful and worthwhile. I’m glad he’s started this conversation, and I hope it continues.

Altchemjobs discussion

Don't forget to read Marshall Brennan's thoughts on alternative jobs in chemistry. My response will be up on Wednesday morning. 

Marshall Brennan: #altchemjobs are just #chemjobs

Over at Marshall Brennan's blog, a critique of the "altchemjobs" hashtag on Twitter that is a cogent summary of how a lot of people feel: 

I have given many career panel talks, Q&As, jobs seminars, etc as both an editor and preprint business lead, and usually the reason people want to hear from me is to learn how to break the news to their colleagues that they want to pursue something outside of research. They have the same concerns about being shunned by their peers, that their advisor will think less of them, or that going down such a path is akin to chemistry seppuku.  

Worse still are the folks that find their way into my DMs or email inbox with these concerns, where sometimes these students are having full on identity crises. (If you’re having stress about your career and think that I can offer you any advice, consolation, etc, please don’t hesitate to reach out. My inbox is a confidential, judgment-free place for you to seek help if you need it, and you can feel free to vent to me if that will help you.)  

Call me crazy, but I think that a student should pursue a career that excites them, that they’re passionate about, and that can help them maintain a life (both personal and professional) that they’re satisfied with. None of those criteria require you to take your PhD to a laboratory, and I think that anyone who is trained as a chemist is a chemist as long as they choose to identify that way.

I'm looking forward to responding to this on Wednesday morning. Read the whole thing.

Interesting development on the law school front

Via the New York Times, a change in testing requirements: 

Law schools, which have been plagued by a shortfall of students in recent years, are changing their admissions requirements. 

Two top-ranked schools — Georgetown University Law Center and Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law — this week joined Harvard Law’s recent move to make it simpler to apply. 

Applicants can submit the results of the more widely available Graduate Record Exam, the GRE, instead of those from the Law School Admissions Test, which long has been entrenched as the numeric gauge of law school success. 

Many law schools are casting wider nets to attract students who would not otherwise set their sights on a legal education. The schools hope that by making it easier for the engineers, scientists and mathematicians who typically take only the GRE, more of them will enroll....

Are there really that many STEM grads who are interested in law school?

(That's an interesting aspect of the post-Great Recession era - there was a lot of talk about a 'law school bubble', but it seems to me that there hasn't been the mass collapse of law schools that you would expect if the bubble had really collapsed. This 2017 report seems to suggest that enrollments are flat at best, which is not good news if you're a law school dean.) 

6 mL transfer pipets

A list of small, useful things (links):

• Kat Day, on alkaline water. 
• Check out Sustainable Nano's blog!
• Th'Gaussling thinks about chemical weapons versus "non-chemical" weapons.
• Ash reviews Professor Doudna's book on CRISPR.
• I enjoyed this profile of a community college professor in this week's C&EN. 
• I'm looking forward to reading this review on the syntheses of new drugs.
• Who knew there was ethics guidance for hazardous waste storage? 
• The latest from Stellen für Chemiker,
• For those of you wanting to transition to data science software development (thanks, Anon1300) from organic chemistry, a Medium post from Dr. Arash Soheili.

Again, an open invitation to all interested in writing a blog, a hobby that will bring you millions thousands hundreds tens of dollars joy and happiness. Send me a link to your post, and I'd be happy to put it up.

Interesting set of reasons for "mismatch"

Credit: Stenard and Sauermann

Via a tweet from @biochembelle, an interesting measurement by Stenard and Sauermann (PDF) of why scientists and engineers end up in positions where their work is different than their highest degree using NSF SESTAT data*:

Our measure of educational mismatch is based on the following survey question: “To what extent was your work on your principal job related to your highest degree?” Respondents answered using a 3-point scale ranging from “closely related” to “somewhat related” and “not related.” 11% of the sample report that their job is not related to their highest degree (henceforth called a “mismatch”), while 31% report that the job is somewhat related, and 58% of respondents indicate that their job is closely related to their education. 

Respondents who reported a mismatch were asked about the primary reason: “What was the most important reason for working in an area outside the field of your highest degree?”. Response options included “pay, promotion opportunities,” “working conditions (e.g., hours, equipment, working environment),” “job location,” “change in career or professional interests,” “family-related reasons (e.g., children, spouse’s job moved),” “job in highest degree field not available,” and “some other reason.” 

As you can see from the graph, "pay and promotion" and "change in career interests" were the highest, but I found it interesting and informative that "job in highest degree field not available" was as high as it was. Would be fascinating to get breakdown of fields of study and the like. These folks were measured sometime between 2003 and 2008; bet you the "job in highest degree field not available" are higher now.

*From the paper, the strictures of the graph above:

SESTAT is based on regular surveys conducted by NSF and is constructed to represent the general population of scientists and engineers in the U.S who have at least a Bachelor’s degree. 

First, we exclude individuals who were not in the labor force during the observation period as well as those who were unemployed. We exclude individuals under the age of 22 and over the age of 65 to account for potentially different dynamics among those still in training or close to retirement. We limit our sample to full-time employees (defined as working at least 30 hours per week and 30 weeks per year) working in the U.S. and in a for-profit organization; we exclude individuals who are employed in academia, government, or non-profit organizations, as these sectors are likely characterized by different labor market dynamics. 

Since we focus on educational mismatches among scientists and engineers, we also exclude individuals whose highest degrees are outside of science and engineering, as well as individuals who have a professional degree (e.g., JD, MBA, or MD). Finally, since we are concerned with transitions to entrepreneurship between periods, we exclude individuals who were observed only once. Our final sample includes 25,530 unique individuals, 15,801 of which were observed in all three time periods and 9,729 of which were observed in 2 time periods, for a total of 66,861 person-year observations.

Another story of chemist-turned-data scientist

A longtime denizen of chemistry Twitter, Tom Phillips, describes his transition from chemistry to data science in the UK: 

People are often surprised to learn that my background is chemistry. Data science job adverts almost always specify physics, mathematics, or computer science. So how does a chemist become a data scientist? Here’s what worked for me. 

I started my undergraduate degree in chemistry at Imperial College London in 2007. I mostly took physical chemistry courses that covered a decent amount of mathematics. I didn’t recognise it at the time, but the all the linear algebra turned out to be particularly important — it’s fundamental to most applied mathematics. 

In summer 2010 I did a research placement and taught myself MATLAB. Up until then I only used Excel, so learning MATLAB had immediately levelled-up my data analysis skills. 

For my final year project I made quantum dots with microfluidic reactors. My group automated the reactors using optimisation algorithms in MATLAB so that we could produce nanoparticles with the specific properties. This was my first taste of computers making “intelligent” decisions...

There's much more detail in the full post - worth a read for those considering it. 

Rise of the computationalists

As part of the Medicinal Chemistry List*, I have noticed how many computational positions in drug discovery I am running into. The latest one that caught my eye is this one from Pfizer Cambridge:

The Pfizer Computational Sciences group has an opening for a data scientist with expertise in machine learning. The successful candidate will work in close collaboration with groups across Medicinal Sciences organization and will utilize his/her machine learning, data analysis, and scientific programming experience to address challenging problems covering a wide range of research and development activities within Pfizer R&D. To be successful in this role, the incumbent must have the talent and skills to analyze large, multi-dimensional datasets from internal and external sources and to rapidly develop effective in silico models and implement powerful computational solutions.

Qualifications 

• Ph.D. in computational chemistry, computer science, physical or biological sciences, machine learning, or related discipline with 0-3 years of relevant experience required.
• Familiarity with several machine learning algorithms and packages (e.g. Regression and Classification algorithms, Supervised and Unsupervised learning algorithms, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Neural Networks, Deep Learning, Sci-kit Learn, R, MATLAB, Theano, TensorFlow).
• Experience working with large data sets, preferably in drug discovery setting.
• Experience with Unix/Linux, HPC environments, and high-level programming language (e.g. Python).
• Demonstrated track record of applied machine learning and data science through publications in top tier peer-reviewed journals and/or presentations in national or international conferences.

I find it interesting that this position is advertised at the "Principal Scientist" level (my memory might be fuzzy, but that's a R6 (thanks, Anon!) R5, right?) for a Ph.D. with zero years experience. (Typical entry-level Ph.D. is R4.) 

A long time ago, the calculation was that a single synthetic chemist ran $250,000 in terms of salary and overhead (this number must have changed by now) - I wonder how much a computationalist runs, in terms of overhead? More or less? 

*Yes, working on the process chemistry one. 

Ask CJ: how to transition from bench scientist to data scientist?

From the inbox, a good question:

Any idea on how to transition from bench scientist (chem or bio) into a data scientist position? After a 3 year post-doc I’ve started looking at the job market and see a lot more data scientist than “bench”-scientist positions being advertised. Usually with decent companies like Amazon and Google. 

These positions usually say they are looking for people who can analyze data (probably no problem to spin that since that’s the backbone of acquiring a PhD), but the requirement for expertise in coding. Do you think they are rigidly looking for computer science degrees or would being self-taught or using one of these “free” online code schools be sufficient?

I think they're looking for someone who has a fair bit of experience in coding (or at least the Amazon/Google positions). I suspect that being self-taught but having a lot of experience (i.e. folks in academia who do coding as part of their academic work) would be welcome. I don't know much about various coding languages, but it seems that R (?) is one of the ones that people talk about.

I don't know about the free online code schools, although I do want to point out this Bloomberg News article noting that some of these coding schools charge a lot of money for not-very-successful results.

Readers, you probably have much more experience with this than I - what's your opinion?

UPDATE: Someone we'll call MK writes in with a detailed story about how they went about a similar path to the desired one above:

To introduce myself: I did a physical chemistry PhD (some kind of spectroscopist) and then did something weird: I took a postdoc in [something data/public health/medically-oriented] at a government lab. I stayed in my post-doc for 1.5 years, found a job, and now work as a "biomedical analyst" (not my real title, but very close) in the government. 

Thanks to MK for their contribution.

(Incidentally, one of the things that I have always said is that "STEM is really about TE." I think coding schools are an interesting example of actual T shortage - in other words, people have decided that there is enough demand to set up new, private coding schools to teach skills that employers will pay for. As of yet, I am unaware of anyone setting up "chemistry schools." (Of course, how much of this new commercial activity is actually about extracting federal student loan dollars is another question.) )

Not your typical high school chemistry teacher

What is it about high school teachers
and jackets? Credit: Elliot Richman/C&EN

In this week's C&EN, a profile of Elliot Richman, a Ph.D. chemist who became a science writer and then a high school chemistry teacher. (article by Ryan Cross)

(It would be interesting to know what percentage of high school chemistry teachers have advanced degrees in chemistry, and what percentage of them started teaching immediately after school. I suspect that it's lower than the median high school teacher.) 

Interview: Ryan Stolley, organometallic chemist, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow and climate change policy advocate

Via random chance, I have been introduced (virtually) to Dr. Ryan Stolley, an organometallic chemist and AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow. This post has been lightly edited for grammar, and checked by Dr. Stolley for accuracy.

Can you tell us a little about your background in chemistry?  

My background in chemistry is mostly in the organic/organometallic space. I did my undergrad at a small (less than 5000 students) liberal arts school with a strong chemistry department and had the opportunity to do both organic synthesis and coordination chemistry research over summers and throughout the year. I then did an NSF REU (research experience for undergraduates) in Thailand doing natural products chemistry. This was an interesting chemistry/cultural/philosophical experience for discussion elsewhere.  

I then did my PhD in organometallic methodology developing Ni- and Pd-catalyzed N-heterocycle forming reactions. I had some pretty good success publishing a number of papers and a book chapter. I have always had a desire for some sort of public service and in undergrad was engaged in the chemistry club and was also chairman for the chemistry student advisory council in graduate school that had votes in retention/promotion/tenure proceedings and was a vehicle for student advocacy and events.  

What did you do after graduate school? What was it like to postdoc at a national lab? 

After graduate school I took a postdoc at Pacific Northwest National Lab. I was working on more nickel catalysis this time in the electrochemical oxidation of H2. Working at a national lab was and can be amazing for a number of reasons. The entire lab is research only and you work with some seriously smart people with excellent resources. However, it's not the utopia that can be often thought of by undergraduate and graduate students. 

Interview: Edwin Villhauer, medicinal chemist, process chemist and high school teacher

Via friend of the blog James Ashenhurst, I am pleased to have been introduced to Dr. Edwin Villhauer, a former Novartis medicinal chemist who has started his second career as a high school teacher of chemistry. This post has been lightly edited for grammar, and checked by Dr. Villhauer for accuracy.

Can you tell us a little about your educational background? 

I obtained a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Rochester and immediately jumped into the pharmaceutical world on July 1st, 1985.  Up until that time, life was macaroni and cheese, 17 hour days working in the lab, and wearing blue jeans with many holes due to acid burns.  Who knew that my jean style back then would become today's fashion!

When I entered Sandoz (merged with Ciba-Geigy to become Novartis in 1996), I started on a fantastic metamorphosis to becoming a medicinal chemist which is critical if you expect any possible chance of championing your little molecule from idea to market.  The transformation from bench chemist to a fully functional medicinal chemist with confidence to maneuver through the foreign lands of pharmacology, toxicology, drug metabolism, patent law, regulatory, formulation, and process development took about 10 years.

FDA short-staffed?

Via John Carroll's Endpoints e-mail, this piece from Kaiser Health News on FDA job openings: 

The Food and Drug Administration has more than 700 job vacancies in its division that approves new drugs, and top officials say the agency is struggling to hire and retain staff because pharmaceutical companies lure them away. 

“They can pay them roughly twice as much as we can,” Janet Woodcock, who directs the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), said at a rare-diseases summit recently in Arlington, Va. 

The FDA has been under fire for taking too long to approve new drugs, despite approving a record number of generic drugs in 2015. Although it met its goal of hiring 1,000 new employees to help clear the backlog of unapproved generics, that program had nearly 200 job vacancies as of Sept. 30. And CDER itself had 711 openings out of 5,525 positions at the end of September, according to spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman — meaning that more than 1 out of 8 positions were empty. 

Most openings have occurred as the result of new laws or initiatives increasing the FDA’s workload and creating new positions. The agency has had a difficult time accelerating its hiring in response, but the pace has picked up, Eisenman said. CDER continues to utilize employees borrowed from elsewhere within the FDA and contract workers to help fill the breach....

Well, there's at least one chemist opening at CDER right now...

STEM, computer workers and their degrees

Credit: Census Bureau

Someone asked a really good question about chemists and computer occupations over at the Chemistry Reddit:

It seems to me that a disproportionate number of chemists end up taking up programming to some extent, and sometimes transfer to that field entirely. Does anybody else feel the same way? And why do you think this would be?

I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the Census Bureau's data about this, where they correlate the various STEM degrees and the occupational fields of their degree holders through the American Community Survey. As you can see, the green/teal line is the number of B.S. physical science degree holders who go into occupations classified as "computer workers." As you can see, it's large, but not especially large compared to those who get engineering degrees or computer science degrees.

To get further into the weeds, I calculated the percentages of computer workers for degree holders for the "STEM" fields:

Computers, mathematics and statistics degrees: 43% computer workers
Engineering degrees: 15% computer workers
Physical science degrees: 7% computer workers
Biological, environmental and agricultural sciences degrees: 3% computer workers
Psychology degrees: 3% computer workers
Social sciences degrees: 4% computer workers

Looking at the data, it seems to me to be equivocal. If you compare to "TEM" workers, no, chemists do not end up disproportionately as programmers. However, the data does suggest that, of the "S" fields, the physical sciences disproportionately end up as computer workers. 

They have chemists at the Met?

I have been remiss in failing to note Linda Wang's great profile last week of Eric Brietung, an art conservation scientist (who started as a medic in the National Guard (!)) and then moved on to a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and ended up at New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art: 

2006: Changing careers from coatings to conservation
After seven years at GE, Breitung wanted to move to New York City. When he saw an ad in C&EN for an art conservation scientist at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met), he applied: It was a perfect match for his interests in science and art. Breitung didn’t get the job, but he contacted department head Marco Leona to find out how he could work toward this type of job. “He was willing to offer me a fellowship for a year at a huge pay cut from industry.” Breitung took leave from GE. 

2009: Working his way through Washington
Breitung returned to GE for seven months before moving to Washington, D.C., to take a job as an art conservation scientist at the Smithsonian. In that position, he identified dyes on textiles from Central Asia. In 2010, he got a job as a senior scientist at the Library of Congress, where he examined materials in magnetic tape and other media. Along the way, he kept in touch with Leona, who became a friend and mentor. 

Today: Fulfilling his dream at the Met
In 2015, Leona contacted Breitung when he had an opening at the Met. “He thought I had the right qualifications for the job, and he invited me to apply,” Breitung says....

Do read the whole thing.

(Art conservation science seems to be one of those fields where the positions are relatively few and far between? It's probably these particular fields where patient networking is key.)