We are the grist: "The Real Science Gap" and the present and future of industrial jobs in chemistry

Introduction

This blog roundtable about the future in jobs in chemistry stems from a discussion that Matt of ScienceGeist and I had about Beryl Lieff Benderly's article "The Real Science Gap." We decided to discuss the article and the broader problems with jobs in chemistry, gathering a group of like-minded chemistry bloggers. My contribution is today, Leigh is up tomorrow, Paul on Wednesday and Matt on Thursday.

Looking at “The Real Science Gap”, by Beryl Lieff Benderly  

In 1994, as an intern at a biology lab, I was warned by a hard-bitten postdoc that biomedical science was a hard place to make a living. "Don't do it, unless you can't find anywhere else to go" was his answer about a career as a life scientist. After a few attempts at attaining a tenure-track professorship, my cynical friend (now in his mid-forties) finally has a laboratory to call his own.  

Sixteen years later, Beryl Lieff Benderly's article "The Real Science Gap" (Miller-McCune, June 14, 2010) provides the reading public with an update of the state of the academic science labor market. Benderly covers the lowlights of life in academics well: long stays in postdoctoral fellowships and the interminable waits for a tenure-track position. She talks about some of the issues that excerbate the difficulties of aspiring academics: for postdocs, there is a lack of independence from PIs and a constant push by government and industry to lower wages by bringing in postdoctoral workers from developing countries. All the while, politicians and corporate titans say that the US will fall behind if it does not produce enough graduates in scientific careers.   

Benderly recommends a few things: limiting the numbers of new scientists by paying graduate students and postdoctoral workers more and by allowing less immigration of scientists from other countries. She suggests creating permanent ‘staff scientist’ career tracks in academia, as opposed to relying upon waves of itinerant postdoctoral workers.

In her article, Benderly does not refer much to chemistry, other than a particularly key statement: "For generations, most chemists have worked in industry." The rest of this post will be dedicated to responding to her article,  and the present and future of the industrial chemistry job market.   

What did Benderly miss? Benderly’s article is important, because it’s one of the few articles in the mainstream media that contradicts the trope that America Needs More Scientists Now. That being said, I feel that she gives short shrift to some aspects of the problems. First, many fields are well-known to possess limited employment opportunities. While I feel vaguely sorry for those eight particle physics postdocs at Princeton, I cannot imagine that they do not realize the difficulties that they face. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that Benderly doesn’t recognize that some scientists do what they do because they love it. Secondly, I think Benderly glosses over some of the long-term consequences of limiting scientific immigration into the US. Many of the countries (namely China and India) that supply much of our scientific workforce are going to be great powers in the 21st century; limiting the betterment of their society’s citizens and cutting off the building of intersocietal ties may have future negative diplomatic consequences for the United States. Besides, I’m not sure the ‘foreign competition’ idea is true -- it has been my experience that scientists from developing countries fundamentally have a difficult time competing for industrial positions within the United States -- the language and cultural barriers are difficult to surmount, no matter how long the CV. 

Finally, I believe Benderly misses the forest for the trees: why does a surfeit of scientific labor exist? Because the government pays for it. Why does NIH get funding? Because society, through Congress, wants NIH to cure cancer. Society will grind whatever grist it feels it must in order to get what it wants; in some sense, that grist is us. 

Is Benderly’s statement about chemistry accurate? In a word, yes. More than 40% of ACS members work in industry; the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports close to 80,000 chemists in industry and government, as opposed to 25,000 chemistry professors.  

What is the state of the industrial chemistry job market? What are the problems facing chemists? In two words, not good. Chemists are facing lower-than-average hiring and an unemployment rate that is the highest in 20 years at 3.9% (according to the 2009/2010 ACS Salary Survey). Many jobs that would be handled by entry-level workers have been commoditized and pushed overseas by constant price pressure. Senior chemists are constantly in threat of their jobs by periodic layoffs that will cull the slightly-less-than-immediately profitable. US companies are fighting international competition and a difficult business and regulatory climate.  

The current and future industrial chemistry job market, I believe, will be represented by three problems. They are as follows:

1. Scientist shortages are real, but unpredictable  

Are you an electrochemist? Chances are, you’re not. But if you were, right now, you could easily get a job, especially if you have experience with lithium-ion/polymer batteries. Doubtless, you’d be working in the burgeoning (?) electric car industry in Michigan or Silicon Valley. Over the past year, ads calling for such a chemist were common in the pages of C&EN. How long does it take to train a Ph.D. materials scientist that would add to a battery R&D team? I would guess that it takes four or five years -- do you think that alternative energy concerns were high on the agenda in 2006? Similarly, when I was looking for a permanent position in 2008 (and the heyday of $4.50/gallon gasoline), there were a raft of positions posted by Synthetic Genomics and Amyris Biotechnologies and a dearth of medicinal chemistry positions. Sadly, I had trained for a career as a synthetic chemist, not a biofuels specialist.

I’ll submit this to our reading audience: considering the time frame of both undergraduate or graduate careers (4 to 8 years), economic conditions and job prospects are basically unpredictable. Today’s hot field could be tomorrow’s old-and-busted outsourcing minefield. Certainly medicinal chemistry was the hot field, ten years ago. This is a fundamental problem with professional scientist training in the US. While the market will always be clamoring for trained scientists today, the labor supply is close to a decade behind.  

2. Switching fields in chemistry is swimming against a strong tide

Let’s say that you decide to become a materials scientist, after years of being a synthetic organic chemist. How do you go about making such a transition? Certainly, it wouldn’t be easy. You could certainly attempt to go back to graduate school, and attempt to gain some sort of academic credential. Or, you could try to get a postdoctoral fellowship in it -- but wait, you can’t.

Principal investigators are relatively resistant to hiring older postdocs, and perhaps with some legitimacy: why hire someone with a family and financial responsibilities when you could hire a younger person? In addition to these informal barriers, there are formal barriers to retraining as a postdoc. Frequent CJ commenter Fenton Heirtzler points out that many postdocs are basically closed to mid-career scientists by federal regulations that insist that the hired be within 3 to 4 years of attaining their terminal degree. While it certainly reserves those positions for the intended, I suspect that it acts as a barrier against a more nimble US scientific workforce.

3. Once you get your position, you have about ten years to move up or out  

A hoary but potentially true view of the past: if you did a good job and didn’t screw up too badly, you’d keep your job for life. If you did screw up really badly, you’d get fired right away.

A hoary but potentially true view of the present: If you do a good job and don’t screw up too badly, you’ll be safe until the next layoff. If you screw up really badly, you’ll be fine and then you’ll get the ax at the next layoff. 

The competitive financial pressures of industrial chemistry are unrelenting; often, leadership of these companies decide that the answer to these pressures are layoffs. For example, Pfizer has had layoffs of its R&D staff in 2003, 2005, 2007 and twice in 2009. While the correlation may be relatively thin, I believe that I have found evidence of these pressures in this post, based on the ACS Salary Survey. You can see in the linked graph that the unemployment rate falls between the chemists that are 20-29 years old and 30-39; for the 40-49 year old cohort, the unemployment rate begins to rise again steadily.  

Although thin, I believe it is partial evidence that there are two selection mechanisms within the chemistry job market: 1) internally, periodic layoffs are a way for companies to make management moves and blame them on consolidations and economic conditions and 2) the chart is also evidence of an informal selection mechanism within the overall industrial chemistry market, where there are unwritten (and potentially unfair) expectations from hiring managers and HR departments about the achievements of mid-career scientists. The message is cold: keep up or get out. 

What should we do? There are two long-term labor problems within chemistry: the problem of experienced chemists and the problem of entering chemists.  

What to do about experienced and out-of-work chemists? Well, we need a Manhattan Project to recreate the societal scientific excitement of the Apollo Moon shot.

Ha, ha -- just kidding.

I don’t really know.  Changing the business climate of industrial chemistry would be nice, but improbable. Certainly, removing regulations that restrict retraining (such as the time-from-degree restrictions on federal postdoctoral positions) would be helpful. Some small-bore initiatives might be to hire experienced chemists into needed fields in state and federal government research forces. It is unclear to me what the next great scientific innovation and/or challenge might be; helping chemists get into those fields (materials science? nanotechnology?) from their former industrial positions (chemicals? pharmaceuticals?) would be a great start.  

What to do about young chemists entering the field? I am hesitant to suggest limiting numbers of graduate students or postdoctoral fellows; I’m quite (small-c) conservative in my policy recommendations. Here are my suggestions:  

A government or ACS effort to track scientific employment in the industrial labor market: this should provide current and future members better information on their job prospects. What’s the likelihood of any one organic chemistry graduate student becoming a medicinal chemist in industry? Dunno. That’d be awfully nice to know. If the odds are less than 5% to attain gainful employment, that’s an important statistic.

Initiatives to determine the expectations of industrial employers of all levels of employees: It’s probably uncontroversial to say that if you don’t publish a single article during your doctoral work, it will be difficult for you to attain a position. What are the characteristics of the hired? No one knows. What are the differences between the laid-off and those who survived the HR Angel of Death? Other than vague rumors and supposition, nobody knows. An effort to determine this systematically (and industry-wide) would be helpful.  

Rebalancing chemistry by changing funding: The final, most speculative and potentially most important change: it is my unfounded speculation that the future of chemistry does not lie in the life sciences, but in the physical sciences. Funneling chemists into the NIH funding grinder has created many of our current problems (and given us a plethora of organic chemists, myself included) and has given the short shift to solving non-life-science related problems. What is the ratio of NSF’s budget to NIH’s budget? It’s about 1 to 5. Assuming that the global race for non-medical scientific advances is the future of chemistry (a big assumption), I suggest changing that ratio to be closer to 1:1. While it may not decrease the number of life scientists in the long run, it may serve to give chemists a way out of the life science rat race. 

Readers, if you’ve made it this far, congratulations -- and thanks. What do you think? Amirite? Am I crazy? You probably know better than I do. And again, thanks for listening -- and over to you, Leigh!

MONDAY, MONDAY, MONDAY: Blog roundtable on the future of jobs in chemistry

Next week, three of the finest blogs of the chemblogosphere (and this one) will be discussing the future of the chemistry job market.

On Monday, I'll kick it off with my thoughts on Beryl Lieff Benderly's "The Real Science Gap" (a fairly comprehensive article on the academic science labor market) and my own thoughts on the present and future of the industrial chemistry job market.

I'm (unfortunately) otherwise busy for the next couple of days, but I really invite comments on Benderly's article and thoughts that people might have that I should talk about.

The following days, the discussion will be hosted by Leigh at Just Another Electron Pusher (general topic: too many chemists?), Paul at ChemBark (tenure = awesome) and Matt at ScienceGeist (government's role in this.)

Who's the most important participant in all of this? You are, of course. We want you to comment, contribute, critique and harangue us about our positions on these subjects -- hope to see you there!

Would you hire this man?

Process Wednesday: writing up for scaling up

It's time to face facts, if you haven't already -- that procedure you wrote up to scale up? It's probably not detailed enough. Once again, from our friend Neal Anderson, page 114 and 115:

Details of the specific conditions must be thoroughly described before a process can be safely and reproducibly scaled up, especially by someone who did not develop the original process. Few chemists are naturally inclined to describe in detail the conditions that they used. The nonspecific descriptors ("groaners") listed [below] in Table 5.1 are not sufficient to allow for ready scale-up of most processes: 

Added slowly, added dropwise (CJ's note: my personal favorite), to a dilute solution, added in portions, added to a cold solution, was run overnight, added at -78°C (was the temperature kept constant during the addition?*), with a slight exotherm, at room temperature (colder in England, hotter in the tropics*), excess reagent, vigorous agitation, worked up in the usual way, gave a white solid, sufficiently pure, yields given without consideration of product quality. 

Well, now you know -- so take a little more time writing up next time you throw it over the fence, hey?

*Anderson's comments, not CJ's. 

Chemjobber, elsewhere

In case you're interested:

- I speculate on the future of material science positions at MaterialViews here. Thanks to MaterialsDave for the opportunity.
- I am interviewed for Knovel Blogs here; thanks to Neil Schulman for the opportunity.

What are some signs of a good business?

"I don't have any problems that can't be solved by running another reaction" - Chemjobber

I used to say that when I was a graduate student and as a postdoc; for the most part, it was true. Research productivity and gettin' things done was key. As a working industrial chemist, I still think that's true, but I really think that who you work with and the culture of the company matters, too.

If you're being observed and interviewed for a position, you might as well observe and interview them and the organization, too. What are good signs to look for? John at "It's the Rheo Thing" has a wonderful starter list:

• Intelligent people. This can be broken into two subsets: 
• They have areas of expertise and know what they are
• They also know what areas are not their expertise, they recognize this and publicly acknowledge this
• Management that may or may not be present, but certainly show restraint in their involvement
• Clear definition of both what the problem is, and what a successful resolution would be (scope creep in a project a great warning sign)
• Open communication:
• Bad news can be spoken about
• Politics are very limited below the management levels

As I said, if you're a younger chemist like me, keeping your nose to the grindstone is probably your best bet. But culture matters, and you might as well look for a culture that you'd like (and will take care of you and your career) as opposed to one that you wouldn't (and that won't.)

Daily Pump Trap: 12/7/10 edition

Good morning! Between December 2 and December 6, there were 49 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 24 (49%) are academically connected.

Toxicology: Millenium's San Diego laboratory is searching for a B.S./Ph.D. chemist to perform toxicological research; extensive experience with HPLC and LC/MS desired.

Renewables: Amyris is one of the more prominent biofuels companies; they desire a Ph.D. analytical chemist with experience in management and method development. Experience with lubricants and polymers also desired.

Cross into the blue: The United States Air Force wishes to hire a M.S. radiochemist; you will be an intrepid monitor to "ensure that underground or atmospheric nuclear weapons testing samples are processed and measured to obtain data on the radioisotopes identified by the evaluators." You will, of course, need a "TOP SECRET (TS) clearance with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access in order to fully perform the duties and responsibilities of this position." Sounds important.

Plastics: Silberline Manufacturing wishes a B.S. chemist with experience in plastics and/or material science for plant research and support. "Must be experienced in plastics processing technology with strong mechanical attitude." Uh, okay.

What am I doing here?: The University of Massachusetts at Lowell wishes to tell you that they have raised their graduate student stipends and they are accepting students. No, really, that's what they want to tell you.

Research misconduct, by the numbers

Thanks to Paul's posts, I decided to take a look at the adjudicated cases that the Office of Research Integrity has handled. Here are the results of my tabulations; please note that I am NOT a biologist, so my categorizations are probably incorrect:

Retrovirology: 1
Endocrinology: 3
Genetics: 7
Epidemiology: 1
Organic chemistry: 1
Psychology: 1
Nephrology/transplant science: 4
Immunology: 6
Sleep science: 1
Pharmacology: 2
Clinical trial misconduct: 5
Developmental biology: 2
Neuroscience: 2
Radiology: 1
Protein expression/isolation: 1

What does this say? Not much, really, except that HHS and NIH fund a lot of biology, probably a heck of a lot more than chemistry.

Another interesting tabulation was the gender of the "respondent": 25 men, 15 women and 1 unknown. Certainly, gender parity has not reached scientific misconduct yet.

Finally, in response to thoughts that Bengu Sezen has not been punished enough, there was one case in which the "ultimate punishment" was meted out: Paul Kornak falsified records and misenrolled someone into a clinical trial in which they died. Because of this, Kornak pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide and was "excluded for life from participating in any and all Federal agency transactions, both procurement and nonprocurement."

BREAKING: November unemployment up to 9.8%

Fresh electrons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the national unemployment rate is up 0.2% to 9.8% for November. The broader measure (U6) of unemployment stayed stable at 17.0%, which is nice to hear.

"In the lab"



...in the lab. (photo credit from Scribblage.)

You know how people will crack open a fortune cookie and then add "in bed" to the end? I think chemists should add "in the lab." (Because, really, how often are you in bed, as opposed to in the lab? Don't answer that.) Try it with a few of the below (from here) -- and see how it works for you:

- There is a true and sincere friendship between you and your friends... in the lab.

- You find beauty in ordinary things, do not lose this ability... in the lab.
- Ideas are like children; there are none so wonderful as your own... in the lab.
- It takes more than good memory to have good memories... in the lab.
- A thrilling time is in your immediate future... in the lab.
 

Brilliant, right? So next time you're having Chinese with your friends, try thinking about your fortunes... in the lab.

How many chemists are working in the US?

Estimates of ACS Members from Wikipedia.
# of US chemists (5/09 BLS estimate) and definitions here.
# of US chemistry professors (2008, BLS estimate)
# of US chemists in pharma and basic chemical manufacturing (5/09, BLS estimate.)
# of US chemists in NJ, CA, WY here (5/09, BLS estimate.)

What would be the Wikileaks of chemistry?

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Julian Assange of Wikileaks is making big waves in the world with his disclosures of internal US government documents.

I'm really not interested in talking about Wikileaks, but I would be really interested in getting an equivalent data dump from any number of large chemistry-related institutions. Here's my top 5 list of things I wouldn't mind downloading and reading:

1. Internal grant-related documents at NIH and NSF; specifically, reviews of grant proposals from the chemistry-related study sections. Having a committee of active academics basically decide the direction of a portion of chemistry research is a pretty big deal; it'd be fascinating to see how the deliberations were made.
2. Internal e-mails and deliberations at Columbia during the Sames/Sezen debacle.
3. Internal e-mails at Angewandte Chemie after l'affaire J.J. LaClair
4. All incoming e-mails and letters at C&EN after an "AARRGGH" Rudy Baum editorial
5. All internal e-mails at UCLA and associated regulatory agencies after Sheri Sangji's accident. (Wait a minute, aren't they all public record? Hmm.)

Too bad I'll never get the chance, except for #5 (maybe someday -- c'mon, Jyllian!) One can only hope.

Daily Pump Trap: 12/2/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 30 and December 1, there were 9 jobs posted on the ACS Careers database. Of these, 4 (44%) were academically connected.

Orange, TX: INVISTA desires a Ph.D. chemist to work in R&D at their nylon / adipic acid facility in Texas. You'll be working on nylon intermediates; organometallic background preferred.

Ann Arbor, MI: IMRA America is looking for a Ph.D. chemist to work on thin film solar cell technology. "Experiences in thin film solar cell fabrication and evaluation. Experiences with CIGS will especially be considered." "Knowledge of solid state chemistry, material thermodynamics and kinetics" is also desired.

Umm, no: Sunrider Manufacturing desires a chemist to perform food chemistry research. What's that you say? You're a "a successful, world-wide multi-level marketing company"? Really? Hey, where do I sign up?

Broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder and Indeed show (respectively) 247, 569 and 1487 positions for the search term "chemist."

Elsewhere...

Not much time to blog this morning; I apologize. Thankfully, there's plenty going on elsewhere:

- Paul has decided to take on the Sames-Sezen case; he asserts that it "is the single worst (known) example of misconduct in the history of chemistry; we must learn from it." I'm not convinced of the former, but I heartily agree with the latter.
- Ken and Adam at Chemistry Blog have written up posts on their graduate research; they're a lot more personal than the typical "I published -- ask me anything" post. 
- Can I tell you how much I resent the hell out of this picture?
- Incidentally, Bethany Halford got to the bottom of the incorrect statement that that 42,000 chemist jobs were lost between 2008 and 2009. Again, this statement is NOT true. 
- Sharon is letting folks know that "methylene glycol" and "formaldehyde" are indeed the same. 
- psi*psi asserts that materials chemistry needs synthetic folks -- if so, that's great. In the same thread, polymer chemistry is suggested as a bastion of "making stuff" by AGAM. 

More later, I hope. 

Is there a "last bastion of making stuff"?

In his follow-up post to his potential graduate school picks, Chiral Jones asks (regarding total synthesis):

Is there a last bastion for those of us that want to “make stuff,” or will we forever run into the dilemma of choosing a field we like, but with less job security, or choosing a field we’d rather not do, but take content in being able to find a job later on?

This is a difficult question. I should note that I really want to avoid the classic (and beat-to-death) "total synthesis is dead!" / "No, it's alive, well and the only way to show you're smart!" debate.

But to answer Chiral Jones' question, my answer is: no, there is no bastion. The global economic forces that seem to shape our lives will forever commoditize whatever can be commoditized. Unless the world we live in dramatically changes, it seems that if chemistry is simple, easy to communicate and profitable, there will always be a push to make things more profitable by substituting a cheaper chemist.

In regards to making stuff, I suppose it's the inorganic/materials folks will be the ones who are going to be 'making things' worry-free for the next twenty years or so. I'd like to think that organic chemistry and organic chemists will find a way to remove themselves from the commoditizing/outsourcing bullseye someday, but I don't think it's anytime soon.

Daily Pump Trap: 11/30/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 23 and November 29, there were 31 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 19 (61%) of these were academically connected.

really? Really? REALLY?: Dolcera, an outsourcing company based in India, is looking for polymer chemistry intellectual property analysts in Hyderabad. They are paying a whopping $6,000 to $20,000 for that privilege. Well, folks, there's the outsourcing advantage right there; man, I made more in graduate school.

Formulations: Amgen is looking for a B.S. chemist to perform solid dosage formulation research; sounds like fun, especially if you like playing with tablets.

CSI: Argonne: ATL International is looking for 2 B.S. chemists; one for a radiochemistry manager position in Richland, WA (Home of the Bombers) and a nuclear forensic chemist position at Argonne in Illinois. Nuclear forensic chemistry -- that's got a pretty high "exotic" factor right there.

OLEDs: DuPont is looking for a kilogram-scale B.S./M.S. synthetic organic chemist to perform research on organic LEDs for use in flat-panel screens. This looks like a great job for someone; one of those jobs of the future, if I do say so myself. Good luck!

Help Chiral Jones pick his graduate school

Chiral Jones is looking to apply to graduate school in organic chemistry. He's posted a pretty darn comprehensive list of universities that he's looking at. Go over there and help him out.

What does a grad student or a postdoc owe their PI?

Photo credit: wikimedia.org

Two weeks ago (remember last week? I don't, either), I asked the question "What is desired from a chemistry PI from their grad students and postdocs?", especially in regards to employment seeking?

I think it's only fair that we assess this question from the other side: to deserve a good phone call or a nice letter from their PI, what does a graduate student or a postdoc need to do? Here's a small list:

Results: It's brutal, but it's true. If you're productive, things will come your way (hopefully.)
Effort/perseverance: Barring lots and lots of results, I think it's fair that you throw the kitchen sink of effort at your work. This doesn't mean chaining yourself to your hood, necessarily -- I think it means a thorough assessment of the problem you're working on, from the literature on down. You have to be able to answer the typical PI (and interview questions!) that start with... "Did you try [list of random but obvious techniques]?"
Leadership/mentorship: It could be as simple as setting a good example, or it could be as complex as training new graduate students in the lab's special techniques.

Of course, all too often, students' contributions to their groups are missed; and true, some PIs are just clueless. In those cases, of course, you're really in trouble.

Readers, I'm positive I've missed something. What does a grad student or postdoc owe their PI?

UPDATE: Liberal Arts Chemist, an actual PI, writes in the comments:

Loyalty: I would not want blind loyalty or an unsafe loyalty but in the ups and downs of the PI - research group relationship I have seen too many students piss in their own well. Departmental politics are brutal and a tired and bitter graduate student can really cause problems if they find a kind and listening ear in a competing faculty member. This is the kind of loyalty that feeds to departmental tribalism and in fact will do the grad student no good at all. It will come back to them either through faculty - faculty gossip or a less than supportive letter of reference. Students need someone in their lives to whom they can download their "Bitter" file ... but that person should not be in their department.

For what it's worth, I agree with him.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Good morning, folks!

Things that I'm thankful for:

- The health and wellbeing of my family
- A wonderful community to live in
- Employment, no matter how humble
- A blog community that I can learn from
- Commenters that are knowledgeable and aren't afraid to challenge
- Readers that keep coming back for more

Seriously, guys. Thanks for a pretty good year so far.

As Leigh said, if you're in the US, Happy Thanksgiving. And if you're elsewhere, Happy Thursday!

Labs of the Future or, Chemists are Introverts, darnit!

Lab of the Future, at the Swiss Novartis campus

Via Derek Lowe, I see that Novartis is charging ahead with its architectural attempt to get scientists to interact more (picture above, sans snark). It's an open floor plan design, with lots of windows and open space and the like. I keep expecting Tom Cruise's character from Minority Report to show up.

I'm not one for the Myers-Briggs much, but I do believe in the difference between introverts and extroverts. I think it's common wisdom that most chemists (and, for that matter, most research scientists) fall into the introvert category. Attempting to force people to act otherwise is a minor bit of folly. A great comment about this is from Al at In The Pipeline:

how about you recognise that scientists generally have a personality type that favours a small number of close colleagues/friends, and design an office space and working environment that doesn't broadcast everything we say across the entire planet/unit/company? I mean thats not too hard to understand is it? How about designing offices that foster close collaboration with close colleagues (say unit of 6 persons perhaps). Maybe put the other folks that I have to work with either side of me in offices of 6 persons too. Or maybe down the hall a bit, or even downstairs. That way I am close to those that I need to be close to. You could even put the labs across the corridor.

And quit with the goldfish bowls.

Exactly so.

Daily Pump Trap: 11/23/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 18 and November 22, there were 45 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of them, 26 (58%) are academically connected.

Outsource yourself: Albany Molecular is hiring for their international locations; if you're a B.S. through Ph.D., there's work in Hungary, Hyderabad and Singapore. (That last one's sort of tempting. Sort of.)

Pigments: Sun Chemical is searching for a M.S./Ph.D. chemist with more than 5 years experience in pigment technology for a group leader position. "The Leader of Effect Pigments Technology proposes, initiates, and manages the development from ideation through product launch of new effect pigment products and processes." Ideation? Sounds, um, fancified.

Bioseparations: Dionex is searching for a M.S./Ph.D. chemist with experience in separations of proteins and nucleic acids. "Substantial knowledge of set-ups and operation of liquid chromatography systems, including hardware, software and consumables."

Spectroscopy: Total Petrochemicals (the French one, I think) is looking for a chemist to perform FTIR and NMR spectroscopy in support of their research functions.

Interview: Kay, chemblogosphere commenter

Kay is a longtime reader and commenter on the chemblogosphere and I’m pleased that she’s reading and commenting here as well! Kay is a former Big Pharma chemist; I asked her some questions about her background and experiences in chemistry. This e-mail interview was edited by CJ and checked for accuracy by Kay.

Chemjobber: Can you describe your background a little?

Kay: I always loved chemistry as a kid, but I also loved books and reading and writing. I went to a small liberal arts college which had an excellent chemistry department but also allowed me to take a lot of other classes outside of science. I decided to go to graduate school in chemistry, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to get an MS or a PhD. I was in the PhD program for a while but I spent more time writing articles and reviews with my advisor than I did at the bench. I eventually decided to leave with a master's and get a job.
I stayed at my first job for 9 years, then left and worked at a small biotech for about a year. It went under, and I got a job at another big pharma company. I'd been there about 3 months when they announced a major "restructuring" was coming. I was eventually laid off after I'd been there 9 months. I started interviewing and I was offered another job at a medium-size pharma company, but by that point I was burned out on working in the lab. I was also worried about my future job prospects in the pharmaceutical industry. I didn't want to go through layoffs again in another year or two, but that seemed to be where the job market was heading. I decided to hold off on taking another pharma job and I started looking into other career fields.

Your lab horoscope

How much help (and what kind) in finding a job should PIs give?

From bullybloggers

Anon201011181220p would like to see "PIs take more interest in the career development of their students & postdocs. I am dismayed to hear from my friends in some flagship groups that their PIs are still taking employment prospects of their academic progeny for granted."

What is desired from a chemistry PI from their grad students and postdocs? I don't know what others expect, but here's what I would desire from any PI I were to work for*:

- An acknowledgement that most, if not all, of their students will not end up in academia as tenure-track professors.
- Use of their personal network to help their workers get hired.
- Being willing to pick up the phone and make a call (or take a call) on behalf of their students.
- Willingness to support training in graduate school in basic business savvy (gee, how should I act during an interview?) and communications skills (what should my research summary, CV and presentation look like? Do you present your work well?)

My PI in grad school was willing to do all of this for me, and all of his workers. (I'll note that I was, at best, an average student in the group.) For that, I'm forever grateful.  But it surprises me that other PIs don't necessarily do that. That's just surprising, and depressing.

Readers, what do you (or did you) expect from your PI?

*I should do a post on what PIs should expect in return; this is obviously a two-way street.

What will recovery look like?

Listening to Rudy Baum and Susan Ainsworth's keynote address at the 2010 ACS Virtual Career Fair, I was struck by a simple question: how will we know when the chemistry job market has recovered? In her article and her comments, Ms. Ainsworth notes a couple of things: mass layoffs are slowing down (the problem of the second derivative), and some mid-career scientists are finding positions.

Here are some signs that I think might herald an actual recovery:

- Multiple double-page ads in the back of C&EN. (The only one this year (that I can remember?): SABIC.)
- Ads that aren't regarded as "fishing." (Millenium, I'm looking at you.)
- Recruiters for contract employment agencies that can't seem to fill their positions
- An article from C&EN that there aren't enough chemists (I kid because I love, guys.)
- Comments from federal employers that they're can't compete with industrial positions
- Rumors of starting bonuses (remember those days?)
- Pharma companies begin hiring fresh PhDs at mid-tier universities (an indicator of a peak?)

Readers, what do you think? Do you remember the last boom employment time for chemists ('96 to '03(?)) What were the signs that things were good or even getting too hot?

Daily Pump Trap: 11/18/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 16 and November 17, 9 new positions were posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 4 (44%) were academically connected.

Formulation: Got experience with developing paper formulations? YourEncore ('connects the growing number of veteran/retired scientists and engineers with Member Companies to leverage their expertise') wants to hear from you.

Thermal analysis: DuPont is looking for a Ph.D. chemist with experience in thermal analysis to set up a laboratory specializing in the same for new material development. Sounds fun.

Broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder and Indeed.com show (respectively) 268, 617 and 4,100 positions for the search term "chemist."

"I need to get back in the lab"

Thanks to James for the inspiration.

Process Wednesday: aqueous extractions with water-miscible solvents

Another handy tip from Anderson's Practical Process Research and Development:

To rapidly develop extractions of reactions run in water-soluble solvents, e.g. THF and acetonitrile, first try washing reaction aliquots on a test-tube scale. Note any phase separation, the presence of any emulsions that take a significant amount of time to separate, and any losses to the aqueous phase. If problems arise, inorganic salts may be added to the mixture in order to "salt out" the organic product into the organic phase. Effective phase splits may occur if there is less of the organic solvent present, i.e. if the reaction were run more concentrated. A cosolvent such as ethyl acetate or toluene may be added to improve the partition coefficients of the product in the organic and aqueous phases, thus elimination emulsions. As a last resort, replace the reaction solvent with a higher-boiling, more water-immiscible solvent, and reexamine extractions.

This is a tip that has a little bit of relevance to the small-scale aqueous extraction that is being annoying and forming an emulsion as well. Remember, as the chemist, you control the vertical and the horizontal.

How long can a bench chemist be away from the bench?

From zazzle.com

I've heard it said that your job skills begin to deteriorate about six months after a layoff. If so, one imagines that it could be a terrifying ticking clock for a bench chemist.

Let's start from the outlandish numbers. Is ten years away from the bench too long? Yes, probably. Would you hire someone to be a bench chemist if they've been away for 5 years? Unlikely -- if they had a really impressive run beforehand, absolutely, I'd might take a shot. How about 2 years? What were they doing during those 2 years? If they were just one level above (supervisor/manager/junior project manager, whatever), yeah, sure, they're in the running for a bench chemist position.

For those of us (myself included) who could not imagine life that doesn't involve standing in front of a loud, boxy vacuum, these numbers are a little bit stressful. Considering current job searches seem to take the better part of a year (for the lucky ones), it might be interesting to take stock of the different ways that a person could attempt to remedy the loss of time in the laboratory. Readers?

Daily Pump Trap: 11/16/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 11 and November 15, there were 54 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 27 (50%) are academically connected and 1 (2%) is from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Multiples!: Cambridge Major and Rennovia each have ads with multiple positions! Good news for all, especially if you're an experienced analytical chemist or a plant engineer.

Light up my life: DuPont is searching for a Ph.D. chemist who has 5+ years experience in organic light-emitting diode technology for work on flat-screen monitors.

Desk work: The US Patent and Trademark Office is looking for people with B.S. or above degrees in, among other things, chemistry. For the life of me, federal postings are nearly incomprehensible.

Do you ever get the feeling?...: Allichem is looking for B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. chemists to perform organic synthesis research for, well, not very much money. At least they're up front about it. Check out their website to catch some screamer typos. 'Bulky intermediates', indeed.

Unemployed Ph.D. chemists: Bethany Halford of C&EN wants to hear from you

Crack C&EN reporter Bethany Halford wants to hear from you about Ph.D. chemist oversupply:

I’m working on a story that addresses the question: Are we training more Ph.D. chemists than we can employ? I’d like to get a “view from the trenches,” so to speak, from folks who are struggling to find work with their advanced degree. Please contact me at b_halford (at) acs (dot) org if you’d like to talk to me about this subject. You can remain anonymous, if you prefer.

Go at it, folks.

Loyalty: an idea from the past?

Brian from pharmnbiofuel comments on the last post:

My second job lasted almost 8 years in Big Pharma and it seems that now, just like everyone else, there is no security for the employee and no accountability from the employer. We all have to be ready jump ship at any moment. This is on top of an abyssmal employment market for chemists. How does this affect everyone's loyalty to one company when contracts are so short? Not good. 

Brian said the magic word: loyalty. A favorite passage from American popular literature springs to mind; I've been trying to figure out a way to fit it into the blog, and now I have a chance:

The Great Depression increased the power of Vito Corleone. And indeed it was about that time that he came to be called Don Corleone. Everywhere in the city, honest men begged for honest work in vain. Proud men demeaned themselves and their families to accept official charity from a contemptuous officialdom. But the men of Don Corleone walked the streets with their heads held high, their pockets stuffed with silver and paper money. With no fear of losing their jobs. And even Don Corleone, that most modest of men, could not help feelings a sense of pride. He had not failed those who depended on him and gave him the sweat of their brows, risked their freedom and their lives in his service. And when an employee of his was arrested and sent to prison by some mischance, that unfortunate man's family received a living allowance; and not a miserly, beggarly, begrudging pittance but the same amount the man earned when free. 

This of course was not pure Christian charity. Not his best friends would have called Don Corleone a saint from heaven. There was some self-interest in this generosity. An employee sent to prison knew he had only to keep his mouth shut and his wife and children would be cared for. He knew that if he did not inform to the police a warm welcome would be his when he left prison. There would be a party waiting in his home, the best of food, homemade ravioli, wine, pastries, with all his friends and relatives gathered to rejoice in his freedom. And sometime during the night the Consigliere, Genco Abbandando, or perhaps even the Don himself, would drop by to pay his respects to such a stalwart, take a glass of wine in his honor, and leave a handsome present of money so that he could enjoy a week or two of leisure with his family before returning to his daily toil. Such was the infinite sympathy and understanding of Don Corleone.

Of course, our chemical and pharmaceutical employers are most certainly not Vito Corleone (and, of course, organized crime is not the poetically just place that Hollywood makes it to be.) Nevertheless, loyalty is a two-way street, and these days, it seems one of those lanes is closed.

Our chemical mercenary future?

An interesting trend in Susan Ainsworth's Employment Outlook article was the mention of contingent or contract workers:

Although job prospects in pharma companies are slim right now, employment opportunities are growing elsewhere as drug firms increasingly rely on outsiders to supplement their bone-lean workforces. "As a result of this shift, there is likely to be greater demand for consultants and contract workers," Saras points out. "While these positions may be less desirable than those in a drug company, they can help people keep their skills fresh and expand their networks and can lead to full-time opportunities in the future."

[snip]

Life-sciences-based firms are not the only ones relying more on contract workers, says Kelly Services' Edwards. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total contingent workforce accounts for at least one-quarter of all workers and is growing at two to three times the rate of the traditional workforce. What's more, contingent workers are expected to comprise nearly 50% of the U.S. workforce added after the recession.

This recent Vertex position is a great example of this potential trend (sent in by an astute reader):

Temp. 3 Month Contract 

A Scientist will design and develop chemistry on a synthetic project and will be involved in conducting laboratory experiments to enable the delivery of compound to support early toxicology and technical transfer.  A Scientist will physically be involved with developing new chemistry and demonstrating that chemistry by delivering bulk intermediates or API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) at expected purity for phase of development. 

While you can easily understand the motivations behind the position for each side of the table ("We need hands now!!" / "It's not a great job, but it's a job for a while"), I would argue that this is a not a good trend for the pharmaceutical industry. I cannot imagine that you can have an effective R&D workforce if it is constantly thinking about looking for a new position.

Perhaps I should grow up and embrace this potential harbinger of our brave new future. One could imagine (please forgive the mixed metaphors) a pseudo-liberal arts academia model: a few permanent staff that have lifetime employment and a vast sea of M.S./Ph.D. chemistry ronin that wander about from company to company, working 2 year contracts. "We deal in compound, friend." 

Truth in advertising

Scientist unemployment is procyclical, too.

from the Martin Prosperity Institute

In my journey to find more data about scientist unemployment, I came across the above graph comparing different classes of occupations between 1983 and 2008. I think it's interesting and certainly more evidence that chemist unemployment is basically pro-cyclical.

More tidbits:

- The jobless rate for all college graduates in September 2009 was 4.5%.
- The jobless rate for all male college graduates in September 2009 was 4.6% and 4.4% for women.
- The jobless rate for male college graduates older than 45 in 9/2009 was 4.5%.
- By comparison, if you're a male non-college graduate who is older than 45, your rate is 11.9%
- The overall measure of scientist unemployment by NSF was at 2.5% in 2006. Huh.
- The unemployment rate for electrical engineers in the first quarter of 2009 was 8.6% -- wow.

Is chemistry employment cyclical or counter-cyclical?



Original graph: C&EN, 11/1/10, 88 (44), pp 38.
Modified by Chemjobber

  Anon111010653a asks "is chemistry somewhat sheltered from economic crises, or do they underrepresent unemployed chemists?" in regards to the graph (modified by CJ) to the left from Susan Ainsworth's article in last week's issue of C&EN.

My take home from the graph is this: you can see the last three recessions (90-91, 2001, and 12/2007-) represented in red in the modified graph.* In my experience, this is evidence that modern unemployment in chemistry is at least somewhat correlated with the overall unemployment picture.

Anon's real question is "what does the gap mean?", i.e. "Why isn't the ACS unemployment rate also 10% right now?" My answer: honestly, I don't know. It's certainly not the "sheltering" hypothesis in my opinion. Whether the ACS salary survey undermeasures unemployment is, of course, a different question.

*Important to remember: unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

Daily Pump Trap: 11/11/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 9 and November 10, there were 24 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 13 (54%) were academically connected.

VRTX: Once again, Vertex's development side is calling for more steam. Five new positions, all in formulation or development. Good news, I think.

USD: The Federal Reserve Board is looking for a Ph.D. scientist to work on currency counterfeiting issues. "You will be responsible for directing and leading technical activities related to the security of Federal Reserve notes..." Dude, good luck with that -- it's a pretty nice salary, even for D.C.

A2P DAS: Dow AgroSciences is looking for a M.S./Ph.D. analytical chemist to work in its active-to-product development group. "The candidate will lead research activities in the area of analytical chemistry in support of active ingredient and formulation development." As the saying goes, if you eat, you might be interested in this work.

PGN: Progress Energy is a power generation company; they are searching for a A.A./B.S. chemist (7+ years experience) to lead their analytical department at their Southport, N.C. facility. Radiochemistry and analytical instrumentation experience is required.

This is every place I've worked

see more Monday Through Friday

Ten signs that the relationship between you and your advisor is souring

1. Your dreams (nightmares?) are about his/her disapproval.
2. That postdoc that's a stand-up gal offers to be your second.
3. You go to the bathroom in another building to avoid walking by his office.
4. Your lab mates begin carrying white flags and wearing T-shirts that say "NON-COMBATANT."
5. You get nervous every time you start your junker car, and not because you're worried it won't start.
6. George Mitchell drops by and offers to start negotiations for partition of the lab.
7. Brochures for the Merchant Marine and Alaska crab fishing companies begin appearing on your desk.
8. Your lab is referred to as "the DMZ."
9. Taste testers at group lunches.
10. During group meeting in the conference room, you notice there's a red button by her chair (ff to 1:57).

Chemjobber: like Cosmo, but with slightly less photoshopping!

Charts of the week: Industrial ads and positions, September 2008 to September 2010

You may have seen a version of these charts in Susan Ainsworth's Employment Outlook article in C&EN article last week. These are my tabulated results of two years of tracking industrial ads in C&EN. I confess that I can't really find a trend, but (as I said in the article) the bottom was probably in August of 2009.

The spreadsheets are here. Enjoy!




C&EN Industrial ads (tabulated by month); all ads were counted -- duplication is possible. by Chemjobber

 



C&EN Industrial ads and positions (tabulated by month); all ads and positions were counted.
Duplication is possible. by Chemjobber

 

Ask CJ: what does it take to get a B.S. synthetic chemistry position?

A reader we'll call "W.O." writes in to ask a few questions about getting a bachelor's-level position as a synthetic chemist:
1. What kind of skills are expected of an incoming B.S. chemist? What keywords are needed on one's resume?
2. What kind of skills will make a resume float to the top of the pile?
3. Do employers look at classes that you're taking or you're going to be taking?
4. Do I have to worry about competing with more experienced and/or more educated (M.S.) chemists?

Here are my answers:

1. I would expect a B.S. synthetic chemist to be able to competently synthesize, isolate, purify and characterize organic molecules. I would also like some ability to search the literature for reaction conditions.
2. Things that I would be impressed by:
 - Publications (no matter how humble) where the student was a participating author
 - Able to plan chemistry, troubleshoot reactions or identify alternate synthetic routes
 - Able to work with others (i.e. a recommendation from a mentor in the lab.)
3. No, I don't really think employers care about coursework. But maybe I'm wrong.
4. No, I don't think new B.S. chemists have to worry about competing with more senior chemists. You're going to be expected to be somewhat competent at the bench, be able to learn and follow directions and be able to work independently just a little. That's a different skill set than I'd expect out of a more experienced chemist. Assuming that the relevant job posting desires new B.S. chemists, that's what they're looking for.

Beloved readers, collectively you've got much, much, much more wisdom and experience than I do. What would you tell "W.O."?

Daily Pump Trap: 11/9/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 4 and November 8, there were 49 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of them, 29 (59%) are academically connected.

Good news for organikers?: Eisai is searching for a M.S. chemist to be a medicinal chemist in the areas of inflammation, immune disorders and cardiovascular diseases. Oh, that's all.

Good news for inorganikers?: BASF is looking for a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. inorganic chemist (experience needed, respectively: 11, 7, 0) to work at the interface of organic and inorganic chemistry. "Preferred technical skills would include prior research in diverse areas of chemical synthesis at the juncture of organic and inorganic chemistry including experimental knowledge of optical thin films, fine particle, surface and materials science."

Stay out of my lab!: Quanta LifeSciences is looking for a M.S./Ph.D. chemist to help create emulsions; yeeeecch! Honestly, though, it sounds interesting. You'll be "design[ing] and synthesiz[ing] surfactants and related additives/stabilizers for development of water-in-oil emulsion formulations" and "generat[ing] and analyz[ing] scientific results to systematically characterize and screen for optimal candidate emulsion formulations." Experience with polymer chemistry and/or PCR techniques sounds important.

After Deepwater, they're the good guys: Chevron desires a B.S. chemist for its Richmond, CA facility. Experience with basic synthetic lab skills with skills in mass spectrometry desired.

How bad do you have it? How bad do you want it?

When I was interviewing for positions, I was lucky enough to score an on-site interview with a little start-up. During my conversations, it was beginning to become very clear as to what working at a super-tiny company would mean: lower salaries, less-than-fantastic benefits, but the chance to make a lot of money (yeah, right) and a World War II belly gunner's shot at making it all the way to Phase I without losing your job.*

It was all brought home to me when I asked about their instrumentation capabilities. Do you have a NMR? No, we use a courier service for one of the commercial NMR sites with a 12 hour turnaround. Do you have a LC/MS? No, we don't. (Seriously, a well-run, working LC/MS is worth every penny.) But, [CJ], "TLC is a very powerful technique." You know what? My interlocutor was probably right. That being said, I'd rather have an on-site NMR than not.

It seems like every start-up has a story like that. "Why, it used to be just us two and this garage", and that sort of thing. But it reminds a person about the humble beginnings of most of the large companies that we hope to work for, and the conditions and the courage it takes to work there, in the beginning.

*I hasten to note the benefits of working at a small company: independence, a lack of bureaucracy and extreme organizational flexibility. And sometimes, free Diet Coke and peanut butter and honey sandwiches. 

BREAKING: October unemployment rate stays flat at 9.6%

Good morning! Fresh electrons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. October's official unemployment rate has stayed flat at 9.6%, compared to September's numbers. The broader (U6) unemployment rate was down 0.1% to 17.0%.

UPDATE: Not much good news, but private payrolls are increasing, they say.

Thanks, as always, to Calculated Risk for the graph.

Everyone's favorite slide

Enjoying your lunch at your interview

For the lucky few that are getting on-campus interviews this fall, one of the less-noticeable obstacles to surmount is the lunchtime meal. Usually with more than one person, it's your job (as I see it) as the candidate to help keep the conversation moving. Otherwise, there are awkward silences -- who wants that? -- and then they'll start whipping out napkins and asking you to explain the 'particle in a box' problem. Helpful topics to consider:

Cute anecdotes: Assuming that you're a good storyteller, there's never any harm in a good story (assuming it's in good taste and non-offensive.) Lab accidents, stories of you falling asleep at 3 a.m. at your columns, stories of you solving your colleagues problems are all fair game.

Asking questions: Many (most?) chemists are introverts; nevertheless, people like attention. If they're game to talk, ask them about their backgrounds, what they like about the company and their current lifestyles. Questions about the area are always helpful and conversation-producing. Treat them like the experts on their organization that they are.

A little bit of dish?: [This one may not be good advice.] If you can feel the conversation being willing to move in that direction, it's fun to ask people what they think of the management. If you get the typical enthusiasm-less enthusiasm ('oh, they're fine'), they probably don't want to talk about it. But sometimes, you get someone who's willing to tell you the truth; sometimes, even, it's a happy answer.

Good luck out there, folks!

How long is long enough at the bench?



You could share my lab bench, pardner
(Photo credit: HenrySheehan.com)

A recent conversation brought this question up: Not counting graduate school, what is the minimum amount of time required to gain 'enough' experience in the working world of chemistry? It's only a select few chemists that get to spend a lifetime working at the bench; most chemists, for one reason or another, seem to end up somewhere else (in front of a computer, usually, these days.)

One or two years is not enough, in my opinion. A year isn't enough to experience the ups and downs, the changes in procedures, the successes and failures, the "hey, we used to store that over here" and the changes in coworkers and supervisors. I expect that 20+ years identifies you as a grizzled bench veteran. Given this range, I suspect the tipping point between "bench newbie" and "bench Clint Eastwood / Sarah Connor" is somewhere between 7 and 15 years (again, not counting graduate school).

Readers, what do you think? If you're the bench equivalent of Julio Franco, when did it happen for you?

Daily Pump Trap: 11/4/10 edition

Good morning! Between November 2 and 3, there were 17 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 8 (47%) of them are academically connected and 2 (12%) are from our friends at Kelly Scientific Resources.

You can't get there from heah: IDEXX Laboratories in Westbrook, ME is looking for a M.S. chemist to work in their "Rare Reagent Pilot Plant", among other places. "The ideal candidate will have a background in protein purification, virus isolation, chromatography, particle coating, and biophysical characterization in a GMP environment."

The miracles of a job: DuPont desires a M.S. chemist to be a staff associate investigator in an NMR facility. Knowledge of analytical and organic chemistry is desired; you will be "conduct[ing] non-routine Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) analyses in support of a wide range of CR&D and business technical programs."

Blinky, Pinky, Clyde and...: Sun Chemical is looking for a Ph.D. surface/physical chemist with experience in inks and digital dispersions. You ("a highly motivated, hands-on professional") will "develop new products and technologies related to digital dispersion technology." Good luck!

Oh, why not?: Kelly jumps into the race for neat batteries and is hiring for a Wisconsin company that desires a battery research executive.

A chemistry grad student talks about money worries

Not much time to blog today, but I enjoyed the recent interview by NPR's Planet Money of one Diogenes Placencia (what a wonderful name!). He's a chemistry doctoral student who grew up poor in the Bronx and is now ABD at the University of Arizona:

Do you worry about money?

Constantly. I worry mostly about my mother. I worry about providing for her when she gets older, and giving her some good years.

Are there any recent purchases you regret?

I really don't regret anything, because I put everything through such a rigorous process of whether I should get it or not. I do a cost-benefit analysis.

So what was the last purchase you put through this process?

It was an arm-band for my iPod. I swear it was like $15, and I looked at it for two months.

What's the next thing you're going to buy?

A pair of flip-flops.

Have you gone shopping for flip-flops?

I went around the other day and I looked at some. And I was like, "Oh, 20 bucks. That's a lot."                            

A son like that will put a smile on a mother's face.

Does research in chemistry teach you to be efficient?

I voted this morning (don't forget to vote!); what should have taken 2 minutes to confirm my identity, sign the signature page, etc took a lot longer. I walked in about 30 seconds after the polls opened, but it was quite clear that they hadn't gotten their system worked out yet -- sigh.

While academia is not really known for efficiency, I think that performing research in chemistry is one of many different ways to learn how to work quickly and effectively. You have a column to run, fractions to TLC and product to isolate; if you do this haphazardly, it will take 2 hours. If you do this efficiently, it will take 45 minutes. Which do you think is a better use of your time? I've also found that setting up a system to quickly perform a task is a great way of achieving some sense of "flow" and enjoying one's self in the lab.

Of course, not all of chemistry is about 'increasing sample throughput' or turning yourself into a robot; sometimes, it's about taking 2 hours to carefully stare down all your data. But if you've got a task to do, you might as well get a system in place and just do it. Here's to taking care of business in the lab, and here's hoping those poll workers get their system in place before noon.

Daily Pump Trap: 11/2/10 edition

Good morning! Between October 28 and November 1, there were 141 new positions posted on the ACS Careers website. Of these, 28 (20%) were academically connected and 1 was from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Wow, temps: While Kelly was more or less dormant, a bunch of other staffing agencies were big publishers of positions this week. Prymus had 1, Aerotek had 5 and the Ropella Group weighed in with 25 new positions.

FOB labs: Ideal Innovations, Inc. apparently works with DoD to supply scientists to bases in Afghanistan. They desire (among other positions) B.S. chemists to run analytical tests on IEDs.

You'd get to try 'chicken rice': Lonza's plant in Singapore wishes a Ph.D. scientist to help run their bioreactors; interesting?

NREL: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is searching for new Ph.D. chemists for 21 postdoctoral positions in alternative energy research.

Lundbeck: Lundbeck's US branch in New Jersey is seeking experienced Ph.D. medicinal chemists.

Virtual career fair: Today, here.

Have you been shorted by chemical suppliers?

Like everyone else, I greatly enjoyed Anthony Bourdain's "Kitchen Confidential"; for those not in the know, Bourdain writes very entertainingly about his twenty-some years in the restaurant business. He talks about a little escapade with one of his mentors, who he called "Bigfoot":

Once, after years of ordering frozen BeeGee shrimp from a reputable seafood purveyor, Bigfoot discovered a hastily applied label indicating net weight. When it peeled off, he realized the company had, for years, been printing their own fake labels, heat-sealing them over the actual weight printed on the box and cheating him out of a few ounces of shrimp every five pounds. Next time the company sent Bigfoot a bill, he simply send them a Polaroid photo of the incriminating box, label peeling off to reveal actual weight. And the next time, too. And for almost a year after, Bigfoot didn't pay for fish. He never discussed it with the company -- and they never said a word. They just kept sending him free fish until they figured all that retroactive skim was paid back. When Bigfoot finally stopped ordering altogether they didn't wonder why.

While nothing that dramatic has ever happened to me, I have had the opportunity to notice when a reputable chemical purveyor (all of you have ordered from them, probably) has shorted me a few percent of actual weight over a few months' of ordering. I knew it was an honest mistake (what good is lying to your customers on an issue this small? Hanlon's razor is relevant, I hope), but I found it to be a little disturbing and irritating. (It was odd how the error was always in their favor, ya know?) Phone calls were enough to fix the problem.

What say you, beloved readers? Ever been shorted by a chemical supplier?