Slashdot Mirror
The Worst Jobs in Science
unassimilatible writes "Popular Science is running a story on the most noxious jobs in science, including, fart-sniffer, barnyard masturbator, and prison-rape researcher, and my personal favorite, the pre-med student who ate, drank, and breathed the blood, urine and vomit of yellow-fever victims. So before you complain about your tech job, check out the list. Things could always be worse."
postdoc should be #1. There are too many things just plain wrong with the system of postdocctoral training in the U.S. A noncomprehensive list follows:
1. Lack of representation. Let's face it, no matter how much lab chiefs (a.k.a. principal investigators, or P.I.s) try to spin the postdoc experience as "training", in reality postdocs are the _labor_ force that gets the actual bench work done. For other young professionals at equivalent level of training and education, postdocs are woefully compensated for their time and effort (although this has slightly improved recently due to increases in NIH fellowship level guidelines). For instance, M.D. fellows in biology research labs get paid significantly more than their Ph.D. counterparts for doing the same work in the lab.
2. Lack of job prospects and career counseling: postdocs are encouraged to spend time in lab to work, work, work. The "goal" is to find faculty positions at research institutions. People with other career goals (teaching positions at primarily undergrad institutions, industry, sales and management) are looked down upon. But in reality, there are hardly any academic positions available for the number of postdocs on the job market any given year. The mentality of the scientific field needs to change greatly to reflect the realities of the job market.
3. Do we reallly *NEED* all these P.I.s? I believe it is high time to reevaluate the P.I. postdoc grad student hierachy. In reality, most of the labor work in labs could be served much more efficiently if senior Ph.D. level scientists held non-tenure track positions as perrmanent staff instead of temporary postdocs. From talking with friends in the scientific field in various institutions around the U.S., some universities appear to be cautiously moving towards this trend. However, I feel that there needs to be a major momentum shift in this direction. The reality is, we don't NEED that many P.I.s with independent research projects running, and there is an overabundance of postdocs with graduate schools churning out more and more each year (grad students are another source of lab labor and grad school administrators are under constant pressure to recruit and support more and more students for the faculty to explo^H^H^H^H^H train). Research universities should realize that permanent staff scientists will work more efficiently in familiar surroundings and colleagues, and without the pressure of having to look for jobs in 3-4 years in an increasingly tight job market.
4. No clear definition of the mentor-postdoc relationship: basically, your mentor makes or breaks your career. About the only thing you can make complaints on your mentor is sexual harassment. In all other regards of your postdoc training, you are essentially at your P.I.'s mercy. If you have a personality clash with him/her, they can screw you big time. If you have a personality clash with someone else in the lab and they get along better with the P.I., you can get screwed big time. If your experimental results , even if they are indisputably correct, do not jive with their pet theories, they can decide not to publish your work, and you get screwed big time. Heck, they can turn out to be simply assholes, and you are screwed big time. The bottom line is, they answer to no one but their grant reviewers, who are not particularly concerned with postdoc welfare. While most departments have scientific advisory boards and undergo yearly reviews, those reviews are scientitfic in nature and do not really address personnel issues. It is my understanding in most professional fields (law, medicine, etc.) there are standards of behavior that are upheld by professional organizations (state bar, medical review board, etc.). There is no such accountability with regards to personnel, especially postdocs, in science.
blah, too tired to rant now.
NO CARRIER
I have actually read Miklos Nyiszli's account of being sent to the concentration camp, being selected by Mengele as his assistant and the work that he did.
It involved a lot more than autopsies on the people experimented on. I think that the two worst parts of his job were
1: Selecting Jews with physical deformities, having them killed and then boiling off the meat from their bones so that their skeletons could be put into a museum to prove Ayrian superiority - all the while arranging that the emprisoned didn't eat the stew.
2: Doing the autopsies on the remains of the Zonderkommando that rebelled and who were taken into the woods and flamethrowered to death.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
I'm surprised the previous post of this story didn't make an impression on CoyboyNeal!
Perhaps a quick glance at SPR.org will enlighten you as to what some people who are raped in prison go in for.