BABCOCK@ANCHOR.RUTGERS.EDU (02/06/91)
"Science: The End of the Frontier?" a supplement to Science magazine January 1991 should be read by everyone in the Scientific community. The bottom line is that, with the present environment of funding, morale is way down, and those who would potentially enter the field are choosing alternative, non-academic career paths because of the dismal future they see. How do their findings effect anyone interested in cross-disciplinary research? It is because of this supplement along with the growing number of my acquaintances (and myself) looking for jobs, planning their goal directions and redirections, and generally sweating through layoffs that I place this on the bulletin board. Last year, at the Bio-Matrix meeting, the question arose: what should the purpose be for a Bio-Matrix Society? What would the group accomplish that could not or was not being accomplished by being a sub-discipline of another group (potentially AAAI, Biophysical Society etc.)? One viewpoint for the group would be for the exchange of scientific insights and provide a place for like minded people (who normally would not run into each other at the other societies meetings) to gather, and hopefully help the field to progress. In todays tough economic times however, a more important function might be to simply help the field survive. The bio-matrix, by definition, is comprised of scientists from multiple disciples with interests which are cross-disciplinary encompassing a biological or chemical science and computer science. In order for the network to work, collaborations and free exchange of information is imperative. One of the more frightening lines from the report (pg 11) was : "These scientists are also increasingly viewing their fellows as competitors, rather than colleagues, leading to an increasingly corrosive atmosphere." This growing attitude could be fatal to the lofty ideals of creating an environment where the present knowledge of biology was available through interconnected databases. Furthermore, as the economic situation get tighter, researchers that fit between disciplines will have more trouble getting jobs, grants, etc. Are the researchers interested in a Bio-Matrix doomed to become an endangered or extinct species? I especially want to ask question about the academic researcher trying to run a small research group. While most academic institutions can appreciate why a computer person interested in biological applications is important, the computer science department may not want to give a precious slot to a 'bio' type, and conversely a biologist interested in computer tools may have trouble getting jobs in a biology department since most of what they are doing appears to be computer science. (Yes, I know three schools at least have joint mol. bio. computer graduate degree programs, but that type of open-ness is a minority opinion from what I've been hearing). To what funding agencies should grants go? This has been answered to some extent at the bio-matrix meeting, but there is much research which doesn't fit into the neat categories of most agencies. Furthermore, since the research requires expertise in multiple disciplines, writing an understandable grant for a reader from only one of the disciplines makes it much more difficult, especially with grant page limitations. Even more important, there is usually a tendency to fund one's own field or what one would like to see accomplished, than something that would most likely appear in a journal the reviewer would rarely if ever read. There can even be some resentment as new areas take funds away from older well established fields. Additionally, since the field is fairly new, expectations tend to be unrealistic. There is an expectation of much better and faster results from both the researchers and external observers who would be interested in using some of the databases, tools etc. being created at this time. Databases are useless without a long term commitment in both money and time to create, maintain, update and create easy access to them by a user community. Unfortunately, there is a certain stigma placed upon database creation and maintenance which make it considered something less than 'real research'. This was brought up at the meeting during a discussion on how often the creator of a database managed to get tenure and thus stick around long enough to see the fruit of their labor. The discussion suggested too rarely. There are many researchers who are not involved in database creation, but who are involved in creating programs to analyze, synthesize and generally make new discoveries by utilizing one or more databases to gain new insights into their favorite problem. It is just as important to include their programs in some database so that the emerging databases can be better utilized. (Yes, many of the databases have people working on such programs, but individual efforts are still required). Again, there is an attitude that creating analysis programs is not 'real science'. How are these people going to get and maintain independent research positions in an academic environment? Increasingly, companies are performing the task of packaging the most popular programs and types of programs (e.g. Biosym, Intelligenetics, GCG). Will the student or researcher afford, or justify affording access to programs that they might never use again? How about the researcher who wants to maintain and extend their own programs and ensure that they absolutely freely (and with no charge) distributed? (Most of the commercial companies do an excellent job of making programs affordable for academic institutions. If, however, there are for instance limited computational capability or external connections (modem time can get expensive),individual programs on a PC or workstation may be the only possible, desirable or necessary way for some labs to use a program. There is still the problem of freelance researchers who is trying to avoid getting gobbled up by the larger projects. I refer to freelance as an individual who creates a program they really want to utilize and then make it available to others.) After all, a biologist who thoroughly knows the experimental side of the problem and learns or collaborates with a computer scientist has an excellent opportunity for creating a really good tool. Conversely, a computer scientist with a really powerful computer approach finding a biological problem that appears to be custom made for their approach will also have an edge. How can they compete with commercial companies or even the larger better funded databases who can throw many warm bodies on a project in order to get a product, when the individual academician spends so much time writing grants just to survive. And what kind of freedom will their students have to explore their own projects if the labs grant dictates otherwise? We can't solve the funding problem. But we should be working to help the little guy as well as the big databases survive. How about a database or clearing house for people who know of or are seeking to form collaborations for a particular project? How about a place to put research ideas that you may not have the time or expertise to do yourself but would like to see done? (This helps all the computer science students asking the number one question- "Do you know of a project in the biological field that I could work on and get a computer science degree?"). And last but not least, a job listing where those who know of a job, or are looking for a job can try and find the right environment to survive with there multi-disciplinary interests. Bio-matrix meetings will not be very interesting if there are few places and people working in the field because researchers have had to get 'practical' and stay within the confines of their own fields. How about trying to make the Bio-matrix something more than just a summer meeting? Our very survival may depend upon it.
ABOLA@PB3.CHM.BNL.GOV (02/06/91)
Questions on support for development and maintenance of databases specially in the biological fields are now being seriously addressed by the funding agencies - NSF and NIH/NLM are two places that have initiated programs in this area. Although funding is indeed tough; one could only hope that these new initiatives would eventually help.
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (02/06/91)
> Furthermore, as the economic situation get tighter, researchers > that fit between disciplines will have more trouble getting jobs, > grants, etc. Frankly, this is not new, although it may be worsening. The gist of the report was that funding did not rise as fast as the number of baby boomers who want to get a slice of the pie. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Coming from a BIO-PHYSICAL-CHEMISTRY background which included substantial computing, this kind of interdiscplinary "lack of identity" problem had a lot to do with my own career choices and with why I am now at IntelliGenetics. Suffice it to say that I was the first in one of my advisors groups to go into dreaded industry in 1986. However, I would like all of you to know that there is life in industry!!! I was told by one person a long time back (being one of their "prize students") that if I ever went into industry he'd "cut off both of my legs." While I am sure that this was stated with a slight amount of exaggeration 8-), it nonetheless reflects an attitude in academia that I encountered repeatedly. No, I am not doing "real science" any more, but, frankly, I am happy in my job and have no regrets. In fact, when I think back about the academic position that I turned down prior to coming to IG, I sigh with relief at the choice I made. The thing that bothers me about the situation above is that so many young people are essentially brain-washed into thinking that, if they don't make in in academics, they've failed. This is absolutely asinine and a complete disservice to them as part of their "education." High tech companies are not the mindless industrial mills of the 19th century, and capitalists are not vampires who suck blood out of widows and orphans. What is sad is that a more positive attitude towards industry is not fostered in academia. For example, the Genome project will undoubtedly lead to all kinds of new jobs for people in this area, but many of those jobs would be in the private sector. Thus one is confronted by the protest of young academics who are concerned about their money being sucked away. I believe that if one looked at the overall picture without rose-colored glasses, one might actually find that these people might be better off if they considered other options. I would be the first to applaud if Congress decided to expand scientific funding to the point where all qualified people could get grants. However, this is not the case, probably won't be the case for some time to come, but still isn't cause for total despair. There are other options. It takes a lot of exertion to change one's mindset and realize that, unfortunately. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net P.S. - I don't expect the above to be especially popular and am prepared to take my lumps 8-).
Ellington@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (Deaddog) (02/09/91)
In article <Feb.5.13.42.45.1991.2583@genbank.bio.net> kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: > No, I am not doing "real science" any more, but, frankly, I am happy > in my job and have no regrets. and > the Genome project will undoubtedly lead to all kinds of new jobs for > people in this area, but many of those jobs would be in the private > sector. Thus one is confronted by the protest of young academics who > are concerned about their money being sucked away. I believe that if > one looked at the overall picture without rose-colored glasses, one > might actually find that these people might be better off if they > considered other options. So, would it be correct to paraphrase this as: "As long as scientists don't mind not doing 'real science' there will be plenty of money for them?" Non-woof
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (02/09/91)
> So, would it be correct to paraphrase this as: "As long as scientists > don't mind not doing 'real science' there will be plenty of money for them?" > > Non-woof If one wants to be cynical, yes. I was trying to emphasize the fact that many scientists are hung up over "real science." It is also possible to contribute to the progress of science in a non-academic (gasp) support role (gag) AND be happy doing it (AND sometimes make a bigger contribution to progress than those engaged in solitary research projects ... look at how many publications never even get cited). Of course, one can imagine the psychological trauma that such a change might entail if this meant giving up one's dreams of getting into the history books 8-) (sly grin). Woof
Ellington@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (Deaddog) (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.8.23.21.43.1991.27182@genbank.bio.net> kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: > I was trying to emphasize the fact > that many scientists are hung up over "real science." Yes, this is the crux of the matter. Is "real science" more important than bookkeeping efforts such as the Genome Boondoggle? "Real science" generally addresses questions (the old "test the hypothesis" saw). Of course, if there were unlimited resources for data accumulation, the necessity for focus would be minimized: we could chain those million hoary monkeys to typewriters to see if they really would write Shakespeare (well, at least until the Animal Rights Activists blew the Institute of Monkey Shenanigans to smithereens). But, sadly, there are not unlimited resources. Therefore, some semblance of focus must be maintained. For the public sector, this has been provided by peer review of grants. Questions which begin with "how" and "why" and "what" are answered. For the private sector, the magic of the marketplace has held sway. Questions which begin with "how much can we make" are answered. If the Genome Boondoggle was a corporate effort I would cheer. And I would gladly pay through the nose for the sequence of the BLAH gene. But as a public sector project, I must demur. There are (a very few) "how" and "what" and "why" questions that will be answered by having a sequence of the human genome. In addition, it will be a wonderful resource for answering questions that haven't even been asked yet. But that in no way justifies the expenditure, especially given that it siphons resources away from "real science" (please, no rehash of this debate: those of us who scrounge for grants say one thing, while those of you who are contemplating which Genome Center to go to say another). More importantly, regardless of whether the Genome Boondoggle is "real science," it corrupts "real science." Your message was a prime example. I did not spend the last ten years of my life in indentured servitude so that I could become a Certified Public Genetic Accountant. I want to do "real science" on questions that I think are interesting. And it galls me to see money wasted on projects that ask few and tiny questions. And it galls me to see facile statements such as: > one can imagine the psychological trauma that such > a change might entail if this meant giving up one's dreams of getting > into the history books (skewer the smiley) Most researchers put up with anonymity and low pay and the constant hassles of teaching and grant writing so that they can Do What They Want To Do. And to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and, in fact, insulting. Saying that a researcher should not be "hung up over 'real science'" is like telling an aspiring actor that s/he shouldn't be upset at having to wait on tables, or telling a college athlete that if s/he doesn't make the pros he can still play in a league on weekends. It's just not the same thing. Non-woof
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (02/11/91)
> Most researchers put up with anonymity and low pay and the constant > hassles of teaching and grant writing so that they can Do What They > Want To Do. And to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and, in fact, > insulting. Saying that a researcher should not be "hung up over 'real > science'" is like telling an aspiring actor that s/he shouldn't be upset > at having to wait on tables, or telling a college athlete that if s/he > doesn't make the pros he can still play in a league on weekends. It's > just not the same thing. You continue to miss my points and "paraphrase" them to absurdity. Having also spent close to ten years under the same kind of conditions I too once thought that way. After about seven of those years it wasn't clear to me that I was really doing "what I wanted to do" but instead, looking back on it, I kept on going because "I wasn't a quitter ... I had so much invested in it ... I loved the academic lifestyle and didn't want to get tied down to the slavery of an uncreative 9-to-5 job ... (I'm sure you can fill in the rest)." I have seen several people stick to this line of reasoning for so long that it cost them their marriage. I am well aware of the sacrifices that can be exacted and have a certain "respect" for those who have the stamina to make them. My message was/is not directed to those out there (of whom I assume you are one) who still find their career choice to their liking, but instead to those who opted for academics and feel like they *have* to keep going despite their misgivings. You may find my message insulting, but it wasn't intended to be. Instead I meant it as a message of hope to those who might be thinking about a career change, but couldn't get up the nerve to do it. My message was simply that life can be pretty good on the other side of the wall. I put up with a fair number of insults from those who thought I was bailing out, quitting, etc., and it was a very difficult decision to make. You chose the metaphor of still being able to "play in a league on weekends" but that is also not my point. I make ***absolutely no pretense*** about doing any research any longer. My point was that I found other things to do which I enjoyed even more. I am NOT trying to convince you to change your career, but I would be vehemently opposed if anyone used metaphors of failure like the above to pressure others who might be thinking about leaving the field. I have seen this kind of thing done too many times before, and, given the current funding situation, it will probably occur many times again. The economic fact is that the research funding situation is not going to grow sufficiently to accomodate everyone who tries to go on in research. Some people obviously have a much better chance of getting a slice of the pie than many of the people who come from less high-powered institutions. There are many people out there who are continuing to strive hard against odds which may be impossible for them to overcome. However, when anyone tries to tell them that there may still be hope for them elsewhere, the usual barrage "if you do anything other than science you're a failure; you're only playing in a weekend league" starts up. I hope that you *do* succeed in the career which you are striving for. I wish everyone who wants to succeed in research will do so. I too have known the excitement of waking up at 2 AM with a brilliant idea and of rushing into the lab to test it out. I published about 12 papers in graduate school. However, after a series of personal events during my time as a postdoc which I need not bore you with, I made the decision to leave the field. It was an extremely difficult decision; I remember being **extremely** depressed about the whole situation. When I finally did make up my mind there was very little support, but lots of people who would make comments about going back to the bush leagues, etc. It seemed to me that some people had to try hard to convince themselves of the correctness of their career choice by denigrating mine. My point, *once again*, is that there are other things in life that people trained as scientists can do, can do *well*, can enjoy, and can make a decent living at. I apologize to anyone who is offended by this, but I stick by this statement. If you love what you are doing, then best wishes for your success; you can ignore my blithering. If you don't like your current situation, my message is simple: don't give up hope. Even though a career change out of research is a very difficult thing to reconcile oneself to, you may find yourself smiling after it is over and wondering why you took so long to make your mind up. Now someone can come along and accuse me of undermining the will of American researchers .... 8-). I have no apologies here. If the country really wants more researchers, the money will be found and there won't be legions of people who can be undermined. I still think we are faced with an oversupply situation in research, and it is more humane to help people find other jobs. One can always point to other countries spending more on research as a % of GNP, but it will be interesting to see if those percentages are maintained once their GNP reaches the size of ours. Given the shape of some of our industries, I would think that the country might want to encourage some of its more talented people to direct their efforts there, so that hopefully there will continue to be people in this country who can pay the taxes to support the research effort. I would hope that American academic institutions would work more closely with industry because the net result could be mutually beneficial. However as long as industry is viewed in academics as a "weekend league" this country will continue to shoot itself in the foot. Dave Kristofferson
elliston@av8tr.UUCP (Keith Elliston) (02/11/91)
(Ongoing discussion of academics vs. industry...) In article <Feb.10.23.02.04.1991.6193@genbank.bio.net>, kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: > I would hope that American academic > institutions would work more closely with industry because the net > result could be mutually beneficial. However as long as industry is > viewed in academics as a "weekend league" this country will continue > to shoot itself in the foot. I have been watching (reading) this little debate, and have just a couple of things to say. First, neither of the 2 views offered on academia and industry are either typical (in my view), or are a good representation of the current situation. Second, I think that the view most people have of industrial science are very outdated. In fact, in the past 4 years (which is the same number of years I have spent in industry) the best science that I have personally seen, has been industrial science. I have been witness to some of the absolute best in collaborations, cooperation, and innovation that I have ever seen, in any setting. I don't want to go on spouting my views, and giving all my viewpoints, but I do want to say that industry has really taken up the slack in science lately, particularly in biotechnology. A large amount of the research funding in the area has come from industrial sources, and industrial labs are doing a large amount of basic research that is being published and is available to the world. I saw the most backward scientific efforts in academia when I was there, and saw people backstabbing, stealing ideas, and abusing graduate students and Post-docs for their own personal gain. At least in industrial, the merit system seems to work. People tend to get credit for their own work, and are rewarded for it. Don't think that real science (what is that anyway???) is only done in academia. The best science I have seen of late has been done in the industrial setting, and I don't think that I will ever consider going back into academia for this very reason. Take a look at all sides, look at the number of high quality research papers coming for industrial or industry supported labs (Roche Inst, Merck, Monsanto, DuPont.... just to name a few). Compare these to the bastions of academic research, and I think you may be surprised. My $0.02. Keith Elliston -- Keith O. Elliston elliston@av8tr.UUCP elliston@msdrl.com AA5A N9734U elliston@mbcl.rutgers.edu elliston@biovax.bitnet "Fly because you have to, to keep some semblance of sanity."
Ellington@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (Deaddog) (02/11/91)
In article <620@av8tr.UUCP> elliston@av8tr.UUCP (Keith Elliston) writes: > Don't think that real science (what is that anyway???) is only done in > academia. The best science I have seen of late has been done in the > industrial setting, and I don't think that I will ever consider > going back into academia for this very reason. I couldn't agree more. Which is why I am currently making the rather agonizing decision over whether to remain in academic science or go into industry. There is no reason that I couldn't Do What I Want To Do in industry; the real question is whether industry wants to do, What I Want To Do (Do-Doop-De-Doop). I am not anti-industry; I personally feel that some of the MOST innovative science being done is coming out of industry. But there is still a great deal of very good science that can only be done in an academic setting. And this science is getting bashed about the head by falling funding. And the Genome Boondoggle, that great Telephone Book of Human Sequences, is not helping matters. Non-woof