tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post8203598256686499410..comments2024-02-05T05:15:04.759-08:00Comments on Wandering Scientist: A Rant on the Scientific Job MarketCloudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09317847285050447789noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-21061435247336125052012-12-08T19:05:09.931-08:002012-12-08T19:05:09.931-08:00I find it ridiculous that SBIR review panels aren&...I find it ridiculous that SBIR review panels aren't at least 50% industry people. You want people who can evaluate ideas for commercial feasibility as well as scientific merit. The fact that there are fake companies surviving on SBIRs is pretty sad, too. <br /><br />I totally agree that we should stop worrying so much about preparing our kids for careers and start worrying more about developing them into smart, creative, and resilient people. If we do that, chances are they can sort out the career part on their own.Cloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317847285050447789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-69653784271515722892012-12-08T09:23:23.265-08:002012-12-08T09:23:23.265-08:00Ah - good one, Cloud! I think there is so much ove...Ah - good one, Cloud! I think there is so much oversimplification in the workforce rhetoric these days; the we-need-more STEM graduates really frustrates me too. Bottom line I do agree that science & technologies will probably pave the progressive road(s) of the future. Discussing just what those paths will be makes me tired. Can't we encourage and provide tools to our students and children so they can be creative, curious and fearless (& surprise us!)?<br /><br />One the side point re: the importance of SBIR grants in funding small biotech startups. I think the Phase II awards are a good size (I saw a Twitter convo last week bemoaning the lack of $1-5M tranches of funds). I'm not sure the size of SBIRs is a problem. More grants are needed; but the size of the awards seems OK.<br /><br />But I frequently hear academics (and NIH program officers and leaders!) bemoan the fact that the quality of SBIR proposals is not as high as the typical RO1 project. I am also aware of the "think tank" (fake) companies that survive on SBIRs - they've sprouted since the eligibility rules were changed back in the early 2000s. I think they are fake companies since they never plan to put a product on the market - they are just trying to get paid to do science. I think both outcomes reflect shoddy administration. I was the only industry person on the last three study sections I sat on that reviewed SBIRs. Those near-and-dear to me (at real startups) find that their SBIRs (Phase IIs!) are reviewed by panels with NO industry scientists/technologists. Fake SBIR companies are pretty easy to nip in the bud (much like NIH's abolishing third resubmittals). Now that the SBIR eligibility rules have changed again - I think "crappy science" and "fake companies" will have a harder time competing and winning grants. But NIH (and others) really need to do something about the quality of SBIR reviews.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474355812911987374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-29203053073407912432012-12-07T18:54:01.125-08:002012-12-07T18:54:01.125-08:00You'll have to check it out!You'll have to check it out! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-30313748900923586462012-12-06T10:53:53.408-08:002012-12-06T10:53:53.408-08:00"Next week we have an article titled "Mr..."Next week we have an article titled "Mr. Money Moustache vs. Laura Vanderkam." <br /><br />Oh my! I look forward to this... I think?Laura Vanderkamhttp://www.lauravanderkam.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-83240844012396614542012-12-05T09:40:06.139-08:002012-12-05T09:40:06.139-08:00PS, I, the anonymous above found your link from Je...PS, I, the anonymous above found your link from Jenny F Scientist's blogroll. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-49986367731486917252012-12-05T09:39:24.625-08:002012-12-05T09:39:24.625-08:00Good article. You should try to shop it somewhere ...Good article. You should try to shop it somewhere more general -- I don't know anything about how to do that, but the Chronicle? the Glamour mags? Huff Post? or even a more general pub, once they post something about the lack of kids capable of pursuing STEM. <br /><br />I think you're absolutely right that STEM is vital, but that the bottleneck for the "smart kids" going into it has little to do with preparation of those smart kids and instead is the incentives away from STEM, as a longer term career, especially in biology. <br /><br />It's not being lost to parents who are posting articles at the college admissions web sites asking "What do you do with a degree in biology?" and seeing followups along the lines of "What do you do with a degree in philosophy?" Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-75350068332448651112012-12-05T09:23:05.512-08:002012-12-05T09:23:05.512-08:00My own situation is not helped by the fact that I ...<i>My own situation is not helped by the fact that I excel at execution in an industry that is enamored with people who have big ideas, often overlooking the fact that someone has to figure out how to break those big ideas down into manageable steps and actually get them done.</i><br /><br />That is my skill base in a nutshell. My field is hitting major funding cuts now after many fat years and to watch senior faculty deal with this is depressing. Please, go ahead and hire that 26 year old who has done one thing in the current trendy topic but then don't come crying to me when the skilled people who actually build your instruments for you leave the field for lack of funding. If I may rant a bit, lol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-36652370069462935392012-12-05T07:04:08.062-08:002012-12-05T07:04:08.062-08:00We had a friend work for a think-tank that basical...We had a friend work for a think-tank that basically spent its time writing SBIRs. Then they'd do a slap-dash job on the product and it would go nowhere. I'm a bit skeptical about those shops. At the same time, it is a way to fund non-basic research and successes can be bought by big companies and not all small companies getting SBIRs are these SBIR running shops. (Of course, there's an art to writing a successful proposal, so you're more likely to be successful if you belong to one of these shops or have other experience writing grant proposals.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-77989900412586261442012-12-05T06:50:34.682-08:002012-12-05T06:50:34.682-08:00Oops, cross-posted with your second post.
I have ...Oops, cross-posted with your second post.<br /><br />I have friends who know more about the SBIR process than I do. Maybe one of them will weigh in on whether more money there would help!Cloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317847285050447789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-66684292989658730642012-12-05T06:49:33.996-08:002012-12-05T06:49:33.996-08:00Actually, the government DOES directly fund small ...Actually, the government DOES directly fund small biotechs- there are SBIR grants. They do great good in helping people get enough data together to convince a venture capitalist to invest. I don't know whether more money in that program would help or not- possibly, but I am not familiar enough with that phase of the start up process to have a personal opinion. As I mentioned in the post, I tend to work in larger companies because of my specialty.<br /><br />I stayed away from the issues with the FDA approval process both because that is a huge can of worms and because it is another area in which I don't have a lot of personal experience. I tend to think that the safety regulations are a good thing, and the balance provided by programs like fast tracking and orphan drug status are doing a good job. But I'm sure there is room for improving efficiency.<br /><br />I think academic science needs to reorganize itself a bit, too, to make more permanent, decent-paying jobs with benefits for the PhDs that are needed to make other people's labs run. But that is also a whole 'nother can of worms!<br /><br />On your original comment about retiring early versus making working longer more appealing- I definitely come down on the side of the latter, both for practical reasons and personal preference. I do want more flexibility to travel, though. That's in the lifestyle I want to aim for.Cloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317847285050447789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-68422289407957402252012-12-05T06:42:42.522-08:002012-12-05T06:42:42.522-08:00*fund, not fun
(Also, gov't does directly fun...*fund, not fun<br /><br />(Also, gov't does directly fund biomed industry with SBIRs... but they should probably be doing more of that)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-11400307801796116582012-12-05T06:41:09.104-08:002012-12-05T06:41:09.104-08:00Right, so this is an area that economic theory sug...Right, so this is an area that economic theory suggests there needs to be more government funding for because of the public goods problem. (And there would be more academic positions providing more employment for people in general-- the government can't make industry jobs like it can public jobs.)<br /><br />There may also be an infant industry argument (suggesting government should directly fun private industry) for the long production times, but I'm less convinced by that argument. Even though long production times are more likely to lead to larger companies and monopoly and monopsony power, there still seem to be lots of scrappy start-ups and the "innovate in a small start-up company that gets bought out by a big company" model seems to be one that works for this industry and many other tech industries (as Paul Graham likes to talk about).<br /><br />Should the drug-approval process be faster... that I'm not sure about. There's safety trade-offs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-80891182565384671382012-12-05T06:31:20.990-08:002012-12-05T06:31:20.990-08:00Oh, I agree that we need basic science, both becau...Oh, I agree that we need basic science, both because of its hard to quantify "increasing our knowledge" benefits and because it is a necessary first step towards the new cures and other things that industry produces. But it drives me crazy when people suggest- or even outright argue!- that academic research is producing drugs and that all industry does is leech off of that and mint money. That is so far from the truth it is laughable.<br /><br />Part of my point is also that the biotech and pharma industries are really screwed up right now. Our progress towards drugs is not limited by the number of smart scientists willing to work on the problems. It is limited by the money to invest in developing drugs, and by the mismatch between the investment timeframe the people with the money want and the actual amount of time it takes to develop a drug- even if everything goes right. Cloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317847285050447789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-55489444710886965642012-12-05T06:12:18.288-08:002012-12-05T06:12:18.288-08:00My colleague recently had a partial mastectomy. S...My colleague recently had a partial mastectomy. She was in the classroom the *next day*. Science is moving forward.<br /><br />Smart people were responsible for credit default swaps-- not all people use their genius for good.<br /><br />You don't have to be gifted to move science forward. Hard work, luck, and persistence can also create. Giftedness is more a way of learning and perceiving the world than anything else.<br /><br />Many gifted kids burn out (boredom, self-medication, trouble-making etc.) because they don't get their needs met in the American Public School systems. They have a higher rate of dropout than normal kids.<br /><br />Science is a public good (it benefits society more than what industry can capture). That means industry on its own will not produce enough for the optimal amount. That means we need more government funding, especially of basic science.<br /><br />That last paragraph really speaks to me. Everybody is reading Mr. Money Moustache these days, and I went through his archives this weekend. He's an early retirement guy (like Your Money or Your Life, but less flexible). Next week we have an article titled "Mr. Money Moustache vs. Laura Vanderkam." He's very persuasive, but in the end I don't really want his life. I want *my* career. And my career means that's where the bulk of my time goes, so some outsourcing makes sense. I don't want to do it part-time. (Also I like restaurants and fancy food and not biking in Southern heat. And I don't think that makes me a complainypants. Also, there's no way we're jettisoning daycare or private school.)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29235839.post-67391502825600600292012-12-05T06:11:30.997-08:002012-12-05T06:11:30.997-08:00So true. Also, there's lots of evidence that e...So true. Also, there's lots of evidence that elementary school gifted kids run out of motivation and may not score as gifted if retested in high school or college. Perhaps this explains why many gifted minority elementary schoolers in bad school districts don't end up with PhDs when they're 30. Focusing on a) engaging all kids with education and b) making sure they still have jobs that a smart person would want to keep when they're adults would probably result in more of the discoveries that K wants! Aletheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17056863610469196748noreply@blogger.com