Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bionet!kristoff From: kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.bio-matrix Subject: Re: No Insults Intended, But... Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 07:02:05 GMT References: <5654@husc6.harvard.edu> <5672@husc6.harvard.edu> Organization: GenBank Online Service Lines: 95 > 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