This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

Showing posts with label chemistry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemistry. Show all posts

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Far East, Man



I've traveled quite a lot in my life, both for business and for pleasure. Growing up and into my early 20s, I'd gone on several vacations with my parents and siblings to several places here within the US as well as numerous trips to Canada, England, Germany, and Greece. Since that time, I've mainly traveled within the country, mostly to California as Mrs. Chemist has a lot of family out there. I've also made many, many trips for work...San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Charlotte are just some of the cities to which I've made multiple visits each for business. However, now I'm gearing up to go to Asia for the first time in October, which I'm pretty excited about. A research paper of mine was accepted at a technical conference that my company participates in and I was invited to attend and present it in front of an audience of my colleagues. The conference location rotates around the world every year and this year it's in Shanghai, China!

This will be a new experience for me as I've never traveled anywhere before where I've needed a travel visa. I've already gotten my Chinese visa and I booked my flight the other day. I'm a bit worried about the travel part of the trip as I don't tend to do too well on really long flights. I've been to the California and to England several times each and those flights of 5-6 hours are usually my limit. Germany took me 7 hours and Greece took 11 hours, and by the end of both of those flights I was ready to get off of the plane. I think it's a combination of the confined space (which almost makes me feel claustrophobic after a while), the stale air, and the inability to sleep sitting up or (barely) reclined. I've never been able to sleep on my back, only on my side, so I've never been able to do more than doze for ten minutes at a time on airplanes. My upcoming flight to and from Shanghai is going to be around 14 hours each way, which has me worried. However, I'm a bit less concerned than I normally would be because I'll be flying business class each way. Besides the much roomier seats and nicer amenities, the seats in business class recline completely flat and will be long enough for me to stretch out my 6'5" frame so that I can actually get some real sleep. I'm also a little nervous about going to China since culturally it will be unlike anywhere else I've been. I know that they censor the internet there, which I'm bummed about as I was hoping to chronicle my trip in real time and share it with my family and friends back home...that will just have to wait until I get home, I suppose! The upside is that I will be meeting up with a lot of colleagues from work there and I've been told that Shanghai is the most Western and modern city in China. These minor concerns aside, I'm actually getting pretty excited for this trip the closer it gets.

I'll write about it all and share some pictures after I get back, which will be in late October...in the meantime, have any of you ever been to China? I'd love to hear your impressions of it and how you liked it! Please share in the comments below so we can discuss it further...thanks!

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Chemistry and the Dangers of Perception as Reality

(***DISCLAIMER: I've intentionally "dumbed down," for lack of a more politically correct term, this post so that I don't end up talking over the heads of my non-technical readers. It doesn't mean I think you're dumb, not at all! Rather, it means that I understand I can tend to get carried away when writing about science given my profession and I don't want to risk alienating those of my readers who won't know that the hell I'm going on about by using too much technical jargon.***)

Recently I've been seeing a lot of posts online discussing the perils of chemistry in our lives. Screaming headlines declaring that we're all being poisoned, unwittingly or otherwise, by toxic chemicals that are in everything from our food and water to our clothes, cosmetics, houses, and everything else. Whether it's been in the news or on social media, every day we're inundated with articles and posts going on about how toxic chemicals are, how unnatural they are, and how they're harming us and our children (invoking "the children" is always an effective way to grab someones attention no matter what issue you're trying to gin up support for). Now, I'm not trying to make light of the fact that some chemicals are indeed harmful and need to be used carefully and judiciously. What has gotten my hackles up lately is the fact that the discussion, if you can call it that, on chemistry has been incredibly one-sided. Obviously I've got more than a bit of bias being a chemist myself, but I want to state upfront that I don't feel passionately about the matter because I feel as though my livelihood is being threatened; rather it's the incredible amount of misinformation and taking advantage of the general public's ignorance when it comes to chemistry and science that really irritates me. The complaint from those in my field that the media continually misrepresents science and uses buzzwords and carefully crafted headlines to stoke fear and outrage in society is an old one, but not entirely without merit. However, the prevailing response always seems to be the declaration that we need to "have a discussion" and "educated the public" as to the numerous benefits of chemistry in our everyday lives. The problem is that these internal discussions within the chemistry community never result in any real action and so the problem persists...lather, rinse, repeat...

This post isn't supposed to be my attempt at rectifying that; I have neither the time, desire, or self-importance necessary for such an undertaking. Rather, I merely want to express my personal feelings on the matter. I've written several pieces about being a chemist, how much I enjoy it, and several of its challenges. Beyond the benefits I've experienced in my career, one of the biggest advantages I've found to being a chemist is in the way I now view the world around me. When discussing or thinking about anything in my life from a rusty nail to the GPS in our new car or anything in between or beyond, my experience and knowledge as a chemist has allowed me to understand what makes (most) everything around me work (or not work, in some cases) at a fundamental level. And if I don't know about something, the training I received while I was a PhD student has allowed me to either figure it out or find the answer so that I can understand it. My kids are always astounded that I am able to explain so many answers to them when they ask me about random things, and I tell them that's because of chemistry. I've written about chemistry's reputation as the central science before so I won't belabor the point, but it's true...everything can be traced back to it. However, the downside to all of this is that, as soon as people know I'm a chemist, they expect me to be able to answer any question they ask me in order to satisfy their own curiosity. Usually that's okay, but it gets frustrating when they don't understand that chemistry isn't a one-size-fits-all science. Just because I'm a chemist doesn't mean I can answer your question about why a certain medicine acts in a certain way with your body. I've specialized in organic materials chemistry, not medicinal chemistry! It's the same way a medicinal chemist won't be able to fully answer a question about why adding certain functional groups to a polycyclic aromatic compound can increase or decrease its electronic band gap the way I'm able. And no, not all of us are like Walter White in Breaking Bad, making illegal substances in our basements (that's another one I hear All. The. Time.). My point is, there's an awful lot of chemistry specifically and science in general that there is no all encompassing way to talk or think about it, which leads me to the crux of this post...

Misinformation and panic-induced hysteria about science in particular do no good to anyone and in many cases cause further harm, whether unintentionally or not. While it is true that many chemicals can be toxic, in many cases the lethal dosages are so far above what a person would ever realistically be exposed to over the entire course of their life that the danger is minimal to nonexistent. Likewise, there are chemicals that are toxic but in quantities that no normal person would ever ingest in the required time span such that they would suffer its effect. For instance, the chemical used for the artificial flavoring and aroma of microwave popcorn, butane-2,3-dione, is naturally occurring and has some negative health effects, but in order to be affected from it you either need to work in the factory where microwave popcorn is made over many years in order to be exposed to enough of it, or you'd need to ingest enough for it to harm you which would be some ridiculous quantity of it every day for many years. (See the case of Wayne Watson from 2012, who ate two bags of it a day, every day, for ten years to see what I mean). As a more high profile example, banning other chemicals, like DDT, has had disastrous consequences for malaria deaths in the developing world. My point here isn't to throw caution to the wind, damn the consequences to public health and environment, and use chemicals wherever and whenever we want. Rather, it's to make the point that when used responsibly and safely, many chemicals which are essential for improving our health, comfort, safety, and so on can be utilized in a safe and environmentally benign manner from which we all benefit.

Lastly, I get very tired hearing people decry "synthetic" chemicals vs. "naturally occurring" ones. As a clarification, just because something was synthesized in a laboratory doesn't mean it also isn't naturally occurring. Vanilla, aspirin, penicillin, and the aforementioned butane-2,3-dione, to name but four, are all naturally occurring chemicals that are now prepared in huge quantities synthetically in order for the quantities to be high (readily accessible) and the prices low (affordable). Many lifesaving medicines are entirely synthetic, and result from either modifications of naturally occurring molecules or being entirely synthetic analogues of natural medicines, imparting improved efficacy. Likewise, just because a chemical is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe: ricin, saxitoxin, and cyanides are all naturally occurring and are exceptionally toxic to humans. What I'd like to see in the future isn't the shutting down of the debate on chemistry, but rather a better educated media (with input and assistance from, gee I don't know, actual chemists?) without an agenda who can discuss the subject in a calm and rational manner so that there aren't scares that result in devastating unintended consequences like the malaria outbreaks that have killed millions since DDT was banned outright in 1972. Like everything in life, there needs to be a balance between information and responsible use. Certainly any entity, be it a company or individual, who needlessly harming the public or the environment with chemicals should be held accountable, but I wonder how many people would be willing to give up their life saving medicines or their modern conveniences? Because the fact is that most, if not all of those are synthetic, you know...

I'd love to hear thoughts from fellow scientists as well as non-scientists in the comments section below, so please chime in and let me know what you think. Am I off-base? Am I being too sensitive and/or paranoid? Or am I right to be concerned with this misinformation? Let's discuss!

Sunday, February 8, 2015

To PhD or Not to PhD? (PART 3)

I've spent the first two parts of this series discussing the pros and cons of getting a PhD in chemistry/science and choosing this field as a career. However, when looking back at what I've written, I find the overall focus tended to be more on the negative and/or detrimental aspects. While there certainly is good reason to feel this way and though I tried to also include some positive aspects, it feels to me that the overall tenor was pretty dour. Now, my intention on writing this series wasn't to actively dissuade anyone from doing this for a living, but rather to discuss it in an honest manner, warts and all. However, as the old saying goes, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes, and I feel that this is the case with being a scientist as well. Thus, for this final part of the series, I thought I would focus on some positive experiences I've had in my journey from student to professional. There are also some negative experiences thrown in, but I've tried to be as pragmatic and honest as possible. It's my hope that at the end of this post, those of you reading this who have gone through the same grad school/job mill can relate and will share some of your own stories in the comments section. With that out of the way, let's get on with it!

The good parts of being a scientist

- Seeing your name on a paper or patent.  As any chemist or scientist will tell you, "publish or perish" isn't just a dictum that young faculty live by.  Fair or not, a huge amount of your future success in landing a good postdoc and eventually, a job, hinges on how many papers you publish and the impact factor of those journals.  Whether it was during my time in school or in industry, it was always a thrill (and still is) when your manuscript gets accepted and you finally get to see your name in print.  Knowing all of the hard work that went into the paper and knowing that all of your peers worldwide will be reading it is a great feeling. I've been very lucky in my career to have published a lot of papers: a couple as an undergrad, a few as a graduate student, and over a dozen as a postdoc. I've also published a few papers as an industrial chemist (where publishing is not as common), as well as been named on some patents.  It's quite a thrill every time, and I know that the list of my publications on my resume indeed helped me out.  While papers don't mean quite as much when applying for industrial positions as they do for academic ones, they do still matter...this is something I have been told to my face during nearly every interview I've ever had.  I don't take it for granted one bit.

- Overcoming a hurdle on a research problem. Intellectually, this is probably the best thing about being a chemist, at least for me.  We all know how absolutely, infuriatingly frustrating it can be to bang your head against the wall for days, weeks, months, or in extreme cases, years trying to get past a challenge in whatever research you're working on.  It can oftentimes feel like it's never going to happen and that you should just give up. Sometimes, giving up is the final (and correct) option before moving on. But those times when you persevere and finally do succeed in overcoming what was tripping you up? Those moments are amongst the sweetest bits of satisfaction you can get as a scientist.  There have been many times (including one this past week) where I've even thrown out an audible "yes!" accompanied by a fist pump upon clearing a hurdle. It puts a little extra spring in your step and, if I'm being honest, puffs up your ego a little bit. It's like "yeah, I was smart and I figured it out!" It's also a nice little bit of self-validation to remind you not only why you went into this in the first place, but that there's a reason why you've been successful at it.

- Absolutely nailing a presentation.  A lot of people hate getting up in front of an audience and speaking.  I've had a lot of colleagues in grad school and postdoc, as well as in the professional world, who have been absolutely terrified of doing this; they freeze up and have a hard time functioning in front of a crowd. For me, it's never really been a bother. I have been getting in front of people to sing and play music since I was 10 years old and I've had to give loads of presentations all the way through school to the present. I've long passed the point where it worries me, having given literally hundreds of presentations to crowds both small and large. In front of colleagues, bosses, prospective customers or employers, I've done it all. Sure, I get nervous before I get started, but as soon I get up there in front of everyone and start speaking, I get very comfortable. Almost all of my talks have gone well, but there are a handful that I can still vividly remember to this day that I absolutely nailed in every way. My delivery, how I answered tough questions, and how people responded to me during and after my talk...knowing that you know your stuff cold and that you've absolutely nailed a scientific talk feels great.  Think of it as the geeky equivalent to delivering the musical performance of a lifetime (which I've also done a few times in my life).

- Working on lots of different projects and interacting with lots of different people.  This is one of the reasons I'm so glad I chose a career in industry instead of academia. The sheer number of different projects I've worked on just in my 7 years and counting of being a professional chemist is quite large and always expanding.  For one thing, it keeps the work interesting and exciting since I'm not always locked into one particular set of experiments or research projects.  Another thing that I like, and this is probably my favorite aspect, is that the exposure to different projects and research problems has deepened my knowledge as a chemist. There are things I am experienced in now that I couldn't have and wouldn't have dreamed of knowing anything about had you asked me ten years ago. Being at a large, industry-leading company also means that I'm always working on the cutting edge of the science, which really appeals to my curiosity. As an added bonus, I get to use some really cool instrumentation. There's something pretty exciting about using a sophisticated piece of scientific equipment that costs over $1 million and marveling at the data it gives you. Boys don't outgrow their toys, the toys just get bigger and more expensive (and yes, I know there are many talented women chemists...I work with several! I just wanted to use that saying!).

- Traveling. Part of my job involves traveling around the country (and eventually, it will take me outside of the country) in order to meet with colleagues, customers, potential customers, vendors, and to attend scientific conferences and continuing education courses. It's a nice way to see different parts of the world and meet even more interesting people (all on the company's dime), absorb new ideas and perspectives on science, and network with fellow scientists. However, traveling is also one of...

The not-so-good parts of being a scientist

- Yes, the travel can also be a bit of a drag. I've got a wife and four kids, so being away from home for days or weeks at a time makes them (and me) a bit unhappy. Luckily, Skype has made staying in touch and seeing each others' faces easier when I'm away from home. However, airplanes, rental cars, hotel rooms...it can wear you down after several days. While eating every meal in a restaurant may sound good in theory (and it does allow me to try a lot of different types of food), it also gets old after a while.  It's tough to eat light and healthy on the road...even when I order salads for most meals, they just don't sit in your stomach the same way a home-prepared one does. And for someone who is an exercise nut and a real creature of habit, traveling tends to throw me completely off with the constantly changing schedule from day to day. I do my best to eat right and work out in hotel gyms, but it often find it takes me days, or even a week, to get back to normal once I get home. I don't even travel as much as many of my friends and family members, so I shouldn't complain too much.

- The instability of industry these days. It's been mentioned a bunch by me, ChemJobber, and others, but science is a pretty volatile industry these days.  Whether it's companies downsizing, shipping jobs overseas, shutting their doors altogether, or something else, it is very rare to stay at the same job for more than a few years. Unlike my parents' generation where one could stay in a job until retirement, these days that is the exception to the rule, and it's not even close. I feel like I'm finally in a situation where I can stay and grow as a scientist for many years to come, and I'd love to think that I'll be able to stay here until I am ready to retire from science, but only time will tell...

- Starting at the bottom of the career ladder at 30 and playing catch-up with your peers.  Again, I've touched on this previously, but it can be (never mind "can be," it just flat out is) disheartening to finally begin starting to climb the career ladder when you get your first job and are pushing 30. I was 28 and lucky to be that young for a few reasons, but the majority of my friends and peers were 30 or older by the time they finished school and started working. In the meantime, your friends and peers in other fields have been working for the past decade while you were in school.  By the time you join them in the workforce, they have years of salary, raises, bonuses, and stock options on you. They have houses, spouses, kids, newer cars, and can take vacations. You still rent, drive a jalopy, and don't even take paid days off for fear of angering your boss. I'm generalizing here, but you catch my drift.  Life isn't about material possessions or keeping up with the Joneses, but it takes a LONG time before it all levels out. I'm 35 and only now starting to feel like I'm almost (but not quite) there.

IN CONCLUSION
 
There you have it! While there are many more things I both like and dislike about being a chemist, on balance I am happy in my career.  I've been very blessed, fortunate, lucky, whatever you want to call it, in that my entire experience to this point has been relatively smooth. Sure, there have been some bumps along the way; that's normal in life and I wouldn't expect different. But compared to so many of the horror stories I've witnessed firsthand or heard of anecdotally, I feel blessed to have had things go the way they have for me. I'm happy doing what I'm doing and where I'm doing it. For me, being a chemist jibes perfectly with my endlessly and restlessly creative mind.  I've found that nearly every scientist I've ever met is very creative and talented in other areas beyond science and usually has outlets for this in which they passionately excel. For me, it's music and writing, for others it's something else, but short of being a musician or writer as my actual career, it's hard for me to think of something that matches better with the way my mind works than chemistry.  I hope those of you who are also in this field feel the same way about it, and for those of you who have only recently begun the journey, I hope it goes as smoothly as possible for you and that this series of posts has helped you out in some small way. I believe in paying it forward and passing on whatever wisdom and knowledge I have in order to help people out, and it's my sincerest wish that this is what I've done that with these articles.

I hope this series of articles has been both helpful and informative, and if they were also entertaining, then I'll consider them a true success.  I'd love to hear your positive and negative experiences about getting your PhD in science and your subsequent career, so please comment away down below...let's discuss!

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

To PhD or Not to PhD? (PART 2)

Here I am, back again to tackle the age-old question (well, the burning question of the past 15 years if you're a chemist, at least): to PhD or not to PhD? In the first part, I wrote about the pros and cons of getting a PhD in the sciences, using chemistry in particular because that is my field. My conclusion/opinion was that it was solely dependant on the individual to decide, but that you should go into graduate school knowing that your job prospects are grim (for the reasons discussed previously). But just how bad is the job market for new PhD scientists? That is the subject of Part 2.

First, I'm going to state upfront that this post isn't going to involve a discussion on statistics or have links to relevant studies, not because I haven't read them (I have) but because other people have already written about these, and done it well. In particular, I would point you towards Chemjobber's blog which regularly updates chemists on the job market's ups and (mostly, these days) downs. Also, keep in mind that these are just my observations and opinions, and that I've been lucky enough to have had steady employment as a chemist since I got out of school in 2008. With that out of the way, let's dive into the discussion and ask the question:

Just how bad is the job market?

The chemistry job market had already been slowing down considerably when I finished my postdoc in 2008 and got my first job. About a month after I started working, the housing bubble burst and with it, the economy, which had already been teetering for a while, absolutely cratered. Along with everything else, it deeply affected the job market, not just for scientists but for everyone. However, the science job market, which had already been sliding for several years due to a variety of factors (shipping of jobs over to Asia, stagnant/declining salaries, oppressive federal regulations, etc) was hit particularly hard by the economic downturn. While I was lucky to find employment, many of my former classmates and colleagues from graduate school and my postdoc weren't as lucky. They, along with others whom I would speak to at technical conferences and meetings during those years told me how they were using their postdocs not only as part of their training, but as a way of maintaining some semblance of steady employment while they looked for full-time positions that just weren't out there. Many of them stayed at their postdocs for longer than the usual 2-3 years, many of them were forced to leave earlier than they'd intended due to funding running out, and several jumped to additional postdocs. Unfortunately, these are all patterns that have become more and more common within the field. However, the consequences of this are quite negative, as postdoc salaries are only a step above the stipend one makes as a graduate student. Additionally, there are typically not health benefits associated (at least there weren't when I was a postdoc..maybe that's changed now? Please update me on this if you know differently). It forces many people to delay marriage, starting a family, buying a house, and settling down until they have a steady job, which can oftentimes last well into one's 30s. I elaborated on this in Part 1 so I won't rehash it here, but suffice to say it is still a grim time to be looking for a job in chemistry, especially for new graduates looking to make their first entrance into the workforce.

This leads me to the next part, which is that at least in industrial science (which is what I know), even an abundance of job postings relevant to your skills doesn't necessarily mean that things are looking up. Why is this, you ask?  There are a few reasons, including:

1) Companies are much less willing to train someone who can't hit the ground running from day one.  It used to be that if a company was hiring for a position and you fit ~70% of the criteria they were looking for, they would have no problem hiring you and training you to get you up to speed in order to perform the job. In many cases, you might not even have needed to fit the criteria that much...if you had skills they liked and a good work ethic (with good references), they would hire you and train you. Nowadays, because it's such a buyer's market, they're much less willing, it not willing at all, to do this. Because they don't have to...you need them much more than they need you.

2) Many positions are only listed online to comply with federal law. Many companies have no intention of looking at resumes and bringing people in for interviews. They want to hire from within and often already have someone picked out for the role. Or, they have poached their desired candidate from another company and just have to go through the motions of posting a job online, again to comply with employment law. That's why job listings will often look like they were written for one person specifically...because often, they are. Or, they are written that way because...

3) ...It's such a buyer's market that companies are more than happy to sit back and take their time waiting for that one perfect candidate to fall into their lap. It's analogous to trawling a fishing line with no bait on the hook waiting for that one fish in the entire ocean to bite. This goes hand in hand with point #1 that I made above: because it's a buyer's marker and there are more people looking for jobs than there are open positions, companies don't have to fill them right away...they can wait until the person who fits their job description to a T applies. That's why you see such detailed and technical listings: rather than saying "we are looking for a synthetic chemist with experience in nitrogen-containing compounds," you'll see an ad that says "we are looking for a synthetic chemist who has experience preparing N-substituted hetereocycles that contain 5- to 7-membered rings that also happen to have ester groups in the 3-position and which are solids with melting points between 100 and 155 oC. Must have 7.5 years experience with these molecules." I may be exaggerating a bit, but not by much. Believe me, if you've ever seen the same job listed month after month (or in some cases, year after year), it's either because of point #2 above, or it's because of this.

As you see, there is a lot of overlap between the three reasons I've listed above, but having had experienced all of that firsthand over the years, I am confident that what I've written is true. The takeaway message is that those doing the hiring are firmly in the driver's seat at the moment. It's the age-old example of supply and demand, and in the case of science PhDs, the supply far outweighs the demand. It had been trending this way over the last decade and this has been the status quo since 2008 and shows no signs of abating, especially with groups like the ACS and the federal government pushing for more STEM graduates to flood the market for jobs that simply aren't there right now. Of course there are exceptions to all of this, but based on personal experience and observations, this seems to be the norm by far. I've personally experienced how hard it can be to find a new position, and I've been in the fortunate position of looking for a new job while I had a job. There is an old saying that it's easier to find a job when you have a job; conversely, it's said that it's much harder to find one when you're unemployed. Fair or not, this is the truth and with so many PhD scientists of varying experience levels either trying to enter the workforce with no experience or numerous PhD scientists out of work and looking to re-enter it, it doesn't show any signs of changing.

Obviously, it's hard for me to say that because the job market is bad that one shouldn't get a science PhD and try to get a job doing science, especially if that is what one's true passion is. However, the fact that the input/output ratio is not skewed in your favor during the best of times, and the fact that these are far from the best of times, makes it hard to say that it would be a good career path to head down for someone just starting out. Yes, things like this are cyclical and have a way of self-correcting, but not always, and the short-term prognosis is not good. Again, it's down to personal preference and I don't want to definitively say yes or no because it's not up to me to decide what is best for each individual...that's up to them to decide. I hope that I have at least given you food for thought, and I would welcome any discussions about your experiences in the science job market in the comments section below.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

To PhD or Not to PhD? (PART 1)

The Rock and Roll Chemist talking to 3rd graders about what it's like to be a scientist, complete with lab coat and safety glasses

Since I started my new job this past September, I've felt rejuvenated as a chemist and am again really taking pride in my career and what I do. This is due in part to finally being in a more stable, focused situation and also due to having found what I feel (so far) is the perfect match of my background and skill set with the projects I'm working on and the company's direction. It's also gotten me to write more about my experiences as a chemist, which I've been able to discuss with other scientists online. More recently, I was part of a career day at my daughters' school where I was one of the parents chosen to speak to the third graders about my job, including what I do at work, what skills help me be successful, and how much education and training it took. Of the three parents speaking in the classroom I was in, I was the "winner" (if you want to look at it that way) with 23 years of schooling, starting with Kindergarten at age 5 and ending at age 28 when I finished my postdoc and got my first job as a chemist.  To say that the kids' eyeballs popped wide open when I told them this fact would be an understatement. Many of the kids seemed genuinely excited by what I was telling them and many of them asked some great questions. A few even said they already loved science and want to be chemists now (which is cute, but I took with a grain of salt...as we all know, there's a LONG time to go between age 8 and college).  However, all of this got me thinking about all of the schooling I went through; did I enjoy it? Has it helped me? Would I do it again? And would I recommend it to someone else thinking about it in the future (especially my own children)? Therein lies the impetus for this post...

I will start this with a brief background on my own experiences...if you want more detail, you can read the other posts that I've written previously and linked to above. In a nutshell, I pursued my PhD in organic chemistry after I graduated college in 2001 because I loved materials synthetic chemistry and wanted to pursue an academic career. I finished my PhD in 2006 and started a postdoc. However, 3/4 the way through my postdoc, I realized I loved being in the lab doing research and had no enthusiasm for teaching. Coupled with the low starting salaries in academia (at the time my wife and I had two kids) and all of the extraneous work of grading exams and homework, coming up with course syllabi, and all of the extra things that go along with being a professor, I decided to pursue the industrial path instead. In late 2008 I finished my postdoc and started my first job as a professional chemist. Two job changes later and I am now working as a materials chemist but with an emphasis in engineering, organometallics, contact physics, and metallurgy. I love what I'm doing and even though I miss doing synthetic work, my background has helped me out as I've progressed down this path. Sounds rosy, no?

Well, that's where I'm intending to slap you with a  (somewhat) cold, hard dose of reality with this article. Now, I'm not going to be completely negative about it because that's not how I feel. But now that I'm in my mid-30s and have experienced what I've experienced, I figure I can look back on it with some clarity of age and wisdom. I was moved to do this not only from talking to my daughter's class, but from reading about the current woes of the chemistry job market on excellent blogs like ChemJobber, as well as personal experiences with friends who were classmates and colleagues of mine, some of whom have struggled since graduating and some who have thrived.  Lastly, several friends and coworkers over the years have asked me advice about whether they should go back to school and get their PhD. All of this has led me to think long and hard about my feelings on the matter and how I would answer all of these questions. These are long and complicated matters, so I'm going to do this in parts, the first of which is this post you're reading. So here goes...

1. Would I recommend a PhD in chemistry (or any science) to anyone who is either graduating college or who wants to go back to school?

This is a tough one because there's no right or wrong answer. What follows is, like the rest of this post, mainly my opinion. I realize that all things, like the economy and the job market, are cyclical and what I say now is based on how it is now, and that things may and probably will change. With all of that said, my answer at worst is a cautious but firm "NO" and at best is "it depends." There are several reasons, many of them dependent on current conditions as I alluded to, and many that are concrete regardless of what's going on around us.

As far as the fluidly dependent reasons, right now is a bad time to either be graduating with a degree in science or looking for work in this field. As bad as the overall economy and job market are in this country, they're even worse within chemistry (which is the field I know best). First and foremost, there is a glut of PhDs who are either working in the field, unemployed and looking for work in the field, or graduating and looking to enter the field. This is due mainly to the fact that graduate schools are driven to publish and bring in grant money, and the decades-old model for doing so is to employ loads of graduate students and postdocs to do all of the work. As such, groups and departments that are successful bring in more and more students to accomplish all of this, which is great except that at the end of their time in grad school, they are flooding the market and competing for a finite number of positions that is shrinking on a daily basis due to economics and jobs moving offshore (this is especially bad if you're in pharma/medicinal chem or biotechnology). It's the same issue that's plagued new law school grads for years: too many of you and not enough jobs to go around. In chemistry, this has led to many scientists becoming career postdocs or non-tenured staff scientists at universities, making slightly more than their grad student and postdoc brethren, but often not getting health or retirement benefits and with little room (if any) for career advancement. And once you've entered this cycle, it's VERY hard to get out of it. Industry, in particular, looks down upon this during the hiring process when they see it on a resume (and I know this from having been involved in many hiring processes throughout my career).

Another factor to consider is what I've always termed the Input/Output Ratio; that is, what you put in to getting the PhD vs. what you get out of it. Again, none of this is sour grapes on my parts because I've been blessed and lucky in my own career: I finished my postdoc in 2008 and got my first job literally a month or two before everything went to hell with the economy and through a combination of hard work, networking, and a smidgen of luck, I've worked at a few different companies and am now really happy with where I'm at.  However, when looking at this Input/Output ratio, even for someone who has had an on-the-whole positive experience with it all, this ratio is woefully imbalanced.  Let me put it this way: you put in AT LEAST five extra years of school after college, school where your tuition is paid (yay!) and you receive a stipend (not much, but still...yay!) to teach undergraduate labs (meh), spend long hours, nights, and weekends in the lab (depends on your advisor as to how hard you're driven) and have a LOT of stress coming at you constantly as you have to work to pass your classes, pass your seminars, pass your cumulative exams, pass all of the hurdles and requirements thrown at you, AND generate lots of good data and progress in your research such that you can publish some of it (which helps your advisor's reputation and helps your resume as you prepare to apply for a postdoc and/or job).  Assuming you're not a "non-traditional" (ie older) student and you started your PhD right after undergrad, you will be ~27-28 when you finish (I was 26). Then it's off to a postdoc for additional training. In your postdoc, it's all about research and mentoring the grad students in your group. You still have to work really hard and the more papers you can publish, the better. This fellowship can take anywhere from 1 to an infinite number of years depending on your situation (and your advisor's grant money). Somewhere in there, you have to carve out some time to polish up your resume, apply for jobs, have phone interviews, and (if you're lucky) travel to on-site interviews until you find a job.

PhD Comics is a brilliant site...anyone who has gotten their degree can relate to these!

When it's all said and done, your 20s are pretty much gone. I was 28 when all of this finished, and I was lucky to be this young for several reasons: 1) I'd skipped 5th grade in elementary school so I was a year younger than everyone in my class, 2) I had great advisors in both grad school and postdoc who really did help me, mentor me, and encourage me, 3) I published a LOT of papers before applying for jobs, 4) I specialized in an area of chemistry (materials) that is actually growing and in high demand, and 5) my timing was beyond fortuitous, snatching a job after just under 2 years of postdoc right before the economy collapsed. However, I realize my experience isn't the same as everyone else, and I have some close friends who have had about as polar opposite an experience as I did in all regards. These are not all-inclusive, but range from working for an unpleasant advisor, too few or no papers published, unexpected loss of a position due to grant money running out, and a skill-set that is not in demand by employers are all some reasons some of my friends have struggled and continue to struggle in this market.   Remember, too, that while you are spending your 20s working hard in grad school pursuing this degree, your friends who majored in other subjects (or went with the Masters degree instead) are working and earning a living, progressing in their careers and settling down in life. I have many friends who started working in 2001 (the year I graduated undergrad) with their bachelor's degrees in engineering, computer science, business, etc while I started grad school. By the time we all hit 30, I had been working for not quite 2 years and was just starting on the career ladder while they had been working for almost a decade, were earning as much or more than I was, and had gotten promotions, raises, bonuses, etc. They had saved money, bought houses, new cars, went on vacations, and started families...I didn't get my first raise until I was in my early 30s and didn't have a retirement account to start saving money in until this past year.  I was lucky to have met my wife in college, we got married right after college, and started our family mid-way through my PhD (it wasn't easy balancing all of that at the time!) but I was the exception, not the rule. Most, not all but most, of my colleagues in grad school and postdoc put all of that off until after they graduated. So I am now 34, been married for 12 years, and have 4 kids while many of my friends the same age are either still single, newly married, or newly married and are just starting to have kids. Most people have to put adult life on hold a LOT when they're in graduate school.

I don't mean to paint this picture as bleakly as it seems to come across, but my point is that regardless of whether you have a good or bad experience through all of that, getting your PhD is one of the hardest things you'll ever do. You sacrifice a lot, put up with a lot, put off a lot, and you do all of this during the decade when most of your peers are starting their careers and beginning to ascend their respective career ladders. It's normal to feel far behind once you finish and start your own career...I certainly felt that way and it's something I've only recently come to terms with and stopped beating myself up over. And while I don't usually advocate measuring your self-worth against anyone else, it's unavoidable in this case and can really bring you down if you're not careful. Granted, those years were spent going to school for free (financially speaking) and earning some money, but there are no health benefits (at least there weren't when I was in school...luckily my wife was working at the same time and we had insurance through her employer), no 401k accounts, and not nearly enough money to save anything. That's why I always advise people who ask me if they should go for their PhD that they need to be 100% sure they want to pursue the degree and they should do it right after college without taking a break; while there is the risk of burnout, since you're already used to being a poor college student, you might as well suck it up a little longer, put your head down, and plow through school. Very few people will want to abandon whatever job they've been doing since college, take a HUGE pay cut, and make the lifestyle change from being an autonomous adult to a grad student at the mercy of their advisor (who very oftentimes may be younger than them!). Finally, I don't ever actively dissuade anyone from pursuing a PhD if that's what they really want to do, but I do want to make sure they know what they're in for and what they'll be giving up along the way. If you know upfront what it will be like, you won't be as surprised while it's happening or as shell-shocked as some are when you come out the other end. To make a long story short, in my opinion the Input/Output Ratio is badly skewed, and not in our favor. What you get out of the entire experience is not nearly equal to what you put into it, and it takes many years of working to achieve the break-state...I feel as though I'm finally approaching this stage, and this is coming at a time where I've been in the workforce for almost 7 years and am approaching 35 years of age. Yes, doctors also go through a ton of schooling and training before they begin practicing (being the son of a doctor, I've had this discussion with my dad many times over the years) but there are MANY more guaranteed jobs for new physicians and the starting income levels are much higher for doctors than they are for scientists. The medical profession has its own set of circumstances that are battering the industry, especially in recent years, but the fact remains that the Ratio is less favorable for new PhDs than it is for new MDs. Food for thought...

So, to answer question 1 in this first part, To PhD or Not to PhD? My overall answer is "it depends, but probably no." I don't say this emphatically and I don't begrudge anyone who decides to go this route, but make sure you know what you're in for, not only while you're in school but what will be your prospects when you get out.  If you truly love chemistry/science and know without a shadow of a doubt that it's what you want to do as a career, then go for it, but if you're not 100% sure in your convictions, it might be best to think about something else that you can do. For everyone who has been fortunate through the whole process (as I consider myself to have been), there are many more who have gone through hell and back (or not at all). There are no guarantees in life and that holds true even more for the PhD chemist.




Tuesday, November 4, 2014

A Career in Chemistry: My Long and Winding Road (So Far)


Central science indeed!

Now that I've been at my new job for a few months and am fairly settled in, I've been reflecting a lot on where I am and how I got here in terms of my career as a chemist. It's been a very strange, interesting, and (I think) unique journey, and one that's made me realize we can never predict where we'll end up or what we'll be doing. 

As I've written before on this site, I was educated and trained as a synthetic organic chemist, although unlike most who go into medicinal and pharmaceutical research, I did this as it applied to materials chemistry. I was a purely synthetic chemist but I also had a strong grounding and lots of experience in physical organic chemistry, which is the study of the properties of organic molecules.  Looking back, I see that what I studied and how I learned it was really the precursor to today's dedicated materials science degrees, albeit with more of a pure chemistry bent (which makes sense since I was a chemistry major first and foremost, while the materials science degrees tend to have a broader scope and less specific/more general chemistry, physics, and engineering components all rolled into one). In any event, to make a long story short, I was a PhD organic chemist coming out of graduate school and the same when I finished my postdoc and started my first job in 2008. At my first company, I was working as a synthetic materials chemist in the area of nanotechnology, so I was still solidly in my comfort zone. When things really started changing for me was in 2011 when I took a new job at a new company that was completely out of my area of expertise or knowledge. For reasons I still fully don't understand, I decided to move to a company in the field of electroplating, an area I knew nothing about apart from a basic understanding of it.  Looking back, I realize that by 2011 I had gotten a little bored working on the same class of molecules (fullerenes) since grad school; I was also really afraid of being pigeonholed as a chemist who could only work on these types of materials, which wouldn't bode well for any future career prospects in the event that I needed to find another job sometime down the road. Thus, I decided to take the plunge and take the chance to do something new and learn about a new area of science. The learning curve was quite steep at first but eventually I really picked up on it and enjoyed it. While I was no longer working as a synthetic chemist and was doing more engineering in my role, there was still a lot of chemistry involved and it really forced me to draw upon my broader knowledge of chemistry. In particular, I had to really dig deep and recall all of the inorganic, organometallic, and analytical chemistry I had learned years before, as well as some physical chemistry and physics. Beyond that, it opened me up to an entirely new field of science and technology that allowed me to use my chemical expertise in a more engineering and manufacturing-based R&D setting than I had been used to. 

This is what my career journey feels like sometimes

All of which leads me to where I am now. As I wrote several weeks ago, my family and I recently relocated out of our native New England so that I could take a new job at a large company. This company is one of the biggest in the world when it comes to producing connectors, wires, and electronics technology. My work is in the area of advanced materials development, moving even further away from synthetic chemistry.  I was hired for both my organic chemistry background and my experience in electroplating, product development, and process engineering.  I've been here three months and am really enjoying it, as it's allowing me to use both my broader chemistry (mainly inorganic and organometallic) background as well as everything I've learned in electroplating and metallurgy over the last few years.  Even though I don't do any organic synthesis, I find that I need to use my organic knowledge when it comes to the chemistry of our formulations and the various interactions between the different molecular compounds involved. What blows my mind when I step back and think about where I am is that I am now someone that people will come to for advice or help with electroplating problems. Three years ago I didn't know anything about electroplating other than the basics which I'd learned from a textbook; now, it's something I do and something that I understand quite well.  Let me say that I certainly don't consider myself an expert...there are many people I've worked with both in the past and the present who have been in plating for decades and who have a wealth of knowledge that puts me to shame. But the fact that I am at the point where I have enough knowledge that it makes me helpful to someone else is quite humbling.

What all of this has shown me is that, as I've written before, chemistry truly is the central science; a degree and a strong background in chemistry can indeed lead you in any direction.  Furthermore, you never know where your career will take you, and the important thing is to make sure you never stop learning and never stop enjoying what you're doing. Ever since I started working in the plating and engineering side of the industry, and especially since I've started this new job a few months ago, I find that I learn a ridiculous number of new things every day.  Sometimes it gets a little bit overwhelming but there's no such thing as too much knowledge and I know that in the long run, it will only help both broaden and deepen my experience and knowledge base.  The main thing it has made me feel os that I'm no longer purely an organic chemist, and I don't consider myself one anymore. I feel as though I am now simply a chemist, with no qualifier in front of that word. The different types of chemistry I now work with and the breadth of science and engineering I am learning and applying on a daily basis defines me as someone who is no longer pigeonholed into one specific area of the field. It's been a long, strange trip so far, one I never would have conceived of had you asked me about it a few years ago, but I wouldn't have it any other way. 

"What a long, strange trip it's been..."