Hey, that's not the right data!

Some of you may have seen this James Hicks article in The Scientist, where he shows a graph that seems to correlate high notices of retractions with low NIH grant success rates. Interesting idea, right?

Unfortunately, Nature reporter Richard Van Noorden (the collector of some of the data used in the graph) notes that Professor Hicks did not use the most relevant data for his retractions (i.e. US retractions, funded by the NIH) for his graph. When you do, the correlation is not nearly so clear.

I agree with Richard that the hypothesis is sound (i.e. as it gets more difficult to get funded, the incentive to cheat goes up), but it remains unproven. 

Man, I want to go to China someday to give a talk

From international political economy professor Daniel Drezner, a comment on being paid honoraria for speaking in China:

1) From a personal perspective, as the occasional visitor to China, I can confirm the wads of cash thing -- but it's a bit more complicated than Barboza suggests. First of all, for U.S. academics at least, the payment isn't in renminbi, but in U.S. dollars. Renminbi is sometimes dispensed for things like per diem reimbursements, but not for honoraria. After all, officially, the RMB is still not convertible to dollars outside of the country, so it wouldn't be very nice to get paid in a currency that is technically useless outside the People's Republic. 

There are two other qualifiers here. First, at least with respect to academic honoraria, it's not just China that pays in cash -- so does Japan, for example. Second, speaking as an academic who's received the occasional honorarium, it's friggin' awesome. At some point, someone takes you aside and gives you an envelope stuffed with bills. I know it's impolite to say, but every time it happens, I feel like I'm an earner in Tony Soprano's crew. It's soooooo much more satisfying than getting a check (as is the norm in the U.S.) or receiving a bank transfer three months later than it should be and only after haranguing someone a few times (as is the norm in Europe). 

Having just worked in the United States, I haven't had the pleasure of being paid in cash. (I've been paid in work experience and donuts -- why do you ask?) Whenever I go to the ATM to pull out a couple hundred bucks when we go on vacation, I always feel a little weird.

Readers, what's the best way you've been paid?

Awesome, enraging articles to read

This day has been busy (as you might be able to tell), but a few things to talk about:

• This C&EN article by Beth Halford on the current state of the postdoc and the problem of chemists taking multiple postdocs is definitely worth a read and worth further comment. I love the quotes from senior industrial folks; it'll be great to see how their opinions match with how their companies have been hiring. 
• Derek Lowe has a couple of great comments today:
• The first, about an Atlantic article that talks about the problems with getting Western pharmaceutical companies to address neglected/tropical diseases. Derek has some problems with the article, naturally. I do too, especially with the thought that the solution to the problem is getting the global (i.e. non-developed world's) pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity to solve the problem. 
• Coincidentally, the second great comment is about Fortune magazine's fantastic exposé of the quality issues and outright fraud that was happening at Ranbaxy's plants in India for about a decade. For example, they were using submitting bioequivalence data to the FDA using drug manufactured by brand-name companies or competitors. After reading that article, I am not sure how Ranbaxy has managed to stay in business. 

All three of these articles deserve your attention (and mine!)

It's a simple question: do you care about your people, or your career?

Nick Palmisciano is a former infantry officer in the U.S. Army. At the start of an interesting set of comments about being a new Army infantry officer (engagingly titled "Don't Be A Douche"), an interesting comment on caring about your people:

2.) Your guys are more important than your career.  

This ties in nicely with my last point, but it is worthy of its own bullet.  You’re all going to be civilians someday, no matter how much you love the military or how long you serve.  Years from now, the fact that you made Colonel or Sergeant Major won't erase the fact that you threw some unsuspecting subordinate under the bus to avoid punishment, and it certainly won't remove a stupid decision you made based on pressure from above that got someone killed or injured.  Every leader I've ever respected has been willing to stand in the Gates of Fire when it mattered.  If you're not willing to do this for your people, be honest with yourself and quit.  Join corporate America – you'll just annoy people, not get them killed, and you'll make more money.  Everyone wins.

I'm reminded of (former Marine commandant) Al Gray's comment to The Basic School in Tom Ricks' great book Making the Corps:

What bothers him most about today's military, he goes on to say, is careerism. It has eroded the other services  he warns, and is creeping into the Corps. The only thing you should worry about, he tells the assembled second lieutenants, is taking care of your people. In fact, he recommends adding one new little box to the officer evaluation reports: It would say, Does this officer care more about his career than about his troops? A "yes" mark would terminate that officer's career. 

Obviously, the evaluation criteria for officers in the military and managers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are very different. The military expects 'leadership' (a vague term, to be sure) out of its officers and senior non-commissioned officers as a primary responsibility; that's not necessarily the case for the business world.

However, I believe that direct reports can sense when supervisors and managers see them as valued members of a team (not, I note, just by referring to them as "a team") and not human data collection devices that will provide information/products/processes that will lead to greater corporate glory.*

I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't a mutual benefit aspect to this, of course. A good way to move up in the world is "make your boss look good." (Making your boss look bad, of course, is a good way to move down as well.) Direct reports are very, very good at sensing when that "mutual benefit" is out of balance, and they're even better at sensing when managers are actively taking credit for results and decisions that they did not make.

I agree with General Gray -- larger organizations should take note of the potential careerism of their employees and incorporate it into their evaluations of managers. I am, of course, hopelessly naive.

*This is probably where industry's long-time model for scientific administration may be failing. It is usually the case that the person at the top is some combination of "the smartest scientist" and "the most senior person" and "the person most likely to make good decisions." Somehow, that got translated into "to be a people manager/supervisor, you probably need a Ph.D." Academics don't teach leadership/mentorship skills to their graduate students, and I am not sure that they should. 

Daily Pump Trap: 5/16/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 14 and May 15, there were 15 jobs posted on the C&EN Jobs website. Of these, 2 (13%) were academically connected and 9 (60%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Zeroes!: Vertex (Cambridge, MA) continues its run of hiring with a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. chemical development position. 0-3+ years experience for Ph.D.s, 5+ for M.S., 8+ for B.S. positions.

San Jose, CA: Energy Storage Stealth is a startup, doing something very interesting that I can't quite tell what it is...:

We are a new start-up, located in San Jose, California, that is working on a fundamental disruption in the field of energy storage. The company seeks to change the paradigm in energy storage by developing a completely new class of electrical energy storage device. If successful, the technology could revolutionize the industry. We are backed by top VC firms. 

Gotta love the buzzwords. Description of the position:

The candidate will own the formulation development process and scale up production of inks, slurries, and chemical process solutions.  The candidate is required to identify conditions and variables for formulation stability and quality, and undertake continuous process improvement using statistical DOE.  This person will develop a qualification process and a characterization infrastructure for formulations and must be familiar with SPC environment.  The candidate is expected to identify, specify, purchase, and implement process and equipment for scale up.  The ideal candidate is self-motivated, team oriented, can work independently and in teams, and is seeking an atmosphere conducive to learning and growth.

What's weird about it is that the pay is listed as $160-$180. What's that about? Oh, and this too: "Additional Salary Information: start-up so equity play"

A broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder, Indeed and USAjobs.gov show (respectively) 241, 730, 2751 and 14 positions for the search term "chemist." LinkedIn shows 99 positions for the job title "chemist", with 4 for "organic chemist", 14 for "analytical chemist" and 10 for "research chemist."

Bonus via LinkedIn: Nintendo of America is looking for a QC chemist, I think. 

Resolved: Applying to Advertised Postdoctoral Positions May Be Unwise. Discuss.

I would like to hear people's opinions about advertised academic (i.e. non-industrial) postdoctoral positions. Isn't it a truism to say that most of the desirable postdoctoral employers do not advertise, yet still manage to fill their labs with armies of fellows?

Aren't advertised academic positions basically saying, "We can't find anyone who wants to work for me unbidden?" Is there anything wrong with that? Assistant professors and such gotta start somewhere, right?

So it might be good for the professor to get experienced hands in the lab. Is it good for the postdoc? I'm not so sure. Even if they manage to do awesome science (and of course, they will), will their employer have the influence to get their postdoc a good next position?

Readers, what say you? 

Wrong sample causes retraction

From Retraction Watch, a very interesting explanation from a Chinese group (Yang, UST-China, Hefei):

We recently published a paper entitled “s-wave superconductivity in Ba-doped phenanthrene as revealed by specific-heat measurements.” The sample studied in that paper as Ba1.5-doped phenanthrene is now found to be La-doped phenanthrene. This error was caused by mislabeling the La-doped phenanthrene sample as Ba1.5-doped phenanthrene. During our experiment, we synthesized La- and Ba-doped phenanthrene in the same furnace because both of them have the same sintering temperatures and procedures. The mislabeling occurred when the samples were taken out of the furnace with incorrect records. In addition, it is now found that both Ba- and La-doped phenanthrene show similar superconducting transition temperatures. 

In an earlier paper, we reported superconductivity in Ba-doped phenanthrene. At that time, we had not yet begun synthesizing La-doped phenanthrene samples, so it was impossible to have made a similar mislabeling error. Furthermore, we burned the superconducting Sr-doped and Ba-doped phenanthrene samples reported in the earlier paper at 750°C in air for 2 h and found that the final products were SrCO₃ and BaCO₃, respectively, which definitely proves that the samples in the earlier paper, indeed, have the composition reported there. 

We are sorry for this error, and we ask that the paper not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. The data in the retracted paper with the correct reanalysis may be reported in a different paper, and the conclusions could be considered valid for La-doped phenanthrene.

Assuming that this is an accurate reporting, I am in some amount of sympathy with the authors. Mislabeling of samples happens -- but it shouldn't make it all the way into a paper.  

Daily Pump Trap: 5/14/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 9 and May 13, there have been 59 new positions posted on the C&EN Jobs website. Of these, 5 (8%) are academically connected and 28 (47%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

This job is probably awesomer than yours: From NASA (Greenbelt, MD):

The Astrochemistry Laboratory, in Greenbelt, Maryland, is seeking a research scientist to provide expertise in studies of trace materials in complex organic compounds of astrobiological and cosmochemical interest.  You will serve as a Research Physical Scientist in the Astrobiology Analytical Lab, a state-of-the-art analytical laboratory that specializes in the characterization of organic and biochemical materials that could precede the development of life or that could be derived from fossil life either on Earth or throughout the solar system. 

Studies include analyses of natural samples of amino acids and other organic materials extracted from meteorites, interplanetary dust particles, material returned via NASA missions, and analog samples utilizing chromatography and mass spectrometry.  Work also includes development of advanced in situ methods and organic detection instrumentation for future planetary missions.  Research requires the analysis of small and precious samples and careful techniques to understand and limit organic contamination. 

Requirements: A record of successful planetary proposals and peer-reviewed publications is required.  Bachelors degree required, PhD in a relevant field is preferred.  Candidates must have experience in characterizing organic and biochemical materials to investigate questions of astrochemical and astrobiological interest related to the Origin of Life using chromatography and mass spectrometry, method development for the analysis of small organic compounds, and handling of precious, often irreplaceable samples.  U.S. citizenship required. 

The kicker: $89,033.00 - 136,771.00 offered. (Best wishes to the 4 or 5 people who are qualified for this position...)

Midland, MI: Dow Corning is looking for a M.S./Ph.D. chemist to be a product development chemist; experience in silicone synthesis and coatings desired.

Waltham, MA: Alkermes is looking for an analytical postdoc for solid-state pharmaceutical chemistry.

Akron, OH: Bridgestone America is looking for materials scientists towards tires:

Researchers at this location are primarily dedicated to the development of new materials for tires and other applications and are working cooperatively with scientists and engineers at our three major Technical Centers in Akron, Tokyo, and Rome. For the Materials Scientist position, qualified candidates are preferred to have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Physics, Materials Science and Engineering, or a related field with desired experience in the polymer/soft matter area. Solid academic training, creativity, and problem-solving abilities are essential for the position. 

Could be interesting.

Shimadzu: They're on a relative hiring spree, with 7 new positions across the country.

Iowa City, IA: It's abundantly clear that P&G wants a Q.C. experienced A.A./B.S. chemist to do more quality control work in a plant. Why not just write that instead of 100 words of nonsense?

Oh, Kelly: When you start a sales job ad with "no cold calling!", it's gonna be a good one. 

Ivory Filter Flask: 5/14/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 7 and May 13, there were 9 academic positions posted on C&EN Jobs. The numbers:

Total number of ads: 9
- Postdocs: 1
- Tenure-track faculty:  5
- Temporary faculty: 0
- Lecturer positions:  2
- Staff positions:  1
- US/non-US: 7/2

Cleveland, MS: Delta State University is hiring an assistant/associate professor of biochemistry. (Wasn't there some sort of vaguely famous restaurant in that town? I saw it on CBS Sunday Morning a while back.)

Princess Anne, MD: The University of Maryland - Eastern Shore campus is hiring an assistant professor of medicinal chemistry.

Savannah, GA: Armstrong Atlantic State University is hiring an assistant professor of organic chemistry.

Saudi Arabia?: This little ad from the University of Akron is pretty fun:

University Innovation Ventures (UIV) in cooperation with The University of Akron Research Foundation is seeking highly qualified candidates with demonstrated leadership and elastomer teaching capabilities to instruct at a new world-class English-based vocational training institute in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The High Institute for Elastomer Industries (HIEI) opened in September 2012 training technologists to work in the nascent elastomer industry in Saudi Arabia: http://www.hiei.edu.sa/DefaultE.aspx.

 Sounds interesting, mostly. Might be an adventure...

What are the economics of rare disease research?

Also in this week's C&EN, Lisa Jarvis has a series of very interesting stories on rare diseases: their funding models, the regulatory hurdles and the families that have become advocates in Congress and in industry for their children. The story starts with a very affecting anecdote about some boys getting some medicine:

The boys have Hunter syndrome, a rare and fatal genetic disease caused by a deficiency in an enzyme that breaks down sugar molecules. The missing enzyme is just one of more than 100 housed in the lysosome, the cell’s waste bin. Today, some 50 different inherited diseases—known broadly as lysosomal storage diseases—are caused by genetic mutations that disable one of those enzymes. In Hunter syndrome, which affects only boys, the buildup of sugar molecules over time causes symptoms such as stiff joints, enlarged spleens, and difficulty breathing. For children like Justin and Jason, who have a form of the disease that affects the brain, the accumulation also causes a rapid decline in mental function. And it’s rare—just one in 155,000 boys are born with the disease. 

Elaprase replaces the missing enzyme, iduronate-2-sulfatase, buying the boys valuable time by shrinking their spleens and helping their heart and lungs function. Yet it won’t save their lives. Elaprase can’t get past the blood-brain barrier, the cellular security gate that protects our most complex organ, so it can’t stop the mental deterioration that will cause the boys to lose their ability to walk and talk. Most boys with Hunter syndrome die by age 15. 

Elaprase is also breathtakingly expensive. As his sons run in circles through the kitchen and living room, Jeff Leider holds up a small glass vial filled with clear liquid. “That’s, like, $10,000 right there,” he says, eying the bottle with a mix of awe and disbelief. Having two kids with Hunter syndrome who need several vials per treatment, the Leiders’ annual bill approaches $1 million. Deena’s insurance covers the bulk of the cost, and Shire, the drug’s manufacturer, takes care of the rest through a patient assistance program.

First, I cannot imagine what these parents are going through. Wow -- my heart breaks for them.

Second, I wonder how the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies will manage to work out this delicate interplay for these rare diseases. How can insurers bear these very high costs for modern pharmaceuticals, which seem to be astronomically expensive? Jarvis does note that the insurers seem be playing ball for now...:

But the naysayers were proven wrong. The Food & Drug Administration approved the drug in 1994, and Genzyme charged an unprecedented $200,000 per year. Although insurance companies balked at the cost, they eventually agreed to cover it. Companies like Genzyme ensured patient access by introducing assistance programs that helped families with potentially high copays.

Insurance companies are not exactly some of America's most loved corporations. That said, one wonders how long that they'll be able to afford these sorts of treatments -- especially if governments keep broadening mandates for insurance coverage and (perhaps rightly so) limiting their ability to extricate themselves from covering undesirable, unfortunate policyholders who happen to have rare diseases that are expensive to treat. (I suspect that, in reality, it's not a large enough group to put a hole in their margins too badly.)

Also, with this rare disease stuff, I wonder if this means that we're going spend more time and resources curing the rare diseases of the families who have the social capital to advocate for their sick loved ones than those who don't. Something tells me no. I suspect the overlap between "rare diseases of people who can advocate well" and "rare diseases that are tractable to modern pharmaceuticals" is very, very small and no larger than the overlap between "tractable rare diseases" and "rare diseases of people with little social capital." Probably a good thing, that.

This week's C&EN

Lots of interesting random items in this week's C&EN:

• The survey of the top 50 chemical firms seems to indicate optimism from Wall Street, even though the fundamental numbers are sort of meh. (by Alex Tullo)
• There has got to be historical data for ocean pH, right? 
• Professor Geraldine Richmond and Dr. Celeste Rohlfing talk work-life balance.
• Beth Halford writes about chemistry classes for non-majors; they sound fun, for sure. 

Sheets of aluminum foil

A list of small, useful things (links):

• I found this article on the health effects of chronic exposure to flavoring chemicals to be thought-provoking
• I learned a lot from this John Spevacek post on plastics recycling.
• Vittorio is definitely the best video maker in the chemblogosphere.
• Does America need a science laureate? If so, who?, asks See Arr Oh (I dunno, really.)
• Th'Gaussling has some tough news -- go and wish him well.
• Kenneth Hanson's series on getting a faculty position is pretty great.
• How do you hold your spatula?, asks Brandon Findlay.
• Deborah Blum, on a cyanide death in Pittsburgh.
• Chad Jones does a nice job debunking quack Joseph Mercola. 
• Tom Barton wants to hear from you on fracking. 
• This little comment on the effects of anti-coagulants was horrifying. (Perhaps I am squeamish.)
• This is the funniest comment I've read all month -- shows a real knowledge of that genre. 

Readers, did I miss anything? 

Have a great weekend!

A sad, puzzling #altchemjobs anecdote

From Sam Stein of The Huffington Post, an interesting anecdote in a story about young scientists and their issues with the current federal funding climate:

One particularly jarring example of this brain drain, recounted by two independent sources, took place in the summer and fall of 2012. A young researcher in the Midwest with a Ph.D. in chemistry from a prominent state school had been left unemployed after the project on which she had worked didn't get a follow-up grant. Three months of attempting to find research or academic work produced no results. With no other options, she rewrote her resume, stripping it of any mention of her Ph.D., and began applying elsewhere. Within a week, she had secured a job as a secretary at an auto parts company. 

The Huffington Post tracked down the researcher, "Rebecca," who asked that her real name not be used out of concern that it could jeopardize her current employment. Rebecca confirmed her story. Now an executive at the auto parts company, she recalled the abrupt end to her previous career as a "depressing" moment, filled with uncertainty. 

"It is possible that I could have gone to another college and gotten another post doc, but that's a temporary position," Rebecca said. "When I started way back in the day, this was the field to go into ... it is a much different field today."  

Despite 11 years of education (five as an undergrad, six for her Ph.D.) and aspirations of being a chemist, Rebecca said she has left science for good. She is happy with life outside the lab. Her company takes good care of her. 

"They are already scared I'm not there to stay because they know I'm bright," she said. "They just don't how bright."

I wonder what pushed her to make this decision? It very clearly sounds like Rebecca wants out of science, which is understandable. Well, here's hoping that she is happy with her current position.

[One notes that the current funding climate wasn't so great in summer/fall 2012, but the sequester didn't start until 2013.]

Best wishes to her, and to all of us. 

Patrick Harran pleads not guilty on 4 felony counts, LADA adds one more count to previous 3

From C&EN's Michael Torrice, the latest from the #SheriSangji case:

University of California, Los Angeles, chemistry professor Patrick Harran was arraigned today on four felony charges of violating the state labor code. A Los Angeles County judge entered a not guilty plea on Harran’s behalf for all four counts. The charges stem from the death of research assistant Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji from injuries sustained in a 2008 fire in the professor’s lab. 

Another judge ruled last month that Harran should face trial on three charges, each citing a violation of a separate state safety regulation: failure to correct unsafe workplace conditions and procedures in a timely manner, failure to require work-appropriate clothing and personal protective equipment, and failure to provide chemical safety training to employees. The Los Angeles County District Attorneys added a fourth charge that essentially expanded on the clothing and protective equipment charge. 

The new charge is for violating occupational safety regulation 3383(a), which states “body protection may be required for employees whose work exposes parts of their body, not otherwise protected as required by other orders in this article, to hazardous or flying substances or objects.” The original charge cited part (b) of that regulation: “Clothing appropriate for the work being done shall be worn. Loose sleeves, tails, ties, lapels, cuffs, or other loose clothing which can be entangled in moving machinery shall not be worn.”

The fourth charge is new and interesting news; one suspects that it is the district attorney playing hardball in plea negotiations.

The next court date (to determine how much time both sides need before the trial) will be on June 27.

So forlorn

C&EN was advertising this auction for an old Rochester, NY photochemical plant's equipment earlier this week in its banner ads. It's not like they were long for this world, what with digital photography being what it is. But it's still sad to me, I dunno why. 

What does it take for a chemist to become a chemical engineer?

Here's a hypothetical question that I get a lot, that I don't have an answer to:

Hey, CJ: 

I'm a [insert here: junior undergraduate/new B.S. chemist/experienced Ph.D. chemist] and I'd like to get some of that sweet, sweet fracking cash and become a chemical engineer. How can I go back to school for this? 

Love, a reader

I honestly have no idea, even though I know some people who have gone this route. It seems to me that most of it requires some remedial undergraduate level classes/prerequisites and maybe a graduate degree. So, a couple sets of questions for my very knowledgeable readership:

• If you're a senior undergraduate in chemistry, how many more years of courses would you have to take to get a B.S. in chemical engineering? 
• If you've graduated with a degree in chemistry, how many more years of courses would you need to get a B.S. in chemical engineering? Should you just apply to graduate programs in chemical engineering?
• Would you get laughed at for applying to graduate programs in chemical engineering as a B.S./M.S./Ph.D. chemist? What programs are best for this transition?
• If you've become a Ph.D. chemist, how long would it take to make this transition? Does anyone know anyone who has done this? How have they done? 
• What level of math do you need? If p-chem was hard for you, are you completely screwed or what?

Thanks in advance. 

A very good point by Jyllian Kemsley

William Banholzer and a group of other high-level chemical corporation executives wrote a letter in this week's C&EN, where they really took academic chemical safety to task* ** -- and used an interesting metric to do it:

The facts are unequivocal. Occupational Safety & Health Administration statistics demonstrate that researchers are 11 times more likely to get hurt in an academic lab than in an industrial lab. There have been serious accidents in academic labs in recent years—including fatalities—that could have been prevented with the proper use of protective equipment and safer laboratory procedures.

 Most chemistry and chemical engineering graduate students will find employment in industry. As new hires come on board, many companies spend weeks on remedial safety training before new hires are allowed to work in their labs. This clearly shows that the current state of graduate safety education is lacking and that there is a clear need to address it. If the report is supposed to focus on “preparing graduate students, about the future,” how can this not be a relevant topic?

Jyllian Kemsley unequivocally rejects the use of the metric yesterday (but agrees with them on the general need for academic chemical safety reform):

The “11 times more likely” statistic is inaccurately framed. I followed up on it with the letter authors and Lori Seiler, Dow’s associate director for environmental health and safety in research and development. The numbers actually compare the overall injury and illness rate for academic institutions (including those that might occur, for example, in grounds keeping or a dining hall as well as in laboratories) to Dow’s overall rate. Seiler adds that the injury and illness rate for Dow’s research laboratories is consistent with the company’s overall rate, when calculated per employee. 

That said, it seems like it would be wise for the academic community to take this letter to heart.  Banholzer, Calabrese, and Confalone are not writing in a vacuum—they see the skills that chemistry graduates lack, and those skills are necessary whether those graduates are going on to work in industry, academia, or elsewhere.

This is not the first time that Dr. Banholzer has used this metric; here's a tweet where he said it in February. (Interestingly, Jyllian Kemsley raised the same concerns. Even more interestingly, the statistic seems to have grown from a 7:1 academia/Dow ratio to 11:1.) I believe that this metric was used in Dr. Banholzer's presentation to the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

While I am also in agreement that academic chemical safety could learn from industry, I think that Dr. Banholzer is missing the regulatory aspect of the different approaches between corporations and universities. Corporations are employers, and thus have legal responsibilities to provide a safe workplace and state and federal regulatory agencies to help make that happen. There is no similar requirement or regulatory agency for graduate students and universities. (Note that Sheri Sangji was a research technician and an employee of UCLA and Professor Harran, thus involving Cal/OSHA -- if she had been a graduate student, I'll bet the outcome would have been very different.)

I also really doubt this comment in the letter:

As new hires come on board, many companies spend weeks on remedial safety training before new hires are allowed to work in their labs. This clearly shows that the current state of graduate safety education is lacking and that there is a clear need to address it.

I doubt that it is literally "weeks", and if so, I suspect that it's 6 days of bureaucratic nonsense about the structure of EH&S management and accident reporting, and 4 days of actual useful training. I'm more than willing to believe that industry does a better job of safety training, but I just don't think this is a very probative statement.

Finally, I also think that it is unfair for large corporations (Dow, DuPont and Corning) to compare the safety rates of experienced employees (what is the median age of a Dow bench scientist? 42? 45? The median age of an industrially employed ACS member in 2010 was 48) versus the safety rates of the relatively young graduate students and postdocs that populate academia. They're very different populations with very different risk assessment capabilities.

*Background: Some people, including Richard Zare, were quoted by Celia Henry Arnaud in her comprehensive article that the safety section in the report seemed a little out of place.  

** While we're at it, it is frustrating to me that this report makes vague references to recent incidents in academic chemical safety, yet refuses to talk about specific cases (e.g. Yale/Dufault, TTU/Brown, UCLA/Sangji.) 

Daily Pump Trap: 5/9/13 edition

Good morning! Between May 7 and May 8, there were 21 new positions posted on the C&EN Jobs site. Of these, 4 (19%) are academically connected and 8 (38%) were from Kelly Scientific Resources.

Toronto, Canada: This is a classic example, in my opinion, of the bogosity of some industrial postdoctoral positions. From Encycle Therapeutics:

Post-Doctoral Scientist 

The position is centered in synthetic organic chemistry with an emphasis on peptide chemistry; research will be carried out on macrocycle synthesis, purification and structural analysis; the Post-Doctoral work will be carried out under Dr. Andrei Yudin, scientific founder of Encycle, at the University of Toronto, St. George Campus; the position is full-time, 1 year renewable contract. 

In what sense is this a postdoctoral position? Is Dr. Yudin going to provide some sort of special training or opportunity? Why not just call it a "temporary senior scientist (renewable)" position and get it over with? What's that, you say? Postdocs are paid lower? Oh - never mind.

Torrington, CT: Dymax Corporation is hiring a senior adhesives R&D chemist; 5-15 years experience, M.S./Ph.D. desired.

Montvale, NJ: Reckitt Benckiser is a personal care products company; they're looking for 2 research associates to work on anti-bacterial technology. B.S./M.S./Ph.D., 1-6 years experience desired.

Hartford, CT: Simoniz USA is looking for a detergent formulation chemist; not much guidance provided as to education or experience level.

Cambridge, MA: This is how you do an industrial postdoc. Via Schlumberger, the oil services firm (emphases mine)

Schlumberger-Doll Research, based in Cambridge, MA, invites applications for a Post-Doctoral position in its Geochemistry group. 

The candidate will join our team conducting research on oil and gas shales, which are unconventional fossil fuel resources that have experienced dramatic growth in recent years.  Shales are a kind of rock composed of inorganic minerals and organic matter referred to as kerogen (similar to coal), and these complex materials are heterogeneous on length scales below one micron.  Our research aims to understand fundamental properties relevant to shales such as transport through nanoporous materials, sorption of hydrocarbon gases to organic and inorganic surfaces, and propagation of fractures through complex materials.  For this work we are looking for a postdoc to measure correlated chemical, mechanical, and thermal properties of shale on length scales below a micron.  The postdoc is expected to investigate fundamentals of shale, participate in our active collaborations with academic and industrial partners, and publish findings in the peer-reviewed literature.

I don't think it's too much to ask to advertise ahead of time what the "training" (i.e. compensation other than money) is about ahead of time.

UPDATE: SeeArrOh points out correctly that I missed this hilarious job requirement:

Strong laboratory skills including the ability to construct and operate homebuilt instruments are expected. 

A very interesting postdoc indeed.

Sacramento, CA: Ampac Fine Chemicals desires a B.S. analytical chemist for method development; 5-7 years experience desired.

Thanks, Kelly: Cheese Technology Specialist position, Lomira, WI.

A broader look: Monster, Careerbuilder, Indeed and USAjobs.gov show (respectively) 239, 709, 2,637  and 13 positions for the search term "chemist." LinkedIn shows 111 positions for the job title "chemist", with 4 for "research chemist", 14 for "analytical chemist" and 2 for "organic chemist."

This is what we're reduced to?

Via John Spevacek, a funny little note on the reddit "Jobs 4 Bitcoins" forum:

I have a B.Sc. in Chemistry and am currently employed in the polymer/plastics additives field. I can help with homework, Analytical, and Organic Synthesis.

Couldn't hurt to have a side gig in a side currency, I suppose.

How other people see chemistry Ph.D.s

From the blog of Noah Smith, a graduate student in economics at the University of Michigan an assistant professor of economics at Stony Brook University and a reasonably prominent economics blogger:

Basically, I think of PhDs as mostly falling into one of three categories: 

1. Lifestyle PhDs. These include math, literature and the humanities, theoretical physics, history, many social sciences, and the arts. These are PhDs you do because you really, really, really love just sitting and thinking about stuff. You work on you own interests, at your own pace. If you want to be a poor bohemian scholar who lives a pure "life of the mind," these PhDs are for you. I totally respect people who intentionally choose this lifestyle; I'd be pretty happy doing it myself, I think. Don't expect to get a job in your field when you graduate, though. 

2. Lab science PhDs. These include biology, chemistry, neuroscience, electrical engineering, etc. These are PhDs you do because you're either a suicidal fool or an incomprehensible sociopath. They mainly involve utterly brutal hours slaving away in a laboratory on someone else's project for your entire late 20s, followed by years of postdoc hell for your early 30s, with a low percentage chance of a tenure-track faculty position. To find out what these PhD programs are like, read this blog post. If you are considering getting a lab science PhD, please immediately hit yourself in the face with a brick. Now you know what it's like.

(Note: People have been pointing out that EE isn't as bad as the other lab sciences, with somewhat more autonomy and better job prospects. That's consistent with my observations. But econ still beats it by a mile...)

I think that's a pretty bogus reading on lab science Ph.D.s, even if it is connected to the infamous (and rightly so) Guido/Carreira letter. Yes, there's a low percentage of Ph.D.s who make it into the tenure track, but that's not the goal of most/many chemistry Ph.D.s. I agree with the characterization of brutal hours, but I think "slaving away" is probably a metaphor too far.

The problem is, in my opinion, that Professor Smith conflates the jobs scenario in biology (and also neuroscience) in which supply is clearly being fueled by (past) NIH funding increases with other fields (chemistry, electrical engineering), where limited economic growth and other structural changes probably have a role to play in the relatively difficult industrial jobs environment.

He goes on to say that economics Ph.Ds. are where it's at, because you're more or less guaranteed a job. Uh, if true, good for them.

UPDATE: There's something missing in my brief analysis, which is trading the correct words for the hyperbolic "suicidal fool or an incomprehensible sociopath". Here's how I would phrase it:

Chemistry Ph.D.s are Ph.D.s that you do if you love the actual doing of science more than you love most other things, including money, status, joy and family.

Readers, care to add your comments?

UPDATE 2: Corrected to note that Professor Smith is, well, a professor. Added the word "industrial."