What happens when I don't rant about how crappy things are in academia?

Well before I even comment on the life of a post-doc debate. The physicist that wrote the rant on Not becoming a scientist, also wrote this lovely moronic, idiotic, bigoted article http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html entitled "In defense of Homophobia"

I really wouldn't take anything he says with much worth.

As for the post-doc debate, I am currently a post-doc. An undergrad in my lab just asked whether she should go to grad school or not. I told here the truth, as she can see it every day in the lab. It means long hours and non 6 figure incomes. It means busting your butt to work on something that only about 1% of the population can understand with any depth and it means scratching, begging, pleading for money to fund your lab. It also means that you get a PhD for free and make a living wage while doing it. If you choose to go to Boston or San Francisco for your PhD then you know ahead of time that that money isnt going to go very far. But if you go to St Louis or Baltimore or Chapel Hill that money goes much farther. If you are just concerned about making $200,000 a year then this isnt the job for you. If you want to discover something that no one has ever found before, if you want days where it sucks but days where you get so excited from a result that you have to run around in circles to stop shaking then this is the job for you. We all know those days dont come too often but the emotional pay off is huge because of it.
If you cant handle the ups and downs then go to law school and take depositions from some old fat guy getting a divorce and make your $200K a year. Getting a PhD does in no way warrant a faculty job at the school of your choosing. Thats not how this job works and if you got into this not knowing that then that is your own fault.
Stop all this whining. If you are a post-doc now and have nothing to show for 3 or 4 years of work, change labs. Do something new. Innovate. There are millions of questions still to be answered, just figure out how to do it. If the baby steps of the figuring out which serines or threonines are in a protein are phosphorylated during which part of teh cell cycle is boring to you then do something else! No one is going to give you a job for just figuring out the minutia. Think big. And figure out what questions need to be answered in whatever field your in. If you are in a field with 10,000 labs all working on the same 1 protein, get the hell out! What were you thinking joining that lab anyway.
Just my 2 cents.

I think there's a "rant conservation" theorem somewhere...

Yes Matt, I would agree. Some of my pissy comments are just blowing off steam. Yes the key point (as you say) is

If you want to discover something that no one has ever found before, if you want days where it sucks but days where you get so excited from a result that you have to run around in circles to stop shaking then this is the job for you.

But the costs (in terms of time, money and viability of your central nervous system) can be great. So to all you out there thinking of entering postdoc-hood, be prepared.

I like Matt's rant. I have given the same advice many times. Do it only if you love it. If you don't love what you do and you find it hard to get excited about your results (even small ones) than you have chosen the wrong path. Science has lots of boring tedium which is part of the process. You don't have to love that part of it but you have to be driven to do it. You definitely won't be successful otherwise. That being said the whole thing is still a big risk, but, it could be a lot worse. As hard as my days can be I'm still glad I don't have to sweep the floors or take out the trash.

My impressions on the subject, for what they're worth:

I'm the total-geek, living-for-my-research type, and I love the emotional rollercoaster of discovery enough to put up good-naturedly with the tedium that fills in the space between the highs (I avoid thinking about the lows as much as possible... denial can be a powerful tool). I'm in my final (5th) year of grad school in Europe, in the field of microbiology/molecular genetics, and I'm slowly starting to scout for a postdoc in the US. Why the US? for the labs, for the country itself and for the boost it'll give my CV. Of course since I have a big ego I want to land a gig in a big lab, which I hope should be A) interesting, B) a good springboard for the rest of my career in academia. (Yep, I'm an optimist)

I've collected a lot of information on postdoc-hood, and I'm going in with my eyes open, ready to cope with the crazy hours, the lousy pay and the hazard to my CNS. I'm willing to be a slave, if it will allow me to experience that rare headrush that will send me running in circles to stop shaking.

And I'm fine with the 20% chance of making it to PI because when I look around me, I find my fellow grad students to be comparatively very weakly motivated to pursue that kind of career. They just don't seem to have that much drive, and are more progressing along the grad school path because it's the logical continuation of their degree, and because immediate job prospects with just a Biology degree are rather bleak, rather than doing it out of enthusiasm for research itself. They say they like it, but it's a day job, y'know? To be fair, I'm not saying they're not good at it, but there's no... fire, I guess. So I figure, if that's the competition, being passionate gives me a head start.

Um, 'kay, rant over. In case you were wondering, I don't have a point, I just wanted to give a POV illustration. Sorry for waffling on, I'm a Belgian. (sorry for the bad pun too)

PS: what's 'big biology'?

Part of the problem is having to deal with advisors who just aren't good managers nor teachers. Having to deal with that BS that comes with that drives people away when you add the long hours (which are made longer because of the poor management skills) and not so great wages. Poor teaching & management by advisors selects for those that come from more advantage backgrounds.

The selection just isn't for those that are passionate for science but passionate relative to other things in life. That is measured indirectly by hours spent in lab. Faculty members tend to reward those that work long hours regardless if they are producing more. Time spent away from lab= time wasted is the mindset. What happens with that sort of selection? People tend to stay in lab longer than they need to. Those with other passions in life tend not to want to put up with such BS and are more likely to leave science. This includes those who are passionate about teaching science. I think that is a sham. In the US we need more scientists to have more connections outside of science.

heh....as a now "senior" grad student (on the way out, phew!), i'm giving sage advice to 1st, 2nd (and surprisingly 3rd and 4th and so on) year grad students on the phd process.....and here I am, trying to make up my mind on which post-doc I should take up.

It's hard getting it all together, and a lot of stress......but that's the thing about science, you do it hoping you'll do something cool, and all the other crappy things disappear from your mind...

Any comments on the pros/cons of an industry postdoc vrs a postdoc in academia ?

PS: what's 'big biology'?

Big Biology is a term for labs that have these huge projects like "double knockout of the entire yeast genome" or "protein interacterome". Anyone that tries to systematically study all genes, or huge screens where they are not looking for some gene in particular but trying to categorize all genes. Unless it's one of a hand full of labs, stay away.

Any comments on the pros/cons of an industry postdoc vrs a postdoc in academia ?

I've been told that if you want to eventually go into industry it is probably wise to postdoc in industry, if you want to attempt to become a PI, postdoc in academia. Industry used to be a bad word, but it isn't so much anymore. It is harder to move from industry back into academia than vice versa, but not impossible.

Here is my 2-cents on the postdoc issue:

Nobody is guaranteed a faculty position just like no one is guaranteed any particular job with a particular company. And many deserving people that apply for faculty jobs don't get them and lots of brilliant people don't even want a career in academia. However, I've noticed in my own discipline that many people end up shooting themselves in the foot, careerwise. Either they don't trust themselves and their ideas enough, or they don't put in the effort and time it takes to learn what they need to learn to go to the next level. A lot of people hide in their labs, do what their advisors tell them, go to conferences and don't try to meet people or talk to other scientists about science. If you're not willing to scare yourself and take chances, don't apply for a postdoc. Do something else. The truth is, it's not your advisors job to get you a job or advance your career. The best you can hope for is that they will facilitate you doing it yourself.

My experience is that postdoc hours are actually not that long. Seriously, most people don't spend all those hours in the lab..you know, actually working. People certainly surf the internet and comment on blogs a lot while they're waiting for stuff to happen in the lab. And I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but don't call it working.

The uncertainty about the future is pretty stressful, though.

Ni Hao! Kannichi Wa!Wrong on most points except 5 which contradicts point 3 in most cases. In real science by its nature, everyone is a career "post-doc" in continuous training for life and that is the way it should be. When that ends, one is merely a technician, a worker on the 8 to 5 line. The basic flaw is that "post-doc" issues seem to center more than ever on the classical pre-70's view of a "post-doc," professional training of limited duration as an extension of Ph.D. training as a stepping stone to a distinct professional position as tenure-track/tenured professor type lab group leader for life. These days are gone forever and it is time to stop reminiscing of the nostalgic past.Point 1: Opportunities in science for a post-doc (and even those without a Ph.D.) are more diverse than ever. If one sticks with basic research through the Noble Prize level, expect the lowest pay. If you want high pay, go into industry, science administration, policy or law, or better yet start your own business.Point 2: There are plenty of jobs related to academia at all levels, with various degrees of independence and responsibility, within established research structures from extended lab groups, centers within institutions, instructors, research track professors, etc. Degree of independence comes with concurrent responsibility with completely on your own in a small business the most independent, but the most vulnerable.Point 3: This could be a disaster. This advice conflicts with point 5. Such big name labs are often pits of brutal competition, poor mentoring other than data production, duplication, waste, etc. The glamour might help you find an initial glamorous position, but then it may possibly be over your head, and you end up as a flash in the pan because you did not get the non-technical skills to negotiate the pitfalls. If you go for mature labs, look for those that have produced scientists with a sustained career of productivity, not just one that gets you an initial job based on the name. As an alternative to the advice, seek out a small laboratory of sustained productivity and mentorship that has the highest percentage of total personnel that came to it that ended up with a sustained professional career record, e.g. tenure, advancement in international recognition, etc. In a small intensive research team with the proper mentor you may receive much more transition to independence training, grant writing, manuscript writing, overall design of the work, than in an intense data production large laboratory. Even more against the writer's advice, identify an up and coming lab in which you will be a key player. In any setting, make yourself uniquely valuable, either in a unique project, or unique technology beyond a kit technician as microscopy, antigen retrieval, instrumentation, embryo manipulation, etc.Point 4: Applications research is in vogue and will be for years to come because of the public's demand for endpoint results and profit unfortunate as one might see it. This direction offers tremendous long term career opportunities and for flexibility in the future, seek out these type ventures for post-doc experience. Find a lab where you can participate in interactions with companies, participate in patent writing and ownership of intellectual property. Find a place where you can write industry type reports, proposals for sponsored research agreements (SRAs) and maybe even be a consultant.If you can find a rare post-doc in industry, take stock options as part of your pay as far as you can stand it. You may end up rich if the company goes the right direction. Try to catch association with a PI in industry that is academically minded, most optimum one who has just moved into industry from academia, and still wants to publish with you (after patenting of course).Point 5: This contradicts point 3. In most cases, there is really no difference in terms of your long term training for non-technical skills as a science professional in big operations whether basic or technology development, or data production as genome sequencing.Point 6: "Gwanxi" (relationships, connections, networking) is important in any context, but much less so in American style science. In other societies it is much more important including Canada and Europe, but much more so in Japan and back on the Yellow River where it can be so pervasive that it sustains corruption and is inhibitory to the whole enterprise. Ironically, work experience in the American enterprise for a foreigner is a plus for a position back in the home country except for a native born American. Work experience for a native-born American back in another country is not yet a plus for a position back home in America.

I'm curious why you think "big biology" is a dying fad and why you think most of the the proteome/some-other-'ome papers have little/no scientific value [besides frequency of citation, which seems like a somewhat coarse measurement tool]. Given the funding statistics that you cited in earlier posts, it seems like big biology is very much in vogue ...

OK there's lots of comments on "Big Biology".

First, big biology DOES NOT EQUAL big/renowned labs. The most important work right now is NOT coming out of big biology. Look at the list of editors at Cell, arguably the biggest names in the life sciences - and how many of them are practicing big biology? Just flip through Nature, Science, Cell (or Nature Cell Biology, JCB ...) where are all the "big biology" papers? 3-4 years ago they were everywhere, now they are not in the big journals, these papers offered no insight and are mostly forgotten, the whole concept was oversold.

Yes lots of money is being thrown at Big Biology projects and lots of senior big shots are in big biology, but from this year's job circuit, how many postdocs from big biology labs got jobs? Not many. It's a trap. Don't ask me, ask Bob Weinberg.

Nobody is guaranteed a faculty position just like no one is guaranteed any particular job with a particular company. And many deserving people that apply for faculty jobs don't get them and lots of brilliant people don't even want a career in academia.

Former astrophysicist talking here...

I think apples and oranges are being compared here. In most industry jobs, you aren't guaranteed a job with a particular company, but you do have more or less some reasonable hope of staying within that industry. Even with the tech bubble, most of my computer programmer friends that got laid off with me, ended up with computer programming jobs somewhere.

Academia is unique in that you can spend a whole bunch of time and effort, and not get anything in the area that you spent the whole bunch of time and effort in.

When I was an undergrad my biochemistry professor was asked by a parent of some high school kids that were planning on majoring in biology if he thought trying to become a professor in biology was a good idea. I never forgot his response. He said that when someone asks him is biology professor a good career move, he always replies, "no". "Its a terrible one." "Its alot like asking someone is going out to Hollywood to try and become a famous actor/actress a good career move?" Its obviously not a wise decision. But if you feel it in your bones and can't imagine doing anything else, its for you. If you have to "decide", then decide "no!"

I have to respctfully disagree about the "big biology" hating. I think it's natural to feel like lots of money has been wasted on nothing, and in some ways it has, but it's a totally new field. There's been a lot of unwarranted hyperbole and I understand how you feel like it hasn't lived up to expectations, but that's only because the expectations were unreasonably high. You're absolutely right that there's a lot of crap out there, but systems biology isn't alone in that respect. It has taken a little while for people to realize that they can't do this kind of work alone, but they're coming around. The best work is being done by teams that have expertise in the biology as well as the data wrangling and statistics side of things, and less good work is coming from groups of biologists who are just doing microarrays on everything, and a different kind of work is being done by bioinformaticians coming from the computer science side of things who don't quite understand what problems biologists need solving. However, it's all part of the process and, if done right, has enormous potential.

There's been a lot of unwarranted hyperbole and I understand how you feel like it hasn't lived up to expectations, but that's only because the expectations were unreasonably high.

Grady, I agree 100% (I guess just venting out my frustration at DB and other big shots who sprearheaded the "small biology is over" lecture serries).

I guess I should be glad in a way that I'm somewhat separated from all that down here in New Orleans.