24 ms·
Similarly, from Zed Shaw (http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html) : "People who can code in the wo
by MasterScrat 15y ago
Similarly, from Zed Shaw (http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html) :
"People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect. People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance those disciplines."
- archgoon 15y agoThis seems at odds with the statement from the article "There needs to be a real shift in mindset away from worrying about how to get published in Nature and towards thinking about how to reward work that will be useful to the wider community." EDIT: What the heck is wrong with this? We have two opinions on the perceived value of programmers in scientific enterprises, one from someone who works in the field (David Gavaghan) and another from Zed Shaw. I'm highlighting that Zed's perception is not universally agreed upon.
- ldar15 15y agoDont feel too bad. HN has become full of people who believe that the correct response to something they disagree with is to mod down, instead of to reply with a rebuttal. It sucks, but others will mod you up.
- ignifero 15y agoThis sentence strikes me as astonishingly hypocritical. Nature can immediately do 2 things to make the science they publish vastly more useful to the wider community: 1) Remove the paywall 2) Require publishing the code for computational papers (and the data for experimental papers) Nature Group only cares about maintaining its status as a high impact factor journal, and scientists sheepishly submit to them. They actually love it that scientists worry about getting published in Nature.
- vacri 15y agoget published in Nature = food on the table useful to the wider community = warm fuzzy feeling Ideally you'd get both, but if it's one or the other, for most people a full belly wins.
- earl 15y agoMy experience is while they may be respected, they aren't paid. And I'm not a charity.
- crocowhile 15y agoNobody is paid for doing research. The salary of a professor is about 1/3-1/5 of what the same person may get in industry. People who do research don't do it for the money.
- jonathansizz 15y agoI agree with your point, but I'd add the modifier that if you're a top-notch developer who forms an interest in a specific sub-discipline in science (my field is genomics, but there are many others where this would be equally applicable), there is certainly huge potential to carve out a niche and make a big name for yourself in your chosen field (as long as you take the science side as seriously as the coding side). Then you certainly could make big money, as Shaw implies and as you'd surmise from reading the linked article.
- stevenbedrick 15y agoYeah, but you know who gets even more screwed, salary-wise, than the professor? I'll tell you who: their lab techs and staff scientists ("research associates"), and that most definitely includes the "programmer who knows some science". Furthermore, at least at my institution, being the "programmer who knows some science" means that your position is entirely funded with "soft money", which means that your level of job security can be pretty low.
- earl 15y agoThat's fair, but you know what those professors get? Tenure. ie not getting fired unless they're caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. And they typically get paid with hard money as stevenbedrick notes.
- gaius 15y agoEveryone thinks they're underpaid, but the truth is, academic skills do not transfer well to industry. I refer you to the discussion in Ghostbusters: "Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."