5 ms·

What a great story. Chemistry truly is an unappreciated science. Another field where it is essential in studying, learning, fixing - environmental issues. Ther

by pomian 2y ago

What a great story. Chemistry truly is an unappreciated science. Another field where it is essential in studying, learning, fixing - environmental issues. There at many biologists, and ecologists, but few chemists. We need them in governments which form regulatory bodies, engineers for the industry, and chemists in the lab. Water, soil, and air chemistry are essential disciplines, and exciting. The world is complex. We need more teachers that understand the need and use for chemistry - which would lead to a more educated population that could understand the world around them, better.

selimthegrim 2y ago
I wish the market listened to you.
- eru 2y ago
  Why? People who studied chemistry typically have access to high paying jobs. So the market agrees that chemistry is great and useful.
  - bdrencher 2y ago
    I think this is true for chemists with a lot of experience, but starting out in the field is brutal for most. Finishing your undergrad and realizing the most you can make is around $35k/year doing basic lab rat work is tough. The only other options are to go to grad school or leave the field entirely. The grad school route offers another 4 to 6 years of low pay and then possibly having to go through a post doc to ultimately land a job paying 80-100k/year. Tack on the student loan debt (from undergrad) and it paints a bleak picture. Background: I studied chemistry as an undergrad and started a PhD after an internship at Merck. I couldn't see how I could support my family long term so I switched to tech.
    - kragen 2y ago
      the idea that chemistry is not part of tech is a big part of the problem
      - bdrencher 2y ago
        I agree! When I started my PhD I wanted to use software to help sift through the ocean of research papers and pair that with micro fluidics to create a way to quickly determine the validity of novel reactions. None of the professors were interested in working with me on something like that.
        kragen 2y ago
        i didn't mean 'the idea that chemistry is not part of software' 'tech' is short for 'technology' in the oed's sense 1b, 'practical arts collectively', for which their first citation is from 01859, referring to, as it happens, chemistry; specifically, the formulation of varnishes for wood https://archive.org/details/oed9barch/page/n548/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/oed9barch/page/n548/mode/1up possibly also the second half of their sense 1a, '... the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts,' for which i think the first citation is from bentham in 01802–12 obviously in the 19th century they weren't talking about software your idea is good though i hope you do it
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        It is not. Chemistry is just a special sub-field of manufacturing. Nearly all manufacturing uses chemistry in some way. But in general manufacturing has nowhere near margins of "tech".
        kragen 2y ago
        if you are starting from the assumption that drug development and other such research chemistry is 'just a special subfield of manufacturing' then obviously you are not going to come to any sensible conclusions, and i am sure your errors are widespread
        2y ago
  - jyunwai 2y ago
    A software developer who earned a Bachelor's in chemistry once told me that he didn't find that the pay in chemistry was worthwhile considering the expertise and training involved. He said that the most available job for chemical research for someone with a Bachelor's was as a lab technician, which roughly earns about $40,000 USD a year: not bad, but far below an engineering or computer science graduate, despite the comparable difficulty for completing the degree. For chemists who complete a doctorate, a brief search shows that a PhD graduate (after 4–7+ years of low pay as a graduate student after a Bachelor's) can plausibly earn about $125,000 USD with some luck as a starting salary as a scientist in industry. A Master's graduate can likely earn close to that. But I've heard that the job market is tougher for research positions—a fair number of people switch into other fields such as medical device sales and sales engineering (with eye-wateringly large salaries of plausibly greater than $400,000 USD a year from what I've heard), data science, or software. But careers aren't only about the money, though. It sounds like the author of the submitted article has lived a fulfilling life without a primary focus on salary, and it certainly looks like people who enjoy chemistry research won't struggle financially for their efforts. However, there's still a salary gap, especially at the level of a Bachelor's: it looks clear that other fields pay a lot more for similar amounts of effort. Note that I lack personal experience in this field, though—people who have gone through this path likely have better, more specific insights about the career.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    In the US, chemistry is a very saturated field. There are nearly twice as many graduates as job openings each year. Starting pay averages are on par with a grocery store cashier.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - eru 2y ago
      Interesting. And https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-approval-program/data-reports.html https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-approval-program/... also says that chemistry has about equal numbers of men and women graduating. Other stem fields that pay more, tend to have more men. (I will not speculate about causes. I'm only noticing a correlation.)
      - trimethylpurine 2y ago
        Sure, I suppose you might say that if a field is welcoming to more workers then it's more likely to become saturated. I'm not sure if that's where you're going but, it makes some sense. That said, I think it's more likely that loan incentives for STEM majors have steered too many people into job skills that aren't in demand because education and education policy both lag far behind industry. Policy making is almost always slower than economic flux by an exponential margin. That's why capitalism works for decades and centuries longer than other more policy dependent economic systems. Oh well... The beauty of life is you can change your mind and make a career in anything you can figure out. Well, unless you are already carrying $50k in student debt that can't be dismissed through bankruptcy, like many chem grads are in the US. We can thank the government for helping us decide on a STEM degree. Some will argue that we signed up for it, so we should have to pay it. But, that makes no sense. The FTC is there to protect consumers who get sold on bad loans and false claims of benefits. Who is protecting students? I think that's the bigger issue, if we're talking about chemistry in the US.
  - choilive 2y ago
    No, they generally do not.
eesmith 2y ago
Perhaps we need a big promotional campaign. Oh! What about "Better Things for Better Living...Through Chemistry", or more simply, "Better Living Through Chemistry"? We can promote how great DDT is at getting rid of bugs, how PCBs make an excellent transformer oil, chromium(VI) as an anti-corrosion additive, that neat use of tetraethyllead (let's just agree to call it "ethyl", ok?) for engine knock, CFCs for cooling and fire suppresion - why, the list goes on and on. Rachel Carson? Never heard of her. Superfund? Sorry, I don't read comics.
aa-jv 2y ago
Chemists also enslave people with drugs. There's not an addictive substance out there that wasn't created by a chemist for the purpose. This "noble scientist" narrative is dangerous. It implies that technically/scientifically competent individuals are 'good guys', when this is simply not the case.
- defrost 2y ago
  Alcohol abuse predates Alchemy, alcohol regularly makes "most addictive substances" lists. Elephants get drunk on alchol w/out the intervention of a chemist, just plain old natural fermentation. I understand your point, but there is that one blindingly obvious screaming exception that's a, ahh, elephant in the room.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    Whoever discovered alcohol was the first chemist. Whoever got drunk on it, the first addict. They could be the same.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > Whoever discovered alcohol was the first chemist. How does drinking|eating naturally fermented fruit or grains make someone a chemist? You understand that elephants "discovered" alcohol also, does that make elephants chemists? Even recreating the natural process on demand later on barely rates as "chemistry" given the lack of any need to understand the process.
    - vibrio 2y ago
      I think the point of that reply was that There was no “one moment” alcohol and drunkenness was discovered. It’s been there since fermentation and cognition evolved-before any intent was possible.
- LM358 2y ago
  Opium, cannabis et. al. would like a word with you...

by pomian 2y ago

selimthegrim 2y ago

I wish the market listened to you.

eru 2y ago
Why? People who studied chemistry typically have access to high paying jobs. So the market agrees that chemistry is great and useful.
- bdrencher 2y ago
  I think this is true for chemists with a lot of experience, but starting out in the field is brutal for most. Finishing your undergrad and realizing the most you can make is around $35k/year doing basic lab rat work is tough. The only other options are to go to grad school or leave the field entirely. The grad school route offers another 4 to 6 years of low pay and then possibly having to go through a post doc to ultimately land a job paying 80-100k/year. Tack on the student loan debt (from undergrad) and it paints a bleak picture. Background: I studied chemistry as an undergrad and started a PhD after an internship at Merck. I couldn't see how I could support my family long term so I switched to tech.
  - kragen 2y ago
    the idea that chemistry is not part of tech is a big part of the problem
    - bdrencher 2y ago
      I agree! When I started my PhD I wanted to use software to help sift through the ocean of research papers and pair that with micro fluidics to create a way to quickly determine the validity of novel reactions. None of the professors were interested in working with me on something like that.
      - kragen 2y ago
        i didn't mean 'the idea that chemistry is not part of software' 'tech' is short for 'technology' in the oed's sense 1b, 'practical arts collectively', for which their first citation is from 01859, referring to, as it happens, chemistry; specifically, the formulation of varnishes for wood https://archive.org/details/oed9barch/page/n548/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/oed9barch/page/n548/mode/1up possibly also the second half of their sense 1a, '... the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts,' for which i think the first citation is from bentham in 01802–12 obviously in the 19th century they weren't talking about software your idea is good though i hope you do it
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      It is not. Chemistry is just a special sub-field of manufacturing. Nearly all manufacturing uses chemistry in some way. But in general manufacturing has nowhere near margins of "tech".
      - kragen 2y ago
        if you are starting from the assumption that drug development and other such research chemistry is 'just a special subfield of manufacturing' then obviously you are not going to come to any sensible conclusions, and i am sure your errors are widespread
        2y ago
- jyunwai 2y ago
  A software developer who earned a Bachelor's in chemistry once told me that he didn't find that the pay in chemistry was worthwhile considering the expertise and training involved. He said that the most available job for chemical research for someone with a Bachelor's was as a lab technician, which roughly earns about $40,000 USD a year: not bad, but far below an engineering or computer science graduate, despite the comparable difficulty for completing the degree. For chemists who complete a doctorate, a brief search shows that a PhD graduate (after 4–7+ years of low pay as a graduate student after a Bachelor's) can plausibly earn about $125,000 USD with some luck as a starting salary as a scientist in industry. A Master's graduate can likely earn close to that. But I've heard that the job market is tougher for research positions—a fair number of people switch into other fields such as medical device sales and sales engineering (with eye-wateringly large salaries of plausibly greater than $400,000 USD a year from what I've heard), data science, or software. But careers aren't only about the money, though. It sounds like the author of the submitted article has lived a fulfilling life without a primary focus on salary, and it certainly looks like people who enjoy chemistry research won't struggle financially for their efforts. However, there's still a salary gap, especially at the level of a Bachelor's: it looks clear that other fields pay a lot more for similar amounts of effort. Note that I lack personal experience in this field, though—people who have gone through this path likely have better, more specific insights about the career.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  In the US, chemistry is a very saturated field. There are nearly twice as many graduates as job openings each year. Starting pay averages are on par with a grocery store cashier.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 2y ago
    Interesting. And https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-approval-program/data-reports.html https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-approval-program/... also says that chemistry has about equal numbers of men and women graduating. Other stem fields that pay more, tend to have more men. (I will not speculate about causes. I'm only noticing a correlation.)
    - trimethylpurine 2y ago
      Sure, I suppose you might say that if a field is welcoming to more workers then it's more likely to become saturated. I'm not sure if that's where you're going but, it makes some sense. That said, I think it's more likely that loan incentives for STEM majors have steered too many people into job skills that aren't in demand because education and education policy both lag far behind industry. Policy making is almost always slower than economic flux by an exponential margin. That's why capitalism works for decades and centuries longer than other more policy dependent economic systems. Oh well... The beauty of life is you can change your mind and make a career in anything you can figure out. Well, unless you are already carrying $50k in student debt that can't be dismissed through bankruptcy, like many chem grads are in the US. We can thank the government for helping us decide on a STEM degree. Some will argue that we signed up for it, so we should have to pay it. But, that makes no sense. The FTC is there to protect consumers who get sold on bad loans and false claims of benefits. Who is protecting students? I think that's the bigger issue, if we're talking about chemistry in the US.
- choilive 2y ago
  No, they generally do not.

eesmith 2y ago

Perhaps we need a big promotional campaign. Oh! What about "Better Things for Better Living...Through Chemistry", or more simply, "Better Living Through Chemistry"? We can promote how great DDT is at getting rid of bugs, how PCBs make an excellent transformer oil, chromium(VI) as an anti-corrosion additive, that neat use of tetraethyllead (let's just agree to call it "ethyl", ok?) for engine knock, CFCs for cooling and fire suppresion - why, the list goes on and on. Rachel Carson? Never heard of her. Superfund? Sorry, I don't read comics.

aa-jv 2y ago

Chemists also enslave people with drugs. There's not an addictive substance out there that wasn't created by a chemist for the purpose. This "noble scientist" narrative is dangerous. It implies that technically/scientifically competent individuals are 'good guys', when this is simply not the case.

defrost 2y ago
Alcohol abuse predates Alchemy, alcohol regularly makes "most addictive substances" lists. Elephants get drunk on alchol w/out the intervention of a chemist, just plain old natural fermentation. I understand your point, but there is that one blindingly obvious screaming exception that's a, ahh, elephant in the room.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  Whoever discovered alcohol was the first chemist. Whoever got drunk on it, the first addict. They could be the same.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > Whoever discovered alcohol was the first chemist. How does drinking|eating naturally fermented fruit or grains make someone a chemist? You understand that elephants "discovered" alcohol also, does that make elephants chemists? Even recreating the natural process on demand later on barely rates as "chemistry" given the lack of any need to understand the process.
  - vibrio 2y ago
    I think the point of that reply was that There was no “one moment” alcohol and drunkenness was discovered. It’s been there since fermentation and cognition evolved-before any intent was possible.
LM358 2y ago
Opium, cannabis et. al. would like a word with you...