Academic vs. Industrial Research Science
Working in both industry and academia has helped me understand some major differences between academic and industrial research. For instance, in industry some goals of a research scientist are profitability, efficiency and novelty. If a product or method is novel but not profitable, it will not find a home in industry. In academic research, however, novelty will at the very least produce a paper regardless of how profitable or applicable the science really is. Applicability will generate public interest and hopefully grant money, which also must be a goal of a research scientist in academia, but it may or may not be the main goal.
Often times (but not all), the scientific discoveries that industry fuels are eventually patented or kept as company secrets in order to hold the monopoly in that given area until some new invention replaces it. Many people look adversely on this process and believe scientific discoveries should be public knowledge so that all can benefit. Without industry, however, those scientific discoveries would most likely never reach a consumer market as academia hasn’t the manpower nor the machinery necessary for large scale operations.
On the surface it may seem like industry prioritizes money while academia prioritizes the simple pursuit of discovery, but in reality both are looking to make a buck, its just not as obvious in academia. If a research group in academia is not attracting grant money, it will cease to exist. Much of a graduate student’s life in research is spent learning the art of selective wording so that they can present research in an alluring way and tell the truth of a project’s shortcomings without making the errors seem unintentional so they may receive funding. In other words, a graduate student is trained to be a skilled illusionist, and a Ph.D. means one has mastered it. Is the practice deplorable? Since the goal is to tell the truth and still come away with a grant, I suppose not. Constantly teetering on the edge of a lie may make it easier to wander a little too far, and many certainly have fallen off the edge and have found themselves in worlds of trouble for it… at least those who were caught.
You will not find the same song and dance in industry, as the science simply must work. The goal in industrial research is to make a profit, and weak science will not produce this result.
More clout tends to accompany a scientist in academia as opposed to those in industry, and the only solid reason for this is that scientists in academia publish their findings and receive public attention and credit for their discoveries. A scientist in industry may produce hundreds of more useful ideas and discoveries in contrast to his academic counterpart, but the world will most likely never know it.
The greatest lure for any lover of science is the ability to create freely and have ownership of his or her work. Academia answers this where industry most often cannot. Sometimes, though, it is more important for a scientist to have a greater impact on the world and facilitate the development of more scientific achievements than any individual could hope to accomplish on his or her own. Industry answers this where academia most often cannot.
Who is to say which is more important?
As someone applying for his Ph.D. in Chemistry, reading your article made me sad :( Academic and industrial research isn’t just about making money to me. The sole reason that I gravitate towards a graduate’s degree would be to acquire the knowledge, experience, and training so that I can make the necessary efforts to improve humankind for the better. In short, I just want to save the world. You make several great points though. It’s a shame companies would hide something that would be beneficial to the world just to keep the cash constantly flowing to their wallets. It’s time we did something about it right?
I guess there is a premise to all this that I never mentioned, which is that anyone who chooses to become a scientist must have a passion for it. My talk of money flow was not aimed at the individual scientists, it was aimed at the institution they must work for. If you become a scientist for the money, you will be sorely disappointed. I cannot fathom anyone doing research who didn’t have a passion for it. I also did briefly mention a few personal motivations for scientists toward the end, but perhaps I should have drawn a starker contrast between institutional motivations and personal ones.
I agree that in principle, its a shame companies must keep secrets in order to make some money. Like I said though, as it stands today if that didn’t happen, we would never receive the benefits from these discoveries as they’d never make it to a consumer market. Industry also turns academic research into something that can benefit the masses, otherwise your efforts in graduate school may never be more than a paper.
I’ve experienced the pros and cons of graduate school and industry, and sharing the same passion as you toward research, I can tell you there will be things that can make you jaded in both… but I’ve not lost my passions, and neither will you I’m sure :)
I agree. I don’t think a scientist that is absent of passion or a goal could exist. It’s an oxymoron; It’s kind of like a gay republican :)
I can tell you are definitely a scientist and I love that. Never lose your passion. I wish there were more people like you in this world – free thinkers determined to make this planet a better place. I hope you share the same world-saving goal as I do.
Thanks :) Yes, I have my own ideas on how to save the world with science. By the way, what concentration in chemistry have you chosen to study for your Ph.D?
I’m going to be concentrating on inorganic chemistry. I’m so old. I’ll be much older by the time I finish the Ph.D. I wish I decided on all of this sooner. I’m probably older than you. I’m 25 and I think I’m already getting wrinkles. Anyways, what is your particular field of expertise?
How does that saying go? The youth is wasted on the young haha! Fantastic…
Oh, I forgot to mention it will also depend on the university that I will be accepted to. Main focus will be inorganic chem, but I’ve been eyeing (or “eying”… I thought “eyeing” was the correct spelling…) this Green Chemistry, Ph.D. It’s very interesting.
It’s ok, I’m a wrinkly 25-year-old also. Inorganic was my field of study too, and its funny you mention green chemistry. I’ve always been passionate about photovoltaics and solar cell research. Unfortunately/fortunately, I’m employed in analytical chemistry and since my involvement here I’ve realized a degree in analytical chemistry is FAR more likely to get you a job than inorganic or green chemistry is. Best chance for the latter two is staying in academia all your life, which I’d like also.
My “expertise” is in analytical food chemistry AND quantum dot research (graduate school).
Ahh, it’s like two peas in a pod. I’ve been communicating with a professor on his research on nanostructures and how the material, size, shape, and crystallinity affect PV cells. PV and solar cells seems like a field that would more than… energize me lightly… :D
I figured analytical chemists would be more sought after because companies are looking for a body to work the instrumentation. I don’t want to be just another body. I’d rather just stay where I am now and keep my current job, which would be more satisfying. Oh, and I’m not saying you’re just another body either. So an analytical food chemist hmm? I guess that means you’re a chef and you cook? You can be the next Walter White.
What are your plans for now? Just work? Why not continue your academic side of your life and go for a Ph.D? Be my lab partner!
I cook at home, but not at work. That’s left to our sensory department. We work on the volatile oil content, stability, quality and development of hops extracts (largest producer in the world), beta-carotanoids, antioxidants and various other oleoresin products. The lab I work in takes on both internal and external jobs, so there’s always a new problem to solve. Your assessment of industry requiring individuals to understand the instrumentation is true, but our technicians are trained to work the machinery and carry out that work the majority of the time. The role of a scientist in industry is the same as a graduate adviser in academia. They develop new methods and products and then the work is delegated out to technicians. The scientist compiles data, extrapolates what it means and gives more direction to his team.
Honestly, if your passion is to save the world, working in industry is your best bet and will be most fulfilling. I wrote this blog largely due to the misconceptions people have about working in industry… you seem to have a few yourself ;)
My company is footing the bill for my continued graduate studies and I’ll finish my Ph.D. One thing about science: if you want to do research, you must have a graduate degree. There is no way around it.
And the reason for companies seeking analytical chemists over others… analytical chemistry teaches how to apply the scientific method to instrumentation rather than just bench chemistry. The ability to research and develop an instrumentation method that will coincide with your bench study is essential because we are truly only as good as our analytical/sensing capabilities. Analytical chemists stay on top of the latest and greatest technologies, and that admittedly appeals to my gadget obsessions.
That being said, I think any chemist could probably sit down and do any kind of chemistry… the point of a Ph.D. is to teach you how to learn. But the people hiring are usually not Ph.D’s themselves, so they look for keywords that fit their company mold best, like “analytical.”
The chef, cooking, and Walter White references was in regards to the show Breaking Bad and it was intended as a joke; it’s about a chemist that “cooks” crystal meth.
I understand the roles of the scientist in industry and roles of the scientist in academia fairly well. You’ll have to remember that I’m just as “old” as you are, and I may likely have the same amount of research, in both quantity and quality, under my belt as you do. One of the many things I’ve learned in life is that things are different everywhere, yet they are the same. As vague as that may appear to be, it applies to the roles scientists play in industry and the academic side as well. My ex-undergrad classmate, a really good friend of mine, is an industrial analytical chemist now, and he takes the role of what you’ve assigned as the technician’s job. In the end, it’s just a chain of command.
I, too, have a gadget obsession. I still have an uncontrollable smile utilizing our $340k NSF funded EPR spectrometer.
I think any chemist, with certain resources, can sit down and do any kind of chemistry, but not just any chemist without resources. From what I’ve learned, chemistry is too vast a field to understand and develop an expertise in all of its fields. That’s why it’s separated into categories. Ask the organic chemist about inorganic chemistry and you’ll see what I mean. He or she will refer you to an inorganic chemist. Of course, I’m quite sure you already understand all of this.
The people without Ph.D’s that are hiring are smart enough to know that “analytical” is synonymous with “problem solver” – the only reason why they look for that keyword. They want people to figure out the problems, so that they don’t have to do it themselves. What they don’t understand is that the general chemist can perform the job just as well.
Sorry, I forgot to acknowledge the show. I *love* Breaking Bad. I got the plug ;) You have good taste!
I’m glad you understand the roles of science well. I will not argue with you on my differing opinions of this any longer, I don’t think it will get anywhere. We draw our opinions from our own experiences, and those will vary. I will admit though, I’ve had the leisure of working for private companies rather than giants like Pfizer. Smaller companies place many roles on one person more readily, while larger ones stick you in the niche they hired you for and you rarely expand beyond it. I would not want to become a part of that.
Analytical doesn’t really mean “problem solver” in regard to analytical chemistry. It means you have a strong knowledge of sensing technologies and instrumentation, which industry uses big time.
On geeky instrumentation, I liked playing with the TEM the best. It looked like Borg technology when the lights went off.
Borg technology lol. You’re a Trekkie! I loved the movie, Star Trek (2009). It’s one of my favorite movies. They’re making two sequels! One is due in a year. When they altered the time line, I thought it was genius! A true revamp of the series.
Thank god I’m not alone in this! We share the same idea’s in regards to your post. :-)