That’s right, kids. I managed to snag myself a writing internship at last. I’ll be starting at Reuters Health next week. Don’t have much of an idea how I managed to do it, but I did write the world’s most obnoxious cover letter for that application. That might have gotten the editor’s attention. It was a combination of that plus persistence, I imagine. Regardless, yay me!

Off I go, into the wild murky yonder. Photo by flickr user Vermin Inc.

But this is mixed news. I’ll be pretty busy with this internship (and I’m also still writing my thesis, ag), so I won’t be blogging here any more. That’s the sad part.

I want to thank everyone for reading for the past six months. It’s been mostly fun, occasionally hard, and always educational. The blog roundtable from a few weeks ago was definitely the high point, although my interview with Conservation Scientist Greg Dale Smith was a blast, as was meeting Jorge Cham. Smashing a vuvuzela ranks up there, too.

I also want to send my gratitude to my fellow roundtable bloggers: Matthew Hartings, Paul Bracher, and super-duper most especially Chemjobber. He started out as a resource, and turned into a friend. I’ll miss chatting about job stuff with you, CJ.

And sorry if this is starting to sound like an academy award speech, but I also want to thank everyone at CEN for their advice and support, especially Bethany Halford, Jyllian Kemsley, Carmen Drahl, Amanda Yarnell, and Rachel Pepling. Especially especially Amanda and especially especially especially Rachel. How will I cope in the future, in a post-Rachel world? I really don’t know.

So. While all this is sad for me, it might be good for you–a new Electron Pusher is needed. CEN wants to keep this blog going! Send an email to r_pepling AT acs DOT org if you’re interested. We’ll also need a few guest posts too, if you want to test the waters before plunging in, polar bear-like. Or if you just want to write one post. Whatever.

Okay, I’ll be moseying along now. You can still find me at my sad neglected blog (maybe), but definitely on twitter. See ya around.

Will O'Neal, courtesy photo.

“Basically,” O’Neal said, “I am a policy advisor for anything that relates to energy policy, science, research and development, nuclear security, and foreign affairs.”

As a Legislative Assistant O’Neal’s work is highly varied, but heavy on the research and writing, usually involving current events. And it’s mostly, as you might guess, advising.

“I keep the Congressman informed about policy developments or news that affects my legislative portfolio. I write talking points and background materials on upcoming bills and for legislative hearings or floor action in the House. I prepare the Congressman for public events and staff him at meetings. I develop policy proposals and draft legislation. I meet with interest groups and constituents,” O’Neal said.

And as you also might imagine, a lot of this work is short deadline and highly depends on the news of the day. So it’s a pretty far cry from doing research in a lab. But even so, that doctoral training comes in pretty handy.

“The skills you learn in science – how to think skeptically about the world, do research, and write – are universal,” O’Neal said. “I have to do really fast research on a daily basis, and I have to be able to pick out what is reliable information and what isn’t. Then I have to be able to summarize it quickly in a way that anyone can understand.”

O’Neal is happy with his chosen career, although working in Congress can be both rewarding and frustrating, he said.

“This job offered the chance to learn new things everyday on an array of different topics and to share that work in a way has a direct impact on our society,” O’Neal said. “But I think overall, the most important thing that is missing in my job is the time to really dig into a topic and gain some depth and expertise. I think if I had more opportunity to delve deeper into certain subjects I could be a better asset to my boss.”

O’Neal never was really interested in industry, and although he liked teaching, didn’t think he’d make a good academic. He learned of careers in public policy by seeing a poster in his grad school hallway advertising the AAAS Policy Fellowship program. While still in grad school, O’Neal got involved in the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. After finishing his PhD, he taught for a year at the Center and managed the Policy Research Shop, “which is a great program that allows undergraduate students to do policy research projects for the New Hampshire and Vermont state legislatures,” he said.

After that, O’Neal was awarded the ACS Congressional fellowship, which is part of the AAAS program. He was placed with Rep. Holt, and hired on after his fellowship was up. He’s worked there a total of two and a half years.

Capitol Hill, photo by flickr user VinothChandar.

For scientists interested in going into policy, O’Neal highly suggests getting some kind of experience in politics before moving forward.

“You will be disappointed if you come to the Hill expecting that scientific arguments win the day,” he said. “Politics is about weighing competing interests, and there may be very legitimate reasons for doing the exact opposite of what ‘science tells you to do.’ It’s very important to understand and respect that part of the job.”

He recommends the AAAS program as a way to figure out if policy is what you want to do, but suggests getting some experience even before you do that.

“Go volunteer on a political campaign or at your representative’s local office,” he said. “You might be surprised at what you see and you’ll be doing a good thing.”

Like most other jobs right now, O’Neal said that employment on Capitol Hill is hard to get.

“It’s tough to find a job on the Hill, but Members and committees are always looking for talented professionals with special expertise. The real difficulty for scientists is that offices like to hire people that have Hill experience. Many staffers get experience by starting off as interns and working their way up.”

This sounds kind of painful for someone who just slogged through 5 years of a PhD, which is why O’Neal recommends the AAAS program. But I’ve heard from a few people that’s getting extraordinarily competitive as well. Remember that program isn’t just for recent grads–anyone with a PhD can apply, which means the applicant pool is potentially huge. The deadline for next year has already passed (December 5), but I found a huge list of policy fellowships at Sheril Kirshenbaum’s blog at Discover. She started it last year, but it looks like she’s been updating as she finds new ones. I haven’t clicked through to find out if they’re all still active, so caveat emptor.

There’s a lot of information about science policy out on the interwebs, but I recommend starting at Science Career Magazine. Good luck!

UPDATE (1/6/11): Leigh passed on a lovely note from Alison Gershen from the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships staff. They also have an extensive list of resources on their site for those interested in policy work. — Rachel

And since I just can’t resist data, here’s one more chart I though you might find interesting. The NSF also publishes an ongoing total of number of PhDs awarded by subdiscipline. Here it is from 1960 to 1999. Sorry for the fuzziness.

SOURCE: NSF report on US Doctorates in the 20th Century, Appendix A

So in yesterday’s post, CJ talked about the present and future of industrial jobs in chemistry. “Chemists are facing lower-than-average hiring and an unemployment rate that is the highest in 20 years at 3.9% (according to the 2009/2010 ACS Salary Survey),” CJ said. And it came up in the comments, like it always does: how much of this can be blamed on new PhDs coming into the marketplace? Are we really overproducing chemistry PhDs?

Fortunately, the numbers of doctorates produced each year in many fields of study are tracked by the NSF, who puts out a short report in November and a longer one in December. The most recent one says that in 2009, there were 49,562 doctorates awarded in the United States in all science and engineering fields. That’s up 1.6% over 2008, an increase that’s almost totally due to a rise in women getting these degrees. This is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, but I thought it was interesting. Moving on.

The NSF breaks down these numbers into separate fields of study. And look, I took their data and made graphs!

They consider biochemists life scientists, while chemists fall under the physical science category. This makes things a bit convoluted later, but that’s why they’re separated here. SOURCE: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resource Statistics, 2009 Survey of Earned Doctorates.

As you can see, the number has fluctuated a bit over the last ten years, but the general trend has been up. Last year, there were 2,398 PhDs awarded in chemistry and 859 in biochemistry. The chemistry number is up 6.2% from 2008 (2,247), while the number of new biochemists is down 4.5% from the year before (898). There was a small spike of chemistry PhDs awarded in 2006 (2,362), and biochemists seem to have maxed out (minimally) last year. Overall, the number of fresh new chemists has grown 11.0% since 1999 (2,132) and biochemists are 11.6% more popular than they were ten years ago (759).

So, what does this mean? Well, that there are more chemists now than there were 10 years ago, but I think we could have all guessed that. The real question is, how many jobs have there been available in since 1999?

There’s a problem with that question. Namely, that there isn’t an answer to it. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in 2008, chemists held 84,300 jobs. But that’s all chemists, BSs, MSs and PhDs together. Besides, that’s people holding jobs. How many chemistry jobs open up each year? We know that CJ tracks the ads in C&E News, but of course not everyone advertises there. And not all jobs are even advertised anywhere; supposedly, only about 60% of openings ever blink in the sunlight. And how would you count alternative careers? Does it count as a “chemistry job” if it’s in policy, communication, or law?

These reasons, among others I’ve surely missed, are probably why these data don’t exist. And without solid data about the number of jobs out there, we can’t possibly say if there are too many PhDs being awarded.

But what we can do is guess. The NSF tried to hack away at it a bit, by asking new PhDs what their job plans are. They call them “Definite Postgraduation Commitments,” and go on to say, “The proportion of doctorate recipients reporting definite commitments is an indicator of the overall strength of the job market for doctorate recipients and the availability of positions relative to the supply of new doctorate recipients.” Unfortunately, in this case they don’t separate the chemistry numbers out from the rest of physical sciences. So the data graphed below includes all kinds of physics, astronomy, math, and earth, atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

SOURCE: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/NASA, 2009 Survey of Earned Doctorates.

Please note the data range on the side before you get all crazy. But still. That looks like a pretty strong upward trend. To put things in perspective, the number of PhDs awarded in the physical sciences in 2004 was 3,350. Of these, 2,116 had definite commitments upon graduation. That’s 63.2%. In 2009, 2,829 of the 4,289 doctorates awarded had a job or what-have-you lined up. That’s 66.0%. Overall, 2.8% more of new PhDs had some kind of paycheck to turn to last year than five years ago. That doesn’t sound like they’re having a harder time finding jobs to me.

Oh yes, I can hear you shouting in the back there. “But I bet more of them are taking post-docs!” Well, I hope you didn’t bet too much on that, because you’d lose. It’s about the same. A tiny bit less, even.

NOTES: These numbers are given as percentages, and they’re based on the number reporting definite commitments for employment or post-doctoral training/study in the United States. Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. SOURCE: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/NASA, 2009 Survey of Earned Doctorates.

Very tiny. In fact, all those bar sizes up there look about the same. Now I do remind you, those numbers are for all physical science PhDs.  Would it look drastically different with only the chemistry data? Don’t know. Wish I did.

The BLS also puts out an employment outlook for chemists. Their 2008 report states “Job growth is expected to be slower than average for all occupations.” That’s for the next ten years, and they mean that jobs will increase anywhere from 0 to 9%. I went and dug up the same numbers from ten years ago (not an easy feat on a government website), and found that in 1998 they said that job growth would be average (meaning it will increase 10 to 20%) up to 2008. I think they flubbed on that one, since they say that there were 96,000 employed chemists in 1998. Their 2008 report says that chemists plus materials scientists together held 94,100 jobs that year. (They didn’t differentiate between the two in 1998.) That’s a loss of 1,900 jobs, or about 2%. Of course, it would have been nearly impossible to predict the slow keening death of the pharmaceutical industry, but that’s precisely why you can’t bet your bottom dollar on predictions like this.

What’s more interesting is their data on salaries. My colleague at CEN, Bethany Halford, is writing a longer article on this topic for inclusion in next month’s magazine. She suggested to me that a lot can be learned from watching how much chemists get paid. The BLS puts data out on this as well. In 1998, the median chemist salary was $46,220. If we adjust this for inflation, we get $61,051 for 2008 (I used this calculator). So if demand for chemists decreased, the 2008 mean salary should be less than this. The BSL reported the actual number as…$66,230.  That’s a raise of 7.8%. According to that, chemists are still in demand. [ETA: Bethany mentioned in the comments that the starting salaries of chemists has fallen, suggesting that demand for chemists has decreased.]

So, what gives? All hard data we have suggests that new chemistry PhDs are doing okay in the job market [but being paid less, see above note], and that chemists are still being paid the same or more than they were ten years ago. But does this match reality? I know a lot of my colleagues in grad school are having a very hard time finding jobs. This is anecdotal, though. And it seems that, in the past, it’s been quite common for established scientists to point that black finger of blame to those newly anointed in the field when times get tough. Like here. Or here or here or here. People have been saying there are too many PhDs for many many years. Is it truer now that it was then? Is it true at all?

You know what I’d like to see? Some of that NSF data broken down by subfield, ie organic, analytical, materials, etc. Especially the data on definite US commitments. Because I think Chemjobber had a very good point when he said:

“Today’s hot field could be tomorrow’s old-and-busted outsourcing minefield. Certainly medicinal chemistry was the hot field, ten years ago. This is a fundamental problem with professional scientist training in the US. While the market will always be clamoring for trained scientists today, the labor supply is close to a decade behind.”

Which is similar to the point Derek Lowe was making here. Do we have too many PhDs being produced? Yes. And no. There is a glut of medicinal chemistry and synthetic organic people, probably. But there aren’t enough electrochemists or people to work on new energy storage systems, like CJ pointed out. But how can we possibly know what kind of scientists we’ll need in twenty, ten, or even five years? We can’t. It sucks but there it is.

So…what can we do about it? Well, not much. I think it’s an obvious answer that incoming students should be aware of the job market before they even think about grad school, but well…that’s likely not going to happen. Did any of us know what we were getting into when we started grad school? I sure didn’t. And I think most incoming grad students don’t have the brains or foresight or whatever to do a lot of research into this as they’re starting out. Hell, a lot of students go to grad school because they don’t really know what else to do when they get that undergrad degree.

Is it the adviser’s job to instruct a new student on job prospects? I think we could debate this until the cows come home to roost, but it’s not going to do much good, simply because it seems to me that advisers would NOT see it as their job.  For one, I wonder how many professors pay attention to the job market at all. (They already have jobs, after all.) For two, apart from the student being nuts or the PI already having a maxed out group, I can’t imagine a prof that would turn students away, since we all know that students = hands in the lab = more research being done = more papers = more stuff to put in grants = more dollars = tenure = more students and so on and so on. (Please understand that I’m not saying that ALL advisers are like this, but many are.) So  a prof saying, “Gosh, don’t join my group! You won’t get a job when you graduate, because the field is so tight”? Riiight.

So no to students figuring out job prospects on their own, and no to advisers filling them in. What’s left? In an ideal world, I think PhD granting programs should each have their own career counselor, at least part-time. That’s obviously not going to change the job market, but it would at least give potential grad students a heads up about what they’re about to subject themselves to. (Er, in one respect, that is.) Or even if it’s worth their while at all.

What I don’t think will work is putting a limit on the number of PhDs given out every year. While it may curb overproduction in one subject, it will likely lead to shortages in another. Even if there was some almighty overseer that would say, “We will allow blahblah number of PhDs in X this year, and some other number in X,” it would be a total crapshoot to get those numbers right. And you’d end up with out of work chemists, just like now. Or people trained in the wrong area.

So there’s one thing I kinda skipped over here. Since new PhDs are having about as hard a time getting jobs as they have in the past five years (according to the NSF numbers), and unemployment for chemists is relatively high, are new PhDs forcing older, more established scientists out of their jobs? Unfortunately, the data we have for that is completely anecdotal, therefore not citable, therefore not trustworthy. So this will ultimately end up, like most of the things I’ve brought up here, a guessing game.

Okay, Readers. I’ve said my piece. Now say yours in the comments.  A note: if you haven’t commented here before, your comment has to be approved before it shows up. (It’s the software.) So please be patient if you don’t see it right away. I’ll be approving as fast as I can!

Please be sure to check out Bethany Halford’s CEN story in January. She’s been interviewing actual people, so it should be pretty interesting.

And with that, take it away Paul!

Well, maybe not the century, but it should be pretty good. Starting Monday, Chemjobber, ChemBark, ScienceGeist and I are going to hold a blog roundtable about the future of jobs in chemistry.

Participants in next week's roundtable. Image by flickr user hellabella.

On Monday, Chemjobber will discuss Beryl Lieff Benderly’s “The Real Science Gap” and add his own opinions on the future of the job market in industry.

.Tuesday, I’ll will be jawing on the numbers from the NSF‘s recent doctoral report to try to answer the question “Are there too many PhDs being awarded in chemistry?”

Wednesday, Paul at ChemBark will talk about tenure and why it’s not a good system.

Thursday, Matt at ScienceGeist will delve into government’s role in science employment.

And then on Friday, back to Chemjobber who will summarize the week’s discussions and comments.

Read! Comment! Be astounded! Tell us we’re stupid! Whatever, just participate. The best discussions have people talking, after all.

See you next week.

A scientist turned science policy dude that you may have heard of: DOE Secretary Steven Chu. He's flanked in this picture by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and former California State Controller Steve Westly. Image by flickr user jurveston.

When was the last time you attended a talk outside of your specific area of research? I study physical chemistry and recently went to a talk by Dr Paul Nurse, a 2001 Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine. I don’t have a strong background in biochemistry, but background in biochemistry, but how often do you get the chance to hear a Nobel Laureate speak? I went with my whole lab group and found a packed auditorium. After the talk our lab heartily agreed that Dr.Nurse was an excellent speaker but that we all had no idea what he was really talking about. This is not meant to be a slight on Dr. Nurse, because I am sure that if he attended one of our physical chemistry seminars he would have a similar experience. Scientists and researchers typically can easily communicate within their own research community but those outside the community cannot penetrate the barrier of scientific terms, jargon, and basic knowledge of the field needed to achieve full understanding of the work.

If this is a problem for scientists who are from somewhat similar scientific disciplines, imagine the difficulty that someone without a scientific background will have when attempting to understand the importance of research results. This is a problem that plagues decision makers that require the findings of scientific research to create sound policy but do not have the time to sift through reams of published papers in an attempt to understand the results. This is where scientists who are able to have a deep understanding of research and can still communicate effectively with a broad audience are extremely valuable. Entering the field of science and technology policy is an option for those who wish to leave the laboratory behind but have a desire to use their technical background in a manner that has direct impact on policy decisions made.

Here are a few opportunities in policy that you can explore while enrolled in graduate school and after graduation.

Go into science policy and you too can meet interesting people in government. Jinormous belt buckles are optional.

Certificate Programs

Graduate certificates are earned alongside your normal degree, similar to a minor on an undergraduate degree and are meant to supplement your program’s coursework. Many graduate institutions now offer graduate certificates in the area of science and technology policy. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a fairly complete listing of institutions offering such programs here. These are a great way to gain policy skills and backgrounds while demonstrating to potential employers that you have an interest in the world outside of your individual research area.

Fellowships:

AAAS offers the prestigious Science and Technology Fellowship program. This year-long fellowship is open to all social and physical sciences, but requires you to have obtained a terminal degree in your field of study before applying. The fellows are placed in a number of different administrative offices, covering defense, energy, agriculture, and health services.

The National Academies offer the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Graduate Fellowship Program. They look for graduate students in a broad range of fields and fellows work with a mentor within the Academies on various policy projects. It is only a 12 week program, making it ideal for current graduate students.

Hi, this is Leigh again: I found one more–the ACS Public Policy fellowship. You have to be done with your degree and an ACS member to apply. Applications are due December 31, so get on it!

Thanks to Paul for a great post. I’m going to be profiling someone who received the ACS fellowship in the next couple of weeks, keep your eyes peeled for that.

Chemist. Entrepreneur. Oh, and he might just save a bit of your sanity. Alan Marnett is the founder of BenchFly, “a web-based resource and holistic, everyday guide for the entire career of a scientist.”

Alan Marnett, courtesy photo

Marnett is just the sort of guy you might expect to see in a chemistry lab. He’s a third-generation chemist. “Even as a kid, it appeared my chemistry genes were highly expressed,” Marnett joked. “Actually, it was probably more like my ‘will-these-two-kitchen-items-blow-up-when-I-mix-them’ genes.”

He received a Ph.D. in Chemistry and Chemical Biology from UCSF and went on to a postdoctoral position at MIT, intending to eventually go into academia.

“However, two years into my postdoc, I began to question whether an academic position was right for me,” Marnett said. “While there were many aspects I loved about becoming a professor, I felt I owed it to myself to at least consider other opportunities–to sort of career date before deciding to marry the lab.”

But which career to date? “I found I gravitated toward entrepreneurial opportunities. I like the idea of trying to turn a dream into a reality, whether it’s pursuing a specific research project or starting a web-based resource for scientists.”

It was during Marnett’s undergraduate work at Trinity University that the idea for BenchFly first shimmered into being, although he didn’t realize it at the time, he said. There he worked with a postdoc named Chad Peterson, who had both a passion for teaching and “golden hands,” as Marnett put it.

“Every reaction he set up seemed to work,” he said. “Chad taught me all of the tips and tricks he’d learned over the years, and it was those techniques that gave me the skills and confidence to continue in research.”

But when Marnett got to grad school, he discovered that not everyone was like Peterson.

“I realized that whether a student gets properly trained or not is unfortunately pretty random—it depends on the project, the lab, the PI,” he said. “I saw many colleagues end up in bad situations that eventually soured them on research and drove them to leave science altogether.”

But Marnett thought that there must be a better way.

“I wanted to try to develop a resource that supported scientists and made them feel that they have a mentor and partner committed to their success both in and out of the lab–like a virtual Chad,” he said.

So Marnett got to work. It took about 10 months to get BenchFly off the ground, officially launching in 2009. “I find I get much less sleep these days than I did as a postdoc, but I love it.”

BenchFly’s mission is to “provide researchers with the community and tools they need to develop both professionally and personally in order to make research a better career today and for future generations of scientists,” he said. “Science is about much more than just performing experiments, so we try to tackle issues both in and out of the lab that affect our lives as researchers.”

Informed scientists are happy scientists! Although please be more informed than this and use proper personal protective equipment. Image by flickr user laimagendelmundo.

During development, Marnett realized that scientists and entrepreneurs have a lot in common.

“In science, we identify a problem that interests us and that we think, if answered, will be a significant contribution to science/health/society/etc. Then we go about systematically figuring out how to solve the problem. Entrepreneurs do the same thing. I think scientists make great entrepreneurs in part because of our critical thinking skills. As a result, many of the skills you need to succeed as an entrepreneur, you probably already have,” he said.

However, the freedom of entrepreneurship can also be a bit scary.

“Starting out as an entrepreneur, it can be very difficult to know which decisions may end up setting you back and since there are lots of choices to make, the independence can also be stressful.”

To aid the process, Marnett recruited a support network, including a scientific advisory board. He knew the importance of having mentors to provide advice and guidance in the lab and realized that he would need the same in this entrepreneurial venture.

“What may seem like a bullet-proof idea at first may have serious unforeseen challenges that could ultimately bring it down,” he said.

Fortunately for Marnett, that hasn’t happened. And he’s not done building yet. “We’re working on a number of features for the site as well as some really fun projects that are not Internet-related that I wish I could talk about, but you know the old saying—‘I could tell you, but I’d have to…’”

In the meantime, there’s plenty to see and share at www.BenchFly.com via commenting, submitting guest articles or uploading videos. “Topics range from professional to personal to recipes to, well–Chuck Norris,” he said.

And despite the stress and lost sleep, Marnett said, “I feel very lucky that I have the opportunity to realize my dream and work towards creating a resource I hope will have a positive impact on scientists worldwide.”

Thanks so much to Biochembelle for the great guest post!

Donna Wrublewski, courtesy photo.

It all started when my mom and I discovered Doctor Who when I was about 5 or 6. I wanted to be a “mad scientist” who ran around saving the world. Science in general, and astrophysics in particular, captured my imagination. When I learned that fireworks were the result of chemical reactions, I was sold on chemistry. I felt an engineering degree would be more practical than a chemistry degree so I studied chemical engineering as an undergrad at MIT. However, all the pipes and numbers didn’t really agree with me, but my polymer science classes did, so that’s the direction I went in for graduate school. I went to the University of Massachusetts Amherst for my master’s and doctorate degrees, and worked mainly on mechanics of polymers. I learned all aspects of polymer chemistry, physics, and engineering, which made me very well suited for my current position – a librarian!

I had been considering information science for a while, particularly after having experience with traditional academia and industry – neither one felt a perfect fit. Academia felt too “cut-throat” and single-track. I took time off from graduate school to work in industry, and it felt equally as single-track, as well as too dependent on the economy. I found my current job posting on Twitter, which was a perfect metaphor for my job talk (Chemistry and Web 2.0 technology, and how it applies to libraries).

I learned all the resources I am now teaching to my patrons by actually being a graduate student in chemistry. I know where to direct them for reference questions and help them find the info they need, because chances are, I once needed the same thing. When I started, I immediately had a good rapport with graduate students because at the time, I technically still was one (I just finished my PhD this summer, after starting at UF in January). Having advanced degrees in chemistry has helped me interact with the faculty as they value the subject expertise I bring to this position. And the library faculty and staff are wonderful, especially because now they can refer people to me when they want to learn SciFinder.

Librarians with PhDs in science fields are becoming more common. Many librarians that I met at the last ACS conference also have advanced degrees. Librarians are becoming more than just collection curators, we’re the information gatekeepers. Having subject knowledge is becoming more valuable, and the field of “library science” will gradually become more “information science” as knowledge access and learning are increasingly taking place outside traditional library and school settings.

Being a tenure-track faculty librarian, I have all the benefits of being a faculty member, plus the freedom to explore pretty much whatever suits my fancy in the chemical or information science fields. Library research tends to be more social science-based than lab work. However, working with faculty in your field is something the library highly encourages, so there’s always the chance to get back into the lab should I so desire.

A little light reading, photo by flickr user audreym.

In addition to research, I’m responsible for the chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science & engineering, and nanotechnology library collections at UF. I provide both general library and subject-specific training and reference services. I’m also a book buyer, contract negotiator, question answerer, chemistry teacher, faculty advisor, committee member, freshman mentor, and whatever else comes my way. Typically I spend a few hours a day providing general reference service and taking chemistry-specific referrals from other librarians. At the beginning of the semester I’m teaching, either specific classes for chemistry students, general library instruction, or citation management software. Instead of saving the world, I save graduate students’ sanities! The fact that I don’t have a library degree means that I try to attend webinars and workshops to learn about how libraries actually work and trust me, it’s not as simple as you think.

I definitely recommend getting to know your librarian and library if you want to consider a career in this field. Know what kinds of information are out there and know how to access them. Be technology-savvy – know what the new platforms and developments are because chances are you will be using them and teaching them to others. Teaching experience is a huge plus as you will need to show people what resources are available to them and how to use them. I couldn’t be happier with the choice I’ve made for a career, even if it is outside the norm. Don’t be afraid to try something just because it’s different or you think you might not like it – you will always learn from the experience.

Thanks to Donna for the great guest post!

So yeah, we’re married. He knows what I do. I know what he does. Plus Nels just likes the chemistry. So between the two of us, we were able to come up with several additional ways that chemistry and cooking are the same. But also different.

.

A recipe log is totally like a lab book

I don't have a chefy picture of Nels, but he kind of looks like this, minus the decapitated Stormtrooper. Image by flickr user Brintam.

Nels was the executive chef at a French/American/Creole restaurant here in town for a number of years, which means he was in charge of developing new recipes to put on the menu. Record keeping for this process was done in a recipe log, which sounds a lot like a lab notebook to me.

“When you set out to create a recipe, you start and you write down everything you put into a dish, then you make it, then you evaluate it,” Nels said. If it’s not so good? Then you start making changes. “But not too many changes at once,” he said. “Then you evaluate it, and if it’s still not what you want, you make more changes.”

It goes on a while like that, he said. Change, record, change, record.

“You need exact repeatability,” Nels said, so the cooks on the line can make it the same each time. And for each recipe, “you go through at least three iterations, and some times as many as ten.”

.

Making new molecules is NOT like making new recipes

So how many times have you walked into the lab and thought, “Gosh! I’d better use up the rest of that n-butyl lithium before it goes bad!”

This is actually how a lot of new recipes get made in a commercial kitchen. It’s a matter of necessity, Nels said.

“You may have x amount of an ingredient in the restaurant that you have to use up, and it’s not enough to make some other recipe, but you don’t want to just throw it away,” he said. “So you take that ingredient and make something with it.”

A lot of knowing what kind of tastes to pair with what comes from experience, but to create something totally new? That takes working with something Nels calls his “mind’s taste.”

“I start out with the main ingredient of the recipe and I imagine in my mind what it tastes like,” he said, “then I got through seasoning containers and open them up and smell them and imagine what they would taste like with that specific ingredient in mind, if they would go together well.”

This also works if he’s trying to recreate a recipe that he’s had somewhere else.

“You think back in your taste memory about all the flavors were in that dish, and think back in your taste memory what’s in your pantry,” he said.

I don’t recommend coming up with new molecules this way.

.

Working on a line is sorta like working at your hood

A line cook, like CJ was talking about, is “very much an assembly job, kind of the equivalent of a technician,” Nels said. You don’t need those recipe creative tools mentioned above, because in most cases, you’re just doing exactly what the sous chef is telling you to. You need basic cooking skills, but not the creativity and knowledge of a higher-level chef.

There are a lot of chemists like this, sure. But I think most of us have much more brain going into our syntheses.

Another thing that’s different is the time pressure. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had my PI stand over my shoulder and yell, “I need five grams of 2,3-disubstituted tetraphenylporphyrin NOW, Leigh! NOW!”

Shouting doesn’t happen in every kitchen, Nels said, although “loud vocalization” is quite common.

Knives are a cook's best friend. Image by flickr user greg.turner.

But one thing that’s really really important in a kitchen, like a lab, is organization. Because of the time pressure and high need for repeatability, you have to know where your tools are, be they knives, ingredients, or towels (Nels is very particular about his towels). And this is something that most people just don’t have innately, he said.

“I’ve worked with lots and lots of graduates from the best cooking schools, who were just complete idiots (in this regard),” he said. (Did I mention that Nels is self-taught? He started out as a dishwasher at the restaurant where he came to be executive chef.) “They could produce one dish at time just fine, but when asked to make forty at a time, they didn’t know where to begin because they weren’t organized.”

Standing at a hood doing a very time-sensitive reaction, or running multiple columns at once requires similar organizational skills. You need to know where that syringe or flask is to get the next step done in a timely and efficient manner.

But probably the most import skill you would need, besides the organizational thing, is knowing how to use a knife properly.

“How to use a knife is first and foremost,” he said. “But really all you need is a little bit of instruction and a lot of practice.”

A lot of community cooking schools offer knife skills classes, but Nels said he taught himself to use a knife. “I saw other people using knives much better than I did, and watched them and did what they did.”

So could a chemist go work in a kitchen? With practice and training sure, Nels said. And if you already know the basics of how to cook, culinary school is optional. Besides, if you finished grad school, you’re already used to the really long hours and crap pay that goes along with most cook positions.

And working in a dangerous place? Got that licked. Check out this Battle Scars from the Culinary Front feature from the New York Times. Nels is wise enough that he hasn’t filled me in on all the carnage he’s seen, but he does claim to know by sight when someone needs stitches. *shudders*