Postdoc Required? Check the Job Ads!

Both the New York Times and C&EN have written pithy pieces today referencing the recent Science survey about factors influencing postdoctoral study. 

The tone of all three comes across as confused, painting Ph.D. students as ill-informed, directionless lambs who take on postdoctoral appointments as, in the words of the Science authors, "default...holding patterns" because they "...don't know what they want to do with their lives." (NYT).

Well, for those of us, like me, who postdoc'd with the intention of going into industry, why did I "waste my time in a post-doc" (Science) for seemingly no reason? Here's some telling quotes, highlighting from me:

From Science: "...career goals are quite diverse even among these postdoc-planning students...[t]his may be surprising, given that the postdoc is not typically considered a stepping-stone toward nonacademic careers"

From C&EN: "Many students don’t have a sense of how many jobs are available or what background they require, Doyle says. Chemistry students think they need a postdoc for some high-level industry jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, for example."

From NYT: "[in 2013]...the most common reason students gave for doing a postdoc was that they thought it would increase the chances of getting the job they wanted."

These sound bites sound aloof at best, slightly pandering at worst. Here's my question: Did anyone quoted for this story, or the authors of the Science study themselves, actually read the job ads for the industrial positions in question? Maybe students' fears are well-justified, because the ads I'm seeing from multiple companies read like this:

GSK, API Chemistry Automation Team Member

Pfizer, Sr. Scientist - Obesity + Eating Disorders

Amgen, Scientist, Immuno-Oncology

Genentech, Sr Scientific Researcher, Discovery Ophthamology

In case you missed it, all recommend postdoctoral research. I didn't have to go digging for these, either - simply typing "chemistry" along with "postdoctoral" or "post-doc" into the Career search engine on any corporate site will reveal roles like these. I find it rather ironic that the last quote from the Science lead author reads: "We don’t know enough about the industry labor market” (C&EN write-up). That seems to be the only part of this whole situation I completely agree with. 

OK, grumpiness aside, how can this situation be fixed? I actually appreciate the incentive strategy advanced in the paper, which neither news outlet captured well. Here's most of the penultimate paragraph from Science, highlighting again mine:

"Whereas the recent National Academies report recommends that students make career plans early in the Ph.D. program, we argue that they should consider labor market conditions and career options before starting a Ph.D. program. Doing so may avoid escalating commitment to a research career and may prevent individuals from entering a postdoc holding pattern. Graduate schools could encourage career planning by requiring that applicants analyze different career options and justify why a Ph.D. is the most promising path forward. Funding agencies could implement similar requirements, especially in conjunction with moving a larger share of funding from research grants to training grants and individual fellowships."

Amen. One thing I believe saved me from five years of postdoc purgatory was walking in "eyes open," understanding exactly what jobs I'd qualify for and where I needed to end up to pay back all my student loans. I also realized it would be no cakewalk: I began applying for jobs in my second year of study, and never looked back. 

Grad students: If you're confused about your options, feel free to drop me an email at seearroh_AT_gmail. Confidentiality guaranteed.

(More) CNN Chemophobia: What's a Chemical, Again?

(For more posts in this series, please click here and here...)

*PLEASE NOTE: The text of the original CNN article has changed!*

--------

Hey there, Cable News Network. We really have to stop meeting like this.

The latest snafu comes from CNN's Chart health blog courtesy of Twitter contact (and fellow blogger) Marc. The piece recaps an Opinion column written by Purdue neuroscientist Susan Swithers, which explores a strange and interesting phenomenon of artificial sweeteners: apparently, overconsumption of these compounds can fool the body into reacting as if sugar (glucose) were present, leading to unforeseen metabolic conditions.

The quibble comes a few paragraphs down, where the train falls off the track (emphasis mine):

"There are five FDA-approved artificial sweeteners: acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), neotame, saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet'N Low), and sucralose (Splenda).  

All of them are chemicals. “Saccharin was one of the first commercially-available artificially sweeteners, and it’s actually a derivative of tar,” says Swithers. 

Natural sweeteners, like Stevia - which has no calories and is 250 times sweeter than regular sugar - is not a chemical, but is still a processed extract of a natural plant, and increases your health risks similar to artificial sweeteners."

Wait, what did I just read? From a neuroscientist, no less! (perhaps a misquote?)

One of these comes from a plant.
But all of these things are chemicals

1. Stevia, a commercial FDA-approved non-nutritive sweetener, is most certainly a 'chemical.' I've included a handy graphic (right) in case anyone was confused.

2. That first statement in the second paragraph? Quite true; all five compounds listed certainly are chemicals, too! Kudos for that one.

3. Can I tell you how tired I am of fighting against the "everything from tar = bad!" mentality pervading modern-day society? Anyone dusting off that tired chestnut needs to rub their eyes (hard) and look around. They probably recorded the line using a polymer-based recorder (made from tar). On interview day, both folks probably wore synthetic fibers (made from tar) and sat on plastic chairs (made from tar). They may have quaffed their thirst from water bottles (made from tar) or eaten a Twinkie (made from tar). Perhaps they drove to work that day, using gas (made from tar) in their car (made from tar...well, and rocks), down a highway (made from tar) singing to a CD (made from tar) and passing farm stands selling fruits and vegetables (made from dirt, gases, and chemicals).

Until next time, CNN. And there will, of course, be a next time.

Update, 7/10/13: Fixed small error in steviol structure.
Update, 7/11/13: A commenter points out that stevia sweetness relies on glycosides; I'd originally drawn the aglycone above. Fixed, Thanks!

Chemophobia Daily - NY Times (Again)

(This piece, by veteran Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, ran yesterday. It has been the focus of backlash and ire, from chemists on Twitter and other fora (#chemicalschangeus, #BigChem). Below, I've done some choice editing: to increase the alarmist hype, I've cut unnecessary interstitial words, focusing solely on inflammatory verbs and scary scientific terminology. Remember, this is only a 790-word column!)

"Chemicals Affect Us increasing alarm very common hormone-mimicking chemicals grotesque effects widely used herbicide female hormone feminizes male animals male frogs female organs male fish produce eggs contaminated chemicals male alligators tiny penises

growing evidence linking class chemicals problems humans breast cancer infertility low sperm counts genital deformities early menstruation diabetes and obesity congenital defect hypospadias misplacement urethra suspects endocrine disruptors wreak havoc endocrine system

Endocrine disruptors everywhere thermal receipts canned foods, cosmetics plastics food packaging Test blood urine human breast milk cord blood newborn babies

failure tackle Big Chem regulate endocrine disruptors

scolded Food Drug Administration failure ban bisphenol-A common endocrine disruptor

government vigilant threats grocery stores mountains Afghanistan

Researchers warn endocrine disruptors trigger hormonal changes DES synthetic estrogen cause vaginal cancer breast cancer decades later daughters now banned.

Scientists tiniest variations hormone levels influence fetal development female twin masculinized exposed hormones. Studies aggressive sensation-seeking eating disorders

worry endocrine disruptors hormones swamping fetuses analysis Endocrine Reviews

Fundamental changes chemical testing safety determination protect human health analysis declares chief environmental scientist toxicologist

nation’s safety system endocrine disruptors broken

endocrine disruptors data conclude chemicals not safe human populations developmental biologist

Worrying research long-term effects chemicals higher levels common endocrine disruptor, PFOA overweight PFOA unavoidable everything solutions.

Big Chem sensationalist science blocked strict regulation adopted tighter controls endocrine disruptors

Uncertainties scientists endocrine disruptors overwhelmingly protect families

microwave plastic pesticides refuse receipts"

~Fin~

*RECAP: That's 229 words there (29% of the article), including negatively-connoted words like "grotesque," "broken," and "aggressive," and even a bonus allusion to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Seven mentions of "chemical" (all negative), and a record 12 mentions of "disruptor."

And we wonder why there's so much extant public fear of chemicals?