Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

June 16, 2000

Subject:

More on Scientist Salaries and replies to Red Porphyry

 

ArialDate:
ArialJun
16 2000 13:51:09 EDT

From: Andrew Apel <

Subject: Re: Red Porphyry and Trewavas-A


Colleagues,


I've interviewed scientists beyond counting, albeit primarily in the
field of

agricultural biotechnology, and one thing has always struck me about
them:

they're having so much fun chasing down new discoveries that you have
to wonder

what they do during their free time.


Accordingly, I'm not completely convinced by salary averages. Besides,
there

are lots of people who make substantially less income for the sake of
doing

what they enjoy. The classical example is that of the starving artist.


Red Porphyry wrote:


> >>well, here in the states, most of us assume that scientists are no

> >>different than anyone else, meaning that they're in it mostly for
the

> >>money, not ideology. the money from working in science allows them
to

> >>drive

======================================================

From:
Curt Hannah
<

Subject: Re: Red Porphyry and Trewavas-A

Dear Mr. Porphyry,


I have been reading what I think are some of your views concerning
why scientists do science in the U.S. Like the other working
scientists who have responded, I can't believe some of the things you
are saying.


Before I invest too much time in this debate, I am curious what
your background is that gives you insight into this.


I would appreciate a response.


Curt Hannah

========================================================

From: John McCarthy
<

Subject: Re: Red Porphyry and Trewavas-A


Red Porphyry doesn't say how he "knows" what the motivations
of most

scientists are. I don't know most scientists either. However, there

is some evidence.


1. When they write autobiographies, scientists say what motivated them

towards science. Mostly it is a book read as a young teenager. Paul

de Kruif's _Microbe Hunters_ is mentioned by people who went into

medical science. Physicists often mention _Our Mysterious Universe_

by James Jeans. I read the above two, but the one that decided me was

"Men of Mathematics" by Eric Temple Bell. None of these books

mentions money.


2. When I was younger, I could always expect to double my salary if I

went into industry. The cost would have been having a boss.

There has always been a substantial differential between academic and

industrial salaries across all fields of science and engineering.


3. When scientists working in industrial laboratories, e.g. IBM or

Bell Labs, have received Nobel Prizes, most of them rather quickly

switch to an academic job. I suppose this is as a cut in pay.


If someone wanted to take the trouble, interviewing young PhDs

deciding what jobs to apply for would answer the question of whether

they are motivated by money. Besides engineering jobs in industry,

people with scientific training are also eligible for management jobs

which pay a lot more. Some go that route.


===============================================================================



From: Red Porphyry
<

Subject: Red Porphyry and Trewavas-B


At 10:46 PM 6/15/2000 -0000, you wrote:


>>well, here in the states, most of us assume that scientists are no

>>different than anyone else, meaning that they're in it mostly for the

>>money, not ideology. the money from working in science allows them to

>

>

>Well I am a scientist in America and would like to know where to go to

>sign up for my 3,000-4,000 sq ft house and my 30,000 dollar SUV or

>luxury car.


uh, a real estate company or new car dealer? (1.9% financing + a
$3,000

rebate on a 2000 Ford Explorer. Hurry while supplies last!) :-)


> Most scientist are not in it for the money, and most don't

>make exhorbitant sums that your letter suggest. Most are in it because

>they are driven my their inquisitive nature. And scientist at public

>universities certainly aren't in it for the money or they would be

>working for industry. If we were in it for the money we would be

>computer programmers, business executives, lawyers or medical doctors

>(not that these people are necessarily in it for the money either).


ah, but i never claimed or implied that a typical scientist made more
money

than lawyers or doctors. i agree, they don't. the main reason for this,
in

my opinion, is that in the u.s., lawyers and doctors are true

professionals, while scientists are, as i wrote, well-paid tradesmen
(with

few exceptions). if you recall, what i wrote was "in it mostly for the

money". i did not write "in it only for the money", or "in it to be as
rich

as midas". by this i simply mean that, when push comes to shove, those
who

become scientists value this (money) more than they do faithfulness to

scientific ideology. i stand by what i wrote. but don't take my word
for

it. the median starting salary for newly-minted, inexperienced ph.d.

scientists in the u.s. is $56,000, according to the american chemical

society and the national science foundation. after ten years on the
job,

the median salary is in the range of $75,000-$80,000. granted, this is
by

no means extreme wealth, but i never claimed or implied that it was. it
is

what it is: a well-paid trade. please note also that when i say
"scientist"

i mean anyone with a ph.d. in a "hard" science ("hard" *does* include

biological sciences, in case you were wondering) who works in either

industry, academia, or the government, not just those who work on
college

campuses. i'm well aware that academic scientists earn, on average,
lower

salaries than industrial or government scientists. but when talking
about

the earnings of scientists, all scientists should be included, no?



>Everything doesn't have to be black and white you can have a job for

>your ideals of improving the world and the love of discovery and also

>as a way to live a comfortable life.


i never claimed otherwise. "well-compensated" does not equal
either"greedy"

or "selfish", at least in my opinion. your mileage may vary.


>[Red Porphyry wrote:]

>>here in the states, most people are fairly skeptical that any global

>>warming is taking place at all, and if it is, that people have

>>anything to do with it (the contributors to this list from the hudson

>>institute and the hoover institute will back me up on this, i'm
sure).

>>arguing that gm technology is necessary to counteract the effects of

>>global warming doesn't cut much ice with us yanks, i'm afraid.

>

>This is not a scientific study but most of the people I talk to in the

>states actually do think global warming is taking place. But people's

>views are not the baseline for the truth, science is.


yes, and the science is just sufficiently ambiguous enough to delay
any

action in the u.s. for years to come. global warming skeptics just need
to

play their cards right. in my original comments to dr. trewavas'
letter, i

included a relevant url on this brought to you by our dear friends at
the

cato institute. in addition, i draw your attention to an article
published

recently by dennis t. avery (no idea if he's related to the avery who

contributes to this group), the director of the hudson institute's
"center

for global food issues", entitled "what's wrong with global warming?"
(as

an aside, i encourage everyone to check out the hudson institute's web
site

(http://www.hudson.org). there's tons of interesting stuff there!).

finally, there is the following url:


http://www.co2science.org/edit/editor.htm


which has some interesting things to say about possible flaws in the
way

surface temperatures are measured on the earth's surface. this last one
is

particularly interesting because it's most likely to send pro-global

warming atmospheric scientists (especially those who are borderline

obsessive-compulsive types who require their models to be absolutely

perfect) running back to their labs for two or three years trying to

explain this, in the meantime leaving global warming skeptics in
complete

possession of the field. as someone else said here recently, the

eco-reactionaries take advantage of this behaviorial quirk (common to a
lot

of scientists) all the time. global warming skeptics are not above
doing

the same thing, when it suits their purposes--which in this case is to

delay implementation of any public policy action as long as possible.


>And more and

>more climatologist are coming to the same conclusion that global

>warming is "real". Having genetic engineering at our disposal to

>develop plants quickly that could grow better under conditions that

>may result from global warming (ex: drought tolerance) cuts ice with

>us Yanks quite well and I think a majority of Americans would support

>these endevors.


only if us yanks actually believe global warming is real. if that
happens,

it will come only when global warming skeptics run out of ways to
maintain

ambiguity (the one about flawed methods and assumptions in measuring
earth

surface temperatures is particularly ingenious, in my opinion).
personally,

i don't need perfect temperature readings; the facts that arctic pack
ice

is four feet thinner than it was in the 1950's and that it now rains in
the

antarctic summer on palmer peninsula tells me that *something* is
happening

to the global climate. however, i think the majority of the american
people

*will* need perfect temperature readings before they become convinced
that

global warming is real.



>In closing I don't know why you think that a purely capitalist view

>devoid of any emotions or convictions or religion is somehow superior

>to incorporating a stewardship view for the role of science.


since i never either wrote or implied that, i'm fascinated to know how
you

came to that conclusion. all i did was make the observation that dr.

trewavas' view that man's role on earth is to be a "good gardner" with
the

express purpose of creating a "planetary garden" is an expression of

religious mysticism, not science. i also specifically said viewing the

world ultimately through a mystical lens rather than a scientific one
is

necessarily bad, so long as one is able to recognize it. i myself have
a

religious perspective regarding nature and man's role with respect to
it.

why you concluded that i'm anti-religious or anti-mysticism is
something

perhaps known only to the gods. :-)



>No

>science takes place in a vacuum from the culture, beliefs and

>religions in which it takes place.


never claimed otherwise.


>What exactly are you advocating, I

>just don't get what you are driving at?


for one thing, that scientists stop visualizing human achievements in
the

way that michaelangelo painted "the creation of adam" on the sistine

chapel: as acts that are purely positive. instead, they should be

visualized like the two sides of a coin, or better yet, like the
mythical

figure of janus, meaning that all human achievement is both positive
and

negative in its implications and consequences, and *both* the positive
and

negative consequences *will* (not *may*) manifest themselves in
reality,

and we should prepare accordingly.


Red