Comments on: Graduate students are not professional scientists. Discuss.

By: T. Ryan Gregory

T. Ryan Gregory — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:51:54 +0000

To paraphrase, "You know, here's my problem with your definition. It doesn't include me." That's pretty much been the standard reply. I have closed the comments on this post because it's not moving forward anymore, but the discussion can continue here.

By: ziadax

ziadax — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:28:37 +0000

You know, here’s my problem with your definition of “professional scientist”. You seem to be saying that those who go on beyond graduate school, get their PhD’s and are PIs in research labs with funding are the “professional scientists”. So what about me? I went to grad school. Got a M.S. in Forensic Science, chemistry specialization, with yes, actual research an actual chemistry field to get it. I now work as a forensic chemist in a state forensic lab, more specifically as a controlled substance examiner. Many of my coworkers stopped at the Bachelor’s degree level. We don’t have the time to do much, if any research – we’re too busy keeping up with casework and court testimony. Much of the forensic literature comes out of case reports or academia, or people in different fields of forensics than I am in (e.g. DNA, toxicology, etc.). Are we not considered by you then to be “professional scientists”? I’m interested to know.

By: T. Ryan Gregory

T. Ryan Gregory — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:58:07 +0000

Because that is not their profession. Unless of course you want “profession” and “professional” to be so broad that they mean nothing. But you don’t, you want people to assume the narrow sense when you use it in the broad sense. Otherwise, who cares?

By: daen

daen — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:02:39 +0000

OK, ket me be a little less terse than you, and present my reasons why I think grad students employed as part time help can be considered professional scientists:

1. they are remunerated for the work they do
2. they are sometimes credited in publications and patents
3. they contribute to the establishment of scientific knowledge in the organization.

Which of these criteria eliminate them from consideration as professional scientists?

By: daen

daen — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:58:48 +0000

Why?

By: T. Ryan Gregory

T. Ryan Gregory — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:42:44 +0000

“employed as part-time help” =/= professional

By: Enkidu

Enkidu — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:49:15 +0000

Soooo… if the only true “professional scientist” is a PI, what about those who have a PhD but don’t run their own lab or obtain their own grant money? I think the PI-only view is very narrow. As long as you are thinking up your own experiments and wiriting/ publishing papers, ie sharing your knowledge in a professional setting, you are a scientist. PI or not.

By: daen

daen — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:21:15 +0000

Well, you’ve completely and utterly pegged science to academia. Large numbers of grad students are also employed as part-time help in biotech and pharma companies, in Denmark at least, working alongside the senior scientists. They are paid for what they do, and contribute to the company’s knowledge. They are chemists, biologists, bioinformaticians, cheminformaticians. I think you’ve drawn an artificial and largely indefensible distinction here, which especially fails in a commercial context.

By: Private Tuition Leeds

Private Tuition Leeds — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:48:25 +0000

Hi

Fresh graduates are not be professional in theirs lives. Because if you want to be a professional you should take some experience and this is same example for scientist.

By: T. Ryan Gregory

T. Ryan Gregory — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:56:02 +0000

So, your rebuttal of my argument is an appeal to Einstein? Oooookaaaay.