Science Careers Blog

I received a note this morning from Nell Brady, project manager at WAMC Northeast Public Radio in Albany, New York, alerting me to a new series of radio programs featuring women with disabilities in science. The series is being produced by the radio station as part of the NSF-funded Access to Advancement project.

Eventually there will be 10 segments, five focused on "tools, educational practices, and programs designed to broaden the participation of women with disabilities in science," Brady says, along with  "five profiles of women with disabilities who are successfully working or learning in science fields."

So far two "access" stories have been produced and posted to the station's Web site dedicated to women in science. The first features the "DO-IT" program at the University of Washington, which aims to increase the success of people with disabilities in college and careers.The second is a profile of computer scientist Patricia Walsh, who lost her sight at age 14 and now works for Microsoft. The other eight will follow next year.

Although Brady wrote to alert me to the "Access" series, when I visited the Web site I discovered a wealth of programming focused on women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (aka, STEM).
 

In a New York Times Economix column this week, Steven Greenhouse tells about the large percentage of American workers do not get paid if they stay home sick. As a result, with the H1N1 and seasonal flu viruses among us, we can expect to encounter many people during the workday in less than the best of health.

Fortunately, for science and engineering professionals and technicians, a large majority of our employers provide paid sick leave. Greenhouse cites Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data showing that 85% or more of teachers, management, business, professional, and government workers can take off if they are sick and get paid for at least some of those days.

We often come into contact with other people at our jobs who do not have this benefit. Take, for example, the truck driver delivering new lab equipment. Only about half (54%) of transportation and material moving employees get paid sick leave.  Or how about the salespeople who drop in to talk about new products or services: Only a few more of those workers (56%) can stay home when sick and get paid for it.

The further down the pay scale you go, the less likely you find paid sick leave. For people in the lowest wage quartile, less than 4 in 10 (37%) get paid sick leave. That group includes many of the maintenance, cleaning, and security staff we rely on every day. In comparison, 86% of the top wage quartile have paid sick leave. One notable exception among the higher-paid group are health care professionals, whose compensation is based on the number of patients they see. If they stay home when not feeling well, it gets reflected in their take-home pay.

The size of the organization you work for also makes a difference. Only about half (52%) of the workers at companies with fewer than 100 employees get paid sick leave, compared to 8 in 10 staff (80%) at companies of 500 employees or more.

These disparities in sick leave make it all the more important to take the necessary precautions to stay healthy during this flu season, not just for ourselves, but also for everyone we interact with. And dude, that means you.

A Wall Street Journal reader wrote to Toddi Gutner, one of the newspaper's careers advisers, about a question uppermost in the minds of job-hunters over the age of 40: How do you deal with your age in interviews and resumes? The reader said, in his question published today, that he received conflicting advice from people he trusted.

While most Science Careers' readers are early-career scientists, this is not a far-fetched issue for some of our readers. Among our Facebook fans, for example, 6% are age 45 or older. Our  Science Careers story last week about the career of Patricia Alireza, who earned a Ph.D. in physics at the age of 45 after raising a family, got a few "thumbs up" on our Facebook page.

In one respect, the current tough job market may give older job-hunters an advantage. "This is a good time to position yourself as a deeply competent and confident professional in your area of expertise and experience," Rabia de Lande Long, a consultant and executive coach told Gutner. "In uncertain economic times, employers can be drawn more to experienced workers who join with ready-to-use skills and a shallow learning curve."

One specific question the reader asked was whether to include the dates of college degrees on your resume, since they enable hiring managers can calculate your age. Gutner says that in most cases it's a good idea to include the dates. If you don't, it suggests that you have something to hide, which would raise even more questions among H.R. departments and hiring managers. Plus, employers frequently verify dates of previous employment and educational attainment, so there is little reason to hide the dates on your resume.

If you are in your mid-50s and older, be prepared for more resistance among hiring managers. But there are ways to deal with it. A flattering photo on your LinkedIn profile may dispel some doubts. But more importantly, says career coach de Lande Long, you want to use your cover letter to differentiate yourself from the common perception of older candidates, "by showing results, (understanding of) technology and demonstrate ease in interacting with colleagues of all ages," she says.

Another professional advises older job-seekers to avoid the 'been there, done that' attitude. Instead, show interest, commitment, enthusiasm and energy. "If you're bored with your profession, you can be sure that comes through in an interview," says Susan Chadick, a principal at Chadick Ellig, an executive-search firm serving small and mid-size companies and startups.

As the fall ends and winter approaches, next summer may seem far away. But this is the ideal time to arrange for next summer's research position.  This is especially true for first-year medical students who, at most schools, have the prospect of a long summer break.

A good place to find out about available opportunities is from your Dean's office or from the Associate Dean for Research.  Most medical schools offer a wealth of opportunities.  How do you choose?  A good place to begin is by determining what area interests and excites you the most: Neuroscience? Reproductive biology? Robotic surgery? Space medicine? AIDS research? It's all out there. 

Next, you want to know what questions the laboratory is trying to answer.  And what will you do if hired?  What skills and knowledge will you need to bring to the job?  What techniques will you learn?  Will you be assigned to a discrete project and have a definite role or will you be doing a little of this and a little of that? Does the work have potential for your continuing beyond the summer? Does it have potential for publication with yourself as an author?

Of great importance is a knowledge of the principle investigator.  How closely will you be working with her or him? Does the PI look good as a potential mentor?  Are there ethical or safety aspects of the work being done that concern you?  What's the stipend?  It's also helpful to speak to other students who worked in the lab and glean their impressions.
 
You may want to look beyond your own institution. Your summer research position may also afford an opportunity to see another part of the country or another part of the world. Nor are they limited to academic institutions.  Many large pharmaceutical companies and technology and instrument companies take on summer interns.

But the most desirable positions are usually the most competitive.  A personalized e-mail briefly stating your qualifications and demonstrating your enthusiasm for the position is helpful.  A face-to-face meeting with the PI is an important part in making the decision.
Act now and proceed in a thoughtful and determined manner.  Many a distinguished medical research career has been launched  by a summer research position!

The number of online employment ads for scientists and engineers continued to decline in October, reflecting overall weakness in the U.S. job market. In some cases these losses were offset by declining numbers of job-seekers, according to a monthly index of online opportunities compiled (with seasonal adjustments) by The Conference Board, a private business and economic research institute, and tracked by Science Careers.

The only good news in an otherwise grim report was the number of online ads for computer scientists and mathematicians, which increased to more than 409,000 in October, up 7200 from September. Ads for life, physical, and social scientists dropped by 1100 in October to 69,200, and opportunities for engineers and architects continued the monthly declines that started in June, dropping another 900 postings to 113,300.

In the related career category of health care practitioners and technicians, the decline in online employment ads from September to October was particularly steep, dropping by almost 69,000 -- more than 11% -- to 535,600. This category had been one of the bright spots in the overall U.S. jobs picture, increasing by 86,000, or 16.5%, during August and September.

In another related occupation group -- education, training, and library workers -- the news is a little better. The number of employment ads increased by 4400 in October, a gain over September of nearly 7%. The number of ads in this category had dropped by about this same number in both August and September.

View image

The report also includes a ratio of online ads to the number of unemployed workers in the job market for these categories, an indicator of job-market competitiveness. The most current unemployment data, derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports, are a month older than the job ads numbers, in this case for September 2009. So the ratios calculated below are from September, a month earlier than the numbers cited above.

Among the main science and engineering groups tracked by Science Careers, the number of unemployed job-seekers declined in September, which in some cases eased the tightness of the job market in those categories. (The reports do not give reasons for declining numbers of job-seekers.) Among life, physical, and social scientists, the number of job-seekers dropped from 83,100 in August to 71,500 in September, a decline of 14%. Meanwhile, the number of online ads in this category declined slightly from August, so the job market for these scientists improved a little, according to this measure, to the point where the number of job seekers approximately equaled the number of posted opportunities.

Something similar happened among engineers and architects. The number of job-seekers in this group declined by more than 11% in September to 233,200. So even though the number of job ads declined by 3300, the job market ratio improved slightly from the perspective of those looking for jobs; in September there were 2 engineers or architects for each posted job, slightly better than in August.

Among computer scientists and mathematicians, the number of unemployed job seekers hardly changed in September. Even though the number of online employment ads declined by 4200, the number of posted jobs (402,000) comfortably exceeded the number job-hunters (236,100).

In the related career category of health care practitioners and technicians, both the number of job-seekers and the number of online ads increased in September. The result was 2.73 posted jobs for each job seeker. That ratio will likely change for October, given last month's sharp drop in the number of posted ads. 

Among education, training, and library workers, the job market ratio for September ballooned to 7 job seekers for each posted opportunity, as the number of job ads in September declined by 4200 compared to August and the number of job seekers jumped 29% to more than 442,000.

By comparison, the job-market ratio for the U.S. overall inched up in September to 4.5 job-hunters for each posted job ad. In October,  the total number of online ads posted dropped by 83,200 to less than 3.3 million. So don't look for much overall improvement in the October ratios.

The Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) has published a new book, Excellence Everywhere, aimed at scientists working in places that lack the extensive resources commonly found in the developed world. (Full disclosure: BWF is the funder of Science Careers's CTSciNet.)

Not long after I joined Science Careers -- called Science's Next Wave at the time -- I had the honor of working with BWF and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) to develop their first Lab Management Course, a 4-day event held at HHMI headquarters in 2002. I was responsible for units on project management, getting funded, and the financial side of lab management (see "From Science Fair to Science Fare," Part 1 and Part 2). I learned much and had great fun getting to know so many great people, including many young scientists.

Experienced writers were hired to observe the course and take notes, and then to assemble its contents into a book. The result was Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty.

The course was repeated in 2005 and the book was revised as a result. The above link takes you to the free pdf of the second edition. You can also order a hardcopy, if copies are still available. If you aspire to a career in academic science and haven't read it, you definitely should.

The material collected in Making the Right Moves has been revised again, by BWF's Victoria McGovern, with extensive new content on dealing with the challenges faced by researchers in "the low- and middle-resource regions of the tropics and sub-tropics." The result is Excellence Everywhere, which can be downloaded for free -- you can also request a free hardcopy -- at http://www.excellenceeverywhere.org. You can learn more about the book and its conception in the October edition of Focus, the BWF newsletter.

It seems a bit nonsensical, but sometimes a good place to look for a job is with a company that just announced layoffs. That's the advice from Aleksandra Todorova this week in SmartMoney.

Todorova found a number of companies, including employers of scientists and engineers such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Microsystems, that had many advertised job openings at the time they announced substantial layoffs. When the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb announced layoffs of 113 full-time employees at two facilities in the U.S., it was still seeking applicants for 165 open jobs. Likewise, computer and software maker Sun Microsystems announced layoffs of up to 6,000 employees in November 2008, but Todorova still found the company trying to fill 43 openings.

John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told Todorova that companies hiring and letting go staff at the same time is not unusual. "Larger companies especially," says Challenger, "are big, complex organizations, often with many different lines of business."

The reasons for simultaneous layoffs and hiring are varied. When companies consolidate facilities, for example, it may mean layoffs in one location but openings at the location where the combined units join forces. In some cases, the positions may move to the new location, but the people originally in those jobs decide to stay put.

At other enterprises, says Todorova, management uses restructuring to clean house, i.e., cut staff who are not performing up to expectations. A human resources consultant told Todorova that executives "are exploiting the economic environment to find great talent."

Similarly, companies use this opportunity to change corporate strategies, which can mean shedding jobs in older lines of business but adding positions in newer and growing fields. For example, firms in the energy business may be cutting back on work involving fossil fuels, but adding staff knowledgeable in renewable energy.

If you find yourself being considered by a company who recently announced layoffs, you still need to do your due diligence in making sure the job won't soon be on the chopping block. "If given the opportunity, says Todorova, "use a job interview to ask about the reason behind the recent layoffs and how they would affect the position you're pursuing."

As a science journalist, I've had the opportunity to interview several Nobel prize winners. Such high-profile scientists are usually pretty obsessed with their science and more than happy to talk about it all day. But it's one thing to ask a Nobel winner to explain how her research fits into our greater understanding of life. It's another to ask if she has any tips for balancing family life with lab life.

Yet I had just such an opportunity earlier this month when I got to listen in on a conference call of this year's four science/economics women Nobel laureates, convened by Science deputy news editor Jeff Mervis. Jeff started off with the policy-oriented issues: What immediate steps should be taken to increase the number of women going into science and improve conditions for those already in the field? Are gender-based awards useful? How is it possible for an organization such as the National Institutes of Health to launch an award competition and announce a class of grantees that is all men?

Once everyone had warmed up a bit, we started in with some more personal questions. For example: To what extent do you have to blend your personal and your professional lives to achieve a balance? Has there been anything that's helped you be successful in terms of managing your time?

Here are some highlights of the conversation:

On work-life balance:

- Elizabeth Blackburn, age 60, professor of biology and physiology at the University of California, San Francisco, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: "I think that the message of balance is somewhat overplayed, in my view, because if you're doing something intense like having a family and doing science, they're both intense things, and so this idea that somehow every day is sort of balanced I think it's really a bad message, actually, to try and send people. ... So I try and send the message, for goodness sake, don't go for balance. That sounds very boring to me, you know, in this sort of 9 to 5 and you're balancing your life. Go for these things intensely in the periods when you have to go for them and the balance will take care of itself over decades."

- Carol Grieder, age 48, professor of molecular biology and genetics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: "It's actually very nice to be in science because what we're judged on in the end is how productive we are and what we get done and it's not necessarily 9 to 5, and so I feel like I do have a lot of freedom. You know, I'll go out for my son's play at school at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and then come back again, and that kind of freedom to have a flexible schedule, I think, is not always true in other professions. So it's a reason for people to choose science over some other careers that they might have."

- Ada Yonath, age 70, professor of structural biology at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, who shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry: "In my day-to-day life, I don't sit and think about this, it just comes. This is the way I am and this is the way I run my life, and I don't really sit and organize myself . ... It just happens. And I'm very happy that I have a very fantastic relationship with my daughter and granddaughter, although I'm not what is called a normal mother, if there is something like normal mother." 

On choosing family and career:

- Indiana University professor Elinor Ostrom, age 76, the first woman to ever receive the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel: "Well, as a somewhat older participant, I had a clear decision and made a decision not to have a family because in earlier times that would have been a very, very difficult thing to accomplish."

- Greider: "I come from the other spectrum in that I was able to see around me a number of women, including Liz, who were able to have children and have a career, and although there were many fewer women in the higher ranks of academia, there were still some to suggest that it could be done. So just in the same way that you have to go forward with experiments sometime, not knowing what's going to happen, I just went forward with the experiment of having kids and the career and trying to do both full-time."

- Blackburn: "I think there's a lot of conventional ideas about what it should be to be a mother and, you know, certain sorts of formulary and stereotypes are there and I really think that they're not terribly helpful, some of these ideas, because I really think children are busy, you know, scientists do get family lives that are, perhaps, different in some ways but not less good."

And my favorite part of the conversation: Learning that Blackburn's secret to balancing a successful scientific career and motherhood can be found in your grocer's freezer section. I asked the laureates if there's anything that's helped them be successful in terms of managing their time. "Is it time for me to tell the Bagel Bites story?" Blackburn asked. "It's about producing beautiful cookies or cupcakes with beautiful icing and you're up till 2 a.m. making them for your children. This is what motherhood is supposed to be like, right?

"Well, it turns out that if you go to your supermarket, you can buy these little Bagel Bite things, they're called commercially, and you put them in the oven and they have cheese on the top and they bubble and they're lovely and brown and taste wonderful. And you take them to any children's function, and the children swarm over them, they love them, ... and it takes 12 minutes in the oven to cook. So my feeling is there's plenty of time ... to catch the essence of what it is that people like mothers to do, but you don't have to do it in a very laborious, conventional way."

Read more highlights of the interview in this week's Science, listen to highlights in this week's Science podcast, or listen to the entire interview.

And, for more on work-life balance (if there is such a thing) and other related Science Careers articles, check out Work and Life in the Balance, Mind Matters: On Balance, Scientists as Parents, and Reflected Glory: Life With a Nobelist Parent,  

A great post over at our sister site, Science Insider, describes a new paper by B. Lindsay Lowell and Harold Salzman of Georgetown University and the Urban Institute, respectively.

The new study makes a point that we at Science Careers have been making for years: If you care about science, you want to make sure that science remains an attractive career. Focusing on the supply side -- training more scientists -- as many do, runs the risk lowering salaries, causing working conditions to deteriorate, and making professional prospects less certain for people with scientific training. Do that, and fewer smart people will enter the field. It's a negative-feedback loop. Here's how my colleagues Yudhijit Bhattacharjee put it in the Science Insider entry:

The researchers--led by Lowell and Harold Salzman, a sociologist at the Urban Institute and Rutgers University, New Brunswick--argue that boosting the STEM pipeline may end up hurting the United States in the long-term.

This happens, they say,  by depressing wages in S&T fields and turning potential science and technology innovators into management professionals and hedge fund managers.

So how do you create a vibrant scientific economy? You invest more in science itself. There will be shortages. Salaries will rise. Science will once again be viewed as an elite career:

The way to promote US competitiveness in STEM fields is to "put more emphasis on the demand side," says Lowell, noting that U.S. colleges and universities produce three times more STEM graduates every year than the number of STEM jobs available. Cranking out even more STEM graduates, he says, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for STEM jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students in STEM.

Of course, many people in business don't like this approach because they want to be able to continue hiring scientists cheaply. It's short-sighted, but understandable:

Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical sciences. The findings "are not going to make us go back and re-examine everything we've been calling for," she says.

No question? The Conference Board reports that things are especially bad for engineers, with two online ads for every job opening. To compare, there is only one job-seeking health worker for every three opportunities posted in that sector.

I'm not a subscriber, but I'm an admirer of Make magazine. I love the whole DIY culture, and I'm confident it -- Make and DIY culture generally -- will plant many seeds that mature into scientists and engineers.

Make has just issued a press release promoting a new project. Called Elements of Humanity (and found at http://elementsofhumanity.com), the project comprises a dozen (so far) short video interviews with working scientists explaining what it was about science that first captured their attention and made them want to become scientists.

I've watched only two videos so far, but look forward to watching the rest. Good stuff. Recommended.