Science directions, science careers

A person who has been trained in science can pursue a variety of careers. One could be a “bench scientist,” a teacher of science courses, a mentor or adviser to science students, a manager of a science group, an administrator in charge of scientific endeavors, an entrepreneur, a science writer, or a science “critic,” among others. The expertise, i.e. the level of training and the knowledge of science, required is different for each career.

“Bench scientists” could be individuals who pursue their own novel ideas, or they could be those who simply do what they are told. Those who pursue original ideas are usually very specialized — they know a lot about their area of expertise and often not much else. (There are only 24 hours in a day and few people have the time to pursue several things all at once and be an expert on all of them.) Those with novel ideas usually make good mentors or advisers to science students.

Those who teach science courses, especially at the high school and undergraduate levels, have to be “competent” in many subjects. Their level of competence cannot be expected to be like that of the experts, but should be high enough so as not to mislead or confuse their students. (No information is infinitely better than wrong information.)

A manager of a science group has to be familiar with all aspects of the group’s work.  It is the responsibility of the manager to ensure that the work is done and that it is done properly. In this regard, the knowledge that is required of the manager approaches that of an expert “bench scientist.” One can imagine how difficult it is to be an effective manager when several disparate projects are being done under the manager’s supervision.

The work of an administrator in charge of a wide range of scientific endeavors, e.g. at the national level, can only be extremely difficult. Such an administrator must not only know enough about many fields, but must also know how to prioritize those fields in situations where not all could be pursued at the same time (as is the case in the Philippines at the moment).

The demands on a science entrepreneur are not as daunting, but the entrepreneur still needs to have sufficient knowledge of many fields to be able to judge the feasibility of different projects and their commercial possibilities.

The role of a science writer is to disseminate scientific information using language that is understandable to most, preferably to everyone. Science writers can only do their job, if they know enough about what they are writing about. Science critics also have to know enough about what they are criticizing, lest they issue nonsensical, or clearly uninformed, statements. (Again, no information is infinitely better than wrong information.)  

Doing science is fun (usually). Many “bench scientists” go into administration, or teach or write science articles, or become critics or entrepreneurs, after they have had their fun. Of course, those former “bench scientists” should realize their limitations in regard to the science topics they are true “experts” in, when teaching, when issuing criticisms or when passing judgments.

The level of training required for the different science careers varies. A “bench scientist” has to have a solid background in his/her area of expertise and almost has to have doctoral-level training (although I know that master’s degrees were all two individuals had when one won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and when the other was elected into the (US) National Academy of Science). The same is required of a science manager and administrator. A science teacher has to have a thorough grounding in the basics, and so does an entrepreneur — a master’s degree would be desirable, but a bachelor’s degree should suffice. A science writer not only has to know enough science, but also must know how to write — not a very common combination. A science critic has to know the science that is being criticized.

I would like to retell a story told to me last year by a friend who belongs to a very prestigious academy in the US. Technical academies are usually a collection of “academics,” often “bench scientists” who have distinguished themselves with productive, original work, and who usually have doctoral degrees. My friend told me that a significant number of the members elected into his academy are not “academics” but rather CEOs, i.e. “administrators.” The reasoning is that the CEOs know which areas are important, which direction to pursue, and are quite successful in what they do. They clearly know their field, probably better than the “academics.”

Not everyone can be a “bench scientist”; being a “bench scientist” often requires long hours of tedious work. And not everyone has novel ideas. Not everyone has the patience or the talent to be an effective teacher. And not everyone has the boldness and foresight that being an entrepreneur or an administrator requires. 

Every one with science training has a role to play in the development of the country. No one role is more important than the others.

* * *

Eduardo A. Padlan is a corresponding member of NAST and is an adjunct professor in the Marine Science Institute, College of Science, University of the Philippines Diliman. He can be reached at [email protected].