Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazzlazzlazz | Hacker News Reader

I am not aware of a way to get into a "scientist" level position doing biology research, in industry, without a PhD. This alone would answer the question "Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?"

If somebody has evidence to the contrary, please fill me in.

View on HN

I've spent the last couple of weeks intensively researching paths into the life sciences without a PhD (I'm deciding whether to go get one).

I haven't found a way in either. If you start your own company somewhere in the field, or otherwise support yourself, you can rock and roll as an indie researcher. Otherwise, a Ph.D. seems necessary.

I wonder if this will change over the next decade, as synthetic biology continues to expand rapidly.

There is no non-PhD pathway into biomed research that leads to career advancement beyond the drone level [1]. If you do get a PhD, there are few jobs, relative to the number of graduates. All in all, I'd advise against it, unless you have a very specific love of the field, and can handle a modest, academic lifestyle in exchange for working very hard at what you do. And for that, the drone-level jobs are perfect for testing the waters: you should get a job in industry first, and if you decide that you love it, get a PhD.

Also, beware the "$TOPIC is expanding rapidly" trap: synthetic biology is merely the buzzword of the moment. When I started, it was computational biology. Later, genomics. The number of opportunities created by these booms has never kept up with the hype waves that preceded them.

[1] There is, however, a pathway for "business" people who enter biomed. But I'm assuming you're not interested in this, and in any case, getting a PhD won't help you with it.

Thanks for the advice, that all sounds right to me. I particularly like the point about the $TOPIC of the moment.

The roll-your-own-company lab approach sounds a little better, overall. One tricky thing is that I'd have a lot more credibility starting a biotech company with a Ph.D. Right now I'm considering a Ph.D. to get the training and credibility (union card, as someone else said). Still not a slam dunk, though - Transcriptic's founder just has a bachelor's.

You might have luck as a lab technician and seeing where that leads you, maybe.

There's data scientist. You don't need a PhD to pursue that. I mean, you probably won't be researching cures for cancer, but you'll still be applying research methodologies. You'll be getting paid more and probably won't have to wait half your lifetime to get a plum position. I abandoned grad school after seeing the rigor mortis that has set into academia and private research companies.

I work as a data scientist at a nonprofit research organization (rti.org) and have to apply far more skills than the PhD researchers here. While we fall back on them for depth in subject matter expertise, we also have to understand conceptual design, research methodology, stats, newer data sci methods, software development, 3+ programming languages, user experience design, tech stacks, database design and deployment, data visualization, business consulting, public speaking, etc... Often, we lead client engagements, determine project deliverables, co-author academic papers, present at conferences, schmooze with key stakeholders, and so on. ALL of us, however, would lose our minds if we had to focus on a single domain area or spend a protracted amount of time on one problem. I worked on > 50 projects across the biological sciences, social sciences, and humanities in 2015. It can be exhausting, but it is a real blast most of the time.

So... Consider the path of a research data scientist if that sounds fun. It's also very lucrative, which is nice, too, though I'm not personally motivated by the finances of it.

I'm confused. All the skills you cite are exactly the ones I would expect a PhD researcher (esp. in math, comp. sci, stats, etc...) to be proficient in (although, perhaps not the schmoozing). You're saying your PhD researchers aren't skilled in research methodology and stats??

Ehhh. I suspect an information asymmetry problem -- that is, the GP doesn't know what his/her colleagues actually know -- coupled with a tendency of researchers to let work drift by when it isn't in their wheelhouse.

While I've known a lot of PhDs who know nothing about statistics or programming or some other specific skill (nobody is an expert at everything), it's pretty hard to make it through a good graduate program while knowing none of these things. What generally happens is that domain experts try to keep their minds focused on their domains (where their value is highest), and let non-specialist work fall to generalists. Generalists then (sometimes, incorrectly) assume that the specialists are useless outside of their niche.

I'm not going to say that there aren't incompetent PhDs, but it's a bad assumption to make, in general. You don't assume that your CEO doesn't know how to clean a toilet simply because she lets the janitor do it.

What comes with the PhD positions is a requirement to respond to RFPs with concept notes, proposals, etc... and a lot of high level project management. They provide subject matter expertise from an analytic angle (usually without getting involved in the technical aspects) but almost never are involved in modeling, development, or anything else that I listed above. We're seeing change wherein data scientists more often are involved in the proposal and business development process, but not wherein PhD-level researchers are involved in the technical implementation of projects.

These aren't your grandfather's PhD researchers.

If you want to extend mankind's understanding, you first need to understand what mankind now knows.

If you want to be night manager at Wendy's, you don't need any higher ed.

And then there's a lot in between.

I suspect that most PhD candidates have aspirations that lean toward the former.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would qualify that as reflecting how many candidates see themselves, and how they've opted to romanticize their life choices, rather than it being an objective statement about why people do what they do.

Nobody aspires to be the night manager at a fast food place, but many of the people who end up with jobs like that got there because they made impractical educational choices (which might include getting a PhD without understanding how they were going to turn that into a career after the fact).

I'm not anti-PhD at all, but plenty of people get them for the wrong reasons or without thinking about what they'll do with it once it's done. In my experience, for many people it's a way to have an extended childhood/college experience well into their 30s. When you're in school you can judge yourself and others based on your aspirations (which can be especially intoxicating if those aspirations are romantic notions like "extending mankind's understanding"), but once you're out of school all that matters is what you've actually accomplished. It can be a scary transition and I don't blame anyone for wanting to postpone it if they have the means to do so.

I agree with that qualification.

Many people have audacious goals that aren't fully realized.

I think the saying is "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."

I'm not sure how true it is, but the idea is a common one.

I agree, it varies on the field you're working in. I don't know any medical doctors without an actual doctorate. At least not personally anyway?

I know about 40 doctors (wife is a doctor), and only two of them have PhD in addition to their MD.

In many countries the "doctor" in "medical doctor" is an honorary title, not an actual academic title. Like calling the commander of a ship "captain" whether they actually hold the rank (military/merchant marine captain) or not.

You can't get an MD without a PhD depending on the country the first 5-6 years get you a PhD the residency gets you the MD. Some medical schools also allow you to take an extra 1-2 years and get a "research" on you degree as well.

Not true in the USA, Canada, Ireland, Britain, Australia, New Zealand. Hell that's not even true in Germany or Austria, the most title obsessed countries on earth.

A German Dr. Med. is closer to a Master's degree than a doctorate and you can practice as a physician without it though few do.

Are there any countries where you have to get a real (research) doctorate to practice as a physician?

You can't practice as a physician without an MD, if you drop out of med school after 4-5 years you can get a PhD very easily since with the exception of the research component the first 4-5 years are almost identical between MD, and PhD.

Er, what? There are some combined MD–PhD programs, but I'm under the impression the vast majority of MDs do not have PhDs.

They aren't, I should've been clearer. MD and PhD in medicine have a very large overlap, the first 4-5 years of med school are virtually identical. If you decide to drop out of medschool before you start your residency you can get a PhD very easily usually within a year or so depending on the school and how many credits you have.

Interesting, what are some countries that do this? I'm also not sure how a Ph.D. can be conferred without a research component, but that's a US-centric view I'll grant you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com