editorial
A Conversation with Some Postdoctorals
T
his past fall, I visited the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, D.C., to give a research lecture. While there, I visited with some good friends, and I especially enjoyed the give-and-take of an hour-long, informal meeting with postdoctorals and junior research staff. You can learn a lot about what’s on the minds of our younger colleagues and, when asked an unexpected question, about what’s on your own mind. Here’s a synopsis of the conversation paraphrased and maybe embellished a little (as in fish stories). How has U.S. science changed during your career, and what are its problems? First, the U.S. needs a better and continuing supply of highly trained scientists to maintain our technological lead. Our current visa practices are crazy and make it so hard for scientists to gain residency status! [I think I startled a few by the vehemence of my answer.] Second, science grows ever more complex, and young scholars need a broader range of knowledge and training, preferably not in a trench but across a landscape that ignores field labels. Do not be narrow in your thinking and learning about science, but when you publish, don’t be shallow in analyzing your results. Last, government funding agencies are complicating young academic scholars’ lives by injecting too many requirements for societal services [“outreach”] into grant awards, which detracts from time for deep thinking about basic phenomena. Why are the standards for gaining academic tenure so hard that one has to work 24/7 for years to have a chance? Is not that a deterrent to someone considering academics versus industry? I agree that the standards are high, and they should be, to select the best people for academic teaching and research careers. Tenure is a unique privilegeOliterally a lifetime job contractOand should not be easy to earn. Academic institutions are supported by society and should have the highest standards for granting tenure, out of respect for that support.
10.1021/AC900005E 2009 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Published on Web 01/08/2009
What’s the chemistry job market now? It is likely to be tight, but there remains a strong demand for capable chemistsOincluding analytical chemistsObut maybe not as much for biochemists where perhaps we have an oversupply. Why did you go into academics? I love the intellectual challenges that you encounter in research. They are a continuing stimulus. But no one should enter academics without also a love of the art and science of teaching. Teaching is a major part of a professor’s responsibility, and it is so important to the young people that you try to do it well. I have always enjoyed teaching, both in the classroom and in the laboratory. Seeing your former students’ successes is a wonderful reward indeed. Near the end of our conversation, I think I surprised them by telling them how fortunate they were to study and do research at NRL. The U.S. Navy has a proud tradition of research, which started in 1946 with the establishment of the Office of Naval Research. The agency has supported exploration of the physical sciences, and NRL itself has an extremely strong track record of pioneering investigations over the years. I said, “This is a special place; make the most of your time here.” These were sincere comments on my part, and I wish the young people I met that day the best of fortunes and challenges in their careers.
FEBRUARY 1, 2009 / ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
857
