Also the emails saying things like "this could do to virology what chernobyl did to nuclear science".
They know their cushy careers and research grants are gone if they normalize the lab leak.
They know their cushy careers and research grants are gone if they normalize the lab leak.
These sorts of comments on HN are always fascinating to me.
Scientific researchers make $20K/yr for 6 years of their 20s, often working 60 hour - 80 hour weeks. If they are successful, around the age of 30 they will then make between $40K and $60K in a temporary, term-limited position (post-doc). This might repeat several times -- each more stressful than the last -- until they land a permanent job. Still working like dogs the whole time, btw. That final permanent job, which very few will ever actually get, probably pays between $60K and $100K. A very lucky few among the lucky few might make up to $200K by the time they turn 40, but most will never surpass $150K in their lives.
My undergrad mentees all make $160K+ as 22 year olds, often get to $300K pretty quickly, and will max out in the >$500K range some time in their 30s.
Software folks accusing life scientists of getting fat off of research grant money is really something else.
LOL. I was being generous to you be doing otherwise.
Faculty running successful large wet labs at R1s could jump to the private sector and make millions/yr minimum. Those people are the equivalent of a Director in the tech world. (Or, at the very very least, a Staff/Principal. But really more like Director/VP).
Look at what faculty who run large DARPA-funded labs in CS make when they jump to industry. They usually enter as either Principal/Staff or more commonly as Director. Those are very high six / low 7 figure positions. It's comparable in biotech.
To be perhaps excessively blunt, you have no fucking clue who you're talking about.
> should be compared to the median American, who earns $36K
WTF? Why are we comparing STEM PhDs to the median American?
The average virologist has a STEM undergraduate degree, a PhD, significant additional training, knows their way around complicated lab equipment, has experience designing/debugging complicated experiments, and is usually not such a half-bad programmer either.
(And, again, those are the losers. The average successful PI has all of that plus is leading a group of 10-20 employees in complicated R&D. Possibly also has an MD.)
Even the losers could easily find jobs that leverage those skills or mildly retool to get a high-class software job. In either case, they would earn much more than $36K in any number of industries. Because they have significant experience and training. Unlike the median American.
> not the extreme outliers you mentor.
My mentees are not extreme outliers. They come from a no-name university with an unexceptional CS program. $160K is not an outlier total comp in tech. It's pretty darn normal. National statistics say that the average Software Eng salary is $110K. Salary. Not Comp. Salary. Throw in typical stock/bonus and you get to $160K pretty easily.
But even that $110K number is a shitload more than the $20K virology phd candidates are paid (often for 60-80 hours of lab work each week).
My undergrad mentees are a much better group to compare STEM PhDs against than this "median American" thing you're suggesting:
1. In some cases it's a direct comparison. Many non-CS STEM PhDs are at least as qualified for entry-level software jobs as CS undergrads from unexceptional places. Or can be in very short order. Lots of lab work these days involves significant programming. All lab work involves building a the skills and mindset that make for excellent debugging. And soft engs with domain expertise are valuable.
2. Software isn't the only industry that pays well; the biotech industry also pays quite well. The sorts of people working in virology weblabs are almost certainly able to get WAAY better paying jobs at Biogen or Amgen or whatever.
3. Lots of virologists are MD/PhDs. I don't have to tell you that MDs make more than $35K/yr, right?
> $60K to $100K for high-status intellectual work is something most people would cling onto.
Sure. But -- and this is the point -- it's NOT a good monetary or social status outcome for the people who actually fucking QUALIFY for those jobs. Which, again, isn't the "median American".
Literally no one working on NIH grants is maximizing their earning potential. If you can't concede this point, then you're choosing willful ignorance and there's not much point in having a conversation.
In the lab where I did my postdoc, the folks who went on to work for Amazon, Rackspace and Facebook are doing way better than those of us who went to work for universities, the CDC, etc. monetarily.
I have, what is for an academic a great job, and it pales in comparison to what I could make if I retooled for industry.
I'm 10 years closer to retirement as well, able to own a house in the bay area, etc etc. However, I'm quite aware few who go into industry were given the level of research freedom I was.
And I can guarantee you Daszak and a bunch of other hangers on make a lot more than "20K". In fact 20K might not be enough to get him out of bed in the morning.
...And? What's your point?
As a Chief Medical Officer at a pharma company, which he more than qualifies for, he's be making 10+ million/year. E.g., darryl sleep, the CMO of Amgen, made $20 million last year. You make this point yourself.
So Fauci is greedy because he.... didn't sell out? This take is so astoundingly ignorant that it's hard to believe it's made in good faith.
If you think they have your interests in mind, I suggest you reconsider. At best, your interests might sometimes align with those of their true masters. But if they don't, who gives a shit - Pfizer has legal immunity now.
> Pay them twice as much, but then say "you can't take money from the companies you're charged with regulating, directly or otherwise, for 5 years or you go to jail"... Happens to every single one of these figureheads, without any exceptions.
You know how I can tell you're an unserious? You're criticizing Fauci for doing exactly what you want -- staying a well-but-not-unfairly-paid civil servant for his entire career. If Fauci was going to cash out, he could have done so decades ago. He's been at the top for a long time.
Which, BTW, is FAR more common than not. The people you're describing are not the median or normal outcome.
I don't think you have thought seriously about your criticism here, and I don't think you're commenting on this issue in good faith.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
It's a voluntary trade-off for lower pay to work in the field you want.
There is a difference between churning out code you really hate for 500k/yr, and doing what you are interested in for 80/10/150k. The vast majority people in software aren't aching to reinvent the wheel, but in a new js framework every year, they just do it for the money.
Research grant money is still money, even if the academics decide to take a trade-off others don't.
How would you like to NEVER receive grant money again? Gonna bite the hand that feeds you?
LOL, no.
Industry is way better than academia on the qualitative stuff.
First, STEM PhDs who qualify for R1 faculty positions but who instead go into industry are not doing shit with javascript frameworks. What kind of insane company would waste such specific and highly developed skills on that kind of nonsense?
Second, people running wet labs aren't "doing what they want". They're doing contract work for funding agencies. In terms of both freedom and enjoyment, it's much closer to a mid-level manager body-shop position at Accenture than a "life of mind". FAANG IC life is luxurious by comparison.
My friends in academia are constantly tweaking/justifying what they work on. I do what I want, make 5x-10x more, and have way better resources/staff.
And that's all before giving a 2 hour lecture to 500 kids while wearing an N-95, then going home and giving the same lecture to another 200 kinds on zoom.
Some FAANGs even have a policy of hiring talent just to deny it to competition. Figure out what they'll do after you hire them, no real planning on that part.
However, the larger point remains: people in science labs for some reason stay in the lab. Why? Maybe they just like complaining or suffering? Maybe so, but if they want to - they can quit any time, but they for some reason remain.
I had a friend from Fermilab who left to do quant finance on wallst, only to return to physics because he found finance boring, even though very well paid. Much better paid than FAANG.
You just happen to like what you are working on at FAANG. Not everyone does, and plenty burn out and leave the field entirely.