PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. Reflections upon my Scientific Career by Sue Mischke, Ph.D. I rarely pass on an invitation to interject my opinion. So when recently asked if, as a woman, I would again choose the same career path in science, I could scarcely contain my enthusiastic reply – Absolutely not! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not regretting my choices, but I’ve learned much from my mistakes and I wouldn’t make them again. I love the theory of science and the activity of science. I suppose I’m particularly suited to the eccentric lifestyle of a practicing scientist as are most who have chosen this profession. I love my academic field (molecular genetics), and I sincerely believe I have a full share of knowledge, experience and talent in this area. But—the operative word here is “profession” which implies gainful employment in a career that offers job growth and advancement. Albert Einstein said it best (as he so often did): "Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it." The sentiment was certainly applicable to Einstein’s era, when so many scientists were either independently wealthy practitioners of observation and theory, or academic minions living at the edge of poverty. Although I entered the world before the helical structure of DNA was known, my career was dispatched during the Golden Age of Biology when marketplace forces made biological research a viable occupation. The completion of my advanced degree coincided with the significant discovery of restriction enzymes. The future appeared limitless and I entered the workforce confidently and optimistically, believing myself to be a master of my own fate. This naiveté was my first big miscalculation. I was unprepared for the subtle yet destructive kinds of gender discrimination I experienced in my early career years. The deficit of career-building opportunities and appropriate mentorship at critical junctures, the obstacles to gaining formal recognition in documenting my contributions (e.g., authorship order on manuscripts and grants, and sometimes even inclusion), and covert impediments scattered in the path to promotions resulted in career progress far less stellar than I had expected. Mine was a typical path—ending at an impenetrable wall of silica, as is the case for far too many competent and talented women. Because gender discrimination has openly disappeared, but is still surreptitiously practiced, I am usually dealing with young people who do not understand why I haven't advanced as far as they would have expected me to, or I am dealing with people who covertly continue to discount a woman’s accomplishments. But all things pass, and I have finally matured to the status where one now experiences age-related discrimination. The playing field would now be level with my male colleagues—if only most of them were not already so far ahead of me. It was a mistake to think that I could rise above entrenched societal perceptions, expectations and patterns when I began my career. If I could do it over, I would enter a field such as nursing or teaching, where women are thought to be capable of excellence and prejudged as competent. At least until they prove otherwise. I believe my abilities and hard work ethic would have taken me to the top of a more traditional (dare I say pink-collar?) field. As it is, I wasted my energy trying to hold my own against the current culture of the times. Secondly, even in this presumably unbiased period, I would not earn a Ph.D. in the life sciences. I routinely counsel young women not to take this course of higher education (and to the few young men who bother to ask my opinion). If you feel you must have a doctorate, whether to decorate your name or to satisfy an insatiable inner hunger for knowledge, it should be in a field where a large segment of the real world depends upon your knowledge and abilities. It should also be in area where your contributions are truly required and appreciated. If nobody is relying on your endeavors for their own needs, then nobody really cares if you are doing a good job or not. Following a conversation with my eldest son (a self-taught computer programmer who advanced to senior MIS director of a large company) the following scenario occurred to me wherein IT personnel were suddenly extinguished, worldwide. The world would literally come to a screeching halt—far worse than anything possibly imagined during the Y2K computer scare. Compare this chaos to what would probably happen following the loss of every person with a Ph.D. in biology. I suppose in 10 or 12 years someone would realize there had been a mishap and say, "that really wasn't a very good thing." But for the most part, life as we know it would go on. Married women with a Ph.D. pay a high price. Among my acquaintances, most have spouses who are equally educated—often in the same or a related field. Finding employment for two highly degreed professionals in the same geographic area can be difficult and restricts career opportunities for both individuals. For anyone, employment mobility becomes more and more difficult after many years of working at the Ph.D. level. As expertise grows, specialization is evermore limiting. It is surprisingly difficult for an older scientist to move laterally to a different institution. In my case, even though I returned to the classroom (always at my own expense) to pick up the knowledge and skills to perform in a somewhat different scientific field, I found I would have to drop down to the lowest entry level in terms of salary and responsibility to be employable. Apparently, scientific wisdom is not something with much market value. I’ve heard a couple of companies state their preferences openly: Ph.D.’s need not apply. I know many people who have earned "only" a master's in a life science. Our culture perceives persons with this level of education as more adaptable and offers them the luxury to sample opportunities in related fields. Many have been ultimately more financially successful and have enjoyed greater recognition and job satisfaction that most Ph.D.’s I know. The years spent earning a doctorate can be often better spent in the real world: accruing a meritorious record outside of the classroom, gaining experience and building networks. I advise young people to enter fields that are strategically important to consumers; where one can perform one’s chosen profession at flexible times in many different capacities and locations; fields that don’t depend upon political connections and knowing the right person to find a good job; and where one can start with minimal education and pursue training and education as needed, with support from one’s employer. For example in nursing, one can start working with two to four years of higher education. Nurses’ skills are needed continually, almost everywhere in the world, at institutions of all sizes, and employment opportunities are routinely advertised rather than primarily filled through personal contacts. For a working parent, employment is available during different shifts and a particular position is not so unique that it is unthinkable to take leave (with or without pay) if needed. In times of family relocation, employment doesn’t require the retirement of the sole, indigenous nurse in the new town. Most importantly, there are opportunities to practice the profession in a variety of settings such as a hospital floor nurse, nurse anesthetist, cruise nurse, school nurse, nurse to a private doctor, or even as a private nurse in one's own practice. In addition, there are numerous peripheral industries that require employees with the types of knowledge and experience gained in nursing, such as insurance, medical provider companies, sales, food manufacturers, malpractice and personal injury law, etc. If a person with superior skills wants to move up the career ladder, there are various levels of both administration and practice available to a nurse manager. For persons interested in further education, a master's in nursing often qualifies one to teach at a college. With a Ph.D. one cannot only teach, but is considered material for deanship and above. However, if a person starts out a career with a Ph.D. in life sciences there isn't much room to move up. One can only hope for longevity. Sue Mischke, Ph.D. A Member Since September 2003 ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
