Every scientist should get a full time technician. When hired as a professor or staff scientist, one expects an office and lab space. I believe that a professional technician should be part of the package. They should carry value as part of the organization's infrastructure.
More good science would get done if there were reliable and competent hands in the lab that don’t need to be retrained every 4-5 years (like grad students) , every 2-3 years (like staff funded by specific grants) or every 4-5 months (like seasonal interns). Having a technician who earns a living wage with fringe benefits would stay long enough to build institutional memory for the lab that would ease transition between students, prevent instrument problems that stem from multiple, poorly trained users, and provide leadership.
Even better, if professional technician positions paid adequately and were well respected, it would provide alternative science jobs. I know many people who really like bench or field work and they see that having only a bachelor’s or master’s degree will likely keep them cycling through short-term jobs tied to funding cycles. No 401(k). No maternity leave or paid vacation. Lousy hourly wage. Who wants to stay in that long term? Who can afford to? So people either enroll in a PhD program or find a job away from the bench. What a shame. I suspect that that is how many people end up in high pressure, high responsibility jobs that they dislike because really what they wanted was to actually do the nuts and bolts work of science, not write proposals all the time.
10 comments:
Amen.
In the lab I am part of, a post-doc seems to be playing a role similar to what you have described. There is no talk of him moving on yet, but I am sure this won't be a long-term thing for him (although he is paid pretty well and with full benefits). Too bad for the lab - we've all really benefited from having him around.
We don't have a technician, but one thing I've done for my project is to suck in talented freshmen, mold them into wonderful little scientists (which can be a HUGE time investment, but the payoff is sweet!), and then let them loose. Of course, I've had to fire a few bad ones over the years, but the ones that have stuck it out have coauthorships and are now at top grad schools! :)
I agree, sort of. My current lab has a lab manager (LM) so you'd think we get continuity of training. What we have in practice is someone without a PhD who competes with and undermines the PI. So LM tries to outwrangle the PI, get his own way, steer the labs science etc. I agree that technicians would be a good thing, but they should know their place.
I should add - the 'know their place' comment wasn't ment to be derogatory or anything, just that they are employees and at a certain level in the system.
I see pluses and minus in this, the pluses of course you already covered the minus can be someone who doesn't want grad students to touch "their" equipment and thus the grad students never get a chance to learn and just think techs will run their experiments for them for the rest of their careers. This isn't the case.
I worked with a tech and it took three trainings before he would even let me weigh out the chemicals for the reagents. Granted it was a new piece of equipment that he was learning himself. Now I have a key and can use the equipment as long as no one else is, and I've learned how to fix it when it doesn't work. I've since learned that the tech respects me more since I pushed to run the equipment myself (it's much better than giving him samples and praying he'll find time to analyze them). He's told me it great I wanted to learn as so many students just give him samples.
hmmm, yes I can see the negative aspects of a permanant tech. In the lab I'm in, there is the most glorious tech (I called her Awesome Technician in an earlier post) who doesn't have a regular staff position, which sucks. She runs the equipment so I don't have to, but it's equipment I know how to use so I dont' feel like I'm not getting training that I want. My only complaint is that, since she doesn't have the formal title of lab manager, she doesn't provide as much leadership as she could.
I wonder if the problems you guys have described come from techs/LMs asserting themselves because they feel like their position isn't as respected as your is, or as yours will be once you graduate.
My graduate group had a full-time "research assistant." She's soft-money but the expectation is that her position is permanent, i.e., the PI makes sure that every grant submitted has salary for her. She helps with field work, gets projects up and running so that proposals can be written and grad students can be recruited, she edits (and coauthors) papers, talks, and figures. She has a MS and no desire to actually be a PI, give talks, or come up with grant ideas. In short, she's a fabulous boost to the PI's productivity, without being a competitor to either him or his students. All those who have encountered her (including me) have wished that we had the resources to have someone like that.
SW, that sounds perfect.
Love this idea - a combination permanent tech and lab manager. It makes a lot of sense even if for no other reason than better equipment maintenence and more comprehensive materials policy, with someone continually responsible for supervison, double-checking stock and procedures, and being on hand for a range of technical questions.
Post a Comment