
Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in scientific careers - smb06
http://www.nature.com/news/is-science-only-for-the-rich-1.20650
======
kaitai
As I write this, there are just a small number of comments, all saying
"there's no money in research" and "scientists are paid less than McDonald's
burger flipper". It's like a whole section of disgruntled grad students who
wanted to be professors. There is tons of money in science! People who "fail
out" of or never wanted to pursue the stupid academic dream become active in
patent law, become managers at pharma and biomed companies, oversee quality
control at chemical firms, write documentation for medical devices, run labs,
work as lab techs. These are all good jobs compared to the jobs the majority
of Americans are qualified for.

Seems like HN has a very warped view, this view that "there's no money in
research" means some poor kid is better off flipping burgers into her 50s than
becoming a lab manager.

~~~
existencebox
I would warn your optimism however, my wife is a lab manager (performs
research, publishes, ostensibly as involved in the science as any PHD) but I
would by no stretch of the word say she makes "good money"; both of us made
more back when we were service workers. The perception in her group is that
the positions that pay even close to tech (some of the ones you list, manager
at pharma company etc) are almost paramount if not more difficult to e.g.
getting a manager position at google. If you're not top of the pile material,
good fucking luck. (and you'll likely have some very high expectations to get
there, PHD+extensive research the minima of, which again unlike tech, are less
able to be fulfilled while making good money as well, and typically require
more upfront investment)

I would say that in my experience the closer you get to science (or the
further from money, perhaps?) the harder good money is to come by. (Left an
academic tech position myself a while back; tripled my salary overnight)

~~~
jackcosgrove
Wages are higher in technology compared to the sciences because productivity
is higher due to greater automation. The sciences may see wage increases in
the future as research tools become more automated. Whether the skill sets
remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work will always be inefficient
compared to a programmer controlling an array of robotic lab devices.

~~~
sndean
> Whether the skill sets remain the same is not so sure; manual wet lab work
> will always be inefficient compared to a programmer controlling an array of
> robotic lab devices.

I've already seen this happening in certain labs. It can be an odd experience
walking into an empty lab. In one particular bio lab, they employed one
particularly talented tech who knew how to do experiments that weren't yet
being done by robots. The other guys were all programmers or doing
bioinformatics. They're all well-paid and getting papers in NEJM, Nature,
Cell, etc. (I didn't get the job :-/ )

------
jkot
Great! Problem is not that scientists are often paid less than McDonald's
burger flipper.

No! It is social and gender issue! Lets push even more students into this
career path.

~~~
bbctol
The low pay for scientists is very definitely related to it not being an
accessible path for lower classes.

~~~
refurb
That doesn't make sense to me. If it were a more accessible path, then you'd
have more scientists (supply), the same demand and lower wages.

~~~
Fomite
The way science is currently set up, the only people who can take unpaid
"research experience" positions etc. in undergrad that have a _huge_ impact on
their career trajectories are people who know the bills are being paid some
other way.

~~~
fbormann
You have reached the point. I, myself, in a public University in Brazil, still
have concerns about the money I'll have to afford bus tickets. Some students
even own a car!, of course most of them have "unpaid" positions because they
won't suffer in their social lifes if they aren't paid. Thanks for getting the
point.

------
ap22213
Man, wish I could find the link - I had read something probably 10 years ago
that discussed the abnormally high number of independently wealthy people in
academia and research. Makes sense given how expensive it is and how
infrequently it nets positive ROI.

A big part of science are 'ideas', and ideas are interesting things in Human
culture. To be the 'idea person' in a social group requires considerable
social status. I see so many people in corporations battling to have their
ideas win. I see so many people of higher status claiming ownership of the
ideas of those 'beneath' them. I see plenty of great ideas being ignored
because of who proposes them. And, it's very rare to see an outsider's idea
gain influence.

They say that execution matters much more than ideas - but they go hand-in-
hand. The person who gets to execute also gets to choose the idea.

Given the comparitive physical weakness of the Human, 'the idea' is their
number one weapon and asset. It enables power. So, there are probably a lot of
social reasons why most lower-status (lower income) people are kept out of
science and research. It's probably more of a systematic result of Human
behavior than just being poor.

------
shae
I'd like to go get a PhD and teach, but it pays less than half of what I make
as a software dev. I wish I could somehow teach science & tech and also make
money.

~~~
trapperkeeper79
Serious suggestion .. start a youtube channel. I do most of my learning that
way (and I do have a PhD).

~~~
zo1
Or donate to a group that can do said teaching for you. Personally, I donate
to Khan Academy.

------
junipergreen
Studies have shown a major factor in young people's likeliness of going into
science is whether their families think highly of science and science careers
(regardless of parents' education levels). I'd imagine the ivory-tower nature
of science can contribute a class divides in this respect as well.

------
dorfsmay
I'm actually surprised well-off students choose science over well-paying
careers given that it is well known that there is no money in research.

My own kids and their friends often express that science is interesting but
they won't get into it because of that.

~~~
jordigh
I don't know what anyone else's story is, but for myself, everything was given
to me by my parents. We weren't exactly rich, but I was certainly privileged.
Whatever I asked for, I got. So, when a university education was given to me,
I thought I could just "follow my dream" and not concern myself too much with
making an income, because why should I? Making an income had never seemed like
a concern, so I studied pure mathematics.

When my father died and my personal gold mine with him, I had to drop out of
mathematics (which I was half-assing anyway), find a way to make money, and
here I am now: software developer.

~~~
saiya-jin
the easier kids have it during childhood, the harder the reality hits later
(if ever). some frugality in upbringing instead of just throwing money on them
to compensate lack of time spent with them goes much, much longer way

~~~
8fGTBjZxBcHq
I get what you're trying to say but I just want to point out that reality
still probably hits harder when life was always hard.

Growing up with nothing into an adulthood with no support network and few
prospects, where our society blames you for being in that situation, is a
harder draw than being taken care of until you're halfway through college then
having to find your own way.

~~~
glubby
"Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that?" \- Marie Curie.

------
known
Intrinsic motivation
[http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm)

------
dijit
Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all highly educated
fields except for computer science/development/sysadmin.

We're very much the exception not the norm. As much as my mother believed I
could be anything I would not be able to drag myself through university even
without external factors pushing me down and throwing me around like a sack of
meat.. for years..

~~~
wutbrodo
We're _better_ than other fields, but definitely not an exception. I grew up
in a formerly upper upper middle class family that didn't have very much money
due to medical and mental health issues. I'm only ~5 years out of uni but my
success at every point in my education and career so far made it credible to
me that credentialism and reliance on personal connections wasn't a
significant factor in tech careers (as opposed to merit).

But it's recently become pretty clear to me that all the best opportunities
I've ever been exposed to were through connections, and not all of those
connections are attributable purely to merit. Had I not had these, I would be
doing pretty well on merit, but the fact that I'm doing extraordinarily well
is due to the fact that I got opportunities that many others never even had a
shot at. About half of these were from family and friends, which has almost
nothing to do with revealed merit. The other half was from smart classmates in
my CS program, which is a little more correlated with merit. But it's not a
coincidence that most of the people in my friend group were somehow similarly
upper middle class. I had a really talented, smart friend group, but it's hard
to imagine that coming from a similar background didn't have any affect on how
easily we got along.

------
jimmywanger
This is a misleading headline.

Poverty and social background remain huge barriers in all careers.

Why single out scientific careers?

------
davidf18
From the article: > Last year, Christina Quasney was close to giving up. A
biochemistry major at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Quasney's
background was anything but privileged.

People with little family money get free grants and low-interest government
backed loans to attend college. She is attending a public university. In NYC,
there are many students that are attending City University of New York and I
meet some. They are studying biology, engineering, and other sciences. They
generally but not always live at home.

The annual tuition and fees are less than $7000 and for transportation, the
MTA subway/bus is $115 per month, unlimited rides.

Students like those mentioned in the article get Pell Grants and Stafford
government backed low-interest loans. Pell Grants are $5,800 per year.
Stafford Loans are 5,500 the first year, 6,500 the second year, and $7,500 for
the remaining years.

In my particular case, I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by
programming computers beginning in high school. I was not eligible for Pell
Grants nor any form of loans including Stafford Loans.

So, I really don't understand these arguments. Public universities provide a
first class low-cost undergraduate education and of course have PhD programs
and so on.

Once one has an undergraduate degree with good grades, in the sciences and
engineering, if they are admitted to a PhD program so they are fully funded
for both tuition and housing.

CUNY Tuition and Fees: [http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-
college-costs...](http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/tuition-and-college-
costs/tuition-fees/#1452179204200-d27abe14-99f4)

Pell Grants:
[https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-1...](https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/announcements/pell-2016-17)

Stafford Loans: [https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-
loans/sta...](https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-
loans/stafford-loans/)

~~~
nickpinkston
The blindness of privilege:

> I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers
> beginning in high school.

It's commendable that OP did this - that's great and plenty of people have
squandered their gifts unlike him.

However, just because funding is available doesn't mean people aren't at a
disadvantage due to their situation.

Does OP really believe that you're on equal ground if you:

\- Live in a ghetto, often with an stressed-out, overworked single Mom.

\- Go to a shit school without adequate fucking literacy education - let alone
programming classes.

\- Have no family / friends who have professional jobs.

\- Often fear for your physical and financial safety.

\- You don't have a computer / internet at home.

This breads a very difficult kind of scarcity to dig yourself out of, and we
need programs to help these kids get out. Cash is great, but not sufficient.

~~~
zo1
You can't easily fix a broken culture from the outside. All people need to be
treated equally, above all else, including race, gender, beliefs, and economic
status (yes). I simply think it is unfair to nullify and demean the good work
that hard-working individuals have done. By claiming that their position in
life is a product of "privilege" or their parent's privilege, and simply
giving those that did not do said hard work a free pass and cash.

Those are the beliefs, uncomfortable or not, and as is often the case with
this type of topic, they are the products of a fundamentally different view of
the world. I am not here to fix cosmic injustices using further injustice, nor
do I want my tax money going towards it either.

~~~
rmxt
Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home
computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people
up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in
impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working
individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of
free pass being offered.

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-
working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the
sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations. Quick Google searches
suggest that escaping poverty with children would actually require working
more than 40-hours a week. Seems like a catch-22 for trying to achieve
financial, familial and educational success. [1]

[1] [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-
wage-e...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-
employees-must-work-50-hours-a-week-to-escape-poverty-oecd-says/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-
working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the
sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations_

60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor
adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only
11% of poor adults did.

[http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...](http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf)
Table 3 on page 21.

Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard
knowledge that all educated people know? Would you also require a citation
that proves Trump is a Republican, or that rich people don't commit much
violent crime?

~~~
dragonwriter
> > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-
> working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to
> the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations

> 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-
> poor adults do.

I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of
people in a group who are _employed_ is a good representation of the degree to
which people in the group are hardworkers seriously, no matter what the group
in question is.

But when its poor vs. non-poor -- that is, when the groups are divided up by
an attribute which is fairly strongly influenced by _whether or not you have
the income derived from a job_ \-- its even harder to believe.

> Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard
> knowledge that all educated people know?

That poor people are less likely to be employed is not a controversial claim,
nor was it the claim at issue. That they are less "hard-working" was the claim
at issue, which is not one which can be resolved by looking at the degree to
which they are employed.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of
poor adults were in the labor force: [http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-
poor/archive/a-profi...](http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-
poor/archive/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf)

(To get that number, I took 10.5M in labor force / (45.3M poor people - 16M
poor children).)

So yes, I think it's fair to characterize a group of people who don't work,
and aren't even looking for work, as "less hard working" than a group that
disproportionately is working.

What does "hard working" mean to you? And why do you believe poor people are
comparably hard working to the non-poor?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35%
> of poor adults were in the labor force:

Lower labor force participation could mean they are less hard working -- or it
could mean that they have less opinion of their ability to be gainfully
employed, or it could mean that working has a high cost (because, e.g., they
have children to take care of, childcare isn't free, and the jobs they could
reasonably secure wouldn't provide a net gain before considering child care
that's enough to pay for childcare.)

Or lots of other things.

> What does "hard working" mean to you?

Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially.

> And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-
> poor?

I haven't argued that they are. I've argued that the evidence that you've
presented to prove that they are not has virtually no probative value on the
point it is offered to support.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Willing to expend effort to improve one 's condition, essentially._

It's true - I can't rule out that the poor aren't sitting at home praying for
a job while taking no action to find one.

But what I've presented is strong evidence that the poor are not hard working.

Suppose your prior is P(!hardworking) = A, P(working) = B, P(looking for work)
= C, P(hard work in non-labor force activities) = D. Of course, A + B + C + D
must add up to 1.

I've just shown B and C to be false. So P(!hardworking|evidence I've
presented) = A / (A + D) > A. Feel free to tweak this and try a more
complicated model, I don't think you'll get a different result.

What evidence - if any - would cause you to acknowledge that the poor actually
aren't hardworking?

 _(because, e.g., they have children to take care of, childcare isn 't free,
and the jobs they could reasonably secure wouldn't provide a net gain before
considering child care that's enough to pay for childcare.)_

Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks after
multiple children while the others work. But poor Indians, unlike poor
Americans, are actually hard working.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Strangely, poor Indians have solved this problem. One poor person looks
> after multiple children while the others work

If done outside of the formal economy, that would produce, _ceteris paribus_ ,
lower labor-force participation among the poor, which is, surprise-surprise,
exactly the result you said indicated that American poor are not hard working.

So, thank you for illustrating one of the reasons your "evidence" doesn't
justify the conclusion you've drawn from it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It illustrates nothing of the sort. Some simple numbers.

Suppose that the 65% of poor adults who aren't in the labor force decided to
enter into such an arrangement. Then 3 of them would work (or look for work)
while the 4'th watched their children. The labor force participation rate of
the poor would increase from 35% to 83.75%.

Can you name any piece of evidence or measurement which would cause you to
believe the poor are not hardworking? Or is your doubt more religious in
nature?

~~~
dragonwriter
Your simple numbers are, frankly, meaningless and stupid. They assume that
childcare is the _only_ reason poor people are ever out of the labor force,
for starters.

If you assume thatpoor people are more likely to have to resort to mutual aid
outside the formal economy for that while non-poor people are more likely to
be able to be either consumers or suppliers (or both) of childcare in the
formal economy and that is the _only_ factor affecting differences in labor
force participation between the groups (which is, no doubt, an
oversimplification), then you'd expect -- no matter _what_ the mutual aid
ratio is -- a lower labor force participation rate for the poor.

If you more generally assume that this is hardly unique, and that regulatory
costs force those with less means out of the formal economy in other ways,
you'd expect the labor force participation rate of the poor to be even further
depressed.

> Can you name any piece of evidence or measurement which would cause you to
> believe the poor are not hardworking?

I'm not convinced that the character trait of "hard-workingness" has a good
objectively-measurable proxy, but then since I'm not the one making a positive
claim about it, its not my obligation to present and justify a valid measure
of the trait.

> Or is your doubt more religious in nature?

False dichotomy much? Thinking you are making a positive fact claim about
something for which no good objective evidence exists and which, while it
might in principle be measurable, it is unlikely that objective evidence
_could_ exist in practice, isn't a "religious" objection -- if anything, its
skepticism that _you_ are making what is essentially a claim of a religious
nature (that is, one that is held as true statement of material fact about the
world without being either objectively justified nor even necessarily
practically objectively justifiable.)

------
lintiness
i'm sorry, but technology is making access to science easy enough that "my
high school can't afford to offer that bio class" excuse just doesn't work
anymore. hell, even news aggs like google offer a science section every day.

~~~
psychometry
I'm sorry, but you've clearly never taken an actual lab science course if you
think it can be replaced by Google News.

~~~
lintiness
i'm pretty sure that's exactly what i said.

~~~
rspeer
Then you were exceptionally unclear about it. What does Google News's science
section have to do with anything? A newspaper's "science" section has little
to do with real science.

~~~
lintiness
the argument the article made was that financial barriers made science
inaccessible. ubiquitous exposure (google news) makes the argument
nonsensical. if you think you can't master high school science today (the
argument) without bunsen burners, some hcl, and an egregiously over paid
teacher, i can't help you.

~~~
rspeer
Oh good, there's no financial barrier to being the kind of person who believes
what unqualified journalists say about science, goes on fad diets, and says "I
Fucking Love Science".

That has shit-all to do with _doing science_.

