<p>I've been interning at a biology lab for the past few weeks. I've enjoyed most of what I've done and learned, but I've noticed that many of the researchers don't find their work intellectually stimulating on a day-to-day basis. The end result of an experiment seems to excite them, but their daily work appears to involve a lot of frequently-repeated procedures that grow dull and monotonous over time.</p>
<p>I'm curious to know if this is true of scientific research in general, especially as compared to other careers. I understand that every job involves some dull, routine daily tasks, but it'd only seem to be worth the extra time and effort required to get a PhD if it leads to a career substantially more interesting and enjoyable than others. So, are there careers in scientific research that involve a lot of variety and intellectually stimulating activity, or are they not much better in those categories than jobs that might be available in other fields with only a bachelor's degree?</p>
<p>It depends on what the research and methodology is, but I would say that science involves a lot of repetitive, boring, and mundane, work and a real lot of plain old failure/dead-ends. It is that .01% of time something interesting happens that keeps most scientists going.</p>
<p>Most heads of labs or groups have people under them doing the boring routine work (technicians, grad students, post-docs, Jr Scientists etc). The trouble is there are not a lot of such positions. There can only be so many chiefs and science jobs are already scarce in general.</p>
<p>Absolutely – I’m a math major at present, so something more theoretical would definitely be up my alley. I also have an interest in biology and biochemistry, though, which is why I’ve been spending time in a lab to get a better feel for that type of work. Might something like bioinformatics be a good and interesting fit for me?</p>
<p>I’d also find theoretical physics interesting – anything science-y really – but I’d rather steer clear of finance-related fields or pure CS.</p>
<p>I don’t know much about bioinformatics - maybe someone else can help?</p>
<p>To satisfy my own curiosity, may I ask why you are systematically excluding CS? I was a math major myself and a computer science professor once told me that I would be much better off with a graduate degree in computer science than math: I could work on many of the same problems, but with more job openings and a higher pay. </p>
<p>I didn’t believe it at the time but I have come to change my mind since. Some areas of computer science are basically all math. Like statistics? Try machine learning. Geometry? Graphics. Functional Analysis? Sound. Algebra? Cryptography. Circle packing? Information theory.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting question, in my experience (I did my undergrad in physics and am currently doing an experimental physics PhD) there is far more scope for intellectually stimulating work within science than outside of it. Here I’m talking about work that is academically stimulating, if you enjoy the challenge of leading a team or something like that the same doesn’t apply. </p>
<p>Friends of mine who did technical subjects generally don’t feel challenged academically by what they’re doing. Many went into finance, software or similar professions. My work is constantly challenging there’s rarely a time I feel bored by what I’m doing (the closest I come to this is when I have to write small scripts or snippets of code but this usually comes as a welcome break).</p>
<p>There are also plenty of jobs in industry which become available to you after acquiring a PHD which are much more stimulating for example I know people who have gone into patent law (with no legal back ground, just a technical PhD), gone on to become quants (lots of differential equations and use of mathematica) and they generally find these jobs far more rewarding than those who went on to jobs straight from undergrad.</p>
<p>If you do decide to continue in science in my experience boredom will be the least of your concerns. For example it pays less, in certain areas there’s very poor job security (you have to do a string of 2-3 year post docs moving around for each one with no guarantee of a permanent job at the end), it can be stressful and frustrating (lots of avenues of research just don’t lead anywhere), it’s incredibly competitive in some areas (theoretical physics for example), you’re always under pressure. On the plus side if it’s something you’re passionate about you get to do what you enjoy all day, it’s flexible and you have a chance to actually do something people might remember in 100 years.</p>
<p>If you truly want to be remembered and have a fascinating life then be creative, innovative, and take take calculated risks. Don’t be a herd follower and gleefully swim against the tide of popular opinion.</p>