<p>What would an undergrad study specifically if he or she were interested in becoming a research scientist. There are many "science" majors. What major would be best and what, if any of you folks know, is the growth rate of this profession.</p>
<p>uh, researching what? "Research Scientist" is not a profession per se... there are people who work at pharmaceutical companies who do research; there are people at auto and chemical companies who do research; there are statisticians at the CDC or FDA who do research.... there are scientists at the FBI and DOD who do research. There are clinical psychologists in a variety of corporate and government settings who do research-- You need to tell us what the interest is before we can be helpful.</p>
<p>For a student who doesn't yet have any focus, the traditional core of bio, physics, chem, and math post calculus ought to yield a few nibbles. Then, the subject matter kicks in.... people who develop new prosthetic devices are going to study more materials science than people who work in genomics....but both of these people will have a solid grounding in the basic scientific/mathematical core before they start to specialize.</p>
<p>do u mean one that works in a univeristy lab?????</p>
<p>Growth rate is terrible right now in academia. National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health budgets have been slashed. Researchers spend huge amounts of time applying for grants - only a tiny percentage get funded. You are probably better off working in industry. Biotech firms still seem to be doing well. I know less about chemistry. If you are going to spend your life doing science you should pick the subject and subfield within it that you love or you will hate your job. I'd start off with trying out different sciences and then finding out what interests you. Many science college majors have a fair amount of overlap.</p>
<p>First, generally a PhD is needed for research, and that is the time that most people really narrow down into the specialty that they're interested in. For the BA/BS, I think a student should major in the broader area that interests them, such as bio, chem or physics. If they know more precisely what they want to do, they may chose something narrower like chem engineering, physiology, etc.</p>
<p>As far as growth rate, research in general cannot be generalized, it depends very much on the field and sometimes even specific areas within a field. For instance, at this time natural resources research is very competitive, and while some areas are growing, others are reducing budgets and personnel.</p>
<p>cross posted with blossom, agree with what she said.
also with mathmom, and agree that with the reduction in Federal budgets for research, both grants and federal hiring has been cut substantially and there's not change in sight.</p>
<p>In addition to majoring in one of the sciences as an undergraduate, I think it would be a good idea for the student who is interested in a research career to seek out undergraduate research opportunities. The idea here is to figure out whether you really like this kind of work before making a commitment to a PhD program.</p>
<p>Seconding blossom's comments. I work at a major research facility for a multinational corporation. This place is as close to corporate academia as you can possibly find. I only post this to suggest you consider expanding the possible universe of "research scientist" jobs beyond academia.</p>
<p>Thanks for all that. Hmmmmm, if a Phd is opted for to pursue research .. say with the pharmaceutical industry.. how many years of school are we talking, assuming no gap years?</p>
<p>I am also a research scientist and I work for a government agency. I agree with the information provided by the posters above. Many people in my field work for pharmaceutical companies, so I can address your question above. A Ph.D. in my field takes about five years, on average. Many people do a year or more of post-doctoral research before being hired by a pharmaceutical company. Most graduate students receive fellowships, teaching assistantships, or are paid by their advisor's research grant, so their tuition is paid and they receive enough of a stipend to live on. Post-doctoral positions are also paid, more than grad students but less than a permanent job. So even though many years of school are involved, the student should not need to be dependent on parents or loans for funding during those years.</p>
<p>A PhD generally requires 4 years undergrad and 4-6 years grad. A couple to several years of postdoc experience is also common. These postdoc positions are often poorly paid and the participant has some title such as research scientist or research associate. At that point the individual usually moves on to what is often a tough competition to move through the ranks and gain tenure. </p>
<p>Research possibilities in business vary greatly. Often the best possibilities are in pharmaceuticals - since the drug companies have lots of money. Other possibilities are often not as stable. Companies come and go as do research projects and interests and the jobs they supported.</p>
<p>One group that still has money is DARPA. </p>
<p>According to my friends, money is tighter at NIH and NSF but my friends in academia are still getting big grants. One friend told me that the NIH has swtiched focus though. Apparently, they are unhappy that the previous research did not substantially affect the general health of the overall American population. Thus, they are now interested in funding research will will improve the overall health of the population.</p>
<p>There are good opportunities for assistants in major research labs. You should consider trying to get work in a lab as early as possible. In general, it is a solitary, introverted sort of work. It's good to find out if you are suited for that life.</p>
<p>
Not to mention that a strong record of undergraduate research is practically essential for getting into a PhD program in the sciences recently.</p>
<p>I'm currently a PhD student in biology, so I can answer any questions about how much fun grad school is (hint: it's not :)).</p>
<p>I disagree with Cheers that the career of a research scientist is generally solitary and introverted. Of course, a lot of time is spent conducting experiments, analyzing data, writing reports and papers, and reading, but successful research labs these days generally are made up of a pretty large group of people (technicians, grad students, post-docs, senior researchers) and there is normally a lot of camaraderie, collaboration, and interactions within the lab group. Also, the senior researchers generally attend a lot of scientific meetings, serve on numerous advisory committees, peer review groups, etc. and collaborate with people in other labs, so there is a lot of interaction with others in one's field. The life of a scientist these days usually does not involve toiling away alone in a lab without interacting with others.</p>
<p>Fact of the matter is academic researchers are a pretty self-selected bunch. You don't really have to worry about current funding situation, because you won't be getting your first job (post-doc) for 8-10 yrs, or your first faculty position for another 3-5. (sorry mollie). You don't do it for the fun, or the money, but because its hard to imagine doing anything else. Sorta like being a professional musician - you shouldn't need to work so hard to be so poorly paid. The upside is you can work on whatever you think is interesting (assuming granting agencies agree) - you don't have to make a drug.</p>
<p>Sorry MotherofTwo. I only know that I arranged for my brilliant niece to work in a prestigious neuro-bio lab in a top 10 medical school--the summer before college. Despite the large group of researchers and the huge collection of labs--she found the environment too quiet--and swtiched her focus to public health medicine where she has been very very happy.</p>
<p>It's probably relative--which is why it's worth testing.</p>
<p>Cheers, No need to argue - as you said, it's all relative. I am glad your niece is happy in her career. I must say that I was talking more about the work environment of a "research scientist" with a Ph.D., a much more senior person than a pre-college student. The research scientist would likely be spending less time in the lab doing the routine work, normally carried out by technicians and grad students, and more time designing the experiments and doing other things. </p>
<p>My own title is "Research Scientist" but my research involves project management of research done by investigators at universities or other institutions - I am not in a lab myself. The principal investigators (professors or other scientists who are "research scientists") on the projects we manage at universities or other institutions are normally high level people who do not spend most of their time doing the actual laboratory work. Their daily work definitely involves a lot of interaction with other professionals.</p>
<p>It also depends a lot on the lab dynamics. I've been in 3 different labs for extended periods of time, and each of them have had very different dynamics, based mostly on the age and lifestyle of the members. My first lab was small and pretty quiet, with a bunch of older people (no grad students, it was at the NIH). The second one was full of lots of younger people, and was a large lab, all of whom lived very very nearby. Because they lived close, they didn't feel a need to finish everything by a certain time, so there was lots of time spent having fun or hanging out. My current lab is a mixture of the two, with younger people and grad students, but many of them commute pretty far and/or have lives outside of lab. Thus they're pretty focused and the lab gets pretty quiet after 6 and on weekends, but theres still lots of hanging out at lab activities, and everyone eats lunch together etc.</p>
<p>
Ick, don't I know it. My mother keeps asking me when I'm going to get a "real job." People also consider it a very interesting conversation point to ask me when I'm going to be done with graduate school. How should I know? I haven't even started my thesis research yet!</p>
<p>in our area you can get a job without a Phd
D has several friends who were bio or biochem majors who are employed full time doing research.
One of them was told, that as soon as they found a Phd who had the skill set they needed she was out, but for now they are happy to have her.
You need a Phd to do original research, & most of the people who work closest with the profs I know are post docs, but there are lots of places outside academia that do research
D actually found after writing an undergrad thesis & graduating ( well she found out before that) that she liked field research, not so much the lab work</p>
<p>I agree major in chem/physics/bio, but your focus may change, get as broad based science background as you can</p>
<p>Hang in there Mollie! Most people don't understand that earning a doctorate is not like going to law school, medical school, etc. At these other types of graduate schools, you know exactly when you will get your degree but the timeframe for earning a doctorate is pretty much undefined. People used to ask me the exact same question and I would get very upset! </p>
<p>FWIW, I have had a "real job" for over 21 years now. Now people are asking me if I am thinking of RETIRING and it is also very annoying (I am not planning to retire soon, or even eligible if I wanted to, but quite a few of my co-workers are)! </p>
<p>There will be plenty of time in your life for a "real job" so don't let those questions bother you!!</p>