🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnrI6H.9JI@ucdavis.edu> forbush@bhabha.ucdavis.edu (Mike Forbush) writes:
>Subject: Re: Request: info about postdocs in ecology, zoology, computational biology
>Newsgroups: sci.research.postdoc,sci.bio.ecology,sci.bio,bionet.jobs
>References: <RMT.94Apr1130117@bronte.cs.unh.edu>
>Distribution: usa
>X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
>
>
>This brings up a very good point with regards to the current structure
>that has been artificially setup within the scientific community. This
>structure makes it difficult for a proven scientist to move between
>fields. It seems reasonable that someone with a Ph.D. in one area of 
>science should be able to move to another area without a problem
>because a Ph.D. should be proof that one is capable of scientific 
>investigation. However, functioning reasoning skills are not the
>unique measurement of worth in the scientific community. In fact,
>they are most probably the least considered attribute when a candidate
>is considered. Instead, experience is the most valuable attribute
>considered by the PI.
>
>Of course, Roy has some experience in simulating the population
>dynamics of nudibranchs and the interaction of nudibranchs and
>hydroids in fouling communities and that may assist a move into
>biology if he wishes to make it. But, what about the truly curious scientist
>that read a popular article on the population dynamics of nudibranchs
>and had some experience in computer simulation. 
>This scientist is educated enough (Ph.D.) to read the literature and
>to publish his results. (If there is there is a problem with this
>reasoning please point it out to me.) However, a PI studying
>nudibranchs will most likely hire a postdoc with
>nudibranch experience over a computer scientist with limpet experience.
>
>The point that I am trying to make is that the rigid structure of the
>scientific community makes it virtually impossible to cross
>between the artificially created fields and subfields of science
>under simple curiosity driven desire. I believe that this will
>result in inbreeding which may result in many stagnant fields.
>At least the geneticists out there should agree with me in 
>a hypothesis that encouraging cross fertilization will result in
>individual hybrids that can flourish in many fields.
>I hope that evolutionists reading this will be encouraged
>as well. Physicists and Mathematicians already know some
>of the profits of such a venture as do Biochemists. Perhaps 
>a policy of a open door would encourage more exploration
>of natural philosophy as the Doctor of Philosophy degree was
>originally labeled.
>
>Why am I making this statement? Out of frustration. Out of
>anger. Out of pain. 
>
>I have chosen to follow one road: High Energy Physics. 
>However, I am not exclusively interested in High Energy Physics. 
>I have dabbled in optics, genetics, astronomy, astrophysics
>marine biology, chemistry, electronics and cosmology and
>I have found each very interesting. I have recently begun 
>a personal curiosity driven after hours research in
>Environmental Science. I may never see anything that I have done
>in these secondary fields, published. But I will continue 
>learning in all of these fields. But, as the High Energy Physics 
>Community shrinks from the demise of the SSC I may no longer
>even be employed in  research, but it is not from the lack
>of interest.
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Michael Forbush

I have the same feeling. My MS degree and several years of pre-PhD career was
in the field A. Recently I am graduating with a PhD in the field B (name of
the department where I am registering) and thesis in the field C. These fields
are not far apart but not too close related either. It took me a lot of effort
to migrate from field to field but I really enjoy the fresh feeling. 

Now it comes the real problem: I am having hard time in finding a job. 
Obiviously I can't count on the field A because I don't have PhD level
experience there. I can't find job ( I mean post-doc or teaching ) in the
field B either because I haven't established any research record there. My 
preference and hope is of course in the field C, but when I try to beat 
those with strong C background I lost.

I think crossing field is beneficial and risky, depents on how you look at it.

--Shiming Wu


but when I try to beat those with strong C background I lost.