On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Susan Jane Hogarth wrote:
>ktlee+ at pitt.edu wrote:
> > Maybe part of the problem is the way we categorize scientists. Why is
> > it that we consider techs and scientists with enormous teaching loads,
> > second string?
>> Probably because they are not doing the main creative work of science.
> This is the same reason that we don't know the name of any of the
> artisans in (for example) Michelangelo's workshop, even though they
> almost certainly did much of the work. I'm not sure why this is seen as
> such a harsh concept. It seems like some people want the convenience of
> an 8-5 job with no writing or funding responsibilities, but want to be
> called scientists too.
Sorry- I have to respond to this one! My official position in this
laboratory is "Lab Supervisor" and because I have an MS instead of a
PhD I am often considered a tech. I am in charge of an entire project in
this laboratory. I work at least 10 hours a day and come in many weekends
(comparable to the post-docs in the lab and certainly more hours than the
grad students). I design the experiments, collect and interpret the data.
I train students. I write my own papers. I help write
grants (I would write my own, but not having a PhD, I cannot). I contribute
just as much to the creative aspects of the research as anyone, and I consider
myself just as much of a scientist as anyone in the group (as does my boss,
the PI). I am *doing* science after all, I am just a little less involved
in the administrivia of working in an academic institution.
One of my best friends from grad school was in a similat position. Please
consider this carefully before you paint all "techs" with the same