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.
> > it that we consider techs and scientists with enormous teaching
> > second string?
> Probably because they are not doing the main creative work of
> 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
> such a harsh concept. It seems like some people want the
> an 8-5 job with no writing or funding responsibilities, but want to
> called scientists too.
I've been gone for the last couple of weeks (one of the perks of
academics) and have probably missed other responses to my question
about "second string scientists", but the few I've seen seem to be
responding to the techs part of my question. I would also like to
know why it is that teachers are sometimes considered second string.
(or even worse, dead wood.)
As a requirement for tenure, I must do original research. While I am
certainly not as productive as someone with several grad students and
post docs and an NSF grant, I do not work only 8-5, 5 days a week. I
have several projects begging to be written up and will have to get my
own funding or do my research out of pocket, as even the internal
research funds available here are competitive. (I have a proposal due
next week. Keep your fingers crossed.) After talking to several people
at the SICB meetings last week I realize that my situation is far from
So, why is it that when I talk to other scientists and mention my
12/12 teaching load (last term I taught three three-hour lectures per
week plus a 3 hour lab section) that some act as if I don't have a
real job. (The funding agencies also behave this way according to
other people to whom I have spoken. You have to have a lab all set up
to get money to get equipment to set up a lab.)
And just for the record, when I referred to techs, I was speaking of
scientists of any level paid to work in a lab, ie. not the P.I. In my
experience, most of them are doing original work. However, they are
typically thought of in the way described above...as "underlings".
Just some thoughts after an informative (and a bit discouraging)