Hi,
I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
interests are cancer research/crystallography. I would like to link it (
in both I have some experience). I have good marks, I want new impulse
and I would really like to do that.
Can anyone help me to make my drems true?
Thanks Stephanie
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> Hi,
> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> interests are cancer research/crystallography. I would like to link it (
> in both I have some experience). I have good marks, I want new impulse
> and I would really like to do that.
> Can anyone help me to make my drems true?
> Thanks Stephanie
Cancer research is the better way to go. Crystalography will be very
limited in terms of job market. Start writing letters to any and as many
people in the cancer fields of your interests.
See my website for other details…
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
—————————————-
| Science career information websites: |
| http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
—————————————-
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, SmithR…@tamu.edu (Spothedog) wrote:
> In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> >On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> >> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> >> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
OTOH, I know an inorganic chemist who starting running structures for his
postdoc advisor and then landed a staff job at HHMI doing protein
crystallography. So… you never know.
Spothedog wrote:
> In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> >On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> >> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> >> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> >> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
It’s like NMR, crystallography has become a tool with not that much new methods
development. There are tons of folks publishing routine structures. OTOH,
there
must be a group developing new drugs that needs a crystallographer to help with
their structure.
josh halpern
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Rebecca M. Chamberlin wrote:
> In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, SmithR…@tamu.edu (Spothedog) wrote:
> > In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> > >On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> > >> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> > >> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> > For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> > prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> > work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> OTOH, I know an inorganic chemist who starting running structures for his
> postdoc advisor and then landed a staff job at HHMI doing protein
> crystallography. So… you never know.
The last time I heard, HHMI has two "operations"- i) "national
headquarters" (in a Gothic-style) building at NIH where they decide how to
pass out around 1+ bil in money, and ii) a lot of "laboratories" that are
already in existing buildings that are part of existing campuses. A
condition of receiving HHMI money, the PI _must_ put on any publication,
in addition to their regular institutional affiliation, a reference to
HHMI. "National Headquarters," last time I heard, does not do any science,
just administrative functions. They may sponsor some scientists at NIH,
however, but I would ask that inorganic chemist about the details of that
relationship.
There were a number of articles on the HHMI over the years in the journal
Science.
Back not too many years ago, the way to get HHMI money was to
"know" Purnell Chopin, by the way. You could not "apply" for an HHMI
grant. You were sellected for it. They were criticised for this cronyism a
while back and opened up the "application process." From one guy who had
an HHMI grant and told me about it, it was a mixed blessing. Lots of
people were jealous and the way they showed it was to approve his
proposals, but then cut 90% of the budget request.
Art Sowers
<<<<<<<<<<<
Hi,
I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
interests are cancer research/crystallography. I would like to link it (
in both I have some experience). I have good marks, I want new impulse
and I would really like to do that.
Can anyone help me to make my drems true?
Thanks Stephanie
I can’t say anything about cancer research in medical schools.
For postgraduate studies in
the field of protein X-ray crystallography I would suggest you checking out
the listing of chemistry and Biochemistry researchers from
the ACS (Americal chemical society) directory. I think the most recent
edition is either year 2000 or 1999. You may find a copy of the
directory in your school library or from your chemistry department.
There you may gather a list of contacts of
X-ray crystallography specialists across north america whose
reseearch work may interest you. You can then contact these people
to enquire about postgraduate studies in their research laboratories.
There may be a similiar directory for international schools
(those outside north america) but I never notice a copy in the library here.
You may also visit the homepages of various
chemistry departments to look for other X-ray people in the field
of biochemistry. Check out in particularly the
chemistry/biochemistry schools at Oxford and Cambridge in England where
the legendary Dorothy Hodgkin carry out her pioneering crystallographic
studies of biological molecules.
Wai-To Chan
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
>>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
>>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
>>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
>For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
>prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
>work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
>I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
>it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
>ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
>But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
to people.
–
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
> >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> to people.
> —
> Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
for AIDs came from other areas in the early 1980s. Some other disease
could break out, too. Molecular biology and gene therapy are also areas
that are hot now, too.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
—————————————-
| Science career information websites: |
| http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
—————————————-
I don’t think the replies from the group are right on this at all.
Crystallographers are still getting jobs/publishing papers – especially for those
who can do larger and more complex molecules. Small molecule crystallography,
which is done for synthetic chemists, on the other hand, is pretty much a service
facility job, since "direct methods" have solved the phase problem.
It is true that the peak of crystallography as an area where there were more jobs
than applicants is probably over. I’d say that it’s still better than for the
average PhD in "cancer research" since it’s harder there to do something that
stands out — too many smart, hardworking and ruthless people there already.
With the human genome almost done, NIH is actually funding projects to try to solve
the structures of EVERYTHING!! This has the buzzword "Structural Genomics" and it
will be interesting to see if it actually works…I’m not convinced.
Jim Hu
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arthur Sowers wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
> > In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
> > >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> > >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> > >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> > >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> > >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> > >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> > >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> > >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> > >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> > >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> > >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> > Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> > grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> > is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> > area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> > or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> > to people.
> > —
> > Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> > b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
> I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
> industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
> diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
> its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
> area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
> not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
> its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
> AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
> are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
> Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
> NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
> for AIDs came from other areas in the early 1980s. Some other disease
> could break out, too. Molecular biology and gene therapy are also areas
> that are hot now, too.
> Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
> —————————————-
> | Science career information websites: |
> | http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
> | http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
> —————————————-
email and post..
Sorry Jim, I disagree with you. When you can show me that the number of
crystalographer positions is increasing every year, has been increaseing
every year for the last few years, and eveyone is jumping on the
xtalography bandwagon and projecting further increases, AND when you can
show that the ratio of the number of applicants per job is "one" or less,
then you can urge people to go that way. The issue is to look at what
subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
(i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
You want a hot area, the word "bioinformatics" is on everyone’s lips and
it has been that way for several years now. I’ve even seen faculty
recruitment adverts crying for a bioinformatics person. This will surely
last another 4-6 years, maybe even up to 8. Then, something new will be a
hot topis and most departments will have "their" bioinforatics person.
I can clearly remember, in the past, big trends in biomed jobs. First it
was electron microscopy (mid 1960s), then cytoskeleton stuff, then it was
cloned molecules, then recombinant DNA, then molecular biology, now gene
therapy is big, and next will be bioinformatics. Whats next? Maybe more
quality of life drugs (after viagra, brain stimulants, anti-alzehimers,
drugs to change gene expression in skin development [i.e make less pretty
women look like Linda Carter, etc.] and texture. Brain enhancements, dream
enhancements, "trip" drugs that are not addicting. Etc. When Craig Ventor
gets his crack at patenting genes after the map is done, he’s going to be
looking for anti-aging, anti-disease, you name it. Next, animal
improvement. Animals as carriers and generators of surogate parts for
humans?
Crystalography? Nahh.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jim Hu wrote:
> I don’t think the replies from the group are right on this at all.
> Crystallographers are still getting jobs/publishing papers – especially for those
> who can do larger and more complex molecules. Small molecule crystallography,
> which is done for synthetic chemists, on the other hand, is pretty much a service
> facility job, since "direct methods" have solved the phase problem.
> It is true that the peak of crystallography as an area where there were more jobs
> than applicants is probably over. I’d say that it’s still better than for the
> average PhD in "cancer research" since it’s harder there to do something that
> stands out — too many smart, hardworking and ruthless people there already.
> With the human genome almost done, NIH is actually funding projects to try to solve
> the structures of EVERYTHING!! This has the buzzword "Structural Genomics" and it
> will be interesting to see if it actually works…I’m not convinced.
> Jim Hu
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
> > > In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
> > > >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> > > >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> > > >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> > > >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> > > >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> > > >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> > > >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> > > >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> > > >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> > > >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> > > >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> > > Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> > > grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> > > is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> > > area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> > > or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> > > to people.
> > > —
> > > Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> > > b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
> > I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
> > industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
> > diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
> > its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
> > area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
> > not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
> > its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
> > AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
> > are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
> > Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
> > NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
> > for AIDs came from other areas in the early 1980s. Some other disease
> > could break out, too. Molecular biology and gene therapy are also areas
> > that are hot now, too.
> > Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
> > —————————————-
> > | Science career information websites: |
> > | http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
> > | http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
> > —————————————-
Doing a postdoc at TAMU is not the normal fastlane career track… much as I’d
like to see that change in the future. It was even more of a backwater in terms
of national reputation 13 years ago, and today I think it’s better than most
people imagine – no, gun racks are not required on all vehicles and you can find a
restaurant that doesn’t serve chicken fried steak – if you look hard enough :^)
I do think we do a respectable job training grad students…and as you know, I DO
believe in giving them the caveat emptor about going to grad school.
Jim
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Spothedog wrote:
> Well, it should come as no surprise to you then that the fellow I referred
> to who quit crystallography for a different career entirely, postdocted
> at good ole’ A&M. Of course this may well have been before your arrival,
> as I think the incident occured at least 13 years ago… possibly longer.
> I’ll admit, my data, consists of one story, so perhaps you are right.
> In article <39507091.5BA42…@tamu.edu>, ji…@tamu.edu says…
> >I don’t think the replies from the group are right on this at all.
> >Crystallographers are still getting jobs/publishing papers – especially for
> those
> >who can do larger and more complex molecules. Small molecule crystallography,
> >which is done for synthetic chemists, on the other hand, is pretty much a
> service
> >facility job, since "direct methods" have solved the phase problem.
> >It is true that the peak of crystallography as an area where there were more
> jobs
> >than applicants is probably over. I’d say that it’s still better than for the
> >average PhD in "cancer research" since it’s harder there to do something that
> >stands out — too many smart, hardworking and ruthless people there already.
> >With the human genome almost done, NIH is actually funding projects to try to
> solve
> >the structures of EVERYTHING!! This has the buzzword "Structural Genomics"
> and it
> >will be interesting to see if it actually works…I’m not convinced.
> >Jim Hu
> >Arthur Sowers wrote:
> >> On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
> >> > In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu>
> wrote:
> >> > >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> >> > >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> > >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> >> > >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> >> > >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> >> > >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well
> known
> >> > >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> >> > >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> >> > >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be
> that
> >> > >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> >> > >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> >> > >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> >> > Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> >> > grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> >> > is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> >> > area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> >> > or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> >> > to people.
> >> > —
> >> > Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> >> > b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
> >> I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
> >> industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
> >> diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
> >> its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
> >> area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
> >> not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
> >> its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
> >> AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
> >> are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
> >> Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
> >> NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
> >> for AIDs came from other areas in the early 1980s. Some other disease
> >> could break out, too. Molecular biology and gene therapy are also areas
> >> that are hot now, too.
> >> Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
> >> —————————————-
> >> | Science career information websites: |
> >> | http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
> >> | http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
> >> —————————————-
Arthur Sowers wrote:
> email and post..
> Sorry Jim, I disagree with you. When you can show me that the number of
> crystalographer positions is increasing every year, has been increaseing
> every year for the last few years, and eveyone is jumping on the
> xtalography bandwagon and projecting further increases, AND when you can
> show that the ratio of the number of applicants per job is "one" or less,
> then you can urge people to go that way. The issue is to look at what
A&M spent about 10 years trying to hire someone into an endowed chair in protein
crystallography. I realize that senior hires are different, but my impression is that
crystallography met your criteria about 7-10 years ago (although I don’t have the
stats). I thought I had mentioned in my original post that it’s on the wrong slope wrt
applicants/job now as supply has caught up with demand.
> subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
> old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
> and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
> pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
> site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
> (i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
> simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
But other biotech/pharma companies have their own crystallographers and are in the
process of paying big bucks to synchrotrons to lease beamlines. The computational guy
will naturally want to tell you that his simulation works – some of that stuff is valid,
other predictions are total BS – but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, that doesn’t
necessarily preclude someone from getting into a position of power and influence.
> You want a hot area, the word "bioinformatics" is on everyone’s lips and
> it has been that way for several years now. I’ve even seen faculty
> recruitment adverts crying for a bioinformatics person. This will surely
> last another 4-6 years, maybe even up to 8. Then, something new will be a
> hot topis and most departments will have "their" bioinforatics person.
I agree, and I think I pointed this out a couple of months ago on my last foray into the
sci. newsgroups – sorry if I miss the overall arc of the threads here, I can only fit
this into my schedule occassionally. However, I think it’s a mistake to go into
bioinformatics if you have neither the interest or background to do so – starting now
you may or may not hit the job curve at a favorable point – it’s too hard to predict.
The original poster specified crystallography and cancer research…I’m just opining
that between those two specific subfields, crystallography jobs are probably less
difficult to get than cancer research jobs, contrary to the impression given by the
other replies. Neither is a guaranteed job – bioinformatics might be close right now,
but I don’ know how long it will be before supply catches up.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I can clearly remember, in the past, big trends in biomed jobs. First it
> was electron microscopy (mid 1960s), then cytoskeleton stuff, then it was
> cloned molecules, then recombinant DNA, then molecular biology, now gene
> therapy is big, and next will be bioinformatics. Whats next? Maybe more
> quality of life drugs (after viagra, brain stimulants, anti-alzehimers,
> drugs to change gene expression in skin development [i.e make less pretty
> women look like Linda Carter, etc.] and texture. Brain enhancements, dream
> enhancements, "trip" drugs that are not addicting. Etc. When Craig Ventor
> gets his crack at patenting genes after the map is done, he’s going to be
> looking for anti-aging, anti-disease, you name it. Next, animal
> improvement. Animals as carriers and generators of surogate parts for
> humans?
> Crystalography? Nahh.
> Art
Predicting where the next new thing will be is almost impossible. The stuff you are
talking about may very well be accurate in the long run, but it may not get her a job in
the time frame she’s looking at.
Cheers,
Jim
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> === no change to below, included for reference and context ====
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jim Hu wrote:
> > I don’t think the replies from the group are right on this at all.
> > Crystallographers are still getting jobs/publishing papers – especially for those
> > who can do larger and more complex molecules. Small molecule crystallography,
> > which is done for synthetic chemists, on the other hand, is pretty much a service
> > facility job, since "direct methods" have solved the phase problem.
> > It is true that the peak of crystallography as an area where there were more jobs
> > than applicants is probably over. I’d say that it’s still better than for the
> > average PhD in "cancer research" since it’s harder there to do something that
> > stands out — too many smart, hardworking and ruthless people there already.
> > With the human genome almost done, NIH is actually funding projects to try to solve
> > the structures of EVERYTHING!! This has the buzzword "Structural Genomics" and it
> > will be interesting to see if it actually works…I’m not convinced.
> > Jim Hu
> > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > > On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
> > > > In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
> > > > >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> > > > >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> > > > >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> > > > >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> > > > >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> > > > >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> > > > >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> > > > >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> > > > >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> > > > >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> > > > >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> > > > Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> > > > grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> > > > is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> > > > area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> > > > or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> > > > to people.
> > > > —
> > > > Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> > > > b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
> > > I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
> > > industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
> > > diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
> > > its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
> > > area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
> > > not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
> > > its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
> > > AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
> > > are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
> > > Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
> > > NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
> > > for AIDs came from other areas in the early 1980s. Some other disease
> > > could break out, too. Molecular biology and gene therapy are also areas
> > > that are hot now, too.
> > > Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
> > > —————————————-
> > > | Science career information websites: |
> > > | http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
> > > | http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
> > > —————————————-
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Jim Hu wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
> > old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
> > and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
> > pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
> > site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
> > (i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
> > simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
> But other biotech/pharma companies have their own crystallographers and are in the
> process of paying big bucks to synchrotrons to lease beamlines. The computational guy
> will naturally want to tell you that his simulation works – some of that stuff is valid,
> other predictions are total BS – but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, that doesn’t
> necessarily preclude someone from getting into a position of power and influence.
As a simulator, sometimes I know what Rondy Dangerfield feels like. No
respect. Some simulation is valid, some is BS. Just like some
experiment is valid and some is BS. Some theory is valid and some is
BS. It all depends one who is doing the work. If someone is thorough
and knows what’s going on, they know when their simulation is giving
reliable results, or when the results are not reliable. This is no
different than any other research field.
Keep an eye out. Computer simulations are going to be playing a big
role in science research in the future. Our ability to model complex
systems is limited only by the computational hardware availible to us.
As the computers get better (cheaper and faster), so do the models and
the predictions of physical phenomena.
Jeff
post and courtesy email…
I don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much (see below), but I’ll have
to recomend the mercenary route to young people instead of the
glory-exciting route because in the glory-exciting route, its too easy to
get shot down. Cancer research is a better deal because there are sooooo
many more cancer researchers than crystalography jobs. A person needs lots
of fishing ponds with lots of fish as a target to go looking for a career
compared to just a few fishing ponds with one or no fish in them. Sure,
lots of other people will be fishing at these ponds, but its a strategy
offshoot from "the more irons in the fire, the better" line of
thinking. In the end, the glory-exciting route might be fine, but it also
is limited; guys who are in hot topics today will find maybe in a decade
or two that something new becomes a new hot topic and the old hot topic
becomes cold (and thus no longer funded, and thus goes down in
flames). So, I think cancer will be around for a long time. Therefore,
good job security. Young people should think about this tradeoff before
settling on some topic. Only a few of the many new topics become hot
topics, then most of those become cold topics when another new hot topic
is discovered in 8-10 years, or so. I remember 4-5 years ago, an
article that said apoptosis as a key word in journal articles went up like
250% over the previous year. So, all the guys in that area got their grant
proposals funded. Good for them. A lot of other guys DIDN’T get their
non-apoptosis grants funded because of that.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
—————————————-
| Science career information websites: |
| http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
—————————————-
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jim Hu wrote:
> Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > email and post..
> > Sorry Jim, I disagree with you. When you can show me that the number of
> > crystalographer positions is increasing every year, has been increaseing
> > every year for the last few years, and eveyone is jumping on the
> > xtalography bandwagon and projecting further increases, AND when you can
> > show that the ratio of the number of applicants per job is "one" or less,
> > then you can urge people to go that way. The issue is to look at what
> A&M spent about 10 years trying to hire someone into an endowed chair in protein
> crystallography. I realize that senior hires are different, but my impression is that
> crystallography met your criteria about 7-10 years ago (although I don’t have the
> stats). I thought I had mentioned in my original post that it’s on the wrong slope wrt
> applicants/job now as supply has caught up with demand.
> > subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
> > old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
> > and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
> > pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
> > site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
> > (i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
> > simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
> But other biotech/pharma companies have their own crystallographers and are in the
> process of paying big bucks to synchrotrons to lease beamlines. The computational guy
> will naturally want to tell you that his simulation works – some of that stuff is valid,
> other predictions are total BS – but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, that doesn’t
> necessarily preclude someone from getting into a position of power and influence.
> > You want a hot area, the word "bioinformatics" is on everyone’s lips and
> > it has been that way for several years now. I’ve even seen faculty
> > recruitment adverts crying for a bioinformatics person. This will surely
> > last another 4-6 years, maybe even up to 8. Then, something new will be a
> > hot topis and most departments will have "their" bioinforatics person.
> I agree, and I think I pointed this out a couple of months ago on my last foray into the
> sci. newsgroups – sorry if I miss the overall arc of the threads here, I can only fit
> this into my schedule occassionally. However, I think it’s a mistake to go into
> bioinformatics if you have neither the interest or background to do so – starting now
> you may or may not hit the job curve at a favorable point – it’s too hard to predict.
> The original poster specified crystallography and cancer research…I’m just opining
> that between those two specific subfields, crystallography jobs are probably less
> difficult to get than cancer research jobs, contrary to the impression given by the
> other replies. Neither is a guaranteed job – bioinformatics might be close right now,
> but I don’ know how long it will be before supply catches up.
> > I can clearly remember, in the past, big trends in biomed jobs. First it
> > was electron microscopy (mid 1960s), then cytoskeleton stuff, then it was
> > cloned molecules, then recombinant DNA, then molecular biology, now gene
> > therapy is big, and next will be bioinformatics. Whats next? Maybe more
> > quality of life drugs (after viagra, brain stimulants, anti-alzehimers,
> > drugs to change gene expression in skin development [i.e make less pretty
> > women look like Linda Carter, etc.] and texture. Brain enhancements, dream
> > enhancements, "trip" drugs that are not addicting. Etc. When Craig Ventor
> > gets his crack at patenting genes after the map is done, he’s going to be
> > looking for anti-aging, anti-disease, you name it. Next, animal
> > improvement. Animals as carriers and generators of surogate parts for
> > humans?
> > Crystalography? Nahh.
> > Art
> Predicting where the next new thing will be is almost impossible. The stuff you are
> talking about may very well be accurate in the long run, but it may not get her a job in
> the time frame she’s looking at.
> Cheers,
> Jim
> > === no change to below, included for reference and context ====
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jim Hu wrote:
> > > I don’t think the replies from the group are right on this at all.
> > > Crystallographers are still getting jobs/publishing papers – especially for those
> > > who can do larger and more complex molecules. Small molecule crystallography,
> > > which is done for synthetic chemists, on the other hand, is pretty much a service
> > > facility job, since "direct methods" have solved the phase problem.
> > > It is true that the peak of crystallography as an area where there were more jobs
> > > than applicants is probably over. I’d say that it’s still better than for the
> > > average PhD in "cancer research" since it’s harder there to do something that
> > > stands out — too many smart, hardworking and ruthless people there already.
> > > With the human genome almost done, NIH is actually funding projects to try to solve
> > > the structures of EVERYTHING!! This has the buzzword "Structural Genomics" and it
> > > will be interesting to see if it actually works…I’m not convinced.
> > > Jim Hu
> > > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > > > On 20 Jun 2000, Brian Moore wrote:
> > > > > In article <8im5lk$p2…@news.tamu.edu>, Spothedog <SmithR…@tamu.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >In article <8im03j$cs…@216.155.0.50>, arthu…@magpage.com says…
> > > > > >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Stephanie Oehlmann wrote:
> > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > >>> I am a graduate student from Germany and I look for a
> > > > > >>> PhD-position/Scholarship in an English speaking country. My fields of
> > > > > >>> interests are cancer research/crystallography.
> > > > > >For what it is worth, I knew a crystallographer from a very very well known
> > > > > >prestigious US University who, having completed about 10 years of postdoc
> > > > > >work without landing a real faculty position, changed careers entirely.
> > > > > >I know almost nothing about crystallography. My core thought would be that
> > > > > >it should be very useful not only for biology but materials science.
> > > > > >ANd from that, I’d expect the field to be an economically fruitful one.
> > > > > >But alas, at least from this one example, it was not.
> > > > > Many (chemistry) grad. schools have now discontinued their
> > > > > grad. programs in crystallography. The sense I get is that it
> > > > > is seen as a tool to be used, and not a particularly active
> > > > > area for fundamental research. I’m not saying that this is
> > > > > or is not true, but that is the sense that I get from talking
> > > > > to people.
> > > > > —
> > > > > Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
> > > > > b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
> > > > I have the same impression, Brian. There are a few labs, both academic and
> > > > industrial, doing this in biomolecules (much more in various kinds of
> > > > diffraction, scattering in inorganic, metalic, and composite work), but
> > > > its not new, expanding, and attracting a lot of hype. Cancer is a very big
> > > > area, still basically unsolved, and the everyday man in the street, though
> > > > not understanding it the way oncologists understand it, nevertheless knows
> > > > its important. Cancer is one of the big three (Cancer, Heart,
> > > > AIDs) disease entities right now and for career launch/stability, those
> > > > are some of the directions to go. Of course, if Malaria ever jumps from
> > > > Africa-SE Asia areas (where its bad new, big time) to the US, you’ll see
> > > > NIH shift billions away from the big three and to Malaria just like money
> > > > for AIDs came from other
…
read more »
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> Jim Hu wrote:
> > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > > subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
> > > old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
> > > and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
> > > pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
> > > site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
> > > (i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
> > > simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
> > But other biotech/pharma companies have their own crystallographers and are in the
> > process of paying big bucks to synchrotrons to lease beamlines. The computational guy
> > will naturally want to tell you that his simulation works – some of that stuff is valid,
> > other predictions are total BS – but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, that doesn’t
> > necessarily preclude someone from getting into a position of power and influence.
> As a simulator, sometimes I know what Rondy Dangerfield feels like. No
> respect. Some simulation is valid, some is BS. Just like some
> experiment is valid and some is BS. Some theory is valid and some is
> BS. It all depends one who is doing the work. If someone is thorough
> and knows what’s going on, they know when their simulation is giving
> reliable results, or when the results are not reliable. This is no
> different than any other research field.
> Keep an eye out. Computer simulations are going to be playing a big
> role in science research in the future. Our ability to model complex
> systems is limited only by the computational hardware availible to us.
> As the computers get better (cheaper and faster), so do the models and
> the predictions of physical phenomena.
> Jeff
I can remember back when I was in the military working in a unit dealing
with nuclear cratering (there was a Congressionally mandated project to
study the feasibility [this was back in the late 1960s and ran till mid
'70s or maybe a little later] of building a second "Panama Canal" and also
study the feasibility of conventional techniques [i.e. buldozers, bucket
shovels] vs. nuclear explosives [i.e. nuclear bombs to blow "row
craters" in a few seconds <yeah, they were serious>]) and I was part of
the Radiological Safety division. I got to see lots of things. They
produced a simple empirical scaling curve for crater parameters vs. yield,
and the fancy guys over in K division produced a tensor code model
whereby lots of elements were "simulated" in a cratering event. Then, they
did a 40 KT explosion to test which was better. Guess what, the simple
empirical scaling curve did a better job of predicting the outcome.
Simulations (and a parallel technique called "benchmarking") have been
argued over for a long time. Which is better? You have to start really
studying the application and go through a lot of validation. The guy I was
talking to was not particularly in favor of simulations, but he knew that
the people in power were infatuated with that approach, and the people
above them were, too. Right now I hear that drug companies and biotech
companies and investors are "red hot" on gene therapy even though the big
muck mucks (Crystal is one of them, I forgot his first name though) say
they don’t know the fundamentals yet. Then, we’ve had some deaths among
some gene therapy trial patients. There were one or two successes, but
mostly failures. Who knows if this will be licked. A guy wrote a book "The
End of the Future" (Jean Gimpel, or something like that) where he summed
up all the things that were, over the years, predicted but never came to
pass. Maybe never will. That has to be acknowledged, too.
There is a similar "mantra" about plain old advertising. You know, the
crap they call commercials to get you to buy stuff you don’t
need. Advertising doesn’t work that welll, but if you suggest to any
corporation that they ought to, therefore, discontinue advertising they
will have have you shot or fired. Its also interesting that advertising
almost always goes down in a recession (is that because they don’t have
the extra money, or because everyone else doesn’t have the money to buy
stuff? [how about that for a cause & effect question <and it should not be
too hard to answer>?]).
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
—————————————-
| Science career information websites: |
| http://freeshell.org/~advocacy |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
—————————————-
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arthur Sowers wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> > Jim Hu wrote:
> > > Arthur Sowers wrote:
> > > > subjects get large amounts of budgeted money and not methodology that is
> > > > old methodology. Today, I think there is more interest in protein folding
> > > > and protein engineering, for example. One big wheel I talked to in
> > > > pharmacology even has drug companies doing "simulations" of active
> > > > site-binding site interactions by computer rather than by experiment
> > > > (i.e. crystalography) and when I asked him how valid do you think the
> > > > simulations are and he shrugged his shoulders.
> > > But other biotech/pharma companies have their own crystallographers and are in the
> > > process of paying big bucks to synchrotrons to lease beamlines. The computational guy
> > > will naturally want to tell you that his simulation works – some of that stuff is valid,
> > > other predictions are total BS – but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, that doesn’t
> > > necessarily preclude someone from getting into a position of power and influence.
> > As a simulator, sometimes I know what Rondy Dangerfield feels like. No
> > respect. Some simulation is valid, some is BS. Just like some
> > experiment is valid and some is BS. Some theory is valid and some is
> > BS. It all depends one who is doing the work. If someone is thorough
> > and knows what’s going on, they know when their simulation is giving
> > reliable results, or when the results are not reliable. This is no
> > different than any other research field.
> > Keep an eye out. Computer simulations are going to be playing a big
> > role in science research in the future. Our ability to model complex
> > systems is limited only by the computational hardware availible to us.
> > As the computers get better (cheaper and faster), so do the models and
> > the predictions of physical phenomena.
> > Jeff
> I can remember back when I was in the military working in a unit dealing
> with nuclear cratering (there was a Congressionally mandated project to
> study the feasibility [this was back in the late 1960s and ran till mid
> '70s or maybe a little later] of building a second "Panama Canal" and also
> study the feasibility of conventional techniques [i.e. buldozers, bucket
> shovels] vs. nuclear explosives [i.e. nuclear bombs to blow "row
> craters" in a few seconds <yeah, they were serious>]) and I was part of
> the Radiological Safety division. I got to see lots of things. They
> produced a simple empirical scaling curve for crater parameters vs. yield,
> and the fancy guys over in K division produced a tensor code model
> whereby lots of elements were "simulated" in a cratering event. Then, they
> did a 40 KT explosion to test which was better. Guess what, the simple
> empirical scaling curve did a better job of predicting the outcome.
"Simulation" can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Some simulations are pretty bad, others are quite good. It doesn’t
suprise me that a simple empirical scaling curve did better than a
simulation done on 1975 era computers. These days I’m burning thousands
of CPU hours on the latest hardware to get good results. Sometimes I
beat empirical formulas, sometimes I don’t. It always costs me more CPU
time. Why do I do it? Because eventually we will be in predictive mode
(actually we are there now in certain areas).
My particular area is in phase equilibriaw, although I’m branching out
into some more "applications" oriented work. At this point, I can
constuct models and predict the phase behavior of a number of pure
components and their mixtures without requiring any fit to experimental
data. This is quite powerful when you think about it. Eventually I
will know enough about different functional groups so that I (or someone
else) can construct molecules on the computer, simulate their behavior,
and calculate their physical properties to a high accuracy without the
need for any experiments. As far fetched as this may sound, we aren’t
far away.
> Simulations (and a parallel technique called "benchmarking") have been
> argued over for a long time. Which is better? You have to start really
> studying the application and go through a lot of validation. The guy I was
> talking to was not particularly in favor of simulations, but he knew that
> the people in power were infatuated with that approach, and the people
> above them were, too.
If this is a biological area, this is one area where simulations aren’t
doing to well at the moment, mainly because any interesting biological
molecule is going to be very large and hence it will take forever to
simulate it. That means that the models won’t be that good for quite
some time. 5-10 years from now we should be doing something interesting
(and correct) in this area.
The nice thing about simulation research, though, is that it’s much more
flexible than other areas, and hence, the risk is much lower. Once you
build your computational cluster, it doesn’t matter what phenomena you
simulate. If one research area doesn’t work out, drop it and move on to
something else with a higher chance of success. Or drop it and do
something that’s more popular at the moment. It’s not like if you’re a
crystallographer and crystallography suddenly goes out of style you’re
screwed since you have a whole lab worth of equipment that isn’t good
for much else.
Jeff
In article <39510F43.816E1…@tamu.edu>, Jim Hu <ji…@tamu.edu> wrote:
>Doing a postdoc at TAMU is not the normal fastlane career track…
Maybe that explains everything. I did a postdoc at A&M!
–
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie–The Behrend College
b…@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334