patrick.net

JH says

In the lab

Weird Science! Actually making a girl...

freak80 says

Weird Science! Actually making a girl...

This guy up in Canada is attempting to do that with actuators and software ...

http://projectaiko.com

Rin says

This guy up in Canada is attempting to do that with actuators and software ...

Wasn't there a recent Patnet thread about s*x robots?

Even IEEE is speaking the truth ...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

And the doubts continue ...

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-truth-about-the-stem-shortage-that-americans-dont-want-to-hear-2013-5

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100674327

Rin says

changing terms like surface chemistry to nano-catalysis, doesn't make someone hot.

I'll never forget some non-technical techie I met in the shuttle van to the SF on his way to a Nano-Technology Investor Conference in Singapore. Knowing full well the hype and b*lls*t (as a matter of fact I was on my way to an Asian foundry that had recently rebranded itself as a nanotechnology manufacturing center, and was midst of a management edict to convert the units from microns or Angstroms into nm).
He gave me some schpeil on What Is Nanotechnology. I let on like I didn't understand so he offered to explain with examples.
After he did that, I told him, "oh, you mean surface chemistry."

He sure didnt like that and he spent much of the rest of the drive to SF airport making sure that me and the others in the van knew that surface chemistry is NOT NanoTechnology

B.A.C.A.H. says

He sure didnt like that and he spent much of the rest of the drive to SF airport making sure that me and the others in the van knew that surface chemistry is NOT NanoTechnology

A long time ago, I was on that van in SF airport and I heard something similar. I think it was a Texan (his accent gave that away), arguing that nano was not the same olde same olde, as back in some Petroleum Eng program in [ Houston/UT-Austin/Rice/Texas A&M ], can't remember the specifics, however. I was beginning to wonder if there was something off about Silicon Valley types or the area in general.

I'd graduated from college, well over a dozen years ago. I had two summer internships/CO-OPs and an undergrad publication in an inorganic journal. My major was Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering. Only the folks who had the aforementioned resume items, along with the cum laude to magna cum laude GPAs, got 2nd interviews at R&D facilities. Others got flat rejection notices, even if they had the grades.

Thus, half of a particular STEM major class may never find work in their chosen area, either without connections [ like knowing someone in the sales engineering office ] or having the right color parachute which means a string of accolades/CO-OPs, long before graduation day. The other option was the US Patent & Trademark office or the Navy Nuclear program, which didn't require too many over achievements to get in the door. The Navy Nukes, however, had a huge attrition rate, during their weeding out process.

Even back then, getting into R&D was tough.

Today, once again, we're hearing the same olde tired mantra, "STEM shortage", "STEM shortage" but the same story holds. The difference this time is that the number of internships have actually dwindled, due to the excess in offshoring stateside work in QA, R&D support, and therefore, it's even less likely for a solid graduate to end up in R&D.

With the above in mind, the best thing a person could do is to either get into a combined BS-PharmD program, straight out of high school, or transfer, after sophomore year in college. And then afterwards, while working part-time at a pharmacy, take some courses to get a masters in chemical engineering, if he's interested in potentially looking at some industrial placement later on in his career. I knew someone who'd followed this path and he's earning a nice solid low six figure salary at a pharmacy and has no worries of a lay off. He proudly shows off his MS in Chemical Engineering to *ssholes like myself, whenever we get too proud of our STEM training. He's earned that right, as he never bought into the philosophy that STEM is some Red Badge of Courage. For him, it's just another quantitative degree.

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2701

The above commentary mentions the NSF lie:

'after the National Science Foundation (NSF) warned of imminent shortages of scientists. Eventually, the NSF’s predictions turned out to be so off-base that the agency was subjected to an investigation by a House subcommittee in 1995, during which NSF director Neal Lane flatly stated, “there really was no basis to predict a shortage,” according to Teitelbaum and Benderly. (Lane was not involved with the NSF at the time of shortage prediction)'

This one was written in 1998:

http://users.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

The more things change... Wait, they don't change

There's no money in science. I left Chemistry after graduate school only to find that I would end up making more as a public school teacher. I find the people that end up making the most money with their science degrees are more busy parading around and marketing themselves rather than actually performing science.

I've watched one woman in particular, her graduate student made a slightly useful polymer by accident when she was 31. Nothing groundbreaking, but it was a little profitable. 14 years later, she's still giving the same talk and its old news. Her MO hype up her work like its going to change everyone's life (which is pure BS). Not only was she promoted to Dean, but her marketing of herself has earned her consulting gigs with just about every single major industrial company. Anyone who's taken her class or been in a meeting with her knows that her understanding of science is akin to a Freshman with a B+ average in the subject.

This was just the tip of the iceberg. I had to get out with my dignity.

theoakman says

I find the people that end up making the most money with their science degrees are more busy parading around and marketing themselves rather than actually performing science

Finally, the truth comes out!!!

Freak80, New Renter ... this the real deal about S&E nowadays.

theoakman says

This was just the tip of the iceberg. I had to get out with my dignity.

Just to add some fuel to the fire, here's an interesting article on fraud in scientific work ...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

Excerpt: "As Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner point out, the reasons are numerous and interconnecting:

• Pressure to publish in "high impact" journals, at all research career levels;
• Universities treat successful grant applications as outputs, upon which continued careers depend;
• Statistical analyses are hard, and sometimes researchers get it wrong;
• Journals favour positive results over null findings, even though null findings from a well conducted study are just as informative;
• The way journal articles are assessed is inconsistent and secretive, and allows statistical errors to creep through.

Problems occur at all levels in the system, and we need to stop stubbornly arguing that "it's not that bad" or that talking about it somehow damages science. The damage has already been done – now we need to start fixing it."

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

Rin says

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

Unfortunately, it's been that way through most of history, right?

freak80 says

Rin says

Again, what this implies is that if you don't have the money, don't do science. Science is for the independently wealthy.

It's been that way through most of history, right?

In the 1700s/1800s, it was widely known that everyone was either in a trade (craftsman) or a business (merchant). Thus, Maxwell and Darwin were the original trustafarian dynamic duo scientists of the modern age.

Then, in the mid-20th century, there was this false idea that science was a middle class profession. In reality, it was tutelage system of middle classers, begging the govt for funding, to do non-compensatory work. And then, the govt stopped being a collective noblemen for those starving artists and then, we de-evolved into the world of the showman scientists and the league of deception and fraud.

We need to go back to the age of the rich, nobleman as a scientist, and rid this profession from the scourge of middle class aspirations.

Rin says

We need to go back to the age of the rich, nobleman as a scientist, and rid this profession from the scourge of middle class aspirations.

Not sure if you are being serious there or sarcastic...sorry, Poe's Law...

freak80 says

Not sure if you are being serious there or sarcastic...sorry, Poe's Law...

A bit of both, actually.

In a sense, as much as I don't have an intrinsic love for trustafarians, I'm aware that only they can do science, without being a pawn in some grant/institutional/govt shuffle game.

But right now, since the middle class has a foot in the world of research, ppl will develop a type of Stockholm syndrome concerning S&E work, and thus, justify the system currently in place than in wishing for its abolishment.

Therefore, if the middle class declares surrender to S&E work and stops with these feel good Discovery Channel type of Mr Wizard shows, and starts to actively say the S&E is the starving artist of the 21st century, then the field will go back to the landed rich.

Afterwards, cultural backlash against the loss of US innovation and so forth will ignite the subsequent generations to re-think how we do science and come up with a better plan than the system we currently have in place.

Rin says

being a pawn in some grant/institutional/govt shuffle game.

That's exactly how I felt when I was in meteorology/climatology. Which is why I got out of it.

Now I do meaningless work that pays well. Nobody dreams of doing what I do for a living, but I have it better than most. Think of all the people in Haiti or some other third-world sh*t hole.

freak80 says

Now I do meaningless work that pays well

Yes, both of us are doing meaningless work even though they pay well. As far as thinking about the 3rd world, that ain't enough for me, as we're suppose to a be a 1st world nation and one which cares about S&E work.

And thus, the truth needs to be out there and that's that S&E work doesn't pay. Two, a lot of today's papers are half-truths or lies, and finally, we need the landed rich to come up and take the helm. I mean really, if JD Rockefeller were my great great grandfather, I'd be very vocal and out there in the world of research. And then, given the fact that my grant would be 'The Junior Rockefeller Foundation', I wouldn't exactly be writing applications all the time. This would prove to my family that I was talented and deserving of my billion dollar inheritance as oppose to let's say a certain Conrad Hilton's great grand daughter.

Rin says

we're suppose to a be a 1st world nation and one which cares about S&E work.

But half the country believes the world was created in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago. Science is the Devil!

The REAL reason America is so prosperous is because we are God's Chosen Nation (tm). Our prosperity has nothing to do with abundant natural resources, science, or engineering.

freak80 says

because we are God's Chosen Nation (tm)

Yeah, that's until one brings up founding fathers: Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and then the fund-ies change the subject.

BTW, Franklin also decided to do his own independent work, once he achieved financial independence.

Rin says

a certain Conrad Hilton's great grand daughter.

She makes millions of dollars annually, unlike most science grads, which says a lot about the priorities of our economy. She may have started out with family help, but doesn't need it anymore.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," though its prescribed mechanism for doing so is to secure intellectual property. Personally I think there should be more public funding in this area, for example the military budget should be re-directed away from fomenting global war and instead towards developing a more sophisticated defense (including vaccines). It used to amaze me that politicians went to such tortuous "logic" to call faraway places threats and spending billions bombing them in the interest of national security, while allowing communicable disease to spread almost unchecked. Now of course I see the game: there is money to be made waging war all over the world, and there is money to be made keeping as many people as possible dependent on the medical industrial complex, and so those are the policy priorities.

Rin says

Yeah, that's until one brings up founding fathers: Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and then the fund-ies change the subject.

Well they claim the founders were all devout Christians, don't they? It's ok to lie if you are lying for Jesus!

curious2 says

She makes millions of dollars annually

Sure, I acknowledge that, however, she hasn't exactly made Conrad Hilton's family look all that great. And there's a certain embarrassment in the Hilton family tree that the granddaughter is perceived as a tramp out in public.

In contrast, as Rin Rockefeller, there would be no problems in me attending either David or Jay's family gatherings without getting compliments all day for my brilliance in the sciences. You see, we all know about the exclusive orgies and drug fests in the Hamptons or Bora Bora but these families would like to see more from their offsprings than just fornication.

As for our govt and its priorities, I think Ike said it the best, half a century ago ...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8y06NSBBRtY

How much money do Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Oprah Winfrey, and Deepak Chopra make?

The message is pretty clear: people love B.S. and are willing to pay up for it.

Science? Who cares? That's for nerds.

freak80 says

How much money do Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Oprah Winfrey, and Deepak Chopra make?

Those are former middle classers; you can also add in Earl Nightingale & Norman Peale, from earlier times to that list. They had a need to earn money, so for the most part, all they're doing is selling their personalities.

As Rin Rockefeller, my goal is to show to the ghost of JDR, that unlike him, I'm not a robber baron but a great mind and a promoter of the arts and sciences, & also, not just the guy who writes a check, like my dad & uncles, who call themselves philanthropists.

Rin says

As Rin Rockefeller, my goal is to show to the ghost of JDR, that unlike him, I'm not a robber baron but a great mind and a promoter of the arts and sciences, & also, not just the guy who writes a check, like my dad & uncles, who call themselves philanthropists.

Sounds like you've got some pretty big shoes to fill. But don't put too much pressure on yourself. :-)

freak80 says

Sounds like you've got some pretty big shoes to fill. But don't put too much pressure on yourself. :-)

Now you get the thinking of a true rich guy! It's about growing the Empire but once you've got all the bonds, sovereign funds, major corporate holdings, etc, with hundreds of millions flowing in every year, on passive income alone, nevermind asset accumulation in the billions, what else can you do, but conquer the frontiers of the mind and science?!

Dan doesn't get it, I'll have a bevy of hot beauties at my beckoned call. No need to use my brain power for superfluous activities like that when it's like ordering in for pizza for a middle classer.

Parties in the Hamptons with the Trumps, Johnsons, & DuPonts ... boring, after the 1st dozen or so gatherings. I'll check in with the other Trustafarians perhaps, on a quarterly basis, & see what horses they'd bought at the Kentucky Derby. In the meanwhile, I've got more important things to do with my life.

Galileo Galilei was a starving artist type of scientist who relied on being a sponge off wealthy nobles for his daily bread. Sure he sold some telescopes, but he was employed in a grant-like arrangement by various nobles and universities for most of his working life. It's really not far from the arrangement most university professors have with science and grant money today.
After all, we can't demand that the greatest minds be born to the wealthiest parents. If Paris Hilton is any example, it goes the other way, with prettier, less intelligent descendants from the privileged family tree.
Think about it: you're a rich guy, you want the hottest chick for a wife/mistress that can be found, not the smartest or most ambitious. And then your kids inherit her side of the gene pool, which happens to be a bit shallow in the brains end.

Quigley says

Think about it: you're a rich guy, you want the hottest chick for a wife/mistress that can be found, not the smartest or most ambitious. And then your kids inherit her side of the gene pool, which happens to be a bit shallow in the brains end.

Well, this is called the split frame, dual existence. For one, your wife is the one which is suppose to go to the fancy places with you. In other words, be seen in proper public like the summer Saratoga Springs horse race or the Newport R.I. boat race. Then, you can have mistresses, models, call girls, etc, whenever/wherever you want on the side, provided that it's discreet. In fact, my grand uncle, Nelson Rockefeller, did exactly that and died of a heart attack, boinking his mistress than my grand aunt. His servants moved his body from the bed to the office, so that it would appear that he died while working at the office, than coming & going :-)

Quigley says

Galileo Galilei was a starving artist type of scientist

Yes, and he was well persecuted for his work. If anything, I'd never want to switch places with him in history.

Rin says

beckoned call

It's "beck and call." If you're going to play the part, please learn the lines.

curious2 says

"beck and call."

Is this like the usage of "Irregardless", with a heavy Boston accent :-)

Rin says

Is this like the usage of "Irregardless", with a heavy Boston accent :-)

Yes, I suppose that blight upon the language may have arisen as a kind of cosmic balance to offset the deliberate clarification from "inflammable" to "flammable", maintaining a constant and perhaps necessary level of linguistic chaos.

I appreciate your comments and insights, and probably I should not have responded at all to the "call" usage, but it surprised me like hitting a pothole in what had so long been such a smooth road. If the Captain Who Should Shuddup had written it, I would not have noticed, in fact by his standards any even marginally intelligible phrase would be better than average.

I like the Hispanic/Latino version of "regardless" that sounds something like "Lee-god-less"
Just makes me giggle every time I hear it!

curious2 says

Captain Who Should Shuddup

:-)

I realize that had I been born rich, I would have been an adult prodigy.

This article on the 11 year old, attending college, gave me the cue ...

http://patrick.net/?p=1228728

You see, a middle classer is conditioned to think like a loser... look good in front of others, gain classmates' approvals, pursue interests so that you fit in, etc. Well, after years of that, you don't trust your intuition and rely on systemic thinking to get through your years. In the end, you graduate with a so-called STEM accolade, "BS Applied Chemistry", tagged with some internships to impress recruiters, but then find yourself working on stuff, which you could have done as a high schooler had HR depts of corporate America not existed.

If I simply chucked all of the above, mostly relied on my intuition, chances are, I would have been a rich kid with a lot of know how and abilities.

And for Dan, yes, you can be rich, an intelligent person, and be a VIP at an top end brothel. The two paths, one for the mind and the other for the body, don't have to diverge.

Rin says

but then find yourself working on stuff, which you could have done as a high schooler had HR depts of corporate America not existed.

I know the feeling. ;-)

Ok, the following article isn't STEM.

And although it's an extreme case, with a hint of muckraking, it does point at the plight of academics these days ...

http://news.yahoo.com/adjunct-professor-death-190047241.html

This person should have been told years ago, that she should have come from a well off family, if she wanted to be an academician.