[ExI] first step as principal investigator

[Amara Graps]

David C. Harris dharris234 at mindspring.com :
>Congratulations, Amara!  I'm so glad your powerful talents are being
>recognized with financial support.   Yay!

Thank you. It _is_ a start. The four months/year for 2 years is not
liveable yet, but this will improve when I write-win more grant proposals.
One large improvement starting this year is that NASA is providing
grants for 4 years instead of previous 2 and 3 three years, so one won't
need, as often, to be writing grant proposals and performing the work
for the proposals simultaneously (on weekends, nights, spare moments).

The above probably illustrates why I would not recommend a woman to go
into the sciences. Performing science is already hard; for a woman to
balance both science and family is doubly so. I earned my PhD at age 40,
I left financially-unlivable-no-future scientific conditions in Italy to
recover with a two year fixed-term contract in the US. This is my 11th
major astronomy group in which I've worked during the last 25 years: 18
years as a scientific programmer working for several astronomy teams at
once, two-year-contracts at-a-time, and 7 years as a post-doc. I just
completed my third international move in 10 years, my only pension is in
the hands of the Italian government, and I have no savings (but no debt
either). My family plans are in progress but I'm 15 years later than
most people, who are in my position.

If folks missed my link to Sabine's recent post: this fills out the rest
of a typical life of a post-doc researcher. If you're a woman
considering science, please talk to me before you embark on your
exciting, (but very risky) journey.

from Sabine at:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/brief-history-of-mine-iii.html

<begin quote>
Meaning I have to write applications - again - this fall. Which, after
all these words, eventually brings me to the reason of my current
tiredness.

I've been in the field for more than ten years now. I've had contracts
for a year, for 9 months, I've even had a contract for 6 months. I moved
5 times in 4 years. I have three different social security numbers, but
I'm not sure if I'd qualify for either of their benefits (actually, I
have four, but that's a longer story). Each summer I try to arrange my
conference participation with meeting friends and family. My contact to
them is an annual briefing with the essentials, who got married,
divorced, died, lost his job, had children. I have no retirement plan,
and my unemployment insurance is basically non-existing because I've
never had a job in my home-country for more than a few months (the ones
that I've had were tax-free scholarships which doesn't count). Since
I've never had a regular income, no bank would sensibly lend me money. I
vote in a country where I don't live and live in a country where I can't
vote.

I'm not telling you that because I want to complain; I am telling you
that because my situation is in no means exceptional. That's just what
it means to be a postdoc. In fact, I believe I am better off than many
others. I could live with that - if there was an end in sight.

[...]
Why am I telling you that

Because I see an increasing number of friends leaving the academic
world. It hardly happens because they are not qualified enough, or
because they discovered they lost their interest in physics. Neither
does it happen because they couldn't find a job. In fact, they often
quit a position they had. They just simply weren't willing to play these
games of vanity any more. Many of them just want to have a job where
their skills are appreciated appropriately - appropriately to their age
and expertise - where they have a sensible contract, and at least some
kind of stability and future options. So they go and work for the
research departments of large companies, become teachers, work in
counseling, in a bank, scientific publishing, for the weather service,
or in a patent office.

The good aspect is I don't know anybody with a PhD in theoretical
physics who became unemployed. Theoretical physicists, so it seems, have
the reputation of being good in solving problems, which makes them
useful for a lot of different tasks.

The bad aspect is that all these people are lost for foundational
research.

And that, folks, are the selection criteria currently applied to pick
the 'brightest' and 'most promising' young researchers: Those who will
do well should be completely convinced of their own ingenuity, flourish
without much motivation, and perform well under high competitive
pressure. They should be able and willing to think in one to three year
plans - for work and for life -, have connections up the latter and use
them, act politically and socially smart, and should be willing to work
under other people's supervision until their mid thirties.

Now I'll go back to bed and pull the blanket over my face. Thanks for
listening in.

<end quote>
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado