Slashdot Log In
Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Oct 28, 2005 01:42 PM
from the unloved-lab-rats dept.
from the unloved-lab-rats dept.
mmoyer writes "Popular Science just published their annual rankings of the worst jobs in science. Highlights of this year's list include a human lab rat, orangutan pee collector, and, surprisingly, a NASA ballerina. Think your science job belongs on the list? You can nominate your job as well. Slashdot also covered the worst jobs in science in 2004 and in 2003."
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: Dirtiest Jobs in Science 120 comments
ExE122 writes "CNN and CareerBuilder have posted a listing of the top 10 dirtiest jobs in science. 'Whether they are sifting through reeking mud banks to find cures for contamination, or sorting stool samples to get to the bottom of our bathroom dilemmas, these are some of the science jobs that sacrifice their time, energy and comfort for the greater global good.' Sounds like a job opportunity for Mike Rowe!" From the article: "Hot-zone Superintendent - What they do: Perform maintenance work for bio-safety labs that study lethal airborne pathogens, for which there is no known cure. Their work enables scientists to study the nature of disease-causing organisms, such as anthrax."
[+]
IT: Microsoft Security Makes "Worst Jobs" List 177 comments
Stony Stevenson asks, rhetorically, "What do whale-feces researchers, hazmat divers, and employees of Microsoft's Security Response Center have in common? They all made Popular Science magazine's 2007 list of the absolute worst jobs in science." Quoting: "The MSRC ranked near the middle as the sixth-worst job in this year's list.. 'We did rate the Microsoft security researcher as less-bad than the people who prepare the carcasses for dissection in biology laboratories,' Moyer said. Moyer didn't have to think long when asked whether he'd rather have the number 10-ranked whale research job. 'Whale feces or working at Microsoft? I would probably be the whale feces researcher,' he said. 'Salt air and whale flatulence; what could go wrong?'" Here's the Popular Mechanics list all on one page.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Worst Science Job, EVER (Score:5, Funny)
6. Volcanologist When the earth heats up, they head in
Volcanologist? Can't take the heat, get out of the crater? Sounds like a dream job, just get my Indiana Jones get-up on and grow a good 5 o'clock shadow and the babes will be swarming like deerflies! w00. "Danger is my middle name. Unfortunately my first name is Melvin and my last name is Blortman."
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution
*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)
2. Manure Inspector The smell is just the start of the nastiness
Reminds me of Farley Mowat in his cabin in Never Cry Wolf. All those wolf turds and then the water came in...
1. Human Lab Rat Must read slashdot for research lab. aaiiiieeeee!!!
Re:Worst Science Job, EVER (Score:3, Insightful)
*snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism
What ever happened to the good ol' days when a teacher was apethic towards their job? They just went in, did whatever the board told 'em to, and used the Nuremberg defence to ease any ethical issues. Or was that prozac?
I want to ret
How About Avian Sex Partner? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ha! Great story.
A few years back, I knew a fellow (he had the unfortunate name of Willie Williams) who'd been involved in the re-introduction of pergrine falcons to the canyon lands of south texas [peregrinefund.org]. The problem was that the birds wouldn't breed in captivity. The answer: artificial insemination.
This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat [si.edu] with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.
Re:How About Avian Sex Partner? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone would have to be f**ked up in the head to do that...
Parent
Re:How About Avian Sex Partner? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/115084ma
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! And the ballerina ain't bad, either!
Parent
can you hear me now? YES!! (Score:5, Funny)
movie url -
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/950 [compfused.com]
Question for biologists... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a quote from the "Kansas Biology Teacher" article:
"At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world--the human eye, say--are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science."
Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong? Because that's exactly what this article makes it sound like. If there's a response to the argument that the eye could not have arisen through the incremental changes posited by evolutionary theory, this article sure doesn't give it.
Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage? Or did it happen all at once? Can scientists reconstruct the formation for an eye through an accidental interference with the DNA? And, most importantly, does even asking these questions imply that I'm an anti-science ignorant hick?
Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Parent
Mod mistake here! (Score:5, Insightful)
This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition (It's not only the ID folks, there's other equally unscientific view too) and magical thinking. We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.
Parent
Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Parent
Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Informative)
If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.
Google search terms: "light-sensitive pit bacteria".y es_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php [corante.com]
First entry: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/e
Next?
Parent
Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, so being able to see the shadow of a predator wouldn't be advantageous? Or, inversely, the shadow of prey?
Although, frankly, the more likely explanation is that the organism wasn't trying to avoid a predator, it was trying to increase its energy intake by moving toward the light (or, in the case of a predator, move to an area that's more likely to have prey because of the light). We know cyanobacteria have been around for billions of years and they can do this.
No, just narrower. A disadvantage, like tunnel vision.
Um, no. Being able to refine your visual capabilities is generally an advantage. The previous mutation just said "light/dark". Now you can say "light/dark in THAT direction". You don't think that's an advantage?
Oh, and tunnel vision isn't necessarily a disadvantage. In humans it literally focuses your vision on the threat at hand (and yes, I've had it before). In other animals, such as birds of prey, it's an evolutionary advantage that allows them to concentrate on finding and killing prey.
Parent
Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Informative)
It's well understood; the progression is roughly: light sensitive cell, opaque pigment in back, retreat into concavity, formation of pinhole camera, transparent covering, fixed lens, adaptable lens. Each of those has distinct and individual evolutionary advantages, sometimes related to improved predator evasion and sometimes merely related to improved protection of the existing structure. It seems to have happened several times in evolution, so it's not even anything unusual; if we ever encounter aliens, they probably have eyes, too.
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science.
That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be), and the answer is: there is not a shred of evidence to support ID. Every single test of evolution has come down on the side of evolution (mutation and selection) and against intelligent design (interference of an intelligent agent in the development of different life forms on earth). ID has the form of a scientific theory, but it happens to be an incorrect scientific theory according to overwhelming evidence.
Parent
Hold on a second... (Score:3, Funny)
Misquote me thinks (Score:5, Funny)
I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid
i am a NASA ballerina! (Score:5, Funny)
What no "Grad Student?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I just want recognition for something! I will have to be happy with getting my Phd if I can't get on the crappiest job list.
true story (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not a ballerina (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that's not a bad dance job. Pay, benefits, reasonable hours. Ask any working dancer. It's a tough life, and you burn out young. At the higher levels, the injury rate is very high. New York City Ballet used to have the highest workmens's compensation premium in the state.
The "robot touch avoidance" demo has been done before, several times, both with mechanical switches and a short-range microwave system. The IR distance measurement system came from a Stanford project in the 1970s.
Peh, this is the REAL worst science job! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does programmer count? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Continental Drift? (Score:5, Insightful)
Continental drift, after all, presupposes a time line about four orders of magnitude greater than that of young earth "theory." Hence, if you believe continental drift, you have a very hard time simultaneously buying into young earth.
Parent