Non-scientists think research is not a 'real job'

Non-scientists think research is not a 'real job' because scientists don't have deadlines or discrete targets. On the contrary, I say, we are accountable to those who fund us. Investors want financial returns, taxpayers demand medical advances. We are judged by the number and impact factor of our publications. I have friends who have actually calculated the average impact factor of papers published at their institution, hoping to gauge their own competitiveness.

At the Biopolis, we are subject to annual evaluations in which our productivity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5. These determine our bonus and possibly our career prospects. You don't get points for effort: my decision to study a novel protein has proved unwise because I cannot use established reagents and protocols to churn out data and papers. I can ask many questions about a protein of unknown function. But as I was specifically instructed to "focus on publishing my work as it is completed", the key question driving my research must be: what is the minimum amount of data that can coalesce into a paper?

This practical approach is difficult to reconcile with the risk associated with novel or creative projects. It is, however, necessary if I want to stay employed in a world dictated by 'key performance indicators'. We are subject to constant selection pressure. And, to paraphrase Darwin, those who can adapt, survive.

from Nature Jobs section in Nature May 5th issue