I guess I have to disagree with this statement. First, it seems to imply
that science is an all or none activity, while other activities can
successfully be done part time. I don't think I agree that, for example,
music (or other creative activities) can be successfully pursued part time
when compared to full time pursuit. I play an instrument on a pretty
regular basis, but I also have a sister who is a professional musician
(teaches at the Univ. in Perth, Australian, plays on around-the-world
tours in chamber groups, etc.). There is absolutely no comparing what I do
in music to what my sister can do, nor would a professional musician think
that what I do in music is worth considering. Yet I still enjoy it. In
addition, if you think science is tough, look at some of those creative
activities. I watched my sister get her training, and combining the
relative work loads and pay levels, it made science look like a Sunday
outing. I thiink part of the reason there is so much more part-time
artistic activity is that it is pretty near impossible to make a living at
it, so that is the best compromise people come up with.
Second, I think it IS possible to do science on the side. Not all fields
are possible (anything that requires fancy equipment is out). But thn,
when one participates in music as a hobby, not all activities are
possible, either. Science is a way of asking questions, and one can ask
questions about all sorts of basic things. Consider, for example, Harold
McGee. He is Sharon Long's husband (Sharon Long is a biology professor at
Stanford), and found himself in the house-husband role, having trained
originally also as a scientist. So he started asking questions about
cooking practices. These questions turned into all sorts of interesting
scientific experiments about the whys and hows of foods and cooking, and
he ended up writing several books over the years on the results. At least
one of these is, I gather, now a "bible" for professional cooks. Harold
McGee has probably been more successful than most "part-time" or "amateur"
scientists, but his story does illustrate that science outside of the
"establishment" is possible, and the sorts of experiments he has been
doing could be done on weekends, or in much the same fashion as any other
hobby is done.
************************************************************************
Ellen M. Wijsman Express mail address:
Research Professor 1914 N 34th St., suite 209
Div. of Medical Genetics and Seattle, WA 98103
Dept. Biostatistics (Note: do not mention the
BOX 357720, University of Washington Univ. of Washington, and
Seattle, WA 98195-7720 use this address only for
phone: (206) 543-8987 express mail)
fax: (206) 616-1973 email: wijsman at u.washington.edu
*************************************************************************
On 13 Oct 1997, Bharathi Jagadeesh wrote:
> Julia Frugoli (JFRUGOLI at BIO.TAMU.EDU) wrote:
> :
> : >I asked them if there was anything they would consider doing even
> : >if they didn't get paid for doing it. The only two answers were
> : >gardening and music but they wouldn't even consider doing
> : >science for nothing.
>> : >Would anyone here do science for nothing? I probably would and have.
> : >Dr. Cynthia M. Galloway
>> : I bristle at the suggestion, intended or not, that commitment means being
> : willing to work for free. It's just not an option for many people.
> : Julia Frugoli.
>> I think there's also a significant difference between science
> and other creative endeavors: you have to get paid to do
> science, because it has to be done full time. You can garden
> after work, or play an instrument, or sing in the choir, or
> act in local plays, paint, write short stories, or even,
> if you're ambitious, find funding to make a short film in
> your spare time. You can be a community activist, work on
> environmental causes, work for international human writes.
> You can volunteer for political campaigns, or run for
> city council. In all of these fields you _can_ make a
> contribution in the time you have left over from a job
> that puts bread on the table.
>> But in order to produce good experimental science, you
> have to spend most of your waking hours doing it, and
> you have to have the infrastructure of a major research
> institution, and that means you have to get paid for it.
>>> --
> Bharathi Jagadeesh/bjag at ln.nimh.nih.gov> Lab of Neuropsychology, NIMH
> Building 49, Room 1b80
> Bethesda, Maryland 20892
> (312) 496-5625 x270
>>>
