Is it possible to make science as marketable as Engineering?

[Grands]

Hi guys.

As you may know there is a big distinction between Science and Engineering.
Richard Feynman said that Science doesn't have a target, like Engineering has.

Science is about studying the universe, and you can do it by focalizing your attention on the Biology, on the Chemistry, on the Physics, on the Geology, are very wide field.
So the duty of the scientist is to study and describe the rules of the nature and how it work.

Engineering duty is to build and create a better quality of life for the people, and very often engineering is fundamental for science, because researchers needs engineering technology.

Science need Engineering, but also engineering need science, because you have to know a part of science to build new items.

Beside this we can notice that Science is not marketable as engineering, because you can't sell a piece of Science or a formula, or a theory, or a planet that you have discovered.
While if you invest a new technology, if is safe, you can sell it.

I think that this problem can affect the employability and people that get a science major might have problem in finding a good paying job, while for an engineer is very easy, because everything that today work is made by an engineer, from the circuit that are in a computer to the circuits inside him, or to the electricity that makes it to run.

So my question is, it is possible to find a way to make more marketable Science in order to be useful to the society and provide a service to humans and population ?

 

[phinds]

Science need Engineering,

I don't see why.

So my question is, it is possible to find a way to make more marketable Science in order to be useful to the society and provide a service to humans and population ?

Why does science need to be more "marketable"? It already does a fantastic job.

 

[Grands]

I don't see why.

Because to study how DNA is made you need tools build by engineers.
To study how universe is made you need a telescope build by an engineer etc...

Why does science need to be more "marketable"? It already does a fantastic job.

In order to create job opportunities for scientists.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I don't see why.
Why does science need to be more "marketable"? It already does a fantastic job.

The OP may be foreign, where the perception of science is less popular than wherever you are from. For instance, in India science is generally regarded with scorn, and engineering is perceived as the proper discipline to study.

 

[phinds]

Because to study how DNA is made you need tools build by engineers.
To study how universe is made you need a telescope build by an engineer etc...

Good point.

In order to create job opportunities for scientists.

Bad point, for America at least. Capitalism does a decent job of making marketable that which IS marketable and trying to force the issue rarely works well. Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a totally central economy, it is not doing as well as it would if they avoided state owned and run companies.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

Bad point, for America at least. Capitalism does a decent job of making marketable that which IS marketable and trying to force the issue rarely works well. Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a totally central economy, it is not doing as well as it would if they avoided state owned and run companies.

The trouble with capitalism is that what is most marketable is generally the least common denominator, not the most important branch of science. Thus we see immense spending on cancer research, which, ironically, probably retards progress in fighting cancer relative to investing in more fundamental science.

Not that the rooskies or other pinkos had it better, but it's a fantasy to suggest that the market does a particularly good job of optimizing for the long term.

 

[Grands]

Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a totally central economy, it is not doing as well as it would if they avoided state owned and run companies.

They don't tried to make marketable the science, I think that they just control companies in the country.
By the way, I don't know if China is doing bad at the moment, whatever they are doing, in the university department I visited, I found lots of offer for engineers that want to go to find a work in China.

Thus we see immense spending on cancer research, which, ironically, probably retards progress in fighting cancer relative to investing in more fundamental science.

Are you sure we spend a lots of money in cancer research?
I know a lots of associations that asked money from people to do more research.

Not that the rooskies or other pinkos had it better

What are rookies and pinkos ?

 

[symbolipoint]

Science crosses over to engineering and certainly engineering crosses over some into sciences. Science already IS marketable. Chemistry is a science and chemists really DO get jobs. They do not need to be engineers, although some education from engineering does help a few of them. Other sciences maybe? Microbiologists find employment, very often relating to foods, environment, and health-fields. When a student has done some research in his academic role, some of it helps in his marketability, because he has done stuff on his own to study a problem and gain experience beyond routine lab exercises.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

Are you sure we spend a lots of money in cancer research?
I know a lots of associations that asked money from people to do more research.What are rookies and pinkos ?

The NIH budget is enormous and not entirely devoted to cancer specifically, but applied biomedical research in the United States is a huge proportion of research spending.

Rooskie and pinko are perjoratives for Russians and communists popular with the 1950's American Right if I am not mistaken. I'm poking fun at myself :)

 

[Grands]

Chemistry is a science and chemists really DO get jobs.

In industry?

Microbiologists find employment, very often relating to foods, environment, and health-fields.

There are companies that needs microbiologist or are you speaking only about those one who work for hospitals ?

When a student has done some research in his academic role, some of it helps in his marketability,

Yes, I notice also by myself this.

The NIH budget is enormous and not entirely devoted to cancer specifically, but applied biomedical research in the United States is a huge proportion of research spending.

Is the government that spends all that money?

 

[symbolipoint]

In industry?

Yesureee, IN INDUSTRY - in companies who do services or make and sell products. Such chemists are not necessarily doing any academic research; in the academic world, the Chemistry people do Research trying to understand more about Chemistry. In the business or industrial world, some chemists do PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, which is usually targetted to fitting or finding how to put something to use in an application.

There are companies that needs microbiologist or are you speaking only about those one who work for hospitals ?

Look back at what I said and think: Companies which produce processed foods will often need services of microbiological testing labs or the companies often will hire their own microbiologists in their own labs. Environmental monitoring companies may also use a staff of microbiologists. You should search to learn more about this; it may interest you as a subject. If it does, I would hope that you are not educationally locked out from a course or two, but from other discussions you gave, your system might force you to stick with a pre-established program.

Yes, I notice also by myself this.Is the government that spends all that money?

! (okay)

?

 

[Grands]

Look back at what I said and think: Companies which produce processed foods will often need services of microbiological testing labs or the companies often will hire their own microbiologists in their own labs. Environmental monitoring companies may also use a staff of microbiologists.

There is a degree only for microbiology ?

 

[symbolipoint]

There is a degree only for microbiology ?

Yesureebob! Undergraduate degree in Biology, in Microbiology, in Zoology, ... and Masters and PhD.Do you really have to ask?

 

[Grands]

Yesureebob! Undergraduate degree in Biology, in Microbiology, in Zoology, ... and Masters and PhD.Do you really have to ask?

Undergraduate degree only in microbiology ?
We don't have that, there is a common degree in biology ( bachelor's and master ) and after you can do a PhD in microbiology.

 

[symbolipoint]

Undergraduate degree only in microbiology ?
We don't have that, there is a common degree in biology and after you can do a PhD in microbiology.

Actually I BELIEVE there is Bachelor's Degree in Microbiology. I was aware of a small number of people who had such, so I assume there IS as there WAS. I will check some local school websites just for fresh information.

Unfortunate limitation exists where you are. In any case, someone who studies for undergrad in Microbiology will study other Biology courses also; NOT just those of Microbiology

 

[symbolipoint]

Actually I BELIEVE there is Bachelor's Degree in Microbiology. I was aware of a small number of people who had such, so I assume there IS as there WAS. I will check some local school websites just for fresh information.

Unfortunate limitation exists where you are. In any case, someone who studies for undergrad in Microbiology will study other Biology courses also; NOT just those of Microbiology

Thread is getting distracted here. A course or so in Microbiology for a Chemistry student can make this student more marketable. Imagine a development chemist for microbicidal cleaning products who has no available person to consult about what the product is expected to do to various kinds of yeasts or bacteria; or at least having a single course in Introductory Microbiology will help the chemist to be at least a little bit informed about the product he develops.

 

[Grands]

Ok so in general very few students of a Chemistry degree get into accademia due to the fact the have the possibility of being marketable ?

 

[symbolipoint]

Ok so in general very few students of a Chemistry degree get into accademia due to the fact the have the possibility of being marketable ?

I do not conclude that and you should not conclude that either. I have no statistics about what work Chemistry graduates enter, after earning Bachelor Degree in Chemistry. I assume that most of them go into other fields as well as into industrial chemist positions and I expect that some graduates continue on to an advanced degree - and then some stay in the academic world and some go to positions in industry.

 

[Grands]

What about other science degree ?

 

[Astronuc]

As you may know there is a big distinction between Science and Engineering.

Consider that Engineering is Applied Science.

Consider also, the category of Scientist Engineer, who likes to do both theory and application. In a previous job, the motto was "Linking theory with practice."

I'm not sure why Science needs to be marketed.

 

[256bits]

So my question is, it is possible to find a way to make more marketable Science in order to be useful to the society and provide a service to humans and population ?

Consumers of science news are humans.
Consumers of applied applications of science are humans.
It is marketed.
You may just not see it as being in your face, such as 30 second advertisements or other such methods used for marketing of products.
Industry and government use your money to invest in research.
Education is also a way to prepare people to become scientists if they so choose.
The education department spends a lot of money for that purpose, and its not so that an individual becomes not illiterate.
Much more to it than that.
If you are not convinced that government should be spending your money on research or education or that it is not well spent, or that it is not enough spent, I guess there are avenues to express.
Industry does not spend on science and applied applications, well they might just well be left behind those that do.

 

[Grands]

Consider also, the category of Scientist Engineer, who likes to do both theory and application. In a previous job, the motto was "Linking theory with practice."

Which kind of scientist are also engineers ?

 

[Grands]

Consumers of science news are humans.

They don't spend money to read research results, you can consult them free online.
I agree that there are TV series about science but in that case are not scientist that sell that kind of program.

Consumers of applied applications of science are humans.

This isn't engineering or medicine ?

Industry and government use your money to invest in research.

I never heard about industry that invest in science research, they and their R&D sector I suppose.

If you are not convinced that government should be spending your money on research or education or that it is not well spent, or that it is not enough spent, I guess there are avenues to express.

I just think that Science is not applicable unless it became engineering, and I think that Science is like Philosophy in term of marketability, you can't make money with it.
One time Einstein said: "Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

 

[256bits]

They don't spend money to read research results, you can consult them free online.

Free is not free for the entity doing the publication.
Just as much as the marketing is not free for the entity doing the marketing.
The targeted population is never charged for being made aware. ( well mostly not ).

This isn't engineering or medicine ?

Science is an intangible product.

you can't make money with it.

Why not?
Do some research. Make a discovery. Apply the discovery to a product. Sell the product.
If people don't like the product, start over.

The individual, or team making the discovery may not get rich.
And the investor may not get his money back for years.
So yeah, science investment is usually not a get rich quick scheme, but a 'delayed enrichment' of society, if that is a good term, for further generations.

Good op. thought provoking.

 

[Grands]

Why not?
Do some research. Make a discovery. Apply the discovery to a product. Sell the product.
If people don't like the product, start over.

Just because in my opinion science ( excluding Computer Science) doesn't give you the necessary knowledge to create a product from 0, you can at least in few cases improve it, when someone need the opinion of a scientist.

So yeah, science investment is usually not a get rich quick scheme

It's not about getting rich, is about earn some money in order to survive.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The market as a whole is unlikely to ever have as much demand for scientists in fundamental research jobs as they have for engineers. So an aspiring scientist needs to broaden his skill set, broaden his target jobs, and tend to his personal marketability so that he is an outstanding candidate among the other scientists he is competing with for the existing jobs.

Broaden your skill set:
The more marketable skill sets for physics graduates usually include a heavy part of programming and teaching skills.

Broaden your target jobs:
There are more available jobs for scientists to primarily teach science and perform applied research and development than there are fundamental research jobs. The demand is much, much greater for _science_ teachers than for engineering teachers.

Tend to your personal marketability:
Early in one's career that means demonstrated quality in addition to the right skill set. Quality is mostly demonstrated through GPA, published work products, recommendation letters, and institutional reputation.

 

[Astronuc]

Which kind of scientist are also engineers ?

In various disciplines. In my case, it's nuclear engineering and materials. In order to optimize a material in a nuclear reactor, one has to know about the physics of materials and the interaction of radiation on the materials. Even without the radiation, optimizing a material requires an intimate understanding of the physics of a material, which is function of materials science and engineering. These days, there is a lot of computational physics, e.g., density functional theory, phase field theory, and tools like kinetic monte carlo models and codes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X14010118

A broad application of science and engineering.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1117610

 

[Asymptotic]

Which kind of scientist are also engineers ?

Read the biographies of the three researchers responsible for the point contact transistor and of Julius Lilienfeld (who patented the field effect transistor in 1925).

 

[symbolipoint]

Too many questions and not enough study

 

[ISamson]

Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't.

What disasters were there?
What is the problem with the state deciding what is marketable and what is not?

 

[symbolipoint]

Good point.

Bad point, for America at least. Capitalism does a decent job of making marketable that which IS marketable and trying to force the issue rarely works well. Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a totally central economy, it is not doing as well as it would if they avoided state owned and run companies.

Good point.

Bad point, for America at least. Capitalism does a decent job of making marketable that which IS marketable and trying to force the issue rarely works well. Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a totally central economy, it is not doing as well as it would if they avoided state owned and run companies.

What disasters were there?
What is the problem with the state deciding what is marketable and what is not?

Government can make some things marketable, such as the Sciences, and this has been done, outside of ordinary routines of capitalism, and this has made sciences more marketable. Pick any example country you like. An example may be, the space-race during the 1960's. Increases in students studied the Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering. Those who graduated either found government jobs or jobs in companies involving S.T.E.M.

 

[ISamson]

Government can make some things marketable, such as the Sciences, and this has been done, outside of ordinary routines of capitalism, and this has made sciences more marketable. Pick any example country you like. An example may be, the space-race during the 1960's. Increases in students studied the Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering. Those who graduated either found government jobs or jobs in companies involving S.T.E.M.

Good explanation, thank you.

 

[Mark44]

What is the problem with the state deciding what is marketable and what is not?

A related question is "What is the problem with the state deciding what to manufacture and what not to manufacture?"

The answer is that a centralized entity does a far poorer job of making this decision than do millions of separate buyers, each acting on his or her own behalf. This decision-making by the multitudes was called the "invisible hand" by Adam Smith. An example of central planning was the Soviet Union, where citizens routinely had to stand in long lines for items like bread, shoes, etc.

 

[symbolipoint]

What disasters were there?
What is the problem with the state deciding what is marketable and what is not?

Depends what State wants to market. If the State people decide they want stronger scientific or engineering capabilities, then State can promote this and several people may try to study for sciences and engineering. Harder for the State to say, "people, we wish you would eat more squash, so we are going to import many different ones from several places; please buy and eat some."

 

[Grands]

. Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't.

I don't think that there is a relationship between the job opportunity the race to moon made and the lack fo the "invisible hand".
In my opinion still today Russian and Cina does not have a completely free trade.

In some cases the State promotes people that want to study engineering, giving them scholarships or financial help, so it encourage people to do it, but don't oblige no one in a explicit way.

The problem is that Science, unless it is linked with engineering, and remain on his own, do not give the possibility to create goods or services, only in few cases, for example the Einstein's relativity theory makes GPS to works with great precision, but I can't so so many application that can create lot of job opportunities.