What is the job outlook for physicists in the next decade?

[Helical]

Nebuqalia, you seem to be forgetting something important and that is happiness. A career in law/medicine/management will NOT necessarily appeal to someone interested in physics. Job security is important but going into law or medicine is definitely not easy (maybe management too I don't really know), especially if you are not interested in the field. You seem to have overlooked this and I feel that it is a pretty important aspect of any persons career search (perhaps the most important factor).

 

[RufusDawes]

I don't like the way you're lumping science and engineerng into the same career path.

From my understanding they lead to very different careers.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Make that 20, or even $30,000/yr (though I'm sure its way lower); the point here is - it's still a huge cost saving. Almost all surveys clearly indicate cheaper labor as the number one factor favoring offshoring. That's a fact.

Yes, certainly; the lower labor costs are what make executives believe that the total cost of offshoring is going to be lower than maintaining domestic operations. But I can tell you than in the software engineering field this has most frequently turned out to be completely wrong - like you, the executives have a completely unrealistic understanding of the level of labor costs overseas, and the lower labor costs simply can't compensate for the other costs involved in running a multi-continental, multi-timezone operation where the various factors almost never get to speak to each other face-to-face.

Quite a few software engineering and IT offshoring efforts in the last decade have failed spectacularly and resulted in the company losing huge amounts of money, wrecking projects, and sometimes being overwhelmed by their competitors.

See how long it took you to describe the job? You are comparing a very specific position (a geophysicist oil well computer modeler) vs. an entire career field (i.e. doctor, or whatever). In the first case, the stability is an exception. In the later, it is the norm. It's just misleading to compare a very specific position with an entire professional career field.

No, I'm not. All doctors do not make more than half a million dollars per year like your very specific examples of a top-end spinal surgeon or top-end neurosurgeon. The difference in average salaries is about commensurate to the difference in length and cost of education required between the two professions. You're being startled by ghosts.

I believe we are responsible to clearly, and honestly, communicate the true career status of science/engineering with the younger generation. We should not let our emotional attachment to science/engineering become an obstacle against objective analysis. It's people future & jobs that's on the line here.

Similarly, we should not let personal insecurity or fear exaggerate the down sides and prohibit objective analysis that way.

Could we seriously say that science/engineering is (stabler/more lucrative) than other professional careers (law, management, medicine)?

For someone who knows how to navigate the job field and keep up with an engineering career, it's just as stable, lucrative commensurate to the years of schooling you put into it, and for the right person is more personally rewarding than those other professions.

And it's not an either/or situation. In software engineering I know of a number of engineers who also went to law school and became intellectual property lawyers, and who thereby straddle the line.

Can we refrain from telling the youngsters that, should they pursue science/engineering, they will have to compete with offshore scientists/engineers willing to work for a fraction of their salary?

They would be working in companies that have overseas competitors anyways even if there wasn't any offshoring. Yes, through the past several decades U.S. firms have faced increasing global competition. If the U.S. economy is besieged and brought down by overseas competitors in the science and technology fields it's not just engineers who are going to feel it, doctors and lawyers will find themselves hurting too (and probably more locked into their particular profession and specialty than the average engineer or scientist is.) You aren't providing any real information by telling these ghost stories.

The one thing I think it's worth it to say is, don't automatically assume that a PhD is going to have a substantial value in the job market. Either get your PhD because you want to and you enjoy it, or do the research to find out how much a particular PhD and skill set is worth and don't expect your school to do any of that for you. They're busy counting your tuition money.

⚛​

 

[RufusDawes]

Accounting will be outsourced.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Allow me to rephrase this a little bit: your "employability" depends very much on what you specialize in. That is, either:

a) stay in a mainstream science research career and be at the mercy of funding cut-backs, new regulations, government restrictions, etc.

b) move out to much more stable (and typically higher-paying) careers, be it in medicine, law, management, etc.

<snip>

That is partially true. In science/engineering, definitely you are right. However, in other professional fields, such as medicine and law, the adoption of new techniques/laws/ideas is relatively slower. Even if something new arises, it would be in a "peripheral" kind. That is, not at the core of the profession. Besides, you have ultra strong professional bodies that makes sure that, in case of any possible dramatic change, sufficient measures are taken to ensure their professionals have enough time to adapt.

<snip>

I take issue with this- have you spoken to any docs lately? Ask them about all the changes in insurance billing. Be prepared to listen to one long invective spew about what a pain in the butt it is and ho wmuch of their time is wasted dealing with morons. Med students get out of training now with *on average* $300k in debt. That's a house. And changes in the way medicine is practiced means more and more docs are part of a large hospital system where the focus is on... profit margins. Docs don't like spending 10 minutes per patient any more than the patient. I'm sorry... I meant 'CLIENT'.

But the job market is stable because people are always breaking down, that's true. But how many times could you lance yet another boil before wondering if there's more to life than dealing with fools who lick frozen metal poles?

Lawyers... well, there's some stability because there's always human misery. But again, there's not much room for creativity and new ideas. Precedence, and all that.

 

[nebuqalia]

Nebuqalia, you seem to be forgetting something important and that is happiness.

I totally agree! In fact, happiness is the reason why I advised the youngsters to keep working on science/engineering, but only as a hobby. This way, they would get the fun of doing something that make them happy, but in the same time enjoy the stability of other career paths.

Anyways...

Instead of making "ghost" descriptions, I'll exclusively list a number of solid facts (from various reports by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Science):

When asked in spring 2005 what is the most attractive place in the world in which to “lead a good life”, respondents in only one of the 16 countries polled indicated the United States.

Reference: Pew Global Attitudes Project, July 23, 2005.

For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India.

Reference: PayScale.com tracks and compares pay scales in many countries. Ron Hira, of Rochester Institute of Technology, calculates average salaries for engineers in the United States and India as $70,000 and $13,580, respectively.

For the first time, the most capable high-energy particle accelerator on Earth resides outside the United States.

Reference: CERN

The United States is today a net importer of high-technology products. Its share of global high-technology exports has fallen in the last 2 decades from 30% to 17%, and its trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods shifted from plus $33 billion in 1990 to a negative $24 billion in 2004.

Reference: Appendix Table 6-01 of National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.

Chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United States in 2004 and have tagged 40 more for shutdown. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 in China.

Reference: "No Longer The Lab Of The World: U.S. chemical plants are closing in droves as production heads abroad", BusinessWeek (May 2, 2005).

In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available), US industry spent more on tort litigation than on R&D.

Reference: Leonard, Jeremy A. 2003. "How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S.
Manufacturers Harm Workers and Threaten Competitiveness." Prepared for the Manufacturing Institute of the National Association of Manufacturers. http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=216&DID=227525&DOC=FILE.PDF.

In 2003, only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Reference: US Patent and Trademark Office, Preliminary list of top patenting organizations.

The Conclusion
--------------
* It doesn't matter what field you choose to specialize in; whether manufacturing, software, IT, or high-energy particle physics and chemicals production. Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside.

* Governments, Companies, and to some exten the society, don't seriously consider innovation and R&D as an important thing. What are the important things? Law, helping people through their misery. Medicine, saving lives and sick ones. Science/Engineering/Innovation .. nah, that's so "Indian/Chinese."

 

[ZapperZ]

At the same time, you also seem to ignore all the current "records" being held within the US:

1. The most brilliant synchrotron light source available today at the Advanced Photon source

2. The most intense neutron source already being achieved at the still-being-commissioned Spallation Neutron Source

3. The most intense coherent light FEL source being built at the LCLS at SLAC.

So the loss of "leadership" in high energy physics does not mean the loss of in all of physics. Even within the physics community itself, there are divided support for such large scale particle collider. And considering that high energy physics isn't even a large division under the wing of the APS, the shift in high energy physics focus certainly does not reflect an overall shift in the importance of physics.

People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first. What is being used in medicine are "old" techniques that came down from physics. Medical accelerators that are now common in medicine are considered "crude" by today's particle accelerator standard (see the requirement of an FEL and compare that with a medical accelerators). So what we learn in physics now will only trickle down to such areas 5, 10 years from now. You can't make advances in Medicine without advances in physics first.

Is the US losing grounds in terms of scientific innovation? Sure! I've mentioned this many times. But it certainly doesn't fit into your conclusion where "... Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside ..." Individually, no one country even come close to the amount of research work and spending being done in the US, even today after the recent budget disaster (so one can only imagine how much more it is during the "prosperous years"). One can look at the statistics from the NSF http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/" study It is why many US companies and institutions are still quite attractive for many bright students and scientists.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

nebuqualia, I don't know where you are in regards to retirement. But if you really believe that all of these things are the heralds of doom, rather than the heralds of global competition, are you making plans and efforts to transition into another career? Because if it's not quite bad enough for that it doesn't seem reasonable to tell people they should avoid the career in the first place.

* It doesn't matter what field you choose to specialize in; whether manufacturing, software, IT, or high-energy particle physics and chemicals production. Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside.

The United States represents something like one thirtieth of the global population... how does what you say above not make perfect sense? Why should that be scary to someone considering a career in science or engineering?

Fifteen years ago Indians who wanted to go into science or engineering could have told themselves the same thing - that it was hopeless and foolish because too much of the big science and engineering is done outside of India.

⚛​

 

[Helical]

I totally agree! In fact, happiness is the reason why I advised the youngsters to keep working on science/engineering, but only as a hobby. This way, they would get the fun of doing something that make them happy, but in the same time enjoy the stability of other career paths.

I don't understand why you assume why someone potentially interested in physics would be interested in law/management/medicine. Why would having a stable career but one you don't like make you happy? Why would going to school for many years studying a topic that you're not so interested in make you happy? You seem to be alluding to money and stability being equivalent to happiness.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first. What is being used in medicine are "old" techniques that came down from physics. Medical accelerators that are now common in medicine are considered "crude" by today's particle accelerator standard (see the requirement of an FEL and compare that with a medical accelerators). So what we learn in physics now will only trickle down to such areas 5, 10 years from now. You can't make advances in Medicine without advances in physics first.

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI), and physics is slowly developing tools to analyze biological phenomena, but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* it's really shocking. Biomedical research, which slowly alters the practice of medicine, is as far removed from physics as brewing beer.

Let's start with diagnosis- medical diagnosis is performed by physical examination and blood/urine analysis. The analysis uses biochemistry and the interpretation of the test and exam results is based on "lore" which has been handed down for centuries. For example- how much serum albumin is normal? What is normal blood pressure? What is the normal concentration of calcium in the urine? On what basis is 'normal' established?

From diagnosis to treatment options- medications. Again, it's all based on biochemistry. No physics. I defy anyone to provide a physics-only picture of the cell growth cycle or muscle contraction that has a shred of utility. The tools and techniques used in drug discovery are derived from biochemistry. Western blots were not invented by a physicist.

Surgery- surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

So yes, advances in medicine occur routinely without any reference to physics. And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree. Do some tools used in physics diffuse their way over to biology? Of course. Is that diffusion required? Definitely not, and to claim otherwise flies in the face of reality.

 

[nebuqalia]

So the loss of "leadership" in high energy physics does not mean the loss of in all of physics. Even within the physics community itself, there are divided support for such large scale particle collider. And considering that high energy physics isn't even a large division under the wing of the APS, the shift in high energy physics focus certainly does not reflect an overall shift in the importance of physics.

OK. So do I have to list an example in every subfield of physics to show you that we are lagging behind? Look at the bigger picture. The instances of the accelerator, the closing of chemicals plants, the increased offshoring .. bring the pieces together, and it gives you an indication of the overall science and engineering climate.

Is the US losing grounds in terms of scientific innovation? Sure! I've mentioned this many times. But it certainly doesn't fit into your conclusion where "... Science, high-tech R&D, and Engineering is carried outside America much more than the inside ..." Individually, no one country even come close to the amount of research work and spending being done in the US

If you examine the research activity and spending closely, you will easily observe that the greater emphasis is on biomedical sciences. We can not say "well, we spend the most on research, so our physical sciences/engineering status must be pretty strong."

One can look at the statistics from the NSF 2008 Science and Engineering indicators study It is why many US companies and institutions are still quite attractive for many bright students and scientists.

How did you come up with that conclusion? On what basis did you say that US institutions are still quite attractive for bright students?

... Why should that be scary to someone considering a career in science or engineering?

One word: trends. The alarming trend of offshoring should seriously scare the hell out of anyone thinking about science/engineering. First, it begun in manufacturing. Then, microelectronics. After which came IT and software engineering. Now, R&D. Does it really take so much effort to see where things are heading to? The major reason behind offshoring is cheap labor. The bottom line is: unless you are ready to work for $15,000/yr (by the time you graduate), or willing to move to India or China .. don't consider science/engineering.

I don't understand why you assume why someone potentially interested in physics would be interested in law/management/medicine.

Those are just examples, I'm not saying that physicists would find those particular fields interesting. The point here is -- think outside the box when considering your possible career.

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI) ... but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* ...

I totally agree, 100% correct.

surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

Excellent points. You are very right, especially with the last sentence. This attitude, that physics is the foundation of all science, is misleading .. especially for many of the youngsters. I believe the problem is (and this also one of the reasons that scientists are detached from the reality of offshoring and other career issues) is that scientists/engineers are too focused on their topics to consider the real-life, realistic, no-nonsense, status of their profession and what it can *practically* provide.

A good example I always like to tell about this issue is the typical "war" that youngsters experience when they ask a very common question: "What is the difference between CompSci and CompEng?" This would result in a 400 pages discussion on the very minute differences. Want a real-life, no-nonsense, practical opinion? Get any, they are all the same thing.

It is this sense of practicality that is very rare in scientists, especially the youngsters. They have this view that every job and every position in this world is somehow available in a giant academic catalog that you choose the suitable degree from.

And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree.

Just out of curiosity .. can you give some examples of those physical principles? I'm interested

 

[ZapperZ]

This is not true! Granted, some instrumentation and software developed for physics has been adapted by the medical community (mass spectroscopy, CT, MRI), and physics is slowly developing tools to analyze biological phenomena, but the daily practice of medicine is so far removed from *science* it's really shocking. Biomedical research, which slowly alters the practice of medicine, is as far removed from physics as brewing beer.

Let's start with diagnosis- medical diagnosis is performed by physical examination and blood/urine analysis. The analysis uses biochemistry and the interpretation of the test and exam results is based on "lore" which has been handed down for centuries. For example- how much serum albumin is normal? What is normal blood pressure? What is the normal concentration of calcium in the urine? On what basis is 'normal' established?

From diagnosis to treatment options- medications. Again, it's all based on biochemistry. No physics. I defy anyone to provide a physics-only picture of the cell growth cycle or muscle contraction that has a shred of utility. The tools and techniques used in drug discovery are derived from biochemistry. Western blots were not invented by a physicist.

Surgery- surgery should be considered an art. There is a mystique about surgery that colors all discussions (and rightly so: errors in surgery tend to have more dire consequences than a sign error), and the tools used in surgery have generally developed by surgeons. Has anyone consulted a physicist before performing an organ transplant? Even seen a cystoscope? Do you think a physicist designed that?

Yeah, yeah... physics is at the foundation of all science, physics or stamp collecting, blah blah blah. Please. That is a provincial view of the world.

So yes, advances in medicine occur routinely without any reference to physics. And much of biomedical research- my research included- uses physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree. Do some tools used in physics diffuse their way over to biology? Of course. Is that diffusion required? Definitely not, and to claim otherwise flies in the face of reality.

If you look at the various beamlines at the Advanced Photon Source, you'll be surprised that almost half of them are filled with biomedical/pharmaceutical research projects! And I wasn't talking the "daily" practices, even though one can easily point out laser surgeries, and CAT scans, and PET scans, etc as coming directly out of physics. I'm talking about the advances made in medicine that benefited from the advances and techniques that came out of physics. The LCLS was built because there was a need in biomedicine for light sources of that intensity. And in the June US particle accelerator school, there's a session on medical accelerators which are now more common than you think. Even something as mundane as an electron microscope came out of our understanding of physics AND out of something that we used in physics.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK. So do I have to list an example in every subfield of physics to show you that we are lagging behind? Look at the bigger picture. The instances of the accelerator, the closing of chemicals plants, the increased offshoring .. bring the pieces together, and it gives you an indication of the overall science and engineering climate.

Actually, there are many accelerators in operation in the US. In fact, nowhere else are there more particle accelerators than in the US. What is closing is high-energy physics particle collider experiment. RHIC and CEBAF are very healthy, and so are all the various synchrotron source. LCLS is an accelerator as well. It is nearing completion. And this year, the DOE will put out bids to build a rare-ion accelerator. There are a lot of major accelerator facilities being built or about to be built.

If you examine the research activity and spending closely, you will easily observe that the greater emphasis is on biomedical sciences. We can not say "well, we spend the most on research, so our physical sciences/engineering status must be pretty strong."

Sure! This occurred because the doubling of spending for the NIH that was instituted during the Clinton Administration. Yet, at the same time, many of the funded projects at the NIH ended up at DOE's BES facilities such as the various synchrotron light sources in the country.

The new America Competes act was supposed to reverse that, and bring funding of the DOE and NSF on par with NIH. Already there are cuts being made to NIH funding, and the FY09 proposal would make it flat, while substantial increase are being proposed for DOE and NSF. So this does not fit into what you have described.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Does it really take so much effort to see where things are heading to? The major reason behind offshoring is cheap labor. The bottom line is: unless you are ready to work for $15,000/yr (by the time you graduate), or willing to move to India or China .. don't consider science/engineering.

You realize that jobs leave India and China to go elsewhere too, right? A couple of decades ago it was “OMG all of the jobs will leave the U.S. and go to Japan!” but Japan has had an economic collapse and recession since then, the U.S. hasn't done too badly at all by comparison, and companies are closing factories in Japan and moving them overseas.

If all global science and technology jobs are going to be unstoppably and inevitably sucked into India and China, as well as the entirety of those U.S. industrial sectors, (which I do not believe) then it won't matter whether someone goes into science and engineering, it's going to be a doomsday cataclysm for the entire U.S. economy. A few years after they graduate $15,000/yr won't seem like a bad salary. My house will probably be crushed by a piece of falling sky.

⚛​

 

[Vid]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/05/1837235

ScienceNOW Daily News
4 February 2008
President George W. Bush today proposed a flat budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2009 while asking for double-digit increases at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The numbers, part of his request to Congress for the 2009 fiscal year that begins 1 October, mirror previous budgets by emphasizing the physical sciences at the expense of the biomedical sciences.

Just like to point this out supporting what Zapper has already said.

 

[RufusDawes]

From what I understand it is uber gay to be an employee in the USA no matter what you do. Your college tuition money would be better spent becoming a nurse, teacher or fireman and getting the hell out of the USA to one of Canada, Australia or some small recource producing European nation.

Because the economy is about to implode and at that time you may'd as well be living in south America, infact you probably will, because NAFTA will fix that one up for you.

Just thought I'd add a little more to the dooms day scenario.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>


Just out of curiosity .. can you give some examples of those physical principles? I'm interested

Sure: electrochemistry/electrophysiology. Ion/solute transport through a semi-permeable membrane. Continuum mechanics. Fourier Optics.

I'm not saying *no* physics program teaches these, just that these topics are not generally covered.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If you look at the various beamlines at the Advanced Photon Source, you'll be surprised that almost half of them are filled with biomedical/pharmaceutical research projects! And I wasn't talking the "daily" practices, even though one can easily point out laser surgeries, and CAT scans, and PET scans, etc as coming directly out of physics. I'm talking about the advances made in medicine that benefited from the advances and techniques that came out of physics. The LCLS was built because there was a need in biomedicine for light sources of that intensity. And in the June US particle accelerator school, there's a session on medical accelerators which are now more common than you think. Even something as mundane as an electron microscope came out of our understanding of physics AND out of something that we used in physics.

Zz.

Obviously medicine has benefited from physics research- so have many other fields. As new tools are developed, scientists will use them. I use tools developed by biochemists: Ussing chambers, gel chromatography, immunohistochemistry, fluorophores, etc. Just because Minsky has a degree in Mathematics does not imply that all of confocal microscopy hinges on advances in Mathematics.

Also, you can't point to a single session which occurs in a summer program and claim the impact is anything like NIH's multi-billion dollar annual budget (which is in addition to all the other granting agencies: American Heart Association, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, March of Dimes...)

Furthermore, it's not entirely clear how high-end instrumentation, like the gamma knife, PET scans, proton sources, etc. really imapct the day-to-day types of cases physicians deal with. Physics is unlikely to develop a cure for the common cold. Or the flu.

As for the APS, the reason why the beamline is filled with biomedical projects is because that's where the money is, simple as that. They won't be there in 5 years- new tools, new science.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure: electrochemistry/electrophysiology. Ion/solute transport through a semi-permeable membrane. Continuum mechanics. Fourier Optics.

I'm not saying *no* physics program teaches these, just that these topics are not generally covered.

Er... but I could say the same thing about "accelerator physics" (in fact, most students have to go to a specially designed externally conducted school to get the full curriculum), "superconductivity", "nanoscience", etc... etc. That do not make them "not physics" principles just because they are "not generally covered". And continujm mechanics and Fourier optics are even more popular than the subjects that I've just described in terms of official curriculum. Certainly, to claim that these are "... physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree... " is false. Fourier optics is extremely common, for example, in condensed matter physics. FTIR is a common technique used in optical transport studies to characterize the phonon structure of solids. And it IS based on "physical principles" out of physics - classical electromagnetism!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Obviously medicine has benefited from physics research- so have many other fields. As new tools are developed, scientists will use them. I use tools developed by biochemists: Ussing chambers, gel chromatography, immunohistochemistry, fluorophores, etc. Just because Minsky has a degree in Mathematics does not imply that all of confocal microscopy hinges on advances in Mathematics.

Look at the various instruments you use. There's a very good chance that the principle behind the working of that instrument, and even the origin of that instrument, came out of physics. Mass spectrometer? Out of physics. Electron microscope? Tell me where the principle for the electron gun in there came from. SEM? Even more physics!

I can list ad nauseum many things that was used eons ago in physics experiments that are now slowly being adapted to be used in other fields, including yours. This isn't meant to indicate one field is more important than the other. If you think I was doing that, you are mistaken. However, many outside of physics simply are not aware of the tremendous impact of cutting edge reserach work that was done or originated out of physics. The Nobel Prize for physics that was given just this past year on GMR material permeates through all of our modern civilization. The fact that we are even having this discussion clearly shows that there is a major ignorance on what have come out of the investment in physics research.

I'm not here to claim that physics can cure diseases. If we can do that, there's no need for the medical profession. However, you are claiming that you don't need us, or that we can simply disappear and you can function as usual. That is what I don't want to see happen. No one should take another profession for granted. I don't intend to dimish the importance of other fields, because in such a modern civilization such as what we have now, we depend on each other. But to marginalize an area of study such as physics, even after I had explictly described how you are using the fruits of its labor, is extremely puzzling.

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Er... but I could say the same thing about "accelerator physics" (in fact, most students have to go to a specially designed externally conducted school to get the full curriculum), "superconductivity", "nanoscience", etc... etc. That do not make them "not physics" principles just because they are "not generally covered". And continujm mechanics and Fourier optics are even more popular than the subjects that I've just described in terms of official curriculum. Certainly, to claim that these are "... physical principles that are absolutely not covered in any physics degree... " is false. Fourier optics is extremely common, for example, in condensed matter physics. FTIR is a common technique used in optical transport studies to characterize the phonon structure of solids. And it IS based on "physical principles" out of physics - classical electromagnetism!

Zz.

This is a fake argument- look at this forum as evidence. Students are learning a 60+ year old (i.e. outdated) physics curriculum and wondering why the job market is so bad.

You will get no argument from me that many current areas of physics research are left out of the standard curriculum. Just because someone goes through Jackson's book in a class doesn't mean they understand FTIR.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Look at the various instruments you use. There's a very good chance that the principle behind the working of that instrument, and even the origin of that instrument, came out of physics. Mass spectrometer? Out of physics. Electron microscope? Tell me where the principle for the electron gun in there came from. SEM? Even more physics!

I can list ad nauseum many things that was used eons ago in physics experiments that are now slowly being adapted to be used in other fields, including yours. This isn't meant to indicate one field is more important than the other. If you think I was doing that, you are mistaken. However, many outside of physics simply are not aware of the tremendous impact of cutting edge reserach work that was done or originated out of physics. The Nobel Prize for physics that was given just this past year on GMR material permeates through all of our modern civilization. The fact that we are even having this discussion clearly shows that there is a major ignorance on what have come out of the investment in physics research.

I'm not here to claim that physics can cure diseases. If we can do that, there's no need for the medical profession. However, you are claiming that you don't need us, or that we can simply disappear and you can function as usual. That is what I don't want to see happen. No one should take another profession for granted. I don't intend to dimish the importance of other fields, because in such a modern civilization such as what we have now, we depend on each other. But to marginalize an area of study such as physics, even after I had explictly described how you are using the fruits of its labor, is extremely puzzling.

Zz.

I have to admit, this post implying that I am outside of physics research ('other fields... including yours', 'you don't need us') is unexpectedly gratifying, for several reasons.

Let me be clear: I believe that the future of research is multidisciplinary. I don't know anyone who thinks that an entire scientific discipline is useless. Neither can any particular discipline claim central importance in any large problem worth solving. But, let's go to your original post:

"People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first."

Surely you must admit you had overstated the case?

 

[ZapperZ]

This is a fake argument- look at this forum as evidence. Students are learning a 60+ year old (i.e. outdated) physics curriculum and wondering why the job market is so bad.

You will get no argument from me that many current areas of physics research are left out of the standard curriculum. Just because someone goes through Jackson's book in a class doesn't mean they understand FTIR.

And I didn't say they did. But without understanding E&M, you can't do FTIR!

But this gives the fallacy that EVERY other standard curriculum in school somehow gives sufficient knowledge for someone to start research! I've seen engineering students complain that what they learn in schools barely even match what they finally have to use in their work! The same with computer science students. They don't! And they're not supposed to either because there's no way to anticipate the kinds of problems that is being faced when someone is doing research-front work or even daily grind a profession. So why are we picking on physics here in particular?

And for your information, I did Fourier Optics while I was still an undergraduate at UW-Madison. We used Goodman's text. So that already blows your assertion away that this isn't part of ANY standard curriculum. And this was in the 1980's!

I have to admit, this post implying that I am outside of physics research ('other fields... including yours', 'you don't need us') is unexpectedly gratifying, for several reasons.

Let me be clear: I believe that the future of research is multidisciplinary. I don't know anyone who thinks that an entire scientific discipline is useless. Neither can any particular discipline claim central importance in any large problem worth solving. But, let's go to your original post:

"People also forget that advancement in Medicine depends on the advancement in physics first."

Surely you must admit you had overstated the case?

I never claim of physics having "central importance". Instead, I was countering the claim made by you that medical advances does not need anything from physics. I suggest you re-read where I started to counter your post.

State any advancement in medicine, and I'll show you where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it in the physics principles, or the technique/equipment that we used. Unfortunately, when I do that, people seem to think that I am undermining medicine. Nowhere have I done that. I could easily then say the advancement in medicine allows us to produce healthier scientists who in return can make those advancements in their respective fields. Does that then somehow undermines physics because physicists needs to have medical professionals? That makes no sense!

Every time you get an x-ray or an MRI or laser treatment, etc., you are using something that came out of physics. If this proton therapy thing actually takes off, that would be another aspect of something that came directly out of high energy physics that would be another example that the medical profession has adapted. Nowhere in here does it undermines the importance of medicine!

And oh, as far as being aware of "interdisciplinary" nature of many fields right now, you should have read this post that I made early this morning.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1645409&postcount=287

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

State any advancement in medicine, and I'll show you where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it in the physics principles, or the technique/equipment that we used. <snip>


Zz.

Ok, I'll bite. Here's my list:

blood transfusions
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Polio and smallpox vaccine
PCR
viagra

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, I'll bite. Here's my list:

blood transfusions
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Polio and smallpox vaccine
PCR
viagra

.. and how, do you think, they are able to know the chemical compounds and the amount used in these drugs? How were the nature of the disease/pathogens identified in the first place?

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

.. and how, do you think, they are able to know the chemical compounds and the amount used in these drugs? How were the nature of the disease/pathogens identified in the first place?

Zz.

You're joking, right?

So, you asked for "Any advancement in medicine", and I duly provided several that have benefited untold numbers of people. You promised to "show where it benefited from what we learn out of physics, be it the principles or techniques" and you mumble something along the lines of "Physics studies atoms. Things are made of atoms."

Having successfully bridged the divide between physics and medicine (given your previous comments), I resent that you make pronouncements about the practice of medicine and the nature of biomedical research when (apparently) you have no idea about how a cell works. That's akin to a biologist making pronouncements about physics research when the biologist has no idea about the structure of an atom.

 

[Locrian]

This argument has really wandered off the subject - see the OP.

The question of whether physics is useful in medicine is almost completely irrelevant to how useful a physics degree is. This shouldn't be the case - a physics degree should be as useful as physics is. They're not, and a discussion of whether, why and what to do about it would be much more in line with the discussion on the first page.

 

[nebuqalia]

The question of whether physics is useful in medicine is almost completely irrelevant to how useful a physics degree is.

I disagree. The discussion on the relationship between physics and medicine is a strong argument against "physics prepares you for a wide variety of fields" kind of statements. They often have this wishy-washy view that physics is the "most fundamental & important thing" and hence a good preparation for "a wide variety of fields."

The discussion of physics vs. medicine is a proof that many still have this overtly idealistic (romantic) view of physics. The discussion clearly showed the detachment of physics from other practical professions. I strongly agree with the points raised by Andy Resnick.

In other words, this discussion is a reality check for those who have unrealistic expectations from a physics/science degree.

 

[thinkies]

@nebuqalia

Can you share your "anti-physics" thoughts elsewhere? Beside, it seems like you once mentioned having an engineering degree. Why pursue something you hate so much(physics)? Physics is an important field in science. Job prospects for all fields in science aren't as bad as you are describing.

 

[nebuqalia]

Can you share your "anti-physics" thoughts elsewhere? Beside, it seems like you once mentioned having an engineering degree.

What I said before in physics applies to engineering as well. I used "physics" as a general keyword of the "physical sciences/engineering." I don't hate physics/science/engineering. I love these fields, and have said so many times. It is considering them as career fields, however, that I would not recommend.

I apologize if my statements were understood as "anti-physics." That's just the exact opposite of what I feel. All what am trying to do is provide some realistic advice on the recent career issues related to science/engineering.