Alexander Grimwade
The Scientist 15[8]:28 16 apr 01
The Scientist surveys researchers about the two distinct work environments.
Average relative scores of 11 factors, from 162 reader responses.
Life science researchers like working in industry for "career development opportunities" and "financial rewards"; they like working in academia for "creative freedom" and a "stronger learning environment." These are some of the conclusions from a recently conducted study of readers of The Scientist who have held research positions in both academia and industry. The survey gathered opinions and impressions from 159 life science researchers with such dual experience. Opinions on which environment is preferable were quite evenly divided: 39.5 percent said academia, 42.5 percent said industry, and 18 percent had no preference.
Asked to rate the differences between academia and industry, readers ranked "opportunity for greater income" as the factor weighted most strongly to industry. "Pressure to publish" was deemed the strongest factor in academia. Three factors measured as fairly evenly balanced: politics, quality of science research, and overall job satisfaction.
Nearly half the respondents had returned to academia after working in industry. The most frequently cited reasons for moving to academia from industry are freedom for creativity, learning environment, and better science.
Beyond the numbers, the readers were generous in sharing their experiences of research in the two environments and in describing the challenges of transition. The survey collected more than 60 observations from readers on the differences between academia and industry, plus nearly 100 pieces of advice from researchers contemplating a change from academia to industry. Some of these comments are quoted below. The full results are available on the Web at www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/apr/survey_010416.html.
Alexander Grimwade can be reached at agrimwade@the-scientist.com
©
The Scientist 15[8]:28 16 apr 01
The Scientist surveys researchers about the two distinct work environments.
Average relative scores of 11 factors, from 162 reader responses.
Life science researchers like working in industry for "career development opportunities" and "financial rewards"; they like working in academia for "creative freedom" and a "stronger learning environment." These are some of the conclusions from a recently conducted study of readers of The Scientist who have held research positions in both academia and industry. The survey gathered opinions and impressions from 159 life science researchers with such dual experience. Opinions on which environment is preferable were quite evenly divided: 39.5 percent said academia, 42.5 percent said industry, and 18 percent had no preference.
Asked to rate the differences between academia and industry, readers ranked "opportunity for greater income" as the factor weighted most strongly to industry. "Pressure to publish" was deemed the strongest factor in academia. Three factors measured as fairly evenly balanced: politics, quality of science research, and overall job satisfaction.
Nearly half the respondents had returned to academia after working in industry. The most frequently cited reasons for moving to academia from industry are freedom for creativity, learning environment, and better science.
Beyond the numbers, the readers were generous in sharing their experiences of research in the two environments and in describing the challenges of transition. The survey collected more than 60 observations from readers on the differences between academia and industry, plus nearly 100 pieces of advice from researchers contemplating a change from academia to industry. Some of these comments are quoted below. The full results are available on the Web at www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/apr/survey_010416.html.
Alexander Grimwade can be reached at agrimwade@the-scientist.com
©
