Anyone manage a PhD while working F/T? (degrees, best, reviews)

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I had a friend at my uni that walked into his program already knowing what he was going to do. He was working for the whitehead institute (MIT), but they wouldn't take his MS and he had no interest in starting from scratch. He was scooped up by one of the prof's in our dept who is a huge money maker. With that said, I don't know if I could talk by old boss into doing something related to what I'm doing now. Much of his work involves renal pathology. It might be possible if I employ a bit of creativity.

MITs grad school is notorious for requiring students in Masters programs to take a few undergrad courses (at MIT), It wouldn't surprise me if they required Ph.D. candidates to go through their Masters program, too, even if they already have a Masters in the same subject.

It wouldn't hurt to ask. The worst the old boss could do is say no, and at least could give you some good advice if not a yes.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

If both parties decided to collaborate there wouldn't be an ethics issue. Since both parties would have to collaborate for it to work, an ethics issue is impossible.

It could happen, but I just don't see both parties going for it - primarily because it is just not the norm and also because Ph.D candidates go through a very conservative system. Your advisor did it the same way that his/her advisor did it as....and so forth. In a way it is archaic and sadistic, but that is just how it is. They did it a certain way, had to jump through hoops, and so will you.

When you apply to be a candidate, professors will look at your proposal until one of them says that they will be willing to take you on. They will accept you based on many things, but primarily because your proposal interests them. It becomes a Master and Apprentice type of relationship. You are the Grasshopper and the master prof (advisor) is the Sensei. Having a collaborating industry would change the dynamics of this relationship.

The thing is that your work is going to be added to the prestige of your advisor and his/her own work, which is why you will be accepted based on your research proposal. A third party company would stand nothing to gain by supporting such a collaboration.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

eta: unless there's the assumption that I wouldn't share with my uni and job that I'm working on the same project in both institutions. That would never cross my mind.

It is not so much about not sharing as much as it is about the old-boy network -so to speak- of the nature of PH.D. candidacy. While the company that you would be working for may appreciate the free labor, is it in their interest to have you on as a researcher unless they can patent your work? Is it in the advisors interest? What security will the company give you that they will not steal your work? Can you accept such an assurance? If they steal, and patent or publish your work before you do, you will lose your Ph.D. candidacy. Is that a risk your advisor is willing to take? There is too much possibility for conflict of interest.

Maybe it has been done before or maybe their could be the first time. I would talk to your old boss to get the low down. No one would know better.

If money is the issue, there is the chance to do the Ph.D. part-time so you can work. It should only add one more year to it.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I've seen some get away with just RA'ing, tho, there is where I run into problems when considering the idea. I wouldn't expect a stipend from the school.

RA is mostly a position grad students seeking Masters degrees take on to help give them research experience. While it may be possible, working as an RA while you are doing your own research is rather redundant. Besides, most people who go for Ph.Ds ultimately have the goal to teach some day.

[Eresh]

K-Luv brings up some really good points that outline exactly why I kept my job research separate from my dissertation research. My professor actually did call me grasshopper LOL (though he was also literally a Sensei at his dojo). Luckily he wasn't possessive enough to interfere with my work related research (i.e. had no problem with my being coauthor on papers with other people for work he didn't contribute to), and my boss was the same way with my dissertation research. BUT, I have to reiterate that my ft job was on the same campus, which made it more possible for the situation to occur that way.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

A breach of ethics how? Can you give an example with actual research? I don't see how ethics can be breached.

Regardless of the ethical questions, there is a very obvious psychology issue. Science as a whole is rational process, but individuals act irrationally. When your $$ depends on XYZ being true then you're going to have a terrible bias towards XYZ being true.

Now biases exist in academia as well, nobody wants to see a few years of their research go done the drain and they will tend to defend it even when everyone else sees the error. But due to tenure they are not going to lose their job over it.


Anyhow, I can't see how it would be possible to complete a Ph.d in a good program while also working full time. That is in a sense in conflict with the nature of a ph.d program.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Eresh

K-Luv brings up some really good points that outline exactly why I kept my job research separate from my dissertation research. My professor actually did call me grasshopper LOL (though he was also literally a Sensei at his dojo). Luckily he wasn't possessive enough to interfere with my work related research (i.e. had no problem with my being coauthor on papers with other people for work he didn't contribute to), and my boss was the same way with my dissertation research. BUT, I have to reiterate that my ft job was on the same campus, which made it more possible for the situation to occur that way.

Yes, he does bring up some excellent points. This is all stuff I need to think about that didn't enter my mind prior to this thread. But, now that I think about it, I had a conversation with my old boss last year and he got huffy with me. I thought I was just offering advice to make a few things more efficient in his lab and he took offense lol. Fortunately, he called me before Christmas seeking a meet-up. I need to give him a buzz. Since my brother's passing I've dropped the ball in a number of areas.

Originally Posted by K-Luv

MITs grad school is notorious for requiring students in Masters programs to take a few undergrad courses (at MIT), It wouldn't surprise me if they required Ph.D. candidates to go through their Masters program, too, even if they already have a Masters in the same subject.

Yep, spot on. And he was at Whitehead for quite a while and was invited to do his PhD, but they wouldn't budge with him having to start over.

It wouldn't hurt to ask. The worst the old boss could do is say no, and at least could give you some good advice if not a yes.

Yea, as I mentioned above I should at least get together with him and feel him out. The other prof in the lab might be game as well, but it's simply not an option. My old boss would be so offended if I took on with another prof.

It could happen, but I just don't see both parties going for it - primarily because it is just not the norm and also because Ph.D candidates go through a very conservative system. Your advisor did it the same way that his/her advisor did it as....and so forth. In a way it is archaic and sadistic, but that is just how it is. They did it a certain way, had to jump through hoops, and so will you.

When you apply to be a candidate, professors will look at your proposal until one of them says that they will be willing to take you on. They will accept you based on many things, but primarily because your proposal interests them. It becomes a Master and Apprentice type of relationship. You are the Grasshopper and the master prof (advisor) is the Sensei. Having a collaborating industry would change the dynamics of this relationship.

Yes, and that might have something to do with why he got upset with me last summer. I was questioning the Sensei lol.

The thing is that your work is going to be added to the prestige of your advisor and his/her own work, which is why you will be accepted based on your research proposal. A third party company would stand nothing to gain by supporting such a collaboration.

That's why I can't figure out why this guy at work is allowed to do his research in one of our labs with the global head as a second adviser. I don't know what's up with that.

It is not so much about not sharing as much as it is about the old-boy network -so to speak- of the nature of PH.D. candidacy. While the company that you would be working for may appreciate the free labor, is it in their interest to have you on as a researcher unless they can patent your work? Is it in the advisors interest? What security will the company give you that they will not steal your work? Can you accept such an assurance? If they steal, and patent or publish your work before you do, you will lose your Ph.D. candidacy. Is that a risk your advisor is willing to take? There is too much possibility for conflict of interest.

Yea, these are all good points. Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't imagine my co taking and publishing my work in an underhanded way. Obviously, this would all have to be above board. But, what do I know. I'm pretty new to industry, tend to think the best about everything/one until proven otherwise.

RA is mostly a position grad students seeking Masters degrees take on to help give them research experience. While it may be possible, working as an RA while you are doing your own research is rather redundant. Besides, most people who go for Ph.Ds ultimately have the goal to teach some day.

I'm not sure how the funding was titled for one of the grad students in my old lab, but he didn't teach. He would fill in for our boss when he was out of town, but that was about it.

Any way, thanks for the great advice. I must say this all seems daunting. I'm going to talk to my colleague at work to get some information from him. Hopefully, he won't think I'm prying too much.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

Regardless of the ethical questions, there is a very obvious psychology issue. Science as a whole is rational process, but individuals act irrationally. When your $$ depends on XYZ being true then you're going to have a terrible bias towards XYZ being true.

Now biases exist in academia as well, nobody wants to see a few years of their research go done the drain and they will tend to defend it even when everyone else sees the error. But due to tenure they are not going to lose their job over it.

That's one of the reasons I'd be more suspect of academia over industry. Again, yes, my experience is limited, but thus far in industry it's run as a tight ship. There's very little room for funny business.

Anyhow, I can't see how it would be possible to complete a Ph.d in a good program while also working full time. That is in a sense in conflict with the nature of a ph.d program.

That's why my fantasy includes a collaboration.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

That's one of the reasons I'd be more suspect of academia over industry.

You'd suspect academia more because its pay structure affords professors the ability to make mistakes without becoming homeless? Can't say that I understand your thinking here.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Again, yes, my experience is limited, but thus far in industry it's run as a tight ship. There's very little room for funny business.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, in a business sense "funny business" would be those things that distract from profit/revenue growth not bad science. A business only has incentives to care about cogent scientific results when such is line with its business goals.

What do you think happens when a scientist at ABC Pharmaceutical discovers that its new drug Z (which is generating $100 million in revenue/year) may cause heart failure? What incentive in general does the company have to further research on the drug once the FDA accepts it? What about funny business in the relationship between the FDA and drug companies? We are talking about billions of dollars here....

Business is cut-throat and it at the end of the day cares nothing about science in itself, rather how it can use science to generate revenue/profit. On the other hand academia has a bunch different incentive structure, one that is much more in line with cogent research. That it say, business is primarily focused on applied research where as academia is far more focused on pure research. The latter has produced all of our great discoveries, not the former.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

That's why my fantasy includes a collaboration.

Sure, but how does a professor of a distinguished program benefit from doing a collaboration with some company unless the company is throwing it some bones?

I don't see the point of this, ph.d programs already provide you with stipends for your living costs. There should be no financial issues unless one is addicted to a certain higher level of consumption.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

You'd suspect academia more because its pay structure affords professors the ability to make mistakes without becoming homeless? Can't say that I understand your thinking here.

I'm not talking about making mistakes, but intentionally fudging the data.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, in a business sense "funny business" would be those things that distract from profit/revenue growth not bad science. A business only has incentives to care about cogent scientific results when such is line with its business goals.

Maybe you should go back and read the thread to garner context of where the conversation was when addressing this issue. I was specifically responding to this...

"Some companies allow the research to be shared publicly, but it is almost never accepted by peer-reviewed journals, because research design lacks the credibility and rigor of independent research. There's simply too much bias in research that is paid for by a company. They have a vested interest in a particular outcome, regardless of how much they pay you and whether or not you did in fact alter the results because of that payment. PhD programs know this, and will not be likely to accept such a proposal from an applicant."

This is why I retorted with Hwang's work. All happened at university with a grad student or two telling the press they donated their own eggs. Then they recanted IIRC. Ime the opportunity for this kind of funny business seems to be less likely to happen at a large research institute simply due to protocol. The evironment is not as insulated.

What do you think happens when a scientist at ABC Pharmaceutical discovers that its new drug Z (which is generating $100 million in revenue/year) may cause heart failure? What incentive in general does the company have to further research on the drug once the FDA accepts it? What about funny business in the relationship between the FDA and drug companies? We are talking about billions of dollars here....

I do not believe this is happening at the research level. Unknown side effects can surface years after approval since it's simply impossible to have all encompassing predictions. During the 8-15 years of drug development it's not as if one team is working on a molecule. There are dozens of groups contributing to these projects. Much of the time we don't even know other the scientists involved until updates are given, posters sessions take place, etc. Drug development takes place in a series of levels. At my co there are ~7-10 levels and thousands of compounds are dropped every year at various phases.

Any way, once a drug is approved by the FDA, side effects surface after the fact, whoever is attempting to squash it is certainly not the scientists in development. I suspect it's up the food chain to corporate.

Business is cut-throat and it at the end of the day cares nothing about science in itself, rather how it can use science to generate revenue/profit. On the other hand academia has a bunch different incentive structure, one that is much more in line with cogent research. That it say, business is primarily focused on applied research where as academia is far more focused on pure research. The latter has produced all of our great discoveries, not the former.

I agree that academia, and perhaps government, are the arenas for pure research. But, lets not be naive. Universities want to make money. Prof's want to start up their institutes, etc. With that said, there is no reason to assume the research coming out of industry is not viable, credible, or rigorous.

Sure, but how does a professor of a distinguished program benefit from doing a collaboration with some company unless the company is throwing it some bones?

Well, that's another question for this thread. One I'm trying to figure out.

I don't see the point of this, ph.d programs already provide you with stipends for your living costs. There should be no financial issues unless one is addicted to a certain higher level of consumption.

Yes, that's exactly the issue. I think addiction might be over the top, but maybe. I own a home. I'm putting the dh through college. We have pets, etc. I'm not willing to sacrifice it for the PhD, so I'm trying to find a different angle. To be clear, I don't have a yearning for a PhD and I certainly don't wish to teach/work in academia. But, now that I'm at the next stage I'm looking at potential paths for the next 10 years.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I'm not talking about making mistakes, but intentionally fudging the data.

And why would someone in academia have a greater incentive to intentionally fudge numbers than someone in industry? Those in industry (as you say yourself) often have people pushing them to work faster, there is always issues about potential profitability, etc...yet you think its academia that has more incentives to fudge data?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Maybe you should go back and read the thread to garner context of where the conversation was when addressing this issue. I was specifically responding to this...

I was responding to your comment towards me and the piece you quoted does not clarify what you meant by your comments. You seemed to be conflating issues of business efficiency with issues of scientific rigor.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This is why I retorted with Hwang's work. All happened at university with a grad student or two telling the press they donated their own eggs.

And I suppose you don't see why this is not really a retort of anything? Nobody would claim that academia is perfect, therefore citing a example (ahem...in another country) does nothing to refute what the other poster was claiming. The issue is which environment has greater incentives to pursue bad science.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I do not believe this is happening at the research level. Unknown side effects can surface years after approval since it's simply impossible to have all encompassing predictions.

What does not happen at the research level? I'm talking about incentives here and private businesses have an incentive to disregard conflicting data if such data would harm the company.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Any way, once a drug is approved by the FDA, side effects surface after the fact, whoever is attempting to squash it is certainly not the scientists in development. I suspect it's up the food chain to corporate.

Yes because scientists are super human and not subject to confirmation biases and so on. No way would the businesses goals play any role in their decision making process.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

But, lets not be naive. Universities want to make money.

Really? Sorta odd that the vast majority of private research universities would be structured as non-profits than huh?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Yes, that's exactly the issue. I think addiction might be over the top, but maybe. I own a home. I'm putting the dh through college. We have pets, etc. I'm not willing to sacrifice it for the PhD, so I'm trying to find a different angle.

Homes can be sold and the DH can either work or you could wait until he is done. Regardless, if you don't want to deal with the lower income than that's that. Your different angle would just sacrifice the value of the ph.d.

You seem to have a lot of animosity towards academia, so perhaps this it the point. That is to make the ph.d mundane, a mere piece of paper to further your financial goals. I suppose that can make sense, but I would be doubtful those in academia would play along without the appropriate incentives.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

And why would someone in academia have a greater incentive to intentionally fudge numbers than someone in industry? Those in industry (as you say yourself) often have people pushing them to work faster, there is always issues about potential profitability, etc...yet you think its academia that has more incentives to fudge data?

I'm not speaking of incentive, tho, I'll get to it later. I'm speaking of opportunity. Ime it is lacking at work because roughly every few months we are required to present to a couple of dozen scientists with a wide range of expertise. We are hammered with questions, objections, and in depth discussion follows. As stated, most of these people are outside our departments, we don't know each other well, and I really don't see a way to have all these people in cahoots.

Our notebooks are scanned into microfilm and copied to pdf for anybody in the company to review at will. It's simply very difficult to keep such a secret. On top of that, day-to-day practices still involve a lot of people. We are also expected, on the micro level, to engage other scientists about their work. There are weekly meetings, etc. I simply cannot imagine my lab head, the other ~10 lab heads, our two global heads, and the few dozen scientists in our department to have a meeting of the minds to intentionally fudge data for a project.

OTOH, it can be a very different story in an acedmic lab with a handful of grad students and a prof (maybe two) where their PhD's are on the line for a few projects.

I was responding to your comment towards me and the piece you quoted does not clarify what you meant by your comments. You seemed to be conflating issues of business efficiency with issues of scientific rigor.

My statements about funny business were made within the context of that conversation - fudging data and why I don't agree that there's a greater risk in large research institutes.

And I suppose you don't see why this is not really a retort of anything? Nobody would claim that academia is perfect, therefore citing a example (ahem...in another country) does nothing to refute what the other poster was claiming. The issue is which environment has greater incentives to pursue bad science.

I'm not claiming anything is perfect. And as far as incentive goes, I suspect greater risk in academia (compared to my co) for a number of reasons. As stated, a degree is not at risk. Academic environments are more insulated and intimate. Resources can be an issue. This is the stuff I noticed while in school. It's a different game. I can't imagine working on a project for 2-3 years only to have it fall apart.* What I notice at work is that before 2-3 years is spent on anything, the checks and balances for any red flag squashes a molecule. Even when a molecule is brought to proof of concept in 1-3 years they can be squashed easily. It's just the way it goes, and while people worry and stress at work, it simply doesn't have the emotional investment found in academia (ime).

What does not happen at the research level? I'm talking about incentives here and private businesses have an incentive to disregard conflicting data if such data would harm the company.

Perhaps this is happening at the corporate table. I think it's unreasonable to assume that dozens of scientists would be able to keep such information under wraps.

Yes because scientists are super human and not subject to confirmation biases and so on. No way would the businesses goals play any role in their decision making process.

Of course I don't think scientists are super human moral machines. I have clearly linked to the contrary. To repeat, the opportunity is lacking in large institutions ime. Say a company is looking at phospholipidosis. There are dozens of ways to approach this side effect. One team is looking at the blood brain barrier, another team is investigating the role physiochemical characteristics, another is testing in vivo, another is looking at the typical molecules that lead to the condition, another at the therapeutic targets, etc. We're all doing our thing, we get together. Joe Blow I don't know at the meeting makes statements X, Y, & Z. What he's saying doesn't make sense to me. I track down his slide deck, his notebook, and hold a meeting with my heads. We contact him and have another meeting.

Getting 10 people to agree to fudge the data is one thing. Getting dozens is a stretch.

Really? Sorta odd that the vast majority of private research universities would be structured as non-profits than huh?

However they're structured, they want the patent.

Homes can be sold and the DH can either work or you could wait until he is done. Regardless, if you don't want to deal with the lower income than that's that. Your different angle would just sacrifice the value of the ph.d.

I can't say I really care about towing the line of the paved path. My interest in a PhD is not to work in academia. If it were, then sure. The goal would be to gain a position so I could partake in research that is truly important to me. On that end, I get it. OTOH, I have to be real with myself. My chances of landing that prized gig are probably about as good as becoming a rock star.

I figure I have a better shot at addressing research that is important to me in industry. To get there, I'll need the degree. So, it's a stepping stone. Now, you could make the argument that PhD's should only be awarded to those interested in tenure track. I'd buy it. But, it's not a reality I have to deal with.

You seem to have a lot of animosity towards academia, so perhaps this it the point. That is to make the ph.d mundane, a mere piece of paper to further your financial goals. I suppose that can make sense, but I would be doubtful those in academia would play along without the appropriate incentives.

Don't misunderstand me. Just because I recognize vulnerabilities does not mean I have animosity. I have nothing against academia. My years in school were awesome. I loved my old boss (still do). He was excited and I was excited. It was great. I'm just looking at what I have in my toolbox, what I can do with it, and what I need to add. I think that's reasonable.

*eta: also ime, is that the bulk of our funding for our research was provided to our uni, via the prof, via an institute. Maybe that's playing a role for some.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

As stated, most of these people are outside our departments, we don't know each other well, and I really don't see a way to have all these people in cahoots.

Its not about people being in "cahoots", its how the directives from management effect people's decision making process. But there are plenty of examples of out-right corruption as well, but even in these cases the lower level employees are often not aware of it.

You keep talking about all the people you meet with, but these people are all part of the same company as a result the same sort of incentive structure exists for them all. Its like being in a room filled with color-blind people trying to make judgments about color distinctions. If you want to see an example of how a large group of people can be all corrupted by the same psychological flaw look no further than the current economic crisis (or any economic bubble for that matter).

Anyhow, you seem to believe because there is a large number of people involved that it can't be easily corrupted, but the exact opposite is true due to human psychology.

A small research group in academia has the same sort of issues, but there is a major difference. The research in academia is largely open and one groups research is open for critique to another group with no connection and often a set of competing biases. Academia is in a sense a free market of ideas, research at a private firm is not.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

And as far as incentive goes, I suspect greater risk in academia (compared to my co) for a number of reasons. As stated, a degree is not at risk. Academic environments are more insulated and intimate. Resources can be an issue.

- Not sure why you are talking about students, grad students are the grunt workers of academia and are neophytes to research.
- Academic environments? Why the plural? I suspect you are mistaking what happens at the local level (an individual research group) with what happens at the more global level. The latter is not insulated at all.
- Yes resources are at issue, but that is even more the case at a private firm. A professor is not going to lose his job for pursuing unpopular research or going against the grain, where as someone at a private firm very well may.

You seem to be operating with this notion of some sort of noble scientist, but these are few and far between. Scientists are easily corrupted and people have a strong tendency to form groups and caste out outsiders from the group. And this is one of the reasons tenure exists, a professor can pursue unpopular research and not have to worry about his job.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Perhaps this is happening at the corporate table. I think it's unreasonable to assume that dozens of scientists would be able to keep such information under wraps.

To say it again, I'm not talking about intentional corruption (though it happens as well) rather how a for profit business can corrupt (unintentionally) the scientific process.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Getting 10 people to agree to fuge the data is one thing. Getting dozens is a stretch.

No stretch at all, rather a feature of human psychology! The more people believe something the more others are likely to believe it as well. You really don't have to look far for examples of this though....

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

However they're structured, they want the patent.

They do? Sounds like you think that the same sort of research that you do at your company is what they do in academia, but that is far from the truth. Companies are interested in very particular (usually mundane) things, not revolutionary science. That is the major difference after all, research in private industry is all largely directed towards very concrete goals that can be completed in short order.

Businesses are well aware of the difference though, that is why (usually large companies) will either give their researchers time to spend on their own interests (say 20% or so) or will have an entire division dedicated to it. A classic example of the latter is the Xerox's PARC. They discovered many of the things that lead to the personal computer, though Xerox never capitalized on them.

Anyhow, you acknowledge the difference between "pure research" and "applied research" and that academia is primarily focused on the former and yet ignore it when you talking about academia "wanting the patent". Well that or you don't understand the nature of pure research, i.e, that most of the results are not the sort of thing you can patent. I can't think of a single professor I know personally that owns a patent.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I figure I have a better shot at addressing research that is important to me in industry. To get there, I'll need the degree.

And why would you believe that? By any measure I can think of the research done in academia is more interesting.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Don't misunderstand me. Just because I recognize vulnerabilities does not mean I have animosity. I have nothing against academia.

The issue is that the vulnerabilities that you supposedly recognize indicate an animosity towards the very nature of academia. The things you seem to think are vulnerabilities are part of what makes academia so powerful.