Workplace Dilemma

[netmystique]

Sorry, haven't been on Live Journal in some time.

I have a bit of a dilemma. I find myself in a research department where creationism is tolerated and, in some instance, accepted.

How do I get my career back on track and find a job with people who accept science?

Comments

[zandperl]

What level of your career are you at? Answer will make a big difference - for example if you're at a level of your career with automatic expiration dates (like a postdoc), or where it's not too big a deal to change to a place with a better fit (like a first-year grad student, or a non-tenure track faculty).

And what specific science field are you in? Answer here will affect how big a deal it is for the department to be creationist - for example, it's less of a big deal in say, particle physics than evolutionary biology.

FWIW there's many scientists out there who believe "evolution is how God made all the current species." That is, they believe all the scientific evidence for punctuated equilibrium, but they believe this is entirely compatible with the spirit of the Abrahamic religions, that God created all life. I wouldn't really call that set of beliefs creationism, but I thought it's worth mentioning just in case that's what you meant. Honestly, I'd recommend against fighting this particular version of religion even if you're atheist (as I am) or agnostic, as IMO it does not directly undermine evolution and it would very quickly get you blacklisted by many potential employers if you were openly badmouthing religion.

In general though, if you're at a place where you're unhappy, going job/school shopping is appropriate. If possible, it's good to stick it out a few years so you don't look unstable on your resume, UNLESS your current place has a horrible reputation and staying there might actually hurt your resume. But if you're sufficiently unhappy then switching ASAP is more important than a "good-looking" resume. If future employers/search committees/admissions committees ask you about the short time period at this current place, "it was not a good fit for me" is the canon response, or "we had philosophical differences" is entirely accurate here. I'd recommend against detailing what those differences were; "I was starting from a different theoretical framework, which was incompatible with theirs" is probably the most level of detail I would give during interviews.

[netmystique]

Mid-level career. I'm in bioinformatics dealing mostly with genetic data as it pertains to transplantation. In a department of 23, only two of us have degrees in the biological sciences. Most of the department is engineers and computer scientists. That isn't bad in and of itself, but here they tend to look down on biologists and not seek us out for any biological considerations.

Generally, I try to avoid the conflict, but it does happen. Most recently, I was trying to explain why a particular SNP panel (tailored to race categories of one continent) was not suitable for comparing between groups from different continents. I also pointed out how some of the SNPs were poor choices in general as they contain ancient variation that predates the human-chimp-gorilla split and have the problem of convergence.

The first point was dismissed with the thought that SNPs used for determining ancestry are (somehow) by definition unbiased. As for the ancient polymorphism, I was laughed at. For the scientific lead of the project, the human-chimp-gorilla common ancestor never existed so convergence/long branch attraction is a non-issue.

As for reputation, the institution doesn't have much of one. It's principal function is providing a medical service, not research; though the department I am in has the function of performing research. The head of the department isn't a creationist, but doesn't consider a background in the biological sciences beneficial to the research we do.

Inside the department is the attitude that we are doing world-class research and leaders in the field. Some good work is being done, but some of it has already been done and it takes a fair amount of searching to find research that has come out of the department. For example, one of the scientists learned about Shannon entropy and thought that he would revolutionize genetics by publishing research on it.

Did I mention that many people in the department are dismissive of biologists and the biological literature?

[zandperl]

So basically their ignorance and dismissal of science make your job more difficult in a way that you do not find enjoyable. It sounds like the main question you really face is are you willing to stick it out a little longer so it doesn't look bad on your resume to jump jobs now, or should you job hunt now? To me it's not a question of whether you leave this place, but when. Only you can answer that question. So what do you think? Suck it up a little longer, or start hunting now? And if you're not sure, just start browsing the ads now anyway, maybe you'll find something that catches your eye, or maybe everything'll look even worse than what you currently have. Just remember, your best option is to apply for actual good jobs, not better than this jobs - you don't want to end up in the same situation at a new place a few months from now.

Edit: Another thought, as a stop-gap maybe you can explain some of the specific things in the genes without explicitly referencing evolution. (I'm in the physical sciences, please pardon my inevitable errors in vocabulary.) For example, rather than saying "gene X is the same in humans and chimps b/c we have a common ancestor", say "gene X is the same in humans and chimps because we look pretty similar to each other, I mean we both have opposable thumbs and our hips are shaped the same way, of course we're going to have a more similar gene X than would humans and parrots, since parrots have wings". Or "humans and dogs are both mammals, so our gene Y is going to be more similar than between humans and eels." Even if they don't agree that the cause of the similarities is evolution, they've gotta see that we're similar.

In the meantime, dredge up all the patience you must've had to cultivate when TAing intro biology for non-majors. One technique I use when talking to people who believe drastically different things about science is that I tell them I don't expect them to agree with me, but I do expect them to make an effort to understand my point of view. That's a skill they teach in kindergarten after all. ;) And also try to understand their point of view and see if you can't put things into terms they can actually agree with (which was my goal in the paragraph above).

[viva_la_vanille]

I agree with this...You really should be somewhere your education and experience are valued.

To be honest, though, it seems more that your department is just really out of touch with the founding precepts of bioinformatics...and their 'research' suffers as a result.

There was a similar problem in my graduate department--'epigenetics' was the new hot thing and I know a couple of professors that were writing grants and performing experiments without any idea of how to actually interpret the data or design plausible experiments. The one professor who really understood the topic left because the department was a really really really bad fit and no one paid any attention to her perspective. It's a sad world.

[netmystique]

My thought has been to stick it out through two first-author publications and then start my job hunt.

[shamebear]

Not only does it seem an uphill battle to get a first-author publication in that department unless you do all the work yourself, but with the wrong co-author you may have to compromise on scientific accuracy. What do you do if peer-review brings up the issue of evolution?

My 2 cent is that spending time in a creationist-friendly group with little or no scientific recognition will only lower the attractiveness of your resume. Consequently your job-hunt would benefit from starting right now.

[mokele]

Wow. IMHO, you should see if you can surreptitiously record any more such stunning idiocy, then publicly post it with the company's name once you've left and secured a job elsewhere. That sort of idiocy deserves all the humiliation it gets.