Prompt: My job
Prompts! So, yes, prompts. I asked for prompts a few (several) weeks ago, and I'm finally getting to them.
Because writing fic seems to be a bit beyond me right now -- for the simple reason that every thing I touch lately wants to grow up into a 60-100K story that I honestly don't have time for -- I'm going to fill in the other prompts first.
So I'll go with the fastest and easiest: Emma asked me about my job and what I do as a scientist.
I could talk about my job all day, but I'll keep it short and simple. I'm a chemist, which should tell you absolutely nothing, because chemistry is one of those sciences that is at the core of a lot of different fields. Pharmaceuticals? Environmental science? Metallurgy? Rocket Science? It's all chemistry in some shape or form.
There's six core fields of chemistry -- inorganic, organic, analytical, physical, biochemical, and theoretical. Most chemists have a pretty good generic cross-field background that eventually narrows into a few fields until they eventually specialize. Except, when you specialize, you don't specialize in the entire field. You specialize in one topic in that field, which is usually related to your background field.
But you can cheat, because there's no firm rules when it comes to chemistry. I specialized in biochemistry, inorganic chemistry, and analytical chemistry. From there, I specialized in spectroscopy from analytical chemistry, environmental science from inorganic chemistry, and, because I'm kinda bored these days, I'm gonna take my biochemistry background, put it in a blender with environmental science, and turn it into at least a working knowledge specialty in biogeochemistry.
Basically, when it comes to chemistry, you can do whatever the fuck you want. If it interests you, specialize in it. The fields blend together -- trust me -- and are constantly evolving.
Back to the question, though. What do I do as a scientist? I get paid for being an analytical chemist. Essentially, someone gives me a sample, asks me how much of X is in it, I figure out the best way to make that determination, develop the method to make sure there's zero chance of giving the client the wrong answer, prove that the data will be as accurate as possible, and analyze the sample.
For what it's worth, real science is not like CSI or what you see on TV. The chemistry on Breaking Bad is pretty damn close, but in that case they're making chemicals, not analyzing them. Generally, you don't put a sample in a container, put it in an instrument, and push a button to get a comprehensive molecular, ionic and atomic breakdown of the composition in a matter of seconds (or however long to the commercial break and the cliffhanger). I'd be out of a job if it worked that way. Star Trek tricorders and all-in-one black boxes aren't a thing, not yet, but nanotechnology is on the horizon, and the new generation of scientists comes up with new and ingenuous ways to determine the composition of an object or substance all the time.
Science!
In the real world, what analyzing a sample is really like is this:
The sample is received by the client and processed through the laboratory's tracking system. It's given an unique ID. The client tells us what they want. If it's not a standard package, the request gets bumped up to the appropriate department and person to figure out what to do. More often than not, we have to turn the request down and refer them to a different lab that would be more appropriate.
Samples have to be processed in some way 99% of the time. We don't always get them already ready for analysis. Solids or liquids, we have to do something to them in order to pre-treat them for the best recovery of results. This takes time.
If the analysis can be done by a standard method, then there's really nothing more to do but to add the sample to the queue. Most labs have a ridiculously long priority queue of samples, so it can take time to get to the sample.
But if it's for something non-standard, well, that takes more time, too, and requires a specialist to set up a method and analyze. My specialty is wet chemistry spectroscopy, which encompasses several different instrument types, so I do the custom work like this when it comes my way. It can take up to a week or more for an easy method, to more than a month depending on how complicated it gets.
Like I said, real chemistry isn't anything like CSI. From sample submission to a vigorously verified quality analytical result, it can take up to six months (my worst turnaround) or more (because I have a problem with giving up and keep trying until I find something that works). Science is usually a year behind. Discoveries aren't made on the spot -- they come out of intensive research, ridiculous data gathering, and a whole lot of correlative mathematics in the aftermath. It always bugs me to see science reporters reduce years of work to a single sensationalist (and often incorrect) headline, but what can you do?
That's my job in a nutshell. People give me stuff. I tell them what it's made out of.
.
Because writing fic seems to be a bit beyond me right now -- for the simple reason that every thing I touch lately wants to grow up into a 60-100K story that I honestly don't have time for -- I'm going to fill in the other prompts first.
So I'll go with the fastest and easiest: Emma asked me about my job and what I do as a scientist.
I could talk about my job all day, but I'll keep it short and simple. I'm a chemist, which should tell you absolutely nothing, because chemistry is one of those sciences that is at the core of a lot of different fields. Pharmaceuticals? Environmental science? Metallurgy? Rocket Science? It's all chemistry in some shape or form.
There's six core fields of chemistry -- inorganic, organic, analytical, physical, biochemical, and theoretical. Most chemists have a pretty good generic cross-field background that eventually narrows into a few fields until they eventually specialize. Except, when you specialize, you don't specialize in the entire field. You specialize in one topic in that field, which is usually related to your background field.
But you can cheat, because there's no firm rules when it comes to chemistry. I specialized in biochemistry, inorganic chemistry, and analytical chemistry. From there, I specialized in spectroscopy from analytical chemistry, environmental science from inorganic chemistry, and, because I'm kinda bored these days, I'm gonna take my biochemistry background, put it in a blender with environmental science, and turn it into at least a working knowledge specialty in biogeochemistry.
Basically, when it comes to chemistry, you can do whatever the fuck you want. If it interests you, specialize in it. The fields blend together -- trust me -- and are constantly evolving.
Back to the question, though. What do I do as a scientist? I get paid for being an analytical chemist. Essentially, someone gives me a sample, asks me how much of X is in it, I figure out the best way to make that determination, develop the method to make sure there's zero chance of giving the client the wrong answer, prove that the data will be as accurate as possible, and analyze the sample.
For what it's worth, real science is not like CSI or what you see on TV. The chemistry on Breaking Bad is pretty damn close, but in that case they're making chemicals, not analyzing them. Generally, you don't put a sample in a container, put it in an instrument, and push a button to get a comprehensive molecular, ionic and atomic breakdown of the composition in a matter of seconds (or however long to the commercial break and the cliffhanger). I'd be out of a job if it worked that way. Star Trek tricorders and all-in-one black boxes aren't a thing, not yet, but nanotechnology is on the horizon, and the new generation of scientists comes up with new and ingenuous ways to determine the composition of an object or substance all the time.
Science!
In the real world, what analyzing a sample is really like is this:
The sample is received by the client and processed through the laboratory's tracking system. It's given an unique ID. The client tells us what they want. If it's not a standard package, the request gets bumped up to the appropriate department and person to figure out what to do. More often than not, we have to turn the request down and refer them to a different lab that would be more appropriate.
Samples have to be processed in some way 99% of the time. We don't always get them already ready for analysis. Solids or liquids, we have to do something to them in order to pre-treat them for the best recovery of results. This takes time.
If the analysis can be done by a standard method, then there's really nothing more to do but to add the sample to the queue. Most labs have a ridiculously long priority queue of samples, so it can take time to get to the sample.
But if it's for something non-standard, well, that takes more time, too, and requires a specialist to set up a method and analyze. My specialty is wet chemistry spectroscopy, which encompasses several different instrument types, so I do the custom work like this when it comes my way. It can take up to a week or more for an easy method, to more than a month depending on how complicated it gets.
Like I said, real chemistry isn't anything like CSI. From sample submission to a vigorously verified quality analytical result, it can take up to six months (my worst turnaround) or more (because I have a problem with giving up and keep trying until I find something that works). Science is usually a year behind. Discoveries aren't made on the spot -- they come out of intensive research, ridiculous data gathering, and a whole lot of correlative mathematics in the aftermath. It always bugs me to see science reporters reduce years of work to a single sensationalist (and often incorrect) headline, but what can you do?
That's my job in a nutshell. People give me stuff. I tell them what it's made out of.
.