What Does My Dog Have To Do With Anything?

I was interviewing recently with a potential new client when one of the senior staff in the room asked me, “What would you do if you’re dog starting talking to you?” The serious look on my inquisitor’s face told me she expected a real response, so I answered, “Ask her why she keeps chewing on my sandals.”

 

My answer must have been satisfactory, because I got the assignment, but I left that interview wondering what the point was of that off-the-wall question. I asked a few of my friends if they’d ever been asked something like that, and they all looked at me as if I’d been hidden away in a cave for 20 years. One buddy, who’s been in senior management at a biotech firm for almost a decade, explained the logic to me. “It’s one way we assess how well a candidate can think on their feet.”

 

With the proliferation of Web resources available to help job seekers prepare themselves for interviews, employers need to work harder to sort the wheat from the chaff among job candidates. Tricky questions are one approach to getting beyond canned answers in order to gain some insights into a job candidate’s creativity and ability to handle stress.

 

Given that odd-ball questions can be about virtually anything, the best advice for dealing with them is to relax, and to take a moment to think about the question. Remember, there’s no right answer to “What would I find in your refrigerator?” or “If you couldn’t be a chemist, what other profession would you like to pursue?” These questions are supposed to test your ability to think, so take a few moments before responding.

 

And don’t panic. Look thoughtful. Smile. Nod in that, “Hmmm, that’s a good question” way.

 

Years ago, in high school, I was a candidate for a job on our school radio station. One of the seniors asked me, “How do you deal with pressure?” I couldn’t for the life of me think of a good answer, so in an attempt to stall for a little time, I calmly asked, “You mean, like this situation?” That, it turns out, was the best answer I could have come up with – I was given the position right then.

 

In fact, many veteran interviewers say that a good strategy for answering odd questions is to let your mind go and reply with an odd or silly answer, one that preferably demonstrates your ability to think out of the box. And remember that employers are not looking for pat answers, but responses that demonstrate you can communicate your thoughts, that you are intelligent, that you have self-confidence, and that you can adapt when thrown a curve.

 

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO.

Climate Change and Jobs

If you’re at all thinking of a career in the chemical industry, or if you already have a job as an industrial chemist (or if you’re a policy wonk like me), then I recommend you download a free copy of a new report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the World Resources Institute (http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf). Titled, “Leveling The Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design,” the report examines the possibles effect of various proposed legislation on energy intensive industries such as the chemical, refining, and paper industries, all major employers of chemists and chemical engineers.

 

One of the first things that struck me about this report is that the five most carbon-intensive industries other than petroleum refining, which includes cement, steel, aluminum, paper, and chemicals, account for only 5.6 percent of direct U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Yet these five industries would be hit disproportionately by either a carbon tax of $10/ton (the most common figure bandied about) or a mandatory cap-and-trade system. More importantly as far as employment goes, each of these industries would be put at a competitive disadvantage on the world market unless and until a global carbon reduction mechanism was put in place.

 

Fortunately, policymakers are aware of the potential impact of U.S. climate policy on these industries. The various pieces of legislation making their way through subcommittee hearings all include options for addressing the competitive impact of either a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme. These options include:

·        Reducing the cost of compliance for U.S. industries that will be hardest hit;

·        Imposing border taxes or other adjustments that would impose equalizing costs on competitive importers; and

·        Encouraging other countries to impose similar costs on their industries

 

Unfortunately, what works for one industry may not work for others, say the authors of this report. And neither of the first two options is likely to work over the long haul unless the nations of the world can agree upon and enact an international framework for controlling emissions.

 

Back in March, leaders of the U.S. chemical industry testified before Congress that energy and raw material costs will skyrocket if mandatory limits are placed on greenhouse gas emissions. But that doesn’t mean that the industry is stonewalling efforts to craft such limits. Indeed, companies such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, BP America, and ConocoPhillips are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition that has accepted the fact that regulation will occur.

 

What concerns the chemical industry the most is that legislation not prompt a wholesale switch to natural gas by the nation’s electric utility companies, which the industry believes – as do most economists – would send natural gas prices soaring even higher than they are today. And given that natural gas is a major feedstock for the chemical industry, any dramatic increase in natural gas prices would pummel the U.S. chemical industry.

 

While there are too many instances of industries crying wolf when it comes to climate regulations, I have to agree with the chemical industry on this one. Why? Natural gas prices have tripled since the late 1990s and according to estimates from the American Chemistry Council, more than 100,000 industry workers have lost jobs as their employers relocated to countries with cheaper natural gas.

 

The playing field has to be level. The future of jobs in the U.S. chemical industry depends on it.

 

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO, who writes frequently for the ACS journal Analytical Chemistry.

 

********************************************************************************************

BE A PART:  ACS Careers Job Fair

 

Are you interested in speaking with employers to discuss employment opportunities?  Perhaps you would like to brush up on your interviewing skills, find out how to write a winning resume, or get valuable information on various career management and development topics.  The ACS Career Fair can provide all of these things and more!

 

The ACS Career Fair at the 236th National Meeting in Philadelphia will offer employment services in Hall D of the Convention Center, Sunday, August 17 through Tuesday, August 19 from 8 AM to 5:30 PM, and on Wednesday, August 20 from 8 AM to 12 PM.  Job seekers and employers will be provided a venue to meet and discuss job opportunities. 

 

The ACS Career Fair is open to ACS members and national and student affiliates.  All job seekers must sign up online to participate from June 23-August 20, 2008 at http://www.acs.org/careers/jobseekers.

 

If you are not an ACS Member we strongly encourage you to join.

 

 

 

 

 

What’s in It for Me?

Many undergraduate chemistry majors will at some time in their careers be faced with the question of whether to get a Ph.D. Reasons for considering this question range from a desire for a higher salary (starting Ph.D.s are paid twice what corresponding B.S. chemists are paid), hope for an academic position (about 25% of all Ph.D.s are at academic institutions), or even for personal reasons. In my case, I was more or less programmed from kindergarten to get a chemistry Ph.D. My father had one, and family urging combined with the push for more science majors after the 1958 Soviet launch of Sputnik really left little room for disagreement. Of course, I had seen, too, the benefits of working in the chemical enterprise, because my father had a very good research position in a small town. He worked in polymer chemistry applied to the development of synthetic textile-fiber products. Our family lived a nice life.

 

When I enrolled in graduate school in the late 1960s, my classmates and I believed we should choose a major adviser who was in tune with our desire to learn chemistry as a means of having a good middle-class career. We thought that a major adviser would be perhaps not a friend, but at least a mentor, in providing us entry to companies that based their products on science and technology. The adviser would help in the assessment of our talents, guide us in our decision on what chemical subdiscipline would best suit our capabilities, and ultimately shepherd us into the club of Ph.D. chemists.

 

Safe to say, we were rapidly disabused of that point of view.

 

Graduate school became for us what it is for many who attend: an overwhelming series of hurdles to be jumped in an effort to avoid failure. There were entrance examinations, 300- and 400-level courses, cumulative exams, and ultimately proposal defenses. Our class of 25 steadily dwindled as individuals left, and slowly those of us who remained began to examine our chosen chemical destiny.

 

One day, after studying an especially obscure organic reaction mechanism, several of us were sitting around after class with our instructor, who was then an associate professor. I asked if the chemistry department had considered offering graduate students the opportunity to take classes not necessarily in the department but that would be applicable to our future life in the scientific world. Perhaps a polymer course from the chemical engineering department, a finance course or two from the business school, or even an introduction to legal theory for those of us who might want to consider a patent-law career.

 

The professor answered, “What’s in it for me?”

 

It was a revelatory moment, for suddenly it was clear that graduate school wasn’t about students at all. It was about professors.

 

While my graduate-school revelatory experience may have been breathtakingly direct, I suspect it is as true today as it was in the 1970s: what most graduate students study is what is best for their advisers. So my advice to anyone considering a Ph.D. program: first, choose your adviser carefully, and second, recognize that much of the knowledge and skills you will need in your employment will have to be learned on the job or through continuing education programs throughout your career. And wake up to the reality of what Ph.D. degrees really are—a testament to graduate students’ perseverance, not their intellect.

 

This article was written by Jim Ryan, Ph.D. retired consultant and former Assistant Director of the ACS Continuing Education program.  Originally published in the Chemistry magazine, Spring 2007.

Help Wanted…From You

The American Chemical Society has long prided itself on serving its members as effectively and efficiently as it can. When I was an ACS staff member, in the early 1980s, responding to a suggestion from an ACS member always took top priority, and that same attitude still permeates the organization.

At the same time, those who work for the ACS marvel at how much members give freely of their time and energy to serving the Society. When I was the editor of Chemistry, the volunteer members of the magazine’s editorial board would spend hours helping me generate suitable story ideas and then spend hours more reviewing every story for accuracy and sound writing. I had the distinct impression that there wasn’t much that the committee members wouldn’t do for the magazine if I asked nicely.

Having a helpful attitude goes far in a work environment. Colleagues will come to respect you for pitching in when asked, and bosses will value you for being a team player. Sure, you may end up working a little extra at times, but being known as someone who will lend an extra hand to a project or fill in for a colleagues at a moment’s notice will pay heft dividends down the road, including raises, bonuses, promotions, and above all, in terms of your reputation.

One of the best clients I ever landed said that she picked me over other better qualified candidates (I’d only been writing for four years at the time) because one of my references made a big deal out of the fact that I was always willing to help with a story or a project when asked. On the other hand, I’ve heard of many good job candidates not getting hired because the interviewers had the impression that those candidates were not team players.

That brings me to the real reason for this particular blog entry – we need your help. Yes, you, the members of the ACS, the readers of the ACS Careers Blog. The ACS Careers staff is planning several new programs for members, including two series. The first, which will be known as the ACS Careers Industry Forum, will serve as mechanism for disseminating timely information regarding cutting edge issues in industry that will affect employment. This series will run monthly and will feature moderated discussions with industry leaders in a conference call/Webinar format. I’ll be the moderator, and I’ll be expecting you to call in with your questions and comments. Stay tune for the details.

The second series will address career-related topics, and this is where we really need your input. ACS Careers staff wants to know what you want to know. What kind of specific questions about chemistry careers would you like this series to address? Do you want practical advice on interviewing techniques? What to wear? How to network? Or do you want to know how to deal with a back-stabbing colleague that’s trying to sabotage your career?

Please let us know. You can click on the “comment” button below, or you email your suggestions to ACS staff at careers@acs.org. In advance, THANKS!

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO.

Cancer Research Needs Chemists

Earlier this year, I attended an unusual meeting in Washington, DC, convened by John Niederhuber, a nationally renowned surgeon, cancer researchers, and the Director of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Niederhuber, acting on advice from Anna Barker, the NCI Deputy Director who heads the Institutes many new technology initiatives, was interested in finding out if the physical sciences – physics, engineering, mathematics, and particularly chemistry – could contribute to the ongoing War on Cancer.

After two-and-a-half days of discussion, the question was no longer one of “if,” but one of “why,” as in why has the cancer research enterprise waited this long to actively engage chemists and their physical sciences sisters and brothers.

Of course, chemists have long been involved in cancer research, but mainly in a service role synthesizing thousands upon thousands of organic and inorganic molecules for testing as anticancer agents. Then they’ve gotten involved again when it comes time to mass-produce the occassional compound that shows promise and enters human clinical trials.

What the NCI is proposing is a radical change in how chemists and other physical scientists participate in cancer research. Instead of serving the needs of cancer biologists, Drs. Niederhuber and Barker want chemists, physicists, and the like to become drivers of cancer research, to lend a new perspective – an out-of-the-box perspective – to cancer research. Let me put it bluntly – the NCI wants YOU.

Talking with Dr. Barker during the meeting, I was struck with her success in driving home this point to NCI’s leadership. Though an immunologist by training, she has long succeeded as both a scientist and an entrepreneur by looking at a problem and bringing to bear whatever tools and talents were needed to find a solution, and this is another example of an open-mindedness that, should it pervade more of biomedical research would bode well for the future of medicine.

These days, I hear biomedical scientists give lip service to multi-disciplinary science, but for the most part, those same scientists then go back to their academic silos and keep plugging away in their disciplines, attacking what are increasingly difficult research problems using the same approach that they’ve always followed. In the cancer world, this has led to slow, incremental improvements in diagnostics and therapeutics, but face it, that pace isn’t good enough anymore.

Cancer is largely a disease of older age, and the population of the developed world is aging. Without a radical improvement in the way we diagnose and treat cancer, this collection of diseases will eclipse heart disease as the leading killer, with huge economic costs.

The National Cancer Institute knows this, and that realization is driving world’s largest funder of cancer research to seek revolutionary, not evolutionary, advances. It is that sense of urgency that prompted the NCI to lead the way in funding a huge initiative in biomedical nanotechnology, an effort that has already begun drawing chemists into the cancer research fold.

Kudos to the NCI for doing more than just talking about multidisciplinary research. The NCI is calling – will the chemistry community answer that call?

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO, who writes frequently for the ACS journal Analytical Chemistry.

Wanted in Europe: U.S.-Trained Chemists

Face it, for many Americans, globalization is a four letter word, and while the U.S. research enterprise has largely been immune to the adverse impacts of globalization, there are growing concerns that science jobs may soon follow the path of information technology jobs.

I say, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. As in, join the flow of jobs overseas and grab one for yourself, especially if you’re at all interested in a biotech job.

European biotechnology companies are actively recruiting U.S. Ph.Ds to join what has become a fast-growing industry. Although the United States is still the unquestioned world leader in biotechnology, the past decade or so has seen Europe develop a nascent biotechnology industry.

However, the one thing that almost everyone involved in European biotech agrees is restraining the continent’s growth is a serious shortage entrepreneurially-minded scientists – and they see the U.S. as providing the solution to that problem.

Wolfgang Renner, chief executive officer and founder of the Zurich-based biotech firm, Cytos, told me that entrepreneurism seems to be ingrained in the minds of our American counterparts in a way that’s missing from students trained in Europe.

“Some people, like myself, go to the States for graduate school or do a postdoc in large part to get exposed to that culture, but we need to have more American-trained Ph.D.s here. It’s essential,” Renner said.

European industry leaders and governments alike have recognized the dearth of entrepreneurs and they are starting to take action to promote the development of home-grown talent. For example, universities across the continent are following America’s lead by setting up offices to foster the movement of research discoveries into startup biotechnology firms. Nevertheless, the effect has been less than startling. Herbert Reutimann, managing director of Unitectra, the technology transfer arm of the Universities of Berne and Zurich, told me, “Culturally, we’re fighting an uphill battle. Entrepreneur is still a dirty word among many professors in the chemical and biochemical sciences. Europe is still a couple decades behind the U.S. in that regard.”

The result, say many who are close to the industry, is that investors remain reluctant to provide budding entrepreneurs with the necessary capital to get their young companies off the ground. This tight-fistedness is a major reason why opportunity exists for U.S.-trained chemists. As one venture capitalist told me recently, “When you think of entrepreneurs, you think American.”

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO, who writes frequently for the ACS journal Analytical Chemistry.

Political Chemistry

I’ve never wanted to be “The Guy.” You know, the person sitting behind the desk where the buck stops. No, I’d rather be “The guy who makes The Guy (or The Gal) look good.” I’d rather be the wise counselor than the public face, the source of information rather than the mouthpiece.

 

Understanding the difference between being the “Big-G guy/gal” and the “little guy/gal” is important to finding peace and satisfaction in whatever career path you choose. If you strive to be the Big G, you’ll need to cultivate your networking and public speaking skill. You’ll need to develop a thick skin and the ability to delegate authority and resist the temptation to micromanage. You’ll want to insinuate yourself with the powerful in your field, and at your company or university, and you’ll most certainly need to fine-tune your political senses.

 

None of that is for me, which is why I’m a little g-type guy. Instead of learning the fine details of networking and schmoozing, I’ve focused on developing my research skills; when the Big-G wants information, she always wants it sooner rather than later. And forget about delegating authority – little g’s take responsibility and run with it.

 

I’ve found myself thinking about this lately because recently someone asked me if I’d be interested in running for our local school board. This person thought my background as a scientist and my understanding of many things technical would add an important perspective to a school board filled with business folks and lawyers and former liberal arts majors.

 

I considered this offer for about 20 microseconds before declining, because I know in my heart that I’m a”little g”, and elected office is not for me. But I also threw in that if the school board was ever in need of an advisor on science and technology issues, I would jump at the opportunity to serve my community in that way.

 

So what does that have to do with careers and chemistry? Bear with me.

 

Nearly 32 years ago, on a frigid Friday afternoon over a beer at the Badger Tavern in Madison, WI, one of the wisest people I’ve known was commenting on recent inauguration of Jimmy Carter as the 39^th President of the United States.

 

In response to a wisecrack about how amazing it was that someone with a bachelor’s degree in science and a former nuclear engineer was about to become the President, Heinrich Schnoes, now an emeritus professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, said in his typical droll way, “Just think how much better off this country would be if 50% of the members of Congress had science degrees instead of law degrees.”

 

Indeed!

 

As much as I’d like to see more scientists and engineers run for Congress, I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon, and I think it’s because the vast majority of scientists and engineers that I’ve known are “little g’s”, not “Big G’s”.

 

But there are huge opportunities today for technically-minded “little g’s” to make a career as a science advisor to all those politically minded “Big G’s” out there. If that’s something that appeals to you, both in terms of intellectual curiosity and the ability to influence public policy without having to run for office, this is the time to approach your local candidates to see if you can help the one from your favored political party.

 

“Little g’s” of the world unite! We can – and do – make a difference.

 

This article was written by Joe Alper, a freelance science writer and technology analyst in Louisville, CO, who writes frequently for the ACS Journal of Analytical Chemistry.

Every job seeker has weak points!!!

Think. Is there a time when you were perfect? You have no flaws and there isn’t anyone on the face of this planet that wants to hire you.  Well, let’s face the facts, that day will never come. We all have shortcomings in one way or another.

 

If it’s not that we are too young or old, have too much or not enough experience, or maybe it’s that we are too right - left brained for the position. Maybe we are over/under credentialed, certified, degreed, JD’ed or PHD’ed?  The list is endless.  Many years ago, feedback from my headhunter was I didn’t get a particular job because the interviewer felt my sleeves were too long.  With perception being everything, I switched tailors immediately.

 

Take it from me, we all have weak points. Things we want to hide, enhance, sweep away, conceal, or erase. It’s OK, we are human and that is the beauty of it all. As human beings we can overcome these obstacles and prevail. You need to focus on your strengths and not your flaws.    

Let’s do a little paradigm shift.  Let’s take a look at the “Donald”, Donald Trump that is.  He has received much press coverage over the years from a multitude of “experts” and “critics” alike.  With all the “buzz” it would be quite easy for him to go hide on an island somewhere and live off his wealth.  But that is not for what he is made of.  The “Donald” wears his persona like a coat of armor, deflecting, interpreting, disputing or just ignoring what comes his way. 

He himself has admitted to having “handicaps” or “weaknesses”.  He does not let even a bad hair day get him down.  Many have commented on his chose of hair styles but he doesn’t care.  If fact, he has owned it, made fun of it and made it his own.  Mr. Trump has been quoted as saying, “The image of success is important, but even more important is the ability to focus on solutions instead of on problems. That way, you’ll never be thinking like a loser and you probably won’t look like one either.”  As a job seeker you also need to keep a successful image and the best way to do that is to not focus on what you think are your handicaps.  Remember, people view you as you view yourself. 

The “Donald” also pointed out that he tries “to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. That’s where the fun is.”  When you are interviewing you need to stay focused on the “Present”.  You should also be having some fun with your search.  This is your time to go out and get what you want for yourself.  You can’t do anything about the past, but you can direct your future by operating in the present.  The present is where it is happening and that is what will drive you to your next exciting employment opportunity. 

 

Everyone has an opinion; you need to decide how you want to internalize.  You can let them take you down or you can be the “Donald” by putting on your wonder women bracelets and deflecting the negative.  Keep the positive and make your future.  It’s right here and right now. 

 

This article was written by Liane H. Gould, Manager of Career Services of the ACS Department of Career Management and Development.

 

 

It Has Begun*

I cribbed that title from Paul Krugman’s New York Times blog* today but I think he’s right. It has begun.

“It” is a recession, and its official start will either be December 2007 or January 2008 once the numbers are evaluated to everyone’s satisfaction. This is the second recession of the Bush Administration, by the way. The first one was the dot-bomb recession in 2001, which was followed by a jobless recovery.

Payrolls were down in 22,000 in January and today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced 63,000 jobs were lost in February. The unemployment rate dropped from 4.9% to 4.8%, reflecting a shrinking labor force as some people gave up looking for work.

In December, Krugman wrote that people remember the last recession as brief and mild. But that’s an artifact of the way the National Bureau of Economic Research defines recessions — basically as periods when everything is going down. Once something starts going up (usually GDP), it’s labeled a recovery. But in the last two recessions the thing that matters most — employment — kept falling long after the official end of the recession. What finally created a convincing recovery was the housing boom. But that turned into a bubble, which has burst big time.

McClatchy Newspapers reported last month that employment figures, released in late January, showed a 52-month streak of job creation ending with a loss of 17,000 jobs in January. The administration acknowledged the contraction, but pointed to the national unemployment rate of 4.9% to say that the labor market wasn’t a harbinger of recession. (But then the administration didn’t consider the possibility that gas would hit $4 a gallon this summer either.)

A closer look at unemployment data by McClatchy, however, found that jobless Americans are spending more time looking for work and that those who can’t find work now make up a greater share of the unemployed. Several measures of unemployment, in fact, show that the workforce is under the kind of stress not seen since March 2001, when the U.S. economy entered a nine-month recession, followed by a so-called jobless recovery.

Like much in economics, labor statistics are vexing because they can be seen as a glass half empty or half full. In this case, it’s definitely half empty: “A weakening job market, combined with lower home values, higher fuel bills and stricter lending rules, raises the odds consumer spending will keep slowing,” according to Bloomberg.com.

On March 2 I gave a talk at Pittcon about the employment outlook for chemical scientists. BLS is projecting that employment for chemists is expected to grow 9% between 2006-2016. I also reported that the job market was looking pretty good for the coming year, based on my conversations with employer reps and department chairpersons for our Employment Outlook issue.

I’ll be curious to see how things fall out as the year progresses.

Corinne Marasco is Senior Editor for ACS News & Special Features at Chemical & Engineering News.