# data[].attributes.body
biotechnologist
forensic scienitist
biomedical scientist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're interested in a career in forensic science, you may soon find yourself with a few new toys to play with. New advances in forensic science technology are taking investigation to an entirely new level, assisting investigators as they solve crimes that had previously stumped even the top minds in the game. Intriguing technologies are spreading rapidly around the globe, helping investigators and forensic experts solve the most brutal and challenging crimes today, including rape, murder, and arson.

What's New in Fingerprint Technology?

You've probably heard of turmeric, a gold-colored spice used in Indian cuisine. What you might not know is that turmeric can be used to highlight and identify fingerprints as well as traces of drug abuse and other identifying characteristics of a suspect. This new fingerprint technology using an old spice was developed by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University's Biomedical Research Centre. The procedure is simple: dust with turmeric, lift, and send to mass spectrometry researchers to check for drugs, fatty acids, and other molecules on the print. The findings are then passed on to forensic investigators. It's an old-new way to find and enhance fingerprint evidence.

Highlighting Fingerprints with Lumicyano™

When fingerprints are too light or their contrast is too low to photograph properly, investigators normally use dangerously toxic and expensive treatments to pull the sample print. Now, a new and better method has emerged. ScienceDaily reports that using the new product Lumicyano™, police can highlight fingerprints using fluorescence and do so more quickly, with lower overall costs, than the more tedious and time-consuming fingerprinting methods of the past. The new technique is already making its way from the French Police to Scotland Yard, the FBI, and many other police jurisdictions throughout the world.

Science to the Rescue with Visible Wavelength Hyperspectral Imaging

The Northern Echo reports that a scientific team from Teesside University has found a way to detect even the minutest of bloodstains. It's accomplished using a technique called visible wavelength hyperspectral imaging. Researchers use a camera equipped with a liquid-crystal tunable filter that takes pictures in multiple wavelengths, distinguishing between blood and other dark stains. The method involves no contact with the substance of interest, leaving it untouched so other investigators can use it for forensic procedures including DNA analysis. Since even the best workers using existing technology can sometimes miss minute blood stains (or misidentify a stain which later turns out not to be blood), this technique will no doubt catch on pretty quickly. Chemist Meez Islam and his colleagues at Teesside are currently working on a prototype of this device, hoping to develop it for broader use with proper funding. In a breakthrough development, the Teesside scientists can also pinpoint the age of a month-old blood stain to within a day. Fresh blood samples can be analyzed fast, which makes it possible to determine time of death on the scene. Investigators will be able to much more quickly work through the case and compile a chronology of events, helping justice move a little faster.

Taking a Look at Chemical Signatures on Common Fibers

Many fabrics today go through treatment processes to make them waterproof, stain-resistant, and wrinkle-free. As a result, clothing often carries residual chemicals in its fibers. Soon, a technique to help investigators identify clothing fibers may be on the way. A technique known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), has now developed to the point where it can identify a chemical signature on a fiber's surface and, in doing so, may help to solve crimes. Suppose a minuscule fiber from a killer's clothing is found at the scene. XPS can now work with the smallest of samples and gives results in mere minutes. Detectives could soon have a way to trace leads from clothing that would have been impossible before.

The Kiwis May Have Solved Our Mixed DNA Problem

Prior to this "backyard" invention by a team of New Zealand scientists, when a crime-scene sample contained DNA from more than one individual, it was unusable. According to Stuff.co.NZ writer Ian Steward, investigators were forced to discard such samples, since there was no way to separate the DNA to provide information for police and detectives on the crime. To rectify this situation, New Zealand scientists have created software - known as STRmix - which can currently separate the DNA of up to four individuals. Simple cases take only seconds, while more complex cases may take days to decipher. Still in its infancy, it's already been used in New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere in the world to solve tough cases, including sexual assaults, murder investigations, and arson. The U.S. military has acquired STRmix and will likely soon be in use within the FBI, as well.

The Future of New Technologies in Forensic Science

These new developments signal an exciting future for forensic science technology. While they are already making a difference in forensic investigations, the most promising new technologies in forensic science may still be in the future. We're looking forward to seeing how new forensic technology developments can innovate in the science of solving crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exciting New Technologies in Forensic Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're interested in a career in forensic science, you may soon find yourself with a few new toys to play with. New advances in forensic science technology are taking investigation to an entirely new level, assisting investigators as they solve crimes that had previously stumped even the top minds in the game.

# data[].attributes.body
bachelor's degree
doctoral degree for research and development roles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Career Advice - Employment resources & tips 4 resume

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Biochemist Job Description

Biochemists use advanced laboratory instruments like electron microscopes and lasers to study the chemical principles of biological processes. Some of the most common areas of study include heredity, metabolism, growth, cell development, nutrition, and reproduction. In short, biochemists try to better understand the chemical makeup of life.

In order to work effectively, biochemists need to be able to work well with other people. They normally work on teams with many other biochemists, and often get to work with experts in other disciplines as well. Collaboration with computer scientists, chemists, engineers, and physicists is common.

There are two types of research that biochemists do: basic research, and applied research.

Basic research is academic in nature. Biochemists who work in basic research try to improve human understanding. Though their research often ends up being applied to products by others, the goal of this research is not to make money, but to increase knowledge. For example, a biochemist who is involved in basic research may study the evolution of a particular species, or genetic mutations that lead to disease.

Since basic research is not performed in order to make money, it has to be funded by outside sources. Raising money can take a significant amount of time and effort, and requires writing grant proposals that are sent to colleges and universities, the federal government, various foundations, and other organizations who might be interested in funding their research.

Applied research is performed to solve a particular problem (or set of problems). For example, biochemists who work for pharmaceutical companies do applied research. These biochemists are tasked with developing medicines or treatments that are needed to treat specific illnesses or diseases. When you go to the doctor and get a prescription, the medicine that you take is developed by biochemists.

Not all applied research is concerned with medicine, however. Some biochemists research things like the development of alternative fuel sources, ways to clean up the environment, and methods of genetically engineering crops. Others go on to work as teachers, primarily at the high school and college levels.

Regardless of the type of research that they do, biochemists rely on advanced tools and software to do their jobs effectively. In the laboratory, they use things like spectrophotometers, radioactive isotopes, centrifuges, and electron microscopes to perform experiments and to learn more about the materials they're researching.

Biochemists also need to have strong computer skills. They frequently rely on advanced computer software that helps them analyze and visualize the data collect in ways that were never before possible. For example, they may use modeling software that allows them to visualize molecules or proteins in a three-dimensional format. These visualizations help to increase the scientists' knowledge of the subject they're studying.

Biochemists are most often employed by research and development firms, pharmaceutical companies, and colleges and universities.

Biochemists who work in research typically split their time between the laboratory and an office. In the laboratory, they conduct experiments and collect data. In the office, they use computers to analyze and manipulate the data.

The majority of biochemists work full time, and are able to maintain regular working hours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biochemist Jobs - Description, Salary, and Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biochemists use advanced laboratory instruments like electron microscopes and lasers to study the chemical principles of biological processes. Some of the most common areas of study include heredity, metabolism, growth, cell development, nutrition, and reproduction. In short, biochemists try to better understand the chemical makeup of life.

# data[].attributes.body
Employment of biochemists and biophysicists is projected to grow 11 percent from 2016 to 2026, faster than the average for all occupations. ... This increased demand is, in turn, likely to drive demand for biochemists and biophysicists involved in biomedical research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And thank you for kicking things off, Chemjobber! Remember, tomorrow we go to Paul for why tenure is teh suck, and Thursday the Mighty Matt enlightens us on what science policy can do to help us fix the employment mess.

So in yesterday's post, CJ talked about the present and future of industrial jobs in chemistry. "Chemists are facing lower-than-average hiring and an unemployment rate that is the highest in 20 years at 3.9% (according to the 2009/2010 ACS Salary Survey)," CJ said. And it came up in the comments, like it always does: how much of this can be blamed on new PhDs coming into the marketplace? Are we really overproducing chemistry PhDs?

Fortunately, the numbers of doctorates produced each year in many fields of study are tracked by the NSF, who puts out a short report in November and a longer one in December. The most recent one says that in 2009, there were 49,562 doctorates awarded in the United States in all science and engineering fields. That's up 1.6% over 2008, an increase that's almost totally due to a rise in women getting these degrees. This is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, but I thought it was interesting. Moving on.

The NSF breaks down these numbers into separate fields of study. And look, I took their data and made graphs!

As you can see, the number has fluctuated a bit over the last ten years, but the general trend has been up. Last year, there were 2,398 PhDs awarded in chemistry and 859 in biochemistry. The chemistry number is up 6.2% from 2008 (2,247), while the number of new biochemists is down 4.5% from the year before (898). There was a small spike of chemistry PhDs awarded in 2006 (2,362), and biochemists seem to have maxed out (minimally) last year. Overall, the number of fresh new chemists has grown 11.0% since 1999 (2,132) and biochemists are 11.6% more popular than they were ten years ago (759).

So, what does this mean? Well, that there are more chemists now than there were 10 years ago, but I think we could have all guessed that. The real question is, how many jobs have there been available in since 1999?

There's a problem with that question. Namely, that there isn't an answer to it. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in 2008, chemists held 84,300 jobs. But that's all chemists, BSs, MSs and PhDs together. Besides, that's people holding jobs. How many chemistry jobs open up each year? We know that CJ tracks the ads in C&E News, but of course not everyone advertises there. And not all jobs are even advertised anywhere; supposedly, only about 60% of openings ever blink in the sunlight. And how would you count alternative careers? Does it count as a "chemistry job" if it's in policy, communication, or law?

These reasons, among others I've surely missed, are probably why these data don't exist. And without solid data about the number of jobs out there, we can't possibly say if there are too many PhDs being awarded.

But what we can do is guess. The NSF tried to hack away at it a bit, by asking new PhDs what their job plans are. They call them "Definite Postgraduation Commitments," and go on to say, "The proportion of doctorate recipients reporting definite commitments is an indicator of the overall strength of the job market for doctorate recipients and the availability of positions relative to the supply of new doctorate recipients." Unfortunately, in this case they don't separate the chemistry numbers out from the rest of physical sciences. So the data graphed below includes all kinds of physics, astronomy, math, and earth, atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Please note the data range on the side before you get all crazy. But still. That looks like a pretty strong upward trend. To put things in perspective, the number of PhDs awarded in the physical sciences in 2004 was 3,350. Of these, 2,116 had definite commitments upon graduation. That's 63.2%. In 2009, 2,829 of the 4,289 doctorates awarded had a job or what-have-you lined up. That's 66.0%. Overall, 2.8% more of new PhDs had some kind of paycheck to turn to last year than five years ago. That doesn't sound like they're having a harder time finding jobs to me.

Oh yes, I can hear you shouting in the back there. "But I bet more of them are taking post-docs!" Well, I hope you didn't bet too much on that, because you'd lose. It's about the same. A tiny bit less, even.

Very tiny. In fact, all those bar sizes up there look about the same. Now I do remind you, those numbers are for all physical science PhDs. Would it look drastically different with only the chemistry data? Don't know. Wish I did.

The BLS also puts out an employment outlook for chemists. Their 2008 report states "Job growth is expected to be slower than average for all occupations." That's for the next ten years, and they mean that jobs will increase anywhere from 0 to 9%. I went and dug up the same numbers from ten years ago (not an easy feat on a government website), and found that in 1998 they said that job growth would be average (meaning it will increase 10 to 20%) up to 2008. I think they flubbed on that one, since they say that there were 96,000 employed chemists in 1998. Their 2008 report says that chemists plus materials scientists together held 94,100 jobs that year. (They didn't differentiate between the two in 1998.) That's a loss of 1,900 jobs, or about 2%. Of course, it would have been nearly impossible to predict the slow keening death of the pharmaceutical industry, but that's precisely why you can't bet your bottom dollar on predictions like this.

What's more interesting is their data on salaries. My colleague at CEN, Bethany Halford, is writing a longer article on this topic for inclusion in next month's magazine. She suggested to me that a lot can be learned from watching how much chemists get paid. The BLS puts data out on this as well. In 1998, the median chemist salary was $46,220. If we adjust this for inflation, we get $61,051 for 2008 (I used this calculator). So if demand for chemists decreased, the 2008 mean salary should be less than this. The BSL reported the actual number as...$66,230. That's a raise of 7.8%. According to that, chemists are still in demand. [ETA: Bethany mentioned in the comments that the starting salaries of chemists has fallen, suggesting that demand for chemists has decreased.]

So, what gives? All hard data we have suggests that new chemistry PhDs are doing okay in the job market [but being paid less, see above note], and that chemists are still being paid the same or more than they were ten years ago. But does this match reality? I know a lot of my colleagues in grad school are having a very hard time finding jobs. This is anecdotal, though. And it seems that, in the past, it's been quite common for established scientists to point that black finger of blame to those newly anointed in the field when times get tough. Like here. Or here or here or here. People have been saying there are too many PhDs for many many years. Is it truer now that it was then? Is it true at all?

You know what I'd like to see? Some of that NSF data broken down by subfield, ie organic, analytical, materials, etc. Especially the data on definite US commitments. Because I think Chemjobber had a very good point when he said:
"Today's hot field could be tomorrow's old-and-busted outsourcing minefield. Certainly medicinal chemistry was the hot field, ten years ago. This is a fundamental problem with professional scientist training in the US. While the market will always be clamoring for trained scientists today, the labor supply is close to a decade behind."
Which is similar to the point Derek Lowe was making here. Do we have too many PhDs being produced? Yes. And no. There is a glut of medicinal chemistry and synthetic organic people, probably. But there aren't enough electrochemists or people to work on new energy storage systems, like CJ pointed out. But how can we possibly know what kind of scientists we'll need in twenty, ten, or even five years? We can't. It sucks but there it is.

So...what can we do about it? Well, not much. I think it's an obvious answer that incoming students should be aware of the job market before they even think about grad school, but well...that's likely not going to happen. Did any of us know what we were getting into when we started grad school? I sure didn't. And I think most incoming grad students don't have the brains or foresight or whatever to do a lot of research into this as they're starting out. Hell, a lot of students go to grad school because they don't really know what else to do when they get that undergrad degree.

Is it the adviser's job to instruct a new student on job prospects? I think we could debate this until the cows come home to roost, but it's not going to do much good, simply because it seems to me that advisers would NOT see it as their job. For one, I wonder how many professors pay attention to the job market at all. (They already have jobs, after all.) For two, apart from the student being nuts or the PI already having a maxed out group, I can't imagine a prof that would turn students away, since we all know that students = hands in the lab = more research being done = more papers = more stuff to put in grants = more dollars = tenure = more students and so on and so on. (Please understand that I'm not saying that ALL advisers are like this, but many are.) So a prof saying, "Gosh, don't join my group! You won't get a job when you graduate, because the field is so tight"? Riiight.

So no to students figuring out job prospects on their own, and no to advisers filling them in. What's left? In an ideal world, I think PhD granting programs should each have their own career counselor, at least part-time. That's obviously not going to change the job market, but it would at least give potential grad students a heads up about what they're about to subject themselves to. (Er, in one respect, that is.) Or even if it's worth their while at all.

What I don't think will work is putting a limit on the number of PhDs given out every year. While it may curb overproduction in one subject, it will likely lead to shortages in another. Even if there was some almighty overseer that would say, "We will allow blahblah number of PhDs in X this year, and some other number in X," it would be a total crapshoot to get those numbers right. And you'd end up with out of work chemists, just like now. Or people trained in the wrong area.

So there's one thing I kinda skipped over here. Since new PhDs are having about as hard a time getting jobs as they have in the past five years (according to the NSF numbers), and unemployment for chemists is relatively high, are new PhDs forcing older, more established scientists out of their jobs? Unfortunately, the data we have for that is completely anecdotal, therefore not citable, therefore not trustworthy. So this will ultimately end up, like most of the things I've brought up here, a guessing game.

Okay, Readers. I've said my piece. Now say yours in the comments. A note: if you haven't commented here before, your comment has to be approved before it shows up. (It's the software.) So please be patient if you don't see it right away. I'll be approving as fast as I can!

Please be sure to check out Bethany Halford's CEN story in January. She's been interviewing actual people, so it should be pretty interesting.

And with that, take it away Paul!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And thank you for kicking things off, Chemjobber! Remember, tomorrow we go to Paul for why tenure is teh suck, and Thursday the Mighty Matt enlightens us on what science policy can do to help us fix the employment mess. So in yesterday's post, CJ talked about the present and future of industrial jobs in chemistry.

# data[].attributes.body
studies cell development such as breathing and digestion and living energy changes Researches methods of transferring characteristics, such as resistance to disease, from one organism to another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Biochemists research and study chemicals and living organisms.

If you enjoy research on chemical composition, biochemistry could be an ideal career choice. Biochemists research and study the chemical composition of living organisms, especially their effects on growth and aging. Biochemists explore different reactions chemicals have and the effects of these reactions on organisms. For example, a biochemist works to discover how the actions of certain foods or drugs may influence the body and tissues. Biochemistry is a rapidly growing field.

Basic Job Duties

Biochemists spend a large part of the day conducting research. This research includes arranging chemicals or molecules in patterns, and examining the chemical reactions that take place in a laboratory. A biochemist also investigates how certain reactions influence the body or other organisms. Biochemists study drugs, foods, hormones and biologic processes in a laboratory setting. Biochemists isolate proteins or enzymes, work with DNA and other complex molecules, or plan and apply research to hypotheses.

Research and Reporting

Biochemist spend a good portion of time preparing reports tied to their research. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that biochemists research food, drugs, hormones and biological processes, and prepare technical reports, research and findings based on this research. They sometimes manage laboratories or monitor the work of others. Most biochemists work as part of teams, such as group research projects.

Types of Research

Biochemists study genetic anomalies or mutations, including those that cause cancer and hereditary diseases. Many biochemists submit grant proposals. You may work with an organization that studies a specific type of disease or work with a drug company that develops pharmaceuticals that fight certain types of diseases. Some biochemists work with particular types of medications for example, including those that fight memory impairments. Still others teach students or other professors about research and new medications or technology.

Salary and Education

A biochemist needs a Ph.D. to conduct independent research. A bachelor's degree or master's degree enables you to obtain an entry level position in most laboratories conducting research. Most entry-level biochemists move on to advance their career or pursue management or teaching positions at a later time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the median annual salary of biochemists as of May 2010 was $79,390 with the top 10 percent earning more than $142,420. Most work in the pharmaceutical industry and research and development or engineering and life sciences industries.

2016 Salary Information for Biochemists and Biophysicists

Biochemists and biophysicists earned a median annual salary of $82,180 in 2016, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On the low end, biochemists and biophysicists earned a 25th percentile salary of $58,630, meaning 75 percent earned more than this amount. The 75th percentile salary is $117,340, meaning 25 percent earn more. In 2016, 31,500 people were employed in the U.S. as biochemists and biophysicists.

About the Author

Aanya Rose has been writing since 1998. Her work has appeared in "ADDitude," "Curl," "Diabetes Alternatives," "Fitness," the "Healing Path" and more. She has served as a channel manager for various websites and worked in consultation and training. Rose holds a B.S. and Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Duties & Responsibilities of Biochemists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you enjoy research on chemical composition, biochemistry could be an ideal career choice. Biochemists research and study the chemical composition of living organisms, especially their effects on growth and aging. Biochemists explore different reactions chemicals have and the effects of these reactions on organisms. For example, a biochemist works to discover how the actions of certain foods or drugs may influence the body and tissues.

# data[].attributes.body
plan and conduct complex projects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biochemists and Biophysicists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biochemists and biophysicists study the chemical and physical principles of living things and of biological processes, such as cell development, growth, heredity, and disease.

# data[].attributes.body
medium pay is 82,150 usd
hourly 39.5

# data[].attributes.body
is help people get better in new ways like develop a new vaccine for new strain flu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biochemists and Biophysicists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biochemists and biophysicists study the chemical and physical principles of living things and of biological processes, such as cell development, growth, heredity, and disease.

# data[].attributes.body
i want to become a biochemist as a job when i get older