Europeans do very good work in R&D. There's also been some recent reporting on the stifling of R&D at major US firms, typically blamed on a business-mindset takeover of an originally engineering-mindset firm. Though I'm not sure if it's always fair to blame the business-types, I definitely agree that the climate at these major American firms is nowhere as innovation/R&D-focused as it may have been a few decades ago.
I wonder if job mobility and the modern corporate turnover in the US contributes to this as well. You mentioned that companies need to allow for long-term R&D from a planning perspective, but the constant churn of the individual contributors greatly slows down innovation as well. It takes time to get up to speed on some projects and make valuable contributions. In my personal observations, Europeans don't hop jobs as much. In younger age cohorts in the US, "high-performers" are generally expected to change roles every ~18 months and companies every ~3 years until they're 10+ years into their career.
To me, one of the craziest things is how little Europeans engineers are paid-- we hire a (useless) entry-level American R&D engineer at a salary higher than the average greater-London R&D manager (who have all been phenomenal partners to me in my projects).
I was one of the "high-performers," and I changed jobs roughly every 2-3 years for the first 7 years one I defended my PhD.
The reasoning behind my job hopping was trying to find a place where I thought I could have a career for the long term, but the business focused managers make this impossible. I eventually came to the conclusion that every company was the same and either I had to get used to the instability or I had to make a more significant change. I left the industry in 2022.
I think you hit a lot of main points really well. Essentially, yes to all of the above.
As for compensation I think Americans typically trade security for higher salaries in chemicals and to get someone to go work near a plant out in the middle of nowhere Texas is really difficult. Usually high compensation is the only way to get it done. This all feeds into the overall culture of short sightedness and "I won't be here when that's a problem," mindset. I think this is no way to live though, which is why I left.
And what's the point of a PMN when that's but one of 12+ international chemical inventory lists you have to register new chemicals on because many big players want global approvals upfront. Even if you have the money it's a hell of a time figuring out who to talk to or what forms to fill - and you'll need probably need to setup an only representative (maybe a really good distributor) at best or actual feet on the ground / an office in some countries.
Sounds like we need a global harmonized system (Yes, that is sarcasm on GHS) for regulating chemicals. I think there are often chemicals listed on REACH though that are often not listed in the US, it's just easier.
Europeans do very good work in R&D. There's also been some recent reporting on the stifling of R&D at major US firms, typically blamed on a business-mindset takeover of an originally engineering-mindset firm. Though I'm not sure if it's always fair to blame the business-types, I definitely agree that the climate at these major American firms is nowhere as innovation/R&D-focused as it may have been a few decades ago.
I wonder if job mobility and the modern corporate turnover in the US contributes to this as well. You mentioned that companies need to allow for long-term R&D from a planning perspective, but the constant churn of the individual contributors greatly slows down innovation as well. It takes time to get up to speed on some projects and make valuable contributions. In my personal observations, Europeans don't hop jobs as much. In younger age cohorts in the US, "high-performers" are generally expected to change roles every ~18 months and companies every ~3 years until they're 10+ years into their career.
To me, one of the craziest things is how little Europeans engineers are paid-- we hire a (useless) entry-level American R&D engineer at a salary higher than the average greater-London R&D manager (who have all been phenomenal partners to me in my projects).
I was one of the "high-performers," and I changed jobs roughly every 2-3 years for the first 7 years one I defended my PhD.
The reasoning behind my job hopping was trying to find a place where I thought I could have a career for the long term, but the business focused managers make this impossible. I eventually came to the conclusion that every company was the same and either I had to get used to the instability or I had to make a more significant change. I left the industry in 2022.
I think you hit a lot of main points really well. Essentially, yes to all of the above.
As for compensation I think Americans typically trade security for higher salaries in chemicals and to get someone to go work near a plant out in the middle of nowhere Texas is really difficult. Usually high compensation is the only way to get it done. This all feeds into the overall culture of short sightedness and "I won't be here when that's a problem," mindset. I think this is no way to live though, which is why I left.
Very good and insightful comment. Thank you!
And what's the point of a PMN when that's but one of 12+ international chemical inventory lists you have to register new chemicals on because many big players want global approvals upfront. Even if you have the money it's a hell of a time figuring out who to talk to or what forms to fill - and you'll need probably need to setup an only representative (maybe a really good distributor) at best or actual feet on the ground / an office in some countries.
Sounds like we need a global harmonized system (Yes, that is sarcasm on GHS) for regulating chemicals. I think there are often chemicals listed on REACH though that are often not listed in the US, it's just easier.