When I finished my post-doc I had offers from a Model 1 established large company, a Model 2 established small company, and a Model 1 early-stage small company.
I chose the first option, and am glad I did, but over time the Model 1 aspect of the job slowly morphed into something approaching a Model 2 role, where I was doing things like customer relationship management, a bit of business development, preparing publicity materials, even stuff like outreach, product photography, and event planning, along with the actual science (more like project-managing the science rather than being in the lab at that point).
I found that mix suited me well, and when I left that company to join another that was very much a small Model 1 mentality, I found it jarring and uncomfortable.
I think that for early-career scientists, an approach like this -- start out in Model 1 and build elements of Model 2 in at your own pace -- can be really valuable.
Take your "What's the alternative?" post. It quotes from another source that the chemical industry's use of petroleum accounts for 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's a big wart. But is our current capacity for alternative feedstocks large enough to replace petroleum? That's a big "hell no!", and you go on to explain that attempting to do so would essentially lead to a Great Depression caused by raw material scarcity.
On the flipside, you have several recent entries detailing the progression of emergent companies working to expand the capacities of alternative feedbacks--Exhibit A being Origin Materials. They promise a lot, but you write about them with a sort of guarded optimism because we've all heard this pitch before. Maybe slight skepticism is a better description. To put it another way, you're "keepin' it real!"
Got it, when you put it like that it makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
I think maybe I'll reach out to some publishers in the fall and test the waters to see if there is any interest in a "non-fiction" book about the modern chemical industry.
I think I've got to figure out the pitch for it first. I'll definitely need to meditate on this a lot.
When I finished my post-doc I had offers from a Model 1 established large company, a Model 2 established small company, and a Model 1 early-stage small company.
I chose the first option, and am glad I did, but over time the Model 1 aspect of the job slowly morphed into something approaching a Model 2 role, where I was doing things like customer relationship management, a bit of business development, preparing publicity materials, even stuff like outreach, product photography, and event planning, along with the actual science (more like project-managing the science rather than being in the lab at that point).
I found that mix suited me well, and when I left that company to join another that was very much a small Model 1 mentality, I found it jarring and uncomfortable.
I think that for early-career scientists, an approach like this -- start out in Model 1 and build elements of Model 2 in at your own pace -- can be really valuable.
Knowing both I think helps you figure out which one you want to do long term.
I think your newsletter would be worth turning into book form. Your "warts and all" approach is highly unique in chemical industry circles.
Nick, expand on the "warts and all" description please.
Take your "What's the alternative?" post. It quotes from another source that the chemical industry's use of petroleum accounts for 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's a big wart. But is our current capacity for alternative feedstocks large enough to replace petroleum? That's a big "hell no!", and you go on to explain that attempting to do so would essentially lead to a Great Depression caused by raw material scarcity.
On the flipside, you have several recent entries detailing the progression of emergent companies working to expand the capacities of alternative feedbacks--Exhibit A being Origin Materials. They promise a lot, but you write about them with a sort of guarded optimism because we've all heard this pitch before. Maybe slight skepticism is a better description. To put it another way, you're "keepin' it real!"
Got it, when you put it like that it makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
I think maybe I'll reach out to some publishers in the fall and test the waters to see if there is any interest in a "non-fiction" book about the modern chemical industry.
I think I've got to figure out the pitch for it first. I'll definitely need to meditate on this a lot.
Thanks for the suggestion Nick!