Only 24 hours for what?

In most lay professions, and especially at junior levels (let's say equivalent to a graduate student), the `normal' daily work period is 8 hours (9 `till 5), mandatory breaks for lunch and tea included! That leaves 16 hours for sleeping, eating, relaxation, reading, playing sports, enjoying the family, attending music recitals or going to the cinema (Enough! It's getting depressing).

But scientists, at all levels, generally work considerably longer and more flexible hours than this layperson norm. In fact, a `normal' 9-till-5 commitment to science is viewed as unacceptable. There would be considerable peer pressure or, more likely, direct threats for that person to put in more hours — “I see you coming in at 9 and leaving before 5. You just aren't dedicated. I'm wasting precious time, space and money on you. You'll never succeed. You need to work harder, put in more hours, get used to working like a normal scientist! Look at Fred next to you. He works hard, and look at the stream of publications that he has. He has a future in science, unlike you.” No matter that Fred is a rather smelly sociopath!

So, why do scientists work longer and keep what to most people would be considered strange hours? It must be the pay! The layperson probably thinks that we get paid by the hour - more time at work, more pay. No, much to a layperson's surprise, scientists work long hours for relatively little pay, and there is certainly no compensation in the wallet for working longer hours. Clearly, a higher degree does not come with a grasp of good economics or acceptable work-for-pay compensation.

What is there about the science profession that results in this expectation of long, irregular work hours. I can think of two reasons. The first is cultural and true, and the second is based on a romantic view of a scientist.

The cultural reason It can be summed up in the following: “If you don't work like hell, you'll be crushed like a cockroach in the rush.” This sign hangs on the wall behind the desk of a recent Nobel Laureate. I think the message is that hard work requires long hours and that success will follow unless your competitor (Fred next to you?) gets there first because he/she works harder and, don't forget, longer hours than you. Let's face it, there is an overemphasis, an arcane and false machismo, about the number of hours required in the lab and how this is somehow directly proportional to success. I am a notoriously inefficient bench scientist and need long hours to get it right. I have had postdocs who have worked half the time, but not half as hard, and have accomplished more because they are both more efficient and, frankly, better than I at the bench (they have also gone on to be successful independent scientists).

The romantic reason I think that scientists enjoy the freedom to think and work without time boundaries: to think up an experiment and come into a lab and work on it without the necessity to interface with or rely on others; to plan a series of experiments that you conduct at your own pace; to have the freedom to think on your own and derive hypotheses to test. Sometimes, most of the time, this `freedom' of scientific expression is translated into long hours in the lab. I don't think that the layperson really understands this, because so many other professions require the coordinated effort of many people with different and non-overlapping skills. On an assembly line, an individual cannot suddenly decide to sit down and think, or try a different approach — disaster would quickly follow. But, for a scientist, these breaks are natural, the independence looked for, nurtured and respected.

Only 24 hours, and it's not enough time because I am having so much fun!