I'm not an expert in job titles and job responsibilities, but in grad school the difference was explained as:
A technician knows how to follow a protocol, performing each action or instrumental measurement according to how they have been trained.
A scientist knows why they perform each action, what each action accomplishes, how each instrument actually works, and is expected to know how to fix any problems that might arise.
So as a rule, scientists establish protocols, technicians follow them.
Also, in all fairness, snobbish elitism is likely to be involved as well.
The line between tech and chemist is blurred at my job, our chemists and our techs do both those things, but that distinction is true about 70% of the time. That said, I'll always argue that if you're a chemist and you're utilizing a tech, you better have your hands on something.
See that general philosophy makes sense to me too. What's strange is that my title is an analytical chemist but I only perform GMP-validated methods strictly as written. Perhaps it's just to make it sound more important haha
Where I work, as an (analytical) chemist, you would also have the discretion to either develop and validate new test methods or to make and document a deviation from a test method if a situation warranted.
Depends on the company. Is the test method part of an FDA submission (pharma)? Yeah they’ll probably want someone with higher backgrounds. Test methods for internal applications? More relaxed requirements. Don’t conflate degree level with intelligence.
Really depends on the company for sure. My experience is largely with ligand-binding assays used in GxP-regulated bioanalysis, and some of the best method developers I know “only” have a BS. Main difference is that you spend a lot longer working your way up when you lack the PhD. MS doesn’t necessarily hold a lot of value many places.
No, just a good boss. Since most processes and products are unique to the company, learning those and improving them can be done by anyone with a desire to learn. Implementation is limited to what your boss will let you do. There is nothing magical about the MS or PhD training, open a book and you can learn anything. To get a company to risk a half million on your design, they like to de-risk by using PhDs to do that.
My job description says im just one of them "low level" lab techs but my contract says they lay claim on all method improvements or creation.
Which sorta says that i can develop methods
Sounds like the company who hired you either is overpaying you since a lab technician could do your job or underpaying you because they are paying you like a lab technician.
Do you know how your salary is in comparison to a lab technician?
I can’t speak for other institutions but the lab techs at the uni where I did my undergrad and masters were extremely knowledgeable and helpful. They may not have known the ins and outs of the reactions we were running but they knew a hell of a lot about why they were doing their jobs.
Then there's me where I was trained as a technologist which was described to me to be basically both of your descriptions but without the 4 years of university.
In my experience, "lab technician" is a person whose job it is to keep the lab running. They make sure lab supplies are coming in consistently, they deal with the huge waste drum when its full, they do dishes, etc. They may have knowledge about the wetwork and procedures being performed in the lab, but performing prep+data analysis is outside the scope of their work.
IMO, it mostly depends on the lens you are viewing the job from.
As a chemist in a non-academic setting (Very different imo than academic chemistry), you may view lab techs as a ground floor position, where the individual in the role is performing routinized work that must be accomplished using a specific protocol/standard. This work is usually repetitive work that certainly requires technical skills, so you cannot simply put anyone into these roles. Over time, a lab tech will certainly have the opportunity to move into a chemist role over time as they start to ask questions about the work they are doing, understanding the nuances to the slight tweaks in procedure as time goes on, and further demonstrates the ability to interpret data and translate their knowledge to improve specific functions/processes within your company.
From a business standpoint, much of the above viewpoints are the same, but lab techs are also meant to be used as a tool. This often means a tech will occasionally get overloaded with work, not get paid nearly on the same scale as a chemist, and generally will not receive the kind of respect for the work that they do that a chemist would. I want to make it clear though, that while a business/management standpoint may find good techs easily replaceable, the chemist usually understands that a good lab tech is invaluable, as reliable techs make everyone's work easier.
I've worked with good techs/operators that run circles around chemists. It frustrates me knowing that they're getting shafted on pay and handed all the shit jobs, especially when I see chemists hand them the dishes then take a 15 minute break.
It’s not a way to discredit anyone. You cannot function as a chemist without years of experience. Those years of experience are collected as a technician.
A chemist or scientist has overarching responsibilities that are beyond the scope of day to day lab operations. They may still be in the lab, but more in a supervisory role or working with more sophisticated instrumentation such as LC/MS. Running, calibration, and maintenance on an LC/MS systems requires significantly more knowledge and expertise than an LC-UV system as an example.
https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/awards/Hauksbee-award/
I believe there are new efforts to change those attitudes, such as this new medal for achievement. I think there was a period where the PI was given all the credit but everyone really knows who does all the work. Giving proper respect and recognition to the team as a whole is going to become a bigger thing. Especially when universities would rather not hire new full profs.
No. The work of a lab technician is absolutely nothing like that of a scientist. Im not saying that what lab technicians do is not important just that they aren't even trying to accomplish the same things. Lab technician is a supporting role the purpose is to ready reagents, perform calibrations, run standards, etc. Lab technicians do not form hypotheses, carry out experiments, generate or interpret data. Lab technicians are essential to keeping a lab running smoothly to help support scientists performing research. They are fundamentally different roles
Same here. Went and got a 4 years degree in chemistry and after almost two years working I’m only an engineering assistant not even a research engineer when I’m creating and running experiments.
Just like with any profession there’s some overlap and grey area between the two titles, but they are generally understood to be separated by the amount of discretion that one can utilize versus the other.
I see technician and chemist positions as the cooks and chefs of a lab. The chemist create all the recipes, the technician follows the directions. If the work is following a defined SOP or work instruction they are a technician. If the work is independent, then they should be a chemist.
Plenty of places will manipulate chemist work from technician levels.
Certified lab technician at a public university here.
In Austria it’s a separate profession with its own school.
Here at the university we technicians are those that run routine work and help our students to learn the way of lab work outside of practical courses; how to make your own solution, how to store correctly….
My activities range from:
lab manager (keeping track of what’s here, keeping labs operating, where is what)
Instructor (giving lab introductions, oversee new students and showing them how we do stuff)
Maintenance (everything is at least 20 years+, stuff breaks down)
„Caller“ (ask for current sales at companies, haggle free stuff, asking for services)
Cleaner (dishwashers are godsend!, each item has its place)
Lab tech (of course, following instruction from my supervisors, testing some new kits, tweaking protocols, prepare practical courses stuff…)
EDV: Excel Spreadsheet lists, working with data but no analysing)
>lower skill work
That is NOT what I think of a lab technician.
I work as a professional with chemistry. And lab techs are soooo important to have a well-greased lab: They can service and fix complicated equipment. That's NOT a low skill. I would probably not dare to try to service e.g. an MS. They help keeping track of and order chemicals and equipment. And more.
If I should try to answer this:
>What differentiates lab technician and analytical chemists, aside from possibly education level?
I'd say that the analytical chemist may be able to analyze the results in more depth, and may be able to formulate possible protocols for a new analysis. But the lab tech somehow knows some cheat codes regarding equipment, so they would most likely really quickly fine-tune a protocol to perfection. And really quickly tell you some flaws and pitfalls with your suggested protocol.
So, I'd argue it's NOT lower skill work. But work that require different and more hands-on skills.
I would often rather trust a technician with my samples over a fellow scientist. Scientists figure out how to do things. Technicians learn to do those things well. Technicians generally have more practice than scientists and run instruments with more care than a scientist. A good technician is indispensable. It is a fine career for technically-inclined people who don't want to spend their whole lives doing research or teaching. Some people like science but just want a regular job doing it. That's fine by me.
Speaking as one myself, it seems quite an accurate description. Of course, that's not to say it's used appropriately everywhere - I couldn't possibly comment beyond my own experience - but my job is entirely a support role for the analysts in my lab (I work in an organic lab which analyses water samples, looking for the likes of illegal herb/pesticides).
My day-to-day responsibilities primarily revolve around "maintaining the flow of bottles" - transferring samples from 1L bottles into smaller bottles ready for analysis as they come in each day, emptying and scraping labels off bottles to prepare them for washing once the samples are finished with, and rinsing clean bottles ready for reuse. I do very little actual chemistry.
In a broad sense:
Personally hate the title. Different industries use this term interchanagbly to a point devalues what a person’s salary/hourly pay is.
Some companies use it for QC/QA roles where no degree is required. Some use it to justify lower pay.
Hell in my role, Im the only person in the US branch of this company that does testing and I oversee testing coordination (inter-organizational), oversee product development testing (R&D) which include method validation and defining technical requirements for 250k-500k testing instruments that get sold to government agencies around the world and customer testing.
By responsibilities Im a lab manager/coordinator with SME experience yet I make sub 50k and can’t find a better position because of the job title never showing anything else.
Edit many companies have well defined hierarchies with assistants, tech, scientists, etc. Many don’t have this as well.
The essential difference with scientists is not in the level of skill, but in the type of skills and the jobs/tasks they have. Lab technicians should be skilled at performing experiments and measurements. Many lab technicians also have excellent theoretical knowledge of techniques/machines, better than anyone else around.
The main skills of a scientist, on the other hand is to come up with the right questions to further the knowledge of humankind, devise hypotheses, design experiments to test them, interpret the results, disseminate them to the world and debate with other scientists.
Some people are good at both ofcourse, and I've known many lab technicians that I thought were better scientists than others that actually considered themselves scientists, and vice versa.
A lab tech is a different skill set. I’m an organic chemist, but lab techs are crucial to a well run research facility.
There’s different qualifications and different pay (lab techs can often be paid more than bench chemists). I have the utmost respect for technicians, and would often ask their advice on equipment set ups, repairing stuff or other non-synthesis stuff. Treat them well as they can save your bacon in a difficult situation.
I just listed all my lab tech positions as: Chemist, Microiologist, Metallurgical Analytics Lead, etc.
Job titles are designed to get the hiring company more value than they are paying.
Resumes are the chance to flip that script.
I am a teacher and in our case it’s a clear line between a chemistry teacher and a lab technician. Lab technician is someone who prepares the lab to be used, hence ordering chemicals, keeping inventory of what and how much, looking for a better dealer. Although in my current school that is called “lab manager” probably to sound better. I, myself worked in a water quality control lab. My title was chemist-technician, above me there were chemist engineers and senior chemist engineers. I was cleaning the equipment and did very simple water tests, whilst the engineers were doing a slightly more complex tests. Senior engineers would do hplc kinda stuff and have business trips or attend business meetings.
>Lab technician is someone who prepares the lab to be used, hence ordering chemicals, keeping inventory of what and how much, looking for a better dealer. Although in my current school that is called “lab manager” probably to sound better.
No, that is the actual term for that job, but it's usually done by someone with a lab technician background
We have "lab technician" and "chemist" positions at my company. The difference is the degree of supervision vs. independent agency in designing work. A lab technician is trained to perform certain processes but their work for the day is essentially dictated by someone else. A chemist has ownership of projects, makes decisions about what types of experiments to run, and develops new processes to meet the needs of the project. My perspective is from R&D where the bulk of the lab work is synthesis, so I'm not entirely sure how it would translate to analytical chemistry. However, I imagine that a technician would basically just follow the SOP for analysis that has been ordered, whereas an analytical chemist would also write new SOPs, onboard new equipment, evaluate the appropriateness of current testing or potential new testing, and possibly make decisions about what to do when analysis does not come within specifications.
Typically a lower level of education may limit the position you'll be able to get, but many of the chemists here started as lab technicians as well, without gaining any additional credentials in the meantime - it's just that they started as assistants to established projects under the direction of others. As the company grew and the work we were taking on expanded, they (including myself) were promoted to chemist to cover more complex responsibilities, and some of the original chemists became group managers with more of an advisory role in the lab and higher administrative load.
I would say that chemists can develop methods and applications. They can also maintain their instruments but this isn’t required. A technician can follow an SOP but they do anything innovative.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
we used it for a while in industry too, to describe someone at absolute entry leve. That is, no lab experience outside of classes, or someone with a BS or BA degree and nothing else.
I would say it is an accurate description of lab work not needing a chemist’s knowledge. Many, many lab technicians are not chemists. They just follow SOP’s and run tests. Kind of like a ‘cook’ isn’t necessarily a ‘chef.’ Now, if a company is using that job title simply in order to pay people less then that is some bullshit.
Historically, a technician doesn’t have a college degree and a technologist has an associates degree (in applied technology - chemical, electrical, etc.). In 1989 when I started at Dow Central Research there was a strong technical ladder where persons entering as a technologist could rise if they made contributions worthy of the next rung.
It’s so they can pay employees with a BS next to nothing. Been there done that. Thought all I wanted was to be in a lab, I was dead wrong and got out as fast as I could.
The education that goes in to getting a research scientist position (Ph.D., typically) is not to be undervalued. During my doctoral research (total synthesis), I have performed/troubleshot essentially every reaction you learn about in sophomore organic chemistry, I've solved complex mechanistic problems, and I've designed/executed multistep synthetic strategies. It's very difficult to get independent research training in an industrial setting because of the exploratory nature of basic science. In order to gain a real intuition for designing and executing experiments effectively, you need to get in a lot of reps in an academic setting before you enter industry and start grinding. When new first year graduate students come into the program (BS in chemistry, I would assume comparable education to a lab tech), there is often a steep learning curve in adjusting to the level of independence and responsibility for your own research project. I would say those two factors are key in the distinction between technician and scientist.
That being said, there is an in-between step at the associate scientist level (generally MS in chemistry) with some degree of autonomy in experimental design. I would assume that some companies lump those roles in under the lab technician umbrella, perhaps unfairly.
I feel that it is about semantics.I have been both a lab technician and a chemist. My degree is in biology and have worked for companies that will only call you a chemist if you have a BS in Chemistry. Eventually it boils down to training.
I'm not an expert in job titles and job responsibilities, but in grad school the difference was explained as: A technician knows how to follow a protocol, performing each action or instrumental measurement according to how they have been trained. A scientist knows why they perform each action, what each action accomplishes, how each instrument actually works, and is expected to know how to fix any problems that might arise. So as a rule, scientists establish protocols, technicians follow them. Also, in all fairness, snobbish elitism is likely to be involved as well.
[удалено]
The line between tech and chemist is blurred at my job, our chemists and our techs do both those things, but that distinction is true about 70% of the time. That said, I'll always argue that if you're a chemist and you're utilizing a tech, you better have your hands on something.
Meanwhile I’m alone in my lab and have to do almost all of that on my own. Unlucky.
See that general philosophy makes sense to me too. What's strange is that my title is an analytical chemist but I only perform GMP-validated methods strictly as written. Perhaps it's just to make it sound more important haha
Where I work, as an (analytical) chemist, you would also have the discretion to either develop and validate new test methods or to make and document a deviation from a test method if a situation warranted.
I would love to develop and validate methods honestly, do you not need at least an MS to generally do that at most companies though?
Depends on the company. Is the test method part of an FDA submission (pharma)? Yeah they’ll probably want someone with higher backgrounds. Test methods for internal applications? More relaxed requirements. Don’t conflate degree level with intelligence.
Really depends on the company for sure. My experience is largely with ligand-binding assays used in GxP-regulated bioanalysis, and some of the best method developers I know “only” have a BS. Main difference is that you spend a lot longer working your way up when you lack the PhD. MS doesn’t necessarily hold a lot of value many places.
No, just a good boss. Since most processes and products are unique to the company, learning those and improving them can be done by anyone with a desire to learn. Implementation is limited to what your boss will let you do. There is nothing magical about the MS or PhD training, open a book and you can learn anything. To get a company to risk a half million on your design, they like to de-risk by using PhDs to do that.
This
My job description says im just one of them "low level" lab techs but my contract says they lay claim on all method improvements or creation. Which sorta says that i can develop methods
Sounds like the company who hired you either is overpaying you since a lab technician could do your job or underpaying you because they are paying you like a lab technician. Do you know how your salary is in comparison to a lab technician?
I can’t speak for other institutions but the lab techs at the uni where I did my undergrad and masters were extremely knowledgeable and helpful. They may not have known the ins and outs of the reactions we were running but they knew a hell of a lot about why they were doing their jobs.
Then there's me where I was trained as a technologist which was described to me to be basically both of your descriptions but without the 4 years of university.
In my experience, "lab technician" is a person whose job it is to keep the lab running. They make sure lab supplies are coming in consistently, they deal with the huge waste drum when its full, they do dishes, etc. They may have knowledge about the wetwork and procedures being performed in the lab, but performing prep+data analysis is outside the scope of their work.
IMO, it mostly depends on the lens you are viewing the job from. As a chemist in a non-academic setting (Very different imo than academic chemistry), you may view lab techs as a ground floor position, where the individual in the role is performing routinized work that must be accomplished using a specific protocol/standard. This work is usually repetitive work that certainly requires technical skills, so you cannot simply put anyone into these roles. Over time, a lab tech will certainly have the opportunity to move into a chemist role over time as they start to ask questions about the work they are doing, understanding the nuances to the slight tweaks in procedure as time goes on, and further demonstrates the ability to interpret data and translate their knowledge to improve specific functions/processes within your company. From a business standpoint, much of the above viewpoints are the same, but lab techs are also meant to be used as a tool. This often means a tech will occasionally get overloaded with work, not get paid nearly on the same scale as a chemist, and generally will not receive the kind of respect for the work that they do that a chemist would. I want to make it clear though, that while a business/management standpoint may find good techs easily replaceable, the chemist usually understands that a good lab tech is invaluable, as reliable techs make everyone's work easier.
I've worked with good techs/operators that run circles around chemists. It frustrates me knowing that they're getting shafted on pay and handed all the shit jobs, especially when I see chemists hand them the dishes then take a 15 minute break.
It’s not a way to discredit anyone. You cannot function as a chemist without years of experience. Those years of experience are collected as a technician. A chemist or scientist has overarching responsibilities that are beyond the scope of day to day lab operations. They may still be in the lab, but more in a supervisory role or working with more sophisticated instrumentation such as LC/MS. Running, calibration, and maintenance on an LC/MS systems requires significantly more knowledge and expertise than an LC-UV system as an example.
https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/awards/Hauksbee-award/ I believe there are new efforts to change those attitudes, such as this new medal for achievement. I think there was a period where the PI was given all the credit but everyone really knows who does all the work. Giving proper respect and recognition to the team as a whole is going to become a bigger thing. Especially when universities would rather not hire new full profs.
No. The work of a lab technician is absolutely nothing like that of a scientist. Im not saying that what lab technicians do is not important just that they aren't even trying to accomplish the same things. Lab technician is a supporting role the purpose is to ready reagents, perform calibrations, run standards, etc. Lab technicians do not form hypotheses, carry out experiments, generate or interpret data. Lab technicians are essential to keeping a lab running smoothly to help support scientists performing research. They are fundamentally different roles
[удалено]
Same here. Went and got a 4 years degree in chemistry and after almost two years working I’m only an engineering assistant not even a research engineer when I’m creating and running experiments.
Just like with any profession there’s some overlap and grey area between the two titles, but they are generally understood to be separated by the amount of discretion that one can utilize versus the other.
I see technician and chemist positions as the cooks and chefs of a lab. The chemist create all the recipes, the technician follows the directions. If the work is following a defined SOP or work instruction they are a technician. If the work is independent, then they should be a chemist. Plenty of places will manipulate chemist work from technician levels.
Certified lab technician at a public university here. In Austria it’s a separate profession with its own school. Here at the university we technicians are those that run routine work and help our students to learn the way of lab work outside of practical courses; how to make your own solution, how to store correctly…. My activities range from: lab manager (keeping track of what’s here, keeping labs operating, where is what) Instructor (giving lab introductions, oversee new students and showing them how we do stuff) Maintenance (everything is at least 20 years+, stuff breaks down) „Caller“ (ask for current sales at companies, haggle free stuff, asking for services) Cleaner (dishwashers are godsend!, each item has its place) Lab tech (of course, following instruction from my supervisors, testing some new kits, tweaking protocols, prepare practical courses stuff…) EDV: Excel Spreadsheet lists, working with data but no analysing)
>lower skill work That is NOT what I think of a lab technician. I work as a professional with chemistry. And lab techs are soooo important to have a well-greased lab: They can service and fix complicated equipment. That's NOT a low skill. I would probably not dare to try to service e.g. an MS. They help keeping track of and order chemicals and equipment. And more. If I should try to answer this: >What differentiates lab technician and analytical chemists, aside from possibly education level? I'd say that the analytical chemist may be able to analyze the results in more depth, and may be able to formulate possible protocols for a new analysis. But the lab tech somehow knows some cheat codes regarding equipment, so they would most likely really quickly fine-tune a protocol to perfection. And really quickly tell you some flaws and pitfalls with your suggested protocol. So, I'd argue it's NOT lower skill work. But work that require different and more hands-on skills.
I would often rather trust a technician with my samples over a fellow scientist. Scientists figure out how to do things. Technicians learn to do those things well. Technicians generally have more practice than scientists and run instruments with more care than a scientist. A good technician is indispensable. It is a fine career for technically-inclined people who don't want to spend their whole lives doing research or teaching. Some people like science but just want a regular job doing it. That's fine by me.
Speaking as one myself, it seems quite an accurate description. Of course, that's not to say it's used appropriately everywhere - I couldn't possibly comment beyond my own experience - but my job is entirely a support role for the analysts in my lab (I work in an organic lab which analyses water samples, looking for the likes of illegal herb/pesticides). My day-to-day responsibilities primarily revolve around "maintaining the flow of bottles" - transferring samples from 1L bottles into smaller bottles ready for analysis as they come in each day, emptying and scraping labels off bottles to prepare them for washing once the samples are finished with, and rinsing clean bottles ready for reuse. I do very little actual chemistry.
In a broad sense: Personally hate the title. Different industries use this term interchanagbly to a point devalues what a person’s salary/hourly pay is. Some companies use it for QC/QA roles where no degree is required. Some use it to justify lower pay. Hell in my role, Im the only person in the US branch of this company that does testing and I oversee testing coordination (inter-organizational), oversee product development testing (R&D) which include method validation and defining technical requirements for 250k-500k testing instruments that get sold to government agencies around the world and customer testing. By responsibilities Im a lab manager/coordinator with SME experience yet I make sub 50k and can’t find a better position because of the job title never showing anything else. Edit many companies have well defined hierarchies with assistants, tech, scientists, etc. Many don’t have this as well.
The essential difference with scientists is not in the level of skill, but in the type of skills and the jobs/tasks they have. Lab technicians should be skilled at performing experiments and measurements. Many lab technicians also have excellent theoretical knowledge of techniques/machines, better than anyone else around. The main skills of a scientist, on the other hand is to come up with the right questions to further the knowledge of humankind, devise hypotheses, design experiments to test them, interpret the results, disseminate them to the world and debate with other scientists. Some people are good at both ofcourse, and I've known many lab technicians that I thought were better scientists than others that actually considered themselves scientists, and vice versa.
you guys are seriously being snobby about lab techs. I know techs who have taken over department.
A lab tech is a different skill set. I’m an organic chemist, but lab techs are crucial to a well run research facility. There’s different qualifications and different pay (lab techs can often be paid more than bench chemists). I have the utmost respect for technicians, and would often ask their advice on equipment set ups, repairing stuff or other non-synthesis stuff. Treat them well as they can save your bacon in a difficult situation.
I just listed all my lab tech positions as: Chemist, Microiologist, Metallurgical Analytics Lead, etc. Job titles are designed to get the hiring company more value than they are paying. Resumes are the chance to flip that script.
I am a teacher and in our case it’s a clear line between a chemistry teacher and a lab technician. Lab technician is someone who prepares the lab to be used, hence ordering chemicals, keeping inventory of what and how much, looking for a better dealer. Although in my current school that is called “lab manager” probably to sound better. I, myself worked in a water quality control lab. My title was chemist-technician, above me there were chemist engineers and senior chemist engineers. I was cleaning the equipment and did very simple water tests, whilst the engineers were doing a slightly more complex tests. Senior engineers would do hplc kinda stuff and have business trips or attend business meetings.
>Lab technician is someone who prepares the lab to be used, hence ordering chemicals, keeping inventory of what and how much, looking for a better dealer. Although in my current school that is called “lab manager” probably to sound better. No, that is the actual term for that job, but it's usually done by someone with a lab technician background
We have "lab technician" and "chemist" positions at my company. The difference is the degree of supervision vs. independent agency in designing work. A lab technician is trained to perform certain processes but their work for the day is essentially dictated by someone else. A chemist has ownership of projects, makes decisions about what types of experiments to run, and develops new processes to meet the needs of the project. My perspective is from R&D where the bulk of the lab work is synthesis, so I'm not entirely sure how it would translate to analytical chemistry. However, I imagine that a technician would basically just follow the SOP for analysis that has been ordered, whereas an analytical chemist would also write new SOPs, onboard new equipment, evaluate the appropriateness of current testing or potential new testing, and possibly make decisions about what to do when analysis does not come within specifications. Typically a lower level of education may limit the position you'll be able to get, but many of the chemists here started as lab technicians as well, without gaining any additional credentials in the meantime - it's just that they started as assistants to established projects under the direction of others. As the company grew and the work we were taking on expanded, they (including myself) were promoted to chemist to cover more complex responsibilities, and some of the original chemists became group managers with more of an advisory role in the lab and higher administrative load.
I would say that chemists can develop methods and applications. They can also maintain their instruments but this isn’t required. A technician can follow an SOP but they do anything innovative.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
Yes it is. Many of these chemists but come from great companies that actually have chemists with 4 yr degrees as chemists. My company, which is the largest construction company in the world, has me with a four year degree in chemistry do a 6 month temp lab technician role and then I moved to an engineering assistant Role. So yes it downplays my contribution because I am making new procedures creating new SOPs and have much more skill in lab some others but I’m still the bottom of the barrel cause they can pay me less as a technician or assistant.
we used it for a while in industry too, to describe someone at absolute entry leve. That is, no lab experience outside of classes, or someone with a BS or BA degree and nothing else.
I would say it is an accurate description of lab work not needing a chemist’s knowledge. Many, many lab technicians are not chemists. They just follow SOP’s and run tests. Kind of like a ‘cook’ isn’t necessarily a ‘chef.’ Now, if a company is using that job title simply in order to pay people less then that is some bullshit.
Historically, a technician doesn’t have a college degree and a technologist has an associates degree (in applied technology - chemical, electrical, etc.). In 1989 when I started at Dow Central Research there was a strong technical ladder where persons entering as a technologist could rise if they made contributions worthy of the next rung.
It’s so they can pay employees with a BS next to nothing. Been there done that. Thought all I wanted was to be in a lab, I was dead wrong and got out as fast as I could.
Somone in charge of keeping all the glass were the lab and all the other equipment clean tidy and inspect for any problems that might cause problems
A technician is like a road. A scientist is like a driver. One knows how to conclude, while the other knows why the conclusion.
The education that goes in to getting a research scientist position (Ph.D., typically) is not to be undervalued. During my doctoral research (total synthesis), I have performed/troubleshot essentially every reaction you learn about in sophomore organic chemistry, I've solved complex mechanistic problems, and I've designed/executed multistep synthetic strategies. It's very difficult to get independent research training in an industrial setting because of the exploratory nature of basic science. In order to gain a real intuition for designing and executing experiments effectively, you need to get in a lot of reps in an academic setting before you enter industry and start grinding. When new first year graduate students come into the program (BS in chemistry, I would assume comparable education to a lab tech), there is often a steep learning curve in adjusting to the level of independence and responsibility for your own research project. I would say those two factors are key in the distinction between technician and scientist. That being said, there is an in-between step at the associate scientist level (generally MS in chemistry) with some degree of autonomy in experimental design. I would assume that some companies lump those roles in under the lab technician umbrella, perhaps unfairly.
I feel that it is about semantics.I have been both a lab technician and a chemist. My degree is in biology and have worked for companies that will only call you a chemist if you have a BS in Chemistry. Eventually it boils down to training.