Q&A highlight
Posted15 days ago
Key Takeaways
US Organisation - https://us-rse.org/ UK (but also worldwide) - https://society-rse.org/
There are RSEs who specialise in Earth Science, e.g. https://socrse.github.io/geoscience-sig/
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_software_engineering (checkout References/Further Reading etc.)
I started out writing software for scientists, psychologists, first at a university, then a small company. After eight years of that I went to grad school and got a PhD in CS (ML/AI), and did a postdoc, before going into industry, and eventually landed a role in what was then called “data mining”, later “data science”, then “machine learning engineering”. In the beginning when the team was small, we were all generalists, doing both the science work and the engineering. As we grew, specialized roles developed, but I was able to chart a course somewhere between a SWE and a scientist, doing a lot of knowledge work, experiments, measurement, and presentation, but also building common tools that the rest of the team can use.
I’ve been out of the job market for 15 years now, but I think any company that does science and builds software would value your skillset. In fact, when I was shifting from academia to industry, I started out determined to be a “scientist”. After all, what was my PhD for, anyway? But my SWE chops were pretty evident on my resume, and I had a hard time getting traction. Then I got brought in for an interview at a company that had a team of scientists and a team of engineers and they brought me in for a split interview with both teams. It was clear by the end that they wanted me as an engineer, but I was insistent on wanting to be a scientist. They didn’t offer me a job, and I was disappointed. The disappointment was educational for me, and I rewrote my resume to put more emphasis on my SWE skills, and that made it easier to find a role that fit me.
Wow - that's a long time at one company, or being without a job. Could you share more on that? Simple curiosity, thanks.
After a few years I got tired and somewhat bored with being a manager, and asked my director to move back to a senior IC role and he facilitated that for me.
TBH, I have always had my doubts about the narrative that short tenures are the norm in tech. It has always sounded to me like a misreading of the statistical distribution: if you were to histogram the length of tenure of every job (person+company) in tech over some period, of course there would be a big hump at the left end. That's natural, because they are short. I myself have three jobs of less than two years and one each of six, eight, and 15 (if you count grad school as a job). So that's 12 years in the the four shorter stints and 23 in the two longer ones.
When I said I was disappointed when I didn't get the job in the story above, what I meant was that I was disappointed that they didn't offer me the SWE job, and I kicked myself for telling them I didn't want it. But really I only knew that I wanted it after I didn't get it.
1. Find a company that has non-software jobs that you like. Look at what companies advertise on their web sites; go to a few conferences (or watch talks) to see if some talks strike you with "ah, I can and want to do this" vibe; reach out to folks you went to grad school with, etc.
2. Apply and join as a software engineer. Don't try to sit on both chairs (software and science) during the application. You can apply to a science role, but this is likely much harder after 8 years of software focus.
3. Once in, chat with folks working on what you want to work on you saw give talks, go to internal presentations, post cool plots in slack, etc. In most companies it is pretty easy to move within roles. Plus, HR is no longer in the filtering pipeline and is not tossing resumes of anyone they think does not have the chops for the position.
Good luck!
As a personal data point -- I decided, late in my math PhD, to switch from academia to the industry after completion. A few times I switched jobs I went in as a software engineer, but within a few months moved to working on things I wanted to do beyond software (algorithms for tracking, perception, signal processing, sensor fusion, etc.).
Not to say this is an objective analysis, just observing the subjective trends.
I’d then look over the profile trying to disprove my assumption. Lacking a very strong signal in mastery of something, I’d pass on the profile.
Only at small scales are full stack engineers valuable. Their value is not in the quality of their output but in their ability to deliver make shift with that avoids having to pay for specialist who can deliver quality.
Assuming there is product market fit then generalists are replaced by specialists. This is where the true value aligns in terms of high quality output being compensated proportional to value created.
Given all this my advice is to pick two complementary areas, specialize in those areas and develop deep mastery. Keep your broad general skills. Then market yourself as the T or H shaped engineer that’s most valuable.
I learned that the hard way. I used to think my science background as an asset but I stopped mentioning my science background after seeing people's reaction in interviews.
Seems like the ideal career is to start somewhere big and successful enough that allows you to specialize (after some poor generalists sabotaged their own careers by making it a thriving environment for specialists). Because even small scale businesses think they should start by hiring specialists.
Only if a software or integration problem is labeled neatly with the system and expertise required one can afford such thinking. Is the issue in the front-end, backend, gateways, middleware stack, network or compute? But even more dangerous are ‚valuable‘ narrow experts designing systems without awareness of the limitations in all other layers.
bunch of goalpost moving statements.
I work in that now. I am going through the same issue as you after studying science (there are many of us!). Jobs rarely overlap, wanting both skillsets. Am I ever going to do this scientific work I learned about? I feel entering this area has been progress.
I'm on the 'science' side right now, after doing CAD, software and firmware for a few years. The previous robots I made were not for scientific work. Now I make liquid handling robots for laboratories and I hope that my scientific skills will be valued in the workplace.
In the workplace, people mostly seem to want you to choose a box and stay in it rather than using a varied skillset. Right now I can say I "make robots" but mostly I take parts, put them in the machine we make and use them for a bit then send them on their way as tested items. The robot is largely a black box - I'm not allowed to see the CAD, software or firmware it runs, certainly not use my skills in those areas. But I'll keep trying - to bring value to the employer and find more interesting/valued work using the skills I've gained over the years. Entering a workplace for whatever they want then moving within it over time is a time tested strategy, especially in government because they are unionized and very rarely fire anyone.
Keep in mind funding sources during your search. In Canada we have SRED, which is a tax rebate for scientific work and easy to get. People, even if they studied science, seem to perceive scientific work as expensive and mostly useless so subsidies like this really help. Since it's a rebate that means you must work for a company that already has revenue, not a small startup. Look for a company with at least a room they call a lab and they will keep time sheets for all "R&D" work.
The jobs you're looking for are rare, but they do exist. There must be a bunch of them in this project, for example:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-22/lake-george-earthquak...
In my case, the unicorn factor worked both ways. The job was advertised for a year before my hiking partner encouraged me to apply, and it took a few months more before I did. From that point, the job was easy to get.
In this job market, supply and demand are reasonably well matched; the problem is that the market is very illiquid. Science jobs are rare to begin with, and people stay in them for decades, so vacancies are even rarer.
On the one hand, a programmer at my company who was interested and capable of switching to optics could have had my role by asking for it. On the other hand, if you joined the company as a programmer, you would have had to wait 5 years for an optics role to come up.
So my advice is to stay in touch with your friends from the earth science days, and expect this to take a long time. Good luck!
My experience working and hiring PhDs in the past has been one that they sometimes are used to this being defined for them and/or used to applying to grants/funds in established academic environments but rarely do they think of creating the path themselves (except for some outliers). The fact that you are already thinking of that puts you in that category.
Lastly, when working at the edge of something and creating your job, be ready for this mantra: https://37signals.com/13
I thought I’d never be able to bridge my specialties when I was younger - I just hadn’t put the puzzle pieces together yet.
Being willing to start your own thing can help a lot, too.
In any earth sciences based work, there would be requirements for either data sciences or AI related processing, improvements, etc. Those are the sorts of areas that you might want to peddle your SWE skills as delivering.
In either case, you're primarily either a developer or a scientist/researcher. Unless you're at an early stage startup or in a principal/managerial role, chances are your time is better spent deeply focusing on one area rather than both. Either putting the system to production or doing research. A lot of the time, these tasks can be carried out in parallel -- while one person is carrying out research, the other can be improving the system.
I don't think it's at all as rare as I see other commenters.
Cold call or get introductions to their R&D leaders (principal researcher /director / VP). While connecting to something they or their company did, ask for a coffee meeting or phone call to learn more about their company and how it works.
Use this to Network network network. At some point a job will appear with interviews. Chances are good it’s with a good manager as they’re the ones taking time to build good teams and talent.
Once you get used to being paid well for "easy" work, it's hard to put up with attitudes when you're getting paid less (or even the same) doing "hard" work. If you don't perform, your employment is at stake, and you'll realize there's value in having a job that you don't have doubts you can do.
As for how to market yourself: first you should convert your academic CV to one that is suited for the type of companies you are applying for. Unless you wrote something that ended up in Nature or some other super high profile journal, companies typically don't care about your publications. What they do care about is things like: can you communicate well? How well can you organize things on your own? Do you handle stress well? You did a PhD, so the answer to those things is yes, you just need to write that in your CV in a way a company recruiter/interviewer understands, even if they themselves are not from academia. So you don't have two halves that belong to different resumes, you are just one person and you just translate your resume to the "language" that your prospective job provider speaks.
Finally, your list of skills does not need to be a perfect match for what a company is looking for. Of course, there needs to be some overlap, but as long as it means you can pick up new things quickly, it will be fine. That and being a good fit for the company's culture are the most important things.
I did not start out with a unicorn role, but in I found ways to apply my physics background in my current job.
A big part of the problem is that you were spending time with tech stacks and frameworks. These have almost no practical utility value aside from attaining employment in a low skill area of software. I am saying that as a former 15 year JavaScript developer. Instead use your research background to solve real problems faced by businesses and users that you can measure.
It may be harder if you want to do only earth sciences, but if you're open to many areas of research, then the FAANGs will probably take you.
I see many relevant openings in https://www.climatetechlist.com/jobs
I work at a company that is hiring folks that have a background in (helio)physicists / quantum (I think we have about 3 nobel prize labs represented right now in a team of 9) with SWE / ML experience, to build products for the aerospace industry. Not exactly earth science, but if Heliophysics / Physics is of interest, my masked email in profile.
I was a studio recording engineer for about 7 years. I switched to software, and now I work in industrial global logistics. Job attributes I optimized for over the years: insulated from manufactured stress, autonomy, control over working hours, good relationships with my boss and coworkers.
Chances are, there are a handful of labs, somewhere that could benefit from the overlap, but finding them is like finding the needle in the haystack.
his application is quite simple and repeatable: optimizing field measurements through apps. or more simply, really good forms and reports. we focus on forestry but have been able to repeatedly repackage and adjust our software for clients who need to go someplace, fill out a form, and then report on that later and/or submit it to some unique system (etl stuff)
a phd proves you mastered a language and knowledge of process applicable to communicating with subject matter experts. youre certified in the scientific method. even when my boss doesnt have direct experience in a specific field, he can make an analogy to other client or phd work. clients are confident you can meet with members across their team to plan, implement, and test software to optimize their workflow without much hand holding
another thing: he does a lot of talks. after a few talks now he's asked all the time and one of ESRI's first calls for an alternate at conferences. a lot of this is the phd title. if you dont loathe public speaking too much than this can open doors to conversations with clients, professional partners, or institutions developing new tech
All the Best!
I found this productive from a learning perspective, to prevent bias and trying to shoehorn a style that may not be optimal for the work.
Now after nearly a decade of work I have been able to bridge the gap for your alleged 'missing middle'.
This is where I diverge from your perspective; I take the personal growth and skill perspective to navigating my career. That is to say, I focus on solving the problems I want, researching what skills are most effective with an open mind that I may bring something novel from my past, and grow from there.
I think if you search for the PERFECT role leveraging your skills, you may wait a long time. Find a problem--artistic, commercial, or otherwise stimulating--that you would be willing to pursue in your free time. For me: this was video game development, however I forked my development from most paradigms circa 2003, and been reinventing many wheels for the sake of deeper knowledge.
You may be lucky to find a role which leverages everything you may find your personal skills are, but if a role isnt, dont discounts the principles it took to succeed at something as dema ding as a PhD.
I hope you find this perspective valuable!
Or fully bootstrap with a competing product?
https://www.esri.com/en-us/about/careers/job-search
https://www.jpl.jobs/c/educational-jobs
https://www.spacex.com/careers/jobs?programs=Starlink&discip...
If you want to mix earth sciences with development, you could look for positions on the Google Earth Engine team, or check out weather companies that do R&D like Purple Air. I imagine there’s plenty of software work mixed with earth sciences in the oil, gas, and mining industries; aviation & ocean shipping; hydroelectric, solar, and wind power maybe.
Being an earth sciences researcher is highly likely to involve writing software, whereas the average SWE role is not likely to need research, so my instinct would be to say just look research roles. Do most of today’s earth sciences researchers not spend a lot of their time at least writing statistical software in Python or R? My brother’s an anthropologist, and over the last decade his job has become more and more writing software to process datasets and do statistics.
If you’re just looking for a scientific mindset and a role that does experimentation, many companies (especially growing startups) have data science departments that, at a minimum, drive A-B testing experiments. Occasionally you can find applied research positions that are listed as just SWE roles, but those might be hard to find - I’d start by asking academic departments for leads.
Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.