I've been traveling, often with three whining kids in the back seat of a cramped car - not the best environment for blogging. On part of this trip, we toured this not so well known, but spectacular site: I'll be impressed if any readers recognize the place - give it your best shot in the comments, if you think you know where it is. The real subject for today is virtue and scientists: is the ideal scientist a disinterested, virtuous seeker of knowledge? Do academic scientists embody this ideal, and are corporate scientists sell-outs? Harvard historian Steven Shapin shares his ideas in an interview with the Boston Globe. The interview is a brief plug for Shapin's upcoming book. Shapin says the wrong way to think about science in academia is with

the presumption is that this is about the unequal distribution of virtue, about threats to the autonomy, integrity, value, and authenticity of science, represented by commercializing interests.

Shapin basically says what, in my limited experience, most younger academic scientists (grad students, postdocs, new faculty) think (and probably many more senior scientists too): it's not a trade-off between money and virtue. It's true that corporate positions (for PhD scientists anyway) generally pay better than academic positions, but not all pay spectacular salaries. And while there are some very boring careers in corporate science, it's not hard to find some very boring ones in academia too. The same holds true for exciting jobs - many corporate science jobs stimulate creativity and provide intellectual rewards. I agree with Shapin - it's not about money vs. virtue:

Scientists, Shapin thinks, do not merely choose between virtue and riches, instead worrying more about where they can pursue their intellectual goals, and thus open up new scientific frontiers.

I think most great basic science in many fields is primarily done at research universities, while corporate science labs tend to be more focused on applied science, but that's not true of all science. Shapin points out that computer science and biotech are two fields where corporate researchers have made key basic contributions. It should also go without saying that applied science is not something to look down on - again, it's not usually about money versus virtue, it's about your intellectual goals and the kind of environment you find rewarding. This was before my time (at least in the departments I've worked in), but a few years back, apparently science grad students who left academia for industry were often viewed as either sell-outs, or unable to hack it at the top intellectual level of their field. Few people I know think that way now - maybe Shapin's book is a little late, but it sounds like an interesting read.