The world is full of scientists referring to a career in industry as turning to the dark side. Examples for this phrasing are found in alumni reports, blogs, and article in science magazines to name a few.
Dubbing an industry job as working for the dark side has almost become an idiomatic phrase. But why is that? Why is working in industry branded as the dark side?
I have some theories why this dreadful practice came to be. And I am convinced that it has to stop. Here is why.
Scientist working in industry are accused of dismissing intellectual freedom
According to one school of thought, you have to choose between being a free thinker and working in industry. It is true that for some industry jobs the intellectual freedom channelled towards your employer’s objectives. Yet, there is nothing dark or sinister about it. Quite the opposite is true. It is often transparent from the start how far you may take your creativity in a company.
In academia, by contrast, the seemingly unbridled intellectual freedom might be hampered in other ways. Your research project might be stopped by shortage of money or a lack of institutional support. An unfavorable funding landscape might keep your most intersting ideas from beeing pursued.
No matter whether you work in industry or academia, if you let your intellectual freedom be restrained, it is your own fault. Even in the most restrictive of industry jobs, nobody is watching over your mind. No one is stopping you to think, come up with new ideas, or develop diverse areas of interest. You are free to do so.
Industry scientists allegedly work for money and not for the benefit of society
It is true that companies strive for profit. Industry research projects have to be worth their money eventually. Both academia and industry are needed to best serve society. With academia alone, the benefits of research and technical progress would never come to the public.
I believe that academia is the place were research projects should be undertaken that never can be done in industry. Such research projects may have low monetary value for a company but high value for society. They might answer pressing ecological, environmental, or sociological questions. Other research proposals might have lower chances of success. So, companies do not take the risk.
On a side note, academic science loses focus on society’s benefit at times. The pressure to publish in high impact paywall journals, makes research results less accessible to the general public. Gearing grand proposals towards fundability rather than towards relevance does not benefit society.
Misunderstood loyalty makes scientists refer to their career choice as turning to the dark side
Some scientist use the expression turning to the dark side half-jokingly when talking about their own path. I believe this is due to a false sense of guilt. But it is completely unnecessary.
I do understand. You respect and admire your PhD supervisor or academic mentor. He or she thought you were a good scientist. He or she even offered supported to pursue an academic career. Instead, you did not choose to take this path. You went to work in industry.
You might be conflicted because you feel you betrayed the faith your idol had in you. Still, this is no reason to talk down your career choice by associating your job to some kind of darkness. Stop being apologetic. You had good reasons for switching to an industry job. Own up to it.