Work and life: more are not more, better is better

 One defect that I see in scientists is that they do not know how to communicate what they are really working on, nor the importance that their research may have for society. Moreover, I would say that sometimes they do it with antipathy and misunderstandings (see the press conferences on the covid pandemic), and to a certain extent that is the reflection that we see in the villains of the movies: evil people in their laboratories doing ‘things’. Result: low trust, conspiracy, and low salaries for them.

I do not think that arrogance is a fault of scientists, but what happens is that they are more prepared, they have studied much more and, therefore, they consider that they know more than those who have not studied science or a certain subject. That is why I think that many times they are not aware that it is their way of explaining things or addressing an audience that does not know the same as them (and, certainly, that audience notices that imbalance).

 

That ‘bubble’ in which scientists live also makes them overestimate the difficulties of working as a scientist. They argue that they are the ones who undoubtedly have the most obstacles in life. To begin with, you have to pass many, many, many exams until you get to the doctorate. Then, logically, the oppositions to obtain a stable position in a university or research centre. But meanwhile, the process continues: each article submitted undergoes an editorial procedure in which the work is examined with exasperating meticulousness. In addition, research proposals must be reviewed so that, if approved, they receive funding. Once a year they are evaluated by their students with surveys; every six years the ministry does it to decide if deserving research has been done, every five… Why continue? They must not only publish, but also the article must have some impact in the scientific community.

 

Now that I am starting, I do not take away an apex of truth from the fact that the life of the investigator is hard, but I would like to put it in perspective so as not to victimize ourselves. As a novice scientist, I consider myself one of those ‘provileges’ who works on what he likes. My philosophy is to serve society with my knowledge and work. Being paid to write what I do in the lab, and fight with publishers, or reading articles, is not so bad, seen what has been seen. For instance, doesn't a worker have a hard life? A mason? A farmer? An insurance agent? What to say about the workers who go to shifts in the factory? Evidence has shown that night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases to mental health disorders and cancer. By working night shifts, the natural 24-hour rhythms of activity of certain cancer-related genes are disrupted, making night workers more vulnerable to DNA damage and, at the same time, causing the body's DNA repair mechanisms are out of sync to repair that damage (study here). 

 

Is hard work always a pre-requisite for success?

 

 And if you are not an employee who, in the best of cases, ‘enjoys’ a certain stability in the medium-term, what stability does a self-employed person have? The self-employed or entrepreneur is a figure that has to make innumerable efforts to be able to carry out his work. And that means living with hardly any time for family. The motivation of do what you like and make a profit is further overshadowed by the huge amount of taxes that must be paid to the state. For example, in the current fiscal hell that Spain has become, the government eats more than 40% of the profits generated. Thus, an average worker with a salary of 24,400 euros gross allocates 102 days of salary to pay Social Security, 38 days to personal income tax, 11.5 to special taxes and 25 to other taxes. In total, those 182 days represent a whopping 15,775 euros a year in taxes, paid by the employer. As this has no end and is going to get worse, many companies, freelancers, workers, talented and well-formed people, are fleeing outside their borders because they refuse to pay a level of taxes similar to that of Sweden with Congolese wages. 

 

In my opinion, science should also permeate the political, business and educational spheres to adopt measures that alleviate the damned hell that work means for many people, being the main reason for depression and suicide in adults. One way is to stick a finger in the wound of family reconciliation or shift work. Ensuring that people can work with dignity should be one of the highest priorities in our society. We could start by reducing taxes on companies to encourage each person who would like to start a passionate business, at least try it. Again, science and technology should be used to promote research on circadian rhythms to adopt better measures in the management of shift work, or the robotization of the most arduous processes, not using people for this purpose, depersonalizing them. Based on the innumerable physical and psychological problems derived from work, as a society we should draw red lines so that it is not destroyed from within. For example, in Denmark, working late makes a bad impression on bosses and colleagues, due to the entrenched work-life balance. Can you imagine something like this in your country? The key, be productive and disciplined. Foster a culture of ‘work’ in terms of separating it from leisure time while we are on our work day, and being productive. More is not more, better is better.

 

It is a reflective post from another Sunday that I am afraid I do not offer a definitive solution. However, if we look back at the working day history, who was going to tell us in 1825 that we would currently enjoy weekends off? At that time, in industrialized countries, people worked about 82 hours a week from Monday to Saturday. In turn, it was a great advance compared to the 12-14 hours from Monday to Sunday that they used to work in the fields. In a few cases, such as in Spain in 1595 with King Felipe II, it was accepted to work eight hours during the whole week. Once again, it was science and technology that replaced men and women with machines to buy time in a life that only exists once.