Questions from a student : science or technology

I get questions from a students, about his future career and I consider important to answer in details. 

Here the question

 So not only would be so enriching to know you better, even for a few minutes of conversation about chemistry and life in general, but also to take advice where should I direct myself from now on, like on science, if you think is wise for me to pursue a doctorate, and a PhD, or to keep it more simple like running my business of analytical chemistry on quality control / assurance.

 

And my answer :

The question that you ask about the choice between science  vs business is very important, but I would say that the sole fact that you ask the question should drive you toward applications of chemistry rather than chemistry itself (I mean, the science).

1. as
- positions are not many in science,
- salaries are low,
- conditions are difficult,
- there is a lot of administration and paperwork (looking for funding, etc.)
- one "fails" daily in reaching the goal (making a discovery),
-  the way of science is very specific (trying to kill the theories that we build),
then very few people are cut out for science.

2. as practically the work done in technology is the same as for science, but with positions, money, society usefulness, etc. my advice is that students decide for the industry.
Many are like small birds that hesitate to flow away from the university nest, but they have to be brave.

About PhD, this is a very different question: PhD is a special educational complement, adding skills for research engineers, and it is very helpful for many students.
For example, all PhD that I had with me are now very good in the industry, and doing exciting things. For example, one is the technical director of a world food company, two are heads of the heads of laboratories of analytical companies, etc.
My interns, as well, have exciting positions in the industry (world specialist in ice cream formulation, etc.) and they are very happy.
Only two are doing science, and I knew from the beginning that they would because their interest for it makes all drawbacks out of scope.

By they way, more specifically for analytical chemistry, I have to tell you that my lab was hosted for years in such a lab, and I was fighting my colleagues about the differences :
-chemical analysis is a technique
- improving the chemical analysis (what they call analytical chemistry, often) is a technology (and why not doing it in the industry, at Bruker or Varian, for example)
- real analytical chemistry (science) is exciting, but few people do it


But coming to your business, I would say that the question is not to run it, but to develop it. I can tell you the case of Eurofins, that I know very well, because the founders were from our lab: they were so smart and active that they transformed a tiny enterprise into a very large one, succeeding to manage the many difficulties that you get on the way. I have a real admiration for these kind of people, and I urge my students to do the same... when they are able to do it.
Sometimes, an association between a "technician" and a "market man" is useful: the case of Jobs and Wosniak is well known, but personnally I know very well Jonathan Piel and Dennis Flannagan, who bought the old journal Scientific American for 200 USD, and sold it for 51 millions usd, after one life. Smart and active as well, but "twice" if I may say.

Kind regards