Industry or Academia

[Jiri Urban]

Do you think there is a big difference between the chromatographic knowledge of people from the industry and the academia? Are there some parts of chromatography which will either one never explore because don't need them? Or there is only one chromatography?

I know, this is probably a silly question, but reading the forum here I have feeling that I know nothing. And chromatography fills all my hours, days and months, though.

best regards

J.

[Don_Hilton]

I suspect that it all depends on the question the chromatographer is trying to solve. I've seen researchers in both industry and acedemia who use chromatography as a black box analyzer and I've seen some pushing the limits of knowledge of chromatography. In industry it tends to be for the purpose of performina a particular kind of analysis, but some of the fundamental problems addressed may be just as theoretical as addressed by the acedemic who wishes to push back the limits of knowledge.

[tom jupille]

I think Don hit the nail on the head. There are "chromatographers" and "chromatography users" in both industry and academia.

I got hooked on chromatography via a part-time job when I was an undergraduate in 1968. I've been fortunate in being able to earn a living at it, but (like Jiri/) I'm continually reminded of how little I actually know when I read discussions here. Actually, that's part of what keeps me hooked: the field is expanding faster than I can assimilate, so I certainly don't get bored!

[Bryan Evans]

How about this: The more you know, the less you know

[Jiri Urban]

Thanks for replies, I probably think too much ;-)

And Tom is right, one cant be bored by chromatography.

[Ron]

Bruce, I would change the statement a little, The more you know, the more questions you have.

[DR]

Agreed - I find that academics have much more experience with the resuscitation of old, abused columns and equipment than industrial chromatographers do - otherwise, they're pretty much the same.

[Consumer Products Guy]

I'd say that if you want the answer to a problem, the industrial chromatographer likely has more hands-on experience and will get the results quicker. And maybe even before the academic even gets his/her hands "wet".

[Ron]

More years ago than I like to remember we were having our weekly group meeting in a research university based research institute. We used a lot of chromatographic equipment in addition to spectro, physical testing, and a little of almost everything else. A chromatograaphic question came up, and after a spirited discussion our director stated there were two types of people in the room, chromatographers and people who used chromatography to solve problems. He proceeded to examples, X knows all the theory by heart, can do all the calculations, and can tell you exactly what theory says should happen. Ron goes and grabs a column based on the type of compounds to be analyzed, and installs it in a GC with a detector appropriate for that type of compounds, and makes 3 or 4 runs to optimize the method to get the separation needed to get the data to complete the project. I have to admit at first I was a little upset at not being considered a chromatographer, but then I thought a little and decided that the person that can develop a method for a project in an afternoon is more likely to work steadily than the person who can talk theory all afternoon.

[qcChemist]

I would consider myself a chromatographer. Even though I have the academic background and have been taught all the theory, I would have to say that most of what I know about chromatography comes from I've learned from other technicians in the industry.