Because programming computers is far more lucrative, and I'm better at it. However, if I had an unlimited budget I would return to biology.
I spent 15 years trying to be a professor and failed miserably. I was bad at it and didn't like what professors have to do.
I then moved to industry to be a random engineer and thrived doing things entirely unrelated to drug discovery. Eventually, I convinced my company to invest heavily in life sciences. This was successful and I was on track to be a powerful player (a "research engineer", just like the DM folks who are building these things) in this space, when the project got very popular and I was elbowed aside by others who are more aggressive. So I went back to being a programmer again, it's much less stressful, pays better, and realistically, much of my time is just telling scientists what I would do if I was in their place anyway.
"Don't swim with the sharks if you don't like being bitten"
> much of my time is just telling scientists what I would do if I was in their place anyway.
That sounds familiar. I guess they mostly don't listen, whatever your record -- especially if it was in a different field they could learn from -- but I hope it's not always like that.
Maybe a culture clash? Academia is all about status and prestige - more often scientific outcomes seem to be a means to get the former (why journals don't publish negative results, why studies fail to replicate, why stuff isn't open access, why people worry about getting scooped, etc.)
Tech (at its best) hates credentialism (sometimes I think to a point of over-correction).
That said, 80% of the devs in the bay area seem to have gone to Stanford or MIT, so...
I was thinking of going into that field. Can you expand a bit on why you left?