I work in that now. I am going through the same issue as you after studying science (there are many of us!). Jobs rarely overlap, wanting both skillsets. Am I ever going to do this scientific work I learned about? I feel entering this area has been progress.
I'm on the 'science' side right now, after doing CAD, software and firmware for a few years. The previous robots I made were not for scientific work. Now I make liquid handling robots for laboratories and I hope that my scientific skills will be valued in the workplace.
In the workplace, people mostly seem to want you to choose a box and stay in it rather than using a varied skillset. Right now I can say I "make robots" but mostly I take parts, put them in the machine we make and use them for a bit then send them on their way as tested items. The robot is largely a black box - I'm not allowed to see the CAD, software or firmware it runs, certainly not use my skills in those areas. But I'll keep trying - to bring value to the employer and find more interesting/valued work using the skills I've gained over the years. Entering a workplace for whatever they want then moving within it over time is a time tested strategy, especially in government because they are unionized and very rarely fire anyone.
Keep in mind funding sources during your search. In Canada we have SRED, which is a tax rebate for scientific work and easy to get. People, even if they studied science, seem to perceive scientific work as expensive and mostly useless so subsidies like this really help. Since it's a rebate that means you must work for a company that already has revenue, not a small startup. Look for a company with at least a room they call a lab and they will keep time sheets for all "R&D" work.
The jobs you're looking for are rare, but they do exist. There must be a bunch of them in this project, for example:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-22/lake-george-earthquak...
In my case, the unicorn factor worked both ways. The job was advertised for a year before my hiking partner encouraged me to apply, and it took a few months more before I did. From that point, the job was easy to get.
In this job market, supply and demand are reasonably well matched; the problem is that the market is very illiquid. Science jobs are rare to begin with, and people stay in them for decades, so vacancies are even rarer.
On the one hand, a programmer at my company who was interested and capable of switching to optics could have had my role by asking for it. On the other hand, if you joined the company as a programmer, you would have had to wait 5 years for an optics role to come up.
So my advice is to stay in touch with your friends from the earth science days, and expect this to take a long time. Good luck!
1. Find a company that has non-software jobs that you like. Look at what companies advertise on their web sites; go to a few conferences (or watch talks) to see if some talks strike you with "ah, I can and want to do this" vibe; reach out to folks you went to grad school with, etc.
2. Apply and join as a software engineer. Don't try to sit on both chairs (software and science) during the application. You can apply to a science role, but this is likely much harder after 8 years of software focus.
3. Once in, chat with folks working on what you want to work on. Talk to folks you saw give talks. Go to internal presentations, post cool plots in slack, etc. In most companies it is pretty easy to move within roles. Plus, HR is no longer in the filtering pipeline and is not tossing resumes of anyone they think does not have the chops for the position.
Good luck!
As a personal data point -- I decided, late in my math PhD, to switch from academia to the industry after completion. A few times I switched jobs I went in as a software engineer, but within a few months moved to working on things I wanted to do beyond software (algorithms for tracking, perception, signal processing, sensor fusion, etc.).
I’d then look over the profile trying to disprove my assumption. Lacking a very strong signal in mastery of something, I’d pass on the profile.
Only at small scales are full stack engineers valuable. Their value is not in the quality of their output but in their ability to deliver make shift with that avoids having to pay for specialist who can deliver quality.
Assuming there is product market fit then generalists are replaced by specialists. This is where the true value aligns in terms of high quality output being compensated proportional to value created.
Given all this my advice is to pick two complementary areas, specialize in those areas and develop deep mastery. Keep your broad general skills. Then market yourself as the T or H shaped engineer that’s most valuable.
I learned that the hard way. I used to think my science background as an asset but I stopped mentioning my science background after seeing people's reaction in interviews.
US Organisation - https://us-rse.org/ UK (but also worldwide) - https://society-rse.org/
There are RSEs who specialise in Earth Science, e.g. https://socrse.github.io/geoscience-sig/
I started out writing software for scientists, psychologists, first at a university, then a small company. After eight years of that I went to grad school and got a PhD in CS (ML/AI), and did a postdoc, before going into industry, and eventually landed a role in what was then called “data mining”, later “data science”, then “machine learning engineering”. In the beginning when the team was small, we were all generalists, doing both the science work and the engineering. As we grew, specialized roles developed, but I was able to chart a course somewhere between a SWE and a scientist, doing a lot of knowledge work, experiments, measurement, and presentation, but also building common tools that the rest of the team can use.
I’ve been out of the job market for 15 years now, but I think any company that does science and builds software would value your skillset. In fact, when I was shifting from academia to industry, I started out determined to be a “scientist”. After all, what was my PhD for, anyway? But my SWE chops were pretty evident on my resume, and I had a hard time getting traction. Then I got brought in for an interview at a company that had a team of scientists and a team of engineers and they brought me in for a split interview with both teams. It was clear by the end that they wanted me as an engineer, but I was insistent on wanting to be a scientist. They didn’t offer me a job, and I was disappointed. The disappointment was educational for me, and I rewrote my resume to put more emphasis on my SWE skills, and that made it easier to find a role that fit me.