Comments on: Change Young Scientists Can Believe In

By: khkain

khkain — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:49:26 +0000

I have not read another article that so closely echos the voices in my head. The labor force of any field should not rely so heavily, in fact almost exclusively, on people in training. What has happened in science is unethical, but directly benefits those most who are in positions to make it stop. I hope that staff positions, that include health benefits, retirement plans, vacation and sick time etc, will soon create permanent positions for a significant portion of scientific labor force. Then I hope we can all get back to the science.

By: SEA

SEA — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:57:18 +0000

To find out where your Congressional representative stands on issues of innovation and science education, visit Scientists and Engineers for America (sharp.sefora.org) and click on People. SEA works to bridge the gap between science and politics. Join SEA and become part of our grassroots movement for evidence-based policy.

By: Annec

Annec — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:51:38 +0000

We have, in culture, a learning theory that suggest that 64% of humanity does not have the sense that god gave a goose. Take a good look at my web site publishing ink.com and decide for yourself: If for 100’s and 100’s of decades, 100’s and 100’s of college professors have contributed nothing to our understanding of the human condition. Thank your lucky stars that you’re a scientist and not embedded with the 64% that wander the hallways smiling at students.
But how could 100’s and 100’s be so wrong for 100’s of decades? I was going to write a short little article about the human condition and discovered that humanity is the next thing to unconscious. Take a look, you may decide that it’s Annec that is wrong.

By: Annec

Annec — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:03:40 +0000

What I am suggesting is that the Pyramid exist in all human endevors: For the laboratory aid, the high school teacher, and for the Doctor (that you seem to focus on). When I was young, and lived in the Intern Quarters, all the residents would open the door to my room and watch the Olympics on TV. I was the only one that owned a TV. And later I knew a radiologist that rushed from Hospital to Hospital and made one million $$$ per year. He lost his wife and children and the hair was falling out from the back of his hands. Now how much do you think the average Doctor makes??? Many, when they are 40 are wishing that they had done something else (and some have asked me for help with getting a scolarship for their swimmer). And that I can do!!! And for the Army, the same Pyramid is there, but I have explained how to get around it.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:44:51 +0000

Annec -

Are you really suggesting that an MD faces similar career prospects as a PhD? That’s insane.

1. The Match provides a residency position for virtually every graduating MD. A major point of this article was that there are nowhere near enough faculty positions to support all of the PhD graduates.

2. If you go straight from undergrad to med school, a MD can easily graduate and be practicing medicine by mid- to late 20’s. What’s the average starting age of a PhD in academia? Hint: it’s on the wrong side of 40.

3. You can’t possibly be suggesting the salaries are equivalent, can you? Yeah, there are a lot of doctors in the phone book. Maybe they don’t make as much as they used to, but I think it’s safe to say they all make considerably more than the average postdoc.

You seem to have a real problem with academic medicine, which is fine, but your statements about the career prospects are factually wrong.

And thanks for the recruitment into the armed services, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

By: Annec

Annec — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:52:56 +0000

Annec does get it.
I have worked in the laboratory, and have known many that studied Biology. Now I don’t know if many started out pre- med and couldn’t complete their goal, but they were not Medical Technologist and they worked as Lab. Aids.
I know Swim Coaches, that teach high school, and search from job to job to climb up that ladder. (and they are all fine coaches)
And I know Medical Doctors that work 60 hours a week, and they don’t make that much money any more. Take a look in the Yellow Pages and see how many doctors, and calculate them into the population density that they service.
Now for the Army: It is best to do 6 years enlisted, before becomming an officer. This is because one would never have to be promoted above Major before retirement. Not so many Generals, you know.
But the Baby Boomers are being forced into retirement, and a smaller population will be left to pay the rent.

By: C. D.

C. D. — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:14:26 +0000

I’m afraid Annec didn’t get the point of this article. Postdocs can’t find faculty jobs not because they don’t want to teach, but because there’re hundreds of applicants for one opening, meaning more than 99% of postdocs won’t get a faculty job. They’re not trying to be rich either. The NIH published entry level postdoc stipend is $36,996. It’s increased to $51,036 for those with 7+ years of experience. I know our janitor could earn that much.

What’s lacking is a stable job with benefits comparable to industry levels, as the author pointed out. However, even Janelia Farm, mentioned as a good model, recruits graduate students from U of Michigan, and has lots of postdocs, so it’s not really much different from the traditional academia model.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:23:40 +0000

The goal of effective science policy should be more than simply producing quality science, but should be to extend scientific mindedness to the broader public. This is best realized by embracing more people into the fold of science. The current structure not only disincentivizes careers in science, but further relegates science to relative obscurity. Scientific livelihoods should provide more than intellectual satisfaction.

Science is simply not recruiting its fair share of intellectual creativity from the graduating classes of our universities. I don’t believe anyone is suggesting offering graduate students six-figure salaries and more vacation time, but running the gauntlet of 60+ hour weeks for nearly a decade before earning a wage that can support a family does not recruit the best and brightest. I think this becomes even more evident if one looks into the career plans of our graduate students – those who had enough drive and interest to enter the field in the first place. There’s a veritable academic exodus among graduate students looking to establish a career before their 40’s.

The right answer is not simply to pay students and post docs more. I think the author is right to suggest career paths that deviate from the teacher-disciple model. This is still the best approach to training future Investigators, but there need to be sustainable scientific careers that exist outside of this pyramid scheme. Training positions pay less because they can compensate by offering experience, but once that training has bottle-necked there should be a release valve that allows for careers for trained scientists. I think there is a significant pool of post doctoral fellows that are less interested in becoming independent investigators than they are in gaining some job security and supporting a family.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:15:43 +0000

I am a postdoc at one of the strongest research universities in the world. I agree that this article takes the side of the disgruntled postdoc and graduate student, but from my experience, this viewpoint should not be ignored. Low morale is widespread among young scientists, and we are only just beginning to see the negative effects of this. As the article correctly points out, many young would-be scientists fail to pursue a career in science because academic scientists train for 10-15 years, work long hours for little pay, and feel there chances of getting a good job are equivalent to those with only a four-year degree. “Getting rich” is not a goal for most scientists, but having a decent standard of living is. For these reasons, I tell undergraduates and graduate students to leave the science career track as soon as they can. Not only are young would-be scientists choosing alternative careers, but those of us who bravely (or maybe foolishly) chose a career in science often feel used and are sapped of enthusiasm for research by the end of the 10-15 year training period. Based on my experience, this attitude is common and affects scientific productivity. There are high hidden costs to exploiting bright and capable Americans for cheap labor to generate knowledge and technological advances. The pyramid training scheme cannot be sustained.

By: Annec

Annec — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:50:45 +0000

We have places for those that wish to do scientific research, but I fail to understand why one would not wish to teach others, while doing research at the same time. A research scientist is extremely unproductive. Einstein spent mostly his entire life contributing nothing, but he was a rare one, that actually made a substantial contribution. Most research done at the University level simply confirms other research, just as most books written by academia are not worth the paper that it is written on. This is not to say that these programs are not worthwhile, but don’t be a cry-baby about it.

I have some advice for motivated would be scientist, join the Army. Besides from getting food and shelter, one may study forever, but at the same time, one would have productive duties to consider at the same time. This would be sort of like a professor actually teaching a class. I can tell you true, that most graduate students could not teach 5th grade. Get it? Are they smarter than a 5th grader?

When I mention the Army, one naturally includes any such services, including The U.S. Public Health Service. I have to ask you, who runs our Nuclear Air Craft Carriers? It all begins with individuals with an equivalent of a two year degree. One should consider, that many of our U.S. Presidents arose from military schooling. Get a grip! If you wish only to get rich, become a football player.

By: Eskimo

Eskimo — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:53:04 +0000

Your article takes the side of the disgruntled postdoc and the fearful graduate student.
But what about the broader interests of the public?

When the NIH funds biomedical research, it produces two things:
A. science, experiments that may lead to new knowledge and medical treatments, and
B. scientists, who may or may not have the careers they dream of afterwards.

I fear that voters, Congress and policymakers may not care about the special interests of B as long as they get A.

Can you convince me that reforming B will improve A?
Will it make biomedical research less tied to the interests of pharmaceutical companies and selling the latest billion-dollar pill?
Maybe it’s better for the NIH to sit out the Obama bonanza. At this point, it looks like spending a billion dollars on solar/wind/wave/geothermal will actually promote our health more than the same amount spent on polyacrylamide gels and MRIs.