

A crisis of confidence: the US scientific endeavour is increasingly losing its lustre as a career choice - kqr2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/457635a.html

======
pchristensen
Pretty good discussion here: <http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-
science>

~~~
davi
There's an angle to this that I see on the ground as a graduate student in
neuroscience that I've never seen anyone talk about, including Greenspun. It's
that there are way more training positions for graduate students than there
are jobs waiting for them.

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations reveal the problem.

In 2001, there were 57,639 grad students in the biological sciences [1].

If they want to labs of their own, how stiff is the competition?

9100/98,700 scientists in the "Educational Services" sector are life
scientists (9.2%) [2]; 46,300/98,700 scientists in this sector are in the
"Colleges, universities, and professional" category (46.9%) [3]; so, 0.092 *
.469 = 4.3% of 98,700 = 4258 scientists are life scientists in the "College,
university, or professional" category.

Let's say that the average graduate student takes 5.5 years to graduate; that
means that there are 10,480 newly minted Ph.D.s in biology each year. Let's
say that the average PI has a lab over a 30 year period; that means that there
are ~142 jobs a year in biology that open up for those 10,000 graduates.

This means that 1/73 of the newly minted Ph.D.s should reasonably go on to
start a lab of their own. The actual number will be higher, but they will be
winnowed out once they fail to get grants at some point early in their
careers.

I don't know how real these numbers are, but they are in agreement with the
sense of struggle I see day-to-day.

The government should fund fewer training slots at graduate schools, and more
R01s (the grants that keep independent labs running), to get this ratio in
better balance. Right now, it is a pyramid scheme.

It also should come as no surprise that domestic students would stay away from
grad school. It's an economically irrational pursuit when other options are
open. On the other hand, this is the best country in the world in which to
train; students can go home and be big fish in their local ponds. For them, it
is economically much more rational to spend some time here.

[1]<http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05310/pdf/tab2.pdf>
[2]<http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab2.pdf>
[3]<http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab1.pdf>

~~~
timr
Great post. I wrote a long comment in this thread, where I went off on a bit
of a tangent on how the US should institute a moratorium on funding for
graduate student training, but I deleted it, because it felt overly negative
and conspiratorial. You did a much better job of saying what I was trying to
say, and backing it with numbers. Bravo.

Suffice to say that I agree that we're training far too many scientists in
this country, and that somehow, we need to find a way to wean Universities
(and industry) off the government dole. The problem is, after decades of
subsidy for advanced research, the US is addicted to cheap intellectual labor
in the form of under-employed graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.
If the government were to drastically cut funding for these "training"
positions, the university system would collapse.

My opinion is that the only way out of this conundrum, is to force industry to
re-invest in R&D over the long term. That means no more licensing patents from
university research programs that were developed using federal funding; no
more "tech transfer" that allows corporate research to be done on campus for
slave wages; and a slow dial-down in agency funding for applied research at
universities (as opposed to basic science). Research and development has to be
driven by market demand, if science is to be a stable career choice for
intelligent students.

------
nazgulnarsil
I am greatly disturbed by the fact that the vast majority of research funding
comes from the government. In art the artist caters to his patron...

~~~
jballanc
In art the patron knows the artist. In the government funding of research, the
government picks people (heads of NIH, NSF, etc.) who then pick people
(division heads) who then pick people from the community (study sections) who
then choose from among their peers who gets funding...

...I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does.

~~~
patio11
_I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does_

I don't know if I'd describe the grant approval process as a-political,
especially after hearing my professors describe how it operates on a nuts and
bolts level.

There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee
reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and
dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that
the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity.

~~~
dhimes
_There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee
reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and
dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that
the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity._

That's one of the best lines I've ever read. Your real name is PJ O'Rourke,
isn't it? :)

