
Why Aren’t There More Scientists? Money - myth_drannon
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/29/why-we-dont-produce-more-scientists-a-one-word-explanation/
======
danieltillett
As a former professional scientist (I will always be a scientist, just not one
who earns a living from science), the problem is not money directly, but the
encouragement of students into becoming professional scientists when there is
no money to support them when they finish their training.

~~~
oconnore
Ideally, we would want essentially everyone interested in pursuing science to
do so, and succeed. No?

You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the number of scientists
than pay for the ones we can train.

~~~
sndean
> You seem to be saying that we should rather limit the number of scientists
> than pay for the ones we can train.

This is still an open question. At least in biomedical sciences, there's been
an explosion in the number of PhDs awarded. Biomedical postdocs get paid
~$40k/year on average, and it's increasingly likely they'll be stuck in that
position for 10+ years (or you'll leave for a non-science job). I luckily
won't have to go through that, but most of my friends are.

An alternative is produce less, better paid, better trained scientists.

~~~
dmix
I'm sure comp sci could use some of them. Hopefully we can start attracting
the same amount of women as Bio* fields, that would do a lot to redistribute
STEM labour towards better compensation and alleviate supply issues in the
market (on both ends).

~~~
tamana
The amount of STEM PhDs is a mere blip compared to software engineer demand.

------
gaur
A little over a week ago, HN pondered a question based on essentially the
opposite premise: "Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?" [0]

The submission garnered some unbelievably sour comments about graduate
research (the top comment, in particular).

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11543439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11543439)

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> unbelievably sour

Thanks for the pointer. Just checked, and I don't find that sour at all, only
mildly realistic.

There's a reality distortion field generator running somewhere ...

~~~
civilian
Reality distortion field generator? That sure sounds like curiosity-driven
research--- get out of here and write a real grant!

~~~
madaxe_again
Curiosity?! Pah. Outmoded victorian values. Curiosity killed the cat.

Now keep your head down and publish the good facts we give you.

------
patrickg_zill
Basically we have no problem paying a lawyer who profits from adversarial
divorces $400K per year; but people blanche at scientists with PHDs getting
more than $100K-$150K per year.

So we've ended up with more lawyers and less scientists.

~~~
cylinder
There is no divorce lawyer making a $400k salary. If they make that much, they
are entrepreneurs. There are plenty of PhD entrepreneurs who make millions a
year. Compare apples to apples.

~~~
patrickg_zill
I didn't actually type "salary" in my original post...

I don't really know enough about how lawyer partnerships work as a legal
entity, to be able to definitely say 1 way or the other.

Would a large Boston firm with multiple partners, that was financially
successful, pay a partner in a firm $1 million a year? Yes, easily; but is the
partnership just "how lawyers do things" or "entrepreneurship"? I can't say.

"According to the Boston sources whom we interview, a competent divorce
litigator in Boston earns a minimum of $1 million per year. Is that sufficient
compensation for a loss of illusions regarding human nature? Only you can
decide!"

From Philg's (Philip Greenspun, another famous LISP user) site here:
[https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2015/07/28/divorce-
litigator...](https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2015/07/28/divorce-litigator-on-
the-bill-cosby-mess/) (his comment #6)

~~~
argonaut
IMO partners are closer to "legal management." So at that point the
engineering equivalent would be "engineering management." Directors and VPs of
engineering firms probably earn in the range of $1 million. Some very very
senior engineers at FB/Microsoft/Google probably earn that much as well
(principal engineer-level)

------
godzillabrennus
Money would help but so would dismantling the feudal system that controls it.
Remember the guy who cured ulcers? His story is an insight into how
dysfunctional science is.

~~~
stephenboyd
Which guy, and what's the story?

~~~
sien
There were two guys.

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.

------
goalieca
What does the average postdoc make in STEM? Something like 40k. Wanting a
family and having to be a slave to the job for pennies on the dollar was a big
disensentive for me. Also, I would never move away from Canada and I feel le
there were even fewer opportunities here.

~~~
robotresearcher
Postdoc is a temporary job. It's a segue between training and an independent
position. The pay rate is not very important because you're not supposed to do
it for more than two or three years. Then it's up or out.

~~~
whyenot
In many science disciplines it's not uncommon for someone to do two or ever
three postdocs while looking for more permanent employment. The underlying
cause is the same reason people settle for the low pay and poor job security
of being an adjunct: there isn't much else you can do, just work hard, hope,
and wait.

As the article mentions, even if you do grab the brass ring, a lot of your
time and energy ends of being spent on writing grants and management. My first
job out of college was working for an ecologist. Her entire NSF grant was $70k
over 5 years. Out of that she had to pay my room and board at a remote field
location as well as my salary. There was almost nothing left over for
equipment and supplies. It was always a question whether the money would come
through to allow her to continue doing her research.

------
James001
The problem is most scientists now days aren't real scientists. They are
closer to laboratory workers or even bureaucrats. What we need to do is reform
science as a whole, the very methodology's that we accept for science. Science
does not = scientific method, that's a small subset, but we've become deluded
into thinking that's all science is. Until we see science as more, scientists
will be limited

------
orionblastar
I wanted to be a scientist and study physics. I found that working with
computers paid better than being a scientist unless one beco es popular.

------
SFJulie
Seeing a kindergarten friend of mine being among the top 10 in ecology and
living like a hobbo like his friends and doing spectacular research and not
giving up, I don't think it is money.

I think it is the pressure of company fueled academism in bending the research
to censor research that is the real problem.

Corpo and governement are censoring and fighting research by underfunding and
noising the environment with shitty science made to make a point.

Don't tell me Science could not detect the diesel gate sooner, yes they could,
but government preferred to fund diesel optimistic research.

Don't tell me the thyroid problem happening in every nuclear polluted region
could not be detected sooner (Eastern Europa, Japan...) they were. But, it has
been silenced by focusing on the cancers.

Don't tell me Fourier books on the contribution of human activity to the
global warming of earth (1824) was not written, and thus that this knowledge
is "new".

Science, like justice, should be independent from government and economical
powers.

Universities should be autonomous.

~~~
madaxe_again
It was certainly money that kept me out.

Does he have rich, supportive parents, by any chance?

~~~
SFJulie
no, he is ready to live like a hobbo and make a lot of sacrifices most people
don't.

~~~
madaxe_again
In that case, good for him. I'm likewise prepared to live like a hobo and have
done my time being homeless and having a bundle of tags to sleep in to my name
- but I had financial dependents which precluded any selfish endeavour. Such
is reality for many.

------
Retric
We have a _lot_ of scientists. Just the US government spends 140+ billion per
year and 1.4 trillion per decade on R&D. The problem is we simply try and push
more people into those fields than we are willing to pay for. Research is
important in the short and long term, but I think the U.S. would be better off
focusing more on infrastructure and less on research.

A few pipes to move fresh water from dry to wet areas of the country would not
cost all that much. A few more subways in major city's could do a lot. 10% or
14 billion could go to projects that more than pay for themselves in a few
years.

PS: Yes, a big chunk of that is military R&D, they can also get cut.

~~~
danieltillett
There is no lack of resources to support science, just a lack of political
will to fund it. When it comes to government funding there is not a set amount
of funding for each area. If there is political will it will get funded.

The scientist who help kill the SSC [1] found this out the hard way - they
thought that the money would flow back into other areas of science, but in the
end it just went back into the main budget and no other area of science got
more money

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_pylori)

------
jbpetersen
I get the feeling that any scientific jobs that actually pay in accordance
with their merit are those that have been entirely consumed by current
industrial pursuits.

------
powera
Uh, why does "This means that my work will never result in a marketable
product, a useful machine, a prescribable pill, a formidable weapon, or any
direct gain." imply "she’s the real deal" in any way? If your definition of
science includes "completely useless for all practical purposes", of course
there's not going to be very much money.

~~~
lyle_nel
"All practical purposes" for a discovery is not always immediately apparent.

------
KKKKkkkk1
What if there was no tenure and the pie would be re-divided based on
performance every year? If that would disproportionately help the more
productive scientists, wouldn't that help attract more funding for science and
make the pie bigger for everyone? Why can't science work like the rest of the
world?

~~~
santaclaus
I've thought that a rolling tenure system would be cool. Depending on how
risky your research is, you can apply for 5, 10, 15, or 20 year chunks of time
in which you are guaranteed a position at the University. This would allow
professors to take on longer term weird or crazy research projects, but would
prevent professors from defacto retiring immediately after hitting associate
professor.

~~~
anu7df
What is the purpose of the rolling tenure? If the finite length is meant to
serve as a stick, I would argue that it is useless. People who do good
fundamental research do it because there is nothing else that gives them the
satisfaction. Yes there may be a few who defacto retire after hitting the
assuared tenure, but if this rolling tenure becomes the norm that would add
additional unnecessary risk to most. Fundamental research is risky, and we
need people to go down the wrong and useless path to mark it such to keep
others from going down that route. The finite length tenure is not conducive
to the risk taking process.

------
marmaduke
It's old hat to complain about lack of money in science. Instead, ask, how can
I fund my knowledge producing project? "Public funds" is not always the
answer.

------
raddad
Lately I have binged on the television show "Fringe"(2008–2013). Good example
of science gone off the deep end.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/)

------
vinceguidry
I can't help but see publicly-funded science as deprecated in favor of market-
driven science. There's simply too many fields for government largesse to
really be able to fund in force. I wish it didn't have to be so subject to the
whims of popular opinion, but really, I can't think of a better way.

~~~
kemiller
Markets do a terrible job of funding basic research because it rarely pays off
within commercial timeframes. Or even lifetimes. But it's obviously vital to a
society long-term.

~~~
vinceguidry
I agree, but like I said, I can't think of a more politically acceptable
alternative. Maybe one day science will get sexy again and POTUS will be able
to do Obamacare for science. Until then it's up to the markets.

~~~
kemiller
Is charity a market mechanism? I honestly don't know. But apparently there has
been a trend toward more private funding of basic research:

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-
wavefunction...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-
wavefunction/are-we-entering-a-golden-era-of-private-science-funding/)

~~~
vinceguidry
It is. There is competition for altruism and organized processes oriented
around collecting it.

