
Glut of postdoc researchers stirs quiet crisis in science - jmnicholson
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/04/glut-postdoc-researchers-stirs-quiet-crisis-science/HWxyErx9RNIW17khv0MWTN/story.html
======
Thriptic
I have wondered for awhile whether the problem of post doc glut / suffering
couldn't be alleviated by creating an alternative, more attractive avenue to
the university science model. Universities charge massive overhead on grants
which they use to support non-research related endeavors, place low ceilings
on salaries, force investigators to do ancillary tasks like teaching, and
don't promise tenure track positions.

There is no reason why someone couldn't create a for profit center which
charged half the standard overhead on NIH grants making them very appealing,
uncapped salaries, allowed investigators to own IP / arrange for favorable
splits in a TLO model, and offered PI status to post docs if they could bring
their own grants / industry money. Post docs would have a harder time staffing
labs with grad students in this model, but they could get an affiliation with
another university or simply hire students with BS's and pay them competitive
rates.

~~~
lk145
Large research universities offer things that I think you would have a hard
time replicating with this model. For instance, a research-grade fMRI facility
costs millions of dollars to run and requires a large number of dedicated
staff to maintain it. I can think of a lot of other resources like this --
primate facilities, certain kinds of DNA sequencing equipment, etc.
Universities absorb this kind of cost with their endowment. I'm skeptical you
could get a critical mass of scientists in a certain sub-speciality to be able
to fund those things profitably, especially if they were doing basic science
research (not pharmaceutical kinds of stuff that can make a profit on their
own)

~~~
gone35
To echo Thriptic comment: you would be surprised to know how _little_ top US
research universities actually provide for their, well, research labs!

The way it works today, _mutatis mutandis_ , is more like a "hacker space"
than anything else: you get, if lucky, some shared shoebox as an office; a
parked website domain maybe; and some rather vague and guarded promise of
institutional support... But other than that you run your lab essentially like
a startup: _you_ are responsible for securing funding for equipment, salaries
--yes, including your own!-- and workspaces. And if you can't, you close down:
as simple as that.

So the oft-cited 'advantage' of having a steady supply of quasi-indentured
post-docs and grad students to horribly exploit is only half the story: if you
just don't have the funding, you can't hire them. Note that in this
(restricted) sense, throwing more money at the problem _would_ indeed help
towards the solution.

It's quite grueling and ridiculous when you think of it, especially in this
era of billions and billions of dollars in endowment at your typical RU/VH...

~~~
lk145
I actually would not be surprised -- I did neuroscience research at two major
research universities, and I handled the lab finances as part of my RA duties.

Our grants and the university-provided lab startup funds bought the smaller
stuff -- EEGs, eye-trackers, etc -- which ran in the thousands of dollars. The
university financed the building and some of the maintenance of the larger
stuff like the fMRI facilities we used, and we paid hourly to use them.

------
WBrentWilliams
There are many ways of looking at this, most disturbing. I imagine that my own
experience working to support PhD candidates and post-docs a decade ago is
instructive. The TL-DR: failed start-up.

I went back to school during the post-2001 recession and found myself with a
job writing signal processing software to make sense of the data coming off an
experimental mass spectrometer. I was offered a job by our lead researcher (a
post-doc) upon graduation who saw an opportunity to turn a grant into a
private lab. There were some political and University-inspired patent spin-off
aspects, too.

The lab was built to create a product that used, but had little to do with,
his research. I got a rag mag and a poster session publication credit from the
early company efforts to build an in-house mass spectrometry device before he
left and returned to being a post-doc (he is now a tenured professor). The
people left steering the company ballooned the corporate efforts using off-
the-shelf tech to rush a product to market just as the 2008 crash impacted and
the targeted customer base (people wanting spa-like boutique medical tests to
determine which vitamins they should take) evaporated. I was dismissed in the
first wave of the toilet spiral and the company ceased to exist 18 months
later.

The point behind my story is that as the pool of post-docs increases, we are
more likely to see more adventures like the one I went through. Some of these
start-ups will succeed, leading to a survivor-bias feedback loop at the policy
level that we need even more STEM students to feed the start-up machine,
leading to growth.

I have no doubt that this will, in fact, work as a growth engine. My question
is whether this can be made more efficient by providing a few more prestigious
fellowships and other funding to keep the most brilliant in the game before
they kick off into business.

~~~
dnautics
This is exactly why I started my startup nonprofit (details in info). Not too
many of my peers are equally as crazy as I am though... I quit my postdoc and
started driving for Lyft to make bills while waiting for 501(c)(3) status - it
resulted in a net 20% pay increase, although since prices have gone down it's
not nearly as good.

------
mcmancini
This article makes it sound like this is a new problem, e.g., "But in recent
years, the postdoc position has become less a stepping stone and more of a
holding tank." As was pointed out in the comments of the article, the grey-
haired postdoc problem in biology has persisted for decades. It's difficult to
sustain sympathy for people trapped in a endless postdoc when the problem is
not a secret.

Also, have to say, the article picture showcases a great pet peeve of mine
with media pictures of scientists in the lab: where is the rest of this guy's
PPE? One of the nice things about industry is that safety is far more likely
to be taken seriously.

~~~
analog31
I got my PhD in 1993, and the postdoc position was recognized as a holding
pattern, already by that time. The other well known effect was known as the
"birth control problem," which was that a professor only had to produce one
PhD during her career, to replace themselves. Anything more than that was
surplus.

But to be fair, nobody ever told us that becoming a professor was supposed to
be our only option, and it would have been silly to expect such a thing
because of the "birth control problem." Yet, silly is exactly how we managed
our careers. Myself included. I intended to work in industry with my PhD, but
didn't exactly do anything intelligent about making it happen.

It's been my observation, visiting lots of labs, that the "culture" of always
wearing safety glasses doesn't extend into biology labs. My spouse, a chemist
now working in a bio lab, is aghast. "And the kids wear flip flops too." Yes,
industry takes safety more seriously.

~~~
mcmancini
Yeah, I hate to stereotype biologists but it's true, there is a serious safety
culture deficiency.

I learned cell culture from a guy that didn't wear gloves while working under
BSL-2 conditions. Back then, I thought he was so cool. Now, what a moron.

~~~
speeder
My sister is a biologist, she was invited to work in a lab in her first year
of university already, and her lab professor left her in charge of running the
lab in general, even above PhD students because she was the only one that used
all equipment correctly, safely and in an organized manner.... My sister even
berates her professor when he is disorganized or forget stuff

------
roghummal
This is a problem we really shouldn't have. So many smart, dedicated people
that we can't fund them all? After they survive how many years of schooling?

The fundamental research these people do is exactly the kind of research that
our corporate sponsors won't do.

Where did the government funding go? Please, don't tell me to start a
Kickstarter campaign.

~~~
michaelt

      Where did the government funding go?
    

Could be government funding is constant (or even increasing), just due to the
perverse incentives involved, we're producing PhDs faster than we're producing
funded positions for them.

According to [1] "Since 1982, [...] The number of [science and engineering]
PhDs awarded annually has also increased [...] from ~19,000 in 1982 to ~36,000
in 2011. The number of faculty positions created each year, however, has not
changed, with roughly 3,000 new positions created annually"

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/fig_tab/nbt.2706_F...](http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/fig_tab/nbt.2706_F1.html)

~~~
roghummal
The article mentions a leveling off and "even contract(ing) over the last
decade" of federal funding. I take the statement at face value, someone else
might substantiate it.

Your point is taken. As we're producing more of these PhDs, we should be
taking advantage of them; Not solely as cheap labor but as the scientific
minds they were trained to be.

~~~
XorNot
It's the price you pay for idiotic "privatize everything" policies. Without
contracts and public works, there's no way for Ph D's to get exposure and
contacts in industries where they can actually demonstrate their skills.

Australia right now is in the grips of horrifically bad government policy in
this regard (the CSIRO pretty much fired 2000 post-docs, so the market is now
completely glutted with people with more experience then anyone graduating
recently).

And when you get right down to it, this is all a huge stupid waste. We sink
the cost of educating these people, then proceed to toss them into menial jobs
which don't use those skills at all, don't provide opportunities to maintain
them or anything like that?

~~~
dnautics
what does privatization have to do with this? One of the worst abuses of the
system (in my opinion) is the IRTA program. This is uncynically called the
"post-bac" program among the IRTAs of the NIH, to the cynic it's exactly what
it sounds like - it's a postdoc, except even less paid - its unintended
consequence is as a dumping ground for undergrads unsure of what they want to
do and spending a few years in lab purgatory before committing to grad school,
because they have sunk the sunk cost of a couple of years in 'academic'
research. The lucky ones go to med school instead.

This program is run by the NIH (not privatized in any way), almost assuredly
created with the best of intentions (let's give students a chance to try out
science so they can learn to love it, choose it, and increase our national
stature!).

~~~
epaladin
I only recently learned about the Post-Bac program, and I wish I had known
about it when I was just out of school- I went to a university that wasn't
research oriented, and such a program would have been fantastic for picking up
the research mindset before going to graduate school I ended up in a lab staff
instead, and learned about real research in sort of a trial by fire manner
that's been much more stressful than the postbac probably would have been. So
it's got it's possible advantages- let alone working for the NIH looks pretty
good on a CV.

~~~
dnautics
I would argue that being a lab staff is better, because you know what you're
getting into. You were probably paid better, too. "cushy" is not a good thing
to "prepare you for grad school", especially not for students who are
noncommital (not saying that you are, but a lot of IRTAs are). OTOH, I knew a
postbac whose job was to counsel macaques that had pieces of their brains
gouged out (and therefore wound up with severe behavioral problems). So her
job was pretty stressful.

Upshot: You made the right "choice".

------
Fede_V
The system of incentives is all screwed up. The glut of postdocs is a boon for
everyone involved, except the postdocs themselves.

Postdocs are very highly qualified and underpaid scientists, who can on a
project without almost any supervision, and who are very motivated so will
work really hard with little pay. For a group leader, it's a no brainer to
hire as many of them as he can.

Imagine how much the cost of science would increase if instead of being able
to hire 3 or 4 postdocs at 50k each, you actually had to hire someone with a
similar skillset at market pay.

~~~
7952
>> Imagine how much the cost of science would increase if instead of being
able to hire 3 or 4 postdocs at 50k each

Doesn't that just mean that 50k is the market rate?

~~~
jofer
That depends on the field. At least in my field, doing identical work in
industry starts at 100k, while a postdoc salary would be 35-40k.

Which one is the "market" rate?

~~~
bdevani
Since the private sector/industry work is competitive, it is considered market
rate. The reason that post-docs are not considered market rate is that the
institutions do not compete with each other, and the rate is determined
without concern of the applicants.

------
qwerta
It is simple: science does not pay off.

I have a friend, respected marine researcher. He is 50-something and he
finally got permanent job, only problem is that he has to move across Europe
and learn new language. He was very upset, when I told him I already quit 6
permanent jobs before I was 30.

~~~
mjn
Yes, I think one culprit is misperceptions that the term "STEM" encourages
(science, technology, engineering, mathematics). It's become a widespread
marketing term, especially towards young people choosing education and
careers. People are told that there's big demand in "STEM careers" so they
should get a "STEM degree". But there isn't really a shortage of people in
this cluster of fields across the board, mostly just of programmers and some
kinds of engineers. For the most part, not of natural scientists, or of most
kinds of mathematicians.

I think it's retained because it _is_ a good marketing term, and lets
technology (where the jobs are) benefit from an association with "hard" areas
like pure math and astrophysics (where much of the prestige is). But that's a
bit of sleight of hand: we get kids excited about "STEM" with documentaries
about marine biology and astronomy, but then oops, that's not where the jobs
labeled STEM actually are.

~~~
snowwrestler
There are two reasons policymakers promote STEM, beyond the shortage of
programmers and engineers.

1) STEM graduates learn how to think critically and mathematically, two skills
that will serve them well in almost any business pursuit. For example Jack
Welch, the famous CEO of GE, held a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. I don't
know of evidence that STEM degrees hold people back, even working outside the
sciences.

2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as
many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good
odds.

The chances are that most STEM graduates will not even be a full professor,
let alone the next Einstein. But that is largely true of any degree we can
imagine. Most English majors will not be a successful novelist or critic. Most
business graduates will not run a company. Most history graduates will not
become a full professor. Etc.

There is a shortage of leadership positions in any field, and a full professor
with research funding is a leadership position. I think the most important
question is whether the absolute best STEM graduates achieve these positions;
that's best for society overall. If the postdoc crisis keeps the most
promising new researchers from pursuing new knowledge, that's bad.

But it's not a volume problem. For the volume of STEM grads, the question is
whether they can achieve at least a middle-class career and lifestyle. That
might be in the sciences, but it might not. That doesn't mean that STEM
education is pointless.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>2) We don't know, in advance, who the next Einstein is going to be. Giving as
many children as possible the chance to make great discoveries is just good
odds.

Problem is, an opportunity to make discoveries is _not_ a degree, it's a
stable job as a researcher _after_ the degree.

------
davi
I wrote about this here five and a half years ago, before it went "sour so
quickly":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=470181](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=470181)

As a grad student back then, I saw a pyramid scheme. Training programs were
(and are) funding way more students than there is room at the top. If funding
at the top level stops expanding, the current scenario unfolds.

If I have undergrads in my lab who want to go on to graduate school, I give
them sufficient information on these numbers that they can provide "informed
consent". If they still want to go ahead, they receive my full support.

------
teddyh
Postdocs – The Middleman of Academia

[http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1744](http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1744)

------
lordnacho
Can someone shed light on why it takes 6-7 years in the US? My European
friends tend to manage in 3-4 years. The opportunity costs look quite
different at that stage in life. Much better to find out you need a new
direction at 25 than 29.

~~~
epaladin
Lack of unions might have something to do with it. Was in Copenhagen recently
and was surprised that even as a PhD student, your salary is negotiated based
on your experience- and the negotiation is done by the union representative.
When unions aren't abused it sounds like they can be quite useful. But yeah,
in the US, PhDs and post docs are used as cheap but knowledgeable labor, and
kept around as long as possible by constantly giving them other things to do
that aren't directly related to their project.

~~~
robotresearcher
Most EU PhDs have an MSc (1-2 years) already. Many US PhD programs admit
directly from undergrad.

------
raincom
Aha, it is postdoctoral treadmill:
[http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html](http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html)

