It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged amongst scientists that there is a shortage of students coming up in the system to replace them. This sentiment is echoed by science communicators, fueled by trade and industry bodies and, via their press releases, disseminated by the media, spurring on schemes to attract more young people into PhD programs. In nearly every letter-to-the-editor section I read in magazines such as Science, Nature and The Scientist, there is usually at least one from a panicked researcher stressing the urgent need to attract more students into science to redress ‘the shortage’ in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. And this concern came up again at the recent SciBlog conference, as Richard Grant noted in his recent excellent summary.
In the vast majority of disciplines and geographic localizations, however, it’s simply not true. And most scientists I speak to don’t ever seem to question the assumption.
Earlier this year I was asked by the Wellcome Trust to be the official rapporteur for an international science education conference they co-hosted with the US National Science Foundation, attended by the best and brightest in science education and policy from 30 countries around the world. (My final report is freely available here, from which I paraphrase and quote below.) And the puzzling, incredibly sticky ’we’re running out of future scientists’ meme was one of the main issues that the delegates hoped to debunk.
Demographer Michael S. Teitelbaum, Vice President of the Sloan Foundation, has done years of careful research on this topic, with actual numbers and statistics instead of vague fears and feelings. And his work, which was presented at the conference, clearly shows that in most cases we don’t actually need more scientists. In fact, with only a few exceptions (such as subspecialties like engineering, or in particular countries, such as Korea), we are producing far more, in every discipline, than the system can absorb. The specialist delegates at the conference overwhelmingly agreed with Teitelbaum’s assessment, from their own experience at the coal face. (Teitelbaum’s arguments and hard data are elegantly summarized in his recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Committee on Science and Technology of the US House of Representatives this past November.)
Teitelbaum has been broadcasting this warning over the past six years, but clearly the message is not penetrating. For example, as recently as March 2007, a report from the Confederation of British Industry called for a doubling of science and engineering graduates over seven years to prevent skilled jobs from going overseas, and similar proclamations have been made in the USA, Europe and elsewhere. But Teitelbaum’s research shows that surplus is the reality now and, although forecasts can never be certain, there is scant evidence of a future shortfall either. Meanwhile a generation of PhDs face a “nasty hard landing”. Any of you who has recently applied for a position and found yourself jostling with several hundred other candidates will have viscerally experienced this glut first-hand.
Teitelbaum is not in any way suggesting that science education is not important – but it is “an annoying fact”, he said, that scientists and engineers make up less than 5 per cent of the global workforce. So from an economic perspective, we need to ensure that all STEM graduates and PhDs can make a meaningful contribution even if it is not to do research. This is not necessarily difficult: he called science knowledge “as essential as literacy was to the 20th century” for the general skilled workforce today, and showed evidence that STEM graduates doing non-STEM jobs still earned more money than their non-STEM counterparts. So whereas channeling education solely to create even more of a surplus of specialists would be inappropriate, good science education for all children will lead to an increase in national productivity, wellbeing and informed citizenry.
I think all scientists who feel that their field is threatened by shortfalls should arm themselves with the facts pertinent to their own geographic region and discipline before being swept away in the mob. There may well be areas (certain subsets of the hard sciences perhaps) that could grow thin in future and need to be watched more carefully, but at the same time, I believe it is immoral and cruel to encourage young people to enter a field where in the end, no job awaits.
David Kaiser gave a great talk on this from a historical perspective yesterday at Science for the 21st Century – Friendfeed – Video and audio
I nearly referenced Teitelbaum in my recent correspondence to Nature
but I was having enough trouble with digging out buried stats in an NSF report to try and convince the Nature staffers that I should be allowed to use Congressional Record too. But I highly recommnend reading it.
In days of Yore, when
Henry Geethe world was younger there was plenty of room forloafersscientists in the system. But as Jenny points out, try telling a new PhD or Postdoc looking for a meaningful career that they’re too few and far between.I agree with the position you’ve taken here (and also with what "GrrlScientist"http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/ so emotively said on the day), and I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to dig up some evidence (which I plan to quote heavily in my upcoming blog post on the topic, lavishing credit upon you of course)…
except… except…
Your assertion that “it is a truth universally acknowledged amongst scientists that there is a shortage of students coming up in the system to replace them” and your testimonial that “most scientists I speak to don’t ever seem to question the assumption” both struck me as very odd.
Most scientists I speak to are keenly if not painfully aware of the post-doc glut. Some (like SciBlogCon panelist GrrlScientist) say that as long as this is the case we shouldn’t encourage more people to enter science careers when we know full well that after spending all that money to get themselves a PhD (and probably going into debt to do it), they will likely face a life of serial, poorly-paid, never-ending postdocs.
I agree with GrrlScientist in this, but I would add that I think the ultimate solution is combinatorial; we should 1) increase funding for research (rather than decrease recruitment) and 2) focus our education strategy on increasing science literacy for all, not just increasing the numbers of students entering science careers.
Together, these actions should both solve the problem of the post-doc glut and actually do something to address STEM shortfalls, and also improve overall scientific literacy.
Now if only we could somehow get it to happen.
Thanks, Cameron, that’s very interesting and I hadn’t heard about it.
Ian, thanks for citing your letter to Nature – I meant to do that in the main blog and it slipped my weary mind! Teitelbaum is an amazing speaker; I really admire him.
Brian Clegg, I think it was at SciBlog, said that the UK is short of physicists. I’m pretty sure that’s not true, based on some stats I looked up for the article I wrote for Wellcome. But I can’t find them now — Brian, I’m happy to be corrected if you can point us towards the relevant evidence.
Yet the closure of physics and chemistry departments around the UK may reflect the lack of demand.
ugh.
preview fail.
Ooo ooo! Jenny and I were commenting simultaneously!
Karen, our posts crossed.
I should perhaps say that there seems to be a bit of a temporal issue: my colleagues know the job market is tight, but they still worry about things they hear in the media about there being a risk of a future shortfall (not the same thing as a glut now). Teitelbaum’s research simply doesn’t support the doom and gloom forecasts.
I have noticed that a lot of the doom and gloom camp are older scientists, already tenured. No visceral experience, then, and perhaps, in feeling their ‘mortality’, they are like broody childless couples anxious about perpetuating their lines.
Hiya Jenny, yes, there does indeed seem to be a doom and gloom generation gap… there are also gaps between disciplines (as you touched on in your post proper) and between nations (about which I’m sure you and I could jaw at great length, preferably over beer).
p.s. I prefer the term “child free”
Heh. My bad, Karen.
I think North America (she says tactfully) is more clued in than Europe about the glut thing. Maybe it’s because the Sloan is more vocal over there about this message.
I have a feeling I will be slightly unpopular with this. Two things:
Firstly, yes – it is cruel to specifically encourage young people to take up science careers, knowing that the funding situation will lead to a shortage of science jobs for them in the end. BUT – we have to avoid sounding discouraging, too! The last thing we want to do is turn someone who is enthusiastic, bright and talented off from taking up a career in science.. or at least having a go at it!!
Secondly – and I am a little scared of saying this: didn’t we all know, even way back when we started our undergraduate degrees, that a career in science was not a sure thing? Isn’t that why some of our friends decided to study law/economics/whatever instead (the ‘safe’ option)? Didn’t we accept the risk – and didn’t we enjoy it hugely? At least that was the case for me in Germany in the 90s, and I didn’t see much difference with my friends in the UK. I have not been able to continue with science, and still, life goes on.. (quite well, actually!)
Steffi, you raise important points. But I strongly believe that a long-term career in science requires a blaze of enthusiasm and passion, and these people will self-select and find their way by definition. The issue in education is that skewing the entire science education system towards encouraging and training what will turn out to be 5% of the workforce is not fair on the other 95%, who might need a slightly different slant in the classroom.
When I was in training, the glut in my field was nowhere near as big.
a long-term career in science requires a blaze of enthusiasm and passion Sorry, you definitely forgot to mention just a little bit of luck, too.
Again, I agree with you on the unnecessary encouragement!
No, it is a requirement, but I did not mean it was the only one. Necessary but not suffiecient, as we say in biology.
Except spelled correctly! Damn.
Jenny, I agree that ‘a blaze of enthusiasm and passion’ (and a blazing talent too) is necessary for career success in science. The problem here is that it’s not sufficient.
I know an awful lot of blazing enthusiastic, passionate and talented postdocs who have tried their hardest to ‘self-select’ and ‘find their way’ but despite this they have been royally screwed over either by 1) s***ty, dishonest or downright mean supervisors and/or 2) the fact that science doesn’t always obligingly give you the sexiest possible result to every experiment (whence the sexy publication and the sexy CV).
That, and I thought the wider we decided some time ago that while natural selection is great at explaining biological diversity, it’s not so hot as a way of running our societies.
Not that I’m bitter or anything.
Oh no.
Ohmygosh. Please believe me when I tell you I had not seen Steffi and Jenny’s comments at 19:26 and 19:33 respectively when I wrote my comment at 19:44.
Damn, we’re a predictable lot, aren’t we?
Actually, you’ve got me slightly wrong, Karen. Steffi was worried about attracting people into science careers. When I said the passion is necessary, I meant that people bitten by the science bug are more likely to find their way into a PhD program without extra external encouragement. I absolutely did not want to say anything about the likelihood of their success once started. That’s an entirely different question, beyond initial education.
@Jenny – The issue in education is that skewing the entire science education system towards encouraging and training what will turn out to be 5% of the workforce is not fair on the other 95%, who might need a slightly different slant in the classroom.
I confess to being a little confused – which in itself is not uncommon. What classroom do you mean? School, UG or PG? I’m not sure who’s being over-encouraged to do science.
At UG level, most entry science degrees (I speak only for the UK) are not planning a career in research – but (hopefully) looking for a training that will serve them in a wide variety of fields. The problem is perhaps more at PhD level where, I guess, most are at least contemplating a life in research.
I’ve never felt there was a shortage of trainees. Rather (like Steffi?) I was always made aware of the narrowing of the career pyramid and the need to secure a berth before I got too long in the tooth! And yes there is a certainly a degree of luck in achieving that – so I do sympathise with Karen. Nowadays, however, I think there is a greater move to include ‘transferable skills’ in PhD training which at least flags up the notion that not all PhD graduates will end up in the lab.
At the conference I mentioned, the teaching professionals were concerned with high school curriculum. The prevailing view amongst these professionals is that training for future specialists (PhDs, future scientists) should differ a bit from what you’d offer people who want to learn about science but not be a scientist. And hasn’t the UK recently split its GCSEs to this end?
I think (and I haven’t read Jenny’s report thoroughly—it’s not yet 7 in the morning) that there’s a difference between how many scientists we want in order to create the society we dream of, and how much money there is in the pot/jobs going.
That disconnect might be what’s upsetting some folk.
Open question: at what age, on average, do students decide to become scientists, as a career choice?
Richard: exactly.
I think there might be a problem “repopulating the scientists of today” in say 20 years due to less and less high school knowledge of chemistry/math/biology and physics and less people [having a high grade PhD and] the interest to do science.
There might be a problem that the current harsh climate makes less and less (maybe?) choose these subjects as their undergrad? (I might be off here, since I haven’t gotten the latest admissions ratios from unis but I do know that the last reports I read stated that the knowledge of the first years students in c/m/b/p was lower than in many many years. And that the notion of “I earned my PhD since I worked really hard in the lab” is a quite frequent one.)
Personally, I would like to have some correlation between number of undergrads/grads/post docs and t-t-positions… since at the moment it seems a bit wasteful of money (not to mention the crushed dreams but I doubt economists will bother about that) educating all these people who later will find themselves at “whatever job you don’t need any degree in to get”.
Then again, I might be a bitter post doc too?! ;)
45.
And of course there’s the argument that the CBI wants more scientists because the ones we’ve got are crap, and they hope to get a better pool?
45.
Thanks, Richard, I can’t tell you how relieved I am to know I’ve still got 11 years to make a decision.
And of course there’s the argument that the CBI wants more scientists because the ones we’ve got are crap, and they hope to get a better pool?
I just read the excellent ‘Teitelbaum testimony’ to which Jenny links in her post, and it addresses this point directly. There’s a section explaining why special interests (mainly employers) would prefer to keep the post-doc glut situation so that they can keep wages and benefits low and still get to cherry-pick their employees. Lovely.
Open question: at what age, on average, do students decide to become scientists, as a career choice?
I decided as soon as I realised it was an option. Thanks to an amazing biology teacher, this was when I was about, ooh, 13 or 14. Before that I (rather conventionally) wanted to be a vet.
I think there might be a problem “repopulating the scientists of today” in say 20 years due to less and less high school knowledge of chemistry/math/biology and physics and less people [having a high grade PhD and] the interest to do science.
Not sure there is, in fact, any evidence to support this statement.
I think (and I haven’t read Jenny’s report thoroughly—it’s not yet 7 in the morning) that there’s a difference between how many scientists we want in order to create the society we dream of, and how much money there is in the pot/jobs going.
How many more scientists do we need? I am curious what people think. When I look around, I see an awful lot of scientists. Would we achieve a better society with more scientists, or would it be more effective to put more human and financial resources into teacher training, feeding the poor, caring for the sick and other humanitarian activities? I don’t know the answer, but I wonder, sometimes, what is more important. Maybe 5% of the workforce is enough?
Good question. No answers from me.
The prevailing view amongst these professionals is that training for future specialists (PhDs, future scientists) should differ a bit from what you’d offer people who want to learn about science but not be a scientist. And hasn’t the UK recently split its GCSEs to this end?
That’s not my understanding of the aim of the national curriculum at GCSE level (though I only speak as a parent). For sure, there was a recent move to introduce more topical (and perhaps controversial) material to try and make the subject more appealing but there is no underlying aim to direct the content to future scientists.
In any case, I feel that after UG training most students don’t have a clear idea of what doing real science is like, so they’re not necessarily in a good position to make an informed choice, even at that stage. (This was true in my case – I only contemplated a PhD rather late in the day.) I sometimes give talks to school-leavers who are thinking of coming to Imperial for UG degree course and I make the point to them that, even if they are not thinking of a research career, society is still in desperate need of a citizenry who are scientifically literate. So I don’t have a problem with selling the subject (no moral qualms at any rate!). Which is just as well, given all my other problems…
Selling science to everyone is utterly important – I completely agree, Stephen. There is apparently a feeling, at least amongst British teachers, that the current curriculum could do a better job both interesting everyone in science, and preparing the future specialists, possibly because no one is sure precisely who should be catered to and how. My teacher friend, who I mentioned in a previous post, thinks the current science GCSE is a joke – his girls finished it weeks early and had to fill up the time with science fairs and larking around with bubbles.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, but most people who do PhDs aren’t going to end up as scientists. A PhD is a sort of “union card” saying you’ve done the first bit of becoming a scientist and are “eligible” for postdoc jobs (“further training and experience”).
Speaking as a former Dept Postgrad Tutor, what science PhDs do if you don’t become a scientist is make you employable. Loads of PhDs who don’t become scientists get non-science jobs in “science related” industries where a knowledge of how science works is required (medical and technical writing and editing being one example). Others go to non-science related areas where the “transferable skills” (yuck – how I loathe that term) that they have acquired via doing a PhD are valued. I’m thinking analysing problems, finding and assimilating info, sifting data, writing, blah blah blah. [And also showing you can carry a large task through to some kind of completion.]
In essence, doing a PhD can be about discovering you do want to be a scientist, or discovering that you don’t. Either is fine, as far as I can see.
You do have a point, Austin, but it should be noted that a PhD takes (in some countries) up to six years of your life, and many PhDs who don’t end up pursuing research subsequently end up at the bottom of the ladder in jobs that didn’t require that degree. Six years is a long time to miss out on accumulating a pension, savings, perhaps buying a house. So, okay, those PhDs who got enticed into the PhD programs because they thought they could run a lab will end up being employable in other jobs, but it’s not necessarily the fairest or most efficient way to set them off in life.
I was going to make a similar point to Austin’s. What to me is a or the main issue is that of education. Not enough people are choosing science as an undergraduate degree. In the UK, every year, basic science courses (I exclude medicine and psychology) are abundant in clearing, because everyone who isn’t doing humanities is going for media, business and other “meta” subjects. (Languages suffer a similar fate.) Universities are facing choices such as closing down science departments because they don’t get enough applications for degrees, or lowering the entrance standards more than they’d like, or other “solutions”.
Like Stephen I can only write as a parent so far as high school scientific education is concerned but I think it is woefully lacking in encouraging and showing students what a fascinating subject this is. (My parent experience involves an excellent grammar and science-specialist school, as well as hearing parents of students at other local schools say similar things.) The curriculum and teaching is so impoverished, eg how many times have my daughters been taught the same topic in each “module” (key stage 1, 2, 3, GCSE), essentially the same way and same perspective, with little flexibility or imagination, or actually introducing new topics for a change?
Whether or not there are too many people who want to pursue a research career for the amount of positions available, a scientifically trained person has so much choice of stimulating, rewarding and progressive career (including business, media, IT, finance, and pretty much everything else). I just wish that more students at high schools could be taught in some more imaginitive way (and by people who are themselves better scientifically qualified in many cases) so that more people “at the young end” are attracted to scientific education to a higher level than they are currently. After that, the world is their oyster even if they don’t go into scientific research (and of course they can always switch in and out if they like, as their education and experiences will allow this, following the excellent example of the author of this blog!).
Jenny – as I think I mentioned at SciBlog, I am taking a wider picture of physicists than just those doing research. It is definitely the case that there is a shortage of physicists in schools – and without those we will eventually run out of the ‘real’ ones too.
Brian – I was referring to PhD researchers, which physics teachers by and large are not and never were – so that explains our disagreement. Thanks for the clarification. For clarity, my entire post (and my comments on the SciBlog panel) referred to the perceived shortage of scientists, not roles that involve having a science background.
Maxine, again I agree in part. But it is not so easy for a 28-year-old former post-doc to sit next to a 21-year-old with an undergraduate degree at an editorial assistant desk earning the exact same salary (e.g. £18,000 pa). If that person never intends to handle manuscripts, but would prefer to be a publisher or marketeer one day, a 6-year PhD is entirely unnecessary. Yes, it provides benefits and transferable skills, but it also an incredible sacrifice to make. All I am saying is that it is not fair to entice people in with promises of jobs when, for some, they’d rather know six years before that their dreams are untenable, and get on with their lives in a career that does not require that sacrifice.
Jenny I admire, but do not share, your Stalinist principles! Not everyone runs their life according to a five or six-year plan ;-)
And, anyway, coping with mistakes is a great life-lesson. My own life is made up of a series of errors joined together with thin strands of post-facto rationalisation!
I am entering this thread late, so although I have read the post and comments fairly carefully, I could well be repeating other comments. I think we are discussing two quite different topics: 1) what are the prospects for careers in professional science in the developed world? (well atleast in the USA and UK), and 2) what is the general role of a scientific education from high school upwards?
The answer to the first point is that it has always been hard to get permanent positions in Science and yes inspiration, perspiration and serendipity (couldn’t think of a suitable -ation) all play a part. I certainly didn’t get the first academic post I applied for. However, this is also true of most professional academic positions, there certainly isn’t a glut of positions to be filled in History, Classics, Languages or any other of the humanities and arts. When was the last time we heard of a crisis in the lack of historians? There are of course some “niche” exceptions such as the lack of modern language teachers in the UK school system but that may be because teaching as a profession is not currently attractive. Although Titelbaum’s testimony is interesting and presents a conspiracy theory viewpoint, he also represents an interest group; although he denies he is expressing the view of the Sloan foundation his final statement is “A second promising approach is to improve the direct connections between science employers and universities offering graduate science degrees. This is one of the fundamental elements of the Professional Science Masters degree programs that the Sloan Foundation has …” (The link terminates at this point).
The second issue – whether science education is adequate in high school – is also very important. Most comments here are from an English and possibly London perspective. Although I too am a parent with High School educated kids, I have opted to pay for them to be educated outside the State Sector. For me, a sound grounding in science and the scientific method is a crucial part of a complete education and is an important part of western culture. The key problem is that many influential people do not see it this way. A very interesting, and I suspect influential to what is likely to be the next UK administration, point of view is in this column by Simon Jenkins. If many of “The Great and The Good” view science in schools from this point of view, then ther could be trouble ahead.
@Austin – “transferable skills” (yuck – how I loathe that term)
Hear, Hear. We did used to have a perfectly serviceable word for that. I think it was education…
Brian – you’re absolutely right that Jenkins’ article is troublesome. I remember being incensed by it at the time and commented (as scww) on the Guardian’s web-site at the time:
’What specious nonsense from Simon Jenkins. His resorting to tarring scientists and their defenders as backwoodsmen and fundamentalist suggests that he might vaguely be aware of the weakness of his argument.
This planet is crying out for people who can rigorously sift information, draw appropriate conclusions and design ways of testing them. The scientific method is by far the best way that humankind has devised for this task. It is this above all that should be taught in schools. What a shame that Simon Jenkins prefers a bit of polemic to a real quest for truth.’
Interesting report from the OECD on the topic of education.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Education at a Glance report shows the UK to be performing well in terms of the number of science graduates it turns out, degree completion rates and its ability to attract foreign students, with the UK coming second to the US as a choice for international students. According to the report, the UK has the sixth highest number of science graduates per 100,000 25-34 year-olds in work.
Summary of the report
Original report
It’s fun to make mistakes and move through professions in the wrong order – Maxine is correct about my personal case. But I couldn’t afford to start a pension until I was 36. If you look at the projections of how much I will accumulate there after tax, it is not enough to live on. This deeply worries me. I have no deep savings or other investments. A PhD is akin to medical school or other long-term trainings: it is intended to culminate in high-tier professional job that can provide long-term security; otherwise, it is a risky strategy to delay earning enough money to put some aside for retirement.
I may be having fun now, flexing my transferable skills, but I still don’t know what will become of me when I am 65. I don’t know what will become of me when my post-doctoral fellowship runs out in 2010. This also deeply worries me.
Just to clarify, my comments about education are gleaned from the global conference I attended. If these delegates weren’t wholly representative, I can’t discern this.
Teaching the scientific method and critical thinking in schools would be one of the most beneficial curricula I could think of. Unfortunately many curricula fail to do that, according to these same delegates.
Well, Stephen and Brian do make excellent points. (Brian, UK yes; London not entirely; state sector yes but as mentioned, including an excellent grammar school with “science specialist” status with associated spanking new labs etc).
PhDs can take a long time, as you say Jenny, and don’t involve much in the way of pay – but on the other hand, students are doing something they love: it is a vocational occupation, of great intellectual interest to the person, and allows a lot of freedom of time to pursue other interests, and so on, compared with what many wage slaves are experiencing in their 20s (little freedom, hardly any holiday, wear suit and short haircut ;-), dull job in order to build career, etc).
I certinly agree with Brian that there are lots of people with academic qualifications in all disciplines (not just scientific) who would love to be doing PhDs, academic research and so on, but can’t as there aren’t the positions. So they end up behind the till in WHSmith (as is the case for a charming, bright person I know with a first and subsequent higher degree from Cambridge in a humanities discipline).
Jenny, your point about the salary not being in accordance with experience: of course I understand and sympathise with your point but life is unfair, there are more people doing jobs they don’t like, are overqualified for, than who are doing jobs they love and that stretch them to achieve more and reward them accordingly, whatever the walk of life. That is sad but true. Further, of course, people get promotions and rewards for all sorts of reasons, eg being good at playing politics, rather than straightforward merit. There are also plenty of overqualified “jobsworths” around who don’t deserve promotion. It seems impossible to generalise, but let’s hope your skilled, wise postdoc in your example is justly recognised by the employer as being suitable for a fast track to a more senior position at the journal.
My general view is that I think that if more people studied the natural sciences (including mathematics) and then went on to do almost anything, society would benefit across the board, compared with an over-representation in companies, organisations, etc of people “qualified” in media, marketing et al. But who knows if I’m right, I could be deluding myself.
(Oh and don’t get me on the social workers!)
Jenny, our comments crossed. Like you, I couldn’t afford a pension until I was almost 30. I also made the tactical error, finance-wise, of aquiring 2.4 dependants relatively late in life. This is why I am still working at the age of 151 ;-)
Seriously, the pensions issue is worth a whole other thread of ramifications, though not terribly scientific I suppose.
It all comes down to money. If we want better science teachers, we have to pay them more money. End of.
The best science teachers are stuck if the curriculum is
shitedross, though.(Which is the main reason why I don’t want to be a teacher. School seems to designed to squish natural scientific inqusitiveness).
I think that to address the perceived lack of scientists, or the threat of a lack of scientists in the future, is putting the
unicycle on top of the girrafecart before the horse. Reading all these comments, I think that we have two problems1. The difficulty of attracting science teachers of sufficient quality, irrespective of the subsequent careers of their charges.
2. The problems of the career structure of scientsis, especially at postoc level, which is inimical to a settled life and causes problems later with respect to things like pension provision.
I think that there is a lack of science teachers, especially in physics, and this relates to topics such as supply of and demand for suitable courses at undergraduate level. One could argue that decline at the lower levels will result in their being an undersupply of scientists at higher levels in the future, whatever the situation is like now.
The career structure of scientists in academia is a scandal. However, scientists in industry have normal jobs like anyone else, and whether or not there is a shortage of scientists in industry as opposed to academia is really a separate question. One should not confuse one with the other.
I also think I should mention a problem that I, and other PhD’d colleagues looking for jobs outside of research, have experienced: the PhD can actually scare off prospective employers. I was told by two that they would have liked to hire me from the shortlist but I was overqualified with a PhD and they couldn’t pay me what they thought I was worth. When I told them I’d take a pay cut, they still declined because they worried I wouldn’t be ‘fulfilled’ and would leave quickly.
I always follow up when I am not asked to interview. On the dole in Amsterdam, the local job center required I apply for one job a week. I was not invited to scores of interviews because of the damning PhD on my CV.
I’ve enjoyed reading this post and the comments, there’s certainly lots of food for thought.
Perhaps I can offer an alternative perspective: I was that “21-year-old with an undergraduate degree at an editorial assistant desk” (although I would have been ecstatic if I could have earned £18,000 straight out of university). Having thoroughly enjoyed my undergraduate degree I thought long and hard about doing a PhD, but doing even an MSc would have rinsed me of at least £12,000 and, as Jenny points out, I would have been no more qualified to do the job I find myself in.
A considerable proportion of my friends from my undergraduate days have ended up in science-based careers (public health being the main example), but without needing to do a PhD. Others have gone into accountancy, for example, where the analytical skills learnt during an undergraduate science degree have served them well.
I would say that educating more people in science subjects at A level and undergraduate level can only benefit society as a whole. On the other hand, said undergraduates should appreciate that there are many things they can do with their science degree aside from lab research, and this message was pretty muted at my university (medicine or a PhD was the mantra).
The PhD and postdoc system does seem primed to let a lot of people down unfortunately. Someone must surely be enthusiastic about their subject in order to study all the way to postdoc level, and to have such an uncertain career future at the end must be very disappointing.
Helen, I couldn’t agree more: thanks for you perspective on good reasons to avoid a PhD. This is more or less what I’ve picked up from my other colleagues in publishing.
Except those who want to handle manuscripts at a senior level, of course, where a PhD is probably essential.
Except those who want to handle manuscripts at a senior level, of course, where a PhD is probably essential.
The funny thing is that it used not to be, but now is.
Back in the Cretaceous Period, when I joined Nature (let alone the Triassic Period, when Dr M. C. of Kingston-upon-Thames joined Nature) there were several senior members of staff who didn’t have PhDs, including the Biology Editor, the Deputy Biology Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. I didn’t have a Ph.D. when I joined (I was still writing up). These days, a typical new recruit will not only have a Ph.D., but will also have done one or more postdoc stints.
This could say something about the slow transformation of editorial work from the genetleman-amateur to the professional. But it could also reflect the increasing problems that postdocs have in finding work in science.
I wonder if it’s any coincidence that the proportion of women in scientific editorial work is higher than the proportion of women in academic science, particularly at the professorship level.
I think it also reflects both the “qualification inflation” observed in all walks of life, and the dreaded “general dumbing down”, Henry. Both of these, I would suggest, inevitably go hand-in-hand with big increases in access.
A final possible effect is the increased specialisation of the burgeoning scientific literature, and the increased “techy-ness” of papers. When we try to pick research papers for final yr B.Sc. bioscience students to interpret (either as learning or exam exercises), a common problem is that modern bioscience papers are now very methodologically “heavy” (multiple methods, jargon rich descriptions). This tends to mean that the students simply can’t get past the methods to proper critiqueing of the “results and underlying scientific method”.
One solution to this is to cut the papers heavily, or just use excerpts. But another is to delve back 30-odd years into the literature to when papers more commonly used a single method, and thus were heavier on (or at least most clearly centred around) “step-by-step testing of a series of successive hypotheses”. This kind of literature might also have required a slightly different kind of general journal editor…
I wonder if it’s any coincidence that the proportion of women in scientific editorial work is higher than the proportion of women in academic science, particularly at the professorship level.
I doubt it is a coincidence, Henry, though have no facts to back me up. But the number of times that I, as a female editor, was disparaged by male scientist clients (typically, rejected authors, but also referees whose opinions were overturned) as “a failed scientist”, was above background noise.
The customer is always right, but I always had to resist the urge to call them “failed editors”. I hated the implication that the editorial profession was something a “failed scientist” would go into by default, and not a parallel, highly skilled profession in its own right. Though truth be told, the appellation of “failed scientist” might not be completely off the mark for many women. The question is, was it their fault they failed in all cases?
Though truth be told, the appellation of “failed scientist” might not be completely off the mark for many women. The question is, was it their fault they failed in all cases?
Clearly not. On ‘Big Bang Day’, the BBC devoted most of its schedule to science. Women’s Hour was very instructive, and went into some detail about the reasons why women tend to drop out of science somewhere in the postdoc stage. It all comes down to the coincidence of the most challenging part of a scientific career, in terms of working hard to establish oneself and being prepared to move continents at the drop of a hat, with peak childbearing years. A female physics PhD student who was interviewed reckoned that men were more willing to delay such life decisions than women were, and that the reasons were purely biological.
This leads to a conundrum. On the one hand, we are told that there should be no difference between women and men with respect to employment, and legislation exists to enforce this (even though it is still widely flouted, I believe). On the other hand, no amount of agit-prop can remove the fact that men and women differ profoundly as regards reproductive biology, such that women are forced to make difficult reproductive choices before the issue becomes critical for men. The fact that the critical period for these choices coincides with the critical period for establishing a career in research — between, say, the ages of 25 and 35 — inevitably means that it will be very much harder for women than men to continue a research career.
I think the only solution (and it is more in the way of a stop-gap than a real solution) is for universities to do as much as they can to offer joint employment for couples as well as singles, and look even more seriously than they are at childcare and educational needs for the offspring of scientists in their care.
It’s not just women, either. I was finishing my Ph.D. when employment prospects for palaeontologists were, if anything, even worse than they are now. Colleagues immediately senior to m were on the dole or doing really low-paid curatorial work. I decided that this really wasn’t for me. The reason? I felt I deserved better. Perhaps if more potential postdocs stood up for themselves … ah, no. It’ll never happen.
“the number of times that I, as a female editor, was disparaged by male scientist clients (typically, rejected authors, but also referees whose opinions were overturned) as “a failed scientist”, was above background noise.”
You weren’t tempted to observe that “failed scientist” would also be a way to describe someone whose paper was being rejected, Jennifer?
In a slightly similar vein, “failed scientist” is also a description one hears within academia (and used by the research-focussed) to describe those whose careers come to focus more on teaching than on research. This usually happens in the run-up to the Research Assessment Exercise.
I wonder if it’s any coincidence that the proportion of women in scientific editorial work is higher than the proportion of women in academic science, particularly at the professorship level.
Hmmm… I’m moving into Project Management/Administration (for a
shittylow wage, so I’m not one of DC’s hated “failed postdocs being paid a faculty salary”), and most of my coworkers are women with PhDs. Same was true when I interviewed at Nature Neuroscience a few weeks ago…funny innit?@Henry, Maxine, Austin, and Steven: thanks for your great comments!!!
@Jennifer: I can’t quite follow you. Are you happy or not that you got another shot at a science career? And were you happy or not to have a go at being in science publishing?..
….less and less high school knowledge of chemistry/math/biology and physics and less people [having a high grade PhD and] the interest to do science.
Not sure there is, in fact, any evidence to support this statement.
Jenny> I’ve been trying quick to finds a link in Enlgish to back my statement up. I will continue to look over the weekend. The reason I stated it, is because the “first level uni classes” in Chem/math/physics have had entry tests preformed before the classes start the last few years in Sweden and the students do worse than the years before – indicating less skills and knowledge.
I know there have been comparisons to other countries as well but I couldn’t find any English links right now. I’ll keep looking or else I guess it’s just declining in Sweden – if that’s the only place I can back up with data and evaluations.
I have one link here about the testing of skills in general at least… and PISA would be my next choice to look into.
That happened a few years ago in the UK. Cambridge gave their new physics undergrads the screening test from 1973 and everyone failed it.
@Austin – You weren’t tempted to observe that “failed scientist” would also be a way to describe someone whose paper was being rejected, Jennifer?
I’m sure Jenny is too nice to have had that thought. In any case, rejection and failure are part and parcel of the life of all regular scientists (even the ones who are not failing).
It is a funny old career that we have chosen for ourselves – so full of uncertainties, as some of Jenny’s comments above have so candidly stated (I applaud your frankness). I think we all share doubts and fears of one sort or another, about career choices, promotion, grant applications, being scooped – I know I do. One of the great things about this network is the supportive environment which allows them to be aired. And I guess our awareness of the pitfalls should make us mindful of the advice we give to those contemplating a career in science.
If it’s any consolation to anybody at all, ’twas ever thus. I remember an anecdote of Carl Sagan. He recalled that when he was a small child, his grandpa would sit him down and ask:
“Well, young Carl, what do you want to be when you grow up?”
“I want to be an astronomer, grandpa,” the precocious kermit-impersonator replied.
“Sure,” said grandpa, “but what will you do for a living?”
I adopt a similar tactic when Gee Minor and Gee Minima express a desire to become palaeontologists like their dear old Dad. And, oy, look what happened to him!
@Jennifer: I can’t quite follow you. Are you happy or not that you got another shot at a science career? And were you happy or not to have a go at being in science publishing?..
Steffi, you are probably confused because, in this post, I am trying to speak generally, and not for myself. I am definitely not the sort of person I’ve been referring to who should not have got a PhD or taken a crack at a research career. I am the exception to the phenomenon I am trying to explore here.
But since you ask…The short answer is: I’ve gone back to research because I want to, with partial regrets that I left it for a while. The regrets stem from the fact that it’s pretty clear that if I had not left research for publishing, I would now probably have my own lab. It is also pretty clear that my chances of achieving this now are slim. I would still like to succeed. If I don’t, however, I can probably find a job doing something else — at least I dearly hope so.
Stephen – you are right. Thanks to all for being so constructive and helpful in this thread.
Thanks Jennifer – yes, the different viewpoints definitely seemed to blend together and had me confused.
Concerning having your own lab and your career advancement – I think Maxine made the best point that life is unfair. I do understand you completely, though, and can relate to what’s going on. A bunch of my friends and myself have had much the same experiences as you in many instances (e.g. the PhD making you ‘overqualified’ – a favourite!).
This has turned into a very personal blog entry; thanks for raising some points that really concern a lot of us. I think the main thing it shows is that we ALL try to make the best out of the chances we’re given (or find for ourselves – it’s a bit of both, isn’t it), and that there’s always an element of uncertainty about having made the ‘right’ choice. And no guarantee of success!
Very true. (By the way, all my blog posts are very personal, which I think is the essence of blogging!)
A female physics PhD student who was interviewed reckoned that men were more willing to delay such life decisions than women were, and that the reasons were purely biological.
I wanted to touch on Henry’s point, above. When I was in the Netherlands, I heard a talk by a sociologist who’d done some studies on the attrition of women in science. To be sure, the Netherlands is a bit of a special case, in that seventy per cent of women work part-time (because they bear the brunt of child-bearing duties), and also the academic system is extremely sexist. Nevertheless, the studies revealed a third reason, which is that a career in science is bloody hard work and women are less wiling than men to sacrifice an enjoyable lifestyle — they are too sensible to want to beat their heads against the wall.
I think there might be something in this, even outside of the Nether Regions.
Quite.
science is bloody hard work and women are less wiling than men to sacrifice an enjoyable lifestyle
There is a lot of sense in that… it’s a point my wife has been trying to drum into me for many a year but I’m too thick to get it.
Oh, generalizations are so tricky. Since when is trying to have a successful career outside of science less work?
There is also, of course, the idea that some people like doing bench research but specifically don’t want to be a PI, in the rat-race-y sense of “being a 24/7 fund raiser, delegating all the bench work to other people, becoming a scientist trainer/manager/schmoozer”.
This certainly used to be possible in the US, even in Universities, and I do know at least one 60 yr old (in effect) postdoc.. and also a 45 yr old part-time female lab manager / senior postdoc, now I come to think of it. These people are career experimenters but never wanted to be a PI.
However, I think that the jobs you can do this in were never all that common, and are now vanishingly scarce, as the biz becomes increasingly/exclusively
“PI by 35 (40 at the absolute latest)… or bust.”
Since when is trying to have a successful career outside of science less work?
Having compared notes with colleagues of many professions, science (PI level) does seem to score quite highly on hours-per-week and in overall uncertainty about persistence options. I think it would be a bit coy to deny this.
Not trying to be coy. Fact is, there are a LOT of other professions out there that, at a PI-equivalent or higher level, have a high workload – and a ton of responsibility – outside of science. And a lot of women do those (I happen to know quite a few). So I don’t think the argument made by the Dutch sociologist, ‘women are less willing than men to sacrifice an enjoyable lifestyle’ is all that useful for explaining the smaller numbers of women in advanced science careers.
Anyway, we should probably move back on topic and not make this another ‘women in science’ conversation?..
@Austin – yes, I know a few ‘mature post docs’ in the US as well (in marine science). Just a little bit of teaching, and mostly active research. Quite enviable!
@Austin: I have a few friends who’ve taken this path. They love “doing” science, but can’t/won’t be PI. So they’ve gone for perma-doc technician/research assoc. posts. Lots of experiments, decent salary & 40hrs/week! Sounds heavenly… :)
So I don’t think the argument made by the Dutch sociologist, ‘women are less willing than men to sacrifice an enjoyable lifestyle’ is all that useful for explaining the smaller numbers of women in advanced science careers.
Why not? I could turn that around and say it could actually explain why there are fewer women in higher/prestigious levels of many professions, not just science.
women are less wil[l]ing than men to sacrifice an enjoyable lifestyle
I could not agree less with this comment.
In particular, after having children, it is female parents who sacrifice far more than male parents for the next 18 years, in the main. (As discussed on Nature Network pretty extensively).
It is very hard and demanding work being a PI, I agree (I live with one so see it at first hand). But it is also damned hard work doing a lot of other jobs too (and not being as well paid).
I suggest that this type of points-scoring is silly. Loads of people work incredibly hard in pressured jobs and are stressed-out, loads of people “enjoy a lifestyle” and swan about. And all points inbetween. Male and female in both cases.
I agree mostly, Maxine. I wish I could put my hands on that Dutch study though (of women from a number of European countries) – it was really intriguing. But it seems to be offline now.
I do think there is something, though, about women being perhaps slightly less willing to subject themselves to a lot of crap, especially when they get a bit older. I see this as an intelligence, not as a defect! But that’s just my own personal, unscientific observation.
Hah. I’ve always claimed women are smarter than men. Live longer, too.
There have been a couple of studies reported recently in EMBO journal or reports, which as they are published by NPG I captured on Nautlius. There are quite a few relevant links there tagged with careers tag.
It is a worthy goal to try to study these social trends but the number of variables of all kinds must make it nigh on impossible to be quantitative about it. Apologies for having strayed rather off-topic of the original post. With comment threads as long as yours ;-), it is sometimes the case that one gets buried in the conversation from six or so comments up, rather than remembering the context of the post. Apols again.
I think people apologize too much about going off topic. I see blogs, especially these ‘social’-type blogs, as a down the pub conversation rather than a scholarly discussion, and comment hijacking is to be welcomed.
That of course does not preclude serious discussions.
Thanks, Richard – but I sensed I had strayed from “off topic” to “recurrent rant” so I thought I’d better bow out.
I am not sure if these EMBO studies are the Dutch ones, but they were very big, and quite recent.
Feel free to rant in a reoccurring manner – I, at least, am too time-poor to read more than a handful of blogs, so chances are it’s new to me.
Off-topicness is a hallmark of this blog and I welcome all comments, no matter how quirky, tangential or irreverent.
Thanks for that link, Maxine: I shall rummage around in due course!
Thanks for your gracious response, Jenny.
One of the Nature Network discussions I was thinking of is this one, about women and “title IX”, i.e. legalized positive discrimination, started by Heather Buschman.
My own personal rss! Thanks, Maxine. This is the sort of aggregation I can actually handle.
I wanted to respond to something Ian said: @Austin: I have a few friends who’ve taken this path. They love “doing” science, but can’t/won’t be PI. So they’ve gone for perma-doc technician/research assoc. posts. Lots of experiments, decent salary & 40hrs/week! Sounds heavenly… :)
There aren’t that many positions like that in Britain, but it seems like the sort of role that would be good for science. It’s good to have a permanent lab member who is extremely experienced and who can perhaps contribute on a higher level than a tech. I wonder why it isn’t encouraged more?
That’s the kind of position I have (“chargé de recherche”)- although I do aspire to a “directeur de recherche” position. (More about the possibilities here in French.)
There is also “ingénieur de recherche” for the bright technician career-path people (you can do that up to and including a Ph.D. level degree, too). I can’t say enough for these options, especially as they seem to be very much under threat recently. This is by downsizing the direct hiring at “chargé de recherche” level by such administrations as my own (INSERM) while simultaneously increasing employment offers at the university with the explicit idea stated by someone very close to the source that any non financially self-sustaining researchers can reconvert themselves into teachers.
My concern is that the French system tries to turn itself into a copy of the successful American biomedical system in the vain hope that imitation of recruitment practices will breed similar success. Alternative models are worth keeping, especially as there is only correlation and not causality between the fact that in English-speaking countries, most publicly funded researchers participate (willingly or not) in university life, and that English articles dominate documented progress in science. Grr.
Well, the American system does allow for ‘super-techs’ (long-serving staff, with or without PhD who do independent research, publish etc.). We had one in the lab where I did my PhD and he was absolutely brilliant — postdocs come and go, but Lyle was always there to provide continuity. And he worked 9-5, which I always envied!
“Reconvert themselves into teachers” – sounds ominous, but on the other hand, I don’t think you can do that in the British or American system. That could be a good option – well, better than flipping burgers.
The reason why the “super-tech” positions don’t exist in the UK system any more is down to money, and how it is disbursed. The old version of these people (“Experimental Officers”) were employed directly by the Univs on something approximating postdoc scales. Of course, if you got rid of these people you could use that same money to hire junior faculty who would write grants and potentially earn the Univ more money.
This was very much the philosophy in the UK Univs from the late 80s on. Why have centrally-funded technicians, goes the argument, when the same money can hire PIs who should “earn” technician posts back on grants.
The upshot, of course, was a drastic decline in the no. of technicians in most labs over the course of the 90s and the almost total disappearance of Experimental Officers / super-techs. The only place you find such folk now in the UK is running centralised facilities, e.g. an EM unit.
So that explains why there aren’t any technicians at all in this building! (except one or two here and there) I have never understood this. It made no economic sense – why have postdocs doing chores that someone with an undergrad degree could handle (and probably much better?)? But now it’s all clear.
It’s really a pity.
So that explains why there aren’t any technicians at all in this building! (except one or two here and there) I have never understood this. It made no economic sense – why have postdocs doing chores that someone with an undergrad degree could handle (and probably much better?)? But now it’s all clear.
And we come full circle to my argument.
The US system almost caters for this class of perma-doc, but not quite. Instead we have an incredibly abusive system where highly trained & motivated people with PhDs are essentially forced to keep working the (often shitty) lives of postdocs: terrible pay, long hours, few if any benefits.
It’s much cheaper & more convenient to keep someone on as a postdoc than it is to promote them to staff scientist/RA etc., hence a number of my former-postdoc friends now working technician posts. And given the nature of A) the job market & B) the attitude towards non-traditional careers being failure there are tens of thousands of postdocs stuck in this position.
I actually believe that there are too many scientists. Each time a student asks me what he should do, my answer is anything but science! It is sad, but it’s the truth. I didn’t really know what I was getting into, and during my first postdoc I wanted out. So I went to get an MBA. But years later, I am still in academe. I must say that I am lucky enought to climb the academic ladder but that may not last and I am still dying for a non-science job. It is just too hard out there…
I don’t want to discourage, but only a few scientist will achieve a decent life, doing science. For the rest, it is necessary to find a way out and stop the ‘postdoc’ never ending miserable life.
That is a real and serious responsibility for those of us in a mentoring position: to realistically depict the entire potential job path for the young people who think, “she did it, therefore so can I.” My own employment struggles are still recent enough that it is possible to back up my assertion that it’s as tough a world within as without the ivory tower, and particularly in breaking the door down to the second floor. Result: none of the very young people (high school and college) who have come through my lab on internships have oriented towards science, and I like to push the more senior, but not stably employed, people out of their comfort zone by asking them if they’ve applied to jobs in industry or in other interests altogether. Not to mention other countries. My last postdoc did both (industry and abroad).
Motivation is key, and you only really know how much someone wants something under adverse conditions.
We’ve been interviewing lots of candidates recently, from undergrad interns through to post-docs, and I have to say I’ve noticed lots of ambivalence. Most people aren’t saying, ‘yes, I want to be a lab head and win the Nobel.’ Instead, they are vague, ambivalent, not quite sure what lies out there. They like science but don’t necessarily want to research for life. So the message of job instability might be filtering down somehow. Which I suppose is a good thing.
For them as people, if not in the short term for science.
Again, I think there are enough bright sparks to repopulate the system. Let the ambivalent ones drift into other useful science-related jobs. I reckon everything will still be in balance.
Instead, they are vague, ambivalent, not quite sure what lies out there. They like science but don’t necessarily want to research for life
well, that’s maybe more of a “realistic” way of life today though? Or maybe it is counter productive since my guess is that you have to be very determined and actively seek out the things that make you an independent PI?
Jenny> sorry, haven’t had the time to find any links about the ‘drop in knowledge in math/science’ but when I do, I’ll put it here or on lablit or so…
Thanks Asa. I think you are right, that modern life engenders uncertainty. Our parents had jobs for life, but our generation is expected to – what are the figures? – change several times over the course of the lifetime. Nothing feels like forever any more.
I mentioned that I was happy to stay here, loyalty for loyalty and I got funny looks. “But, you have to move in your position”…
unless there’s a ceiling, no you don’t.
The trick is probably realizing that you don’t “have to” do anything.
which is one of the things I’m hoping to prove with the new job! I don’t have to do anything, and (within reason) I can do anything I want.
Well you might have to do something, otherwise they won’t pay you…
And you know what?
100. Had to be done.
Do you always hit the mark?
My aim’s getting better.
Let the ambivalent ones drift into other useful science-related jobs.
Can I please contest the use of the word drift? :-)
Seriously, I put a lot of effort into identifying the non-research career I wanted, and then in working towards it while still in the lab. (Although my first non-research job wasn’t optimal, it helped me to get the current one, which is much much better).
And I know I’m not alone… have you checked out the Alternative Scientist blog to which I contribute? There are a lot of people out there who are looking to plan their escape from the lab.
This post in particular is (more or less) relevant to (parts of) this comment thread.
Sorry, Cath; in the use of ‘drift’ I was referring specifically to that class of folk we’ve been seeing in our interviews: they really have no idea and are doing a science degree to ‘see what happens’ – quite literally. It might be a British undergrad thing, I don’t know. But it’s a very real subpopulation.
The trick is probably realizing that you don’t “have to” do anything
wow. I am not sure that one has sunk in… I think that leaves me a little scared? hesitant?
I guess though, that for the first time this realisation comes along you go quite scared. Like some of the undergrads when they realise that uni is over, they have a degree and then they have to decide what they want.
you know, the moon in the lap and all….
@Jenny: Oh I definitely know that that attitude exists. It’s just not ubiquitous!
Not in your country, anyway.
wow. I am not sure that one has sunk in… I think that leaves me a little scared? hesitant?
Realizing this is one of the most liberating things that has happened to me, but it didn’t properly kick in until I was about 35 and circumstances forced me to stare it in the face.
Re. “Supertechs”. Since the change in employment law that restricted fixed-term contracts, we do have more of these positions (well, in the MRC anyway). In MRC-speak they are Senior Investigative Scientists or SIS. Lower pay band than PIs but higher than a regular postdoc.
I’d have had to get one of those ‘tech’ positions if I were to stay on at the MRC-LMB any longer than I did (and the boss wanted me to). That change in the law really burned me, and the LMB, actually.
Jenny: I guess it could be liberating…. the planned part of me is just a bit – ehh… hesitant at the moment – but in theory I agree completely.
Perhaps the EU’s thinking on that law was that if a company doesn’t respect you enough to create permanent positions for you, would you really want to work there anyway?
Works for a company, yes. But not academentia.
Hi Jenny, great post.
re: Brian Cleggs comments at sciblog, if I remember correctly I think they were something along the lines of:
the world needs less biologists and more physicists, engineers, chemists and mathematicians
So whether we need more or less scientists in general is perhaps way too broad a question, demand in different disciplines will vary greatly, don’t you think?
That’s exactly what I said in my post, Duncan, but I want to stress, as I also mentioned, that there is no hard evidence for a lack of any scientists except engineers.
As Brian said in his comment, he wasn’t referring to scientists per say in the hard sciences, but people who know about hard scientists (e.g. teachers).
you don’t “have to” do anything
Unless I misunderstand this comment somehow, it is quite simply wrong, at least in the case of postdocs in the UK/US/Aus system.
You do indeed have to do something, because your job is going to disappear with the fellowship or grant in 2-5 years. You can hop from postdoc to postdoc, but it’s not much of a life, or you can try to climb the faculty foodchain (as per Ian above and elsewhere, good luck with that) or you can fail miserably as a scientist and as a human being leave the lab. In any case, you have to do something.
(Bah, forgot that html doesn’t work here. (Whyyyyyy?)
“fail miserably… lab” was supposed to be struck through — and I should probably add, intent being harder to convey in text than in person, that I meant to parody not propagate that attitude.)
Baal’s Bollocks! “fail… being” should have been struck out.
Heh. Hi Bill, great entrance into my salon. Strikeouts are
xin this universe.Meanwhile, you have misunderstood me completely. Sorry for the confusion: what I was trying to say is that we, as free-thinking people, do not have to fulfill the roles that society/others/peers/the previous generation expects. For example, when I was a PhD student in America, it was ‘understood’ that doing a postdoc in Europe ’wouldn’t count’, and that working in industry would ‘ruin my career’. I said ‘sod it’ to both and did what I wanted, to good effect. It was also understood that if I left science for publishing, I couldn’t go back. Also false. The point I was trying to make is that you don’t have to follow a path dictated by convention or precedence or peer pressure: you can make your own way. If that means not going into research at all, then so be it. I didn’t actually grok that until very recently.
Damn. That is dashWORDdash.
It is interesting to see the discussion in what is mostly a life-science thread on careers. I have noticed of late that, at least in UK Russel group/Oxbridge universities that aspire to being research leaders, PI level seems to be attained later in the biological sciences than in the physical sciences. It also seems to me that in both strands of science the average age of appointment has slipped by about 5 years since I started up the greasy pole many moons ago.
In the good old days you served one or two Post-docs and the had a go at permanent positions with a view to getting in before you were too old at 30 (yes this was quite a long time ago). Now (in materials science) age sets in at 35+, unless you are the holder of a prestigious(ish) fellowship.
I have had a reasonable number of my PhD students and/or postdocs get permanent positions (some more deserving than others). My analysis of their secrets are: work hard and publish as much as possible early in your career, do not be afraid to change research topic with changing jobs, stay at highly rated institutions and under no circumstances take a job at a historically teaching only institution as a “stop-gap”, and most importantly – get lucky.
Now that I have softened you up with promises of future glory, I have three post-doc openings in my group. I will post the official advert link as soon as they are on jobs.ac.uk.
I am not sure this has been discussed, but what about the responsibility of funding agencies. For instance the NIH come up with guidelines according to which postdocs should be paid. First of, these guidelines are hardly enforced and most institution pay even less. Second, if these salaries were higher, PIs would focus on training fewer postdocs. Some labs are manufactures really, where there is 1 PI with a permanent position and 20 postdocs cranking like crazy on their projects.
I think that if guidelines would be more in favor of postdocs, then there would be a limited number of positions available and this should propagate back into the number of graduates. The postdoc position is probably the easiest to find, and certainly one of the most miserable. It is unfortunate that for a lot, it has become a carriere in itself, where people spend 8 years and over postdoc-ing…
Mounir, you make excellent points.
I’ve always been of the opinion that post-docs allow themselves to be exploited. I’ve always favored some sort of mass industrial action: labs would grid to a halt if all post-docs (or at least a very large fraction) just stopped working. It would take courage and might impinge careers – much as with the screen writers in Hollywood – so I’m not sure this sort of revolution could ever happen.
Well
I am not sure this revolution could happen either. In the US, many post-docs are from countries where their salary, although low by US and European standards, represent good money back home. Compounded with economic hardship in their home country, they are better off keeping their jobs as post-docs and are happy about it (at least they can help their families, who can blame them?). The fact is that in US, in most labs, the vast majority of post-docs are not US citizens, simply because US citizens can get better jobs and don’t want to post-doc forever for so cheap.
There is an excellent article in The Scientist issue of this month showing the variations in salary depending on your ‘visa status’, and the number speak for themselves.
The bottom line is that as long as PIs can hire post-docs from other countries for cheap, not much will change. And knowing how hard (and important) it is for post-docs to keep their jobs, I doubt they would dare to challenge their PIs on a large scale, as a lot of applicants are still waiting for their chance…
Now if funding agencies would exert more control over the salaries, then and only then, PIs would hire less and probably more talented people. Raising the bar in the upper levels, will also raise the bar at the graduate level and this could a part of the “over populated” scientific planet (and mainly in the country Biology).
Mounir, this is a good idea. Why not write it up and submit it as a correspondence to Nature or The Scientist? It deserves a broader reading than what it will receive here.
And if they won’t take it, I’ll publish it on LabLit.
Hey
that’s sounds good. Let me write up a one pager. A lot of PIs will become my ennemies though!!!! But I think it is important to voice these concerns as they impact so many people at least here in the US.
Thank you for the suggestion. Give me 2/3 days. Having previously published in Nature I have some contacts, but do you know anyone in particular to whom I should send this quick communication?
Thank you.
Everything you need to know about Correspondences is here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/others.html#correspondence
Good luck!
Thanks,
I will let you know!
Funnily enough, I just wrote a review on this very topic. If you’re interested, check it out:
The scientific workforce policy debate: Do we produce too many biomedical trainees?