"Nearly 20% Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due to Sequestration"

[StilgarMD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/sequestration-scientists_n_3825128.html

Just going to leave this here... thoughts anyone?

I've got to say, I feel at times like someone who has purchased a ticket onto a sinking ship in hopes they will patch the leak by the time I was at sea. What's particularly scary is I've heard people 10 years ago thought things would be better by now, which is the same thought I have about 10 years of now. 2023 should be better, right?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/sequestration-scientists_n_3825128.html

Just going to leave this here... thoughts anyone?

I've got to say, I feel at times like someone who has purchased a ticket onto a sinking ship in hopes they will patch the leak by the time I was at sea. What's particularly scary is I've heard people 10 years ago thought things would be better by now, which is the same thought I have about 10 years of now. 2023 should be better, right?

For what it's worth, I can see where this is coming from and anticipate a 25-30% chance I might go abroad.

 

[Fencer]

In 1987, when I started research, my NIH institute was funding R01s at 8%; in 2013, they are funding them at 14%... In between, there were years as high as in the 20s%. It is bad but things are cyclical...

I also have learn how to be frugal and how to extend the funding for an extra year or two. In that way, I have had research funding continuously since 1997. For many years, I have also used my clinical bonuses to support research personnel including students.

In the post-Victorian area, Britain was sinking as an Empire. I think they are doing all-right research wise and as an economic giant within the EC. It is a matter of perspective... I don't think that "Leno II" will have the same comments, years later, about our research enterprise as he had about the descendants of your pseudonym. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilgar

 

[gutonc]

In 1987, when I started research, my NIH institute was funding R01s at 8%; in 2013, they are funding them at 14%... In between, there were years as high as in the 20s%. It is bad but things are cyclical...

I also have learn how to be frugal and how to extend the funding for an extra year or two. In that way, I have had research funding continuously since 1997. For many years, I have also used my clinical bonuses to support research personnel including students.

It's definitely true that things are cyclical. But the biggest issue is that both the peaks and valleys of the cycles are getting lower with the overall trendline headed South. Neuronix (I think) once posted a good graph of this (that I'm too lazy to look for now) that illustrated this very nicely.

And while it's great of you to forego (or re-direct) clinical income to the research endeavor, the fact that you have to do so is infuriating. The clinical department my lab used to be associated with had something they called the "2% account" where 2% of clinical profit from the department went to a fund that researchers in the department could draw funds from. 10 years ago it was mostly used to replace computers and buy software on a regular basis (something it's hard to do with NIH money) and to support faculty/post-doc/student travel such that, if you wanted to go to a meeting, it was paid for. That same fund, while having more total funds in it, is currently completely tapped out just paying for student and post-doc salaries. My post-doc adviser, who has been at the institution for 12 years and is tenured, had deferred salary increases for herself for the past 6 years in order to pay for students and post-docs.

It's not all doom and gloom of course, and I don't think there has ever been a better time to be a (well funded) scientist than right now. But it's not your father's funding environment by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I'm confused as to why people are considering moving. Obviously the funding situation in the US is pretty ugly right now, but I was under the impression that even with the sequestration it's still much worse in the rest of the world. While other countries are increasing their research budgets, the US research budget is still several times higher even with the cuts. In fact, I remember reading an article (I think it was on the BBC website) not too long ago about how Spain is experiencing a brain drain to the US due to their even more abysmal funding climate.

 

[Neuronix]

It's definitely true that things are cyclical. But the biggest issue is that both the peaks and valleys of the cycles are getting lower with the overall trendline headed South. Neuronix (I think) once posted a good graph of this (that I'm too lazy to look for now) that illustrated this very nicely.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=13804117&postcount=27

 

[Shifty B]

I'm confused as to why people are considering moving. Obviously the funding situation in the US is pretty ugly right now, but I was under the impression that even with the sequestration it's still much worse in the rest of the world. While other countries are increasing their research budgets, the US research budget is still several times higher even with the cuts. In fact, I remember reading an article (I think it was on the BBC website) not too long ago about how Spain is experiencing a brain drain to the US due to their even more abysmal funding climate.

+ 1

Where would you possibly move that was better?

 

[UCLAzy]

I took a gander at the actual report.. because well, its huffington post. Here's what it says in the introduction

However, over the past 10 years, the federal investment in research and development has faltered. Federal investments in scientific research have been stagnant and have failed to keep pace with inflation. Furthermore, sequestration and other budget cuts to federal agencies have eroded our ability to invest in the next generation of scientists to carry out the groundbreaking research the U.S. is known for.

in other words, the sequester is not the problem, and is probably not the reason why scientists would consider moving away (key word is consider, where's the numbers on those that actually move?). its just the most recent and most public thing to happen and can increase the page hits to huffington post. this article isnt even about the funding situation, its about having the laypeople that read huffington post blame the government for one more thing..

nothing will change unless congress sees the value of investing in research. maybe more md/phd's and phd's should run for office

 

[zippyziggy]

+ 1

Where would you possibly move that was better?

Actually, China is making a strong move toward hiring more scientists. My friend was offered a tenured associate professorship with a start-up package for his lab, after 3 years into his PhD. Not sure if these recruiting efforts are broad enough to call it a brain drain (he's a Chinese national) and say what you want about the quality of its science, but at least China has tons of money and is investing it wisely in science.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I took a gander at the actual report.. because well, its huffington post. Here's what it says in the introduction


in other words, the sequester is not the problem, and is probably not the reason why scientists would consider moving away (key word is consider, where's the numbers on those that actually move?). its just the most recent and most public thing to happen and can increase the page hits to huffington post. this article isnt even about the funding situation, its about having the laypeople that read huffington post blame the government for one more thing..

nothing will change unless congress sees the value of investing in research. maybe more md/phd's and phd's should run for office

I'm all for anything that calls public attention to the inadequate funding in science. If there's been one good thing to come out of the sequester, it's increased public awareness of the funding problem. MSNBC and NPR have also been running stories on science funding since the sequester, and I'm sure other news sources have been doing the same thing.

Actually, China is making a strong move toward hiring more scientists. My friend was offered a tenured associate professorship with a start-up package for his lab, after 3 years into his PhD. Not sure if these recruiting efforts are broad enough to call it a brain drain (he's a Chinese national) and say what you want about the quality of its science, but at least China has tons of money and is investing it wisely in science.

China's level of funding is still considerably below the US's. They may be raising it, yes, but there's still less to go around over there. Not to mention the free speech issues and endemic academic integrity problems. I wish they had higher levels of funding though since if there's one thing that makes the US willing to infuse more money into research, it's the realization that another country has pulled ahead.

 

[zippyziggy]

I'm all for anything that calls public attention to the inadequate funding in science. If there's been one good thing to come out of the sequester, it's increased public awareness of the funding problem. MSNBC and NPR have also been running stories on science funding since the sequester, and I'm sure other news sources have been doing the same thing.

Though, the people who watch/listen to MSNBC/NPR probably didn't support the sequester in the first place.

China's level of funding is still considerably below the US's. They may be raising it, yes, but there's still less to go around over there. Not to mention the free speech issues and endemic academic integrity problems. I wish they had higher levels of funding though since if there's one thing that makes the US willing to infuse more money into research, it's the realization that another country has pulled ahead.

Yeah I totally agree. But there's also a simple supply and demand problem. China is in demand for research scientists and currently has small domestic supply, while the US is oversupplied with too many PhDs and too few tenured positions. If the trend continues, I'd expect somewhat of a reverse brain drain in the next 20 years.

Regarding where people would move, currently Japan, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Korea, Israel, and Denmark all spend more on R&D as %GDP than the US, and they're also nice places to live. Even though I don't know anyone who would go or has gone to those countries to do research in the long-term, I've known people from those countries who couldn't stay in the US due to lack of funding and had to return to their home country, where there was funding for them.