General Provoking thoughts on a biomedical research career

[Stories]

Biomedical research has been assumed to be a fairly safe career for the past several decades. Countless problems still need to be addressed, but with stagnant research budgets and increasing number of graduates and future trainees, many people have wondered if the research mechanism is sustainable. For anyone considering a research career in the biomedical sciences, several very influential researchers and administrators have written an article about the direction of biomedical research in the US.

This will likely hit home to folks considering options in research (particularly academics and government) and in graduate school for a doctorate or currently at a post-doc (such as myself).

PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1404402111.abstract

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dribble]

Biomedical research has been assumed to be a fairly safe career for the past several decades.

These sorts of articles have been published for many years, well over a decade. I don't think anybody in the past 20+ years has assumed that a PhD in a biomedical field is a guaranteed track to a tenured faculty position. However, there are multiple career opportunities for PhD in the biomedical research in terms of private industry. There's also the fact that a large number of baby boomer professors will be retiring at some point. The vast majority of PhD graduates/post-docs will find employment, even if they aren't doing exactly what they wanted to do research-wise.

Countless problems still need to be addressed, but with stagnant research budgets and increasing number of graduates and future trainees, many people have wondered if the research mechanism is sustainable.

It's a non sequiter to say that biomedical research funding isn't sustainable. The article obviously uses this "buzzword" to try to make trendy and emergent a reality that has been there for decades in the U.S..

As long as there are grants, there will be a steady supply of PhDs/faculty to compete for said research grants. Practically nobody is saying that there won't be enough scientists to do the research that the government pays for. President Obama has said that the U.S. needs to produce more scientists and engineers, well, if there aren't enough quality jobs for scientists, then the U.S. doesn't need to produce more scientists. Obama hasn't gotten up on television and claimed that "there's millions of NIH dollars that go unclaimed every month, we need folks to do the research", it's just it's kinda inspiring to say, "we need more scientists", even though that isn't true in the biomedical sciences. I think what Obama is really saying is, "we're dependent on foreigners for over 50% of postdoc positions in biomedical science in this country, I want our U.S. students to do better."

The issue is that there are disgruntled PhDs, even young faculty, who don't get the grants/jobs they want and might conclude that the system is falling apart. Well, this is a personal issue for said research scientists, as grant money is pretty much gobbled-up by whoever gets the grants. Grad students and post-docs provide labor that is needed to run universities and complete experiments at the directions of the tenured faculty. There will probably always be a steady supply of post-docs and grad students to fulfill this need.

The article you referenced mentioned grad programs limiting the number of entrants (grad schools created this 'problem' by admitting many more students than there are future faculty positions for, but again, it is needed labor for the grad schools so it's not really a problem for them), and asking the government to stabilize funding resources, such as the NIH. The second part makes sense, might even be feasible, but forget it about grad schools limiting enrollment.

This will likely hit home to folks considering options in research (particularly academics and government) and in graduate school for a doctorate or currently at a post-doc (such as myself).

Pretty sure that most grad students/post-docs know about this reality, most of them probably took the plunge into grad school anyway as the skills learned are transferable and there are options outside of a faculty appointment. Reading doomsday articles won't do much good, in my opinion. Some PhDs will move on after a post-doc, or after finishing grad school, into a different field, others will get that faculty appointment, and life goes on.

If anything, the situation for those newly entering PhD studies will get better because:

1. Baby boomer faculty will retire.
2. Foreign countries are building up their PhD programs, and this will lure away foreigners who make up over 50% of biomedical postdocs, so more opportunities/need for U.S. students.
3. There's always the possibility that NIH funding will improve.
4. While the sequester was very bad for the NIH, and a certain percentage of young scientists/faculty, it is undeniable that this discouraging event may well be the proverbial silver lining for the next generation of scientists as the NIH budget may, in a number of years, be growing again, and a disproportionate number of young scientists might leaving the workforce now due to the uncertainty/difficulty of the sequester.

 

[Stories]

These sorts of articles have been published for many years, well over a decade. I don't think anybody in the past 20+ years has assumed that a PhD in a biomedical field is a guaranteed track to a tenured faculty position. However, there are multiple career opportunities for PhD in the biomedical research in terms of private industry. There's also the fact that a large number of baby boomer professors will be retiring at some point. The vast majority of PhD graduates/post-docs will find employment, even if they aren't doing exactly what they wanted to do research-wise.

The assumption that industry is making up for lost academic jobs is actually a very large misconception. Industry jobs are just as competitive as academic jobs to get and there are not a plethora of jobs available to every PhD that graduates, unfortunately. The rate of job creation isn't at the same pace of new graduates entering the field, leading to uncertainty for those coming out of school recently. Haven taken a look at industry jobs, people have told me the same thing--there's so much volatility in industry, particularly traditional pharma, it's hard for them to recommend people enter the field right now. A lot of them suggest going the start-up route.

Also, I think the majority of STEM students that Obama quotes aren't for biomedical sciences but for engineering and programming. Something that is a few steps removed from biomedical research which is what is specifically addressed here.

It's a non sequiter to say that biomedical research funding isn't sustainable. The article obviously uses this "buzzword" to try to make trendy and emergent a reality that has been there for decades in the U.S..

As long as there are grants, there will be a steady supply of PhDs/faculty to compete for said research grants. Practically nobody is saying that there won't be enough scientists to do the research that the government pays for. President Obama has said that the U.S. needs to produce more scientists and engineers, well, if there aren't enough quality jobs for scientists, then the U.S. doesn't need to produce more scientists. Obama hasn't gotten up on television and claimed that "there's millions of NIH dollars that go unclaimed every month, we need folks to do the research", it's just it's kinda inspiring to say, "we need more scientists", even though that isn't true in the biomedical sciences. I think what Obama is really saying is, "we're dependent on foreigners for over 50% of postdoc positions in biomedical science in this country, I want our U.S. students to do better."

The issue is that there are disgruntled PhDs, even young faculty, who don't get the grants/jobs they want and might conclude that the system is falling apart. Well, this is a personal issue for said research scientists, as grant money is pretty much gobbled-up by whoever gets the grants. Grad students and post-docs provide labor that is needed to run universities and complete experiments at the directions of the tenured faculty. There will probably always be a steady supply of post-docs and grad students to fulfill this need.

The article you referenced mentioned grad programs limiting the number of entrants (grad schools created this 'problem' by admitting many more students than there are future faculty positions for, but again, it is needed labor for the grad schools so it's not really a problem for them), and asking the government to stabilize funding resources, such as the NIH. The second part makes sense, might even be feasible, but forget it about grad schools limiting enrollment.

You may not be familiar with the authors that wrote this article, but those folks are some of the most important and influential people in biomedical sciences. Shirley Tilghman was a pioneer in genetics research, a department chair, and later a president of Princeton University, so she has a thorough understanding of the academic funding lines. Harold Varmus, as a former director of NIH and current director of NCI has a very important position and thorough viewpoint of what the landscape of biomedical science training and education is currently like. Just saying, these guys aren't just any regular people speculating about labor statistics. They've seen it in their labs, in their departments, and they have the most to lose by suggesting the structure needs to be shaken up.

Pretty sure that most grad students/post-docs know about this reality, most of them probably took the plunge into grad school anyway as the skills learned are transferable and there are options outside of a faculty appointment. Reading doomsday articles won't do much good, in my opinion. Some PhDs will move on after a post-doc, or after finishing grad school, into a different field, others will get that faculty appointment, and life goes on.

If anything, the situation for those newly entering PhD studies will get better because:

1. Baby boomer faculty will retire.
2. Foreign countries are building up their PhD programs, and this will lure away foreigners who make up over 50% of biomedical postdocs, so more opportunities/need for U.S. students.
3. There's always the possibility that NIH funding will improve.
4. While the sequester was very bad for the NIH, and a certain percentage of young scientists/faculty, it is undeniable that this discouraging event may well be the proverbial silver lining for the next generation of scientists as the NIH budget may, in a number of years, be growing again, and a disproportionate number of young scientists might leaving the workforce now due to the uncertainty/difficulty of the sequester.

This is a place to look at the percentage of applications/grants being awarded at NIH: http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm. The percentages are sobering. The trend is strikingly down year over year. The trend is down whereas the number of individuals looking for jobs is going up. Regardless of baby boomers retiring, the number leaving the work force is still less than is necessary to accompany thee graduates entering the work force.

Here is another article that was published a few years ago in Science: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html and in particular, this figure: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a/box/3.html is another sobering remark that more and more PhDs are put into situations where their income is delayed and their career trajectories are put into a stasis while waiting for an opportunity to open up. 6 years of grad school plus another 4 years of a postdoc isn't anybody's idea of a great career trajectory. Even once you get there, high rates of turn over and grant frustration are a realistic outlook.

I, along with several others of my cohort, believed by going to an elite school and getting a fellowship at an elite institute would lead us to success. While we have been successful in the areas of science the matter (outside recognition, publications in prestigious journals, competitive award granted), there is much difficulty once leaving, particularly those for going academics. The route is a hard one, and much harder and difficult than many projected coming out of school.

I'm not saying that it's only doom and gloom, but the article is a big push from four very important people (and likely have the most to lose since they have great success in the current setup) but realize there are issues that are in full bore. I for one, welcome the urge to change the dialog in the training community, as a person who is currently on the job market.

This article is a call for action, and I just hope that this can being the change in the way we approach the bulk of labor force in science. More permanent staff scientist positions would go a long way towards creating a more balanced science work force.

 

[Dribble]

The assumption that industry is making up for lost academic jobs is actually a very large misconception. Industry jobs are just as competitive as academic jobs to get and there are not a plethora of jobs available to every PhD that graduates, unfortunately. The rate of job creation isn't at the same pace of new graduates entering the field, leading to uncertainty for those coming out of school recently. Haven taken a look at industry jobs, people have told me the same thing--there's so much volatility in industry, particularly traditional pharma, it's hard for them to recommend people enter the field right now. A lot of them suggest going the start-up route.

It also depends on what skill set you have, wet lab versus pure data analysis, and if your expertise is sought after. I wasn't making a generalization and saying that all biomedical PhDs will be happily employed in industry or academia. Nonetheless, after 3 years from graduation, there is just a 1.5% unemployment rate for PhDs in the life sciences, probably due to a combination of factors such that grad students are hardworking, and that if not academia or industry, then there are other possibilities beyond that. Yes, a certain percentage go into other fields.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...rket-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/

You may not be familiar with the authors that wrote this article, but those folks are some of the most important and influential people in biomedical sciences. Shirley Tilghman was a pioneer in genetics research, a department chair, and later a president of Princeton University, so she has a thorough understanding of the academic funding lines. Harold Varmus, as a former director of NIH and current director of NCI has a very important position and thorough viewpoint of what the landscape of biomedical science training and education is currently like. Just saying, these guys aren't just any regular people speculating about labor statistics. They've seen it in their labs, in their departments, and they have the most to lose by suggesting the structure needs to be shaken up.

You're a smart poster, postdoc at the NIH, I recognize that. But one of the best pieces of advice I got when studying a science heavy field is to also read other stuff, read everything you can get your hands on and think critically. I am not at all surprise that the "call to arms" comes from people who have benefitted most from the current system. Thomas Jefferson was a major force behind the Bill of Rights, yet was a slave owner, that is the crux of Jeffersonian paradox, which I think is easily explained as those who are depriving those of their rights, (slave owners), come by some feelings of guilt and make moves to correct the situation . . . often with caveats that slaves would be freed after they died.

So, not at all surprised that the big cheeses in the biomedical world are putting out what could be described as a "letter of concern" with regards to employment opportunities, you must know that sometimes the really big cheeses have *tons* of grad students and postdocs in their labs, and often they put their names on a ludicrously large number of papers. Since they are established scientists, I question exactly what you think they might be at risk of losing (and losing to whom?). They *could* pare down the number of grad students/postdocs in their labs voluntarily, but I kinda doubt they'd do this, and even if they did, they presumably will still get sizable grants to continue their most important research. (As we all know, often if you don't spend your research dollars, you lose them).

I, along with several others of my cohort, believed by going to an elite school and getting a fellowship at an elite institute would lead us to success. While we have been successful in the areas of science the matter (outside recognition, publications in prestigious journals, competitive award granted), there is much difficulty once leaving, particularly those for going academics. The route is a hard one, and much harder and difficult than many projected coming out of school.

Sure, most folks would figure that a post-doc at the NIH would put some one on the track to securing a faculty appointment. Just saying that nothing is 100%, even less so with biomedical faculty jobs. Obviously, not everybody who does a post-doc at the NIH will move into academia. Not everybody has the skill-set needed to write grants and run a lab/research group and be productive.

I'm not saying that it's only doom and gloom, but the article is a big push from four very important people (and likely have the most to lose since they have great success in the current setup) but realize there are issues that are in full bore. I for one, welcome the urge to change the dialog in the training community, as a person who is currently on the job market.

Well, everybody's important to someone! ;-) These "four very important people" did great research, have some quantifiable influence with regards to what research should be pursued, but that doesn't mean that faculty at another institution, or even their institution will cut-back the number of grad students in training, or even that they have the power to change the system, (they don't). Said persons probably had frustrated grad students/postdocs, perhaps even friends/family members, who are frustrated with the paucity of faculty jobs and difficulties getting grants, they assuaged their guilt with this letter of concern, but you have to realize that grad students and postdocs are a win for research 1 institutions, actually for all research institutions, there is no reason why any PI would decrease the number of grad students/postdocs unless forced to.

No, it is not all doom and gloom. I would say that the majority of PhD graduates don't regret their training, and the vast majority move on to find some sort of employment. I wouldn't discourage others from looking at getting a PhD, sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

This article is a call for action, and I just hope that this can being the change in the way we approach the bulk of labor force in science. More permanent staff scientist positions would go a long way towards creating a more balanced science work force.

There are some masters level positions, for "research specialists", not sure what you mean by "permanent staff scientist."

6 years of grad school plus another 4 years of a postdoc isn't anybody's idea of a great career trajectory. Even once you get there, high rates of turn over and grant frustration are a realistic outlook.

If you're in love with biomedical field x, then often times the best thing to do is a PhD in said field. If graduate school plus a post-doc or two is such a pain, then you might not have been in the right field to begin with. Just saying that there are tons of people who would risk not getting the exact job they want for the opportunity to do a certain specialized amount of work in grad school and in a post-doc. Ten years isn't a huge amount of time for some people.

 

[Stories]

It also depends on what skill set you have, wet lab versus pure data analysis, and if your expertise is sought after. I wasn't making a generalization and saying that all biomedical PhDs will be happily employed in industry or academia. Nonetheless, after 3 years from graduation, there is just a 1.5% unemployment rate for PhDs in the life sciences, probably due to a combination of factors such that grad students are hardworking, and that if not academia or industry, then there are other possibilities beyond that. Yes, a certain percentage go into other fields.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339

Sure, most folks would figure that a post-doc at the NIH would put some one on the track to securing a faculty appointment. Just saying that nothing is 100%, even less so with biomedical faculty jobs. Obviously, not everybody who does a post-doc at the NIH will move into academia. Not everybody has the skill-set needed to write grants and run a lab/research group and be productive./

This is a key point, that most people with a PhD won't be unemployed. But I think the more interesting question would be to look at where people end up after post-docs and their initial jobs. The striking numbers are the people who end up in a non-science field for their long-term careers. The number is actually surprisingly high. At least at the school I attended, the number of people remaining in science after 5 years of graduation was somewhere in the 50% ballpark.

I found an interesting article in the WaPo which I think summarizes how many people feel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html. I think the disillusion with career prospects is an interesting one to point out. It's slightly concerning to see these sentiments. While I can keep myself positive, we are surrounded by all this news, it's hard to stay in a vacuum and be fully positive all the time about career options, sadly.

But more than anything, the number of people who would like the opportunity to continue in a research capacity are struggling to remain in any level of science. I think the most concerning part is that nobody believes that science research is done or tapped out--there's plenty of work to be done. But the opportunity to continue doing it and the resources available are drying up.

No, it is not all doom and gloom. I would say that the majority of PhD graduates don't regret their training, and the vast majority move on to find some sort of employment. I wouldn't discourage others from looking at getting a PhD, sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

There are some masters level positions, for "research specialists", not sure what you mean by "permanent staff scientist."

I think several people enjoyed the science at the time and the graduate student experience itself is generally pretty good times. But, I don't think anyone goes into a training program for 6 years thinking they're not going to use those skills coming out. It's become like that for a variety of reasons. Job market prospects being a huge one. As many fellow scientists I work with here at NIH have reflected.

Permanent staff scientist positions are outlined a bit in the PNAS article. Mainly, it's a scientist who carries out studies and experiments in a capacity that's above a line scientist but below a PI with full independence. Right now, there's a shortage of positions for people with post-doc training but don't want full independence. It's often a all or nothing sort of situation.

If you're in love with biomedical field x, then often times the best thing to do is a PhD in said field. If graduate school plus a post-doc or two is such a pain, then you might not have been in the right field to begin with. Just saying that there are tons of people who would risk not getting the exact job they want for the opportunity to do a certain specialized amount of work in grad school and in a post-doc. Ten years isn't a huge amount of time for some people.

I think thinking like this is actually part of how we're in this situation of having so many people with training but not enough jobs (with proportional pay) to accommodate everyone who would like to use those skills. 10 years of post-college training with low to moderate pay is tough financially, too. Most of us are 30 when we start our careers (our first post doc)--there's a lost time of opportunity here had we gone a different direction. Then again, many of us mistakenly see our choices and many of us would pick a field again if we had to. But no due to a lack of love for the science.

Basically, all in all, a lot of us are discouraged.

 

[Dribble]

I think thinking like this is actually part of how we're in this situation of having so many people with training but not enough jobs (with proportional pay) to accommodate everyone who would like to use those skills. 10 years of post-college training with low to moderate pay is tough financially, too. Most of us are 30 when we start our careers (our first post doc)--there's a lost time of opportunity here had we gone a different direction. Then again, many of us mistakenly see our choices and many of us would pick a field again if we had to. But no due to a lack of love for the science.

Basically, all in all, a lot of us are discouraged.

It's been this way for a long while, from what I gather, the vast majority of PhDs going into life sciences have known that they wouldn't get faculty appointments, would be lucky to get an industry job, and would probably have to move around from job to job for a good portion of their career. I've had family members tell over a decade ago that the "publish or perish" lifestyle of an academic is horrible. Nothing happened suddenly, it just got worse progressively year after year.

When the NIH budget was doubled, grad programs/PIs simply added more grad students to burn up the grant money. If there was a way that researchers/schools could put away a portion of grants in savings, then there wouldn't be this never-ending cycle of boom and bust. Yes, if you've gotten a PhD in the past decade, then you're at a disadvantage as NIH funding will probably take over a decade to come back to where it was. Grad schools/the NIH could limit foreigners getting PhDs/doing postdocs, limit the number of grad students, and so on, but the primary goal of the NIH and the current system it to do science as cheaply as possible, in huge quantity, and to be easily scaleable based on funding.

The system has its human toll, as you're personally aware. There's also the possibility that a lot of smart students have shied away from a science career, and that the quality of research being done has decreased due to more time spent writing grants, and PhD programs not getting the cream of the crop. Or maybe the current system favors those who are truly most dedicated and will risk anything to do some science?

There's also the very real possibility that the NIH budget won't get any real increase in the next ten years, and will be eaten away by inflation and the increased cost of doing science. With the growing budget deficit, more money needing to spent on retiring baby boomers, and increased healthcare costs, future budget increases will be even more controversial. Bush was a wild spender, two wars and a *doubling* of the NIH budget that was both a blessing, and a curse. Don't expect to see anything like that again with regards to the NIH budget. PhD life science programs, in the next 5 years, will be largely populated by students who are OK with a moderate to high level of risk regarding future career options.

I wouldn't worry to much about it, in your case. You've, presumably, done everything you can to be successful, and worrying is just paying interest on money that you might not borrow. You can't undo past career decisions, just adapt to future realities.

 

[Stories]

It's been this way for a long while, from what I gather, the vast majority of PhDs going into life sciences have known that they wouldn't get faculty appointments, would be lucky to get an industry job, and would probably have to move around from job to job for a good portion of their career. I've had family members tell over a decade ago that the "publish or perish" lifestyle of an academic is horrible. Nothing happened suddenly, it just got worse progressively year after year.

When the NIH budget was doubled, grad programs/PIs simply added more grad students to burn up the grant money. If there was a way that researchers/schools could put away a portion of grants in savings, then there wouldn't be this never-ending cycle of boom and bust. Yes, if you've gotten a PhD in the past decade, then you're at a disadvantage as NIH funding will probably take over a decade to come back to where it was. Grad schools/the NIH could limit foreigners getting PhDs/doing postdocs, limit the number of grad students, and so on, but the primary goal of the NIH and the current system it to do science as cheaply as possible, in huge quantity, and to be easily scaleable based on funding.

The system has its human toll, as you're personally aware. There's also the possibility that a lot of smart students have shied away from a science career, and that the quality of research being done has decreased due to more time spent writing grants, and PhD programs not getting the cream of the crop. Or maybe the current system favors those who are truly most dedicated and will risk anything to do some science?

There's also the very real possibility that the NIH budget won't get any real increase in the next ten years, and will be eaten away by inflation and the increased cost of doing science. With the growing budget deficit, more money needing to spent on retiring baby boomers, and increased healthcare costs, future budget increases will be even more controversial. Bush was a wild spender, two wars and a *doubling* of the NIH budget that was both a blessing, and a curse. Don't expect to see anything like that again with regards to the NIH budget. PhD life science programs, in the next 5 years, will be largely populated by students who are OK with a moderate to high level of risk regarding future career options.

I wouldn't worry to much about it, in your case. You've, presumably, done everything you can to be successful, and worrying is just paying interest on money that you might not borrow. You can't undo past career decisions, just adapt to future realities.

Yeah, basically comes down to funding. It's an unfortunate thing. Here's the sad part:

After hitting a budget peak in 2003, NIH has been losing a large portion if its purchasing power with its stagnant budget. I think this is all that's necessary to see why we're in some trouble.

 

[themmases]

Thanks for sharing this-- it was very interesting reading and I've shared it as well. I work in hospital-based medical research and the authors' observations about perverse incentives in how it is paid for and carried out match my experiences very closely. I've also noticed some of the problems with peer review that they note (both from being reviewed and from assisting a journal editor), and my observations have definitely shaped my career plans. For example, I've definitely noticed an increased reliance on statistical analysis, by both investigators and reviewers, whether or not either group really knows what the analysis adds to the paper or how to interpret it. There is an element of retrospectively analyzing something-- anything-- about a new clinical technique just to get it into journals that you did it first, most, and yes, it's waaaay better. Even these types of papers could contribute more to the literature by using other authors' techniques for assessing outcomes or quality, but from what I have seen they often do not.

I hope future trainees take this sort of news to heart and, even if they still pursue graduate training in biomedical sciences, do so after seriously thinking about their plan B and C. IMO secure, successful scientists will need to work to actually fix many of the unsustainable aspects of this model. However, potential future scientists can also contribute (and prevent harm and waste to themselves and the society that funds an advanced technical education that won't be used) by taking a good, hard look at the way things work now-- and at themselves. Unfortunately, I still see a lot of grad students and future grad students (at the places I read, basically gradcafe and CHE) unwilling to consider other options and reacting to facts about the job market as though it reflects on their personal intelligence and work ethic. Nothing could be further from the truth-- this is a system created by people with power and responsibility and sustained on the back of young people who want to use their talents and conscience for the public good. But that's no excuse not to be realistic, or to ask ourselves if being a TT academic scientist is really the only way we could contribute to society.

 

[Solara]

I read an article on how Johns Hopkins is reducing the amount of PhD students it takes in, keeping in mind the current situation and job prospects after a PhD and how many PhDs are in the market.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...rollment_and_raise_grad_student_stipends.html

This is just part of a solution, but other universities could follow this as well. With the current system of tenure, I think it's largely unsustainable (with how many people you hire for tenure, and how long you pay them for, which can limit how many new professors you take up). It's a grim picture, I agree.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how this affects the realm of public health sciences?

 

[Dribble]

I read an article on how Johns Hopkins is reducing the amount of PhD students it takes in, keeping in mind the current situation and job prospects after a PhD and how many PhDs are in the market.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...rollment_and_raise_grad_student_stipends.html

Hopkins is doing this in order to avoid grad school horror stories (and improve recruiting prospects), there are true stories of how PhDs from even John Hopkins are having trouble getting faculty appointments. When prospective applicants hear that even John Hopkins PhDs are having problems, it seems kind of hopeless.

Hopkins smartly increased the graduate student stipend, a big selling point for recruits, and if you get paid a living-wage then you can’t help but be happier and more productive.

With the current system of tenure, I think it's largely unsustainable (with how many people you hire for tenure, and how long you pay them for, which can limit how many new professors you take up). It's a grim picture, I agree.

The picture is probably so grim that grad schools aren’t getting the best students they could. If every grad school upped the stipend, and decreased the number of grad students, you’d probably get more competition due to a perceived turnaround and improved chances for employment.

Where I went to undergrad, the tenured faculty discouraged the honors students from doing grad school, and have, more or less, indicated that they prefer foreign students and middle-of-the-road undergrads as they kinda consider grad students as transient labor, a necessary evil. Yeah, tenured faculty view grad students as possible future competition, so it kinda pays to accept foreign students who have less of a chance to compete against them in the future, as well as students that aren’t in it for a tenured position.

Most highly motivated honors students I know were basically “I’m considering grad school if I get into a school like Harvard, Stanford or Hopkins, but otherwise it’s not worth it”, but otherwise they’d go into med school, law school, business school, or even just teaching as they’d be able to do meaningful work without living under the constant threat of losing a grant.

There are very smart people who don’t want to be stuck doing two-post-docs after graduate school, and they are very talented with a broad-range of interests, so it’s not that much of a problem for them to give-up on their dream early in their career.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how this affects the realm of public health sciences?

MPH programs get money from tuition, and there is a pressure to increase student enrollment regardless of the job prospects, especially if faculty have trouble getting grants. Concern for students future employment prospects are at the bottom of the list.

IMO secure, successful scientists will need to work to actually fix many of the unsustainable aspects of this model. However, potential future scientists can also contribute (and prevent harm and waste to themselves and the society that funds an advanced technical education that won't be used) by taking a good, hard look at the way things work now-- and at themselves.

Right now grad schools use the “Hunger Games” model, there are a lot of grad students, but only some will have both the luck and skill needed in order to make just that first tenured faculty position.

I think that a real issue is that most of today’s entering grad students *don’t*, in their heart of hearts, have any ambition of running their own lab in the future (they like/love science, but obviously know that they probably won’t be tenured faculty), and the remaining percentage are unrealistically optimistic regarding their chances. You'd have to have a really big ego to go into a life sciences PhD program with plans for a tenured career (or either love science so much you don't care if you have a house, family, job at a later date).

 

[themmases]

Right now grad schools use the “Hunger Games” model, there are a lot of grad students, but only some will have both the luck and skill needed in order to make just that first tenured faculty position.

I think that a real issue is that most of today’s entering grad students *don’t*, in their heart of hearts, have any ambition of running their own lab in the future (they like/love science, but obviously know that they probably won’t be tenured faculty), and the remaining percentage are unrealistically optimistic regarding their chances. You'd have to have a really big ego to go into a life sciences PhD program with plans for a tenured career (or either love science so much you don't care if you have a house, family, job at a later date).

I agree with you. The people I have talked to seem pretty split: at most, they might want a TT job if the stars aligned, but they have other plans; and a lot of people whose dream is full professor all the way and justify that with a lot of cliches about how someone has to come out on top and they know they will work just the hardest EVAR. It drives me nuts sometimes wondering if people are bringing the same self-aggrandizing, fuzzy thinking to their work.

I think there is another factor though, which is that, as the linked article says, a career researching an area of one's own interest, and possibly benefiting others by doing so, is inherently appealing. It's very hard for people to let go of that dream, especially when they are young, not yet experts in their field, and really don't know much about other things they could do. Academic culture is also very opaque to new people, and I think that only adds to students' and potential students' inability to understand how bad things really are. It's difficult to truly accept that the system is unfair.

 

[Stories]

Hopkins is doing this in order to avoid grad school horror stories (and improve recruiting prospects), there are true stories of how PhDs from even John Hopkins are having trouble getting faculty appointments. When prospective applicants hear that even John Hopkins PhDs are having problems, it seems kind of hopeless.

Hopkins smartly increased the graduate student stipend, a big selling point for recruits, and if you get paid a living-wage then you can’t help but be happier and more productive.

The picture is probably so grim that grad schools aren’t getting the best students they could. If every grad school upped the stipend, and decreased the number of grad students, you’d probably get more competition due to a perceived turnaround and improved chances for employment.

Where I went to undergrad, the tenured faculty discouraged the honors students from doing grad school, and have, more or less, indicated that they prefer foreign students and middle-of-the-road undergrads as they kinda consider grad students as transient labor, a necessary evil. Yeah, tenured faculty view grad students as possible future competition, so it kinda pays to accept foreign students who have less of a chance to compete against them in the future, as well as students that aren’t in it for a tenured position.

Most highly motivated honors students I know were basically “I’m considering grad school if I get into a school like Harvard, Stanford or Hopkins, but otherwise it’s not worth it”, but otherwise they’d go into med school, law school, business school, or even just teaching as they’d be able to do meaningful work without living under the constant threat of losing a grant.

There are very smart people who don’t want to be stuck doing two-post-docs after graduate school, and they are very talented with a broad-range of interests, so it’s not that much of a problem for them to give-up on their dream early in their career.

MPH programs get money from tuition, and there is a pressure to increase student enrollment regardless of the job prospects, especially if faculty have trouble getting grants. Concern for students future employment prospects are at the bottom of the list.

Right now grad schools use the “Hunger Games” model, there are a lot of grad students, but only some will have both the luck and skill needed in order to make just that first tenured faculty position.

I think that a real issue is that most of today’s entering grad students *don’t*, in their heart of hearts, have any ambition of running their own lab in the future (they like/love science, but obviously know that they probably won’t be tenured faculty), and the remaining percentage are unrealistically optimistic regarding their chances. You'd have to have a really big ego to go into a life sciences PhD program with plans for a tenured career (or either love science so much you don't care if you have a house, family, job at a later date).

I know both my grad schools I attended are decreasing enrollment mainly because they're having issues with where to get money to support the students they accept. So they're taking the number of students they can support. We also have to remember that many students from China come to the states with grants from their government, so they don't necessarily need any financial support from the institution or funder to become a student (or postdoc). This is one big reason we see a large influx of Chinese students--the Chinese government is heavily investing in research training for their brightest and it's being brought out by increased presence of Chinese students across all the major universities in the US.

One of the two labs I worked in during undergrad also discouraged me from going to grad school. He said it's a tough world (this was 2004), but I was like, oh, I'll be fine, I'm smarter than most. Yeah... that arrogance has led me to here where I'm faced with the high likelihood that I won't be able to do what I set out to do, unfortunately. I have a feeling my attitude probably isn't uncommon.

 

[Stories]

I agree with you. The people I have talked to seem pretty split: at most, they might want a TT job if the stars aligned, but they have other plans; and a lot of people whose dream is full professor all the way and justify that with a lot of cliches about how someone has to come out on top and they know they will work just the hardest EVAR. It drives me nuts sometimes wondering if people are bringing the same self-aggrandizing, fuzzy thinking to their work.

I think there is another factor though, which is that, as the linked article says, a career researching an area of one's own interest, and possibly benefiting others by doing so, is inherently appealing. It's very hard for people to let go of that dream, especially when they are young, not yet experts in their field, and really don't know much about other things they could do. Academic culture is also very opaque to new people, and I think that only adds to students' and potential students' inability to understand how bad things really are. It's difficult to truly accept that the system is unfair.

Biomedical sciences as a career is very appealing. It's why I entered it. Unfortunately, the appeal wears off once you're moving through the system and understand the realities a bit better.

 

[Dribble]

I agree with you. The people I have talked to seem pretty split: at most, they might want a TT job if the stars aligned, but they have other plans; and a lot of people whose dream is full professor all the way and justify that with a lot of cliches about how someone has to come out on top and they know they will work just the hardest EVAR. It drives me nuts sometimes wondering if people are bringing the same self-aggrandizing, fuzzy thinking to their work.

I think there is another factor though, which is that, as the linked article says, a career researching an area of one's own interest, and possibly benefiting others by doing so, is inherently appealing. It's very hard for people to let go of that dream, especially when they are young, not yet experts in their field, and really don't know much about other things they could do. Academic culture is also very opaque to new people, and I think that only adds to students' and potential students' inability to understand how bad things really are. It's difficult to truly accept that the system is unfair.

It's human nature, and normally common sense, to think that if you work hard for something 5+ years and often more, and if it is a worthy pursuit such as science benefitting humanity, then this is a sane game plan. In most other jobs this sort of strategy would work, but probably the great appeal of science, (and given that it is politically incorrect to tell anybody, from elementary school age kids to new freshman that basic life science research is a poor career choice), where are where we are.

I know both my grad schools I attended are decreasing enrollment mainly because they're having issues with where to get money to support the students they accept. So they're taking the number of students they can support. We also have to remember that many students from China come to the states with grants from their government, so they don't necessarily need any financial support from the institution or funder to become a student (or postdoc). This is one big reason we see a large influx of Chinese students--the Chinese government is heavily investing in research training for their brightest and it's being brought out by increased presence of Chinese students across all the major universities in the US.

One of the two labs I worked in during undergrad also discouraged me from going to grad school. He said it's a tough world (this was 2004), but I was like, oh, I'll be fine, I'm smarter than most. Yeah... that arrogance has led me to here where I'm faced with the high likelihood that I won't be able to do what I set out to do, unfortunately. I have a feeling my attitude probably isn't uncommon.

I think that's why professors often say that you need to be independently wealthy to do science, in that getting a PhD might be merely an intellectual exercise, a very expensive one, yet fun one, instead of a career. Nonetheless, with all the misgivings and regrets, does anybody really say, "I wish that I spent 5 years working for a couple internet startup companies instead of studying this field." It's love of the field that gets people hooked. I wouldn't say it's "arrogance", but rather willful ignorance, and we're all guilty of it. Often times, just to stay on course, I like to think that *maybe* something amazing will happen with the NIH budget. After all, the military budget is huge compared to NIH. If the world's big powers agreed to freeze, or even pare down conventional arms, then you'd have more money for research and development.

China is expected to exceed the U.S. in research and development, I think within the next decade.

 

[Solara]

Sorry if this link has already been posted, but it's quite relevant as it provides some numbers to the situation you all are referring to.

http://www.ascb.org/ascbpost/index.php/compass-points/item/285-where-will-a-biology-phd-take-you

 

[Dribble]

More articles,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffre...unsustainable-biomedical-research-enterprise/

I think that another problem for grad programs, and their students, is that faculty are reluctant to discuss the poor job prospects as grad students are needed to do the research. Hypercompetitiveness makes the atmosphere toxic in academia and the tenured track faculty don’t really seem to be into teaching as most of the grad students they teach, or mentor, won’t even be in the field in ten years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...l-research-budget-editorials-debates/8705231/

In this article, Fauci talks about delayed discovery of an “HIV vaccine” (if that’s even possible is unknown), and tackling the rising scourge of drug-resistant organisms. I thought that Obama already pledged $500 million specifically for developing an HIV vaccine? Though, of course, basic science research in immunology unrelated to HIV, might, unexpectedly, provide the understanding needed to develop said vaccine, so Fauci may well have a point.

With regards to the rise of drug-resistant organisms, government funded entities such as the NIH/CDC have placed their hopes in the hands of the drug companies who are now expected to, by and large, deal with this problem from the treatment end.

The big players are advocating for modest increase in the NIH budget, but it should be noted that this will do little, if anything, to address demand/supply mismatch between PhDs programs and graduates. It will, of course, help hundreds of already established PIs keep their labs running, and that’s where the budget squeeze really gets the attention of the big cheeses at the NIH, when their friends can’t get the grant to keep their labs open. Other than a small group of retiring big whigs who want to throw a bone to little, and soon-to-be-forgotten, people (the graduate students), and maybe make the system incrementally better for aspiring scientists, the agenda behind raising the NIH budget is helping established investigators.

Also, Collins talks about the amazing research that can’t be funded, but if grad schools are, in some ways, operating a pyramid scheme, and if the brightest students are not going into science, you have to wonder about the quality of research.

Look at the proposals for change, one point advocates encouraging more creative research proposals. If you’re familiar with the current scientific literature, a lot of the stuff being published is derivative, and hyped, and very worrisome—more and more of it can’t be reproduced.


Are staff scientists more efficient than grad students, and worth the higher salary? Given that some foreign grad students come with their own funding, and that most grad students are given a small salary, the current system heavily depends on cheap labor. Take away that cheap labor, and you’ve got less research happening, but perhaps it would be higher quality research if grad school wasn’t the scientific version of the Hunger Games.

The cold machiavellian truth for today's, and aspiring grad students career prospects in academia, would be to hope for a freeze in the NIH budget for the next 6-10 years, overlapping with their training, so that a good portion of the established PIs give up, and retire or switch careers, and that for the NIH budget to increase right during the time they're looking for a faculty appointment. From a societal viewpoint, would this be a good thing? Probably steady growth is the way to go, which the recommendations address:


• Longer-term planning to create more predictable and stable budgets;

• Gradually reducing the number of Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences by introducing a more selective process for funding graduate students;

• Increasing the ratio of staff scientists to trainees;

• Improving the peer review system to foster the most creative proposals;

• Diversifying graduate education in biomedicine to make students aware of other areas in which they could use their scientific background, such as policy, communications, etc.

 

[Stories]

More articles,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffre...unsustainable-biomedical-research-enterprise/

I think that another problem for grad programs, and their students, is that faculty are reluctant to discuss the poor job prospects as grad students are needed to do the research. Hypercompetitiveness makes the atmosphere toxic in academia and the tenured track faculty don’t really seem to be into teaching as most of the grad students they teach, or mentor, won’t even be in the field in ten years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...l-research-budget-editorials-debates/8705231/

In this article, Fauci talks about delayed discovery of an “HIV vaccine” (if that’s even possible is unknown), and tackling the rising scourge of drug-resistant organisms. I thought that Obama already pledged $500 million specifically for developing an HIV vaccine? Though, of course, basic science research in immunology unrelated to HIV, might, unexpectedly, provide the understanding needed to develop said vaccine, so Fauci may well have a point.

With regards to the rise of drug-resistant organisms, government funded entities such as the NIH/CDC have placed their hopes in the hands of the drug companies who are now expected to, by and large, deal with this problem from the treatment end.

The big players are advocating for modest increase in the NIH budget, but it should be noted that this will do little, if anything, to address demand/supply mismatch between PhDs programs and graduates. It will, of course, help hundreds of already established PIs keep their labs running, and that’s where the budget squeeze really gets the attention of the big cheeses at the NIH, when their friends can’t get the grant to keep their labs open. Other than a small group of retiring big whigs who want to throw a bone to little, and soon-to-be-forgotten, people (the graduate students), and maybe make the system incrementally better for aspiring scientists, the agenda behind raising the NIH budget is helping established investigators.

Also, Collins talks about the amazing research that can’t be funded, but if grad schools are, in some ways, operating a pyramid scheme, and if the brightest students are not going into science, you have to wonder about the quality of research.

Look at the proposals for change, one point advocates encouraging more creative research proposals. If you’re familiar with the current scientific literature, a lot of the stuff being published is derivative, and hyped, and very worrisome—more and more of it can’t be reproduced.


Are staff scientists more efficient than grad students, and worth the higher salary? Given that some foreign grad students come with their own funding, and that most grad students are given a small salary, the current system heavily depends on cheap labor. Take away that cheap labor, and you’ve got less research happening, but perhaps it would be higher quality research if grad school wasn’t the scientific version of the Hunger Games.

The cold machiavellian truth for today's, and aspiring grad students career prospects in academia, would be to hope for a freeze in the NIH budget for the next 6-10 years, overlapping with their training, so that a good portion of the established PIs give up, and retire or switch careers, and that for the NIH budget to increase right during the time they're looking for a faculty appointment. From a societal viewpoint, would this be a good thing? Probably steady growth is the way to go, which the recommendations address:


• Longer-term planning to create more predictable and stable budgets;

• Gradually reducing the number of Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences by introducing a more selective process for funding graduate students;

• Increasing the ratio of staff scientists to trainees;

• Improving the peer review system to foster the most creative proposals;

• Diversifying graduate education in biomedicine to make students aware of other areas in which they could use their scientific background, such as policy, communications, etc.

Some interesting points of view, but I think the idea of going to a freeze and "weeding out" of folks as you suggest isn't the right approach to keeping people in science, but rather would discourage basically anyone that's even remotely ambitious into the field. People enter into a field with the promise of a career with a reasonable path for growth and (eventually) reasonable financial compensation. The reason NIH runs on the Title 42 pay schedule rather than the GS pay schedule is so that they can keep their brightest scientist paid at a level that keeps them there. If you suddenly switch everyone at NIH to the GS system, I have a feeling that many scientists will up and leave or never enter into science to begin with.

Whether we admit it or not, money is a very important aspect of a career and when you need the brightest people to be involved, having competitive pay is one very effective way ot keeping people in a field. If thee's little promise of growth or earning potential, there will be a lot of complacency and unease. A good example is public education at the younger ages. People have been saying for years the need for quality education and reforms to kick out teachers who are underperforming and all you need to do are put educated and ambitious people in the classroom, and Teach for America is born. Only issue is, turnover--these folks come and go every two years, and increasingly few members stay. It's used as a stepping stone. If you lower the financial payoff, science will become even more of a stepping stone for more and more careers than it already is. Right now, the pay is at a point that it is adequate that it keeps people in science.

I think it's always arguable that the 'veteran' versus the 'rookie' for cheaper labor can be made in any field. But I think if we only think of it in this way, there'll never be any stability. Veterans, in general, will have more abilities than a rookie who is still fresh in and learning all the ropes. In some fields, this learning curve is quite dramatic. So there's an importance in the balance of the work force. I guess that's why we're in the situation we're in now. My cohort of graduates is sort of the baby boom of this science field. But I guess we'll see what happens as the time goes on.

 

[Dribble]

Some interesting points of view, but I think the idea of going to a freeze and "weeding out" of folks as you suggest isn't the right approach to keeping people in science, but rather would discourage basically anyone that's even remotely ambitious into the field.

I don't advocate a freeze in NIH funding, but it may well happen anyway. Venerable government agencies which I, certainly in my lifetime, would never expect to be publicly accused of doing nothing, with calls for disbanding, have been publicly attacked by politicians, and I think the end results is the austerity. I think that NIH deserves more funds than other government departments as it is the "grain for next year", the longterm investment in advances which will improve society down the road. Of course, my opinions don't add up to a hill of beans, there's a certain political inertia, and it would take a special agreement between political parties to drastically increase the NIH budget, or even to keep pace with the increasing cost of doing research. While Bush, with abandon, drastically increased the NIH budget, instead of setting a course for steady growth tied to inflation, skeptical members of Congress, probably mostly republicans, are questioning the type of research that the NIH does, and there might even be a perception among the general public that biomedical research has stalled.

While Collins et al, are somewhat vocal regarding the NIH funding situation, there hasn't been a clear voice coming from the democrats, asking for special funds for the NIH. Meaning that the NIH perhaps doesn't have high-profile friends in Congress, or at the White House.

If the NIH funding stays flat, it will mean that hundreds of established PI's will lose their jobs, and it won't be a "weeding out", in my opinion, but a sort of 'luck of the draw', as NIH says that they are receiving about two times as many meritorious research proposals as they can fund, (yet also there are acknowledgments that the research produced isn't creative, but conservative in scope/aims, derivative, and increasingly un-reproducible.)

Let's be clear that NIH funding has little to do with job prospects for grad students entering the labor market as the vast majority won't get tenured positions, what was it? Something like 8% might get a faculty appointment? Maybe if you increase the NIH budget 5%, it might slightly bump the number of *new* PhDs grad getting faculty appointments, but it will be less than a proportional 5% increase as the older/established investigators would be expected to get the grants.

As those four big scientists have advocated, improving the job prospects for current PhD grad students has a lot to do with reforming how grad students are funded and the process of selection for grad school. Is it a major travesty to discourage someone who is "remotely" interested in science to do it? There's always been a push to interest school-age kids in science, at the same time that big name scientists are calling for a *reduction* in the number of PhD candidates.

If you lower the financial payoff, science will become even more of a stepping stone for more and more careers than it already is. Right now, the pay is at a point that it is adequate that it keeps people in science.

Keeping people in science isn't the problem, you hear of big-name investigators who are walking away from science because they didn't get the NIH grant they need to keep their lab open. It was suggested by the big name researchers, Collins et al, that grad schools decrease enrollment, and that they start pushing students to non-academic paths while in grad school. Getting a PhD often puts candidates in the unenviable position of appearing to be overqualified for a number of jobs, and a growing proportion have to take jobs in secretarial, and other positions not commensurate with their degree.

Whether we admit it or not, money is a very important aspect of a career and when you need the brightest people to be involved, having competitive pay is one very effective way ot keeping people in a field. If thee's little promise of growth or earning potential, there will be a lot of complacency and unease.

As is, it seems that grad schools have been having difficulty attracting the top students for a while, not that tenured professorships don't pay well, but that the chances of getting one are low, and that pay during grad school is abysmal.

 

[Stories]

I don't advocate a freeze in NIH funding, but it may well happen anyway. Venerable government agencies which I, certainly in my lifetime, would never expect to be publicly accused of doing nothing, with calls for disbanding, have been publicly attacked by politicians, and I think the end results is the austerity. I think that NIH deserves more funds than other government departments as it is the "grain for next year", the longterm investment in advances which will improve society down the road. Of course, my opinions don't add up to a hill of beans, there's a certain political inertia, and it would take a special agreement between political parties to drastically increase the NIH budget, or even to keep pace with the increasing cost of doing research. While Bush, with abandon, drastically increased the NIH budget, instead of setting a course for steady growth tied to inflation, skeptical members of Congress, probably mostly republicans, are questioning the type of research that the NIH does, and there might even be a perception among the general public that biomedical research has stalled.

While Collins et al, are somewhat vocal regarding the NIH funding situation, there hasn't been a clear voice coming from the democrats, asking for special funds for the NIH. Meaning that the NIH perhaps doesn't have high-profile friends in Congress, or at the White House.

If the NIH funding stays flat, it will mean that hundreds of established PI's will lose their jobs, and it won't be a "weeding out", in my opinion, but a sort of 'luck of the draw', as NIH says that they are receiving about two times as many meritorious research proposals as they can fund, (yet also there are acknowledgments that the research produced isn't creative, but conservative in scope/aims, derivative, and increasingly un-reproducible.)

Let's be clear that NIH funding has little to do with job prospects for grad students entering the labor market as the vast majority won't get tenured positions, what was it? Something like 8% might get a faculty appointment? Maybe if you increase the NIH budget 5%, it might slightly bump the number of *new* PhDs grad getting faculty appointments, but it will be less than a proportional 5% increase as the older/established investigators would be expected to get the grants.

As those four big scientists have advocated, improving the job prospects for current PhD grad students has a lot to do with reforming how grad students are funded and the process of selection for grad school. Is it a major travesty to discourage someone who is "remotely" interested in science to do it? There's always been a push to interest school-age kids in science, at the same time that big name scientists are calling for a *reduction* in the number of PhD candidates.



Keeping people in science isn't the problem, you hear of big-name investigators who are walking away from science because they didn't get the NIH grant they need to keep their lab open. It was suggested by the big name researchers, Collins et al, that grad schools decrease enrollment, and that they start pushing students to non-academic paths while in grad school. Getting a PhD often puts candidates in the unenviable position of appearing to be overqualified for a number of jobs, and a growing proportion have to take jobs in secretarial, and other positions not commensurate with their degree.



As is, it seems that grad schools have been having difficulty attracting the top students for a while, not that tenured professorships don't pay well, but that the chances of getting one are low, and that pay during grad school is abysmal.

I think the general perception of the biomedical field is one of ignorance. At least in DC, my experience has been that nobody knows anything about NIH nor research coming out of the biomedical community unless they have someone they care for that is afflicted with a disease that doesn't have many routine treatment options. I have a feeling that's probably the general feeling in the world since biomedical science tends to be fairly difficult to understand for the lay person. I think that is what makes the national debate on science and research fall into the background. An unfortunate side effect of being a very technical skill set.

I think you forgot the main reason they suggested decreasing enrollment in grad programs was because we didn't have many good job offerings for these graduates post school. Not that the number of people were unqualified were too high. But due to the lag of the number of in and out into the workforce is inequitable and is a disservice to those individuals. Perhaps the focus on STEM at lower levels was to get people to get the technical skills to enter into bachelor's level work and not continue on into further education to a PhD? That might solve that cheaper labor force issue? Or maybe pushing more trade schools where the trade learned is QC at a pharma company or KO mouse caretaker?

Anyway, lots of interesting things to think about. Who knows what'll come of it all.

 

[Muffinho]

The particularly worrying thing for someone like me, an undergrad considering a career in research is that it is difficult to know what the market will be like when i'm finished my studies. I still have 2 years of undergrad left, add in 5-6 years of graduate work and we're looking at a 2021-2022 PhD market. What will it be like then? It is very difficult to say if there will be changes in the system by then, if there will be increases or decreases in funding and if faculty positions will be created (either new positions or positions from retiring faculty).

 

[Dribble]

I think you forgot the main reason they suggested decreasing enrollment in grad programs was because we didn't have many good job offerings for these graduates post school. Not that the number of people were unqualified were too high. But due to the lag of the number of in and out into the workforce is inequitable and is a disservice to those individuals.

I think that's half of the problem.

However, I think there is also a "brain drain" away from the biomedical sciences, in that faculty are downright pessimistic with regards to future job opportunities, and don't really care to mentor folks interested in faculty careers. Some of the brightest students aren't going to grad school in the first place because they've bee warned away, and some smart grad students leave grad school due to the bleak prospects and the hyper-competitive nature of the field.

In this case, the primary selection bias for going to grad school isn't being "smart", but rather being obstinate! I'm probably, self-admitedly, more of a block head than an intellectual, so I can believe this. Or maybe grad students are altruistic, realizing that most won't make it up the greasy pole to a faculty position, but realizing that the cheap labor force is a net benefit for society. Alternatively, maybe mere stubbornness is most important when it comes to success as a scientist, or perhaps a blindspot when it comes to realistic career goals. Or maybe the type A personalities with great grades all go into business, law, medical school, and the more laid-back folks ponder grad school. Then there's just what could only be described as an addiction to doing research, and witnessing a field add to the body of knowledge from the front lines.

There's other mysteries as well, are scientists more effective in teams, or as isolated principle investigators? What if the NIH just awarded "mega grants", to a small group of 2-3 faculty level PhDs who then have the $$ to hire maybe 2 junior faculty level PhDs, to work on a large, longterm, yet focused, (10 year) project? On a per capita basis, there would be much less grant writing. I think the NIH needs to consider this, especially since it would formalize an arrangement sort of already in place, but not yet optimized.

For something as important as NIH funding, there are a lot of unknowns with regards to what works.

 

[Dribble]

The particularly worrying thing for someone like me, an undergrad considering a career in research is that it is difficult to know what the market will be like when i'm finished my studies. I still have 2 years of undergrad left, add in 5-6 years of graduate work and we're looking at a 2021-2022 PhD market. What will it be like then? It is very difficult to say if there will be changes in the system by then, if there will be increases or decreases in funding and if faculty positions will be created (either new positions or positions from retiring faculty).

If other grad schools follow John Hopkin's lead, and decrease by perhaps half, the number of grad students, and increase the stipend to $30,000 per year, then I think you'll see the following happen:

1. (Looking at this in isolation), Instead of 8% getting a faculty appointment, it may rise to around 12%, and may as high as 16% getting a faculty appointment if this change is gradually phased into existence over a decade, as I think that grad programs would cut their slots by 25 to 50%.

2. Baby Boom Retirements

The baby boomers have *just* started to retire. There were 77.3 million baby boomers in 2008, on January 1st, 2011, the first of the baby boomers turned 65. The Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, and the effect of their retirement on the scientific community is just being felt, so the biggest change will be coming in the next decade or two. A complicating factor is that scientists, by a large margin, plan to retire after 65, or work as long as they can, and this would be expected to delay some of the baby boomer effect by about a decade, to around 2025, assuming a life expectancy of around 78 years, and assuming that the last 2-3 years of life may not be spent in academia. Don't have hard numbers with regards to number of baby boomers in biomedical faculty positions, but I'm guessing that it's around 30%.

In terms of 2021-2022, I wouldn't expect to see a major increase in faculty positions due to retirement of the baby boomers.

3. Political predictions are tough, and perhaps even tougher when it comes to predicting the NIH budget. I think that legislative trends are more important, in terms of what is politically possible, the country is crawling out of a recession, I wouldn't expect major increases in the NIH budget. So, maybe, the most that could be hoped for in a risk averse environment would be for inflationary increases, which might not keep pace with the rising cost of doing research. So, this is the grim part of the budget, I'd expect that between 2015 and 2021, that the NIH budget will flatline, and perhaps a 1-.05% loss of funded faculty positions per year for the next six years.

4. The Gap Effect

The baby boomers are the current dominant faculty players, past mid-career, but before retirement, for most of them. When they retire, there won't be a lot of faculty behind them, relatively not a lot of folks born in post baby-boomer years. You will, in 2025-35, have in all likelihood, a larger than usual pool of younger faculty who have secured faculty positions, but who don't have that older cadre of professors to help them navigate the system, and this will likely be in world where the NIH has contracted from 2015 to 2025. You could also argue that since the baby boomers will need care in the older age, and more funds will be directed to healthcare and social security, that it is likely that the NIH budget will not appreciably increase for 15 years.

5. Industry

What happens in industry will have more of an impact on career opportunities than the NIH budget for biomedical PhDs. Unknown.

Conclusion: For somebody graduating from grad school in 2021-2022, the percentage getting faculty appointments would rise to about 12% if grad schools start decreasing enrollment (or maybe a more modest rise as the NIH budget contracts), and if not, then with a contracting NIH budget, perhaps only 6% would get that faculty appointment. I can't make any conclusions about industry, but as the baby boomers age, there might be more incentive for biomedical research to ramp up to deal with diseases predominantly affecting seniors, and emerging infectious diseases, even a worsening of an old infectious disease, might also be sufficient to shift national priorities.

Most likely, 2021 is going to look a lot like 2015.

 

[Dribble]

the number of in and out into the workforce is inequitable and is a disservice to those individuals. Perhaps the focus on STEM at lower levels was to get people to get the technical skills to enter into bachelor's level work and not continue on into further education to a PhD?

Therein lies the rub.

I'm probably leading you down a particular path, but I think that the conclusion you'll reach is inescapable, and part of the understanding of how science works in the U.S..

For the individual grad student, you're right, the situation is inequitable and a disservice to those "individuals." But, the number of people currently in a biomedical graduate programs somewhere in the U.S. is probably equivalent to the size of a small midwestern town, yet the output of this small midwestern town is vital to the advancement of science in the United States, even critical given how research can save lives and save healthcare dollars.

We all know that research is worthwhile, and so do the powers that be, having to temporarily inconvenience a small cohort of motivated college students for five years of PhD training, and even a couple postdocs (after which they will leave science) is a small price to pay in order to advance biomedical science as quickly as possible. It is crucial, in many respects, to get kids "hooked" on science as the better the applicant pool, the better the grad students/postdocs, the bulk of whom are temp workers for academia, but who do the bulk of the research. Paying grad students/postdocs small salaries also allows more research to be done than would normally be possible.

Slavery was probably the biggest evil to occur on American soil, though people often forget that the manpower provided was used to colonize the continent, support the economy up to the Industrial Revolution, and at one point slave produced cotton accounted for the majority of exports in the United States. It would perhaps be an injustice to directly compare slavery to the situation in labs around the country, yet it is unavoidable to note that the current system relies upon "burning through" huge numbers of grad students, who probably enter grad school somewhat optimistic, and are "used" for a brief, yet productive period, of 5, to maybe 9 years, during some of the most productive years of their life.

1. Slaves don't need healthcare as they're cheap and and healthcare is expensive anyway.

For a while post-docs weren't given healthcare benefits. If a post-doc gets sick, big deal, get another one.

2. Slaves reproductive issues, such as rearing a family, are insignificant next to the work that needs to be done, and taboo to talk about.

Historically, it has been very hard, until probably recently, for female grad students to have a family AND be in grad school. The goal of grad school isn't to provide a person with a job they enjoy, and the time and resources to have a family, but rather it is a simple, and prolonged, arrangement of meager pay for work.

3. Slaves are there to do whatever needs to be done.

Decades ago, it wasn't unusual for professors to have the grad students wash their cars.

4. The cotton gin made each slave more productive, and thus more valuable, and gave slaver owners a way to reap huge profits.

The rise of "bio-stats" and the accompanying analysis, such as genomic analysis, is a relatively new development in the biomedical sciences, and the federal government pays for research using this new technology, thus making it desirable to have a large number of graduate students to get in on this payday. There is a lot of work to be done, but it is most profitable/efficient to use a large number of poorly paid grad students.

Slavery was brutal, and a great injustice in the name of profits. Of course, grad students/post-docs aren't slaves, but their graduate school programs also aren't looking out for them as their labor is what is needed. It is frowned upon for a PhD to do endless postdocs, not because the work doesn't need to be done, but because it is a sad reminder of the current state of the system, and the system depends upon a steady supply of new, optimistic grad students.

If some slave owners reconciled the ownership of slaves as a "necessary evil" in order to build the country, then likewise, big name scientists might well view the procurement and use of a huge amount of poorly paid grad students/postdocs, with poor future prospects, as a necessary evil in order to build upon our scientific knowledge.

Like the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States, some big-whig scientists are beginning to feel uncomfortable with these "injustices" heaped upon grad students. And like southern plantation owners, the up and coming middle-sized fish in the ponds, who are desperate to complete huge amount of research in order to get more grants, would be much distressed at the notion of having their supply of cheap labor forcibly taken from them.

 

[Stories]

The particularly worrying thing for someone like me, an undergrad considering a career in research is that it is difficult to know what the market will be like when i'm finished my studies. I still have 2 years of undergrad left, add in 5-6 years of graduate work and we're looking at a 2021-2022 PhD market. What will it be like then? It is very difficult to say if there will be changes in the system by then, if there will be increases or decreases in funding and if faculty positions will be created (either new positions or positions from retiring faculty).

You still have plenty of time to figure out what kind of work you're interested in. With two more years to experience what it's like in different fields, get a taste of what an immunology, micro biology, cancer biology, genomics, groups do and figure out what's interesting to you. I worked in 3 different groups as an undergrad and couldn't have had a better experience. Just be sure to know what you're getting into when you do decide your post-graduate career. I wasn't wise enough to look beyond gradate school to know that my ideal job is a very frightening one (faculty).

Therein lies the rub.

I'm probably leading you down a particular path, but I think that the conclusion you'll reach is inescapable, and part of the understanding of how science works in the U.S..

I think it's an interesting analogy, although perhaps a bit over the top? While I do think being a PhD grad in biomedical sciences isn't the greatest feeling in the world and there's limited job security, the conferences I attend and the others I meet in the field are truly inspirational. Also, the intellectual stimulation I receive on a day to day basis is phenomenal. So the field itself is inherently great.

But yeah, the job sustainability aspect is bothersome. But I wonder, are other fields like this, too? Law and medicine are experiencing crunches like this as well. Law probably more than medicine. Is this just a condition of not enough money to go around in the country? I don't know diddly squat about economics, but perhaps the "educational ventures" such as science research which doesn't have an immediate financial payoff and the reluctance of many people to support the federal government are partially to blame for this direction? Tough to say and all interesting to think about.

This topic makes me think long and hard all the time about my own choices. I wonder what my future will be in the next few years as I transition (hopefully?) into the beginning of my post post-doc life.

 

[Muffinho]

You still have plenty of time to figure out what kind of work you're interested in. With two more years to experience what it's like in different fields, get a taste of what an immunology, micro biology, cancer biology, genomics, groups do and figure out what's interesting to you. I worked in 3 different groups as an undergrad and couldn't have had a better experience. Just be sure to know what you're getting into when you do decide your post-graduate career. I wasn't wise enough to look beyond gradate school to know that my ideal job is a very frightening one (faculty).

I'm currently interested in 2 fields. I'm a non-trad so I have some interests that come from life experiences. Mainly, I'm interested in Genetics (or genetic epidemiology). Specifically, I'd like to do an MD or PhD (in Genetics) and then complete a Lab Fellowship in Genetics (ABMG/CCMG Lab Fellowships).

I think going into graduate school with information from people who are experienced in graduate studies will help me a lot.