Are we training too many scientists?
It's not that we're training too many scientists,
J. Marcela Hernandez
Ohio State University
As someone who recently started in a tenure track position, I understand how painful, demoralizing, and insidious the process...
This problem is common to all the sciences. For example, in my field, astronomy, a two-tier system has developed, with a small number of prize fellowships whose recipients are nearly guaranteed the choice positions, and the dregs left over for common postdocs. It is not uncommon for postdocs to have to search for several years to find tenure-track positions, if indeed they find them at all. Thus many astronomers looking for tenure-track positions apply for long-term NASA and NSF grants as a bridge - a track I took successfully. Even then, it took me over six years to find my first tenure track job, which I'll take up in January. And unlike in the life sciences - which benefited from the doubling of NIH's budget in the late 1990s - federal funding for the physical sciences has been flat since 1990, meaning that the inflation-adjusted budget has been declining every year.
University of Maryland, Baltimore
What about "dead wood" tenured professors who should have retired long ago?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Let's not forget that by design, the career track to independent academic P.I. is competitive and cannot assure a high success rate while maintaining excellence. If we told any high school athlete that he or she would have a 20% chance to make it in professional sports, they would be elated. What I believe is the most important aspect here is honesty at all levels of training. Let's be honest with our graduate students when they are marginal and suggest them to leave. Let's be honest with post-docs who have become "lifers" as to how we rate their competitiveness and what their options are. At least we won't create lost careers.
The University of Alabama at Birminghamsontheimer@uab.edu
References1. B. Trivedi, "Are we training too many scientists?" The Scientist, 20(9):42-8, September 2006. 2. R. Gallagher, "Are we training too many scientists?" (editorial), The Scientist, 20(9):13, September 2006.
Intelligent Lab Redesign
Re: Intelligent Redesign.1 Putting a refrigerator or any other equipment in the hallway is not always a good idea. In many cases, this could be a violation of fire laws. Moreover, for many environments, this option raises security issues that would far outweigh the advantage of moving the refrigerator outside. A far better option, assuming that one is willing to surrender the convenience of close-by storage, is to have a common equipment room similar to that shown at the University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry.
David G. Rhodes
Clicking Geiger counters, humming compressors, and the constant aura of background noise is another legacy of the "open lab" concept. While the majority of glowing comments in your article came from either the architects themselves, or from tenured or tenure-track faculty (who most likely have their own offices), the graduate students and postdocs who have to work in the open lab often have different feelings.
Most open-lab designs have no graduate or postdoctoral office space. Desks are a pipette-tip's ejection away from benches, which means that most reading and writing is done in the constant noise and activity of the lab environment. It is almost impossible to converse with a colleague on the phone, or to have an uninterrupted chat with your adviser at your desk, where your computer and notebooks most likely reside. Forget trying to write a grant or paper. Go to the library or go home to get some peace, if you care to drag all your stuff with you.
New buildings and big windows and acres of empty bench space look great on the surface, but underlying them is a move away from the teaching aspect of academic science. "Keep your head down and work; don't try to think" is what most open-lab designs say to me. Having nowhere to retreat, nowhere to think, no privacy at all is great if we want to train the next generation of scientists as extremely competent technicians. But it's not so great if we want our students to learn to think, as well as pipette.
• The October 2006 article "Trial of the Heart" (20:48-54) incorrectly stated that a patient undergoing a cardiac stem cell trial was connected to an Isolex machine for apheresis. He was connected to an apheresis machine. The Isolex Cell Selection System is used in the lab to sort CD34+ cells from other white blood cells.
• The October 2006 article "Best Places to Work in Academia" (20:57-61) incorrectly reported that Fox Chase does not have a tenure track system.
• Finally, we incorrectly referred to Fernando Nottebohm as Frederick Nottebohm on our October cover.
The Scientist regrets the errors.