Young Researchers' Disillusionment Bodes Ill For Future Of Science

Over the past year, the scientific community has been debating the existence of a Ph.D. glut. Being a young scientist and a junior faculty member, I read about this with a certain fascination. While I already have my "first real job," I don't yet have the luxury of feeling secure in my career, nor can I ignore the plight of students and postdocs whom I teach and train, and with whom I socialize. >From where I sit, a crisis is brewing in the scientific community, and it is beginning with a certain darkness of spirit en- compassing young scientists. At the heart of this disaffection is the growing inequity between established and young scientists, as brought out in an emerging trend of underemployment and the reduction in research opportunities for new science graduates with Ph.D.'s. The question that begs to be asked is "How will the scientific community react to these problems?" The American Mathematical Society (AMS) is the first professional organization to confront the relationship between supply and demand in higher education. The tragedy of the situation is best summarized by a single quote from the AMS committee resolution (quoted in a commentary by A.E. Pavlath, Chemical and Engineering News, Sept. 12, 1994, page 46): "The systematic hiring of unemployed Ph.D.'s part-time at sub- standard salaries is reprehensible and exploitative. It demeans the profession. Such practice undermines educational quality." This issue has gotten widespread recognition as a result of an article on the oversupply of Ph.D.'s in a 1994 issue of Newsweek (S. Begley et al., "No Ph.D.s Need Apply," Dec. 5, 1994, page 62). There are clearly too many Ph.D.'s for too few independent positions (in academia or industry), a situation that is leading to underemployment, the development of a "supertech" mentality (whereby Ph.D.'s are viewed not for their ability to make an intellectual contribution, but solely for their technical proficiency), and the creation of a subclass of scientific migrant worker (including but not limited to well-qualified foreign-born scientists who work for substandard wages to stay in the United States). To a large measure, the policies of government funding agencies promote these practices. Grants are given to individuals with a proven record. Unfortunately, many of these people may spend little or no time in the lab--they need to be grant managers and salesmen for the accomplishments of the lab. The actual work for the grant gets done by those who have little chance for independent funding: young and foreign Ph.D.'s. Paradoxically, these postdoctoral positions prevent independence, as well: Postdocs create preliminary data for their employers, which puts them in direct competition with their own work when they branch out on their own. The National Institutes of Health supports the second-class status of new Ph.D.'s in an additional way--by funding postdoctoral positions at wages below entry-level technical spots (about $18,000 per year for first-year NIH postdoctoral salary support vs. $22,000 per year for a B.S.-level technical position in Boston). As such, this promotes the Ph.D.-as- technician philosophy ("Why get a technician when I can get a postdoc to do more work for less?"). Collectively, these things lead to a devaluation of the Ph.D. In the future, we should not be surprised when fewer students look toward Ph.D. training and research careers. As a result, any solution that fails to enhance the development of independent young researchers must be considered short-sighted and inadequate. Others have suggested that Ph.D.'s should consider alternative careers in areas of business, education, or law, where scientific expertise may increase job prospects. While this may be realistic for currently underemployed Ph.D.'s, this is not a plausible long-term strategy to help future Ph.D. candidates or graduates. The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that it ignores the motivations that bring people to study for a Ph.D. A love of science and an interest in discovery are the seeds that graduate schools nurture into Ph.D.'s. On the other hand, some might argue that we can no longer train students in our own image--that is, for academic careers or in research. This may be true for the majority of students who now want graduate degrees. But shouldn't the real questions be: "Should people who don't want research careers be getting a Ph.D.?" and "Should we train people to do research when there are no jobs available for them?" The Ph.D. is fundamentally a degree that prepares a person to think critically and to do research within a narrow discipline so that the individual can then extend knowledge or develop applications in that discipline. Without question, there are many traits that are developed as part of the Ph.D. training that are valued outside of research, such as critical thinking and organization. However, I believe that we should not encourage anyone to spend five to seven years completing a Ph.D. if we expect that most of these people will not be able to sustain a research career. The pragmatic reality--that of lost earnings during the training-- demands that we not encourage bright, motivated individuals to be sidetracked down roads that we know are closed. The final flaw in the proposal is that to effectively broaden Ph.D. training, additional degree requirements will be necessary, and this is sure to add at least one year of courses to every graduate program. Is this really an effective way to move science-literate people into non-research careers? Like it or not, the need for the traditional, research- oriented Ph.D. is shrinking, and as a result, we will have to reduce the number of Ph.D.'s we produce at our universities. However, instead of tinkering with the Ph.D. degree in order to make new graduates marketable outside of the laboratory, we should consider other options. Specifically, we should be developing educational opportunities that match the desires and abilities of individuals with job markets. The length of time in these training programs should be appropriate to the educational goals. For example, if current job prospects in the sciences are for highly trained technical positions, it might be time to re-emphasize the M.S. degree, leaving the Ph.D. only for exceptional students. Students with the M.S. may also be more appropriately targeted for the alternative training, leading to non-lab jobs in law, industry, and education. Some of these opportunities could directly lead to improvement in science literacy and understanding in the general public. Regardless, we need to accept the realities of a shrinking traditional job market for Ph.D.'s and reduce the number of students in Ph.D. programs by offering these individuals additional opportunities before they invest considerable time and effort toward the highly specialized research investigations that are part and parcel of the Ph.D. degree. Science literacy is a great concern in the U.S. and has direct impact on public support for research spending and, by extension, job prospects for scientists. Many people are now experiencing Alvin Toffler's prediction of "Future Shock" when it comes to issues of science, technology, and health. Yet, when someone takes the time to explain these issues to the public, the result is usually positive; people see where their lives are improved by science, and they show more support for research initiatives. Without adequate communication of science issues to the public (either through schooling or through the media), a spirit of mistrust thrives, and poisons the system we depend upon. The future of science in America, and hence a healthy job market for researchers, depends upon a well-informed, engaged, and supportive public. However, scientists are often their worst enemies in this process. Overall, we can be arrogant by assuming that governmental support for our research is unassailable--even to the point of expecting increased budgetary support for science in the face of a shrinking federal budget (Z. Burton, The Scientist, Nov. 28, 1994, page 13). We can be detached from reality by believing we need not be accountable to the taxpayer, and we can be uncommunicative by failing to take responsibility for relaying the importance of our work to the public. In fact, we frequently condemn those among us who are most adept at "talking science" with the public as publicity hounds (such as Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan). Instead, we abdicate our responsibility to sources that may not serve the goals of making a well-informed public. We let health and fitness magazines print half-truth articles on health-related issues. We stand by (and sometimes participate) as the media promote the results of individual studies as if they held all of the answers on a subject (something we know is rarely, if ever, true), and, when asked to comment, we speak in jargon rather than plain English. It's true that science-education reform is being considered (S. Malcom, The Scientist, Oct. 31, 1994, page 13) and if enacted will ultimately improve the understanding of science- related issues in the U.S., but it would be a mistake if the research community failed to examine its role in allowing the proliferation of science misinformation that weakens our credibility in the eyes of the public. It's clear to me that each scientific society and professional organization must take hold of the divergent but intertwined issues of science literacy and career opportunities in science. We can no longer expect the public to blindly support our efforts. Nor can we expect a vibrant future for the scientific community if we fail to provide adequate opportunities for the next generation of scientists. If there are no jobs for Ph.D.'s, we must move away from training as many students as we have in the past. However, in looking to limit traditional Ph.D. programs, universities, government and scientific societies must look forward and seek to develop neglected--or even new--science-related careers. Regardless, the way is clear. We must confront the future of science aggressively rather than passively await the outcome of our neglect. James C. Fleet is a staff scientist at the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University and an assistant professor at Tufts' School of Nutrition.

Young Researchers' Disillusionment Bodes Ill For Future Of Science

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of