About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Vacation! | Main | AstraZeneca Admits It Spent Too Much Money »

July 9, 2012

Scientist Shortage? The Media Starts to Catch On.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

If you haven't seen it, there's an excellent article in the Washington Post by Brian Vastag on why the whole "America Faces Critical Shortage of Scientists!" thing is ridiculous. I hope it does some good - this idea gets repeated too often by people who have no idea of what they're talking about. Vastag hits a lot of important themes - layoffs in once-thriving sci/tech fields, the perverse incentives to churn out more PhDs and post-docs, and so on.

Chemjobber has good commentary on the article here, as does David Kroll. It's good to see a major media outlet pick up on what people in the field have been saying for some time, and going against the lazy America-falls-behind-in-science-race take.

Comments (97) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets


2. HTSguy on July 9, 2012 10:40 AM writes...

The "scientist shortage" is another zombie idea - no matter how many times you kill it, the people with a vested interest in promulgating it will revive it.

Permalink to Comment

3. Will on July 9, 2012 12:15 PM writes...

Towards the end the article mentions: After earning her expensive doctorate in neuroscience over seven years, which she financed by working and drawing down her savings

Are neuroscience degrees not stipend-based like chemistry or is the author stretching the truth to make his point? (eg, the person didn't want to live on just $20k (or whatever current stipends are now) and so dipped into savings and worked other jobs to pay for the lifestyle she wanted)

Permalink to Comment

4. Chemjobber on July 9, 2012 12:27 PM writes...

Will, this is a point I attempted to address in my post. I suspect that it was lifestyle/family-based, and most correspondents seem to agree.

(Of course, people disagree about how essential lifestyle-related financing is...)

Permalink to Comment

5. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 1:47 PM writes...

Back in the 1970s, I took out lots loans while in gradschool to pay for the birth of my daughter, to pay some of my stay-at-home wife's mental illness bills, to pay childcare when my wife was in the mental ward, to pay school fees and charges (those loans were called fee deferments back then), to buy books and to support my family's day to day living costs which do to inflation at the time were going up much, much faster than my stipend was (one year my rent in married student housing went up 25%). I guess you can call that all life style borrowing. I did not think so at the time, and it sure was not spent much on fun. I ended up with student loan debt that was about 76% of my annual starting salary as a medicinal chemist.

So perhaps we should not be too judgmental here about why someone needs student loans during gradschool.

Permalink to Comment

6. TBSOTf on July 9, 2012 2:22 PM writes...

While I was in grad school (about 10 years ago, in Canada), my yearly tuition was 5000-6000$. My stipend was only 19-20K (including the money made from teaching assignments). Considering rent, cost of mass transit and other necessities (which I understand can vary from city to city), taking out a loan allowed me to avoid the soup kitchens.
On the other hand, I know someone who used an NSERC (Canadian government) graduate scholarship to buy a sailboat. I have issues with the "lifestyle" comment in the article - most people take out loans to avoid financial difficulties, not to support a lavish lifestyle.

Permalink to Comment

7. will on July 9, 2012 2:24 PM writes...

@5 - no doubt there are plenty of good/necessary reasons why loans may be needed while in grad school. My point was that the article makes it sound like her neuroscience PhD had costs associated with it similar to law/med/business school, wherein students really do need to "finance" their degree specifically. A PhD student does not pay (in currency at least) to attend school to receive the degree

Permalink to Comment

8. Chris D on July 9, 2012 2:43 PM writes...

I would like to see an academic system with fewer graduate students and more staff scientists, especially with the precipitous decline in biomedical industry positions. This would be more sustainable, and would probably also boost research productivity. I worked with academic staff scientists that are incredibly skilled, talented, and knowledgeable, but simply aren't cut out to be professors. More of these people could make solid contributions in "lab manager" type positions if there was a little more pay and job security to go with the responsibility. The people who I know in these positions have often made important contributions as both skilled technicians and mentors, and they can retain and pass along the important tacit knowledge which busy PIs may not always be able to share.

Permalink to Comment

9. milkshake on July 9, 2012 2:54 PM writes...

@8: Chris, after leaving big pharma for academia and then spending 7 years at two top-tier academic institutions, as a staff medicinal chemist, I became very turned off by the experience. Each place is different but academia can be every bit as bureaucratic and insane and viciously political as industry, the pay is typically lower. The system you think works fine (a PI and then a group of PI-dependent staff scientists and then postdocs) in my experience can be more feudal, dysfunctional and abuse-prone than the industry environment.

Permalink to Comment

10. Paddywhacker on July 9, 2012 3:30 PM writes...

America does need more scientists. The world needs more scientists. Scientists who do science for the love of it. Scientists who do science even if nobody pays them to do it.

Society anywhere does not need more drudges of any persuasion who are only in it for the money.

Permalink to Comment

11. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 3:50 PM writes...

#10 -

Everyone, including scientists who love their work, typically needs to eat something that they might not be able to synthesize and to have someplace to live other than at the place they work.

Permalink to Comment

12. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 3:50 PM writes...

#10 -

Everyone, including scientists who love their work, typically needs to eat something that they might not be able to synthesize and to have someplace to live other than at the place they work.

Permalink to Comment

13. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 3:51 PM writes...

#10 -

Everyone, including scientists who love their work, typically needs to eat something that they might not be able to synthesize and to have someplace to live other than at the place they work.

Permalink to Comment

14. startup on July 9, 2012 4:13 PM writes...

You're are just repeating a BS line from Madeleine Jacobs archives. And why single out scientists? What about baseball players, lawyers, politicians, contract killers, televangelists, doctors, plumbers? Should not not they all be motivated solely by the love of it?

Permalink to Comment

15. Sad Chemist on July 9, 2012 4:23 PM writes...

I'm a 40 year old chemist (Ph.D.) and have been laid-off twice already. TWICE! My motivation for looking in my field and my moral are both extremely low.

I use to blame the system and the H1B glut but now I blame myself for not seeing the writing on the wall in grad school.

I thought I did everything right, but I'm a complete failure with a huge student loan (currently deferred).

Permalink to Comment

16. Chris D on July 9, 2012 4:27 PM writes...

@9: Milkshake, I've seen such politics myself at large academic institutes, and I agree that it can be a problem anywhere (and of course it's less palatable with lower pay). But the system I'm thinking of involves just traditional university research groups (PI + students and postdocs), each of which could retain 1 or 2 staff scientists. There wouldn't really be any opportunities for promotion, but the resulting politics would also be minimal. Such staff members could even support more than 1 PI at different times in order to deal with funding droughts. Not everyone would be happy with the lack of upward mobility, but a lot of people would be happy doing academic science if they could have some stability. Such arrangements are much more common in biology (where I think it can work reasonably well) than chemistry.

Permalink to Comment

17. lynn on July 9, 2012 5:26 PM writes...

I thought about commenting on the expensive neurochemistry PhD on the WP article itself - but the comments there were incredibly awful and political. I'm glad Chemjobber and Derek have commented on it. Back in the dark ages - early 1970s, my tuition and fees were paid and I got a stipend of $200 per month!!! And I lived on it - eating lots of soup, OC potato sticks, and the occasional Chinese combo plate. Parents threw in a little in the particularly lean times - and I had no family to support. But I think will (#7) had it right - the article is misleading in that it seems to imply that a PhD has costs similar to that of Law or Med school. Otherwise - the WP article is a welcome breath of truth from the MSM on the science PhD glut.

Permalink to Comment

18. Chemjobber on July 9, 2012 5:47 PM writes...

My father was a grad student in the early/mid-1970s; he claims to have gotten by $800/quarter plus whatever he could make from grading and working as a busboy. He also helped out at home -- a manlier man than I.

Permalink to Comment

19. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 6:02 PM writes...


Yeah, of course you are correct about the costs of gradschool, except for all those fees - approx. 30% of my annual stipend I paid each year; well borrowed. I left school with about one half the debt incurred by my friends who went to medschool in that era. However as physicians they had much, much brighter job-career prospects, lifetime earning potential, and job stability than I did. I could only dream about such a lucrative stable career an industrial chemist.

In the end you get what you pay for. I received a free ride on government subsidies that flooded the market with low paid chemistry professionals like me. Whereas my MD friends made very good livings in well-respected professional jobs because the cost of entry for those jobs is very high and restricted to those who pay for it out of their own pockets.

Permalink to Comment

20. dearieme on July 9, 2012 6:22 PM writes...

@19: your reflections in your last para seem spot on to me.

Permalink to Comment

21. Jordan on July 9, 2012 6:36 PM writes...

@19 -- This is an interesting way of looking at it ("you get what you pay for"). But don't forget about the other barrier to entry to the medical profession: the qualifications needed to get into medical school in the first place. The requirements for entry to med school are extraordinarily stringent, and anyone not in the top decile of their class has pretty slim chances of getting in (at least here in Canada). By comparison, graduate programs in the sciences pretty much take all comers.

Permalink to Comment

22. Anonymous on July 9, 2012 7:03 PM writes...

@ 21

You are right about the very high standards medschool applicants are held to. That was as true in the early 70s as it is now. That also should have been true for graduate student in science as well.

Unfortunately when magical free money appears from NIH or NSF for grad student education quality does not matter as much for all concerned. Profs need students to do the grunt work so their careers will flourish and students join up because it is, well, a freebe. Universities make their brand name off the backs of grad student's work, so if they can't get US students who fog a mirror there is lots of imported talent around to bring on board in the name of shortages. Since no one is making any heavy duty sacrifices here the game rolls along until we have what we now have, a glut of chemists who no one gives two shits about because no one had any skin in the game to make them care.

Permalink to Comment

23. paperclip on July 9, 2012 8:49 PM writes...

@15 You are not a failure! You are not responsible for this broad trend, and don't kick yourself for not predicting this in grad school. That's just a step easier than predicting the winning lotto tickets. Besides, David Burns in "Feeling Good" said it best: Achievement equals achievement and worth equals worth. Achievement does not equal worth.

Permalink to Comment

24. Elizabeth on July 9, 2012 9:08 PM writes...

America does not need more scientists. But America DOES need a more scientifically educated populace. How do we have the latter without pushing the former?

Permalink to Comment

25. Piledhigher on July 10, 2012 12:43 AM writes...

@18, Yes, stipends (and cost of living) were lower throughout the 70's and 80's, but it also took far less time to complete one's training and get into the workforce. Ramen noodles and bartending were a common and viable short term solution for 25 year old grad students on the verge of defending.

By the mid/late 1990's most people in biomedical research couldn't finish their Ph.D. and post-doc(s) until their early to mid 30's. In the real world that usually means marriage and kids, daycare, clothing, and safe transportation.

For many, myself included, loans were the only alternative to quitting and finding another career path. I increasingly regret not taking that path when I had the chance.

Permalink to Comment

26. gippgig on July 10, 2012 1:00 AM writes...

The notion of everyone having a job is obsolete. Only a small fraction of the population needs to work to produce everything we need. What should the rest of the people do? Create, help others, discover (science). The real question is what happens to the below-average Joes who don't have any talents.

If you want to be a scientist, living independently is likely to be an extravagance.

Permalink to Comment

27. Student on July 10, 2012 1:05 AM writes...

I am so happy someone has finally spoken what I've been thinking...and worrying about as I'm going to defend soon. They could stop admitting PhD students and the importation of foreign postdocs for the next 5 years and we would still have a surplus.

I should have seen this sooner...Now I'm just looking for a good job (non science based, obviously).

Permalink to Comment

28. Student on July 10, 2012 1:09 AM writes...

To follow up: Something no one has covered yet is that soon the defense industry will start to notice this problem. With more foreigners and less Americans getting PhDs they aren't going to be attracting the best students and are going to be stuck with people that shouldn't be given security clearance. Chinese Chemists? Is that who is going to be working on your next generation tank armor? With something that is such a huge part of our budget, I can't believe no one has pointed this out!

Permalink to Comment

29. cynical1 on July 10, 2012 1:14 AM writes...

I feel like I just read the epitaphs of my profession. And not one of them gave me hope for resurrection.

Permalink to Comment

30. newnickname on July 10, 2012 4:19 AM writes...

The prestigious institution I attended had a bare bones standard student budget for (cheap) room, (cheap) board, laundry and a few other sundry items. There was no budgeted allowance for a car, uncovered health care (no dental plan or vision care for students back then), etc.. The stipend (from TAing and grant money) was then only about 80-90% of the "official" budget. And there was an official departmental policy of no outside work without departmental approval. Of course, there wasn't much time for outside work when you were in the lab 60+ (or even 80+) hours per week. If you didn't have family money, you had to resort to loans to cover emergencies.

For all that, I'm sure that many of us loved it. Woodward said to some of his students, "You'll look back and see this [grad school] as the best time of your life." He was right, but for reasons I don't think even he anticipated.

Permalink to Comment

31. vanad on July 10, 2012 4:44 AM writes...

gippig > I'm not sure I followed all of your post. was the question rhetorical? is the answer in the last line? I am confused. please explain more clearly: just what is it you want me to do?

Permalink to Comment

32. anchor on July 10, 2012 5:34 AM writes...

@Milkshake_ I am living the kind of life style and feudalism you are talking about at the present time even as I write my response. Overall, my feeling is that it is much worse than industry. As an organic and medicinal chemist it is not paying off. My point is for the first time I am regretting as to why I did organic chemistry? In comparison to other fields of chemistry, I reckon that organic chemistry is the most demanding and labor intensive. I find that my contribution is either ignored or marginalized. It is dangerous when the biologist start to think half-baked ideas about organic chemistry and suggest what should be done. Sad truth be told, organic chemistry will never get funding unless it is linked in with underlying biological project. That is the problem in academia. Unfortunately, there is little or no choice other than to suck it up and move on! Signs of the time, I suppose.

Permalink to Comment

33. anonymous on July 10, 2012 6:14 AM writes...

Having seen the axe fall many times now in a large Pharma setting, I can tell you that in general (although certainly not always), "high" talent (i.e., outstanding intellectual ability) is recognized and retained. On the other hand, "high" talent at the bench, in the absence of the former qualification, is often not as prized...Of course you can argue this is wildly unfair. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the moral of the story is clear: be the very best or find a different career. Sorry.

Permalink to Comment

34. anchor on July 10, 2012 6:57 AM writes...

@33-..I can tell you that in general (although certainly not always), "high" talent (i.e., outstanding intellectual ability) is recognized and retained. Not true. What I have seen is "highly prized" morons from Ivy league are retained, while "high talent" intellectual from non-Ivy school are shown the door. I do agree with your assessment that "high" talent, prized bench chemist always takes the frontal assault!

Permalink to Comment

35. MolecularGeek on July 10, 2012 8:28 AM writes...

Anchor (@32):
I don't think that it's that there is a particular hostility towards funding organic chemistry. The problem is that organic chemists found that they could get funding from NIH that was 10x the pot of money that NSF had for pure chemistry. So the organikers learned how to target the biomedical applications of their work and were relatively well funded compared to physical or inorganic chemists as a whole. But now that so many bioorganic synthesis people have been trained that it is a commodity service in the eyes of many biomedical researchers and the funding line keeps dropping for everyone, there's little interest in or justification for NIH funding synthetic methadology development on a large scale. It's the same situation that the pharmacologists or neuroscientists (for example) are facing where an interesting hypothesis without a clear and compelling public health impact is not going to make it into the top 8% of proposals.

In the eyes of NIH, current synthetic organic chemistry is good enough to meet most of their programmatic needs. Whether or not this is actually the case is something I don't pretend to have the answer to, but I have few doubts that this is the perceived situation.


Permalink to Comment

36. Anon on July 10, 2012 10:53 AM writes...


We now live in a dystopia, one feature of which is that is is an 'ineptocracy'. Competence, wisdom, and common sense are disdained by the leadership (itself inept).

Permalink to Comment

37. alig on July 10, 2012 11:32 AM writes...

@33 From my experience seeing layoffs in three departments, it seemed it was more important to never have disagreed with the VP/director than to be "high" talent. It seemed like protecting an empire was more important than retaining the best talent.

Permalink to Comment

38. Hobbes on July 10, 2012 12:13 PM writes...

I do find this Washington Post article somewhat sour to the taste-buds. It only came after Derek and others posted on this matter continuously for years. It is an obvious replay of Derek's recent piece.

And before Derek awakened to the obvious truths of the employment situation, the posters on this blog alerted aspiring chemists to their bleak career prospects.

The only real solution to this problem is the abolition of Federal grants to all scientific institutions that grant tenure to faculty.

You can't run a business or fight a war with leadership that lives on a different planet than its employees.

As any resident living within the slimy bowels of academia will tell you, a faculty member's priorities are largely skewed to the acquisition of grants and the recruitment of as many people into their group as possible. More people = more space = more facilities = more grants = more money.

Tenured faculty have purposefully designed a system where they privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

Faculty are parasites sucking the life, labor and intellectual property from their so called students.

Your tax dollars fund faculty who glut the labor market with unemployable individuals who must then compete with armies of foreign post-docs and students for the few jobs. No doubt many chemists are ending up on some form of public assistance. This process continues because any American scientist can be instantly replaced with a Chinese grad student or post- doc.

Most universities do not even advertise their internal scientific positions. Arrogant faculty merely hire a docile Chinese or Indian on a visa and move on.

Permalink to Comment

39. A. Postdoc on July 10, 2012 12:52 PM writes...

Why should only academia get cheap labor? If those asking for more scientists get their way, there'll be so many scientists it will be cheap chemistry for pharma and everybody else. More and more scientists will make sure everybody gets nothing for their efforts, equalizing industry and academia.

Permalink to Comment

40. Sundowner on July 10, 2012 1:32 PM writes...

"[...] exporting of jobs to India, China and Europe".

Well, I am in Europe, and I can tell you that those jobs are not here. I work in a CRO and I have seen my PhD buddies laid off from Pfizer in Sandwich, Schering in The Netherlands, and so on. And I have to hear that they hire me for the difficult things, but the easy work is going to India, because is cheaper.

So honestly, those thousands of jobs are not here. Specially now. Look elsewhere, please.

Permalink to Comment

41. gippgig on July 10, 2012 3:34 PM writes...

#31: the question is not rhetorical.
You should do whatever you want to do; I of course have no idea what that is.

Permalink to Comment

42. Sisyphus on July 10, 2012 6:22 PM writes...

Scientists? Most of you are not scientists, you are technologists. You are paid for practicing trial and error in a similar way to T. Edison who is rarely referred to as a scientist. There is very little science left in the world today.

Permalink to Comment

43. Esteemed "Scientist" on July 10, 2012 6:25 PM writes...

But there really is a shortage, it's the reason for the collapse in research that's going on. There may be plenty of bodies out there that call themselves "scientists", or "engineers" for that matter. Anyone with an ounce of street sense and a pair of good hands that has worked in these pharma dog and pony shows can attest to the fact that most of them weren't even worth letting into the building, much less the paycheck they were given. The reasons given why "pipelines" are empty are laughable, the effort was kind of a joke, hampered by management lacking the will to work on the hard questions, instead pumping most of their money into TV ads and such, staffing with automatons from places where challenging authority was dealt with harshly.

Permalink to Comment

44. Sisyphus on July 10, 2012 6:32 PM writes...

@ 28. Ha Ha Ha...B. Clinton already placed the moles in the DOD. Remember J. Huang and the Lippo Bank. Hey look at that, China developed a space program in under 10 years.

Permalink to Comment

45. MTK on July 10, 2012 6:36 PM writes...

Sisyphus' comment, while a blow perhaps to our ego, may be closer to the mark than we care to admit.

The situation as it exists is that modern Western society does not value science as it once did.

Changing the postdoc system, limiting foreign students, etc will do little in the long run. Those are symptoms, not causes. The bottom line is that we as a society do not want to pay for science or scientists. The new world order has commoditized us.

Until we as a society value return on investment in timeframes consistent with the pace of science that's not going to change. And if you think that MBA's and such are the only source of the problem, think again. How often have you changed the distribution of your 401k or other investments based on return over the last year or two? Exactly. That's what we're dealing with on a societal level.

With science incongruent with modern expectations perhaps it's true that we've been reduced to technologists as Sisyphus suggests.

Permalink to Comment

46. Anon on July 10, 2012 7:03 PM writes...

@42 Sisyphus

Scientists? Most of you are not scientists, you are technologists.

Useless information and a gross overgeneralization. Perhaps you think doctors are nurses, and horses are zebras.

Permalink to Comment

47. gippgig on July 11, 2012 12:53 AM writes...

Another Post item that should be of interest: (I tested this address & it worked (but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed!))

Permalink to Comment

48. Chemist turned Engineer on July 11, 2012 3:38 AM writes...

I think the biggest problem with these "not enough scientists" articles is that they lump all scientists and engineers together. Different industries are in completely different economic environments. For example, we all know the current (sad) state of the pharmaceutical industry. But what about the oil industry. I can tell you right now - If you get a B.S. in petroleum engineering, you can get a near six-figure salary without a problem if your GPA is > 3.0. The problem is that policymakers, who have absolutely no exposure to science or engineering, think that all scientists are the same and are capable of working the same job. Gross generalizations of this sort, while easy for laypeople to digest, are misleading. I was misled by them! I just left a top-tier organic chemistry PhD program to pursue a career in a field with an actual future. It was either now or after 6+ more years of making a terrible salary as as grad student and postdoc...

Permalink to Comment

49. CR on July 11, 2012 7:46 AM writes...

@34, Anchor:

Sounds like someone didn't get into that Ivy league school they had dreamed about, huh?

Permalink to Comment

50. The Iron Chemist on July 11, 2012 8:31 AM writes...

@45 MTK: I think your comments are dead-on. I was thinking just the other day how similar science has become to teaching. Everyone says that scientists and teachers are important to our society, yet our society seems to be hell-bent against paying either what they're worth. The difference is that everyone's known that about the teaching profession for decades. I shudder to think what kind of chemists will be getting Ph.D's in ten, fifteen, twenty years.

Permalink to Comment

51. Rick Wobbe on July 11, 2012 9:42 AM writes...

Elizabeth #24, Very well said. I don't know what a full answer to your question would be, but it must begin by confronting the hailstorm of politically-motivated attacks on science and scientists. Until then, many educational efforts will be useless at best and often counterproductive, as exemplified by the Texas Board of Education.

Permalink to Comment

52. anchor on July 11, 2012 11:07 AM writes...

@49- You betcha! The name tag would have helped to save my job, I suppose.

Permalink to Comment

53. MoMo on July 11, 2012 11:59 AM writes...

Supply and Demand. Supply and Demand. Supply and Demand. Supply and Demand.

That's all. Let's close all graduate schools for a few years and let the Demand catch up.

Permalink to Comment

54. Fred the Fourth on July 11, 2012 10:15 PM writes...

I cringe every time I recall the advice I gave my daughter, to the effect that bioengineering would be a good major. MIT 5.0, Phi Beta Kappa, no prospects in either grad school or industry.

Permalink to Comment

55. Chemist turned Engineer on July 12, 2012 12:46 AM writes...

@ 54:
I made the same mistake as your daughter. I started in bioengineering, made excellent grades for 3 years, and switched to chemistry because I found out that bioengineers have a very difficult time finding jobs. Of course, that was kinda a lateral move, since chemistry isn't any better. Perhaps she could get an M.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering? That's what I'm doing.

Permalink to Comment

56. Student on July 12, 2012 1:19 AM writes...

For more thoughts:

Permalink to Comment

57. Ajay K Malik on July 12, 2012 3:18 AM writes...

The stories about scientist shortage will keep coming up because every time there is a new technology, the hiring companies (even academic labs) prefer pre-trained people. Gone are the days when companies hired people based on solid background and considered training (or bringing up to speed) as part of their hiring process. The Shale and Fracking companies do the latter. Pharma needs a change of mindset. There are thousands of scientists from Nutley to bay area that they can choose from. Right now, patience is in short supply.

Permalink to Comment

58. Anonymous on July 12, 2012 3:10 PM writes...

#45 - right on! And #53 just illustrates your point. Hard to pin an ROI on a revolutionary achievement, but it's society's problem, not (just) big pharma's. Kind of like public funding of the arts.

#42 - speak for yourself! I apply the scientific method to technological problems. I am a scientist.

Permalink to Comment

59. Rahul on July 12, 2012 4:05 PM writes...

I have a few comments

1. Considering the fact that more than 50 % of recent college graduates are working in jobs that do not require a bachelors degree or only 15 % of law graduates work for major law firms, I do not think scientist have it that bad. At least PhD slots are limited by how many they can support on TA/RA grants, law graduates are limited by only as many as they can sucker in. If you think science departments and NSF are not honest about career prospects, law graduates are actually suing their Alma Maters and the ABA for dishonesty

2. The scientist shortage/surplus debate is as old as science itself. Albert Einstein got his first job at the patent office.

3. My Ph.D class was 50 % foreign and 50 % american. I do not know of anybody who is unemployed. Did we struggle, sure, but we all eventually made it. Just because someone has a Ph.D., does not mean they are competent or fit for this profession. If they try hard enough, they will eventually get a break, it is up to them to make something out of that. The world does not owe you a living just because you are a scientist.

4. When I joined the Ph.D. program, the Indians/Chinese all drove jalopies while the americans all drove shiny new cars and vacationed in Europe with their girlfriends. 2 years later, I asked my american roommate who worked in the lab next door why his lifestyle was so much better than mine. He let me on to the secret. While I made slightly more money than him (I did not have to pay FICA, he did), he could borrow $ 8500 a year in Federal money though he got a stipend and his tution fee was paid and he did not have to repay a penny while he was in graduate school. My after tax salary was about $ 12,000 a year while his was $ 20,000 a year. Did he graduate with a big student debt, sure he did. This is a free country and you live with the choices you make.

Permalink to Comment

60. Anon on July 12, 2012 4:35 PM writes...

1. "At least PhD slots are limited by how many they can support on TA/RA grants"
That is entirely not true...
2. No it isn't. This problem began to emerge 20 years ago and in the last 5-10 it has really taken off.
3. They are looking for talent. And as stated, unemployment records hide how many people are in different careers (i.e. they wasted their time)
4. Anyone can take a loan. I don't see how this is relevant to the topics being discussed...

Permalink to Comment

61. Nick on July 12, 2012 5:03 PM writes...

@59 said -"When I joined the Ph.D. program, the Indians/Chinese all drove jalopies while the americans all drove shiny new cars and vacationed in Europe with their girlfriends."

You're obviously one of those sub-talented foreign grunts hired by a mega-group to run the roto-vap 24/7.


@59 said -"The scientist shortage/surplus debate is as old as science itself. Albert Einstein got his first job at the patent office."

This statement actually supports your identity as a sub-talented foreign faculty member who is exploiting the current system. No American would EVER say this.

Please take a hike. Be grateful the American people have paid your bills and allowed you the freedom to utter such preposterous statements.

Permalink to Comment

62. Shonkin on July 12, 2012 5:04 PM writes...

I'd like to bring up another (and related) point: Scientific societies don't necessarily act in their members' best interests. The American