Whither science? Employment is the key.

[ArchTeryx]

There's been alot of talk lately about the U.S. losing ground in scientific research to Asia. Right now, the hot-button issues being tossed around are, of course, the intelligent design flap, the stem-cell flap, and so on. Our awful education system doesn't help, either, and the Bush's increasing de-emphasis on research funding is starting to put real pressure on the research community.

But this isn't a diary that talks about those things. My reasoning for the decline of science in the U.S. is alot more pragmatic and personal, from someone that's been in the trenches since 1993. My assertion is that a large part of what's killing science is lack of good employment in the field.

Now, before I start, I will admit that I am something of an outlier even in the science field. I essentially flunked out of one grad school with a Master's, was unable to get a job for 3 years afterward, got a temp job -- no bennies -- for 2 years, returned to graduate school in 1999, and have fought ever since to get my PhD.

What I've seen in these 12-odd years can be summarized as such: unless you have the exact right skills at the exact right time and you live in the exact right place, you don't have much of a chance at getting a 'real' job in science. As a Master's, I was told again and again that if only I lived in California or Boston, I'd have a good shot at a job...but I lived in Chicago, and nobody flies down technicians when they have a zillion MIT or U of C graduates to draw from. So back to get the PhD I went. But that't no panacea either. It's getting harder and harder to get a 'real' job with a PhD in the sciences.

I'm no good at coming up with charts and graphs like the big names here. But I can say this: though unemployment in the sciences is nearly always VERY low (2.0% is a figure I've seen quoted for chemists around 2002) underemployment is often very high. For me -- in the biological sciences -- it's usually not too terribly difficult to get a 'postdoctoral' position. And postdoctoral positions pay far more then graduate student stipends. But they still pay only 40% of a PhD's starting salary, at best.

An increasing number of PhDs are ending up postdocs for life...or worse. Both what statistics I can find, and much anecdotal evidence from my colleagues, back this up.

The idea of "PhDs working for Wal Mart" is no myth even in the sciences, either, but it's fortunately rare, and with a good advisor, avoidable. Getting a job beyond the postdoc, however, seems as much a lottery as anything, and that's extremely discouraging.

That's what it all comes down to. Most of us scientists already gave up the idea of using our privilege -- high intelligence, good education, etc -- to simply make wealth. But if we can't get a job that pays more then $30,000 a year after 12 years of college, then that speaks volumes about the priorities of our society, and puts an almost complete lie to the idea that 'more education' will solve our economic woes. More education certainly doesn't help scientists any.

Believe me, if there were more high level research jobs in science then they are PhDs, then you'd see a resurgance of science in this country! But things have been going downhill ever since the Reagan years -- the number of PhDs keeps going up, the number of science jobs, at least in my field (bioscience) is stagnant.

There's plenty more observations I can make from the front lines, such as the almost total domination of Chinese and Indian students in some scientific fields now, but I'll save that for a later diary. In the meantime, though, I summarize my solution as being very, very simple: make the science jobs, and you'll get more American scientists. It's that simple.

[Demeter]

1. And Then Govt and Business Berates Americans

for not going to grad school---to what purpose? To have loans that one will never be able to pay off, and less opportunity for employment than an MBA who just bullshits through 2-3 years?

The game is rigged worse than a roullette wheel.

[greymattermom]

2. jobs

You're right. I'm a full professor and I train M.D./Ph.D. students, but as few Ph.Ds. as I can. My most recent Ph.D. student is working as a tech. At my institution good postdocs earn in the 40s and good masters level lab managers can earn up to 70s or 80s, more than assistant professors. All faculty jobs are 50% soft money. Tenured faculty included.

[ArchTeryx]

4. What field are you in?

I used to work as a lab manager at Baxter, but never made above $40K or so (with overtime) as a temp over there. Then, that was in the mid 90s.

Back during my 3 year stint as an unemployed Master's, my skills were primarily protein analysis and purification, but it was too 'generic' for companies to fly me halfway across the country to interview. Nowadays I am studying molecular virology. My skill base is alot broader, and I'm hoping virology is a more employable field then immunochemistry.

[The Traveler]

3. This has been going on since the 70s

The conditions you describe sound familiar to me, and I started grad school in 1977. I wimped out and was lured into the defense industry by what was, to me, am enormous salary.

It was a decision I had cause to regret from time to time. The logic seems to have been that the public can no longer afford to finance scientific research. Now it is becoming clear that we could not afford to NOT fund scientific research. Hindsight is the only vision fools choose to exercise.

[BedRock]

5. You are so right!

My husband is a PhD. He went back to school to get a Masters in Chemistry, but decided to go all the way. He ground it out and finished when he was almost 40.

He was lucky...he started working for a small research company his adviser was involved with, and he is very happy.

Society in general does not value the scientist, nor the hard work that is involved. We want to make that dollar, and do it quickly...and the very idea of having to study higher math, and actually think 5 steps ahead of the moment, and to read/think/puzzle/conjecture is just way to much work. AND no company wants to pay for it. Research is expensive and takes time. What happens is that small companies are doing the research which is supported by big companies and the government. At least this has been my experience.

Yes, there are those who stay as a post-doc for a long time. Yet, there are those who serve their time as a post-doc and move out into industry where PhDs are desired...pharmasuticals, semi-conductor, government. Here on the southern east coast there is a lot of work in bioscience....as well as on the west coast.

Another issue that I have seen. Graduate schools and companies like to take on the foreign student, because "they work like hell and are cheap." So look at your school as well. Are there a predominance of foreign students? I know you touched one it.

You may have to move, you may have to do research in something that is not exactly in your study. What I am trying to say is Hang In There! The jobs are there, but it may not be ideal for what you want. But it sure as hell will open doors, pay some bills....the job you want IS there despite the fact that large companies do not want to fund research. The government will and small companies are all over, just not well known...and they don't advertise that much.

American companies want to pay the stockholder and not invest in the research. Let the other guy do it....

[ArchTeryx]

6. Absolutely there is a predominance of foreign students here.

But it goes beyond economics, I think.

Part of the problem is that in my field, Ohio State is not a high-tier university like U of San Diego or Harvard or Washington University. So we truthfully get far more foreign then American students applying.

The other is that foreign students are often *MORE* expensive to the professors. They may work like Trojans, but they don't get the sort of fee rebates American students get and can't claim residence, so the PIs have to pay out of state tuition for them in perpetuity -- or find them TA positions. That isn't always easy, either.

The government is the backbone of "basic research" while small companies are still in the business of "applied research". Big companies do alot of applied research too, but they tend to get alot more calcified, while small companies do cutting-edge stuff.

And as for me, I really want to avoid moving to the coasts if I can avoid it. Real estate and the cost of living on the coasts is so hyperinflated I can't see how they could EVER pay enough for me to not be living perpetually 'on the edge', especially in my postdoc years. The only reason I have any financial viability at all as a grad student is because Columbus, Ohio is cheap!

But I'd love to hear more feedback from you on it.

-- ArchTeryx

[BedRock]

7. Not until recently did..

the state schools here change the way they handled foreign students. They actually covered the out of state tuition, which is total BS, imo. There are over 6 grad students under one prof. who happen to be from his country of birth and they have been working on their degrees for over 5 years and up to 8. I guess that crap will stop now.

As far as foreign students throughout the university...other than little knots of them, I would say it is predominantly American. And the profs are predominantly so. But it seems that there are certain ones that prefer the foreign student because there is so much that they can hold on them. I know of one that would constantly "threaten" his students (Russian and Chinese) by not signing their visa extensions. These poor guys were working 80 hrs a week.

And like I said...there is this idea that they work hard and cheap. But I tend to wonder about that. There is very little original research done....years spent in front of the computer, but very little application....and imagination. The longer they take to finish their degree, the longer they get to stay...and the longer the prof has a grad student to do the grunt work while he turns out publications. I have heard this same complaint from other universities also.

"Calcified" beautiful! This is so true! I think the corporate mentality stifles the creativity that is needed for research. The danger of "well, it has always been done this way" will kill advancement. That is one reason why my husband does not want to work for a large company...he (we) have worked for big companies and know first hand the fear that is generated when change or advancement is suggested or even demonstrated to be an asset. He wants to stay with a small outfit because it is always changing, challenging and satisfying.

I don't blame you about not wanting to move. I think the going rate for post docs around here is $30K (with decent bennies), but I'm not sure. This seems to be the point where the good jobs are discovered. I know of many who have gotten jobs without applying..word of mouth kind of thing. Hyper inflated? I guess, but when dh was offered a job in Cal., I put my foot down. I don't really know what the cost of living is in Columbus, but I can tell you that our cost of living evens out when compared to parts of Mich. (as much help that is to you, heehee) And a postdoc from Ohio State is not bad at all!!

There are so many reasons why science is not respected. The lower schools don't teach/demand it, the fast and easy $ is the goal, American companies don't support American students, politics vilifies the scientists, and people are intimidated by or feel that science is for losers. I am old enough to remember the Sputnik and the reaction this country had. After they got through wiping their backsides, they got on the ball and started supporting math and science big time. We were even tested 3 times a year for aptitude and IQ! (Of course, at the time girls were not supported in their interest in it..damn them) May be that is what is needed again. To have something happen to pull our collective heads out of our collective butts and realize that science is a basic need and not a political football. But with the current "moronic think" we have in D.C. now....

I think I should say one last thing before I stop this ramble. Many of my comments are not sweeping generalizations. I am speaking of things I have seen and heard, I am not applying a broad stoke.


Looking forward to hearing more from you on this.

[ArchTeryx]

8. A more personal response.

You'd really like my advisor.

Yes, he primarily has foreign students, but it seems to me that he's truly merit-based...he takes foreign students because that's what's available around here in his field (save for me). He treats his people well (saw me through a hospitalization and a major illness that keeps flaring up), and while we work hard (and he keeps the pressure up), we don't work 60 hour weeks, either. And we still manage to be quite productive! Imagine that. If only more professors were like him.

I'll give you a bit of a more personal window of cost of living too. You seem one of broader perspective then me, and thus far, I've really enjoyed reading your responses. So here are some numbers:

The big expense that I see is rent. Around Columbus, the average for a 1 br (I *CANNOT* do roommates for a variety of reasons) is about $500-600/mo. I found a real bargain of one near campus for $410 a month. That's about 1/3rd of my stipend. My major unbudgeted expense is medical; OSU's insurance program is better then some but has a 10% co-pay on everything. Were I a young healthy student, this would be a nonfactor. But I'm a 30something with ulcerative colitis and chronic pancreatitis. If not for that $410 a month rent, and my general ability to live simply with few possessions, the medical bills would have bankrupted me. Period. And I'm sure you know that bankruptcy is no longer a real option for the poor and lower middle class, as of October of this year.

(I get other aid, too, especially with keeping my 15 year old car running; a friend has good mechanical skills and we do alot of our own basic mantainence on the car, saving hundreds in garage bills. But major repairs I still have to take it in. And I only drive 7 miles each way to work).

You see why I am so loathe, now, to move ANYWHERE where my rent would instantly triple, even quadruple. That includes most of the 'high tech' parts of the coasts. Not to mention a huge increase in car insurance, huge probable increase in commuting distance, the sudden need to pay $300/mo in student loan payments, etc. Even if I cleared away ALL my medical bills with improved insurance and doubled my salary, I don't see how I could ever make up the difference.

I don't want to live on the edge of bankruptcy all the time. I did that once. I never want to do it again.

I have thought of Michigan as postdoc, tho. Ann Arbor is a nice town, most of my extended family is there, and the cost of living is expensive but not absolutely outrageous like in California, Boston, etc. I could probably balance my books with a $600 a month apartment or even a $700 a month apartment in Ann Arbor. Not a $1500-2000 a month apartment like in San Francisco...

I do admit, that the idea of working for a big company over a small one is appealing to me. The reason is simple: stability. Small companies demand insane hours of their people as a rule, are extremely high-pressure, high-stress positions, and said positions can disappear at the drop of a hat. High risk, high reward. Trouble is, my illness doesn't tend to react well to 'high risk'. Big companies provide a more predictable, stable environment and don't tend to demand huge hours of their people (I know; I worked for one for a few years before grad school). And to lower the pressure factor further, I'm considering going in to run a core lab somewhere, instead of be an independent researcher. Core labs can't readily be outsourced -- it's a helluva lot easier to carry your DNA to the core facility down the hall or in the building next door then ship it to China. I get to play with multimillion dollar equipment. And all the other labs depend on the core lab for critical data.

But who knows? I'd like to maintain at least a LITTLE sense of optimism that I can find a niche in this field. Because being a lab rat is what I was more or less born to be, and it's what I'll die as.

Looking forward to your next response. Even if it is a ramble. ;)

[Nikia]

9. I have a BA in Biology

I work as a quality assurance technician at a food processing company. I make just under $30,000 a year. A logical step in my career would be to become a quality manager, but I don't think that I really would want to be a quality manager or like quality assurance that much. I really want to be a scientist. It turns out that you usually cannot become a scientist with only an undergraduate degree. There are technician positions requiring a degree paying as little as $9/hour. Few pay more than $12 or $13/hour. I have considered going to graduate school as I have seen some ads paying good salaries. On the other hand, they are ridiculously specific and I would think that having a master's degree or doctorate would make it harder to get more general positions. I mean, I have already been told that I am overqualified as it it.

[ArchTeryx]

10. Well...

I've found that in industry, especially, it's not the degree you have, it's the skillset, especially if you want a 'lab rat' style position. Unfortunately, alot of Research Associate level positions have gone contractor or temp, like everything else in Corporate America, and thus give you squat for pay and no bennies. Including no health insurance. It's still a 'specialty skillset lottery'.

It's part of why I was driven back to get a PhD. The downside of having a PhD is yes, you become even less employable because of being overqualfied as a lab rat. The upside is, if you do get a job, you very likely won't be scratching the bottom of the temp barrel, and even postdoctoral positions have better pay and benefits then independent contractors (or the salary you describe). And having that 'Dr.' next to your name can have other fringe benefits, too, and open up doors that never were open before.

Just ask Dr. Barbara Ehrenreich, biology PhD.

Send a message if you want to talk more. :)

[seasat]

11. But Shrub Inc claims they have the largest R & D budget ever?

It should be easy to find a job, right? I saw an article on Shrub's science budget had to gag. Shrub inc is one of the major reasons for the decline in science. Their R&D budget is a record if you are working directly on a weapons systems or bioterrorism. He has gutted all the funding for other research.

I'm an oceanographer finishing up his PhD while working as a technician. Here's what has happened in funding that affects me. The EPA STAR program where they funded environmental research, gutted. NASA, going to Mars without additional funding, all NASA earth science programs are being gutted to the bare minimum. Office of Naval Research, had a 15% cut at the start of the Iraq debacle (they do basic research...not weapons systems). NSF only funded 5% of the proposals submitted to them this year. There was supposed to be an agreement to double the NSF budget but the Repugs played creative accounting by shifting programs from other agencies to NSF and calling that a budget increase. They then just gave up on doubling NSF's budget. NOAA has a proposed 14% cut in the house budget. Basically, if you want funding in science, you need work on something that will kill someone.

We're cobbling together grants from sources we never dealt with before and I've been cut back to half time. My wife and I just had twin boys. Right now it is okay because I'm able to stay home with the infants and work in the evenings, thus avoiding day care expenses. However, unless the tide turns, I may be looking for employment in another area.

[n2doc]

12. You got that right

* has been cutting all research areas or shifting funds into military/homeland security boondoggles. I'm also working the the marine sciences field and this is the worst that anyone has seen it. Last spring I was on a funding panel for NSF and all programs were being hit. It has gotten so bad that they are literally shutting down the research fleet for 2 years , with the exception of already funded projects, to try and recoup costs. at least 2 major vessels will simply be drydocked, their crews laid off...
Europe is already the leader in many environmental sciences areas. For example ETH-Zurich absolutely kicks our butts in seceral areas...But of course they don't "study" ID...

[GaYellowDawg]

13. I was really surprised.

I couldn't get a decent job with an MS in biology. I went back for a PhD in Genetics. It's amazing what a glut there is of PhD's in genetics or molecular biology or biochemistry.

I ended up transferring to the science education PhD program. I'd always enjoyed teaching more than benchwork, and frankly, I was a lot better at the teaching, too. It made sense to change over. Frankly, I thought that I'd end up making a lot less money. Turns out that most people in our program (we're very highly ranked) get professor positions straight out of school, with salaries in the mid-50's, so it was the right move financially, even if that wasn't the reason.

So I'll be a science teacher educator, and do science education research. With science teachers more and more in demand, there are more and more people headed in that direction; teaching is a rewarding and stable position. You don't make a ton of money, but then again, you don't get laid off or outsourced by a greedy CEO, either. Nowadays, stability and benefits are counting for more and more... and with the demand for science teachers comes the demand for science education faculty.