|
|
| Postdoc Perspective: Taking the “Alternative” out of Alternative Careers in Science |
|
|
| By Patrick Lusk and Nadim Shohdy | ||
| November 2007 | PDA News | |
|
In the coming months the PDA will be highlighting how the “postdoc perspective” has been changing over the last few years and decades. For those of you that are interested, most of the data we will be citing was compiled by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and can be found at http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/training_datappt.htm. The majority of this article deals with the employment of US-trained biomedical Ph.D.s. Let us begin with an examination of how biomedical Ph.D.s from US institutions were employed from 1973 to 2003. Over this 30 year span, the percentage of Ph.D.s in academic positions has steadily declined from a peak of approximately 70% to near 50%. Most interestingly, the number of Ph.D.s employed with tenure or in tenure-track positions has not significantly changed over the last 20 years. As a percentage of academic jobs, tenured positions have consistently declined, reaching a low of ~40% in 2003 from a high of ~54% in the late 1980s. Most strikingly, only 28% of US biomedical Ph.D.s held a tenure/tenure-track position in 2003—down from 46% in 1981. Between 1981 and 2005 there was no significant change in the number of medical school faculty members in basic science departments although there were increases in clinical science departments, mostly for M.D.s and M.D.-Ph.D. holders. In contrast, while the overall number of tenured positions has not significantly increased, the number of Ph.D.s granted has doubled (the number of Ph.D.s granted from foreign institutions has also dramatically risen, we will deal with this in future articles). Further, much to our surprise, the number of Ph.D.s employed in academic positions has been slowly declining from a peak in 1995. As growth in tenured positions has stagnated, postdocs are increasingly migrating towards the private sector. In 1973, only 10% of US biomedical Ph.D.s worked in industry; that number has now tripled to 30%. There are now almost twice as many biomedical Ph.D.s working in industry compared to Ph.D.s in tenure/tenure-track positions at academic institutions. The fact that US institutions are increasing the numbers of biomedical Ph.D.s awarded without making more tenure/tenure-track positions available has clearly resulted in an exodus of postdocs from the traditional route of academic employment into “alternative” careers. Clearly, the alternative moniker is anachronistic since the majority of Ph.D.s are finding themselves in non-academic jobs. Alas, it begs the question, why is the non-academic option often considered the second-rate choice? Many postdocs find fruitful and rewarding opportunities that offer many advantages lacking in academia including industry research, teaching, business, finance, law, etc. This year, the PDA initiated the Insights into Alternative Careers in Science Seminar Series (http://ds9.rockefeller.edu/pda/insight.php) hosting former scientists working in consulting, science policy, and finance. The seminars have been well attended and have led to great insight, helpful advice, and stimulating discussions regarding these divergent career options. They are also excellent networking opportunities. In addition to audience members seeking information about a particular career, there were also a few postdocs with secured assistant professorships curious to hear about “what else was out there.” This apparent ignorance of other scientific career options displayed by some postdocs reflects the current state of the mentoring system on US campuses for graduate students and postdocs, one which is hardwired to mold academic scientists. This mentoring system is limited and clearly needs to be expanded in light of the current realities vis-à-vis landing a tenure-track position. It is tempting to speculate that at premier institutions such as Rockefeller postdocs are at a better vantage to secure tenure-track positions. While this may be true, it does not change the fact that our rigorous research training affords postdocs expertise and skills in great demand by many diverse occupations: pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies need us to conduct their research, teaching colleges need us to teach, investment banks need us to analyze and explain the science to biopharma investors, government agencies need us to promote sound science policy, and the list goes on and on. A swollen population of postdocs focused on one specific career choice is not only at odds with the scientific job market but is also detrimental to academia itself. By slimming down the “postdoc glut,” fewer researchers will be vying for limited funding resources (a topic we will discuss in a future article) and will likely lead to improving grant success rates. It has been 31 years since the cries of sacrilege when Herbert Boyer left academia to launch Genentech. Since then, attitudes have improved, albeit at a languid pace. We think that elevating “alternative” careers to equal acceptance with the traditional academic track will invigorate the career progression of biomedical postdocs. It is noteworthy to consider that the most influential scientific breakthroughs are discoveries that result in a paradigm shift. The way we consider postdoc career options is sorely in need of one.Related Articles:
|
||