Are we producing too many scientists, or too few?
Tue, 26/05/2009 - 15:00
The short answer is: it depends on who you ask.
The view of governments, universities and policy-makers seems to be "We need more!". They argue that Canada needs to sharply increase its output of scientists with advanced degrees, since they are the engine of “innovation” that will drive the “knowledge-based economy” of the future.
In contrast, some in the scientific community argue that an oversupply of scientists is having negative long-term effects on the research enterprise, lowering the morale of young scientists, and eroding the appeal of research as a career choice for today’s “best and brightest.”
For a more detailed analysis of this question, see "The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?" at:
http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/index.php/main/article/view/108/75
and also attached as a PDF to this posting.
The short answer is: it depends on who you ask.
The view of governments, universities and policy-makers seems to be "We need more!". They argue that Canada needs to sharply increase its output of scientists with advanced degrees, since they are the engine of “innovation” that will drive the “knowledge-based economy” of the future.
In contrast, some in the scientific community argue that an oversupply of scientists is having negative long-term effects on the research enterprise, lowering the morale of young scientists, and eroding the appeal of research as a career choice for today’s “best and brightest.”
For a more detailed analysis of this question, see "The Scientific Workforce Policy Debate: Do We Produce too Many Biomedical Trainees?" at:
http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/index.php/main/article/view/108/75
and also attached as a PDF to this posting.
Mon, 20/07/2009 - 15:00
#2
Is This the right question?
I believe it doesn't have to be all about the quantity of scientists.
A single, well educated scientist with ample creativity and time on his hands can provide far more innovation than hundreds of trained professionals. Unfortunately, more often than not, new graduates have to settle for a job in the currently booming industry regardless of their lack of interest in it.
One of the reasons to such urgency to find a job can be the debt resulting from many years of formal education. The way I see it - New graduates have no time to be creative. They must get down to earth and start making some money, whether they like it or not.
In my opinion, the true question worth asking is not whether we have an adequate amount of scientists. But "how can we provide the support and atmosphere conductive to true creativity?"
I would also like to comment on the word "producing" used in the question. I believe that such discourse reduces scientists to mere factors of production and ignores the human aspect of science. Scientists are not produced, they study in post-secondary institutions and strugle to keep dreaming and creating
Fri, 23/10/2009 - 15:00
#3
Numbers
Dmitri Schaffer wrote:
(1) "I believe it doesn't have to be all about the quantity of scientists."
Agreed
(2) "A single, well educated scientist with ample creativity and time on his hands can provide far more innovation than hundreds of trained professionals."
I challenge whether any empirical evidence suggests this is true. We can agree innovation depends much on demand (whether in economic markets or other, non-market, domains) viz. "demand pull" as much or more than such "supply push" as Mr. Schaffer ascribes to the "single, well educated scientist with ample creativity and time on his hands." Science Council documents of the 1970s dealt to a useful extent with this difference -- but they did not speculate about supposedly underutilized wellsprings of creativity.
(3) "Unfortunately, more often than not, new graduates have to settle for a job in the currently booming industry regardless of their lack of interest in it."
This seems doubtful. Common sense suggests few people who "settle for a job" in which they have "no interest" are likely to be either happy or creative. But we have no reason to suppose this has any bearing on the total number of scientists and engineers, i.e. how many the universities and medical schools train.
(4) We can agree personal debt is a significant problem for young graduates today, that did not exist in the 1960s.
Fri, 21/08/2009 - 15:00
#4
I think the answer to your
I think the answer to your question is Yes, but only based on the current perception of a scientist's "Ideal Career Path." To read funding guidelines or university trainee engagement rules, following graduation a PhD-holder is expected to work as a postdoctoral fellow for no more than 3 years, after which they should have moved on (ideally) to an academic position or to one in industry or an "alternate career"
There are a few problems here. First, the number of PhD graduates is far exceeding the number of available academic faculty positions. In addition, the current economic situation has also made it harder to find jobs in the private sector. Because of this backlog, the postdoc population is growing, but there are no provisions being made to accommodate this. The majority of funding agencies still often cap the number of years a postdoc is eligible for support at three. Unfortunately, many postdocs find that there is simply nowhere for them to go. Meanwhile, as was pointed out, the emphasis from government and academia is still more, more more, instead of addressing the needs of the scientists that are struggling to move out of a postdoc position.
Comité d'organisation
Mehrdad Hariri (président)
Shiva Amiri
Marcius Extavour
Eleanor Fast
Curtis Forbes
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Odile Lagacé
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Anton Neschadim
Jeff Sharom
Mahadeo Sukhai
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Shiva Amiri
Marcius Extavour
Eleanor Fast
Curtis Forbes
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Odile Lagacé
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Anton Neschadim
Jeff Sharom
Mahadeo Sukhai
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Twitter (sciencepolicy)
Many thanks to everyone who attended the CSPC 2009 and made it a great success. I was deeply impressed by the energy of the delegates and the depth of the discussion, and I hope we can carry this momentum forward!
Interestingly, this “should we be cranking out more scientists?” question came up a few times at the conference, and the usual disconnect was apparent:
- Several high-profile speakers lamented the fact that Canada produces fewer PhDs in S&T than other nations, and warned of us impending doom if we didn’t take prompt action to boost the number.
- In contrast, others questioned what all these PhD-holders are meant to be doing, exactly. In a comment from the floor of the “science education” session, one postdoctoral fellow said: “I’m just going to put it out there, guys: WAY too many postdocs!”… and in the closing plenary session, it was noted that “it’s not clear what you can do with a S&T PhD in Canada”.
With the arrival of the “knowledge economy”, what could be better than producing more people with S&T PhDs… right?
However, there’s a sticking point: current PhD/postdoctoral training provides intense preparation for one specific job – that of academic researcher… and this is a career that (from the statistics that I’ve seen) only 20-30% of postdocs in the biomedical sciences will ultimately take up. The other 70-80% of postdocs will – voluntarily or involuntarily – find themselves in an “alternative career” outside of academia (or science altogether), based on the transferable skills that they’ve developed as a by-product of doing academic research (written and oral communication, problem solving, project management, etc).
As both Bruce Alberts and Preston Manning mentioned in their keynote addresses, the dispersal of scientists into other sectors of society is a good thing. And from a purely utilitarian perspective, it’s undeniable that the status quo is a highly cost-effective way of advancing scientific knowledge for society’s benefit – essentially, “producing science” and “producing scientists” are inextricably liked in the current system. The bulk of scientific research is performed by trainees (PhD students and postdocs)… and they work long hours for little pay, in a Darwinian struggle for the few academic research positions available. All in all, it’s great value-for-money, regardlesss of what ultimately happens to these people...
However, one wonders if this is truly the most efficient way of using our human capital. Is the intensive research training of a PhD truly required for all the jobs that PhD-holders eventually find themselves in? Would trainees (and society) be better served by changing the content of PhD training to better reflect the careers that PhDs will eventually adopt?