Where Have All the (American) Scientists Gone?

President Bush recently signed a $41 billion "America Competes" bill designed in part to produce more mathematicians and scientists. The question Bush should have asked is: what will the country do with them?

About 18 months ago, I wrote a piece for the Washington Post, "Heard the One about the 600,000 Chinese Engineers?" (not my title). After it appeared, I received numerous emails from engineers who pointed out a) there was no shortage of engineers in this country and b) engineering didn't pay very well. About 25% of those with engineering degrees became real estate agents, financial advisors, etc. If engineering paid as well as doctoring or lawyering, the engineering schools would be packed, my correspondents said.

This response echoed an earlier column for Phi Delta Kappan, "Where Have All the Physics Majors Gone?" (January, 1999). Then, they had gone to majors that had better job prospects and gave out higher grades.

Two recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education imply that the situation has gotten worse. In the September 21 issue, Chronicle science writer, Richard Monastersky observed that it takes a half year longer to get a doctorate now than in 1987; that doctorates in science in England take about 3.5 years to acquire while it's double that here; that nearly 70 percent of new physics Ph.D.'s take temporary positions now compared to 43 percent in 2000; that the number of scientists in tenure-track positions in biomedicine has not increased in 20 years despite a doubling of the number of doctorates granted in that period; and that while the National Institute of Health's budget has doubled since 1998, the chances of a young scientist getting a major research grant has decreased.

Scientists now spend much more time writing grant applications and getting them turned down, says Monastersky. A number of older scientists are retiring early in frustration. The situation moved the highly respected journal, Nature, to call the situation of young scientists "Indentured Servitude." The only happy aspect is that the glut of bright young scientists gives established scientists a bigger pool of smart people from which to choose low-paid assistants.

Undergrads in science see the warning signals -- professors who can't get grants, postdocs who can't get tenure -- and head elsewhere. This opens space for a lot of talented foreigners, but physicist D. S. Hsu at the University of Oregon says, "In the long run it's bad for the nation. It will become a peripheral thought in the minds of Americans that science is a career path." Hsu might not be old enough to recall that a science career was a "peripheral thought" in this nation until Sputnik orbited in1957. The most-used adjective to describe scientists then was "odd." In the post-Sputnik years money flowed from Washington, science was in the spotlight and people came to see science as exciting.

Part of the problem is that the traditional model of graduate training is obsolete. Traditionally, a student is mentored by a single professor. "Only the American bedroom has more privacy associated with it than the relationship between the faculty member and the Ph.D. student," says George Walker of Florida International University. Students now need multiple mentors and need to learn workplace skills other than those appropriate to becoming a professor -- since many of them won't.

Back in the Sixties, I defined a university professor as a person who advocated revolutionary change in every social institution except the university. And it is still true that professors resist change. When professor Hsu brings some of his former students in to talk about their jobs in finance or in the software industry, it rankles a lot of his colleagues.

In the December 17 issue of the Chronicle, longtime freelance science writer, Dan Greenberg, asks why so many science jobs are filled by foreigners. It's the same reason that our lettuce field and apple orchard jobs are -- long hours, low wages, and miserable working conditions that only foreigners could see as a step up. We're headed for a new academic title, says Greenberg, "Postdoc Emeritus."

"No amount of improved high school science is going to fix this problem, which is essentially economic. A doubling of salaries and improved conditions for getting ahead in a scientific career would bring in many more American recruits. But that's not going to happen. Despite the glorification of science, the marketplace sets the value and the price. Which is why foreigners flock to our schools and labs while Americans seek their fortunes in other fields."

But the people who bash public schools with images of the U. S. being crushed by China and India will continue to scream for more scientists and mathematicians. The marketplace might set the value and the price, but it does not set the rhetoric.

Comments

[ebreimer]

Physics, Electrical Engineering, Biology, Mathematics etc. have a reputation for being difficult. The dopes and lazy-bones in college are not choosing these fields of study; they are choosing communications, psychology, English, etc. When an English major is successful, people just assume its because they are smart and work hard; their success or failure is rarely attributed to their selection of college major. But, when a Physics major fails to land a good job, people assume its "the field" that failed them because obviously a Physics major can't be a dope. But there are students who are great at science but lack some other element (common sense and interpersonal skills) and can not compete outside of college. Part of the problem is that certain types of students gravitate to Science; teachers, parents, and counselors help perpetuate the stereotypes. The "Scientists" who enjoy great financial success are usually so multi-dimensional that people don't notice that they are in fact Scientists.

[Cathexis]

This strikes me as a natural result of a governing Political Party that has declared War on Science, coupled with the myopic Corporate Plutocracy that is focused on milking what it can without having to go through the "expense" of research, innovation, or actual product/service improvement.

Since these two groups effectively control our country, is it any wonder that we are paying the costs of their ignorance/­short-sigh­tedness?

No problem ... I'm sure we can just "outsource" innovation and such to cheaper countries. (obligatory rolling of eyes)

[apsmith]

This all isn't anything new - check out the history of the "Young Scientists' Network" which I was involved with in the early 1990s. There's not much trace of it left on the web since all of us have moved on to a variety of corporate jobs after years on the postdoc cycle. But one email from the time is archived here:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1993-May/004868.html

People go into science for altruistic reasons, and that's probably for the good in the long run.

On the other hand, engineers really ought to be paid better...

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, I'm not an engineer, well, maybe shade-tree but you know what? For all of these
education credentials, it's taken a massive
expose on the real-estate angle on the Big 3
to get people off their asses and working
on higher-MPG cars, possibly one of the most
significant engineering challenges of our time.
One of the problem with all of these belaureled
mechanical technical wizards is they've also
got a bad case of fatass-itis. Got the phat
cushy job, not going to make waves, just going
to keep collecting the old (government?)
doughnut, there, and not push the envelope.
This general attitude may in fact explain
why our space station still most closely
resembles several beer cans glued together,
and why Nawlins took a bath. NumMERS, gummit
donutz!

[jvarga]

I'll start this with my background. I'm 28 years old. I received a BS in biology in 2001 and a PhD in microbiology in 2006. I have ~$45,000 in student loan debt. As a graduate student, I started out earning $15,000 a year, ended up at $19,000 a year. Out of that income came ~$1,100 a year in fees BACK to the university. During that time, I worked anywhere from 60-80 hours per week, 49 weeks a year (I took 1 week in the summer and 2 weeks at christmas to visit my family).

So starting with that awesome financial picture, at the time of my graduation I had a post-doctoral fellowship lined up. It paid me on the NIH post-doc payscale (I'm not working for the NIH, but their payscale is used as a standard). Step 0 is ~$38,500 dollars. This is not adjusted for locality, so despite the cost of living in the DC metro region, my pay remains the same.

I am paid less than technicians with a 4 year degree because there isn't an institutionalized slavery in place for technicians, only post-docs.

What do you think I tell people who talk to me about a career in science (whether it be their own career or adults talking about their kids interest in it)?

When the conversation starts off with "well, I went to college for 9 years and I'm poor. I like what I do but in the winter I keep my thermostat at 65C so that my electric bill doesn't outpace my income." it usually goes downhill.

I wish I could talk about the work we do , or the prospects of my project to make a positive change in the spread of a disease endemic in SE asia. Or speak highly of the public education system (k-12) that put me in a position to succeed in a private college and a state college that gave me a chance to earn my PhD.

Instead I have to bring up the government establishing a slave wage system for recent PhDs.

[derik]

30 years ago I finished my BS in Comp Sci. Then I left the "science" environment (College) and went into the corporate world. A few years later I "finished" my MBA and went deeper into the corporate business world. All for the sake of the almighty dollar. Now, I often wonder whether, after 30 years, I have gone beyond a PhD (in technology and business) that I regret never pursuing. Either way, I now spend my time linking together and learning all the cool things in science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Math and everything else all the way to even the genome). Maybe, if the kids get turned on like my 50+ year old mind, they may indeed go towards the sciences. Obviously, my economic conditions make my pure education for fun much easier. So, just remember the old scientists (some) are such an untapped resource. What a shame.

[BobMunck]

A current entry on the Cosmic Variance blog (the disaster referred to is the treatment of research funding in the just-passed omnibus spending bill):

"The disaster occurs in two specific areas, Fusion Energy Sciences and High Energy Physics, which are targeted for deep, roughly 10%, cuts. The cut in fusion research comes about because the bill provides zero funding for the US contribution to ITER. Let me remind you that ITER is the large international fusion reactor that is currently being constructed in France and is funded by international treaty. The US has signed that treaty and was set to contribute roughly $160 M this year. Apparently Congress just doesn’t understand that there are serious ramifications in backing out of an international treaty. Even one dedicated solely to science projects. This jeopardizes future international projects and provides yet further proof that the US is not a reliable partner."

This may be as large a blow to physics research in this country as the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider. If I were a young person contemplating going into physics (as I was in 1963), I'd either reconsider or give some thought to whether Europe or Asia would be the better choice for that career.

[RFuqua]

Maybe since I live and work in Houston, I see these disciplines everyday, and let me assure you, we can not find enough engineers and their pay is mostly 100K or better. hell, a college grad can start around 75-80k with no experience.
Not really sure how much engineering goes on where you are, but it is rockin down here.