Young Science USA

A reform movement that arose in 19th-century England provides a metaphor for what is now needed by our institutions of 21st-century American science. In 1840s England, an initially somewhat inchoate longing for national betterment arose among the sons of aristocrats attending Eton and Cambridge. Eventually known as the Young England Movement, its proponents, although essentially conservative, called for reform of the nation's sturdy institutions of feudalism in light of Victorian-era advancements.

What's needed today might be called the Young Science USA movement. Its proponents would maintain that America must reform how our government funds scientific research, specifically with an eye to encouraging and supporting our early career researchers in academia.

Young scientists are the people to whom we look for the sometimes startling paradigm shifts and scientific breakthroughs essential to national security and prosperity. Albert Einstein, the 20th-century's poster boy for scientific insight, was only 26, for example, during his annus mirabilis, the "year of wonders" during which he came out with his Theory of General Relativity and several other important papers. It's a fact -- in most fields of human endeavor, well-educated, bright, young people simply have the most innovative ideas.

But for too many years now we have been neglecting this key demographic.

Astonishingly, the National Institute of Health (NIH), a major funding source for critically important biomedical research, define an early career, or young, scientist as "age 42 and below."

The average age of a researcher winning a first NIH grant in 1970 was 35.2 years, while it currently hovers around 42.9, with the average age of all NIH grant recipients now at 51.7 years, versus 40.9 in 1970. The chance of a young researcher today being successful in NIH grant competitions is a remarkably low 4 percent.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that in physics in recent years, almost 70 percent of new Ph.D.s are shunted off into temporary (and low-paying) postdoctoral jobs, compared to 43 percent in 2000. This trend may be helpful to older established researchers in need of lab help, and to universities looking for a cheap source of instructors, but it does little to liberate our finest, most creative, young minds to pursue fresh theories and explore new insights.

The Young Englanders passed the Climbing Boys Act -- legislation that attempted to temper life's harshness for the nation's chimney sweeps; Young Science USA should be working to improve the plight of our nation's woefully underpaid, often intensely overworked, postdoctoral researchers, many of whom become discouraged and leave the sciences.

Fortunately, Young Science USA may have its own political champion -- much as the Young England Movement relied on Benjamin Disraeli, twice Prime Minister, for leadership. His name is Barack Obama, and he made a point of mentioning the plight of early career researchers during his presidential campaign. In the past month, under the leadership of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, the Department of Energy designated $85 million in stimulus funds as grants to be awarded to 50 young scientists, defined as those within 10 years of having earned their Ph.D.s.

This is great news, and a good start -- but $85 million, out of a total DOE budget of $27 billion, amounts to little more than the expression of good intentions. Much more must be done.

At stake is America's national security and economic competitiveness in an era when India, China and the rising Asian tigers are making great strides to improve their science and technology sectors. As a result, observers predict, the United States will lose the supremacy in science and technology that it has enjoyed for the past half-century. That's not necessarily bad news -- a better-educated, more advanced Third World is important for humankind. But U.S. science is now in danger of falling behind these rising powers, and that will mean that we could slip economically as well.

The last 60 years have established beyond all doubt that scientific and technological prowess is essential to a modern nation. We have a sacred duty to future generations of Americans to maintain the most advanced scientific programs imaginable. And meeting this responsibility is more complicated than ever: today's complex advanced science frequently requires teams of researchers to cross the boundaries of physics, chemistry, biology and other disciplines to solve problems that would have seemed wildly impossible only decades ago.

At Research Corporation for Science Advancement, the nearly 100-year-old private foundation that I head, we take this daunting challenge seriously.

Next year we will fund a new program called Scialog. Like the Department of Energy program previously discussed, Scialog will support young researchers to tackle complex science questions that address the broad context of global climate change. We will fund and bring together academic researchers who have just received tenure -- the most creative cohort in American science -- and assist them in forming teams to find new ways to increase the efficiency of processes to convert sunshine directly into electricity.

If they succeed, we have a chance at a new age; if they fail, we will still have learned a great deal of new science that will take us in unexpected directions. A prime ingredient of advanced scientific research is the willingness to take a chance on a new and interesting idea -- something that large, federal, funding agencies admit they haven't been good at in the recent past. Under President Obama, they appear to be taking modest strides at taking such risks.

The Young England movement eventually petered out; Young Science USA must never be allowed to do so. If the future of our nation is not continually renewed by young Americans well supported in their advanced scientific research, we likely will have a very dim future indeed.

James M. Gentile is President & CEO of Research Corporation for Science Advancement, America's first foundation dedicated solely to science, founded in 1912.

Comments

[Gimme2steps]

In response to HAlexandria (cont)

See also,

“In England, for example, chemistry students generally obtain their doctorates in 3.5 years, whereas Americans take almost double that, says Alvin Kwiram, a professor emeritus of chemistry and former vice provost for research at the University of Washington.”

From America’s Science Test “The real science crisis bleak prospects for young researchers.” Richard Monastersky. The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume 54, Issue 4, Page A1 Sept 2007

[Gimme2steps]

In response to HAlexandria,

See, "Four years has become the magic number for many graduate programmes. Eugene Russo explains the logic behind the math. Eugene Russo.
Nature 431, 382-383.

"in the United Kingdom, the trend [to obtain a PhD degree] is up from 3 years to 3 1/2 or four. With financial commitments from the Medical Research Council MRC and the Welcome Trust, the number of 4 year programmes is rising."

See, Samuel Coleman, "Japanese Science from the Inside."
Japan has several types of PhDs including the paper doctor, a degree awarded by industry for publishing a paper, these are the ronbun hakase or pepa dokuta, awarded without classes and comprehensive exams. This is a life experience PhD. There is also an igaku hakase PhD. This can be awarded by all public hospitals and is awarded for essentially residency training in Japan.

This is why most MDs that come to the US from Japan and China are MD PhDs. The PhD is awarded on top of the MD for essentially for minor routine lab work during residency, again mostly no dissertation. (My apologies to those who really had to earn their PhDs.)

[Gimme2steps]

The un-scientific nature of US science policy: The status quo scientists and Universities do not want to analyze the data

Many established well-funded scientists and universities have been involved in destroying the careers of the American trained scientists, and the future of science in America. How?

Established scientists have ignored the differences in PhD standards and time frames around the world.
A PhD in the US averages 7-8 years, because of the extensive dissertation requirement. Many countries have 3-4 year PhD programs without dissertation requirement, including Japan, Germany, Great Britain, India, China.

Why? Universities and established scientists want inexpensive indentured labor to work on their research grants, so more hard-earned taxpayer money goes into their pocket. At the end of 7-8 years of post BS and 4 years of undergraduate Americans are out of money. So the universities and established scientists bring in a second tier of individuals to exploit, the foreign “postdoctoral trainee.”

Normally in an equilibrium balanced education system, the number of doctoral and postdoctoral positions would reflect US job opportunities. As the number of jobs decrease, the number of doctoral candidates would decrease, as the jobs increase candidates increase.

With 100s of thousands of foreign PhDs being produced and allowed to enter the US “postdoctoral trainees” then the expected number of “foreign postdoctoral trainees” is reflective of foreign PhDs being produced and their desire to work in the US.

Somehow well-endowed status quo scientists can not do the math.

[HAlexandria]

7-8 years *total* in the US, I am not aware of any institution anywhere in the world that offers a 3 year PhD programme. If such a programme does exist, the degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

But I do agree that the US allows far too many foreigners into it's science and engineering schools, both as a source of revenue(via tuition) and as a source of cheap labour.

You get what you pay for, if someone is smart enough to get a degree in some highly technical field, they are smart enough that such fields provide a very low return on investment, often times they result in a loss..... Which is why the brightest American minds have ended up on Wall Street creating paper wealth for over a decade.