Session 10
Session #10 April 14, 2021
Scientific communities: Changes in the demography of science
In this session, we will consider the several factors that determine the vitality of scientific communities, especially here but also elsewhere. We will view those factors and their consequences from the perspectives of social planners, scientific leaders, and government officials who are thinking about the likelihood of individual success in scientific careers, as well as the productivity of the scientific enterprise (in the US and globally). Some of the factors include: the kinds and numbers of jobs available for the conduct of scientific work; the educational and training mechanisms required to develop the scientific workforce; the skills needed to advance US science, to adapt to changes in the kind of science that is anticipated, and to compete effectively with other countries, especially those that are expanding their engagement in science and technology; the mechanisms used to support research (including, especially, grants in the public sector but also allocations for research in the private sector); and government policies and political support for them.
Three years ago, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a long-awaited, Congressionally mandated report entitled The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through. The report was inspired by widespread concerns, during the past decade or more, that newly trained investigators in the biomedical sciences are increasingly at risk of being unable to fulfill their potential because of a paucity of suitable positions and financial support for their scientific work. Such limitations have been viewed as threats to the future of the U.S. scientific enterprise and as perverse conditions fostering an unhealthy, “hyper-competitive” atmosphere in the current world of medical science.
The COVID-19 pandemic has put the system for educating and training new scientists under additional pressure. Think about how the closure of academic laboratories for all but the most essential work in 2020 (e.g. studies of coronaviruses) might have affected career development for those working on other important topics and how we might reduce the unwanted consequences of those effects. Also consider how the financial status of universities and academic health centers might affect their ability to provide salaries for adjunct faculty and trainees: what are some risks and solutions? Events during the past year have also focused attention on the dramatic under-representation of our minority populations in science and that too has become a major factor in thinking about the composition of the future scientific workforce.
During class, we will discuss the long- and short-term causes and consequences of various disincentives to enter careers in science, as well as some possible remedies. I have tried to organize the discussion into four parts, denoted with a question and accompanied by some relevant texts, as noted below:
TOPIC A: What do you see as the major events that have created the current crisis of confidence in our traditionally successful research enterprise?
I propose that we set the stage for this discussion with one report that describes some common views. In 2014, I co-authored and published a short paper with three senior colleagues about some very worrisome problems in biomedical sciences. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000813/
It attracted widespread attention because it captured current anxieties about how imbalances of the labor force and resources (especially jobs and grants) were affecting the performance of science. Think also about how the current pandemic might affect the analysis.
TOPIC B: Given current conditions and systems for training, research, and funding, what feasible changes would you recommend?
- A good starting place for this discussion is the 2018 report from the NRC that I mentioned in the preamble: it is freely available for downloading from the National Academies website (https://www.nap.edu/download/25008)
I would recommend reading the Summary and any additional chapters or appendices that you find especially interesting.
- One way to improve the climate for doing non-commercial science is to improve the kinds of research grants that are made available to scientists at academic institutions and research institutes. As an example, consider the following article, which makes some specific recommendations for improving prospects for NIH grant support for young investigators:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/360/6390/716.full.pdf
Note that this article was written by a group of authors, representing the advocacy group called Rescuing Biomedical Research (RBR; http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org ) that was formed after the publication of the article recommended for Topic A. Note also that had been posted much earlier than the publication date in Science on the pre-print server, bioRxiv: https://peerj.com/preprints/26465/ The delay in appearance of the peer-reviewed article, which differs very little from the preprint, illustrates the utility of posting preprints, a topic we discussed in Session #7.
- Another way to change the environment for doing science is to increase the budgets for research funding agencies so that they can fund more training programs and grants. Currently—in fact, this very week—such a change is being actively debated. As an article in this week’s Science magazine describes, proposals to increase the budget of the US National Science Foundation and to emphasize investments in research on development of various technologies, initially introduced as draft legislation in Congress in 2020, has been incorporated into a so-called “infra-structure” bill proposed by President Biden:
This proposal raises a lot of important questions about what kinds of science should be supported by government, as opposed to the commercial sector, and this week the question was discussed in the regular conversation between two columnists, Bret Stephens and Gail Collins, published in The New York Times:
Bret: I’m actually not against a lot of what’s in the infrastructure plan. Even conservatives don’t like potholes. What I fear about this is that it’s going to give the government a vastly larger role in allocating capital. For instance, the plan devotes $50 billion to “semiconductor manufacturing and research.” Thanks, but I’d just as soon have the Intels and Microns of the world do the job. Or there’s $46 billion for “clean energy manufacturing.” Again, that sounds great in theory, but the last time we tried that we got expensive failures like Solyndra or Fisker Automotive.
Gail: If we’re gonna argue about federal aid and industrial research, let’s take those computer chips. A lot of people are worried about China getting ahead of us. Also this is exactly the sort of product nobody wants to be dependent on other countries for an adequate supply.
Bret: Last I checked, Apple makes the fastest laptop chip in the world. Not sure they need federal aid.
My biggest worry is that we’re going to end up like France: a lovely country of talented people and great culture in which the government spends a huge share of gross domestic product, and which, consequently, has experienced 40 years of chronically high unemployment, diminished economic competitiveness, political polarization, a brain drain and general decline.
Gail: Well, France has a better life expectancy, so they can at least decline longer, and in more comfort.
Bret: I blame our lagging life expectancy as a nation entirely on the Never Ending Pasta Bowl at Olive Garden.
Gail: Really, there’s a heck of a lot of difference between using federal money to encourage research on advanced technology and putting government in competition with business. If the government invests well, it’ll spur business forward.
Bret: A lot hanging on that “if.”
TOPIC C: If you could dictate the availability of talent (the labor force), research positions in academic, government, and commercial sectors, and funds for the support of research, how would you organize the system?
There are many ways to try to shape the future scientific work force, and we will try to touch on many of these during class. But at the moment there is special attention being given to the need to increase representation of minority populations in the scientific enterprise. I encourage you to read the attached essay (which will appear in Science magazine this week) and one other as background material for further discussion of this critical issue.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18137.long
TOPIC D: Should there be a limit imposed on the age at which a scientist can obtain federal grants? (In other words, should we improve the chances for young investigators by requiring older ones to exit public funding mechanisms?)
Very little has been written on this final topic but nearly everyone has an opinion, based on their age, personal observations, and perhaps values and politics, rather than data about productivity, the job and labor market, or psychosocial factors. But that won’t stop us from having a vibrant discussion.
CODA
For those of you contemplating careers in science, all of these topics will have important practical consequences. For the others, the significance of the workforce and related issues for the future of science and the health and vitality of our society should be apparent.
