5 ms·

Well, I'm at a research institute as a postdoc. The problem is that there is no career path except for trying to get tenure, and since there are no openings and

Well, I'm at a research institute as a postdoc. The problem is that there is no career path except for trying to get tenure, and since there are no openings and the competition in the academic middle field is insane, this is so unlikely that it has become unrealistic to plan for it even when you're doing good work and have adequate publications. So at least in my area there is no research career. It's a dead end.

hluska 10y ago
Two things: 1.) I am sorry that you are going through this. 2.) Your experience perfectly matches that of a good friend of mine. She has been doing excellent work, she has had some great pubs and yet she considers getting tenure to be about as likely as winning a lottery. I wish I had something tangible to offer, but the best I can offer is my good wishes. Seriously, best of luck!
- mattkrause 10y ago
  As someone in the same situation, thanks for the good wishes! For biomed stuff, it's frustrating that the NIH seems like it could address this problem (they control a huge proportion of the available funding), but have no interest in actually doing so. If I were king for a day, I'd seriously consider shrinking the training grant pool and redirecting that money to developing viable career paths for "staff scientists" or other experienced-but-non-PI employees.
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    They don't have an interest in fixing the problem. They want to get as much research done as possible---and so they benefit from exploiting cheap labor. (One could perhaps argue that they are harmed in the long run, but this isn't clear.) They also don't see PhDs leaving academia as a bad thing at all. To the contrary, they advertise it as a positive externality; the research money isn't just staying inside an insular academic community, but is giving companies across the economy access to skilled labor. Giving money to staff scientists would work against both of these benefits. It would cost more and could reduce the number of trained scientists entering industry. (Although that isn't clear. Creating more NTT positions might just give hope to more of those eternal postdocs.)
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      > They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impression is that the NIH does what does because this is how it has always been done (and that worked well enough for the PIs they consult). I would love to see data suggesting that the current arrangement is optimal--or even close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent paper arguing that peer review scores for grants were mildly predictive of the number of number of resulting publications. As for staff scientists, one good staff scientist could certainly be more productive than a gaggle of newbie masters' students on their own. Right now, everyone is incentivized to do just enough to get the next paper. Permanent employees could build up infrastructure (protocols, code, etc.) that is actually reusable and ultimately more efficient.

hluska 10y ago

Two things: 1.) I am sorry that you are going through this. 2.) Your experience perfectly matches that of a good friend of mine. She has been doing excellent work, she has had some great pubs and yet she considers getting tenure to be about as likely as winning a lottery. I wish I had something tangible to offer, but the best I can offer is my good wishes. Seriously, best of luck!

mattkrause 10y ago
As someone in the same situation, thanks for the good wishes! For biomed stuff, it's frustrating that the NIH seems like it could address this problem (they control a huge proportion of the available funding), but have no interest in actually doing so. If I were king for a day, I'd seriously consider shrinking the training grant pool and redirecting that money to developing viable career paths for "staff scientists" or other experienced-but-non-PI employees.
- greeneggs 10y ago
  They don't have an interest in fixing the problem. They want to get as much research done as possible---and so they benefit from exploiting cheap labor. (One could perhaps argue that they are harmed in the long run, but this isn't clear.) They also don't see PhDs leaving academia as a bad thing at all. To the contrary, they advertise it as a positive externality; the research money isn't just staying inside an insular academic community, but is giving companies across the economy access to skilled labor. Giving money to staff scientists would work against both of these benefits. It would cost more and could reduce the number of trained scientists entering industry. (Although that isn't clear. Creating more NTT positions might just give hope to more of those eternal postdocs.)
  - mattkrause 10y ago
    > They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impression is that the NIH does what does because this is how it has always been done (and that worked well enough for the PIs they consult). I would love to see data suggesting that the current arrangement is optimal--or even close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent paper arguing that peer review scores for grants were mildly predictive of the number of number of resulting publications. As for staff scientists, one good staff scientist could certainly be more productive than a gaggle of newbie masters' students on their own. Right now, everyone is incentivized to do just enough to get the next paper. Permanent employees could build up infrastructure (protocols, code, etc.) that is actually reusable and ultimately more efficient.