4 ms·

To me, it seems that the bigger problem is lack of good jobs for trained scientists, rather than any inefficiencies of matching them to each other. Academia, on

To me, it seems that the bigger problem is lack of good jobs for trained scientists, rather than any inefficiencies of matching them to each other. Academia, on the one hand, is replete with positions like postdocs and adjunct professorships that are low-paying career dead ends. And on the other, many industry jobs listing Ph.D. as a requirement don't utilize research skills, so someone with a Masters or an undergraduate degree can do them just as good. Such people are usually hired ahead of scientists. I don't know about biomedicine in particular though. Maybe, something is different there.

ampdepolymerase 7y ago
Simple, supply and demand. Plenty of biology students and not enough growth in the industry. Biotech and healthcare have a ton of regulatory capture, gatekeeping, and barriers of entry that you do not really have any good companies to choose from. Other than your traditional pharma giants, there are not many alternatives. Theranos was supposed to be biology's Google, its unicorn trailblazer. Unfortunately it did not work out. YC's Gingko looks good on paper but it is no exponential growth machine.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
Both are problems. For many of those who went the academic route in science, there is very little knowledge of what kind of jobs are actually available in the private sector. Matching those skills to private sector employers will help both those contemplating leaving the academic sphere. For those determined to remain in the academic sphere, it could lessen the intense competition for positions.
collyw 7y ago
As someone that never did a PhD I wonder why it is assumed that it is needed for research. Usually a PhD just seems to be a low paid position with a bit of academic freedom these days.
- bananaquant 7y ago
  The undergraduate and Masters degrees typically don't have the research component; that's why PhDs are necessary. At the same time, I completely agree about their poor pay and not a lot of freedom.

ampdepolymerase 7y ago

Simple, supply and demand. Plenty of biology students and not enough growth in the industry. Biotech and healthcare have a ton of regulatory capture, gatekeeping, and barriers of entry that you do not really have any good companies to choose from. Other than your traditional pharma giants, there are not many alternatives. Theranos was supposed to be biology's Google, its unicorn trailblazer. Unfortunately it did not work out. YC's Gingko looks good on paper but it is no exponential growth machine.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Both are problems. For many of those who went the academic route in science, there is very little knowledge of what kind of jobs are actually available in the private sector. Matching those skills to private sector employers will help both those contemplating leaving the academic sphere. For those determined to remain in the academic sphere, it could lessen the intense competition for positions.

collyw 7y ago

As someone that never did a PhD I wonder why it is assumed that it is needed for research. Usually a PhD just seems to be a low paid position with a bit of academic freedom these days.

bananaquant 7y ago
The undergraduate and Masters degrees typically don't have the research component; that's why PhDs are necessary. At the same time, I completely agree about their poor pay and not a lot of freedom.