I should clarify that I mean that the argument and facts that the article uses are OK. It starts: >Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to un

I should clarify that I mean that the argument and facts that the article uses are OK. It starts: >Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it! and ends >What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. But the very same argument would apply to: "Are you thinking of founding a company? Do you want to build value and change the lives of millions of people, getting rich in the process? Forget it!" We could then go on to state why entrepreneurship has an even lower success rate than that talked about in the article. For every one hundred people who set out to change the world by founding a company, how many succeed? The truth is that the average founder's prospects are, rationally, miserable. That does not stop the best and brightest from going into entrepreneurship, building companies and actually changing the world. In the exact same sense that Planck was not discouraged by his university's professor of physics stating that he should not study physics, and should concentrate on something else. Likewise Von Neuman's father insisted he study chemistry (which he did, along with mathematics.) The facts presented in the article just don't matter to those who have a true passion for science, just as the statistics don't matter for those of us building companies. They will study mathematics, or physics, or start companies, regardless of the odds. It's not a rational decision so much as a passionate one. If I've missed something please do tell me.