If you want to encourage young scientists to stay in research, then you need to treat them right.
Recognising doctoral candidates as professional employees rather than students is one way of doing this.
Does a PhD pay off financially?
Financiamento estrangeiro. Quanto vale um cientista que vale milhões?
Considering alternative careers for PhD students? One of the most difficult decisions for any PhD student is whether or not to pursue a career in academia. In order to make this decision, you first need to understand what other alternative careers for PhD students are out there.
Considering alternative careers for PhD students? One of the most difficult decisions for any PhD student is whether or not to pursue a career in academia. In order to make this decision, you first need to understand what other alternative careers for PhD students are out there.
There was a time when most students pursuing a PhD would find themselves in tenure track teaching positions, making any other option an “alternative” career path.
Today, tenure track positions are very difficult to come by for even the most brilliant of candidates. Most PhD graduates find themselves asking the question “what do I do now with this degree?”.
Beyond the low supply of available academic positions, more graduates than ever are committing the crime of not even considering a career in academia after considering their interests and career goals.
Since the employment landscape has shifted significantly, it is good to rethink any bad feelings associated with “alternative” careers. The days of thinking that all PhDs should want to become professors are long gone.
For PhD students who want to follow an alternative career path, there are a surprising number of options.
Unlike other professional programs, PhD programs tend to do a poor job of educating students in the specifics of what those options are. The blame for this is not entirely on career services departments, as many schools have ramped up efforts in recent years to reach out to students in PhD programs.
The students themselves must realize that the employment landscape has changed, and that exploring alternative careers for PhD students is not something to be left as an afterthought.
Many graduate students would love to focus just on completing an awesome thesis that is meticulous and complete. The reality is that very few employers outside of academia will really care or know the difference between a perfect thesis and a good thesis.
What matters in industry is not the same as in academia. Sad but true. Even for students that plan on pursuing the academic career, completing a dissertation is a starting point more than an end point, so towards the end of graduate school it is important to multitask and devote a significant amount of time to career exploration and networking.Many students are still reluctant to openly express an interest in alternative careers outside academia in the fear that their PI will dislike them. It is time to realize that a student’s career is first and foremost their own responsibility, not their PI’s. An honest conversation with a PhD supervisor early on will more than likely open up the opportunity for them to serve as a networking resource instead of someone to hide ambitions from. Doubt may come from a general uncertainty about which nonacademic route is available or a good personal fit. It can be much easier to say to a PI “I want to pursue a career in management consulting“ than ”I don’t know exactly what I want to do, but I know I don’t want to stay in academia”. One of the first and most important steps in pushing students to be more proactive in pursuing their careers is helping them to be more informed regarding which career options are actually out there. Here are some of the most common alternative careers for PhD students along with a brief description of what each career entails
The management consulting industry is actively pursuing PhD graduates alongside MBA graduates in reverence for the fact that most PhDs develop exceptional analytical skills over the course of completing their thesis project.
Management consulting generally involves assessing big picture problems, finding a way to meaningfully break them down using both quantitative and qualitative methods, and providing suggestions for the methods that will best address the problems.
Although there is a general requirement for mathematical competence, the larger firms tend to have specific business boot camp programs for incoming PhDs, so loading up on business classes beforehand isn’t necessary.
Entrepreneurship
It should go without saying, but who’s to stop you from starting your own business?
If you have a great idea or product that addresses an open and unsaturated market, then there can be nothing more rewarding than rolling up your sleeves and addressing that need yourself.
If you are getting your degree in a technical field where there might be the opportunity to patent a product or method you are developing, then you may want to go out and try to build a business around it. It can be long hours, stressful, and risky, but the potential for both financial and personal rewards are sky-high.
Finance
You may not have associated PhDs with the world of finance, but there are many opportunities that demand the technical expertise and quantitative skills that many PhDs have in spades.
Two of the most popular career options for PhDs in finance are in equity research and quantitative analysis. Equity research analysts cover a specific industry and analyze companies within that industry. They advise whether the stock of a company should be bought (value will increase), sold (value will decrease), or held (meh, value will likely remain the same).
Quantitative analysts tend to be handy in computer programming and will build programs to determine when and where transactions should take place.
A degree related to a specific industry will likely help in pursuing a position as an equity research analyst. However, quantitative analysis is usually not industry specific and will usually only rely on quantitative and programming skills to be a successful candidate.
Government
If you are feeling particularly patriotic, there are plenty of positions available in which you will be able to serve your country. There is the option to enlist in one of the military branches and serve as a military researcher in your field of study. There is also the option to conduct research as a civilian government employee.
Law
If your degree is in a technical field such as computer science, engineering, or one of the life sciences, many intellectual property law firms employ PhDs as technical specialists to review and compose patent applications.
Most firms will require technical specialists to become a certified patent agent within a year of employment, and some will even offer programs that allow you to complete law school part-time on the company’s dime.
Pharma/Biotech
There is the obvious option for life science and chemistry PhDs to pursue research and development positions within pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms.
There are also other alternative careers for PhD students that may be less obvious. Other positions within pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are open to PhDs include business development manager, regulatory affairs specialist, medical science liaison, and field application scientist.
Public Policy
Are you fed up with government policy within your field of expertise? Why just complain when you can actively participate in the policy formation process and voice your concerns directly to the decision makers.
There are quite a few opportunities to serve as a technical advisor in your field of expertise through government sponsored internship and postdoctoral programs.
Sales
For those who especially love meeting new people and a good dose of travel, a career in sales may be a good fit. Many companies that produce technically complicated products and instruments actively recruit PhDs to sell those products.
If you have extensive experience using any particular instrument or technology as a part of your dissertation research, you’ll likely be an especially attractive candidate.
Technology Transfer
Every research university produces patentable technology, and the technology transfer office is responsible for figuring out how to turn those technologies into products that can be commercialized.
The route for commercialization involves either out licensing to companies or developing new ventures, and there are opportunities for PhDs to be involved in these processes as a licensing associate.
Venture Capital
If you have an entrepreneurial spirit but would rather not be tied down to one company’s success, your calling may be to help other entrepreneurs build their companies into successful ventures.
As a venture capitalist you’ll be responsible for identifying companies that you believe are likely to succeed after conducting due diligence. You will consider the management team, the validity of the technology and product upon which the company is based and the potential market and disruptive potential of the technology or product.
Although it’s not an easy industry to break into, the rewards can be great, both financially and personally.
Writing
Of course, anyone is free to try their hand at writing a novel, but PhDs are especially well suited to a writing career given the extensive experience throughout the dissertation process.
Chances are, there is some form of media that addresses your area of expertise, whether it is television, radio, newspaper, magazine, academic journal, or even a blog. If you studied a technical field, there are also opportunities to become a scientific or medical writer within a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company.
You can read more about these alternative careers for PhD students here.
Are You Ready For a Non-academic Career?
Putting all of these careers into one nebulous group called “industry” or “alternative careers for PhD students” fails to take into account the variety of these options. This may bring many students into the false sense that preparing for a nonacademic career is a one-size-fits-all proposition that can be accomplished in the few weeks before graduation.
As positions within academia continue to become more elusive, alternative career preparation will need to become more than a mere afterthought.
There are specific experiences, internships, and extracurricular activities that can be undertaken while doing a PhD that can prove to be vital in developing important skills and connections within a particular industry.
The earlier students are made aware of these options, the better able they are to pursue meaningful experiences. This is often the difference between a job offer and continued unemployment.
Here are several ideas:
Policy Internship
Strong PhDs are always in-demand in the policy world, especially in disciplines where their experience, expertise and outstanding writing abilities can be applied to lawmaking and the important work of other non-government organizations. If you’re not sure whether you want to invest several years into a fellowship, I highly recommend the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship, run by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. Often viewed as a precursor to other policy-related positions, the advantage of the Mirzayan fellowships is their relatively short length. At only 12 weeks, you can easily take a leave during graduate school or just after to see if you like it. A bigger commitment is the prestigious year long AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship, run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Encompassing a wide array of policy areas, including health, energy, diplomacy, global health and others, you could find yourself working right on Capitol Hill with the most important lawmakers in America. (If you aren’t currently in the United States, check to see equivalent fellowship opportunities in your country.)
Law School
With biotechnology and medical advances now impacting so many facets of our everyday lives, it’s pretty fair to say science has gone mainstream. Career opportunities in biotechnology law and patents have never been greater. Some companies will even hire you directly out of your PhD and subsidize law school while you’re working. Take a look at this tapestry of careers in patent law from different scientists to see all the different manifestations and possibilities the field entails.
Start Your Own Business
Do you have an amazing idea that you think would make a viable company? Are you naturally entrepreneurial? Why not try starting your own enterprise? Sometimes, none of the careers we’ve listed fit your skill set and ambitions. Especially if you have a biotechnology application or patented invention, you never know where it might lead. While not everyone will find the mega success of young Mark Zuckerberg, inventor of Facebook, there’s always room for a fresh new business idea, especially during times of recession.
Alternative Career Track
Analytical. Self-sufficient. Creative. Out-of-the-box. These are just some of the adjectives used to describe scientists. Rarely does a degree prepare you to succeed in such a variety of fields and job skills as the science PhD. In many ways, the critical thinking, creativity, problem solving and analysis you do transcends the specific discipline you study. There are a number of career tracks taking advantage of scientists in this regard, including finance, various areas of science writing (creative and technical), and analysts in government and the private sector.
Volunteer Services Abroad
Especially if service and policy are your areas of interest, there are a number of volunteer (and paid internship) opportunities you can take advantage of, including Doctors Without Borders, the UN (including the Peace Corps), Save The Children and other medical and science groups working abroad. Additionally, organizations such as the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation, along with innumerable NGOs and not-for-profits all over the world are hiring PhDs from various disciplines, including public health, biology and biotechnology to help with global health efforts.
Just because career opportunities in traditional university settings may not be as fruitful doesn’t mean your PhD, and the skill set you earned, aren't as valuable as they have ever been. Whether your goals are to stay in the laboratory or beyond, use your PhD as a time to explore, and think creatively about all the career opportunities available to you in an era of true cross-collaboration and possibility.
Impassible: scientists under the axe
The idea of eventual self-correction of inaccurate, wrong or manipulated data – that is the invalidation of false data by later correct papers – is in my opinion a myth
I remember being in some woods and thinking: “Damn, I’ll never come out of this”. There were just too many trees. I wasn’t alone, though: several undergraduates were as lost as me. I remember the Professor of Botany saying that in any forest there would be a number of plants that we wouldn’t be able to name properly. He used to stress that to come out of that situation we needed to see the picture as a whole, to identify the plants we knew among those we didn’t. “There are a lot of trees out there” was his favorite line.
That experience came back to me several times since the start of my career in science, in thinking about the crowd of postgraduates and post-docs around me, and the huge amount of scientific facts, figures and literature we were continuously producing.
Our job in science is extremely competitive. From our mid-twenties to early forties (the approximate time it takes to get from graduation to an academic permanent position) we are confronted with precariousness: temporary contracts, lousy money, and fierce international competition. Plus the peculiarity of the job itself: scientific experiments always have unpredictable output – if you can count on anything, it’s that what you get will be either uninteresting or unnecessary. Troubleshooting also takes a considerable amount of time. Hence, a researcher can work for several months – years – without producing publishable results. This is independent from one’s efforts or skills, but is rather intertwined with the nature of the project. And as years go by, the opportunities of switching into another career generally decrease, either because the bias against older applicants, or because people are unwilling to leave science, after having put so much time and effort into it – and because it’s a fascinating job that many people are loathe to give up, despite all its disadvantages.
A career in academic science is thus often a cul-de-sac. Of course, not all people with a degree wish to stay there. Many venture over to the “Dark Side” (what scientists picturesquely call doing research for a company); others opt for a parallel side track and take up science-related positions (e.g. in science support roles or education); some start a PhD out of indecision and just find themselves carrying on. Still, if you consider the multitude of people working at the bench in comparison to the few available permanent positions, you can easily feel lost in the woods. There are definitely a lot of trees out there, and in an overgrown forest there are two solutions: you either move the fence, or let the axe fall.
The sheer number of scientific papers we have to grapple with is the second hurdle. You can easily read ten to twenty hours a week simply to keep yourself up to date. Today, formal publishing is the major way to present, divulge and discuss advancements in basic research; also, it is the measurable output of a scientist. Lots of people competing in a limited niche where only publications count means that you need to publish a lot to be better than the others. But as straightforward as this may seem, the logic is flawed.
Generally, to get a PhD (and good academic employment afterwards), one to two first-author publications are highly recommended, while a double figure is prerequisite to getting a permanent position. That means publishing around one paper a year, which in the natural sciences is not trivial. And if you do not achieve that, well...where did you put that axe, mate?
The axe-solution to the overgrown forest – “publish or perish” – is widely distributed in science, and sometimes perceived as a good thing that enhances competitiveness and productivity. The scarecrow of external competitors is an effective deterrent against lazing around. In the current publication system, which appoints priority as a major good, people not only have to publish a lot, but have to present new stuff. The scientific value of a paper showing known results is approaching zero: if someone manages to publish the results you are striving for before you do, the significance of your work is eclipsed. Competition can be pretty heavy even inside a research group, too. Occasionally PhD students are hired on a temporary basis and assigned to the same project simultaneously, so that after a trial period, only the candidate with the most promising results is employed. Sometimes one-third positions are appointed, of course in reference to remuneration, not working schedule (50% positions are now the rule in natural sciences). Not happy with that? There are thousands of people willing to take your job over, sweetheart. You simply have to work more, work harder, work faster [1]. Sixty-hour weeks or more are a reality in many highly rated research labs.
There’s a German word describing people only focussed on work who are experts in that field, but totally incompetent in others: Fachidiot. It comes from Fach (which means profession, compartment) and Idiot (guess that). The way things are now, we are in real danger of becoming synonymous with scientist.
This just doesn’t make sense to me. All right, there are limited resources (e.g. funding money); permanent positions cannot be filled with non-deserving scientists; a sane competition may vouch for high quality. But all this is easily pushed to the limits without considering the other side of the coin: too much pressure is often listed as factor leading to scientific misconduct; it can also cause sloppiness leading to false knowledge, promote Fachidiocy, and in the long run, is detrimental to the scientific community.
We scientists are idealists: riches and fame are not our goal. No, we’d like to do interesting stuff, discover something new, contribute. In the future, our time will be considered the Era of Science, and it’s thrilling to be part of it. Just consider the deep knowledge we possess, with the life-quality improvements and the practical applications deriving from it (technology, without science, is nuts). Still, the question remains: do we need knowledge to be produced at such a rapid pace?
If you answer with a wholehearted “yes”, that’s it: thanks for reading up ‘til this point, and hasta la vista. If instead you are a scientist stuck in a project which is starting to stink, are struggling toward a permanent position and feeling poorly rewarded, or haven’t forgotten yet your efforts to get there: stay tuned for a while. Now, I think there are basically two ways to introduce some positive changes: (1) the importance of reaching out to the wider world outside of science should be recognized and (2) the race toward publishing should be slowed down.
Everyone in science has experienced the frustration of not being understood by his family or circle of acquaintances. People ignore what our job is about and have in mind a stereotyped image of the scientist fuelled by science fiction. Science is something abstract for most people. For example, few non-scientists are able to name the two milestones in modern molecular biology, that is the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 and the development of PCR in 1983 [2]; fewer are able to name Watson, Crick, Wilkins or Mullis, all Nobel laureates (and even fewer can name Rosalind Franklin, but that’s another story [3]). I bet only a handful can explain the concepts lying underneath these findings. Those achievements are something so omnipresent in molecular biology and so many other fields of natural science that I always feel a sense of alienation when I realize people ignore them. I guess it must be close to what a tailor must feel if her husband only vaguely knew what dresses were.
There should be more effort to communicate the importance of science. With a significant fraction of scientific projects being in part or entirely publicly funded, the scientific community should feel the urge to communicate what our job is like, what science is about, and why it is so important for everyone (and so expensive). Nobody can do that more effectively than scientists themselves, and they must dedicate part of their time to it. We really need science outreach and a better recognition of its importance. To incentivize this, science communication must be acknowledged and counted towards a scientist’s outputs, along with his publication record. If we don’t want science to be uncoupled from society, better integration would represent a scientific advancement.
My second point is related: generating knowledge too fast is disadvantageous. In the current publishing system data presented in papers are not verified. True, papers undergo the meticulous scrutiny of peer-reviewing and are comprehensively discussed. But the truthfulness of data is not brought into question. The data are accepted – unless an evident misconduct is evident – and their significance discussed and criticized. Stunningly so, there is no group, authority or consortium which is devoted to verifying experimental data in papers. The scientific publishing system is based on trust, even if filtered through the eyes of criticism.
The idea of eventual self-correction of inaccurate, wrong or manipulated data – that is the invalidation of false data by later correct papers – is in my opinion a myth. There is a Catalan proverb that says: “When it floods, the first thing you run out of is drinking water”. If you want to discern right from false data, you don’t generate more, but instead you take a step back and try to find out the cause of the flood. Even without deliberate mischief from the authors, wrong data might still be present in scientific publications, partly boosted by the urge to publish too much too fast.
In a system in which knowledge is constantly piled up on pre-existing data, it is valuable to take a closer look at the published material out there. Priority is overestimated and the importance of verification of data should be appreciated. If the community were only more interested in publishing studies that validated previous papers, instead of only those that show something new, this would lead to independent affirmation. Even if such repeat papers were given less value than original papers, they would still “count”. As a nice side effect, you’d also reduce the pressure on scientists at the same time.
What about the issue of limited resources? My two solutions could help out indirectly there too. Science communication is less costly than experimentation; reducing competition and thus rivalry may lead to more cooperative efforts, and minimizing the number of people working on the exact same problem; and of course a better public understanding of science will result in a greater social acceptance and more public funding.
The days of my Botany course are long past and I came out of that wood intact. Still, I think often about my professor’s favourite saying. Maybe there’s no way out of it: to have a large messy pool of data might be the only way to fish out relevant stuff; science might only advance if based on merit and thus if pressure is put on its members. I wish nonetheless that we could practice our passion for science with more calm, and with more time to share our results with wider society. And that these changes would happen from the bottom-up, not mandated, but simply through a natural impulse stemming from scientists themselves.
We should stop saying that in an overgrown forest there are too many trees, instead of not enough room; if we favour struggling for limited resources, we should see that we run the risk of uncoupling science from society, and of losing the importance of science in murky waters. The drawbacks of exacerbated competition and the flood of scientific literature need to be acknowledged and rationally addressed: we cannot refuse to see the forest, claiming that there are too many trees out there.
References:
[1] Amazing examples of real letters written by irate lab heads to group members they perceived as being slackers
[2] If you are keen to know what is behind the acronym PCR or want to read an exciting lab lit novel, I can highly recommend The Bourbaki Gambit by Carl Djerassi.
[3] To know more about why few “ordinary” people are able to mention Rosalind Franklin as the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, take a glimpse here and here.
No trânsito de Lisboa e a caminho de mais um dia de trabalho, faço mentalmente a lista de colegas e amigos cientistas que emigraram nos últimos anos. Somo uns quantos e sei que serão mais em breve. Como em qualquer outra área, sempre houve gente a emigrar em busca de melhores oportunidades. Dizem uns que até é bom porque aprendem lá fora e a maioria irá voltar. Concordo com a primeira parte, é bom aprender lá fora. Duvido da segunda; a maioria que vai, hoje mais do que nunca, não volta tão cedo, simplesmente não pode.
É gente qualificada que parte. E é Portugal que mais perde. Falo principalmente de jovens outrora bolseiros de investigação científica. O país investiu nestes jovens, através de um ensino superior de qualidade (sim, ainda há ensino superior de qualidade em Portugal) e de bolsas de formação avançada, tudo isto num esforço digno de registo na última década. E esta gente não é ingrata com o país, mas, graças às idiossincrasias da própria natureza, precisam de comer e ter um tecto.
Bolseiros de investigação, de doutoramento, de pós-doutoramento deparam-se hoje com atropelos à sua dignidade. Presos num contrato que exige exclusividade, são os primeiros a sofrer as consequências da instabilidade no financiamento, atrasos na gestão de processos e nas transferências de verbas para as instituições. Falta liquidez? Não faz mal, atrasam-se os pagamentos aos bolseiros e, de preferência, sem avisar. As instituições e o Governo refutam responsabilidades e, enquanto isto, estes jovens adultos e com rendas para pagar desesperam. Nada podem fazer, é a exclusividade patente no contrato que os impede de considerar qualquer outra hipótese viável e imediata de rendimento. Ninguém os ouve. Não há amor à ciência que resista assim. E não importa a justificação oficial, porque ela não serve como talão de desconto no supermercado. A responsabilidade não é de um, é de todo um sistema que falha, agora quando todos mais precisam.
E quando até há pouco o tempo os “felizardos” bolseiros podiam contar com o apoio da família para sobreviver nos meses sem bolsa; agora nem isso lhes vale. A família já não pode ajudar. Alguém lhes disse que viveram acima das suas possibilidades e por isso foram-lhes cortados salários e aumentados os impostos.
Defende-se hoje um modelo de financiamento da ciência de excelência. Não poderia estar mais de acordo. Mas na base de sustentação dessa tão almejada excelência está o trabalho científico de base, que, não sendo outstanding como gosta de se dizer, não deixa de ser fundamental. Ora esse trabalho científico fundamental é, frequentemente, suportado por bolseiros de investigação em formato de “formação avançada subsidiada”. Na realidade, esses bolseiros somam no seu currículo uma “avançada” lista de bolsas ao longo de anos, espaçadas por meses em que nada recebem enquanto esperam pelo início de um qualquer novo projecto.
Este modelo de prestação de trabalho científico fundamental precisa ser reformulado e integrado numa visão estratégica de futuro científico sustentável e sustentado em Portugal. Um desafio para a ciência portuguesa e, reconhecendo dificuldades que o país enfrenta, é o de não confundir excelência com elite. É que o trabalho científico de excelência não se reflecte necessariamente em publicações em revistas científicas internacionais.
Por outras palavras, há ciência de excelência que escapa na malha dos indicadores científicos tradicionais utilizados pelos painéis de avaliação. A cegueira do publish or perish (publica ou desapareces, numa tradução livre), se desenraizada da especificidade de cada ramo da ciência, conduzirá à extinção de áreas da ciência fundamentais para o desenvolvimento do país. A consequência é a já visível fuga para outros países de toda uma geração de gente qualificada. Outros países, como a Alemanha, agradecem.
Os números da OCDE indicam um acréscimo de emigração por parte de portugueses com formação superior. A OCDE suspeita ainda de que os dados sobre Portugal como país de origem estejam subestimados relativamente ao fluxo real de emigração. No caso dos jovens investigadores, não custa imaginar porquê. Como se contabiliza a emigração de cientistas em regimes precários? Como pode o país contabilizar a fuga destes cérebros? Assim de repente, contabilizo sete jovens em fuga nos últimos dois anos só no meu pequeno grupo de colegas que não ultrapassa a vintena.
Imersa nestes pensamentos, ouço a canção Boa Sorte (Vanessa da Mata/ Ben Harper). Nunca como hoje a letra fez tanto sentido para mim, fala de uma despedida entre gente jovem e capaz e do seu país que já mais não os pode segurar. “É só isso/ não tem mais jeito/acabou, boa sorte (…)/tudo o que quer de mim/irreais/expectativas/desleais(…).”
Geóloga do Centro de Recursos Minerais, Mineralogia e Cristalografia da Universidade de Lisboa
“When our generation goes away, where is the new generation going to be?” he asked. “All the scientists I know are so anxious about their funding that they don’t make inspiring role models
Zaza Nadja Lee Hansen and Sverre Lundemo, Eurodoc
(Image: OJO Images / Rex Features)
In many everyday situations, a good first impression is everything. This is also true when it comes to building a career. If you want to encourage young scientists to stay in research, then you need to treat them right.
Recognising doctoral candidates as professional employees rather than students is one way of doing this. At the moment, only Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands give those working towards a PhD in Europe this status. For PhD candidates in these countries, their employee status benefits both them and their employer. The employee gets job benefits such as social security rights, access to personnel health care and internal internet systems (one candidate on a short term contractor we spoke to was not able to access the intranet because she was not a proper employee) while the employer gets a more productive and involved employee, who has a stake in the successful performance of the research institution. Treating PhDs as equals from the get-go means that further down the line, these highly motivated employees should be more likely to continue in research.
While being recognised as an employee rather than a short-term contractor will not solve all the issues doctoral candidates face today, it will be a step along the way. And it should hopefully banish feelings of "belonging to a pariah class", as one PhD candidate put it. It would also force institutions to adopt more transparent hiring procedures by ensuring that they adhere to the proper system, rather than hiring familiar faces on a casual basis.
So how can PhD candidates in Europe get the professional recognition they deserve? We at Eurodoc (the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers) recognise that national scientific systems are different across Europe; there are needs specific to each country and each system is regulated according to particular legislation. Still, collective efforts should be made to improve working conditions at the earliest stage of a research career when a person's influence, establishment and power within the scientific community are still low.
We propose implementing the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the recruitment of PhDs. The Charter and Code, as it is known, is a set of principles for researchers, employers and funders setting out best practice regarding researchers' working conditions, career development and mobility. Part of this is the recommendation that PhD candidates are given employee status.
We urge all research institutions as well as national and regional authorities to look at what they need to do to implement the Charter and Code. As of 2012, over 100 employers and funders throughout Europe are already participating in this process and examples of best practice abound. Young researchers in Eurodoc's national and observer organisations stand ready to assist national institutions prepared to participate in this process.
All these efforts should help bring about a much needed cultural change, which we hope will one day culminate in a change of national labour legislation across Europe, making it legally binding for PhDs to be treated as employees.
Ensuring that doctoral candidates find their research environment welcoming and rewarding is instrumental in achieving the EU's target of one million researchers by 2020. Eurodoc urges all European institutions to promote the full recognition of those who have taken the first step to becoming invaluable contributors to the scientific community.
What are your thoughts? PhD candidates, would being an employee rather than a student make a difference to your working life? Employers, what would this mean for you? Is the goal of having one million European PhDs by 2020 feasible, or even desirable?
Transitioning away from the bench can be a scary proposition – especially when it’s difficult to get your head around what careers outside of the bench actually entail. We spoke with Carly Loeb, Ph.D., former Project Leader at Boston Consulting Group to help demystify one of the frequently referenced career options for PhDs: Consulting.
.
.
.
At what point in graduate school did you realize you wanted to leave the bench?
I think it was always a part of my plan to leave the bench even as I was applying to graduate school. I knew I didn’t want to pursue a career in academia, but instead to go into industry at some point. Growing up, I loved science and was a bit of a science geek, so I felt I owed it to myself to pursue science further. I thought in any case, obtaining a PhD would be valuable for my career in the longer term, wherever it took me.
.
How many different career options were you considering and how did you decide on consulting?
In the end, I only applied to large management consulting firms. I had a number of college friends who went into consulting, so I was actually fairly comfortable with what consulting entailed and had to offer. I was drawn to the fact that I’d gain a variety of business experiences, both in my preferred industry as well as outside of it. Also, after 29 years of education (including kindergarten), I was done with school, and therefore liked the fact that consulting could negate the need for an MBA for my future career aspirations. The people I met through various information sessions were motivated, talented and frienly people, and I was excited to potentially work with such a team. In hindsight, I’m even more convinced that this was the right decision for me: the mentorship, training, and professional development I gained at The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was invaluable.
I also toyed with the idea of joining a start-up, since at the time there were a number of opportunities in the Bay Area. I liked the idea of wearing multiple hats, as is what seemed could be the case in a small start-up. However, my observations of some successful start-ups were that they tend to get built-up around the founders, who remain the scientists. In the end I decided start-ups were too risky of a path for me and I wasn’t confident that what I’d be working on would actually be the direction I’d want to go in long term. I felt that in the long-term interest of my career goals, going a more established route was the better decision for me.
.
At a high level, what is consulting – why do companies hire consultants?
Consultants often describe themselves as “Doctors for Businesses.” We’re often brought in to solve a problem or answer a strategic question that the client wants outside help with. This may include issues like How can we as a company make better decisions? How can we stop losing money? Where are our next market opportunities? How can we optimize our production facilities to be more efficient? How can we better organize ourselves now that we’ve merged with another company? There is a huge range of questions companies hire consultants to address.
Although it may seem like companies should be able to answer these questions on their own, there are a number of reasons they hire consultants. First, the executives that hire consultants likely don’t have the time to devote to the endeavor or to perform the analyses; or maybe they want the outside perspective and strategic problem-solving expertise that a consulting firm brings; or maybe the executives feel like they don’t have the full picture of the way things are going at their company and they need an independent group to take the pulse and be the voice of their organization.
Like Baskin Robbins, consulting firms come in many flavors. Some are large global networks that service nearly all industries and can assist with a wide variety of strategic projects (e.g., pricing, organization, strategy, operations, etc.), while others are smaller boutique firms that focus on a specific functional specialty or industry.
.
What did an average week look like for you?
Your schedule is highly dependent on the project you’re working on. During an out-of-town project, you’ll likely be traveling to the client Monday and returning home on Thursday night. But sometimes you only have to travel for 1-2 nights in a week. For local cases you don’t have to travel, but you are often working at the client site Monday-Thursday. On Fridays we try to be in the office. Personally, I would estimate that I was out of town 40% of the time, and I’d say that’s probably a little lower than average. As it turned out, I worked on a few long local projects, so during those times I was home more than many of my colleagues.
Although that may seem like a lot of travel, consultants do actually have a say in the projects they’re staffed on. Of course, one driver of staffing decisions is availability – who has time to work on a project when it pops up. However, there are also a number of important variables that will shape which projects you are interested in: the industry, the functional area, the other people on the team, the client, the location, and the development opportunities that your module and the project would afford you. You can’t always find an available project that satisfies all of these variables, but you often can satisfy some. Strategically selecting projects that fit your interests and priorities allows you to create your own path and career development.
The work you do is structured around your module- the piece of the case ‘pie’ that you own. You own your module and therefore have responsibility for executing the needed interviews, analyses, etc, and also for deriving and communicating/sharing the key implications and insights with the case team and the client.
.
Did you feel having a PhD was an advantage for you in consulting?
I feel like on certain cases, the PhD added credibility to the team. It was also helpful that I could speak the language of my scientist (or former scientist) clients. When you can share anecdotes with the CSO (a fellow PhD) of a major company about how you’ve had a fermenter full of yeast blow up on you before, you build an instant rapport. It also sometimes helped to have an understanding of the underlying technologies we were often called in to work on.
Having said that, you certainly don’t need a PhD to be a consultant; the vast majority of management consultants have MBAs, or if they’re associates out of undergraduate they plan to get MBAs. I didn’t need to read basic science publications, although at times I had to understand clinical trial results or public health data. I think where the real value in the PhD will come in is in helping me achieve my long-term career goals. There’s no way I would have obtained my current job without the professional skills and business experience I gained as a consultant, but even for this job I didn’t need a PhD as most have MBAs. However, over the next 10 years, as my career advances, I believe my PhD will be an asset. So it’s important to remember that the value of the PhD may not be required at every step, but in the long term it may play an important role in your career development.
.
How was the transition away from the bench and in to consulting?
Before starting work, I attended BCG’s two-week Business Essentials Program, held for consultants who have non-business advanced degrees. It’s essentially a crash course in financial statements, Excel, and other foundational knowledge that will help you get started. The other great thing about BEP was that employees from the global offices also took the class, so before I started work at my own office, I had already made friends with colleagues from other branches around the world. That was a lot of fun and a great way to jump start my network. There are also many trainings that the firm offers all first-year consultants, PhD or MBA, that help to learn the tools of the trade.
With respect to the actual job, many coming from non-MBA advanced degrees are often nervous about the content we’ll face as consultants. In reality, the content, although it’s new and there’s a lot of it, is usually not the problem at all. The main adjustments many face are related to working in a corporate environment.
The corporate world can be very different from what we’re used to in the laboratory. Throughout graduate school, we’re taught and trained to be independent problem-solvers. However, in the corporate world, frequent communication with your team is absolutely essential. In fact, you’re expected to share preliminary insights and to participate in discussions in order to further the project. It is also very important to openly communicate about expectations around deadlines, workload, approach, etc, so that everyone is on the same page.
Another difference in the corporate environment that can be a challenge for advanced degrees is in reaching an answer you and the team are comfortable with, even if it’s not “100% perfect.” You may have heard of the 80/20 rule – in consulting it means getting to 80% of your best estimate in 20% of the time. As PhDs, we like to have all of the data and have 50 nails in the coffin before we declare something. In consulting, you’re working on a fast-paced project with hard deadlines where there’s often ambiguous or incomplete data. You therefore have to get comfortable saying, ‘this is what I think is the best path forward given what we know now.’ This requires careful prioritization of analyses, which is something that PhDs can struggle with if they’re used to being able to “get lost in the weeds.” However, I personally think PhDs can actually be quite good at prioritization- for example when focusing on a figure needed for a publication – but we don’t always have the time pressure driving us to build that skill.
.
For students/postdocs interested in pursuing consulting, what would you recommend as first steps?
Firstly, think about your likely graduation timing and plan when to begin the interview process accordingly. Many of the larger consulting firms have their primary recruiting seasons in sync with business schools, so recruitment happens in the fall for start dates the subsequent fall. If you know you’re interested even earlier on, I recommend attending all of the information sessions for the firms you’re interested in and applying to any summer internships or workshops. These summer experiences would give you a first-hand preview of what the work will entail. Even if you aren’t accepted into a summer program, going through the process will help you meet the company and prepare for full-time interviews.
Once you begin the interview process, practice is absolutely the key. Review case studies and practice them – out loud – with other people. You absolutely cannot practice case studies enough. In addition, be able to articulately discuss your past experiences listed on your resume, as those are the parts of the interview you can actually prepare to speak to!
.
Having interviewed applicants yourself, what are a couple of things that could help a PhD standout from the crowd?
When submitting a resume, certainly highlight any leadership or teamwork experiences, professional or extracurricular. If possible, demonstrate your interest in business via whatever activities you’ve been involved in that are relevant, e.g., classwork, business plan competitions, summer internships, etc. You also may want to include your GPAs and standardized test scores from undergrad and grad schools.
The in-person interviews focus mainly on your performance in the interview itself. They want to find out how you would approach solving business problems, if you can think on your feet and communicate clearly, if you are motivated and have leadership and/or teamwork experience, and if you can do simple math – which PhDs don’t usually have trouble with.
One point of caution is to avoid trying to impress the interviewer by tossing out business terminology. The interviewer understands you don’t come from a business background, so they’re more interested in how you think. Talking about business terms that you’re not 100% comfortable with them opens you up for follow-up questions you may not be able to handle.
.
Was there anything (positive or negative) that you were surprised about the job/profession that you didn’t expect until you were in it?
I’m not sure there were any surprises other than what I mentioned before- that the main adjustment for me wasn’t the content, but it was that I simply hadn’t worked before in a corporate setting. However, one thing that has surprised me now that I’ve left consulting and am in my next endeavor is just how amazingly well prepared I feel, and I owe that to my time as a consultant. Consulting can be intense and fast-paced, but you do really impactful and interesting work, get to know really talented colleagues and clients, and, even if you don’t want to become a consultant “for life,” you gain a broad business foundation that can be a springboard for your longer-term career goals.
.
.
Carly Loeb is currently a Senior Market Planning Manager at Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. Prior to that, she was a Project Leader for The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and was a core member of their Healthcare practice area, primarily serving biopharma clients. Dr. Loeb completed her undergraduate education from MIT, and obtained her PhD from UCSF in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Carly lives in San Francisco with her husband and 13 month-old daughter.
.
.
Looking for additional career resources?
The 4 Steps to Finding Your Passion
Curating Science, Genomes and a New Career
Your Career in a Sentence: How to Create an Elevator Pitch
Science Career Development Resources
.
.
Posted in Flyceum: Your Science. Your Career. | 4 Comments »
ON THE evening before All Saints’ Day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg. In those days a thesis was simply a position one wanted to argue. Luther, an Augustinian friar, asserted that Christians could not buy their way to heaven. Today a doctoral thesis is both an idea and an account of a period of original research. Writing one is the aim of the hundreds of thousands of students who embark on a doctorate of philosophy (PhD) every year.
In most countries a PhD is a basic requirement for a career in academia. It is an introduction to the world of independent research—a kind of intellectual masterpiece, created by an apprentice in close collaboration with a supervisor. The requirements to complete one vary enormously between countries, universities and even subjects. Some students will first have to spend two years working on a master’s degree or diploma. Some will receive a stipend; others will pay their own way. Some PhDs involve only research, some require classes and examinations and some require the student to teach undergraduates. A thesis can be dozens of pages in mathematics, or many hundreds in history. As a result, newly minted PhDs can be as young as their early 20s or world-weary forty-somethings.
One thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. Some describe their work as “slave labour”. Seven-day weeks, ten-hour days, low pay and uncertain prospects are widespread. You know you are a graduate student, goes one quip, when your office is better decorated than your home and you have a favourite flavour of instant noodle. “It isn’t graduate school itself that is discouraging,” says one student, who confesses to rather enjoying the hunt for free pizza. “What’s discouraging is realising the end point has been yanked out of reach.”
Whining PhD students are nothing new, but there seem to be genuine problems with the system that produces research doctorates (the practical “professional doctorates” in fields such as law, business and medicine have a more obvious value). There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.
For most of history even a first degree at a university was the privilege of a rich few, and many academic staff did not hold doctorates. But as higher education expanded after the second world war, so did the expectation that lecturers would hold advanced degrees. American universities geared up first: by 1970 America was producing just under a third of the world’s university students and half of its science and technology PhDs (at that time it had only 6% of the global population). Since then America’s annual output of PhDs has doubled, to 64,000.
Other countries are catching up. Between 1998 and 2006 the number of doctorates handed out in all OECD countries grew by 40%, compared with 22% for America. PhD production sped up most dramatically in Mexico, Portugal, Italy and Slovakia. Even Japan, where the number of young people is shrinking, churned out about 46% more PhDs. Part of that growth reflects the expansion of university education outside America. Richard Freeman, a labour economist at Harvard University, says that by 2006 America was enrolling just 12% of the world’s students.
But universities have discovered that PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With more PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries more teaching, with less money. A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009—higher than the average for judges and magistrates.
Indeed, the production of PhDs has far outstripped demand for university lecturers. In a recent book, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, an academic and a journalist, report that America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships. Using PhD students to do much of the undergraduate teaching cuts the number of full-time jobs. Even in Canada, where the output of PhD graduates has grown relatively modestly, universities conferred 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 but hired just 2,616 new full-time professors. Only a few fast-developing countries, such as Brazil and China, now seem short of PhDs.
A short course in supply and demand
In research the story is similar. PhD students and contract staff known as “postdocs”, described by one student as “the ugly underbelly of academia”, do much of the research these days. There is a glut of postdocs too. Dr Freeman concluded from pre-2000 data that if American faculty jobs in the life sciences were increasing at 5% a year, just 20% of students would land one. In Canada 80% of postdocs earn $38,600 or less per year before tax—the average salary of a construction worker. The rise of the postdoc has created another obstacle on the way to an academic post. In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.
These armies of low-paid PhD researchers and postdocs boost universities’, and therefore countries’, research capacity. Yet that is not always a good thing. Brilliant, well-trained minds can go to waste when fashions change. The post-Sputnik era drove the rapid growth in PhD physicists that came to an abrupt halt as the Vietnam war drained the science budget. Brian Schwartz, a professor of physics at the City University of New York, says that in the 1970s as many as 5,000 physicists had to find jobs in other areas.
In America the rise of PhD teachers’ unions reflects the breakdown of an implicit contract between universities and PhD students: crummy pay now for a good academic job later. Student teachers in public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison formed unions as early as the 1960s, but the pace of unionisation has increased recently. Unions are now spreading to private universities; though Yale and Cornell, where university administrators and some faculty argue that PhD students who teach are not workers but apprentices, have resisted union drives. In 2002 New York University was the first private university to recognise a PhD teachers’ union, but stopped negotiating with it three years later.
In some countries, such as Britain and America, poor pay and job prospects are reflected in the number of foreign-born PhD students. Dr Freeman estimates that in 1966 only 23% of science and engineering PhDs in America were awarded to students born outside the country. By 2006 that proportion had increased to 48%. Foreign students tend to tolerate poorer working conditions, and the supply of cheap, brilliant, foreign labour also keeps wages down.
A PhD may offer no financial benefit over a master’s degree. It can even reduce earnings
Proponents of the PhD argue that it is worthwhile even if it does not lead to permanent academic employment. Not every student embarks on a PhD wanting a university career and many move successfully into private-sector jobs in, for instance, industrial research. That is true; but drop-out rates suggest that many students become dispirited. In America only 57% of doctoral students will have a PhD ten years after their first date of enrolment. In the humanities, where most students pay for their own PhDs, the figure is 49%. Worse still, whereas in other subject areas students tend to jump ship in the early years, in the humanities they cling like limpets before eventually falling off. And these students started out as the academic cream of the nation. Research at one American university found that those who finish are no cleverer than those who do not. Poor supervision, bad job prospects or lack of money cause them to run out of steam.
Even graduates who find work outside universities may not fare all that well. PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to have little interest in students who are leaving academia. One OECD study shows that five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts. Many were postdocs. About one-third of Austria’s PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. In the Netherlands the proportion is 21%.
PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor’s degree. A study in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management by Bernard Casey shows that British men with a bachelor’s degree earn 14% more than those who could have gone to university but chose not to. The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master’s degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%. In some subjects the premium for a PhD vanishes entirely. PhDs in maths and computing, social sciences and languages earn no more than those with master’s degrees. The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master’s degree in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a 3% premium over a master’s degree.
Dr Schwartz, the New York physicist, says the skills learned in the course of a PhD can be readily acquired through much shorter courses. Thirty years ago, he says, Wall Street firms realised that some physicists could work out differential equations and recruited them to become “quants”, analysts and traders. Today several short courses offer the advanced maths useful for finance. “A PhD physicist with one course on differential equations is not competitive,” says Dr Schwartz.
Many students say they are pursuing their subject out of love, and that education is an end in itself. Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead. In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to this. Scientists can easily get stipends, and therefore drift into doing a PhD. But there are penalties, as well as benefits, to staying at university. Workers with “surplus schooling”—more education than a job requires—are likely to be less satisfied, less productive and more likely to say they are going to leave their jobs.
The interests of universities and tenured academics are misaligned with those of PhD students
Academics tend to regard asking whether a PhD is worthwhile as analogous to wondering whether there is too much art or culture in the world. They believe that knowledge spills from universities into society, making it more productive and healthier. That may well be true; but doing a PhD may still be a bad choice for an individual.
The interests of academics and universities on the one hand and PhD students on the other are not well aligned. The more bright students stay at universities, the better it is for academics. Postgraduate students bring in grants and beef up their supervisors’ publication records. Academics pick bright undergraduate students and groom them as potential graduate students. It isn’t in their interests to turn the smart kids away, at least at the beginning. One female student spoke of being told of glowing opportunities at the outset, but after seven years of hard slog she was fobbed off with a joke about finding a rich husband.
Monica Harris, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, is a rare exception. She believes that too many PhDs are being produced, and has stopped admitting them. But such unilateral academic birth control is rare. One Ivy-League president, asked recently about PhD oversupply, said that if the top universities cut back others will step in to offer them instead.
Many of the drawbacks of doing a PhD are well known. Your correspondent was aware of them over a decade ago while she slogged through a largely pointless PhD in theoretical ecology. As Europeans try to harmonise higher education, some institutions are pushing the more structured learning that comes with an American PhD.
The organisations that pay for research have realised that many PhDs find it tough to transfer their skills into the job market. Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented simply to a wide audience. Some universities are now offering their PhD students training in soft skills such as communication and teamwork that may be useful in the labour market. In Britain a four-year NewRoutePhD claims to develop just such skills in graduates.
Measurements and incentives might be changed, too. Some university departments and academics regard numbers of PhD graduates as an indicator of success and compete to produce more. For the students, a measure of how quickly those students get a permanent job, and what they earn, would be more useful. Where penalties are levied on academics who allow PhDs to overrun, the number of students who complete rises abruptly, suggesting that students were previously allowed to fester.
Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. They will have amassed awards and prizes. As this year’s new crop of graduate students bounce into their research, few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else. They might use their research skills to look harder at the lot of the disposable academic. Someone should write a thesis about that.
“It turns out that the sacrifice may be for nothing, because you may come, spend a few years here, and then they force you to leave.” -- Amaya Moro-Martín
Last August, Spanish scientist Yolanda Escudero-Martín was on a research stay at the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field in California when her funding dried up. The research was part of a 4-year Ph.D. in artificial intelligence at the University of Alcalá in Spain. When the local government of Castile-La Mancha stopped paying her stipend at the beginning of her third year, her world turned upside down. “These 2 years that I had left, I would have split them between Spain and the United States,” she says. “But now this is not possible.”
Escudero-Martín is one of many young scientists in Spain whose careers are threatened by tight research budgets and bureaucratic delays. The economic crisis has severely affected many autonomous regions, and the federal government recently announced a public-sector hiring freeze and a cut of €600 million in the country's research budget. These measures are “imposed on a system that has already been weakened by several years of austerity,” says Amaya Moro-Martín, a spokesperson of the researchers’ organization Investigación Digna. “This will imply the loss of not only one generation of scientists but of several generations of scientists in Spain.”
Stopped in their Ph.D. tracks
It is difficult to know just how widespread the problem is, but across Spain several hundred Ph.D. students are caught up in a messy web of decreasing funding and increasing bureaucracy.
Among the most difficult cases are some 20 young researchers who have lost their stipends in the middle of their Ph.D. research -- including Escudero-Martín and five other Ph.D. students whose stipends were paid by the region of Castile-La Mancha and the European Union. Escudero-Martín and her fellow Ph.D. students must wait for an official call from the local government before their 2-year scholarship becomes a 2-year working contract with full employment benefits. But the call, which was due out in spring 2011, still hasn't come.
At press time, the local government had not returned calls to Science Careers. According to Escudero-Martín, the local government is saying that “the call is going to be made, that they do not know when because this is due to the economic situation.”
While she was in the United States last year, Escudero-Martín was able to get by on a travel grant she received from her Spanish university and personal savings. Since returning to Spain, she has managed to continue her research. “In my university, in spite of the circumstances, they are letting me gain access to my computer, my equipment, so I keep coming every day.” But she isn't allowed to teach, and she isn't getting paid.
CREDIT: Yolanda Escudero-MartínNot all the problems are with local governments. Earlier this week, the Federation of Young Investigators ( FJI/Precarios) said in a public statement that “the last call for grants for the Training of University Faculty ( FPU), the most important and competitive grants for the realization of a doctorate in our country, is accumulating delays and errors a lot more serious than usual.” In October 2011, the former Ministry of Education published a provisional list of 950 candidates selected for its 2010 FPU call. A final list -- with 107 fewer candidates -- was issued on 30 November. The candidates left off the final list were asked to provide additional information. They are still waiting to hear back, FJI/Precarios said. Some of them have been working on their doctoral projects for as long as 2 years, without support.
In another recent statement, FJI/Precarios pointed to delays in issuing the final list of candidates selected for mobility grants as part of the Program for the Training of Research Staff ( FPI). The new Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness is now handling the FPI program. Some of the provisional candidates have gone ahead with their plans, paying their own way, but many others cannot afford to do so, FJI/Precarios said.
In an interview with Science Careers, FJI/Precarios spokesperson Ester Artells attributes the delays to the change of government and funding cuts. “Before the elections, the launch of calls and announcement of call outcomes grinded to a halt,” she says. While the new government gets established, "investigators are waiting for decisions to be made,” adds Artells, a Spanish postdoc working at the Mediterranean Institute of Marine and Terrestrial Biodiversity and Ecology and the European Center for Research and Teaching in Environment Geosciences in Marseille, France. “We don’t know whether these are finally going to be announced.”
No permanent position
A month earlier, it was the National Association of Ramón y Cajal Investigators (ANIRC) that was raising the alarm. Launched by the Spanish government in 2001, the Ramón y Cajal (RyC) program lured many expatriated postdocs back to Spain with what closely resembled a tenure-track offer: a 5-year contract with a university professor’s salary, research independence, and the possibility of a permanent position. But the permanent positions that are supposed to come at the end of the track depend on the availability of funds. According to ANIRC, “Ramón y Cajal researchers are finding enormous difficulties to continue their research work in Spain due to the lack of continuity in their contracts.”
ANIRC believes those hardships are about to become worse. A year ago, ANIRC estimated that some 185 RyC researchers who finished their contracts in 2009, 2010, and 2011 were still looking for a permanent position. “To that you need to add 250 researchers … whose contracts will start expiring at the end of this year,” says Moro-Martín, who is a Ramón y Cajal researcher at the Center for Astrobiology near Madrid. In 2010, at the Spanish National Research Council, (CSIC) just 26 positions were created; in 2011, the number of new positions was 30. And in December, the Spanish government announced that no new positions will be created this year in public research bodies, including CSIC. Positions vacated by retirement will not be filled.
The employment situation in universities, which mainly depend on support from local governments, is not yet clear, but they too are faced with very tight budgets.
“The future … of many scientists with a notable and internationally recognized professional trajectory is full of uncertainty,” ANIRC wrote in its public statement. “You sacrifice many things for trying to do science in your own country, thinking that … you’ll get a permanent position and then you can start trying to improve things from the inside,” Moro-Martín says. “But it turns out that the sacrifice may be for nothing, because you may come, spend a few years here, and then they force you to leave.”
Waiting
The Spanish government's announcement that the 2012 national research budget would be €600 million smaller than it was in 2011 came in December. Details will be announced this month; meanwhile, Spain's scientific community is holding its breath. Of particular concern to young scientists is a possible decline in funding for research groups, which would affect yet another category of early-career researchers: postdocs.
Already, new Ph.D. graduates are having “an increasingly difficult time in finding their first postdoctoral position because the grants have less money,” Moro-Martín says. “The problem is that, unlike in countries [like] Germany, where you have a private sector that can absorb all these graduates, [in Spain] companies don’t know what to do with Ph.D.s.”
In an e-mail to Science Careers, Carmen Vela Olmo, the secretary of state for investigation, development, and innovation, tried to reassure early-career scientists. In the current complex economic context, she writes, cuts are inevitable but “we are working to minimize the damage.”
“I want to reiterate that human resources in research represents a priority for this government,” she writes. Her department has just issued this year’s call for doctoral FPI grants with a budget that is similar to last year's, and programs dedicated to helping integrate young scientists into the Spanish system -- such as the Ramón y Cajal contracts and incentives for universities to offer permanent positions -- will continue. “Moreover, jointly with the Ramón y Cajal investigators, we are going to look for alternative solutions," she writes, such as promoting opportunities in R&D departments in companies.
But some young scientists can't wait. Before returning to Spain in December, Escudero-Martín asked her U.S. supervisor David Smith to take her on long-term. Her only alternative, if she were to stay in Spain, would be to take an industry IT job and finish her Ph.D. on her own time, she says. She has now secured funding from the Universities Space Research Association and NASA Ames to continue her Ph.D. in the United States. She’s returning to Moffett Field next week.
Escudero-Martín is sorry that she has to leave her country. So is Artells, who took a postdoc in France last October. “My mum used to tell me, ‘Study, work, because this is pulling the country forward,’ ” says Artells, who has decided to stay in France. “When you think about the money the country spent for my education and that of so many other investigators … and that we cannot contribute to making the country move forward and get out of this crisis, to me it is a pity.”
Elisabeth Pain is Contributing Editor for Europe.
10.1126/science.caredit.a1200025
Miguel Soares estava a ser recrutado para Cambridge. “Não acha que seria uma melhor progressão vir para a Universidade de Cambridge em vez desse seu instituto… como é que se chama?” O investigador, que acaba de receber uma bolsa europeia de 2,2 milhões de euros para cinco anos, irritou-se. “Respondi Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência (IGC) e, agora que pergunta, se pensasse assim ficava em Harvard.”
Depois de sete distinções internacionais anunciadas em Janeiro para cientistas portugueses, do Conselho Europeu de Investigação (ERC) e do Howard Hughes Medicine Institute, dos EUA, restarão poucas dúvidas: a ciência nacional está na primeira liga. O movimento é transversal, mas ninguém tem arrecadado tanto dinheiro como estes 17 investigadores das ciências da vida. Regressaram do estrangeiro na última década e dois escolheram mesmo Portugal para imigrar, motivados pelo sangue novo de institutos como o IGC, o Instituto de Medicina Molecular (IMM), a Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa e o Centro Champalimaud.
Há problemas, alertam, mas o financiamento nacional está mais organizado, e cada vez recorrem mais a fundos externos. Miguel Godinho Ferreira, um dos cinco vencedores do título de futuro líder científico do Howard Hughes, que garante financiamento de 513 mil para os próximos cinco anos, sublinha que, embora num ranking de financiamento estrangeiro possa aparecer num lugar mais abaixo, sem 190 mil euros da Associação Internacional para a Investigação em Cancro não teria conseguido regressar a Portugal há cinco anos. “Consegui dinheiro para o projecto, para contratar um pós-doc e um aluno de doutoramento. O financiamento da FCT era irregular. Hoje sabemos que vai continuar a abrir concursos, com mais ou menos orçamento. ”
Nas bolsas europeias há contudo um problema. Em 2007, o Conselho Europeu de Investigação (ERC) instituiu novas bolsas que, em vez de financiarem um projecto numa instituição, dão os montantes aos seus mentores. Portugal já recebeu 17 dessas bolsas, dez para a área das ciências da vida. Sinal de sucesso, concordam, com um mas. Nestas bolsas, o IVA não é elegível, por isso têm de encontrar fontes alternativas para co-financiar a compra de recursos como anticorpos ou ratinhos ou as instituições têm de abdicar dos 20% que Bruxelas destina a custos operacionais para suportar o imposto. “Está-nos a sufocar um pouco”, diz António Jacinto, dos primeiros a conseguir uma ERC em 2007. “Há países em que o IVA é reduzido ou não existe, noutros as agências nacionais devolvem o montante e há outros casos como Portugal, que fica com o IVA.”
O impacto é subtil, diz Soares, mas impede que as universidades sofram a mesma revolução que tornou a ciência de alguns institutos competitiva, atraindo os melhores, e pode mesmo levar alguns a emigrar: lá fora as bolsas acabam por valer mais. “As faculdades em Portugal não têm dinheiro para assegurar o IVA, em vez de mobilidade há desmobilidade.”
O financiamento da FCT, o institucional e por concurso, está a diminuir e estes 17 cientistas, quase todos líderes de unidades, passam grande parte do tempo a preparar candidaturas para assegurar salários e material. No IMM, em 2011, o financiamento competitivo estrangeiro ultrapassou pela primeira vez o nacional: 2,4 ME lá fora e 1,7 ME em concursos da FCT e prémios nacionais. O IGC conseguiu angariar 2,5 ME o ano passado e, em 2010, 6 ME.
Leia o artigo completo na edição impressa.