Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 07 2014, @07:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-burger-flippers dept.

Carolyn Johnson reports in the Boston Globe that in recent years, the position of postdoctoral researcher has become less a stepping stone and more of a holding tank as postdocs are caught up in an all-but-invisible crisis, mired in a underclass as federal funding for research has leveled off, leaving the supply of well-trained scientists outstripping demand. “It’s sunk in that it’s by no means guaranteed — for anyone, really — that an academic position is possible,” says Gary McDowell, a 29-year old biologist doing his second postdoc. “There’s this huge labor force here to do the bench work, the grunt work of science. But then there’s nowhere for them to go; this massive pool of postdocs that accumulates and keeps growing.” The problem is that any researcher running a lab today is training far more people than there will ever be labs to run. Often these supremely well-educated trainees are simply cheap laborers, not learning skills for the careers where they are more likely to find jobs. This wasn’t such an issue decades ago, but universities have expanded the number of PhD students they train from about 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979 to 56,800 in 2009, flooding the system with trainees and drawing out the training period.

Possible solutions span a wide gamut, from halving the number of postdocs over time, to creating a new tier of staff scientists that would be better paid but one thing people seem to agree on is that simply adding more money to the pot will not by itself solve the oversupply. Facing these stark statistics, postdocs are taking matters into their own hands recently organizing a Future of Research conference in Boston that they hoped would give voice to their frustrations and hopes and help shape change. “How can we, as the next generation, run the system?” said Kristin Krukenberg, 34, a lead organizer of the conference and a biologist in her sixth year as a postdoc at Harvard Medical School after six years in graduate school. “Some of the models we see don’t seem tenable in the long run."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 08 2014, @05:05PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 08 2014, @05:05PM (#103669)

    Make a society where one isn't punished for creating something of value or employing people.

    What exactly do you mean by "punished"?

    If I had to hazard a guess, what you mean is that they're taxed. I don't really see that as a punishment. There are three reasons why:
    1. If you have, for example, $11 billion because you created Tesla Motors, but with taxes you would have made $14 billion, what exactly would that extra $3 billion have done for you? I mean, with $11 billion, you can already completely fund all sorts of other businesses, own multiple mansions complete with a staff of servants, earn about $500 million a year without really trying very hard, travel anywhere you want on the planet, take about as many trips on Spaceship One as you want, and so forth.

    2. Many taxes are regressive, and actually hurt poor people more than rich people. Investment income is taxed far less than wages and salaries, and wages and salaries above $120K are in fact taxed at a lower rate than they might appear thanks to the FICA cap.

    3. Most people in US society at least naturally defer to rich people. For example, one fun social experiment some folks in Vermont tried was sitting at green lights timing how long it took for somebody to honk, using various cars - a Mercedes had a good 10-15 seconds longer than a VW bug to move along. Basically, whenever someone with billions in their name walks into a room, almost everyone there is falling over themselves trying to keep that billionaire happy.

    A lot of non-masochists would dream of being punished in that way.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 09 2014, @05:28PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 09 2014, @05:28PM (#104132) Journal

    Make a society where one isn't punished for creating something of value or employing people.

    What exactly do you mean by "punished"?

    Disincentives to employ others such as higher costs, more bureaucratic regulations, and increased liability.

    • (Score: 1) by mmarujo on Friday October 10 2014, @05:06PM

      by mmarujo (347) on Friday October 10 2014, @05:06PM (#104535)

      Do you really believe that an employer hires someone as a function of either of those factors? As in "If I paid less tax I would hire someone just because."?

      An employer hires the minimum amount necessary in order to fulfill his business labor need, no more, no less.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 10 2014, @05:30PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 10 2014, @05:30PM (#104542) Journal

        Do you really believe that an employer hires someone as a function of either of those factors? As in "If I paid less tax I would hire someone just because."?

        An employer hires the minimum amount necessary in order to fulfill his business labor need, no more, no less.

        Yes, but keep in mind that you're asking the wrong questions. Does the cost of an employee which includes all those goverment-related costs outweigh the benefit I get from hiring that additional employee in a particular position? They aren't hiring employees just because. But neither are they looking for the absolute minimum number of employees to theoretically do the job, regardless of cost or profit.

        Further, even if we lived in a magical world where the considerable government overhead of employing someone somehow was never a factor, employers would still have less resources available to employ people because of those costs.