U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there

I've posted this before and will post it again: any discussion like this should include a link to Philip Greenspun's "Women in Science": <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science" rel="nofollow">http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science</a> . Ignore the borderline sexist stuff about women and pay attention to the institutional structure of science and the opportunity costs of potential scientists.<p>Stuff like this: "Although the overall unemployment rate of chemists and other scientists is much lower than the national average, those figures mask an open secret: Many scientists work outside their chosen field" should demonstrate why the smartest or most economically aware people who are interested in science might want to think about ancillary fields (like hacking).<p>I've also co-written a longish guide for undergrads interested in science: <a href="http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-science-and-becoming-a-scientist" rel="nofollow">http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-to-think-about-...</a> , since many of them don't fully understand how science really works in an institutional setting.

There's a global Great Recession, and the arguments that its due to a mismatch between available jobs and worker skills are just smoke to rationalize the growing inequality. Peter Thiel argues that its due to the cost of energy.[1] A recent article about the price to import coal to India supports his argument.[2] The Superbubble has popped, and every sector is cutting back for private equity to make inroads.<p>1. The Prospects for Technology and Econimic Growth <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc</a><p>2. Grinding Energy Shortage Takes Toll on India's Growth <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577352232515290226.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230433120457735...</a>

I am really curious about how the biotech industry might be restructured to actually pay scientists.<p>I know people in both academic and corporate lab jobs making minimum wage or nearly minimum wage. These are really smart, hard working people. And the best we can do is employ them as cheapo alternatives to purchasing lab robotics?<p>On the other hand: this is really cheap, low cost, excellent labor. Are you paying &#62;$xx,000/mo on drugs? Just hire some scientist to make the drugs for you, you'll give someone a job and probably save a bunch of money in the process. (This is particularly relevant for individuals with rare blood diseases; their medicines cost many 10's of thousands of dollars a month in some cases.)<p>If I can get a postdoc for $39,000/year, what can I get for $100,000/year? How much is a novelty Soviet scientist? And what about a mad scientist (preferably one with a couple postdocs completed)?<p>edit: also, why is there no postdoc labor union?

I've always found the whole "Get a STEM degree if you want ample employment" argument to be a bit specious. It implies that all degrees that fall under this rather large umbrella are of equal worth, but the reality is that prospects are better for those under the "TE" portion of this umbrella.<p>Even within that smaller subsection, those working on, say, Aerospace Engineering degrees are likely envious of the prospects of Computer Science guys, and the Computer Science guys are looking at their upper-division coursework wondering if they shouldn't just bail out and test the waters of whatever startup hotspot is on their minds.<p>It's better than worrying about what you could possibly do with your Theater degree, but it's still stressful for the people under this giant umbrella of promise.<p>At the end of the day, I guess everyone feels like the grass is greener somewhere.

It's all very well crying out for this and that but without defining the path and in this case the jobs, there sentiment is nothing more than a soundbite.<p>Anybody can say: (1) More Scientists. (2) ??????????????? (3) Profit.<p>Its the number two aspect the goverment needs to focus upon as well as allowing others to focus.<p>How can they do that. Well they could offer TAX incentives for R&#38;D. Tax incentives for recruiting new people into the feild. Many many ways, though all of those involve the carrot approach without any sticks.<p>Sadly there is no golden answear/solution for this and soundbiting "we need more scientists" is not a solution unless you want to soundbite and then read other peoples comments in the hop[e of finding that magic solution you need to inact. good luck too them.

&#62; “She’s very good at everything, very smart,” Haas said of her daughter. “She loves chemistry, loves math. I tell her, ‘Don’t go into science.’ I’ve made that very clear to her.”<p>I've made this clear to my kids also. The cynical side of me says that the push for more scientists is mostly about lowering wages for companies lobbying the gov't for that.

Sometimes I look at other people's resumes and I see their finished PhD, their publications, their prestigious postdoc positions - and I feel a pang of jealousy. I feel like I have little to show for my unfulfilled years of toil in a doctoral program. Then I wonder why they are working outside of academia, and I begin to ponder the possibility that they may be jealous of me for understanding the system and leaving when I did.<p>I don't know. I'm going to keep on coding in any case.

Funny story? Back in the mid-1960s the Feds said there'd be a shortage of scientists. Then in the early 1970s the Apollo program ended, and 40K+ people with years of hard experience were dumped on the market.<p>Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

There really needs to be a YC-style company for scientists. Costs have come down - e.g. DNA sequencers are a lot more affordable today. What is needed is mentorship and some kind of exit that leads to employment.

Unless the jobs appear quickly then presumably the US might see a lot of the scientists move abroad. According to the Royal Society in London, China is set to spend more than the US on scientific research by the year 2020 and already publishes nearly as many scientific papers. - <a href="http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/...</a>

Surprisingly enough not every one of your prof's dozen grad students gets to be a prof. Fortunately there is a use for STEM PhDs outside the lecture hall.<p>It's like saying nobody should do math in school because there aren't enough math teacher jobs for every student