In the nine years since finishing my doctorate in public health, I have observed the arcs of friends's biomedical research careers and noted some trends -- at least of the anecdotal kind. If you agree with each point, put them together and see if you agree with my conclusion.
First, over the last 10 years obtaining a junior academic research position has reached historically difficult levels. The most immediate explanation is NIH's flat budget through the Bush years, when NIH's policy is to preserve the research programs of older, more established researchers at the expense of young investigators: the "eat the young" policy.
Second, the breakneck pace of building research facilities undertaken by major institutions and funded by bonds has imposed greater pressure on institutions to maintain high levels of extramural research funding in order to support the overhead and service the debt engendered by the new facilities. This favors the bankability of senior, more experienced researchers who have a track record of bringing in cash, which younger researchers struggle to establish.
This has led to a third, natural outcome: the deflection of strong, young researchers to government and private sector (specifically consulting and pharma) scientific appointments. And not only is this an effect of deflecting people who otherwise would be willing to accept academic research positions if openings were available, but also the plain fact that the lack of stability and reduced quality of life dissuades aspirants almost immediately upon graduation.
Perhaps in your own field you have noticed the graying of faculty with only a relatively few junior faculty being groomed to take their place within the next ten years. In fact, you may have noticed the number of junior faculty decreasing. This brings me to my final observation. As the government and private sectors have absorbed young research talent, these sectors have become aware that they have capabilities that equal and possibly exceed those of established academic research programs. Many young scientists in these sectors have advanced their own research agendas, but without the career uncertainties plaguing academic research. People are raising families and publishing. And, most crucially, this work is being accomplished without the nearly 70 percent overhead being charged by academic institutions on extramural research funding. So, my conclusion is this: why would the government and private sectors pay 70 cents on the dollar to universities for overhead when they can accomplish pretty much the same work in-house. The 70 percent premium is even more stark compared to the 10-15 percent usually charged by private contract research firms, which makes the proposition to government research programs very simple: increase the share of research conducted by contractors when the work cannot be conducted in-house.
Second, the breakneck pace of building research facilities undertaken by major institutions and funded by bonds has imposed greater pressure on institutions to maintain high levels of extramural research funding in order to support the overhead and service the debt engendered by the new facilities. This favors the bankability of senior, more experienced researchers who have a track record of bringing in cash, which younger researchers struggle to establish.
This has led to a third, natural outcome: the deflection of strong, young researchers to government and private sector (specifically consulting and pharma) scientific appointments. And not only is this an effect of deflecting people who otherwise would be willing to accept academic research positions if openings were available, but also the plain fact that the lack of stability and reduced quality of life dissuades aspirants almost immediately upon graduation.
Perhaps in your own field you have noticed the graying of faculty with only a relatively few junior faculty being groomed to take their place within the next ten years. In fact, you may have noticed the number of junior faculty decreasing. This brings me to my final observation. As the government and private sectors have absorbed young research talent, these sectors have become aware that they have capabilities that equal and possibly exceed those of established academic research programs. Many young scientists in these sectors have advanced their own research agendas, but without the career uncertainties plaguing academic research. People are raising families and publishing. And, most crucially, this work is being accomplished without the nearly 70 percent overhead being charged by academic institutions on extramural research funding. So, my conclusion is this: why would the government and private sectors pay 70 cents on the dollar to universities for overhead when they can accomplish pretty much the same work in-house. The 70 percent premium is even more stark compared to the 10-15 percent usually charged by private contract research firms, which makes the proposition to government research programs very simple: increase the share of research conducted by contractors when the work cannot be conducted in-house.
