Early Careers for Biomedical Scientists:
Doubling (and Troubling) Outcomes
Paula Stephan
[email protected]
Georgia State University
February 26, 2007
Overview
• Throughout 1990s concern expressed
regarding workforce outcomes for early
career biomedical scientists
• In late 1990s, NIH budget began an
expansion that resulted in a doubling of
the budget over a 5-year period
• Here we examine the effects of this
doubling on careers of young life scientists
Overview continued
• Begin by discussing why the young are of
special interest
• Continue by summarizing the early career
situation for biomedical scientists in the 1990s.
• Update the situation, for 2003 and 2005.
• Examine NIH funding patterns during and after
the doubling
• Conclude with a summary and discussion of
what the future may hold
Acknowledgements/Caveats
• Portion of presentation uses data from Survey of
Doctorate Recipients. Use of data does not
imply NSF endorsement of research methods or
conclusions.
• SDR data are for PhDs who received their
doctoral training in U.S.; includes MD/PhDs; fails
to count those who received PhD training
outside the U.S.
• Views expressed are not those of NIH
• Acknowledge support from the Science and
Engineering Workforce Project funded by Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation.
Why Focus on the Young?
• Relationship of age to productivity
• Cohort effects: initial labor market conditions
when one gets a PhD have impact throughout
career
• Young have been drawn to study biomedical
sciences because of a love of science…highly
motivated
• Efficiency concerns—is this a rational policy?
• Signals created by poor prospects affect future
flows into PhD programs
Situation in 1990s
• In 1996 NRC established a committee to study
trends in the early careers of life scientists.
• Rationale for study was that production of PhDs
had been growing but job market outcomes had
not. Manifested by such indicators as
– Increase in time to degree
– Increase in number holding postdoc position and
length of postdoc position
– Decrease in probability of holding a tenure track
position
– Decline in NIH support for young investigators
NRC Committee
• Chaired by Shirley
Tilghman, Currently
President of Princeton
Numbe r o f P h.D .s C o nfe rre d in the B io me dic a l S c ie nc e s
1 9 6 3 -1 9 9 6
7200
4800
3600
2400
1200
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
73
19
71
19
69
19
67
19
65
19
63
0
19
T otal Ph.D .s
6000
Y ears
Num b e r o f P h.D .'s
Source: NRC Report
Median Time to Degree and Age at Degree
8.5
(US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biom edical Sciences)
32
8
7.5
31
T im e to D egree
7
30.5
6.5
6
30
5.5
29.5
5
M edian Age at T im e of Degree
31.5
29
4.5
4
28.5
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year
Time to Degree
Median Age at Time of Degree
Source: NRC Report
Percen t o f U S L ife-Scien ce P h .D .s in th e Bio m ed ical
Scien ces Plan n in g Po st D o cto ral T rain in g U p o n
G rad u atio n
65
60
55
P ercent
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
1963 1964 1965
1966 1967
1968 1969 1970
1971 1972
1973 1974 1975
1976 1977 1978
1979 1980
1981 1982 1983
1984 1985 1986
1987 1988
1989 1990 1991
1992 1993
1994 1995 1996
Ye a r
P o std o cto ra l A p p o intm e nts
Source: NRC Report
F ractio n o f B io m ed ical L ife S cien ce D o cto rates in
P o std o cto ral A p p o in tm en ts in A cad em e, In d u stry, an d
G o vern m en t (1973-1995)
70
60
P ercent
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-2 Y ears S inc e P h.D.
3-4 Y ears S inc e P h.D.
5-6 Y ears S inc e P h.D .
In te rv ie w D a te
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1995
Source: NRC Report
Percent of B iom edical Life Science Ph.D .s in Selected
Sectors (5-6 Years Since D egree)
50
45
40
35
P ercent
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Tenure-Trac k
Tenure-Trac k
Fac ulty Pos ition at
Fac ulty Pos ition at
Indus try
PhD Ins titutions
Other Ins titutions
Federal Labs and
E mployment S ector
1973
1977
Other
Other Gov ernment
1981
1985
1989
1993
1995
Source: NRC Report
Nu m b er o f Bio m ed ical L ife S cien ce P h .D.s in S elected S ecto rs (56 Years S in ce Deg ree)
3000
2500
Num ber
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Tenure-Trac k
Tenure-Trac k
Fac ulty Pos ition at
Fac ulty Pos ition at
PhD Ins titutions
Other Ins titutions
Indus try
Federal Labs and
Other
Other Gov ernment
E m p lo y m e n t S e c to r
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1995
Source: NRC Report
P ercen t o f B io m ed ical L ife S cien ce P h .D .s in P art-tim e,
T em p o rary P o sitio n s o r U n em p lo yed
(5-6 Y ears S in ce R eceip t o f P h .D .)
35
30
P ercent
25
20
15
10
5
0
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1995
S u rvey Year
P ostdocs
E m ployed P art-tim e
Unem ployed and S eeking
Other A cadem ic P ositions
Data: NRC Report
Percent of Life-Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (56 Years Since Degree) 1973 and 1995 by Ranking of
Institution
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
Tenure-Track
Faculty
P os ition at P hD
Institutions
Quality Institutions (1973)
Tenure-Track
Fac ulty
P osition at
Other
Institutions
Quality Ins titutions(1995)
Indus try
Federal Labs
and Other
Governm ent
Other
Interview Date
S eries5
Other Ins titutions (1973)
Other Ins titutions (1995)
Data: NRC Report
NIH Support For those 35 and
Younger
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1993 about 380 awards
1994 about 410 awards
1995 about 350 awards
1996 about 340 awards
1997 about 330 awards
1998 about 330 awards
Average age at first independent award in 1980:
37; average age in 1990 39.5. Continued to rise
during 1990s.
Summary of Recommendations of
NRC Committee
• Restraint of the Rate of Growth of the Number of
Graduate Students in the Life Sciences
• Dissemination of Accurate Information on the
Career Prospects of Young Life Scientists
• Improvement of the Educational Experience of
Graduate Students
• Enhancement of Opportunities for Independence
of Postdoctoral Fellows
• Alternative Paths to Careers in the Life Sciences
Post Report Situation
• NIH budget doubled
• Number of PhDs residing in U.S. who
trained in U.S. aged 35 or younger
increased; postdocs trained outside the
U.S. also increased.
• Hiring patterns of U.S. trained changed
somewhat, with a lag
• See this by looking at NSF data and at
AAMC Faculty Roster Data
NIH Budget BUDGET AUTHORITY FY 1977 – FY 2007
(Current vs. Constant 1977 Dollars Using BRDPI as the Inflation Factor)(Dollars in Billions)
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1979
1980
1978
1977
Current Dollars
Constant Dollars
OER: NIH Budget over time
Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or Younger
20,000
Number
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
Year
Age 35 or Younger
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report
.
2001
2003
Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or
Younger
20,000
Number
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Year
Age 35 or Younger
In Tenure-track Jobs
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report
.
2003
Conclude
• Number of tenure track positions occupied by
those trained in the U.S. 35 and younger held
constant at best until 2001; then grew
somewhat towards end of NIH doubling.
• Probability that a young person trained in
biomedical life sciences in U.S. holds a tenure
track position is about the same in 2003 as it
was in 1993 and improved between 2001 and
2003: 10.3 % to 10.4% (or from 6.9% in 2001).
• Next slides show that
– postdoc situation also improved;
– non-tenure track positions grew during the period
Percentage
Proportion of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. in Postdoc Positions
By Time Since Degree
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Year
0-2 Years
3-4 Years
5-6 Years
7-8 Years
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Over 8 Years
Labor Force Status of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age
35 or Younger in Other than Tenure-Track Positions
Number
18,000
16,000
Unemployed & Out
of the Labor Force
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
PT Employed
Other FT
Employed
Postdoc
2,000
0
1993
Not Tenure-track
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Year
Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Labor Market Outcomes in the
Biomedical Sciences Across Age
Groups
•
•
•
•
Tenure track by age
Full-time employment by sector
Tenure-track status in academe
Labor force status
Tenure Track Biomedical Faculty by Age
35,000
30,000
G 55
25,000
51-55
20,000
46-50
15,000
41-45
10,000
35-40
5,000
LE 35
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Tenure track status is for those trained in U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data
does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Labor Force Status: Biomedical PhDs
140000
120000
Unemployed/Out of
Labor Force
100000
Part Time
80000
Full time not university
60000
40000
Post doc
20000
0
Total Academe
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Labor force Status for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement
of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Full Time Positions by Sector: Biomedical Sciences
120000
100000
80000
Full time not university
Post doc
Total Academe
60000
40000
20000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Slide shows positions for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply
NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Summary
• Growth in non-academic sector jobs has
outpaced growth in academic sector jobs
during the period for those trained in the
United States.
• Growth in those unemployed or out of the
labor force
• Decline in percent in post doc positions
from 13.3% to 9.7%
Tenure Track Status: Biomedical Sciences
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
total-non-tenure track
Total tenure-track
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Slide shows tenure tract status for those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply
NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Summary
• Growth in academic positions for those
trained in the United States during past 10
years of about 33%
• Growth is noticeable during NIH-doubling
period
• Growth has been heavily concentrated in
the non-tenure track positions
– Non-tenure track has grown by over 70%
– Tenure-track has grown by 20%
Medical Colleges vs. Non-medical
Colleges
• Next slides show that
– Growth has been in medical colleges
– Especially among non-tenure track positions
Academic Positions by Sector
25000
20000
15000
total medical
total non-medical
10000
5000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Slide shows positions held by those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF
data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Medical Faulcy Positions by Tenure Track, Biomedical Sciences
25000
20000
15000
Non Tenture Track
Tenure Track
10000
5000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data
does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
2003
Summary
• See growth in hiring of individuals trained in the
U.S. among medical colleges during the decade
relative to non-medical colleges
• Change in mix of tenure and tenure track
– 33% of medical faculty were in non-tenure track
positions in 1993;
– 45% were in non-tenure track positions in 2003.
• Considerable growth in hiring at medical
colleges during the NIH doubling period
Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools
12000
10000
8000
Other Not TT
Full Not TT
Associate Not TT
Assistant Not TT
6000
4000
2000
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Assistant Not TT
Associate Not TT
Full Not TT
Other Not TT
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the
research methods or conclusions contained in this report.
Other Data Indicators
• AAMC Faculty Roster Data
• Bricks and Mortar
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
Number
First Assistant Professorship: Medical Schools
6000
5000
4000
3000
MD-PhD
PhD
MD
2000
1000
0
Year
AAMC Data
Average Age at Tim e of First Assistant Professorship at US Medical Schools
AAMC Faculty Roster Data as of March 31, 2006
42
41
40
39
38
37
MD/PhD
PhD
36
MD
35
34
33
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
32
AAMC Data
Faculty Medical Schools: Basic Sciences
8000
7000
6000
5000
physiology
microbiology
Biochemistry
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
AAMC Data
S&E Research Space: Academic Institutions
40
35
Net Assignable Sq. Ft. (millions)
30
Agricultural sciences
Biological sciences
Computer sciences
Earth and Ocean
Engineering
Mathematics
Medical sciences
Physical sciences
25
20
15
10
5
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year
1998
1999
2001
2003
New Construction
• NSF reports greatest number of
institutions began construction in fields of
biological and medical sciences in FY2002
or FY2003.
• 56% of newly constructed space to be
used for these 2 fields
Appears to be good news for early
career biomedical scientists
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age of first assistantship fell for first time in 2003
Jobs on an increase (or were). But SDR data is already
out of date
The pickup was relatively modest for the young. Even in
the best of times fewer than one-in seven of young
biomedical PhDs have an academic appointment
(tenure-track or non-tenure track).
Hiring was concentrated in non-tenure track positions.
The pickup that occurred was fueled in part by new
buildings coming on line which in turn were fueled by
NIH budget growth. Lagged the doubling.
But…
Jobs come with high
expectations
•
•
•
•
•
Faculty expected to generate grants
Not new, but more and more frequently this is a
condition of employment. Three years to cover salary.
Many tenure-track positions paid out of soft-money
Not one grant or two grants but three became
expectation at many research institutions
Not surprising that
–
–
Number of NIH applications on increase
Many established investigators increased their number of
grants and size of their labs.
NIH Situation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Budgets have been flat, growing at less than inflation.
From $27.2 billion in 2003 to $28.7 in 2006.
Costs of grants are rising
Results in more grant applications chasing constant to
declining pool of resources
Translates into lower success rates
Most applications come from individuals who already
have grants.
New investigator pool is on decline after peeking in
2003.
NIH Primer
• R01 is basic grant for independent research; in earlier
years R29 existed as the “first” independent award for
new investigators. Duration of three to five years.
• Type 1 is a new application
• Type 2 is a continuing application
• Type 1’s can be from “new” investigators who have
never been funded or from established investigators
• Review process: triage—group that is not scored;
possible to submit up to two amendments; can resubmit
even if not scored.
• Important to distinguish between applicants and
applications
Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent*
Applications, Awards and Percent Funded
(Success Rate)
30
35%
20%
15
15%
10
10%
5
5%
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
0%
19
96
-
19
95
(in Thousands)
Number of Applicatio
25%
20
Fiscal Year
Reviewed
Awarded
Success Rate
NIH, OER: “Investment…”
R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37
Percent Funde
30%
25
Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applicants
Reviewed, Awarded, and Percent Funded (Success Rate)
25
40%
35%
30%
25%
15
20%
10
15%
10%
5
5%
-
0%
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
19
01
20
00
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
Fiscal Year
Reviewed
Awarded
Percent Funded
R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37
NIH, OER: “Investment…”
Percent Funde
Number of Applica
(in Thousands)
20
NIH COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS
BY YEAR OF REVIEW
NIH Competing R01 Applications by Year of
Review
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
19
90
0
Review Year
Original New Applications
Original Competing Continuations
Amendments to New Applications
Amendments to Competing Continuations
NIH, OER for AIRI
Number of New and Established Investigators Receiving
Competing and R01 and R01 Equivalent Grants to 1962 to 2004
8,000
40%
Established Investigators
New Investigators
Percent New Investigators
Fiscal Year
NIH, OER for AIRI
04
20
02
20
00
20
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
86
0%
84
0
82
5%
80
1,000
78
10%
76
2,000
74
15%
72
3,000
70
20%
68
4,000
66
25%
64
5,000
62
30%
Percent Grants to New Investigators
35%
6,000
19
Number of Grants
7,000
NIH New (Type 1) Competing R01 Equivalent Applications
Success rates for first time and previously funded investigators
35%
30%
28.3%
28.7%
28.1%
27.0%
26.9%
26.9%
25.4%
25%
Success Rate
23.7%
20%
21.7%
21.3%
20.6%
20.3%
22.5%
21.5%
21.1%
22.2%
21.9%
21.2%
22.5%
20.6%
19.1%
18.4%
18.1%
17.0%
16.8%
15.9%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fis cal Ye ar
Previously Funded Investigators
First Time Investigators
R01 Equivalent = R01, R29, and R37 activities .
NIH, OER for GREAT
2004
Number of Different NIH Competing Research Project Grants
Awarded to New Investigators, FY 1962 - 2005
3000
2000
1500
1000
500
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
19
70
19
68
19
66
19
64
0
19
62
Number of Awards to New Investigators
2500
Fiscal Year
R01
R23
R29
R03
R21
Other
NIH, OER for GREAT
New Investigator Situation
– Virtually no increase in funding of “new”
investigators in traditional R01
– Growth for new investigators has been in the
R03 and R21 which are small in terms of
funding and length of award.
• R03—small research project-- $50,000 per year for
two years;
• R21 investigator-initiated exploratory development
research—up to two years, not to exceed
$275,000).
NIH Support Of First Time Investigators
2000
NIH Competing R01/R29 awards to individuals without prior research grant support
2002
1407
1439
1511
1532
73
69
1492
1492
2005
1559
98
90
2004
Post Doubling
1543
76
2000
66
1999
80
73
65
1998
Period of
Doubling
69
1200
1000
600
1353
1284
1996
800
1995
Pre-doubling
1643
400
200
0
Fiscal Year
Other
2003
Number of Awards
1400
88
1997
1600
2001
1800
AIRI
NIH, OER for AIRI
AVERAGE AGE OF COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT AWARDEES
Average Age of Competing R01 Equivalent Awards
55
51.7
45
43.2
40.9
42.9
40
37.3
35
35.2
Average Age of New investigators
Average Age of All investigators
NIH, OER for AIRI
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
30
1970
Agerage age
50
DISTRIBUTION OF INVESTIGATOR AGES
NIH Competing R01 Equivalent Awardee
14.5%
14.6%
20.8%
24.9%
19.0%
6.2%
1995
15.8%
15.2%
20.3%
23.9%
18.4%
17.0%
14.6%
20.3%
24.6%
17.1%
17.9%
15.7%
20.5%
23.1%
16.5%
19.6%
16.4%
21.4%
22.4%
21.7%
22.7%
23.9%
24.9%
27.5%
27.6%
16.6%
16.3%
16.0%
17.4%
18.1%
18.2%
21.1%
21.1%
22.2%
19.6%
22.1%
21.4%
21.7%
21.7%
21.7%
20.9%
20.0%
20.1%
15.6%
14.1%
13.8%
13.0%
13.1%
12.9%
12.0%
4.0%
3.8%
4.5%
3.5%
3.8%
3.4%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
6.4%
6.4%
6.2%
4.8%
1996
1997
1998
1999
Fiscal Year
35 and Younger
36 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
51 - 55
Over 55
NIH, OER for AIRI
2005
Summarize NIH Data
During Doubling
• Tremendous increase in number of new R01
applications
• Majority come from established investigators
• Number of established investigators receiving
R01s has increased dramatically
• Increase in percent of investigators who have
more than one grant
• Creates significant change in age-distribution of
NIH awardees
Kangaroo Solution?
• Pathway to Independence Award Program:
K99/R00
• 150 to 200 postdoctoral candidates for each of
next 5 years.
• Mentored support while post doc followed by 3
years of R01-level funding, contingent upon
securing a tenure-track position with appropriate
institutional support and resources.
• A program with unintended consequences?
Program came out of the NRC Committee Report:
Bridges to Independence
Summary
•
During doubling
– New grants to established investigators have increased dramatically.
– Virtually no increase in funding of “new” investigators in traditional R01
– Growth for new investigators has been in the R03 and R21 which are
small in terms of funding and length of award.
– NIH increasingly is supporting established, older investigators.
– Small number of Kangaroo awards means that implementation will have
little effect on age distribution.
– Success rates for R01s are declining;
– Success rates are especially low for new investigators.
– Increased proportion of applications are being triaged and thus do not
receive comments.
– Speed up review process as a solution?
– Bridge money is being sought from universities.
What does future hold?
• Assuming NIH situation stays as is
• Universities will have to find alternative ways to
pay for buildings. NIH pick up less of tab; some
relief as early-funded R01s lapse
• NIH is beginning to put brakes on tuition
increases which universities relied on
• Recent faculty hires will have an especially
difficult time getting funding and staying funded.
• Bridge money is constrained. Labs will
downsize. Staff will be laid off.
• Young and untenured will bear disproportionate
share of adjustment costs.
Future continued . . .
• Jobs, especially tenure-track jobs, are
unlikely to increase
• Young researchers will increasingly need
to look for alternative places to do
research
• Unclear whether jobs in industry will
expand sufficiently to absorb these young
researchers
Lessons/Questions
• Fallacy of composition
• Even in the best of times, the young don’t benefit
that much from increases in funding
• Soft landing?
• Do additional grants for productive scientists
significantly contribute to scientific knowledge?
• Time to rethink the way in which research labs
are staffed in the United States?