<p>Unfortunately, it seems science and R&D has no future in this country any longer. Along with the advent of the parasitic HR industry, scientists have almost no chance of getting jobs in industry (I can only personally speak for physics, but I've heard it isn't much better in chemistry and biology. 40-50 years ago, becoming a scientist almost always promised you a middle class lifestyle. Even those with only bachelors degrees easily found employment and a decent salary. However, that is not the case these days. Theoretical physicists that have had to resort to cleaning toilets for a living is not as rare or as shocking as it might have been 40-50 years ago.</p>
<p>Fortunately, science education is universal and many developing and wealthy nations are seeking scientists and wanting to grow their R&D industry. Perhaps, science students should also be learning a second language such as Mandarin, Arabic, or Portugueze?</p>
<p>Self respecting science programs and students do learn a second or third language. Many (yet all should) require a second language to graduate because science is global discourse. My parents are both scientists and are tri-lingual.</p>
<p>I also do not believe science has no future in this country. We as a country could do much more to support science and I think that will happen.</p>
<p>Yet another article about how science is doomed in the United States, yet fails to mention that on a dollar for dollar basis, we are spending more now on research than at any other point in our history… And we outspend China on total R&D (private and federal) by more than 3:1. So, I’m not convinced that the sky is falling quite yet.</p>
<p>Yes, there are tempting options for young scientists outside of the United States. But this is yet another symptom of the larger problem: the over production of scientists and engineers in the United States. You can read up about if you want (Google), but basically we are producing far too many PhD level scientists and engineers. We’re overproducing, because we are overfunding research in many of these fields, which causes too many students to enter the field because PIs need slave labor. Eventually, they exit their programs with a degree in hand, which has led to a glut of scientists in most STEM fields. Those scientists then begin the infinite post-doc loop, desperately attaching themselves to established PIs, working on the scraps of funding leftover. Eventually, smaller universities started offering post-docs positions provided that they could bring in funding. Which is why we now have too many scientists competing for (slightly more) federal dollars.</p>
<p>There are a few possible solutions to the problem:
1 - Reform the grant system overall to encourage universities to hire permanent research staff, and reduce the number of graduate students in most programs, thus reducing the oversupply of young scientists. (This is not very likely to happen, as it works in no one’s interests).
2 - Reduce the funding available in most fields, and force out the “low-end” labs/PIs from the field. (Most likely, given the political and financial realities).
3 - Drastically increase research funding. (Least likely…)</p>
<p>Science has a bright future in the United States, albeit in industry. Federally funded research is likely to suffer from a chronic funding drought for the forseeable future, but it is not because we are underfunding research. Rather, the problem is self-inflicted.</p>
<p>EDIT: By the way, both Nature and Science have quite a few articles on the glut of scientists in most fields. Check those out before you consider going on for a PhD. It will probably change your mind.</p>
<p>Science has a future of course. People with a science degree, not necessarily. I was in a room full of math grad students the other day (25-30 of them), and asked them how many expected to do a career in academia. They all raised their hands. When I asked how many thought about a career in industry, a mere 3 did. Unless they are looking for positions in developping countries, they won’t all be able to go to academia…</p>
<p>1) Doom & Gloom sells papers. 2) DC-based media tends to overly focus on what the Federal government is doing (funding trends are going to be DOWN for the forseeable future) 3) DC-based media tends to be ignorant about anything happening outside the Beltway until it has an effect locally. 4) “Asia is going to whip our tuchus”/“eat our lunch” has been a theme to gain support for the Federal program of the day for decades (see Japan Inc. & 1980s). </p>
<p>As an example, the current boom in domestic natural gas & oil production resulted from industry R&D in production technology that was beneath the media’s attention because no big government program was involved.</p>
<p>Science may have a future in this country but not as a viable career for Americans. As companies continue to lowball, layoff, and outsource science staff more and more Amercans will continue to be repelled from the field and the nation will continue to import and rely on H1-B scabs to do the jobs that American companies are unwilling to pay a living wage for. </p>
<p>Just look at most PhD programs. Native born Americans are increasingly becoming a minority there. People get it. The cry for more science grads is a call for suckers.</p>
<p>Many Americans who work hard during college and get involved with research hav high paying research jobs. It’s the ones who don’t have a plan that can’t get jobs</p>
If you mean R&D by defense research that is done by engineers, then you are correct. In terms of any other scientific research, you couldn’t be anymore wrong. More and more scientists are losing grant money and can no longer fund their research. As American R&D continues its obsession with engineers, there is no opportunities in industry for scientists to pursue a research career.</p>
<p>Engineers have it the best when it comes to R&D these days. Hell, even jobs that belong to physicists are going to engineers. I’ve heard of some chemical engineers being hired as “researchers” in superconducitivity, which was a major failure. Unfortunately, most companies involved in R&D still haven’t learned their lesson in hiring engineers and that engineers are not trained to research nor do they have the brains to research a field as intellectually demanding as superconductivity and other great mysteries in physics.</p>
<p>I guess they think it gives them a credibility of sorts, since engineering is a professionally recognized field while physics is not.</p>
It may have something to do with the fact that if you don’t have an engineering degree, your chances of getting a job in industry as a pure science or math graduate is very slim? Just ask physics graduate students the same thing, and you’ll probably end up with similar results.</p>
<p>40-50 years ago, they could have expected to find jobs easily in industry. Now, with the advent of the parasitic HR department and this obsession by companies for applicants with engineering degrees, they have a much better chance becoming a tenured professor than finding employment in industry. I should know, I along with many of my close friends have had this experience with employers in industry.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, for most scientists and mathematicians, academia is their only hope for a chance at decent employment.</p>
<p>I am a strong believer that science will ALWAYS have a future in the United States. Why? Because of medicine. We will always be advancing our medical technology and we need solid scientists to help us advance. Don’t believe that science is a lost cause. It’s not and it never will be.</p>
Couldn’t be anymore wrong, and the fact you are parotting the narrative of the government bureaucrats that “science is growing”, “there is a need for scientists”,etc. leads me to think you are either a delusional student or a professor looking to get more suckers into science. </p>
<p>A small minority of scientists end up as tenured professors that pays decently. The rest will be doing postdocs and earn less than a call center worker until they have been worn out and leave the field altogether and retrain in a completely different profession, usually a trade.</p>
<p>KA, the Pharmaceutical industry can make a higher profit from less effective drugs. Obtaining a patent is very expensive, and if it runs out, it becomes illegal. If the drug cannot go through the FDA trials after the expiration of the patent, that potentially life saving drug cannot be put on the market. While we do have good medical technology in this country, it is not as best as it can be. If it were, doctors would be out of a job. People would not have to go to hospitals or seek medical treatment. Why create a life-saving drug, when you can create something that will solve one problem and create another problem, in order to keep generating profits? Ever go to the the doctor and receieve a shot, only to become ill, then they prescribe anti-biotics to solve that problem, but then that anti-biotics creates side effects, and the cycle continues. One reason I do not use pharmaceuticals, but instead use the natural approach.</p>
<p>There are many “industries” where engineering is not the only way to get to R&D, and where pure math skills are still useful (of course, applied math and statistical skills are more valued than pure math ones). Finance, biopharmaceutical, energy companies, health institutes, governments have tons of data they need to crunch into meaningful numbers and figures, or figure out how to properly measure. There are many pure math problems that come out of this kind of research, which is not just for engineers. My issue is that many students in more theoretical fields don’t realize that there are other options than academia, and that it’s foolish to only look at academia as a career path.</p>