Research morale low among young researchers
Ripple effect continues through career track
Young, bright science and medical students who once knew that their purpose in life was to try to make the world a better place through study and investigation now question whether they should be following the research career track at all.
So academic research institutions are struggling with improving morale in a demoralizing era.
"Questions regarding the viability of careers in medical science are being raised more frequently," says Larry S. Schlesinger, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Ohio State University (OSU) Center for Microbial Interface Biology in Columbus, OH. Schlesinger also is the director of the medical scientist program and of the division of infectious diseases.
"In the scientific community, we are communicating more about the importance of maintaining a positive attitude for the people we supervise so that we can at least sustain academic programs with the best morale as possible," Schlesinger says.
The current morale problem is related to flat funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and increasing competition for fewer grants.
Plus scientific research is becoming more expensive with regard to maintaining buildings, performing cutting-edge platform technologies, and making discoveries, Schlesinger says.
"So it's getting more expensive to execute at a time when funding is tighter, and that puts more stress on the situation," he adds.
"We always talk about how a competitive scientific environment is good because it serves to weed out those who are less committed and allow those who have the most promising futures to rise to the top," Schlesinger says.
"But with persistent flat funding even our brightest young superstars are having trouble," he adds. "And this climate of flat funding has ripple effects that will continue for the next five to 10 years, and that's worrisome."
One of the effects is that some of the best and brightest are not entering biomedical research, Schlesinger says.
"Some of our brightest young students are not even going into research, and if you don't attract the best and brightest then you're already influencing the quality of your discipline, and that's frustrating to see," he explains.
"The second most severe effect is that some of our brightest graduate students now are opting for jobs rather than post-doctoral fellowships," he says. "They see that as a way to accelerate a movement toward stability in their job instead of having continued training where there's an uncertain future."
The problem is that many of these younger PhD and MD scientists have not yet discovered what they want to do with their career and when they opt-out of post-doctoral training, then they're closing some doors permanently, Schlesinger says.
"The post-doc gives scientists additional training and momentum in the form of more papers and grants makes a scientist viable for a faculty position at an academic institution," Schlesinger says. "So additional post-doctorate training is critical."
Then there's the problem of morale among those who do stay on the tenure track.
"There's really a morale and confidence issue," Schlesinger says. "The tenure track is a defined period of time, and one of the standard bars to pass is the acquisition of significant extramural funding."
The eroding NIH funding is impacting young scientists' movement toward tenure, he adds.
Ninety percent of a scientist's time is spent in systems development, which is working to improve assays to get a repeatable result, Schlesinger explains.
"Then 10% of the time is spent in the crank-out phase where your assays are working and you're getting a lot of data," he says.
"The execution of science is very labor intensive and often fraught with failure to begin with, so when the prospect of getting funding is very low, then one begins to question whether it is worth the effort," Schlesinger says.
This is making it increasingly difficult for research institutions to retain academic researchers, and it might lead to career disappointment among the people who pass on such a career, he notes.
"Say you've decided to go into industry at age 28, then it'd be a shame if five years later that individual is frustrated at a job in industry," Schlesinger says. "Then it'd be very hard to get back into academics."
While increased NIH funding is crucial, there are some things academic research institutions can do to improve the situation, as well.
"First, we as scientists need to continue to look for ways to work together efficiently and effectively," Schlesinger says. "Intramural programs should be working hard on that concept."
Also, researchers should economize and share equipment, supplies, and other resources to be more effective and efficient, he adds.
"And I think we need to create the most positive environment that impacts our trainees and elevates the esprit de corps to enable our trainees to see the future," Schlesinger says.
Young, bright science and medical students who once knew that their purpose in life was to try to make the world a better place through study and investigation now question whether they should be following the research career track at all.You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content