As I traveled up and down the East Coast interviewing at
graduate schools, the professors interviewing me at each university repeated the
same bit of advice on how to succeed in graduate school: “You’ve just got to
really, really, love your work.”
While I have no doubt this advice was offered up with the
utmost sincerity, my experience thus far has convinced me that succeeding in
science requires a bit more than pure passion. It requires luck, and also quite
a few expensive resources.
Paula Stephan agrees wholeheartedly in her 2012 book, “How Economics Shapes Science.” This book clearly lays out how money influences every
step of the research process—and by extension, every stage of a scientist’s career.
Money influences who attends graduate school; who takes a post-doctoral
fellowship; who tries and who succeeds in obtaining a tenure-track
professorship; and who will have a productive, long term research career.
Stephan is an economist by training, and writes in the
Preface that her book is intended for a large audience—including other
economists and policy makers, but also scientists. She makes good on her claim
by writing in clear, jargon-free language. Presumably for the benefit of the
economists and policy makers, she tries hard to paint a realistic picture of
lab life across disciplines, from mathematics to biology—and she does rather well.
For the laboratory trained scientist, it is tempting to assume that these chapters describing our every day life will not hold many surprises, but the details of the importance and the distribution of these resources are quite interesting. I was fascinated to learn, for example, that Johns Hopkins University has a core facility that allows their researchers to order any mouse model they need—even one that needs to be made on demand. Scientists at lower tier universities working on similar research questions would have a difficult time competing with labs at Johns Hopkins who take advantage of this service! At the very least, these chapters are worth skimming for the thoughtful sections at the end of each chapter on how public policy should maximize the utility of each resource.
For the laboratory trained scientist, it is tempting to assume that these chapters describing our every day life will not hold many surprises, but the details of the importance and the distribution of these resources are quite interesting. I was fascinated to learn, for example, that Johns Hopkins University has a core facility that allows their researchers to order any mouse model they need—even one that needs to be made on demand. Scientists at lower tier universities working on similar research questions would have a difficult time competing with labs at Johns Hopkins who take advantage of this service! At the very least, these chapters are worth skimming for the thoughtful sections at the end of each chapter on how public policy should maximize the utility of each resource.
The remainder of the book describes who is performing
research in the United States and how the money that funds research is
distributed. Stephan returns to several questions in multiple chapters of this
book, but I found two particularly interesting.
The first is, should the majority of publically funded
research be performed in a university setting? While it is clear Stephan values
research universities highly, a number of arguments are made for research to also
occur at non-degree granting institutions. The most obvious of these arguments
is that university labs graduate far more students each year than the number of
available faculty positions. Stephan argues that using tax dollars to train
students—particularly in the early years when little time is spent performing
research—is inefficient if those students are forced by a scarcity of professorships
into careers as high school teachers or technical writers. One can certainly
make the counter argument that graduate training prepares students to excel in
alternative careers, but it is difficult to determine if this justifies the heavy
investment by taxpayers.
A second, and even
more central question running through this book is whether we are funding
research properly. Here again, there are more questions than answers, but after
reading this book I was convinced that our current situation is far from
optimal. I was previously of the over-simplistic mindset that scientists should
always to lobby for additional research funds. More money should mean more—and
higher quality—research.
But Stephan challenges her readers to think about additional
funding concerns. In particular, Stephan refers frequently to the doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003. The rapid influx of money led
universities into building and hiring trajectories they couldn’t sustain as
funding levels flattened out. To prevent these and other unintended
consequences from fluctuations in funding, Stephan argues strongly for
long-term consistency in research support from year to year.
These tough questions, and the others raised throughout the
book, are particularly meaningful as the United States continues to face a
difficult financial situation. As the author points out, a country with less
money to spend on research must be even more careful that each dollar is spent
optimally. Anyone interested in the future of science in America will find it
worth his or her time to read and learn from this book.
Irene Reynolds Tebbs
5th year, Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry
No comments:
Post a Comment