Why the science system is not sustainable

In Peter Lawrence's now famous PLoS article, Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research, he echoes a commonly held belief by scientists around the world - the science funding system is broken. Lawrence's character "K.", who represents the struggles of young scientists today, finds difficulty setting himself up as an academic researcher because he is bogged down in bureaucracy. To make matters worse, the bright young researchers that he spends much of his time training are unable to stay in science due to the low pay and limited career offerings. So why is K struggling? I turn to the harsh reality of economics that we, as scientists, need to recognise.

For starters, the science system is generating more scientists than the funding and academic systems can support. There was a time when science, in its purest form, was for the intellectual elite and funding was plentiful for all (though was probably not realised at the time). Now, becoming a PhD scientist is the necessary next step for the above average wishing to make a career out of their curiosity. Sadly, more often than not, science PhD graduates are forced into the real world without adequate skills outside of the lab. It is generally accepted that less than 20% of science PhD graduates will find careers in academia. In many ways becoming a career scientist is like becoming a professional athlete - unless you're at the top, the pay is menial. You really have to LOVE what you do! When a youngster says that one day he's going to become a professional basketball player, we tell him to make sure he stays in school just in case his dreams don't come to fruition. So why don't we inform science students of the harsh realities of science careers and encourage them to also study business, law, or policy so that when their academic careers inevitably fail to come to fruition they have valuable and complementary skill sets to take into the real world? Transversely, such a multi-talented individual could bring a perspective into the lab that could benefit those around him/her.

Secondly, unless a researcher has been fortunate enough to have wealth or generate significant income through his/her research, then that researcher will be reliant on funding from external sources - often from the government. There are very few governments these days with a surplus large enough to make super risky investments - let's face it, blue sky science is a very risky investment if the aim is to achieve returns. So why would a government invest in research that cannot be linked to significant commercial, economic, environmental or social benefits? I'm not saying that research must lead to these benefits, but rather that government-funded research should be demonstrably linked to these benefits. Wouldn't it make more sense for more scientists to undertake revenue-generating research so that, over time, more money will be available for basic research? Perhaps the problem for K arose from a poor research concept rather than the crutch of 'the system'. It is often argued that the evidence is clear - research leads to innovation, and innovation leads to economic benefits. This is true, but not all research leads to innovation, and not all innovative research is world-leading. That is why the funding system is biased towards those with grantsmanship skills who often make compelling commercial, economic, social, or environmental cases in their research proposals rather than focusing on the research itself. Are researchers 'lying' on grant proposals? No - more like seeing the wood for the trees.

Peter Lawrence's article also has a section entitled "How to 'restore science to its rightful place'", and Peter suggests that reducing the funding application time, bureaucracy and general effort would remove much of the burden on academics. There is a lot of truth to this. Unfortunately, Peter's suggested solution (and that of other commenters within his article) is for funding to be handed out to researchers with a proven 'scientific' performance. As a taxpayer I am hesitant to hand out money for good science without having any idea of how it benefits my country, and funding agencies are, in a round about way, tasked with representing my interests as a voter. As a scientist I would like to see a sustainable science system - one that generates enough income to the government to recoup the costs of the investment in science, and thus leaving enough funds available for blue skies research completely unrelated to commercial, economic, environmental or social benefits. Giving money to even the best of researchers for no other reason than the fact that they have done good science in the past is both idealistic and unsustainable. This would lead to yet another layer of bureaucracy. Questions would have to be addressed: What is good science (quality vs benefits)? What are good outputs (number vs quality)? What constitutes performance? Philosophical questions such as these can be debated by bureaucrats until the bank account is empty, and then everyone loses.

In summary I argue that the funding system is not broken, but the science culture sure needs an overhaul. Raising the flag of scientific welfare is the surest way to lose the trust and support of the taxpayers - the dominant and most powerful stakeholders of the science funding system. Providing funding for high quality science, rather than funding on the basis of sensible benefits from good (or even average) science, is an idealistic and unsustainable dream. There is no question that society benefits from blue sky research, but how much is enough? Shouldn't we get our economy in order first? Is the problem with the funding system that we've already passed the intellectual equilibrium? If blue sky research is your passion, then perhaps you should consider either a) working for an organisation, such as a wealthy university, that has surplus funds to pay for blue sky research, or b) generating enough income through your research to yourself or your organisation so that you can get sustainable access to funding for your blue sky interests. Until the scientific community realises the urgent necessity for more research linked to commercial, economic, social or environmental benefits we will never achieve a sustainable science system. If K had an economics degree as well as a PhD in science, would he be writing the same grant, or telling the same story???

Lack business skills? Start a business!

It's true - by simply going through the process of starting a business you will pick up a great deal of knowledge. It is a relatively low-cost investment that forces you to do some introspection. The first step is to find a company name that appropriately represents what you have to offer - in a sense, a CV wrapped into a 2-3 syllable title. The next step is to see if that name can be registered as a business and if the website is available. Finally, register the company name, purchase the rights to the web address, and you're off and running.

OK - I have a business, now what?
You'll need a website. I know nothing about websites (other than how to surf the net), but there are easy ways to set up quality websites using free hosting and site building - for example, here's a good website that uses Google Sites. This was set up by following the guidance from here.

I don't even know what i want to do!
Most people would advise you to have an idea before you start a business. However, you probably want to 'test the waters' before you commit to something. Registering a business and developing a website force you to look deep inside yourself to find your passion and interest. Once you identify what service/product you will provide you'll need an elevator pitch.

I don't know anything about taxes, sales, marketing - what do i do?

The only way to learn these is the apply the principles to your business. There are plenty of free resources to assist you. It is in everyone's interest that small businesses are started as they are the major contributor to economies. There are government-sponsored programmes (free of charge) that can walk you through the process of record keeping, for example, and provide guidance and seminars on marketing or growing your business. In New Zealand, for example, there is a government website solely dedicated to those who are either in business or wanting to start a business, with links to local and regional programmes for support.

Will it still be worth it if i don't make any money?
The vast majority of businesses fail, so you might as well understand a bit about running a business while you keep your day job. The reality is that if you start a business to learn about starting a business, then you will have spent far less time and money than you would otherwise have spent getting a degree at a university - and you will probably learn more practical skills, anyway! It is handy to have a business (and know the basics of running one) because there will be a day when it is more attractive for bigger companies to subcontract smaller companies (ie 1 person) or consultants to do a job rather than going through the hassle of hiring an employee. Positioning one's self for this eventual reality will provide some security, especially when job markets are so poor.

Are there any other advantages?
Everything mentioned here so far is practical, but the benefits go much much further. When you own your own company you become a walking, talking brand with a strong sense of pride. Metaphorically speaking, it's like harvesting food from your garden. You've spent a lot of time preparing the soil and nurturing the plants, so when they grow and produce, your hard work makes you smug and your meals never taste better! With a business, you have a more professional attitude and approach life much more positively, even in your everyday interactions with people. Reputation is everything, so you will be much less inclined to burn bridges; you'll never know what opportunities exist on the other side of a burned bridge. It is amazing how many people offer support and guidance simply by the shear mention that you run a small business and could use some advice.

Is it really this easy?
Yes! There is no need to let a lack of business skills hold you back from starting your own business. The only thing you will need start a successful business is an idea and a customer, and the rest you will pick up along the way.

Where have all the post docs gone?

There are more PhD students in the sciences than ever before, and the numbers are growing fast. On one side of the coin, this is an encouraging sign that, as a society, we are pushing out innovators in greater numbers. The other side of that coin is not so encouraging. The more PhDs coming through the ranks means that there will be more unemployed and underutilised scientists. Right now less than 3 out of 10 PhD students will be employed at a research organisation 5 years after graduation. Of concern is that the PhD process is heavily weighted towards obtaining an academic position. This means that the academic training these students are receiving will not be sufficient on its own to prepare them for the workforce.

So why won't these PhD students find employment in academia? Let's look at the science system in New Zealand.

• Cost of including a PhD student in a grant: $32,000 p.a.
• Cost of including a Post-doc in a grant: $150,000 p.a. (incl. full overheads)
• The increase of tenured academic positions is far less than the increase in post-docs, which is again far less than the increase in total PhD students entering the science system.
• Here is an interesting presentation by Trevor D. McKee
  

It is easy to see that funding for capability building in sciences is geared towards the student, but not the career advancement. It is simply uneconomical to include post-docs in grant applications, and funding agencies are less inclined to pay for research that could be done more efficiently with 5 PhD students rather than a single post-doc. Moreover, if a person is fortunate enough to obtain a post-doc position, it is unlikely that they will find a career in academia.

So, a PhD student in NZ who wishes to continue down the path of academia is forced to do one of two things:

1. go overseas; or
2. change careers

Going overseas is difficult because most PhD students will finish in their late 20's or early 30's at which time they have a family and a settled lifestyle. Changing careers is even more difficult since most of a PhD student's training is limited in scope and primarily applicable to academic careers.

So what's a PhD student to do?
The answer to this is simple: prepare for a career outside of academia by upskilling during your studentship. This may take various forms, but examples may include legal or business training, communications/journalism, entrepreneurship, or government/policy studies. By combining the skills from research with other fundamental skills, PhD students will stand out amongst a crowd and be much more marketable; perhaps they will like the career outside of the lab even more!

Leveraging university resources

Universities are intellectual hubs with a vast array of resources at the disposal of students and academics in the pursuit of knowledge. When affiliated with a university as a student or staff member there are an enormous number of resources available to you including access to scientific equipment, expert knowledge, academic journals, research funds and scholarships, and even administrative resources just to name a few. Universities are natural innovators, so one would imagine that eager companies would be banging down the doors of universities to get to the brains that lie within the ivory tower. This, in fact, does not happen as often as it should.

So why is it that companies shy away from working with universities? Universities are complicated beasts and unlike any private company. The academics hold vast amounts of power and wield it under the umbrella of academic freedom. University researchers can get away with many things that would get a worker fired in a company. Also, academics are most often driven by the pursuit of knowledge and publishing in peer reviewed journals. Nowhere in an academic's training does business and commercialisation come into play - this is an external factor that is more or less forced into the lives of academics, and academics must then try to accommodate these external factors to the best of their abilities or remove themselves from research altogether. This recipe does not always work. Without any control over an academic, companies view universities and academics as rogue collaborators - far too risky of an investment and much too difficult to manage.

This is where an opportunity exists for companies that are keen to innovate on a shoestring budget. It may take a bit of sensitivity training, relationship management, and ego massaging, but a relationship with academia will grant a company access to valuable knowledge resources. For example, PhD students can work on projects related to a company's needs for a stipend less than the salary of a 18-year-old high school dropout! Academics have access to government funding that companies are ineligible to apply for, and we're not talking small change, either. In my experience, academics apply their vast knowledge to areas that may not be particularly useful to companies, but that's not to say that academics wouldn't be interested in problems that companies face. More often than not, companies simply don't approach universities and academics for help, and if they do, they fail to realise and understand the drivers of academia. The person who builds this bridge is the person that paves the road to innovation, so any company wishing to innovate should find themselves a consultant, or someone with an extensive understanding of university operations and academic drivers, and create these linkages. It may be the smartest move you'll ever make!

One small step

It was just over 40 years ago that man first landed on the moon. My father was a young lad, but he remembers it like it was yesterday. This single event inspired him to pursue a career in engineering. Many others that had the good fortune to witness such a monumental event were also driven into the sciences. The very idea of space travel was just a fantasy until 1969. Now, we are witness to the after effects of the technological developments that led up to that warm day in July, 1969; the aerospace industry is a monument to that first step on the moon.

Like my father, I was inspired by the biotech revolution of the 1980's. The developments in the biotech arena over the past 3 decades can be directly credited with saving the lives of both of my grandmothers, my grandfather (more than once!), my father (time and time again), and many more that are close to me. Medical doctors can only do so much without the support of the pharmaceuticals that saved all of these lives. So, I realized that the biotech industry was my chance to make a difference in this world. The path in life that I chose has since grown beyond biotech and now I sit at the forefront of tomorrow's technologies across the entire science sector. My passion now is to see these technologies make their way into the hands of customers - the real drivers of the knowledge economy.

There is a problem, however. I have been witness to many technologies that have fallen by the wayside - technologies that could revolutionize the geothermal elctricity generation industry, cure multiple types of cancer, feed mankind for another millennium, and more. Why??? It has nothing to do with the science - these technologies exist and could still dramatically improve upon the technologies currently in use. It has more to do with the fact that these technologies are very expensive to implement, and without an effective means to generate income to recover costs there is no way that these technologies will be put into action. This is just an example where scientists could have benefited with the input from business-minded individuals. Alternatively, business-minded individuals could benefit from working with scientists at the conception stage of a research project.

Over time I hope to elucidate the issues that prevent the world's elixirs from coming into existence. Neil Armstrong did not become a household name by simply taking one small step - it was because he took that famous step on the moon by walking off of the shoulders of giants. In other words, many of the greatest leaps forward were spawned by scientists, but science can only become an innovation when someone is daring enough to take that first step towards delivering the science to the world.