"A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste"
Reader Eric has some strong words about the current situation at the NIH:
"As a scientist, it hurts me to say that I don't want academic scientists to get out of their recent NIH funding quagmire. Let them suffer painful contraction...they deserve it. Let's throw in a sudden cut-off of their cheap foreign labor pool. Add in a little backlash from junior scientists and declining American enrollments. Maybe the 'profession' could use a perfect storm to clean up its mess."
I can certainly sympathize with the sense of frustration at the huge mess that has been made with all the NIH's new resources. I don't think there is much danger that things will get better soon, either -- I think we will start seeing a lot of lab downsizing as bridge funds start to run out, and the job market for life scientists will probably take a turn for the worse as all the surge in new PhDs from the doubling start to graduate.
I recently saw a great quote from economist Paul Romer: "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." There's nothing like being in a giant mess to focus one's mind on fixing things. How might the current NIH mess be used productively?
Here are a few ideas:
Planning - It's pretty clear that the current NIH situation has arisen from poor planning on the parts of both universities and the NIH. Universities built way more lab space than they can afford, and the NIH increased the number and size of its R01 grants in a way that was unsustainable. I think that both of these things could have been foreseen from the outset and possibly prevented if there had been some investment in forecasting the behavior of the parties involved.
The good news is that I am hearing things that make me think that some of those kinds of investments in modeling and forecasting may be in the works. I think the NIH would have a much stronger case in Congress if they went in and said, "We have done some extensive self-study on the budget doubling. Here's what went wrong. Here's how we know it won't happen again. Here's a low-cost way to fix the worst of the problem. Please help us," rather than the current approach, which comes across to me more like, "You stopped increasing our budget when you said you would! Now everything has gone to hell, and it's all your fault! You hate science! Give us more money or your children will be speaking Chinese!"Training - I hear postdocs complaining all the time about how hard a time they are having finding jobs. Then this week I see this in the paper: Shortage of scientists threatens biotech boom. Um... there are about 30,000 life sciences postdocs running around who would be very excited to work for Genentech or Gilead, I am sure. Now perhaps part of this is a cynical ploy to get the H-1B visa cap raised so biotechs can keep labor costs down. But I wonder how much of it is arising from a genuine mismatch between how life sciences PhDs are trained and the needs of biotech companies? I have seen some very smart friends try to get industry jobs, and they've had a pretty rough time of it. The sense I have is that once you're in, it's not that difficult to make a lateral move to another company, but getting in is very difficult. What's missing from the PhD that these postdocs seem unworthy of hiring?
I have a neighbor who is doing a professional science master's degree at NC State. The program is doing some really smart things: he takes a mixture of business courses and science classes, and every summer he does an internship at a biotech company in the Triangle. When he graduates, he'll have an MBA, a master's in science, and a foot in the door in 2 or 3 biotech companies. How hard would it be to incorporate some of these elements into a PhD program? Or into a postdoc? It's not like everyone would have to do these things; if even a modest fraction of postdocs went this route, we'd end up with an amazing technology transfer mechanism and a ton of scientifically talented people with enough know-how to potentially start new companies. You want science to create new jobs and grow the economy? Then train some scientists to take part in the process!Immigration - This is a longer conversation that I'll try to start next week. A few big issues that the current crisis might be used to change: (1) there doesn't seem to be much discussion in the scientific community about what the longer term ramifications of globalization will be for science in the US, and (2) the H-1B program looks broken both operationally and strategically.
-
on Sat, Apr 07, 11:04PM
Hi Geoff,
I appreciate your thoughtful, and genuinely constructive, ideas to deal with both the current funding crisis and the ongoing career woes of junior scientists. While I can be too harsh, too many others are afraid to speak about the professions' problems. Unfortunately, there are also those who know the system is broken and manipulate it to their advantage. You and Peter should be commended for tackling these issues head on in your blog.
I like your budget forecasting approach, but I think the whole grant funding system must be revamped for any change to occur. Independent researchers seek only more and more funding. That means building more lab space, hiring more people, making more PhD's, publishing more papers, etc. The system rewards you for growth, not for wise restraint. So the university will grow as fast as possible, and then contract when funding dries up. A famous CalTech physicist described academic science as following the "Matthew Principle," in that the have's (those with more funding and resources) are in a better position to get more funding than the have-nots. There is therefore no incentive for the university or the PI to practice any sort of investment in restraint for financial stability. The only agencies capable of budget regulation are grantors like the NIH.
Here's something to think about: A million dollars today can grow to 2 million in less than 10 years (5 million in 20) if invested properly in stocks and bonds. Now, let's say that Congress is "Mom and Dad" and we the scientists are "the kid who needs money." We can spend ALL the money as fast as mom and dad can give it to us like we've been doing. Then we will suffer when they cut off the money, and we have to go back to them begging for another handout. That is irresponsible and short-sighted. It is bound to breed annoyance, disgust, and contempt. Now, instead of spending ALL that money this year, what if the NIH could award most of it, but invest a portion into a long-term investment vehicle? This is exactly what people do when they want to save for retirement. And just like those people who invest well for retirement, over time with periodic investment, you reach a point where returns on investments can be used to fund new science without depleting the principal...a gift that truly keeps on giving. This would be a sensible long-term method to create a steady stable funding source for science. There are several problems though: 1) I think government red tape would prevent or outlaw re-investment of federal funds; 2) this strategy would require PATIENCE because it would take at least 20 years to start generating income; and 3) I don't see the NIH as capable of locking hundreds of millions of dollars into untouchable investments for decades.
Your suggestion that biotech companies cannot find properly trained PhD's is correct. I started in the company I work for after coming straight from a short academic postdoc. Boy I learned a lot...fast. Academic PhD training is wonderful for learning how to work crazy hours and think creatively. However, business has bottom lines. In industry, you have to be willing to move quickly to new projects, and you have to evaluate a project not based on how "exciting" or "groundbreaking" it is, but on considerations such as "can we produce a marketable product out of this," or "how will we adapt the method to a low-cost, high-throughput format?" Different mindsets.
Regarding immigration, salaries and job prospects for native scientists have been harmed by the H1-B visa...period. This is no passing matter because most American college kids would rather eat glass than get a PhD, and given the job prospects, can you blame them? I have spent years in the university and years in industry, so I KNOW that the H1-B, and the J-1, and any other "work visa" is nothing more than front for cheap slave labor. Unfortunately, the only guys who ever show up at Congressional hearings on immigration issues are guys like Bill Gates, established senior scientists, and other assorted business lobbyists. Of course, THEY want more cheap labor. So they lie and claim to care about America's diversity and cultural enrichment, etc. What a load! Its ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!! Congress might feel differently if they got an earful from the little guys in the trenches regarding the "benefits" of legal immigration..
-
on Mon, Apr 09, 04:04PM
Hi Eric--
Thanks for the kind words.
Your idea about having an endowment for the NIH is a very sensible one, and I think that if the NIH were not a government agency, it would work very well. However, because of the NIH is part of the government, I think special considerations arise. I don't know if you've ever read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses, The Power Broker (it's a great book if you haven't), but it provides some pretty compelling illustrations for why government agencies + private pots of money = trouble. Moses was Parks Commissioner of NYC through a good chunk of the 20th century. Fairly early in his career, managed to get the purview of his office expanded to include parkways. Next thing you know, he was doling out huge parcels of money for highway construction, which gave him serious clout. He leveraged that power into getting his office control over all the tolls from the Triborough Bridge (and a few other major roadways, I think). Toward the middle/end of his career, he was sitting on a huge revenue stream while the city was basically bankrupt. He ended up being the de facto king maker in New York and probably had more power than many (most?) of the mayors. I can imagine a big pot of NIH money triggering all sorts of paranoia on both sides of the aisle: visions of a rogue NIH director funding abortions for stem cells or mustering secret armies to overthrow the noncompliant foreign governments. And yes, the idea of the NIH managing a few hundreds of millions (or billions) in investments is kind of scary.
I'm curious: how would you change the preparation of grad students and / or postdocs to better prepare them for careers in biotech?
The immigration thing is a long discussion - I'm going to try to start it this week.
Geoff
-
-
on Sun, Apr 08, 10:04AM
Request for more informed blogging: Example, H1-B visas in the news.I think the quality of the discussion on this blog would be greatly enhanced if more homework was performed concerning the issues under discussion. Everything being discussed has for the most part been written about for years, and many of the articles referenced on www.phds.org . I agree with much of the discussion on the blog, that change is needed, but the discussion is out of touch with current events for the most part, with the exception much of Geoff's work on the NIH funding situation. Current events can be easily tracked with Google News.
Here is an example. A search on www.news.google.com with the key words "H1-B visa legislation" yielded 58 news hits. [Note different hits are obtained depending on whether you use "H1-B vs. "H1b" or "H1B", so try different versions]. Here is one example of a recent news article on the subject:
Senate H-1B bill seeks to give U.S. workers a better shot at tech job openings Legislation would also boost Labor Department's enforcement powers on visa program:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9015439
April 03, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Two U.S. senators have proposed legislation that would toughen the H-1B visa program -- especially its enforcement provisions -- while also attempting to give U.S. workers first crack at technology job openings.
The bill, called the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007, was introduced in Congress last Thursday by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who announced the filing on Monday. As part of the announcement, the two lawmakers said the measure would authorize the U.S. Department of Labor to hire 200 additional employees "to administer, oversee, investigate and enforce the H-1B program." . .
Here is a press release from Senator Durbin's office going into more detail concerning the bill:
DURBIN AND GRASSLEY INTRODUCE FIRST BIPARTISAN H-1B VISA REFORM BILL TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS
Monday, April 2, 2007
http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=271783
[WASHINGTON, DC]- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced "The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007" late last week to overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to give priority to American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs. . . "Our immigration policy should seek to complement our U.S. workforce, not replace it," Durbin said. "Some employers have abused the H-1B and L-1 temporary work visa programs, using them to bypass qualified American job applicants. This bill will set up safeguards for American workers, and provide much-needed oversight and enforcement of employers who fail to abide by the law."
"This is about protecting the American worker," said Senator Grassley. "We're closing loopholes that employers have exploited by requiring them to be more transparent about their hiring and we're ensuring more oversight of these visa programs to reduce fraud and abuse. A little sunshine will go a long way to help the American worker."
So, apparently some members of the Senate have heard from, and have sided with, some American high-tech workers who are feeling the adverse impact of the H1-B visa program, contrary to the discussion on this blog.
Bob
-
on Mon, Apr 09, 04:04PM
Hi Bob--
I am very aware that Congress has been getting an earful about the shortcomings of the H1-B program for many years. The Durbin legislation is interesting, and I hadn't seen it yet - thanks for the pointer. It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere. That would address some of the day-to-day operational issues I mentioned. The strategic problems are different, and again, as I said, it's a longer discussion.
Geoff
-
-
on Sun, Apr 08, 05:04PM
Dear Bob,
It is truly frightening to see the statement "current events can be easily tracked with Google News."
I am well aware that simple Google searches can yield a lot of information on immigration issues. I am also pretty sure that a Google search on "Ukrainian folk art" would yield lots of information. The purpose of a blog is to discuss topics of interest, and topics are not off limits simply because they have been "written about for years." If you feel that this blog would be enhanced if "more homework was performed concerning the issues under discussion," then please clearly describe how the present discussions can be improved. As for your "research," recent Google articles detailing some recent reform bills in the Senate don't exactly qualify as homework. Congressmen introduce lots of legislation and make lots of statements. It doesn't mean a thing until laws and facts on the ground change. If you read, on Google News, that the president said we were winning the Iraq war, would that really qualify as "factual" information?
Until we reach the point of meaningful changes in the workforce and funding issues discussed in this blog, then the topics will continue to be perfectly relevant and open for discussion by all interested participants.
-
on Thu, Apr 12, 12:04PM
Hi Geoff,
I've been busy lately and haven't had time to read your blog, so apologies for responding to a 6 day old post... hopefully there's no expiration date on commenting. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article you linked to above about the shortage of Biotech scientists REALLY got my blood boiling. As you rightly point out, the cries that there aren't enough scientists to fuel Genentech and Gilead's expansion may be a thinly veiled strategy by the Biotech industry to follow the trail so effectively blazed by the IT industry (i.e. increasing H1-Bs to avoid paying scientists what the market dictates).
Just for grins, I did a back of the envelope calculation based on NSF's most recent data on Doctorates Awarded by Field of Study (Table 1 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/content.cfm?pub_id=3757&id=2) of the number of PhD recipients who earned their degrees in fields relevant to Genentech and Gilead's research areas and found that the total ranged between 4600-5400 between 1996-2005.
The Seattle PI article states that Gilead "must expand its work force by about 10 percent this year from 2,515 to deliver on investor expectations that revenue grow by about a third." A 10% expansion is only 250 people of which only a small percentage would likely be bench scientists who need PhDs. I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that if Gilead is aiming to increase revenue they'll mainly focus on increasing their manufacturing and sales force, not additional drug discovery, where scientists are most useful.
The problem, which this blog has adeptly addressed many times, is whether the 4600-5400 PhDs with the scientific training to work for Gilead have the "other" training required as well. By "other" I mean the ability to communicate information in written and spoken forms, work in a team environment and pursue research in a targeted, profit-driven manner.
My guess is that only a fraction of the 4600-5400 PhDs possess the unique set of skills needed to be effective in a biotech environment, but if Gilead's only looking to recruit a fraction of its 250 new workers from this pool, I'd say there are plenty to choose from.
I'd be happy to share my calculations, just email me at flygal76@gmail.com if you're interested.
