Dear Bob, Eric ,Geoff and readers,

Bob has provided an excellent synopsis of the current legislation that is addressing science funding - and he has noted the absolute absence of any linking of PhD overproduction to this issue. Bob wonders: "Currently, the average working scientist, postdoc, or graduate student has had basically no say in the formation of these bills. The question is, can we change this and have input? "

My experience is limited in this area. I was very active in this topic in the early 1990s when the last job drought occurred (in the Physical Sciences back then). We organized a group of about 15 like-minded young scientists and we did several things:

1. We contacted similarly-minded young scientists currently working as Hill staffers - most through the AAAS Congressional Science Fellowships. They helped us understand who to write letters to. Surprisingly, the number of letters was not large - they were sent to specific Congresspeople in specific committees - and the letters outlined the specific problem with PhD overproduction, the ramifications for US science and competitiveness, and (most importantly) we outlined several specific and actionable things that could be done to address the issue. The letters were 1.5 pages, and signed by all of us.
2. We wrote several editorials for rags such as Science, Nature, The Scientist etc. in which we reiterated the points in our letter. Many of these were published.
3. One of the Hill staffers we contacted eventually had her Congressman/boss sponsor a hearing on science training and PhD production. Eventually, this Congressman sponsored a bill and presented it in Congress.

By the time #3 happened the job situation was clearing up - the drought gave way to new interest in non-traditional paths such as the exciting dot-com bloom. At one point in 1999 there began to be some hand-wringing among some science policy folks about how the dot-com rush was sucking away so many qualified PhDs from research.

Bob - it is possible for a relatively small number of like-minded and organized individuals to have a surprising influence on a subject of current public policy. But the first step is coalescing around a specific set of recommendations. Letters of complaint don't go very far - letters that specify rational, modest and attainable changes tend to get the most traction.

I will also say that it is time for the next generation to step up here: it is their careers that are on the anvil right now. My only policy suggestion in all this is that any attempt to manipulate PhD production explicitly is likely to be hard to enact/enforce. Gallagher's editorial notes the problem is one of training: we are not producing too many PhDs - we are producing too many scientists (scientists = people trained only to do basic research in academia).

P.