A Personal View

A career in the biomedical sciences is no longer what it used to be due to the long years of intense training and decreased funding. Being a biomedical researcher used to be much more attainable. Students fresh out of graduate school were able to secure positions in industry, academia and government with more ease than students at present. Now, with budget cuts at the NIH and other research institutions (both government and universities) continuing to be the norm, a biomedical research career has become a long and grueling path, marred with the constant fear of losing funding.

I have often pondered the possibility that I might not be able to secure a research position when I eventually graduate. My goal is to eventually become a principal investigator at the National Cancer Institute. Someday, maybe even the director. I have been advised to pursue my passions and never to believe that anything is impossible. I have seen the facts, I have read the studies and reports, and as much I want to believe that I will have a successful research career, I cannot. I have to be realistic. Increasing competition and slashed budgets are making the future of biomedical research bleak, and I don’t want to have high expectations only to have them crushed.

I am not alone in this mentality. Students in PhD programs are continuing to be encouraged by their advisors to pursue a research career. PLos ONE published a study which investigated science PhD career preferences,

                Academic administrators and advisors should consider such heterogeneity in career preferences when designing graduate curricula, ensuring that students have opportunities to acquire the skills and knowledge required to perform in non-academic careers that may not only be more readily available but are also quite attractive to students themselves. Similarly, the public discussion may benefit from recognizing that labor market experiences may be quite different depending on which particular career a junior scientist seeks to pursue. (5)

This goes to show that academic advisors and mentors should make sure that their students have skills that would enable them to obtain a non-research position. If there is a chance that a PhD student will not be able to find a job in their field, they need to be aware of this and have opportunities to find a job elsewhere. In addition, the study found that respondents felt

…that their advisors and departments strongly encourage academic research careers while being less encouraging of other career paths. Such strong encouragement of academic careers may be dysfunctional if it exacerbates labor market imbalances or creates stress for students who feel that their career aspirations do not live up to the expectations of their advisors. (5)

These statements offer more support to the fact that advisors should not encourage their students to exclusively pursue an academic/government research career. There are more applicants than positions open, so the chances of PhD students having an “ideal” research career are not high, and advisors need to make sure that their students are aware of this. Even if a PhD student is able to secure a research position, there is no guarantee that they will receive adequate funding.

As I mentioned before, there is ample data supporting the difficulties that young scientists go through to obtain funding for their projects. Another study published by PLos ONE discussed the aging of biomedical research in the United States. Included in the paper was a remark from a previous NIH director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, “you have to get a Nobel Prize before your first grant- referring to Dr. David Baltimore, the 1975 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, who received the award at the age of 37, well under the average age of both an NIH principal investigator (PI) and a first-time NIH grantee” (Matthews 1). Dr. Zerhouni makes a strong point, saying that a novel researcher must be outstanding in order get their first grant. Results from the study suggested that, “…the NIH might be setting high barriers for entry into biomedical research, as demonstrated by the rising age of PIs and first-time grantees.” This is very discouraging. The NIH is setting a standard way too high for an average young researcher to achieve, and I don’t see a reason for it. The work being done by NIH researchers is critical, so why should they have to endure so many obstacles? The paper even says that, “Difficulties obtaining funding can negatively impact the career choices of young scientists, particularly in the biological sciences. Researchers in the biological sciences are waiting longer for independence or to start their own research projects than in other scientific fields” (Matthews 4). The paper plainly states that lack of funding negatively impacts young researchers. Because that is the case, we need to re-evaluate the manner in which these researchers are being funded.

Having said all this, anyone considering a biomedical research career needs to realize what lies in store for them. It is no longer a stable job. Funding is consistently resulting in a decrease of the amount of awarded grants. Because of this, PhD students need to keep an open mind about where they will eventually end up working, and advisors and mentors must be truthful and realistic regarding research career opportunities. As I discussed in my second post, the grant application process needs to be reformed so that young scientists have an equal opportunity to receive funds regardless of whether they are in the “top-tier” or not. I chose to write about reforming the NIH budget because the current trends of research funding will affect me. Working at the NIH is all I have ever wanted, but the state of their budget is going to make it extremely difficult for me. Biomedical research was once considered a glorious career. Now, scientists are disregarded and are on the losing side of the “fight” for funding. Only knowing all this, should a student enter the research field.   

Word Count: 988

Works Cited:

Matthews, Kirstin, Kara Calhoun, Nathan Lo, and Vivian Ho. "The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States." PLoS ONE 6.12 (2011): 1-6. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029738&representation=PDF>.

Sauermann, Henry, and Michael Roach. "Science PhD Career Preferences: Levels, Changes, and Advisor Encouragement." PLoS ONE 7.5 (2012): 1-9. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036307&representation=PDF>.