Bookmark and Share

Opinion: Encourage alternatives II

We don't talk enough about how scientists can excel outside the lab


[Published 13th May 2010 03:00 PM GMT]


In my previous article, I suggested that PhD-level scientists seeking careers outside the laboratory face at least two significant barriers: a negative stereotype about these careers and the false perception that PhDs are not adequately trained/educated for these positions. Mentors and academic programs should do more to support PhDs who desire to pursue alternative careers, but PhDs seeking these careers should be prepared to obtain additional education and/or training to ease the transition into such careers. Additionally, other actions can help: PhDs in non-research career fields can take a more active role in supporting others interested in similar positions and employers can do more to recruit PhDs.

Image: Wikimedia commons, Luckow
With greater than 50 percent of science and engineering PhDs working outside of academia, according to the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), and with many of those jobs being outside of the laboratory altogether, it seems that there would be more of us discussing the benefits of alternative careers. I suspect that many non-research PhDs -- such as science writers, policymakers, analysts, administrators and managers, and research or education program directors -- do (or, at least, would love to) discuss their career if given the right opportunity. However, too often important information and guidance is kept from others because of the "I struggled and so can you" attitude -- meaning, scientists who struggled to obtain their position, either in research or in an alternative career, think every other scientist should have to do the same.

For those who are employed in a non-research position, consider ways -- perhaps through career fairs or by visiting your degree-granting institution/department -- to discuss your experiences, how you got where you are today, and the benefits that you see in your career choice versus the research track; be a resource for the next generation of alternative career-seekers. I am practicing what I preach by, for example, writing and volunteering to discuss my educational and research and post-research experience with college students at my undergraduate institution.

Employers seeking out PhDs for non-research positions should be doing more to recruit others into these positions, and should encourage their PhD employees to participate. Employers should also devise strategies to highlight the unique and important contributions that non-research PhD employees are making; touting the achievements of current employees would generate more interest from individuals considering a pursuit of a non-research career.

Employers are luring PhDs away from research by, for example, sending recruiting and/or human resource specialists to career fairs. But, why not allow current alternative career PhD employees to participate in these events? Let the people doing the work speak to recruits in order to provide a firsthand account of the benefits both the employer and employee are experiencing.

Support is available to those of us who are interested in alternative careers. Research journals, such as Science and Nature, and science magazines, such as The Scientist, are doing a great job in acting as a forum for discussions on alternative careers and in announcing and participating in career fairs and workshops.

Ultimately, we all have to take control of our own career path. However, despite our best intentions and efforts, there are forces that can prevent or delay career success. PhDs are making great contributions to science through non-research careers. These careers are rewarding especially for those who indeed love science but do not love hands-on research. The new generation of PhDs shouldn't have to struggle to gain access to a non-research career path if they are so inclined. Academic programs, mentors, alternative career employees and their employers -- everyone regardless of status, position, and sector -- should do more to respect, encourage and support the career pursuits of others.

Vanderford earned a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Kentucky, completed a one-year postdoctoral fellowship at Vanderbilt University, and is now pursuing a career in research/science administration.

Related stories:
  • Opinion: Encourage alternatives
    [17th March 2010]
  • It's Academic. Or Is It?
    [1st August 2005]
  • Broader Ph.D. Training Can Benefit Science and Society
    [1st February 1999]


  • Advertisement

     

    Rate this article

    Rating: 3.14/5 (35 votes )





    Alternatives
    by D B

    [Comment posted 2010-05-18 01:32:30]
    I completely agree with you guys.

    I myself finished my PhD only last year and I would really have liked to be informed of the posibilities out there. It seems logical for all that you carry out a postdoc and ultimately this leads to a professorship. However, this is not likely for most of us and we might not be motivated to this.

    I would like to combine my scientific skills with other disciplines. But the information in scarce and I think people are not really open for this (yet).

    The safe option is just to continue with real science. It's a pity, though, because I think people with a background like ours, working in other fields, could really contribute with an alternative view on things and therefore be innovative in other fields.

    If you have any info on "alternative career paths" then please let me know!



    You're right.
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2010-05-17 13:06:29]
    There are simply too many PhDs. I would argue that the answer is limiting the number of grad students rather than training them to be independent investigators then encouraging them not to be independent investigators. This could be accomplished by limiting funding for training grants and instead fund permanent staff scientist positions. There's no reason the academic research machine has to be driven by labor under the guise of "training."



    Encourage Alternatives
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2010-05-17 12:45:11]
    Absolutely!!! There are a number of reasons. For example, there simply aren't enough academic positions available to employ all of the postdoctoral fellows out there, even if all of them wanted one. There isn't enough money to fund the research and if you don't bring in the money, you are out! There are many, many ways that science can be applied outside of a research lab. Working in Science Policy, Regulatory Affairs just to name a couple.

    But encouragement only goes so far. Yes, it is clear that for some of the other careers in science, a person will have to dedicate additional resources (money, time) to gain experience. But even with that, there is no guarantee that you will get the position. I want to get into Regulatory Affairs. I asked on a number of forums whether getting RAC is useful and majority answered no. But you can't get into Regulatory Affairs without having the experience. So, encouraging should go hand in hand with enabling!




    Encourage alternatives?
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2010-05-17 10:57:27]
    Don't think so. Why would we use tax dollars to train someone to do something so highly specialized, and then encourage them to do something else? That's ridiculous. Why not use tax dollars to train nurses, and then encourage them to become paralegals?



    Many worthwhile alternatives to research for PhDs
    by Edwina Kinchington

    [Comment posted 2010-05-17 09:04:28]
    As one progresses through their life and training, their goals and interests may lead them into a different direction other than basic research. As one who recently made a career change from a fairly successful PhD research scientist, I can attest that there are many worthwhile alternatives to benchwork research where my PhD skills and content knowledge can be applied. I recently transitioned into secondary education at a Science and Technology focused school. There is a need for good teachers who can help cultivate those skills in young scientists. Work, time and money are usually involved in gaining the proper certifications, but the challenges and rewards are vast. We are taught in graduate school that there is only one path. It might be wise to expand the horizons of our PhD graduates and utilize their talents in other aspects of our society.



    "PhDs in non-research career fields"
    by Tarakad Raman

    [Comment posted 2010-05-15 06:03:40]
    By "non-research" career, is Nathan L. Vanderford suggesting one that is also non-science? If so, it is obviously and completely against the ethos of a scientist, especially a PhD. The following ancient quotation says it all:
    "...the qualifications required of a scientist are so specialized and time-consuming that they do not qualify him to take up any other occupation. ... several scientists have told me with an air of delighted wonderment how very satisfactory it is that they should be paid ? perhaps even adequately paid ? for work so absorbing and deeply pleasurable as scientific research. ["Advice to a Young Scientist", SIR PETER MEDAWAR, FRS. New Scientist vol.85 (28 Feb 1980) p664]



    funding strategies are in part to blame
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2010-05-14 10:48:07]
    Science is becoming an interesting field where scientists are asked to involve themselves in fundable research, not necessarily in useful research. this is pushing many people out of the research field. It is a shame that sexy projects take precedence over necessary projects because they are not employing either "cutting edge" techniques or fancy animal models.



    Alternatives
    by MARK WEBER

    [Comment posted 2010-05-13 12:21:54]
    Interesting article on an interesting topic that needs more research. My concern is for the scientists that are forced into alternative careers because there is no place for them to do science in the mainstream arenas. Why is this? In the pharmaceutical industry it could be because of a lack of an investment in basic research, and disruption of what used to be a thriving basic research culture. In the past the big pharmaceutical companies were run by scientists, and now the top jobs are filled by business or accounting professionals, hence the change in focus away from basic research? In academia it seems to me that more jobs would become available if the size of the laboratories were limited. That way there would be more jobs for professors. Maybe this would mean fewer Ph.D.'s are generated, but the ones that are graduated have a better chance of finding a job in science. Alternative careers outside of science are wonderful, if that is what is desired, but what a waste to generate scientists that want to do science in the U.S. and then have a society that does value and take advantage of that talent.



    The News


    Front Cover

    Register for FREE Online Access

    • »Current issue
    • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
    • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

    Register »

    Subscribe to the Magazine

    • »Monthly print issues
    • »Unlimited online access
    • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

    Subscribe »

    Library Subscriptions
    Recommend to a Librarian

    Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
    © 1986-2012 The Scientist