U.S. Biomedical Research 'Unsustainable' Prominent Researchers Warn 135
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "The U.S. biomedical science system 'is on an unsustainable path' and needs major reform, four prominent researchers say. Researchers should 'confront the dangers at hand,' the authors write, and 'rethink' how academic research is funded, staffed, and organized. Among other issues, the team suggests that the system may be producing too many new researchers and forcing them to compete for a stagnating pool of funding."
Same in High Energy Physics, IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the same things can be said about High Energy Physics - in the last half century, physicists have figured out the standard model of particle physics. Meanwhile, the cost of pushing back the energy frontier (cf LHC) is at the level where it funding is required from a large portion of the Western world to make a major discovery. Research is driven by grad students and post docs, most of whom can never get a permanent position, while funding is diminishing in real terms.
For me, the current academic system needs updating from the 19th century. It is bad for science not to make the change, because we see the good staff leaving to find a proper job.
Re:No shit, Sherlock (Score:2, Informative)
university faculty really only does teaching on the side. Their main role is as researchers.
You'd like to think that wouldn't you [insidehighered.com]?
So "teaching on the side" seems to take up about three times as much time as research does.
Re:Another thing (Score:5, Informative)
You heard it first here, folks. ShieldPuppy says we're all gonna die, all is woe, repent Ye and face damnation. The man knows the future, he's even from the future and thought so much about it he came here on Slashdot to inform us all of our fate, which is not good. A cave-dwelling existence is our ultimate destination, there's no escaping his analysis, he alone among us knows.
Here, have some data to substantiate my claims.
Changes in Workforce: Demographics and the Future of Work and Retirement
Dr. Jost Lottes
Institute on Aging
Portland State University
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/researc... [ohsu.edu]
Re:Another thing (Score:5, Informative)
There is one huge mathematical flaw with this argument, people are still having children at a higher rate then replacement. Not that it is the only flaw, your understanding of history, economics, or even the current world is pretty warped.
Hate to break it to you, but you are stupid and intolerant, which is why people have been saying that to you. Not that you are going to listen.
That's true, but again, you're looking on too short a time scale and missing the pattern. We're having children at a rate that exceeds that necessary to replace members of the "Great" generation, that came before the boomers. They're still around, and the Boomers are beginning to retire.
From the study I posted above by Dr. Jost Lottes:
Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US:
16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950
3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003
2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)
You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.
Re:conflating two problems (Score:5, Informative)
"many researchers focus on research and are terrible at and hostile to teaching"
But that's where the incentives are, the criteria for promotion. I was told at a small faculty meeting last week at our college that teaching and service are flat-out totally ignored for tenure and promotion decisions, only published papers are counted (despite the written rule being otherwise). Although I'm not on that track (and glad of it), it's hard to blame people who literally get fired if they focus on teaching too much. That's one of the structures that should definitely be changed.