The NIH Requests Your Opinion on Diversity in the Biomedical PhD Workforce

The NIH has put out a request for information concerning diversity in the biomedical workforce. All comments submitted by the February 24, 2012 deadline will be considered by the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce. You can find more information through the working group's web page. Here is the charge of the committee.

Its charge will focus on five key transition points in the pipeline: (i) entry into graduate degree programs; (ii) the transition from graduate degree to post-doctoral fellowship; (iii) the appointment from a post-doctoral position to the first independent scientific position; (iv) the award of the first independent research grant from NIH or equivalent in industry; and (v) award of tenure in an academic position or equivalent in an industrial setting. The Committee will provide concrete recommendations to the NIH Director on ways to improve the retention of underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons from disadvantaged backgrounds through these critical periods. The DBRWG's analysis will include both the NIH intramural research community and the NIH extramural research community.

Also of note, there is a public meeting to be held on February 14. Here is a copy of the agenda. It looks like after opening comments by a representative of the committee, there will be a series of presentations by an array of White House initiatives concerning the various under-represented communities (Note: While the committee's charge is broader, only presentations on ethnic groups are scheduled).  There is also a public comment period. Each organization will be allotted 5 minutes. You may email request a slot (deadline is 5pm February 10, 2012) in advance (see agenda for details). Same day requests will be considered at the discretion of the Chairperson.

Aren't YOU the lucky one? Succeeding against the odds

I thought I'd share an Inside Higher Ed essay by Nate Kreuter called You aren't the exception. It's an essay on why graduate students are prone to ignore warnings about the job market and decide to pursue academic careers anyway.

Nate argues that as intelligent, driven and competent undergraduates we learned to ignore the warnings of our professors. We assumed wrongly that the words of caution didn't apply to us (because we were so damned good!). Of course, in reality, the statistical rules did apply--we were simply members of the statistical group that would not be adversely impacted. To put it delicately, we were arrogant little jerks.

So, this is the attitude that we took with us to graduate school. Perhaps, we can say that graduate school is an important point of divergence for the smart, ambitious and gifted.  The arrogant ones go on to get PhDs; and the well-grounded ones, realizing that the bell curve that applied as undergraduates is now moot and that the odds really do stink, do something else.

When the professors say that 40% will go on to complete their doctoral training (and far fewer will become professors), they mean 40% of a much smaller and more select group! The well-grounded will go to (and pay for) professional school, stop at (and pay for) a Master's, or take some other less esteemed path that they realize has better odds leading to career success.

So, who are the ones who actually make it to the professoriate? (I mean, professors are amongst the most self-important people on earth, right?) Are they truly the luckiest of the arrogant ones?? I doubt it.  My guess is, they realize the odds, decide they want to be a professor anyway, and are determined not to leave their careers up to chance.  It is only then, after clearing the final hurdle, that they dare display their well-earned pomposity.

Petitioning for PhDs

I just found out about a petition to make graduate student stipends tax exempt once again. The strain of a meager income piled onto the stress of getting a PhD is certainly less than idea.  Further it is frustrating that not all stipends are created equal. The relative comfort in which a student studies will depend on a number of factors such as their discipline, institution, funding source, etc. (here is a great sampling from the biomedical sciences). Despite the unwelcome monetary pressures, I think that being compensated (including stipend tuition, health insurance and travel) to get a PhD is far more valuable than any tax exemption.

Of far greater concern to me is the declining currency given my degree. Are PhDs becoming a dime a dozen? Or is it that our training is of limited relevance outside of academic and research contexts? Traditionally, many PhDs have gotten jobs in industry and at science funding, advocacy and regulatory agencies. There are others, but are these established PhD-friendly venues becoming overcrowded?  Where are the new and exciting career pathways?

I recall being told that life with a PhD is good (it is) and that my disciplinary focus was unimportant to the "outside" world (less true). Perhaps I was just naive and a bad listener, but they made finding employment worthy of my degree sound so easy! But finding "my place" has not been simple for me--nor has is it for others.  Struggles are unavoidable, but for PhDs they are becoming less existential and more about adequate compensation and reliable employment.  The stresses many postdocs express as well as the proliferation of postdoc-only career fairs, soft skills training seminars and other supplemental career/job services are indicators of concern.

The dilemma for postdocs is a difficult one that will require dedicated focus to resolve. I think that education and training is a powerful thing for individuals and for society. Simply stopping the flow and support of scholars isn't the answer.  But we must be creative in our thinking and innovative  in our utilization of the PhD talent that we have invested so heavily in.  How can PhDs be further empowered to contribute in a wider array of employment sectors?

Its clear to me that while postdocs are in dependent professional relationships, we can no longer view their needs as wholly subservient to those of the PI, the university or to research itself. A petition demanding that?? That's one I would definitely sign!

Dog-eared Culture, Dogged Divide

It appears that further proof of the ineffectiveness of programmatic attempts to diversify the staid upper-echelons of the biomedical science research enterprise has been garnered. A recently released study demonstrates that African American researchers don't fare so well in the great race for R01 funding.  A write-up of the results (with supporting material),  a response from Francis Collins, and an accompanying news piece were published by Science on August 19th. Here is a brief description from the magazine:

Workforce diversity has been considered central to the U.S. NIH objective of improving the nation’s health through research. Ginther et al. (p. 1015; see the Policy Forum by Tabak and Collins) estimate the association between the self-identified race or ethnicity of an applicant for an NIH R01 research grant and the probability of receiving an award from 2000 to 2006. After controlling for demographics, educational background, training, prior research, and employer the authors found that black applicants were significantly less likely to receive research funding than white applicants.

I am an African American female biophysics PhD (never did a postdoc, never submitted an R01) and I haven't used a pipette or conducted a Fourier transform in over a decade. Still, I suppose I should take the time to articulate an opinion, right?

This study seems to confirm what people have instinctively knows for a long time. The level of analysis required was significant and it's a good think that scientists aren't afraid of numbers and statistics. However, I do fear that we are a bit timid in asking questions... Yes, the magnitude of the problem is now better defined, but the report doesn't point towards a good solution nor does it better illuminate the roots of the problem.

As a public agency, I do see the obligation to try and distribute funds and opportunity in a fair and equitable way. It is also the agency's responsibility to demonstrate the existence of a problem to the best of its ability. After all, such a premier science agency cannot be seen acting on a "hunch." However, by not asking a bold, meaningful and adequately targeted question I don't feel that the NIH will acquire the platform from which to act with purpose and to good effect.

The McKinsey Quarterly just came out with a piece titled "Competing through data: Three experts offer their game plans." This piece likens the collection of data with opportunity and claims that, "[m]ost great revolutions in science are preceded by revolutions in measurement." What more can the science community gain by better understanding the plight of the African-American PhD?  Can this lead to a revolution in science?

It's fact that race exists as does racism. But what are the limits to determining whether either is the root cause of the disparity? Similarly, I agree that the diversity is good (see In Professor’s Model, Diversity = Productivity, a NY Times interview with  Scott E. Page, an economist who believes in the power and practicality of  diversity of all sorts), but I wonder if it always relevant?

The continued disparity in the achievement of African American biomedical researchers should be of concern to everyone and finding resolution will require openness and a willingness to engage in difficult and uncomfortable discussions. Which questions will help ensure that the perspectives and talent held by African Americans are better realized? More generally, what can we therefore learn about how our human resources are encouraged and utilized? Can we measure opportunity lost and devise plans to maximize promise?  Can we achieve this through data collection?