Innovating with the Best of Intentions

Last week, the New York Times published an article on how some university professors are revamping their curricula to make them more appealing and to keep students from switching majors.

In a brief and non-exact summary, the article states that students defect because science is "too hard" and that they are lured by higher grades in other, presumably easier, disciplines. Others leave because they find their passion in other fields or realize that others will lead more directly to higher paying professions.

One university dean explains that an intensive stretch of theory-based courses during the sophomore and junior years represents a "weak link"in their curriculum. Sigh! ...if students could only make it to their senior year, they'd realize how GREAT science is!! As an example of this, MIT, with a curriculum inclusive of independent projects and international travel, is held up as a beacon of how to do science education "right".

Readers it seems are skeptical. In their letters they suggest that tying uninspiring science curricula to STEM dropout rates is overblown. For example, the authors of one letter remind that science is just as hard as it was 30 years ago and just as hard as it is in India, China, or Germany. They attribute the leakage to "the widening gap (both in compensation and respect) between careers in the classroom and careers in industry" that has proffered under prepared high school graduates. Another says that students actually "wise up" to their future prospects. While in some nations pursuing science is a way out of poverty, in the US, it's likely a way into it. Finally another blames the lack of classroom innovation on the government's use of immigration policy to keep college science classrooms full.

Truth be told the humanities continue to survive despite poor pay and job prospects. And just as a English major convinced that she's the next Maya Angelou won't be deterred, neither will a physics major who is convinced she's the one to one-up Albert Einstein. It's also just as likely that those marginal students concerned by future job security and pay will drop out of a History major (almost) as quickly as they'll drop out of Math.

So, it's my guess that trying to use the curriculum as an instrument to keep the masses engaged, may not make the best policy.

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!

Influence starts with being known

Scientific American's Urban Scientist blogger is rightly concerned that the 100 Most Influential African Americans list recently released by  The Root did not feature a single scientists (for shame!). I shared The HistoryMakers link with her--and now you! I think this is a great resource, featuring African Americans from a diverse array of fields (full and proud disclosure--my dad is featured).  They have their mission and certainly do it well, but I would love to see younger scientists from more fields (their list is heavily-although not exclusively- based in the physical sciences).  Any recommendations?

The ties that bind, may break

I gave in to my preoccupation with postdocs years ago, but I am constantly searching for the significance of this hang-up.  After all, postdocs come and postdocs go (although it is true that they may hang around a bit longer than they did a decade ago). Still, relative to the duration of their PI's career, their department's existence, and academia's legacy, each individual postdoc is a cursory disciplinary footnote. Isn't it right then that the most raucous debates center on the modern day relevance of higher and graduate education, the evolution of disciplinary boundaries, and the continuation of the tenure process?

For whatever reason, these questions don't occupy my mind or imagination.  But I do feel a sense of foreboding when pondering the experiences and travails of individual postdocs and when considering the all-too-limited array of employment and career opportunities that await them. We are a country hungry for innovation and technological advancement, and one that is willing to support the perpetual pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, we use these priorities to justify the misuse of doctoral scholars as an over-populated and underutilized research battalion.

This has proven to be no good for postdocs. And I believe that it is no good for science.

It may be that postdocs are the most immediate sign that research goals and practices are not well-tethered to important realities. Thus, I think it is time that national and institutional research priorities include goals for the sustainable use of the scientific workforce.

Moving Beyond Divides...

Motivated by the NYT OpEd piece Moving Beyond Civil Rights by Richard Thompson Ford, this post briefly revisits my Oct. 20, 2011 post named, Dog-eared Culture, Dogged Divide. Ford's article addresses the dilemma that while civil rights legislation and practices have led to a fairer and less divided society, many stark social inequities and injustices persist.

As example, many highly educated female scientists relate well to the persistence of the proverbial glass ceiling that seems to be better tempered as time progresses. Equally relevant is the fact African American scientists remain frustratingly (to themselves and to the NIH) unable to successfully navigate the R01 peer review process.

In Ford's view, addressing social injustice and inequality through additional civil rights legislation and more lawsuits is flawed and likely counter-productive. Any "attempt to achieve collective justice through individual entitlements" is quite simply no good.

An additional problem is the weighty burden of proof. For example, the ritual oblation of African American scientists at the alter of peer review mirrors the circumstances of the recently unsuccessful class-action lawsuit brought by women against their employer, Walmart. In the eyes of the court (and likely to be true of the peer review dons), "statistics can show a pattern of discrimination, but they are not enough to prove that any particular woman was discriminated against."

So...what to do?

Ford asserts:

An effective approach might use carrots and sticks: proof that a business used the best employment practices to reduce discrimination — reviewing decisions for potential bias, monitoring long-term trends and adopting more objective hiring and promotion criteria — might constitute a defense to certain kinds of civil liability, while businesses that failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent discrimination would face fines. Clear goals would replace the constant threat of litigation, and the law would seek to prevent discrimination instead of simply punishing it after the fact.

Peer review is supposed to be an opportunity for ideas to be thoroughly and objectively vetted. Assuming this is the case, it appears that, in the case of American Americans, whatever programs and initiatives designed to level the playing field prior to this stage have proved ineffective. If this is not the case, then we must consider if the peer review process itself is faulty and ripe for further examination.

Either way, perhaps now is a prime opportunity to reconsider the priorities of the peer review system and to fully acknowledge that bias is unavoidable even though the NIH strives for objectivity. It seems that simply seeking evidence of racial bias will prove unfruitful. However, the statistics do show that African American scientists are, for some yet to be understood reason, disproportionally impacted by bias. In this light, it seems possible that in this study, the NIH was looking in the wrong place for a solution to the dogged divide.

"Dropout" as a state of mind...

Michael Ellsberg thinks that college dropouts will save America. Sure, it's true-- Zucker, Gates, Jobs etc. form the upper-stratum of the 21st-century technologically savvy social order, but this doesn't prove that the maximal mix of intelligence, creativity and (testosterone dependent?!?) confidence occurs between the ages of 18 and 21. Has no one with a BS, MS, or PhD ever had a profitable Eureka! moment?

The author seems to declare the American dream--as it was sold to us smart and aspiring GenXers--dead. A degree can no longer be equated with security, but does Ellsberg support a mass-exodus of today's college students? (Imagine OccupyHarvard, OccupyStanford, OccupyOleMiss!) Although I risk offending productive college dropouts as well as un(der)employed and un(der)paid degree holders, I still contend an education is the way to go. On balance, the world is better off with a more highly educated population and individuals are better off holding a degree.

Ellsberg speaks truth, however, when he says, "Assuming that college was responsible for ... success gives higher education more credit than it deserves." True that! And for PhDs, I'd say, the problem is twofold...

PIs breed their minions to be arrogant and self-laudatory just like they are (how many times were we told that we just need those "three little letters" and we've got it made!). But once bestowed with a doctorate we immediately turn the most venerable of institutions, inflated ego in hand, looking for full validation of our worth and intelligence in the guise of research dollars and a full professorship. A growing majority of us, of course, do not succeed (I dare not say "f*il").

Ellsberg claims f*ilure is a good thing, providing valuable life and business lessons. Looking on the bright side, I wonder what the world would look like if PhDs rebelled, embraced their f*ilure, and engaged their inner "dropout"! Could we, without tenure, save the world?!

-A

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?