|
Since the publication of Vannevar Bush's "Science, the Endless Frontier," which was designed to benefit the nation in terms of its scientific needs, the academic scientific community has been remarkably successful. In fact it has been so successful in devising a system of education that it has glutted the PhD market with people whose only apparent desire is to become academic researchers. Indeed, scientists in university settings have become increasingly preoccupied with the output of pure research, and the academic reward system glorifies this singularly focused career path. But surely training in terms of science as a way of knowing provides an appropriate foundation for other careers as well. Skilled scientists yearn for knowledge and are generally regarded as creative, good problem-solvers, and industrious--all characteristics that could be focused on the national good, without having to become academic scientists.
Any new social compact with science must start with a change in the way certain tasks in science are valued over others. Currently, breaking new ground and discovery are valued more in science than synthesis and consolidation of knowledge or transmission and application of knowledge. Far down on the list of values is improving public understanding of science and science-related ethics. A restructuring of the values of the tasks generally associated with training in the sciences is at the heart of the changes that must be embraced if meaningful new careers for PhD scientists are to evolve. Another way (different from academic birth control or continuing the status quo) to address the problem is to provide graduate students with skills that could be more broadly appreciated and used for the national good. A start would be for their mentors to recognize the sluggish and indifferent job market that exists, and that will continue to exist if the current educational process continues, and begin actively working to change the details of their students' preparation so that basic research is not the only valued skill that a new PhD must acquire. University scientists owe it to their students to prepare them to cope with new challenges in new settings where the students can achieve the same satisfaction that was derived from basic research in an earlier era when it was highly valued. The downturn in the growth rate of university-based pure research does not necessarily portend the end of the frontier; rather, it could signal the beginning of an expansion of the frontier to receptive venues not yet imagined. If science is not now what it once was, it is also clearly not what it is going to be either. That evolution requires more than just redefinition of training in the sciences; it requires a restructuring of the training process which is controlled by the extant mentoring system.
Indeed, science now is different from what it was when the current cohort of mentors received their training. Science is populated by both genders and by people from varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds; scientists are already working in more sectors of the economy, and they are engaged in a wider variety of activities in addition to research. Scientists do much of their work with computers, and they communicate via the Internet. They often find themselves engaged in a broad range of educational activities, and they are more likely to be members of a research team rather than individual researchers. The realities of today's science have rendered obsolete many of the stereotypes commonly held by most graduate mentors. Although the workplace dynamics may be market driven, science-trained professionals are capable of a "quick study" and surely have many career options.
Sheila Tobias and her colleagues [S. Tobias, D. E. Chubin and K. Aylesworth, Rethinking Science as a Career, The Research Corporation, Tucson, 1995] have reported the results of a survey in which they asked a pool of older non-university scientists what aspects of their PhD training proved most valuable throughout their careers. The open-ended responses can be summarized by the following phrases:
- logical approach to problem solving
- thinking critically
- analytic and deductive reasoning
- the ability to work with complex instrumentation
- assembling knowledge.
Few respondents, even those who no longer "do science," found fault with the hands-on training aspect of their degree programs. This finding suggests that the research-orientation should not be eliminated; rather, the point is that other aspects of PhD training should be valued more highly than they now are so as to provide students a more even-handed experience.
Clearly, recent PhD graduates sense the need for change in the educational system. If changes in the training and counseling of the next generation of scientists are understood to be necessary, who will be in charge? What is the nature of the changes needed? Who will implement the changes? The present research-oriented professoriate is clearly the vehicle for the necessary changes, in spite of the fact that precious few have had experience outside of academe. Scientists who work apart from academe have much to say about the kinds of changes, as well as about the details of the changes, that need to occur. We need to devise ways to allow them to speak on the subject and to listen to what they say. Academic research will never be the same, and we need knowledgeable, concerned, supportive guides to its future.
|
Citation
