Each December, Science Careers names a “Person of the Year” to honor an individual who has made an especially significant and sustained contribution to the welfare of early-career scientists. For 2014, we are pleased to salute Shirley Tilghman, a distinguished molecular biologist, former president of Princeton University, and longtime advocate for reform of the system that trains and employs—and exploits—biomedical graduate students and postdocs. Her public efforts to remedy “the plight of young scientists,” as she termed the situation during an interview with Science Careers, go back to the 1994 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee she co-chaired that produced .
What’s striking, Tilghman says, is that all those papers and reports—going back 20 years—“say virtually the same thing.” In each case, an expert group calls for, among other things, supporting more postdocs and graduate students on training grants and fellowships instead of on professors’ research grants, employing more staff scientists in permanent posts and fewer temporary trainees to do scientific work, providing higher pay and better working conditions for postdocs, and publishing information on the career outcomes of departments’ and labs’ graduate students and postdocs.
Tilghman sees the overproduction of Ph.D.s and postdocs—which is accelerating, she notes—as structural and “Malthusian.” Because of factors such as cutbacks in the pharmaceutical industry, no sector has “the capacity to absorb the excess” of our most highly trained scientific laborers, Tilghman says.
“When [NIH Director] Francis Collins asked me to co-chair the workforce study in 2010,” Tilghman recalls, “I said, ‘Francis, this is my swan song. This is “three strikes and I’m out.” If I do this and nothing happens, I will never work on this issue again.’ ” The implementation of the workforce working group’s recommendations disappointed her, as our colleague Michael Price reported at the time, but apparently she could not abandon a cause that had engaged her for years.
For many years, her interest in the issue was “humanitarian,” she says—inspired by years of “watching the growing challenge of brilliant young scientists” from her own lab trying “to break into the business.” But then, about 2.5 years ago, she had breakfast with Kirschner at Harvard, and he mentioned his own concern about the increasingly fierce competition for grants and jobs arising from the rapidly growing numbers of scientists chasing a limited supply of funds. Kirschner “pointed out that the hypercompetition I was seeing as a humanitarian issue” was also “a quality-of-science issue,” Tilghman says. “He is right. … A reason to be really concerned about this is that it is affecting the quality of the science. … I still resonate very much to the humanitarian issue, [but] I now have two motivators.”
Tilghman and Kirschner wondered whether they could “get a couple of our friends to start talking about the issue together,” she recalls. “Because Harold and Bruce are two of our closest friends in science, we got in touch with them and started meeting.” The two new partners were not chosen “out of a hat,” Tilghman laughs, but because, along with being major names, they are also “both really great public servants [who] had demonstrated multiple times over many years that they cared about the big picture of the enterprise and were willing to work on its behalf.” The foursome thus includes deep expertise and insight into the inner workings of the research enterprise, including laboratory management, university administration, scientific publishing, scholarly associations, and major funding agencies. “Working hard on the issue,” they hold biweekly conference calls to plan “how to initiate conversations among the stakeholders so that we can get some movement on these recommendations.”
The article got widespread attention “because of who we are,” Tilghman says, but the response it provoked was decidedly mixed. Young scientists greeted it enthusiastically. Some established researchers also responded favorably. But for many “who have succeeded in the system, there appears to be little to be gained from messing with it,” Tilghman says. Some are “highly critical of the diagnosis and certainly extremely critical of the recommendations,” she adds.
Skin in the game
Casting the issue in terms of the scientific enterprise’s welfare and researchers’ self-interest rather than of compassion for the powerless brings more allies to cause, Tilghman suggests. If people agree with Kirschner that the present situation compromises “the ability to do your very best science,” then “everybody has skin in the game.”
“One thing I’m absolutely unwilling to do,” she says, “is continue to talk about this and not really start getting policy changes.”