The US government is spending a lot of money training the next generation of PhDs so that the country can remain a leader in science. Yet each year, many American-born scientists are leaving the lab, perhaps because of the long hours, low salaries or low expectations of career advancement.

Why are the working conditions so bad? Blame the foreigners, says an anonymous American scientist in an online Science report last week.

This scientist complained that his poor working conditions are exacerbated when foreign scientists take similar jobs, and work longer hours for less money than he may be willing to do. Also, he argues, because there are so many foreign scientists wanting to work in the US, and universities have no limit on the number of scientists they can bring in, the overabundance of foreign labor keeps his salary low and discourages him from sticking with science.

I find it shocking that this scientist is blaming foreigners for the problems with American science. It would be much more reasonable for him to blame the US government for setting the typical postdoc’s salary so low, or for cutting the NIH budget, despite its supposed desire to keep America competitive globally.

In fact, according to the latest National Science Foundation survey, the number of American students enrolling in grad school for science and engineering is higher than ever. And the number of foreign students, perhaps because of visa problems, is dropping. Many American companies are actually lobbying for an increase in temporary visas so that more foreigners can enter the scientific workforce—a change that Congress is currently considering.

As we said in our June editorial, governments should set aside funding specifically for young American scientists. I also think that science can only benefit from diverse viewpoints, be they of Americans of all races, as we said in May, or of foreign scientists who can bring their perspectives and training to scientific problems.

The solution to this is not, and should not be, to limit foreign scientists from coming in. What do you think? Should Congress increase—or decrease—the number of visas issued to foreign scientists?

Posted on behalf of Eva Chmielnicki, Associate Editor, Nature Medicine

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Last week's Nature carried a fascinating review of two new books that take an unsparingly critical look at the world's response to the AIDS epidemic.

The first, James Chin's The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, argues that flawed mathematical models have exaggerated the scale of the epidemic. Chin's idea, which as we've reported has been gaining traction, is that tracking infection rates in pregnant women falsely inflates the numbers. Chin goes on to say that UNAIDS continues to support the bigger numbers because, among other things, it helps bring in donor money. That I can believe.

India was one of the first places where the numbers are lower than predicted by the mathematical models, but I'm not sure I agree with Chin that India's epidemic won't be as grave as the UN predicts it will be. Just last week, the government reported an alarming increase in prevalence in two Indian states. Based on my experience reporting on AIDS in India I think the numbers are likely to be much higher, not lower, than the ones we see reported.

The second book, Helen Epstein's The Invisible Cure: AIDS in Africa, argues that indigenous efforts, particularly in reducing the average number of sexual partners, and not UNAIDS-sponsored methods, have been the most effective in curbing the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The review is worth reading in its entirety, not least because it's written by Stephen Lewis and his colleague Paula Donovan. Lewis, who was until December the UN special envoy for AIDS in Africa, is one of the most charismatic and genuine men I've ever met. When I interviewed him last year for a profile, his eyes repeatedly welled up when he talked about AIDS in Africa. I suspect he also has a lot to say about the UN, where he was not particularly popular because of his outspoken views. Now there's a book I'm dying to read.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 04:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)