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
This is a common domestic variety of sour grapes. The anonymous complainant quoted in Science found he couldn’t compete with more qualified applicants for his dream job, and, being an American, can’t admit that the flaw is in him and not his foreign competitors. If the jobs are US-based, then it’s not the same as outsourcing taking away American jobs. Foreign scientists who take US research positions have to pay the same rents, mortgages, grocery bills, and gas prices as their American competitors. If they’re willing to work harder for less money in this country, that simply reflects greater dedication than their American counterparts.
When foreigners want to come to this country to work hard, make sacrifices, and ultimately succeed as citizens, we don’t call that unfair competition. We call it the American Dream.
I think there are multiple issues that are affecting the job market for scientists as a whole, including foreign postdocs. One of the main factors is that Universities are greatly increasing non-tenure track positions with marginal increases in the coveted tenure track positions. This is partly due to lower state and federal investment in higher education. As research becomes more expensive universities are unwilling to gamble tenure track position with million dollar start up packages on many more people. Instead the model is to balloon out postdoctoral numbers when NIH funding is up. As for example, when NIH funding doubled the number of postdocs doubled but the number of tenure track positions at the assistant level for major research universities didn’t budge. This postdoctoral doubling comes all from bringing in foreign postdocs. I imagine the quality of the postdocs probably dropped since they were hiring deeper into the talent pool. I also imagine some good quality postdocs (foreign or domestic) left because they were tired of waiting for a permanent positon.
Next on the list, according to a Boston based venture capitalist I was talking to, pharmaceutical company’s pipelines are drying up since all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Their new strategy is to focus on marketing and drug reformulations ( two drugs in one pill) to increase their income stream. They then hope to create a large enough war chest to buy small companies that do develop novel drugs. This means a smaller percentage of their profits are used for research so less research positions. However venture capital is currently tight for small companies, so therefore less small companies, and therefore less research positions.
Next there is overproduction of postdocs. Though this occurs in the US its epicenters are Europe and Asia. Europe produces 50% more biomedical scientists than the US but provides about 80% of the US in funding R&D. Asia, especially China, are atrociously worse. This creates a worldwide glut of scientists. What this means is the value of the PhD is so debased that it is almost worthless for getting scientific positions. Which also means people are now evaluated on their postdoc production. Now we have to achieve as postdocs what faculty use to have to achieve to get tenure. In theory for universities, companies and the country as a whole it is best to have a large number of foreign postdocs because science becomes cheap. It is however very bad for the postdocs both foreign and domestic. However this is only good for US science if the people coming in are as good or better than the people leaving biomedical research. The Americans are leaving science because they have very uncertain career futures, horrible salaries for ther education level and very long working hours. However no one should care about americans leaving if the quality of the foreign postdocs is equivalent. However from my experience graduates of American Universities, both foreign and US citizens, typically are very good. This also holds true for some graduates of foreign institutions. Keeping in mind that postdocs are suppose to be capable of becoming completely independent scientists, the bulk of foreign postdocs are not capable of this either because of scientific capabilities or inability to communicate. Many are used as intellectual migrant workers going from one postdoc to another, to another. Most PI’s (principal investigators) will hire someone they believe is incapable of becoming independent because they are able to provide a list of bodies on an NIH grant and hope this improves their chances of getting that grant. This increased number of bodies in a lab doesn’t lead to greater scientific production just alot more hand holding and increased personel costs. However not only are they made postdocs for grant purposes but also because PI’s can get a visa for them, use them as hard working poorly paid technitions, who then can be fired much more easily than a regular technician. Not exactly a mentored track to independence. Also not a great morale booster. I think a partial remedy is to assess foreign institutions for the quality of their graduate programs and effectively accredit them from a distance. PhD’s from those institutions that are accredited can be brought in as postdocs the rest can be brought in as technicians. This prevents PI’s from abusing the H1B visas and the postdoc positions. Once again I will state bringing in more foreign postdocs is only good for the science in the US if the quality of those brought in are as good or better than those driven out. If good quality foreign postdocs are brought in then in theory they will help create new biotech jobs for all of us.
In 2006, economist Robert Samuelson reported in the Washington Post the truth of our ‘shortage’ of scientists and engineers in the US: “Per million people, the United States graduates slightly more engineers with four-year degrees than China and three times as many as India. The U.S. leads are greater for lesser degrees.”
Samuelson applies common sense to the primary factor behind any shortage of workers in ANY given field: “On average, American lawyers make 42 percent more than chemical engineers. At elite levels, huge pay gaps also exist. In 2005 the median starting salary for a new Harvard University MBA was $100,000. An MBA is a two-year degree. By contrast, a science or engineering PhD can take five to 10 years, with a few years of “post-doc” lab work. At a Business Roundtable press briefing, one CEO said his company might start this sort of scientist at $90,000. Does anyone wonder why some budding physicists switch to Wall Street?”
To the author who thinks that foreigners coming to this country for science positions for the American Dream is sadly mistaken. Foreigners are abused by this science system because they are tempted by the visa. It does not matter how hard they work; their life is in the hands of their boss who has little incentive to help them. Americans are trained better and are often much more talented than their foreign counterparts. However, science does not reward intellect; it rewards tenacity. Who would you rather work on science: people who turn out several papers of mediocre research, or people who produce grade A research with few publications? Science rewards only those who survive burnout rather than those who could truly be an asset to it. This is why Americans do not want foreigners in science, and it is why Americans will continue to leave science until prospects improve.
I have worked in a lab now for almost 20 years and in the past six years I personnelly witnessed 6 Medical Technologists be replaced by Foreign workers. The Medical Technologist is asked to train the new Visa employee and with in a matter of months the senior MT is fired for any possible reason their boss can come up with. You see the Foreigners will do the job for a lot less money and work more call hours with out any complaints. This saves the hospitals Millions of dollars each year. Soon all the Medical Technologists will be Foreign Visa workers. They would love to do this for nursing but they can’t because their union protects them The excuse used by the hospitals is that they can’t fill the positions locally. But if they would offer a salary equal to what is estimated to be for a 4 year graduate with a medical certification, then they would have know problem finding employees. In fact the salary is so low compared to other Medical positions requiring even less training and education
that fewing american students elect to enter the Medical Technology programs. Why go to school for 4 years, intern for 6 months in order to make less than a nurse that goes to school for 2 years.
I wish that someone with the power to do something would step up and put a stop to this.