I did. It doesn't take a Nostradamus to see that the kind of thing Drugmonkey is talking about is going to become all to common. Current funding levels simply cannot support the biomedical research enterprise we've become accustomed to.

The next few years are going to be interesting.

Normally I leave it to Prof-like Substance to pull on the meatpants and dispel some of the myths held by disgruntledocs. And he has yet again.

And I usually try not to get too up in the face with my posts....

But then I was reading Postdocalypse Now and the various comments over there, and well, the sense of entitlement is so thick you could stir it with a stick.

There are no entitlements in academia. Never have been. No one is guaranteed a TT position, let alone an interview. No one is guaranteed funding. No one is guaranteed tenure. Tenured profs aren't even guaranteed an office and lab space.

So here's some simple math some of the disgruntledocs just don't seem able to grasp. Perhaps those of you coming up the ranks behind them can.

Simple Math I:
You're not that special. Think it through. The traditional path to a TT position is grad school followed by a postdoc or two. So if your PI has trained one grad student and one postdoc, they've essentially trained their replacement. Every additional student and postdoc is competition. For you. Direct competition. They've likely been trained on the same systems and methods. There's only so much room out there for people studying bunny hopping using electromagnoanisotropicoptophysioluminescence.

Simple Math II:
Yes, there are typically up to 300, maybe more, applications for each TT position at research intensive institutions (at least in the biomedical fields). But, as pointed out by Spiny Norman, you're not competing against all 300+. Around 70% aren't really that competitive (not you though, right? Yeah, right.) and likely won't be landing a TT position at an R1. On top of that, the remaining ~30% are applying to multiple, hopefully many, positions. So your odds are better than you might think. IF you're truly competitive.

Simple Math III:
Again, as pointed out by Spiny Norman, and discussed multiple times by DrugMonkey, CNS publications are not your ticket to a TT position. They help, for sure. But productivity and originality are the keys. Multiple first authorships. MULTIPLE. Preferably multiple as a postdoc. Not one or two.

Simple Math IV:
You're not that special part deux. Pedigree is a guarantee of little. Yes, having graduated from Fanycpants U, gone to grad school at Superfancypants U, and postdocced at Ultrasuperfancypants U gives you a little leg up. And, as Spiny* once again made clear, having trained in a well known lab that is also known for providing great training** is important. BUT, if you don't take full advantage of that, and every other opportunity you can get your hands on, you've screwed yourself (see Simple Math III above and V below).

Simple Math V:
Funding helps a lot. Our dean currently strongly encourages us to only consider applicants with funding (K99, R01 etc.). You can argue whether or not that's the best strategy (I don't think it is), but it is what it is. So you need to be applying. Early and often. Current funding rates at the NIH are somewhere below 20%. That does not mean >80% of applicants are unfunded. It means >80% of applications are not funded. Want to up the odds? Have multiple applications on multiple projects.*** As a postdoc that means convincing your PI to let you. If they won't, you need a new PI.

Simple Math VI:
The system needs an overhaul for sure. From grad student training through to PI's (which one way or another seems to be in the works). But even if we got rid of all the deadwood tomorrow, that won't up your odds of landing a TT position much, if at all. The economy still sucks. Funding rates are low. Many institutions are having a hard time making ends meet (BBRI anyone?). A deadwood prof fired is money saved. A new TT hire might have a lower salary and benefits cost, but requires a massive start up package. Many places are likely to decide to save the money instead of making that investment.

Are the odds stacked against you? Sure. But it's always been that way and likely always will. Having your dreams shattered sucks. But despite what you might think, no one has promised you a TT position. Or funding. At least try to open your eyes to the reality around you.

____________
* Who should have a blog.
** The two are not necessarily synonymous.
*** As should all PI's of course.

I hope the year brings you good things on both the personal and professional fronts. For my sciency friends, may you have enough funding, a continuous flow of good data, and a stream of publications.

Over the Thanksgiving break (hope you all had a good one!) I found myself thinking about what happens when a PI commits fraud. This in part was spurred by the uptick in reported cases of fraud in science over the past few years, and in part by DrugMonkey's post on the RePAIR program for rehabilitating fraudsters. I have no idea whether this apparent uptick in fraud is due to more fraud occurring (probably) or simply more people being reported (also probably). But that's not what I was cogitating on. What I was wondering about was the fate of those directly effected by a PI committing fraud. The graduate students, postdocs and technicians in the lab. The various co-authors of publications that end up being retracted. What happens to them?

Let's make the assumption here that the PI is the sole perpetrator of fraud in a lab. One can always make the argument that the lab personnel should have been aware and/or that they should have been more diligent about checking the data that went into a publication that bears their names. I certainly preach to my own group that if their name is on a manuscript they share responsibility for what's in it. But let's face it, there are many ways a PI could fabricate data without raising people's suspicions. "Hey, look at these gels I ran while you were away at the conference last week." Despite what many would argue they should do, many junior peeps would be very reluctant to question the boss. And what if the fabrication occurs in grant proposals the lab peeps never get to see?

So what happens? Are all the lab personnel tainted? If the PI commits fraud in grant proposals and is caught, does that stigma stick to everyone in the lab? Would any of you PI's out there hire someone relatively fresh out of a lab where the PI had been found to be a fraudster? I honestly don't know what I would do were someone with that kind of tragic background to apply to join my lab. I'd like to think I'd try to be as objective as possible, but how do you weigh their accomplishments versus other applicants? What can you trust?

Even worse, one can easily imagine the careers of grad students and postdocs being absolutely destroyed when their first author publications are retracted due to the PI fabricating data. How would these folks compete in today's very competitive market when they've lost many, if not all, of their publications?

When a PI commits fraud we tend to focus on that person and what should happen to them. But instead of worrying about someone who destroyed their career by attempting to cheat, instead of trying to reform them, shouldn't we be trying to minimize the collateral damage?

We're focusing too much on the perp, too much on the funds wasted and fake science published. Don't get me wrong, that's all bad stuff. Let's just not forget about the more immediate victims.

Or at least communication through time does.

How else do you explain all the d00ds, who are clearly living in the 1800's, commenting here?

What I want to know is how is it they know and can use the internet? After all, Al Gore wasn't even alive in the 1800's!