Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Stem Cell research was hot in the early 2000s. Sadly, 8 years of George Bush effectively eliminated America's competitive edge in the field, primarily in embryonic stem cell research.  Consequently, it is no surprise that there is little emphasis or discussion about stem cell research in the US.  To that end, a recent Gallup Poll was conducted to determine American attitudes and perceptions of stem cell research.  The results of the poll (originally posted the the Assay Depot blog) are shown below.

The poll results suggest that over 50% of Americans surveyed believe that all forms of stem cell research are morally acceptable.  Interestingly, while increasing number of American believe that stem cell research should progress, government funding for it has markedly declined since 2009 even though the ban on embryonic stem cell research was removed.

The take home message is that Bush's 8 year band on embryonic stem cell research has seriously affected American competitiveness in the field and that it is no longer a priority of the US government.  The bottom line: I would not plan a career in stem cell research unless you are willing to relocate outside of the US.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By now, most of you have heard that tough economic times are forcing more students to enroll at community colleges because they can no longer afford the staggeringly-high tuition costs at most American four year  public and private colleges and universities. While this may be a financial boon for community colleges, technical schools and for-profit educational institutions, flagging enrollment numbers at second and third-tier public and private colleges has induced some admissions officers at these four year institutions to lower academic standards to admit students who can pay full tuition to attend them. In other words, rather than admit deserving academically-qualified and competitive students who may need financial aid to attend their institutions, admission officers will sometimes admit less academically qualified students to offset rising financial costs.

As the father of a college freshman, I had inkling that this practice was real but I had no formal proof or data to verify my suspicions. That all changed today after reading a troubling article in the NY Times entitled “Universities Seeking Out Students of Means.”

Based on a survey of 462 admissions officers conducted in August and early September, the article states

“More than half of the admissions officers at public research universities, and more than a third at four-year colleges said that they had been working harder in the past year to recruit students who need no financial aid and can pay full price.” 

Moreover,

“22 percent of the admissions officials at four-year institutions said the financial downturn had led them to pay more attention in their decision to applicants’ ability to pay.” Finally, “10 percent of the admissions directors at four-year colleges — and almost 20 percent at private liberal-arts schools — said that the full-pay students they were admitting, on average, had lower grades and test scores than other admitted applicants.”

So, why is this trend so troubling? And, what does it portend for future US competitiveness in the global economy? For one thing, admitting less qualified “wealthy” students will help to continue to “dumb down” the quality of the education currently offered at these institutions. To wit, over 50 percent of incoming freshman at most US colleges and universities already require remedial help in language arts and math. Second, this practice clearly hinders diversity because many minorities (and many middle class students) are either financially disadvantaged or struggling because of the economic downturn and cannot attend these institutions because they are simply out of their financial reach. Third, and perhaps most troubling, is that this practice clearly demonstrates that educational institutions are operating not on educational or academic principles but on business and financial ones. Put simply, generating revenue has replaced the educational and academic mission that all of these institution were founded upon.

Knowing this, is it any wonder why the US is losing it educational edge to lesser nations; many of whom are considered to be emerging countries? Unless the “pay-to-play” practices exhibited by many college admissions offices are eliminated, it is likely that US global dominance and world competitive will continue to wane. Money may “make the world go round” but it requires intelligent, motivated and competitive individuals to generate it! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The US is slipping and emerging markets are growing in competitiveness according to an annual list compiled by the World Economic Forum. Perhaps even more troubling is that the same group found that the US is lagging in the adoption of internet, computing and mobile communication technologies. After all, adopting of new technologies has been widely viewed as a means to improve competitiveness.

According to the report, the US, which topped the list in 2008, slid from number 4 last year to number 5. Surprisingly, for the third year in a row, Switzerland ranked first. The list is compiled by assessing 12 categories that include innovation, infrastructure and the world economy. The fact that many EU countries continue to improve in their ability to compete on a global scale, suggests that socialist-leaning governments may not be as bad as many free market US zealots would have you believe!

Singapore replaced Sweden for the number 2 position in this year’s list. Behind Sweden (no. 3), Finland was ranked fourth, and Germany was ranked sixth. Germany was followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. The UK was 10, France was 18^th and China moved up one place to 26 this year. Among other major Asian economies, Japan ranked ninth and Hong Kong 11^th. 

Among other major emerging economies, South Africa was 50^th, Brazil 53^rd, India 56^th and Russia 66^th.

The weaker performance of the US was attributed to economic vulnerabilities and low public trust in politicians and concerns about government inefficiency. The loss of US competitive coupled with fewer students opting for careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and poorer adoption rates of new technologies suggests that the US decline will continue.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the past two decade or so, government officials, business executives and many education “thought leaders” have publicly lamented the deteriorating quality of the American educational system. While K-12 educators and administrators have unduly taken much of the heat for our educational shortcomings, the real problem may lie with the quality of undergraduate education in America. To wit, while a growing percentage of  American high school students are attending college, many of today’s college graduates today are noticeable deficient in communication skills and, perhaps more importantly, in their problem solving abilities. And, unfortunately, this troubling trend is beginning to takes its toll in life sciences graduate programs where a growing number of life sciences PhDs are great technicians but fail miserably as independent science investigators. This is because colleges and university administrators and faculty members are driven more by financial considerations as compared with their obligations as teachers, educators and mentors. Put simply, despite their non-profit status, many colleges and universities act like “for profit” companies where, in many cases, financial gains are more important than the products that they produce! 

With this in mind, Richard Arum, a professor of sociology and education at New York University and Josipa Roksa an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia detail the decline of the American undergraduate education experience in a book entitled “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.”  While I have read the book, I did read an extremely revealing and troubling article that the authors penned in this past Sunday’s New Times Opinion section entitled “Your So-Called Education.” 

In the articles, Arum and Roksa describe their findings from a four-year long study in which they followed the progress of several thousand students in more than two dozen diverse colleges and universities. Students were evaluated by taking the Collegiate Learning Assessment test (an officially recognized academic assessment tool). Based on their research a whopping 45 percent of students after two years and 36 percent after four years showed no improvement in learning. Their conclusions:

“Large numbers of the students were making their way through college with minimal exposure to rigorous coursework, only a modest investment of effort and little or no meaningful improvement in skills like writing and reasoning.”

In the past, high school teachers and even the students themselves would have been blamed for their pitiful lack of academic progress. However, Arum and Roksa contend that the problems do not lie not with the students but with college presidents, administrators and in many cases faculty members. For example, the authors note that:

“While some colleges are starved for resources, for many others it’s not for lack of money. Even at those colleges where for the past several decades tuition has far outpaced the rate of inflation, students are taught by fewer full-time tenured faculty members while being looked after by a greatly expanded number of counselors who serve an array of social and personal needs. At the same time, many schools are investing in deluxe dormitory rooms, elaborate student centers and expensive gyms. Simply put: academic investments are a lower priority.”

Perhaps even more troubling the authors contend that:

“The authority of educators has diminished, and students are increasingly thought of, by themselves and their colleges, as “clients” or “consumers.” When 18-year-olds are emboldened to see themselves in this manner, many look for ways to attain an educational credential effortlessly and comfortably. And they are catered to accordingly. The customer is always right.”

Finally, a change in federal student loan legislation has contributed to the problem:

“The funds from Pell Grants and subsidized loans, by being assigned to students to spend on academic institutions they have chosen rather than being packaged as institutional grants for colleges to dispense, have empowered students — for good but also for ill. And expanded privacy protections have created obstacles for colleges in providing information on student performance to parents, undercutting a traditional check on student lassitude.”

Although the authors provide a couple of “self help” ideas to begin to address the problem, in my opinion, the only effective solution is to place higher academic standards and demands on undergraduate students and a greater premium on learning as compared with student convenience and satisfaction. Like it or not, the notion that the “customer is always right” should have no place at institutions of higher learning.  Finally, college and university administrators must seriously reconsider what the REAL mission of their institutions is: to place learning ahead of financial gain.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent article published in the NY Times about the decline of high school student participation in science fairs resulted in many letters to the editor. Many of them were from concerned citizens and a few were from university researchers decrying the lack of government funding for research and the funding of sports over science programs. Another railed against the Bush’s Administration’s poorly crafted and ill-advised No Child Left Behind Act. However, there was one letter that surprised me. It was written by John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science and technology adviser (see below)

To the Editor:

Your article points to deep budget challenges that many school districts are facing and problems with the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law.

But it does not mention much of the Obama administration’s extraordinary agenda for improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in this country: for example, the commitment to prepare 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next 10 years, the $4 billion Race to the Top program’s support for innovation in teaching these important subjects, and the administration’s blueprint for updating the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year.

Recognizing that government alone cannot be the answer, moreover, the president has also called upon the business community, foundations, professional societies and others to do more. Already, the president’s “Educate to Innovate” campaign has attracted more than $700 million in nongovernmental financial and in-kind support for science and math programs.

And more than 100 chief executives have responded to the president’s “all hands on deck” call to action by launching “Change the Equation,” an unprecedented program to scale up effective models for improving STEM education.

John P. Holdren
Washington, Feb. 7, 2011

The writer is President Obama’s science and technology adviser.

What surprised me about the letter is that it took an article critical of the Obama Administration’s commitment to science education to provide the American public (at least part of it) with some insight into the government’s recognition of the problem and steps that it is taking to help to correct it. Perhaps the Obama administration needs to be a bit more proactive and publicly-vocal about its plans to improve American STEM education. This would go a long way to assuage some of the concerns about America's waning global competitiveness in science and technology.

Like Dr. Holdren, I believe that government alone cannot be the answer and American corporations must get actively involved by providing ideas on how to improve American science education and the financial support to implement them. While the CEO-endorsed program “Change the Equation” sounds great on paper, it is time for those CEOs to actually step up and do something about the problem. Many of these same CEOs have been complaining for decades about the lack of STEM preparedness of the American workforce. As somebody once said “Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama acknowledged that US global competitiveness in science, technology engineering and math is at an all time low and that now may be America’s “sputnik moment” to turn this trend around. While I was pleased to hear the President say that we have a problem, neither political rhetoric nor turning the lack of science literacy into a challenge that resembles an arms race is going to solve the problem. What is needed are better trained science teachers who can engage science-minded students and a repeal of the No Child Left Behind Act that forces schools to focus limited financial resources on bolstering math and reading scores to maintain public funding. Sadly, neither of these things is going to happen any time soon. But I digress...

Historically, an option for science-minded students who wanted to be “engaged” was local, regional and national science fairs where students competed with one another for recognition of innovative scientific achievement. According to an article in the NY Times, science fairs grew in popularity after World War II and were intended for those who may not have considered themselves science fanatics but were interested in general science. Michele Glidden, director at the Society for Science & public, a nonprofit organization that administers 350 regional fairs contends that “Science fairs develop skills that reach down to everybody’s lives, whether you want to be a scientist or not. The point is to breed science-minded citizens.” Unfortunately, the number of high school students and high school participating in science fairs is waning. For example, in Indiana participation in the state’s science fairs plummeted 15 per cent in the last three years.

Experts contend that declining participation may be linked to competing demands placed on high school students for other extracurricular options like sports, music, and volunteering. Yet many science educators contend that meeting mandated state standards that usually require teaching fact-based knowledge rather than the scientific method leaves little time for them to stimulate students who may be interested in participating in science fairs. Further, many high school teachers lack the training or subject matter expertise to help students who want to enter science fear. Some have reached out to scientists in industry or local colleges and universities to help interested students but these types of connections are frequently difficult to make. 

Yet, despite these challenges, several hundred thousand American high school students will participate in over 350 science fairs during the next three months or so. If now is truly a “sputnik moment” for America, than President Obama and perhaps more importantly Congress ought to “put its money where its mouth is” and provide support to improve US science literacy.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2005, The National Academy of Sciences issued a worrisome report entitled “Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” that warned that America is slipping in competitiveness in all areas of science.

While this ought to have been a wake-up call for all Americans, in 2010, the Academy issued an update entitled “Rising above the Gathering Storm: Approaching Category 5." Not surprisingly, the findings in the update indicate that the US is still lagging in its capacity to innovate and compete and that the trend continues to move in a downward direction. For example, in 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available) 16 percent of American college students received undergraduate degrees in natural sciences or engineering as compared with 47 percent in China, 38 percent in Korea and 27 percent in France. Recommendations in the original report called for creation of 25, 000 undergraduate scholarships per year in math, science and engineering. Although the updated report indicated that Congress had taken some steps to implement the recommendation, progress has been severely lacking in this area.

Almost all US colleges and universities require that undergraduate students have some instruction in science. Unfortunately, most of these courses are lecture driven and lack a laboratory component (mainly because laboratory instruction is costly and time intensive). This is problematic because science is a laboratory driven discipline that requires data collection and analysis; neither of which is taught in most lecture settings. Recognizing the growing lack of science literacy among American undergraduate students, Leon Botstein—music director and conductor of the American Symphony Orchestra and President of Bard College an artsy liberal arts college in NY—decided to do something about it. To that end, he created a program at Bard called Citizen Science; a mandatory science course conducted during winter break that all Bard freshmen are required to take for graduation.

Citizen Science is a two and a half week long program in which students spend six hours per day immersed in laboratory science. The 2011 program taken by 480 students focused on the molecular biology of infectious diseases. Using laboratory equipment, computer modeling and classroom discussions, student explored various aspects of infectious disease research including bacterial and viral detection, creation of vaccines and techniques that can be used to manage global disease outbreaks. The students were taught by two dozen scientists who were recruited from all over the country. There are no grades or credits received by program participants. This was done to promote learning for learning sake according to Brooke Jude an assistant professor of biology and the director of Citizen Science.

Botstein, who incidentally is the brother of David Botstein a world renowned geneticist at Princeton University, has been an outspoken critic about deficiencies in American education. He previously has taken many of his colleagues to task for “shirking their responsibility to create a well-rounded citizenry.” Botstein, with help from his brother, decided to “put his money where is mouth is” by creating Citizen Science. 

According to Botstein, “The most terrifying problem in American university education is the profound lack of scientific literacy for the people we give diplomas to who are not scientists or engineers.” He added, “The hidden Achilles’ heel is that while we’ve found ways to educate scientists in the humanities, the reverse has never really happened. Everybody knows this, but nobody wants to do anything about it.”

Not surprisingly, the Citizen Science Program has received mixed reviews from the 480 Bard freshmen who participated in the inaugural program. After all, a majority of the students who chose to attend Bard have a decided bent toward music and the arts, not science. Nevertheless, many students suggested that their two and half week scientific sojourn has taught them to think more critically about science. Next year’s theme for the Citizen Science program may be energy or climate change.

While Bard’s Citizen Science program is a fantastic idea, not all colleges or universities have the financial largess or scientific connections necessary to create similar programs at their institutions. Perhaps Congress ought to establish funding mechanisms (in addition to the 25,000 math and science scholarships each year) for post secondary institutions interested in replicating the Bard program.

Government officials can no longer deny what the data are showing them; science literacy in the US is plummeting and we are REALLY at risk of losing our competitive and innovative edges in math, engineering and science. Put simply, it is no longer a question of “if” but “when.”

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sunday marks the beginning of “American Education Week”, the observance which was started back in 1921. It was created by the National Education Association (NEA) and other groups because 25% of World War I draftees were illiterate.

While a lot has change in the US since 1921 and the literacy rate has drastically improved, the quality of the American education system, especially in math and science, continues to be suspect and in many instances is failing its citizens. Much of this failure is rooted in skyrocketing college tuition costs which prevents many Americans access to an adequate post secondary education. 

Most politicians contend that education costs are too high and spending on education must be capped. However a quick look at some facts (provided by an article in USA Today written by its founder Al Neuharth) paints a much different picture

• Families are spending an average of $64 billion annually to send 13.9 million students to public colleges and universities
• For the past 10 years, the US has spent $1.1 trillion per year on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; an annual average of more than $110 billion

As Mr. Neuharth aptly points out: $64 billion annually for higher education versus $110 billion per year for wars!

Is it any wonder that American students continue to lag in science and math preparedness as compared with much smaller countries where higher education is free or heavily subsidized by their respective governments? Think about this the next time you hear politicians and conservative talk show hosts about America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While I believe that tenure ought to be abolished and the cost of a college education is way too high these days, I cannot fault non-profit post secondary educational institutions for the job that they do educating students and preparing them for life. Most do a pretty good job despite the outrageous price tag.

Because of the recession and high unemployment, many displaced workers have chosen to “go back to school.” This has resulted in a booming business for many for-profit post secondary education companies. Because there are no perquisites at many of these schools, the main criterion for admission is the ability to pay tuition and fees. Not surprisingly, the quality of the education at many of these institutions is somewhat deficient and the attrition rates are exceedingly high. More egregiously, however, is the little known fact that much of the financial aid available to low income and minority college students is “eaten up” by for-profit education companies. And ironically, the tuition to earn certificate or associate degrees at these schools is 4-5 times higher than that required to earn comparable degrees at local community colleges.

Admittedly, I don’t think near enough about for-profit secondary education companies and their impact on students. However, my eyes were recently opened, after reading an article entitled “Degrees of Debt" by Jeremy Dehn; a journeyman adjunct instructor who works at both non-profit and for profit post secondary education institutions. Because he works at both non- and for-profit institutions he is in a unique position to compare the two educational experiences. This is a MUST READ article.

The notion that education can be accurately and adequately delivered based on the free enterprise system and unbridled capitalism is bogus. While non-profit education institutions leave a lot to be desired, relying for-profit companies (and prevailing market trends) to educate Americans is certain to continue to diminish American competitiveness on the world stage.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

John Lechleiter, PhD, chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly & Co. today told members of the Detroit Economic Club that the US is losing its competitive edge and that “evidence is mounting for an innovation crisis in the life sciences”

Lechleiter blamed the crisis on US tax and immigration policies over the last 10 years that have reduced research and investment funding and driven away foreign-born, U.S.-trained scientists.

He also attributed the problem to the US Food and Drug Administration’s new emphasis on drug safety.  “The FDA approved 92 drugs the last five years. That is the lowest of any five-year period,” he said. “We lose patent protections (on brand name drugs) and that is $100 billion less revenue for the industry and less for research and development” said Lechleiter. Further, he said that “American drug companies still spend 40 percent more on research in development in the U.S. than in other parts of the world.”

To avert the crisis, Lechleiter suggested the following: 

1. Increase and improve education for students in math and science
2. Change immigration laws to allow more H1-B visas for scientists and ease the process that allows immigrants to gain green cards to work in the U.S. The last time the H1-B visa cap was raised was in 1990
3. Increase federal funding for pharmaceutical and basic science research, which has declined over the last five years
4. Change tax policies to provide more incentives for research and development. The U.S. lags behind the rest of the world in offering R&D tax credits, he said. Moreover, the U.S. should not tax foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations

Lechleiter, who was trained as a chemist, is the only CEO of a major pharmaceutical company who holds a PhD degree. Therefore, his ideas resonate more for me than those of his business-only CEO counterparts. To that end, his suggestions regarding improving math and science education, immigration reform (which I have long contended is killing US competitiveness) and increasing federal funding for research make sense. However, the notion that US tax laws and lack of corporate tax incentives is stifling American innovation and competitiveness is pure hogwash.

While corporate tax rates may be higher in the US than elsewhere, there are so many loop holes that most corporations pay less than their share fair. Further, let’s not forget that the personal income tax rate is much higher in the rest of the developed world than it is in the US. It is just so “American” to not want to pay taxes and then demand and expect government services at no cost to the taxpayer (at least in Europe they pay high taxes and get good services).  And, let's not forget that despite their heavy tax burden it was American corporations not foreign ones that caused the recent global recession.

That said, I gotta give John some credit for his suggestions; three out of four (or a .750 average) isn’t bad in baseball or the pharmaceutical industry!

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands. 

According to Robert Compton, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and education enthusiast “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates in the US have engineering degrees, compared with more than one-third in India and China and more foreign-born graduates of US universities are returning to their home countries.” For those of you with degrees in math and science (and you base your calculations on population size), the magnitude of the problem (for Americans anyway) is glaringly obvious. Compton went on to say what many others have been thinking for a while, “Early indicators are that we are not the center of innovation anymore. It is shifting to the East.” And he may be right! Based on surveys conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization in the last year, patent filings increased 30 percent in China while declining 11 percent in the US.

While the Invest in America Alliance appears to be a great public relations opportunity for the companies and venture firms that are participating in it, its critics doubt whether investing more money in technology startups is going to fix the ongoing problem. Education analysts contend that a better and cheaper solution may be changing US immigration laws so that foreign students who train in the US are allowed to remain in the country after they complete their training. Other naysayers contend that most of the venture money committed by the alliance would have likely gone to American startups anyway (US based venture firms already invest 70 percent of their money in American start ups) and that 10,500 new jobs isn’t enough to make a dent in the US unemployment rolls.

Like the technology industry, a decade of wrong-head immigration policies coupled with a waning American interest in science has begun to jeopardize the US dominance in the life sciences. Further these trends are largely responsible for the massive layoffs and unrelenting outsourcing of pharmaceutical R&D jobs to foreign countries.

Toothless or not, the Invest in America Alliance shows that engineering and technology industry leaders are willing to cooperate with one another and get behind an initiative that raises public awareness about America’s waning competitiveness in these fields. Perhaps,   pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostic companies ought to take a page out of the Alliance’s play book to similarly insure the future innovation and competitiveness of the American life sciences industry.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Politicians, educators and business leaders love to complain about the America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science and the growing lack of innovation that seems to be pervasive among many American high school and college-aged students. This is the same mantra that I have been hearing for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, while the powers at be like to complain about these things, no government agencies, educational groups or private sector businesses seem to be able to come up with approaches or solutions to these problems (talk about lack of innovation!). 

Luckily, as Thomas Friedman pointed out in an Op-ED in this past Sunday’s New York Times, there are individuals and not-for-profit entities that have come up with two possible approaches to improve science and math preparedness and American innovation. 

The first of these novel ideas is called National Lab Day (NLD). It was introduced last November by a coalition of educators and scientific and engineering associations. NLD’s goal is to inspire future scientists, engineers and innovators by pairing experienced scientists and engineers with students in grades K-12 to work on hands-on science project around the US. Participating organizations that have pledged support for NLB include pledged support for National Lab Day are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Science Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Jack D. Hidary Foundation, the American Chemistry Society, the National Institutes of Health; and the Business Roundtable.

Conspicuously absent from the list are large organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Medicine, the American Society of Microbiology and others. Moreover, no academic institutions or research foundations or life sciences companies have offered to participate. See what I mean about lots of complaining and no action? To learn more about the program or offer support visit NationalLabDay.org. 

Another program that Friedman mentioned was the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship or NFTE. NFTE works with middle and high school teachers to help them teach entrepreneurship. The centerpiece of the program is a national contest for start-ups with 24,000 low-income students participating. Each student has to invent a product or service, write up a business plan and then implement it.

While the scope of NFTE is limited to only low income students, I learned first hand what an important skill entrepreneurship is on the world stage. In the early 2000s while working as a management consultant, I was invited to dinner by the CEO of an Australian life sciences company. During dinner, I candidly asked her why an Australian biotech company was interested in hiring an American as a management consultant. She told me that while Australians do great science they are awful when it comes to translating the science into a viable business. “We simply don’t have the entrepreneurial understanding and spirit that most of you Americans seem to have. Our society doesn’t focus on individualism and innovation, we like to maintain the status quo” she said. After the meeting, I realized that we Americans take our entrepreneurial skills for granted and if we can no longer excel in this area than the US is truly doomed.

Finally, since this post is about science literacy and improving the public understanding of science, I wanted to mention a cool website called Sense About Science that you ought to check out. Although it is a UK-based organization, what it is trying to promote has global relevance. According to the website:

“Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates. We do this by promoting respect for evidence and by urging scientists to engage actively with a wide range of groups, particularly when debates are controversial or difficult.

We work with scientists to

• respond to inaccuracies in public claims about science, medicine, and technology
• promote the benefits of scientific research to the public
• help those who need expert help contact scientists about issues of importance
• brief non-specialists on scientific developments and practices

Sense About Science is governed by a Board of Trustees and run by a small office staff. We are supported by an Advisory Council and over 2,000 scientists and other specialists, ranging from Nobel Laureates to postdoctoral fellows, who are signed up to our database, Evidence Base. We also work with younger scientists in our VoYS (Voice of Young Science) programme, which you can read more about here.”

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Learning!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) kicked off its annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia today and shortly thereafter, issued a press release detailing an education study (that it commissioned) which suggests that American high school students are continuing to fall behind in life sciences education and competitiveness. The timing of the BIO education report is curious, given that over 100,000 life sciences employees have lost their jobs over the past several years and more job cuts at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are expected in the next six months or so.

The report concluded that “middle and high school students across the country are generally falling behind in life sciences, and the nation is at risk of producing a dearth of qualified workers for the life sciences industry. Students are showing less interest in taking life sciences and science courses, and high schools are doing a poor job of preparing students for college-level science, The deficiencies will hurt the country's competitiveness with the rest of the world in the knowledge-based economy.”

Some of the report's finding include:

• 52 percent of 12th graders are at or above a basic level of achievement in the sciences as measured by the NAEP science test
• Average scores on the NAEP for 12th graders in the sciences and life sciences declined from 1996 to 2005
• Only 28 percent of high school students taking the ACT reached a score indicating college readiness for biology.

The report also found a deficiency in the number of well-qualified biology teachers available in high school, with one-in-eight biology teachers not certified to teach biology. To improve U.S. competitiveness in the biosciences industry, the report recommends that states incorporate biotechnology into their science standards, make sure students are ready to take college biosciences courses and focus more on professional development for teachers.

While BIO ought to be commended for the study, the results and the conclusions of the report are nothing new and have been known for over a decade by industry thought leaders and life sciences industry executives. The crux of the problem is that neither academia nor industry is willing to provide funds or invests in ways to find a solution to this vexing, ongoing issue. Also,while high school science curriculum experts and teachers are typically cited as the cause of the problem, most of the blame more aptly lies with life science educators at the undergraduate and graduate school levels.

Today, many US high schools and community colleges already offer life sciences and biotechnology training to their students. In fact, biotechnology curriculum development and outreach has been ongoing in US for well over a decade. For example, Bio-Link, an NSF-funded consortium of community colleges that began in the late 1990s, has diligently worked to create a network of community colleges and high schools that offer biotechnology education and training ranging from biomanufacturing to bioinformatics to forensic DNA sciences. Further, a quick perusal of many high schools and science academies in biotechnology-rich locales like the Northeast, California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina and others reveals that life sciences education and training are readily available to many students interested in biology and bioscience.

In my opinion, the system doesn't break down at the high school level but at the undergraduate and graduate school levels. This is because for the past 15 years, many undergraduate life sciences courses have jettisoned their hands on laboratory components in favor of more lecture driven and e-based learning experiences. This is because these laboratories are costly to run and extremely labor intensive. Further, many undergraduate students may choose not pursue science careers because of the mistaken perception that life sciences jobs require a PhD. Ironically, there are many more jobs in the life sciences industry for students with undergraduate or masters' degrees than for those with PhD. This is because there is a glut of PhDs in today's market and the number of jobs in academia and the life sciences industry are growing smaller. I believe that academia and industry are responsible for the rapidly declining job market for PhD-life sciences.

First, let's look at academia. Most academicians who are charged with training PhDs and postdoctoral fellows have little appreciation or understanding of the technical and regulatory skill sets required in the life sciences industry. Second, many academics don't feel that it is their responsibility to prepare students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in industry because that is tantamount to job training—a big no-no in academic circles. Finally,and perhaps most important, graduate programs are reluctant to provide career counseling or job-specific training for their students because it might interfere with their productivity, which in turn may reduce the amount of data principal investigators have to write papers and win grants to fund their laboratories. In other words, there is little or no incentive for education and training to change at the graduate level because there is no benefit or upside to principal investigators and tenured faculty members.

While the American life sciences industry has loudly and repeatedly complained about a lack of qualified job candidates to work at its companies, they have done little to support and fund efforts to reform US life science education and training. This is likely because many life sciences executives contend that they are in business not education and the responsibility to prepare students for careers in science should not fall on them. Rather, it rightfully belongs in the purview of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. And, rather than train new employees without previous industrial experience (to inject new talent and ideas into their organizations), companies typically only hire job candidates with previous industrial experience. As many newly minted PhD and postdoctoral students frequently ask: “How are we suppose to get industrial experience if nobody will hire us without previous industrial experience?” Good question! 

The BIO report warns that the US is falling behind in bioscience education and American life science companies may experience workforce shortages in the future. The fact that about 100,000    (many of whom were scientists) pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs over the past several years, suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, American science education and training needs to be improved and reformed if the US wants to maintain its dominance in the life sciences. The piecemeal approach that has been pursued for past decade or so hasn't worked. And why should it? Neither academia nor industry, the two main players in the story, don't really have any “skin in the game.” In other words, they have nothing to lose right now!

I believe that its time for academia, industry and government to come together to craft a cohesive, national life science curriculum that meets the needs of all stakeholders. We have a President in the White House who believes in science, the ingenuity of the American people and change. The time is now!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Mention the word “scientist” to most people and they will likely conjure up an image of a socially-inept, nerdy individual who cannot talk to “normal everyday folks” because they are either “too smart” or out of touch with the “real world.” I have been fighting that stereotype for as long as I can remember. I believe that, along the way, I have convinced a few people otherwise and hope that they have learned that “one size does not fit for all scientists”—or any other professional group for that matter. The public perception of scientists was improving until George W Bush, an inveterate anti-science and anti-intellectual advocate became President in 2001. I hope that America’s attitude toward science (and scientists) will change over the next four years as President Obama tries to “restore science to its rightful place.” Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write this post after reading a New York Times review of a television drama called “Breaking Bad” (AMC, Sundays, 10 EDT) which, in my opinion, reinforces the negative stereotypes of scientists held by many members of the lay public.

Breaking Bad centers on a former Caltech chemistry genius named Walt, who failed to live up to the legend of his graduate school days. At 50, he is teaching high school chemistry in Albuquerque, NM. Although he contributed to work of a Nobel-winning team, the teaching job in New Mexico is inexplicably the best that he can get. To make matters worse, his best friend at Cal Tech has amassed a fortune (based largely on Walt’s graduate school work) and is married to Walt’s beautiful ex-wife. Walt learns  after attending a lavish party thrown by his friend, that most of his graduate school classmates (unlike him) are famous world class scientists who live in big homes and make enough money to purchase guitars that previously belonged to Eric Clapton. On top of his devastating psychic and emotional pain, Walt is also suffering from stage 3A lung cancer—even though he never smoked! To save his life, Walt partners with one of his former high school students in the crystal methamphetamine business. Walt’s chemical genius allows him to synthesize the meth from scratch—unlike his scientifically-challenged competitors who must extract the starting materials from over the counter cold remedies—earning him the reputation as one of the best meth ‘cookers” in the US. Walt uses the drug money to pay for his chemotherapy to stay alive and care for 15 year old son with cerebral palsy.  

While the show sounds intriguing, and by all accounts is well acted and provides a glimpse into the lives of people struggling with chronic illness and unrealized career aspirations, it sends the wrong messages to the American public about scientists, their motivations and their lives. First, it portrays Walt’s classmates as wealthy, elitist dilettantes who live lavish lives and don’t think twice about flaunting their status and power as world class scientists. Aside from Craig Venter and several other high profile scientists who are sometimes featured on 60 Minutes, I don’t think that there are many scientists who enjoy the luxurious and opulent lifestyles depicted in Breaking Bad. To the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of us are struggling, like others, to make ends meet to put food on the table. And, perhaps more importantly, I don’t think that money, fame and fortune induced most of us to become scientists in the first place. Portraying scientists as ego-maniacal, thoughtless, self-absorbed dilettantes sends the wrong message to an American public that is already suspicious and distrustful of science.

Second, Walt’ colleagues view him as a “failed scientist” who, despite his brilliance, has been humiliated and reduced to teaching chemistry (at a low wage) to high school students. Listen to an exchange between Walt and his oncologist “I am an extremely overqualified high school chemistry teacher. When I can work I make $43,700 per year. I have watched all of my colleagues and friends surpass me in every way imaginable....” Unfortunately, Walt’s view of himself—as a lowly, underpaid high school chemistry teacher —is consistent with the attitudes of many academicians who feel that teaching is far less important or valuable than laboratory research. In my previous life as a medical school faculty member, it wasn’t uncommon to see a prominent researcher cringe or shake his/her head in disbelief at the mere mention of a teaching career by a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. I contend that we ought to encourage (and not dissuade) some of our best and brightest students to pursue teaching instead of research careers. Further, academic researchers must begin to recognize that PhDs who choose to pursue careers in teaching are not less competent or failed scientists—they are simply individuals who want to teach! Given the 20-year long decline in American science and technology preparedness, the scientific community can no longer afford to continue to exclusively promote research over careers in teaching and education.

Finally, the American public has long been suspicious and distrustful of science. In support of this, scientists are often portrayed in literature, movies and in the news as dark, and sometimes mad people who, when left unchecked, will unleash scientific “horrors” on the world.  I am old enough to remember the public fears about the secret bio-warfare programs in the Soviet Union and US during the cold war and more recently, the rumor that was circulating after the HIV/AIDS epidemic was disclosed, that the virus was created by the US government. The brouhaha that erupted over genetic engineering in the 1980s and continued suspicions surrounded genetically modified foods and human cloning are other examples of the public’s distrust of science. Sadly, the decision of the Breaking Bad’s creators to turn Walt, whose chemistry brilliance is unrivaled, into a crystal meth cooker perpetuates the myth about “evil misguided scientists” who are willing to jeopardize the safety of others for their own motives or self gain. The creators of Breaking Bad want us to believe that Walt is justified in turning to the dark side because his power hungry, egomaniacal, scientific colleagues have derailed his career and forced him to become an overqualified, underpaid chemistry teacher. In other words, he had no choice but to use his scientific talents to survive, and perhaps, more importantly, prove to his colleagues (and himself) that he truly is a gifted chemist and not a failed scientist.

Admittedly, while the plot line of Breaking Bad is a little over the top, it tends to reinforce the public’s negative perceptions of scientists and does little to assuage suspicions about the dark underside of modern science.  Like most other people, we scientists are human and have made our share of mistakes. Nevertheless, I think that we  must challenge ourselves to make an effort to educate the American public about who we are and what scientists do on a day to day basis.  If we fail to meet this challenge, I think that President Obama will continue to struggle to “restore science to its rightful place in America.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try public education-schools are hiring!)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the past decade or so, I have worked as a career counselor at national scientific meetings where I present seminars about resume writing, interviewing techniques and other career related issues. About two years ago, I started to hear about the fierce competition for H-1 and J-1 visas that foreign students must obtain to remain in the US to continue their studies and research. Many of the foreign students that I talked with sounded more like immigration lawyers than graduate students or postdocs—I was amazed at how well informed they were about visa availability and the changes and loopholes in US immigration law that can be exploited to obtain visas.

Since that time, it has become increasingly apparent that the visa problems experienced by most foreign students are beginning to wreak havoc on US science and engineering. Curiously, nobody at the US State Department seems to know why these visa problems exist. According to an article in today’s NY Times, a State Department official claims that visa delays can be attributed to “unfortunate staffing shortages.” Many of the students (and some immigration lawyers) that I talked with believe that it is annual visa limits and quotas not staffing issues that make it so difficult to obtain them.

It is no secret that American middle and high school students are no longer interested in pursuing careers in science and engineering. Because of this, American universities have come to rely on foreign students to fill open slots in graduate and postdoctoral sciences and engineering programs. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that, over the past decade or more, foreign talent has been largely responsible for much of the technical and scientific innovation in the US.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, American universities can no longer assume that the US is the first choice or destination for many foreign undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students—teaching and research at many foreign universities have vastly improved in recent years and can now compete with the best research institutions in the US.  In the past, it was largely assumed that when given a choice foreign student would choice a US university over all others. Together these findings beg the question: “If foreign students and postdocs are largely responsible for maintaining America’s competitive edge in science and technology, why would the US government make it so difficult to recruit the world’s best and brightest?”

There is no doubt that the US government, in a post-September 11^th world ought to carefully scrutinize foreign students before they are issued visas to study or work in the US. But, why has it become increasingly difficult for foreign students to renew their visas to continue to study or work in the US? Interestingly, visa availability and renewal problems are not only restricted to foreign nationals from likely places like China, India, the Middle East or Russia.  Many students and postdocs from Australia, Europe and elsewhere are also experiencing major delays and difficulty obtaining student or work visas.

While the visa issues facing foreign students may not seem like a big one to most Americans (most of who are not involved in science and engineering), its effects on American science and engineering are beginning to become apparent. For example, conference organizers are reluctant to hold international meetings in the US because they fear that many students and scientists will not be able to attend because of limited visa availability. Further, many talented foreign nationals, who want to remain and work in the US, are frequently forced to return to their home countries (to find employment) because they are unable to renew or extend their US visas. There is no question that America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign students to conduct research in science and engineering.  I contend, that without these students, America’s competitiveness in science and engineering will continue to wane as it has over the past 20 years.  I believe that America has two choices to prevent this from happening. First, we can somehow convince larger numbers of American high school students to pursue careers in science and engineering. Second, the US government can improve and simply the visa process so that talented foreign students can continue to study and do research in the US. Nevertheless, something must be done soon—the future competitiveness of American science and engineering depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Visa Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the past ten years or so, pundits have been warning that the US is losing its competitive edge and that it is no longer the world’s leading nation when it comes to innovation in science and technology. Measuring national competitiveness and innovation is very tricky business and until now, most of evidence to support these claims has been anecdotal. According to an article in today’s New York Times, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggests that the US ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions based on 16 indicators that measure innovation and competitiveness including venture capital investment, numbers of per capita researchers, research spending and educational achievement. 

While the results of Foundation study may be troubling (if you are a US citizen), another recent study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that America ranked first in innovation and global competition. However the forum’s report was based entirely on opinion survey data.  Like the forum report, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation last year, also found that “the US was not in any imminent danger of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology.” The use of the word “imminent” is perhaps the most telling aspect of the Rand Corporation’s conclusion about American competitiveness.

The US lost ground to much smaller countries like Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, Singapore and also to one of it's main competitors, China.  Unlike the US, all of these countries are pursuing government-sponsored initiatives designed to promote innovation and global competitiveness. Some of the elements of these initiatives include education, workforce development training, intellectual property protection and immigration. Surprisingly, results from the foundation report (adjusted for population and size of each economy) showed that the US ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan was number one) and fourth in the number of science and technology researchers (again Sweden was first). Over all, Singapore ranked first in innovation and competitiveness. As some of you may know, Singapore--for the past 10 years--has heavily invested in the life sciences and has managed to induce some of world’s leading bioscientists to immigrate.

One of the main recommendations of the report suggests that the federal government ought to follow the lead of the individual states, many of which developed state government-sponsored programs designed to attract investment, talent and improve the work force skills of  local would be employees. Further, the report specifically recommends that the federal government offers tax breaks and incentives to induce American companies to innovate at home rather than outsource R&D activities abroad. Some of these incentives could include tax research tax credits  and increased federal funding or corporate tax breaks for workforce development programs.

Finally, one of the most shocking statistics that I heard in President Obama’s speech to Congress last evening was that 50% of American students drop out of high school and over 50% of college students never complete their education. This begs the question: How can America expect to remain competitive when a majority of its population is less educated than the rest of the developed world? 

A past commitment to education is what propelled the US to become a world leader in innovation and competitiveness.  To regain its past status as an innovator, the US must overhaul and vastly improve is primary, secondary and post secondary education system. This is something that cannot wait—the future of American depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ( give teaching a shot)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link