Article on Science PhDs in the UK vs US

There's a very interesting article that was just published in Nature regarding a PhD in Biomedical Sciences in the US vs the UK.  I don't know how to attach the article (it's a PDF) but I can e-mail it to anyone who's interested.  My husband finished his 6 year PhD last year in the US and is now doing his first (hopefully only) postdoc here in the UK, so I found the article to be quite interesting.  Here's how it starts...

"Nothing illustrates the powerful lure of scientific discovery better than the choice of academic research as a career. In which other professions would you spend ten years in ‘training’—working grueling hours for very little pay—with only a slim chance of securing a permanent job at the end of it all? Nowadays, such is the norm in biomedical
research."

This is SO true.  My husband spent 13 years in college (5 year BS, 2 year MS, 6 year PhD) and everyone thought he was nuts!  Especially because they don't think of a postdoc as a job and think he's still going to school. 

What issue is it in?  Was it the one in Nature Medicine?  If so, here's a link to the full-text version.  I don't know if everyone will be able to read it (can't remember Nature's access rights), but people on university networks should be able to.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n11/full/nm1107-1265.html

What issue is it in?

NATURE MEDICINE VOLUME 13 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2007

I'll have to check that out at uni tomorrow - I don't have access privileges at home .

I'm not in the Biomedical Sciences, but I will be starting a PhD in the US in a few weeks time in the Earth Sciences, so it could be interesting to read in terms of the US vs UK aspect.

I'm not on a university server- would someone mind emailing me the article? I'm going to start a program in the UK next year. Thanks.

I'm not on a university server- would someone mind emailing me the article? I'm going to start a program in the UK next year. Thanks.

Not a problem, just need your e-mail address. 

I can get it as well. 

Thanks for that Karis.  It is always depressing validating to read these things in nature. 

My DH is 4 year BSc, 3 years MSc and 3 years PhD with 3 years working in between MSc and PhD and then 6 years post doc and he's on his second temporary position with no real solid prospects. 

Why are we doing this again?

E D I TO R I A L
Nothing illustrates the powerful lure of scientific discovery better than the choice of academic research as a career. In which other professions would you spend ten years in ‘training’—working grueling hours for very little pay—with only a slim chance of securing a permanent job at the end of it all? Nowadays, such is the norm in biomedical research.
These days, even established principal investigators struggle to find funding for their projects, so the prospects for young scientists wanting to obtain that first grant look bleaker than ever. As funding gets tighter, the science arena becomes more competitive. In the past, a single high-profile publication may have sufficed to garner a permanent academic position but, in today’s climate, one will no longer do. Unless graduate students are exceptionally lucky and prolific, a postdoc—or two—will be obligatory. If PhD work used to be viewed as the training for independent research, what is its value or purpose now?  There is a huge discrepancy in the length of time it takes to obtain a PhD in different countries. In the UK, Spain, Mexico and Australia, for example, the norm is three to four years.  Graduate students in the US can be stuck in the lab for seven or eight years—or longer—before completing their PhDs. In part, the difference is due to what’s expected from the degree.  In countries in which the length of time for PhD completion is shorter, the PhD may be seen as more of a learning experience, and students can graduate without any publications provided that they’ve produced a reasonable thesis. Financial considerations also play a part: in the UK and Mexico, funding lasts for only three to four years and then students must leave.  Which is the better system probably depends on who you ask. Ask the students and they would probably prefer the short PhD, as it allows them to try out research within a shorter time frame and get out early if they decide it’s not for them.
And if the purpose of a PhD is not simply training for a life
in academia, but also training in the sort of intellectual discipline
that can be used in activities aside from the bench, there
are clear advantages to not lingering around. Even for those
students who are keen to continue on in research, completing
a PhD in three years allows them to pursue the next step in a
The long and short of it
It can take twice as long to get a PhD in biomedical sciences in the US as it does in other countries such as the UK
and Australia. Are US PhDs worth more, or are there advantages to a speedier system?
different, perhaps more successful lab if they are not happy with the lab they chose as green, inexperienced novices.  Principal investigators might have a different viewpoint: why should they spend three years training a student, only for that student to leave the lab and pursue a postdoc elsewhere as soon as he or she becomes competent enough to do experiments without close supervision? It’s only natural for researchers to want to maximize the return on their investment.
As scientists are a mobile, international bunch—first or second postdocs in another country are common—maybe PhDs should be standardized internationally, so that they carry the same weight everywhere.
However, what seem to matter more than the degree itself—at least for continuing on in academic research—are publications.
Perhaps there is already an international standard:
publications are evidence that the candidate has produced a solid piece of research. And, like it or not, the international measure for the quality of research is the quality of the publications that result from it.
It may be in the interest of some students to hasten the PhD and finish up within three years—largely of those who have decided academia is not for them. Perhaps such students should be encouraged to quit early and get out with a Master’s degree. Leaving a PhD program with no publications puts an individual at a serious disadvantage in pursuing a research career, particularly if he or she wants to postdoc in the US. And there’s no getting back three years.
On the other hand, seven or eight years for a PhD is clearly too long. Perhaps students simply need guidance in how to choose a lab in which they are likely to be productive. For example, students in the US get to ‘rotate’ through a few labs, spending a few months in each, before making a final choice.  At the end of the day, though, one pertinent question remains: how many publications constitute sufficient evidence of competitiveness and competence? The more publications are required to secure a permanent position, the longer the ‘training’ and the greater the risk in investing so much time for so few job opportunities at the end. Is the cycle warranted, and, if not, how do we break it?
NATURE MEDICINE VOLUME 13 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2007 1 2 6 5
© 2007 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine

There's a few things missing in this article.  It goes on the assumption that a PhD is actually a training ground for budding scientists.  In  reality, it's not.  Yes, the students get good training but they are in fact, carrying out the work of their supervisor. Getting papers out is only a byproduct and many times, is at the discretion of the supervisor.   The best interests of the students and how they can apply their lab experience to their careers rarely comes into it.  If you are really lucky, you will get a good mentor who will actually take the responsibility of training you for a future career but that is VERY rare in today's day and age. 

In Canada certainly, medical research is done on the backs of the phD students.  In the US, it is done on the backs of the post-docs.  In the UK, it is done on the backs of PhD's who have little training in their short degrees and are in absolutely no position to compete for faculty positions.  PhD students in the UK pretty much get a degree and not much else. 

Why are we doing this again?

I'm sure I'll be asking myself that many times throughout the upcoming year, while my husband searches for his first job back in the U.S.  His work permit expires 31 Dec 2008 and so far he hasn't been able to get funding to secure a work permit extension (he's a U.S. citizen and not covered by the British Heart Foundation like all of his other labmates).  All of my husband's friends have ended up in industry after doing two postdocs, which terrifies my husband who really wants to stay in academics.

They recommend encouraging people who don't want to be in academia to get out with Masters.  Last time I checked there were numerous research positions in industry that require PhDs, and some even require post-docs.  The whole system is a mess and needs to be overhauled for the interest of science, but I fear there's too much money invested in keeping things as they are.

I do agree with a standardisation though. 

DH HAD to have 3 published (yes THREE) first author papers to get his degree in Canada.  How ridiculous,  particularly since most people coming out of their phd's don't have any.  Certainly not in the UK.  they're lucky to get one middle author paper. 

And there is absolutely no standard for jobs either.  You could have a hundred papers and the job would still go to someone with 9 (yes, that happens, often).  Or you could have a hundred papers and they tell you it's not enough.  There is so much nepotism and incestuous hiring that goes on in science.  the requirements have been raised so much because of the glut of baby boomers in science.  they are now top heavy and expect the new researchers to compete directly with them for funding.  I shudder to think what will happen when they all actually finally retire or die because only then will we see the colossal mess they've left science in.

Oh yah, don't get me started on this topic.....   

I do agree with a standardisation though. 

DH HAD to have 3 published (yes THREE) first author papers to get his degree in Canada.  How ridiculous,  particularly since most people coming out of their phd's don't have any.  Certainly not in the UK.  they're lucky to get one middle author paper. 

We had a 3 first author paper rule in my department.  They didn't care where the papers were published, but you were supposed to have them.

I just asked hubby by e-mail if he had a paper requirement for his PhD and here's his reply (there was no requirement for his program at UW)....

"Paper requirements are silly for several reasons.  Do you take into consideration impact factor?  A paper in Nature is worth 10 papers in JBC, but there is really no way to fair way to compare the two.  Do you consider middle authorships, or shared first authorships?  Some projects are harder to publish, or take longer, especially in Physics. Those papers tend to have 30 authors!  What if you are working in some obscure field where it is very difficult to publish in good journals (like bovine platelets!)."

I think the publishing requirement is a good one regardless of impact factor.  As a PhD student, publishing their own work should be a part of their training.  You cannot survive in science without publishing.  As a student, it is more about the exercise of publishing rather than the impact of the journal.

As well, it gives the phd supervisor incentive to see that the phd student gets their work out.  Otherwise 1. the student could hang on for years or 2. the supervisor will just take credit for all the work and leave the student with nothing.  At least with something published in their name, they leave their degree with something. 

Also, impact factor doesn't tell the whole story because if you are in a specialised field, the impact factor of the journals you publish in would be small but those journals may be very well respected in the field.