Volume 1, Issue 1
Page 9
From the president, continued
teach? Who would "mentor" the appren ces...the next genera on of scien sts (Spoiler alert! They provide us with
their vision of the future of science, see the next paragraph)? Their third recommenda on is to broaden the "career
paths" for students, again iden fying "alterna ve" (yes, in quotes again) voca onal opportuni es outside of their specific training and goals (i.e. send them away from science, to something else, when they are done with them).
I think in their world, the current leaders of this charge to change the approach of scien fic funding and development
have a very clear model of the future of science. Their fourth and fi h recommenda ons are to increase pay, but limit
terms, for post-doctoral posi ons and to increase the use of "staff scien sts.” Both of these changes will reduce the
need for graduate students and, therefore, eliminate the need for the appren ce (yep, the post-docs and staff sciensts would perform the PI's science). The laboratory would then be the domain of those who do science, not those that
train the scien sts of the future. There would be an increase in the overall costs of doing science, but there would be
fewer, smaller laboratories and none of the stress associated with student development issues. Sounds much like an
industry model to me, not an academic one. A path that many have predicted science was on, and one that would lead
to fewer inves gators, greater quan ty of data, less discovery...That is, mediocre - yet very expensive - science.
When my students come to me with problems, I suggest to them to move from complaining about the issue to coming
up with solu ons to the problem. When I apply the same pressure on myself in this par cular situa on, I cannot come
up with an easy "solu on." Well, that is not necessarily true. I tell myself, my current students, and my past students all
the same thing: "If you work hard, good things happen" and "The cream rises to the top, eventually." I agree that this is
not a solu on, but it is a way to balance what I would want to happen for my students with the reality of the situa on
(for both myself and my students).
My ques on for the membership of FUN, my charge if you will allow for such a thing, is to think about what our role in
this system should be. What should we be telling/working with/inspiring our students to work toward? How much of
the doom and gloom should we share with them? Should discouragement be part of our teaching and research philosophies? I will be pos ng this essay on our listserv where we can begin to have an open discussion about these issues.
Please feel free to share your thoughts, ideas, counter-arguments, vision for change, whatever you would like to add to
the conversa on. It is my hope that through these conversa ons (and addi onal conversa ons at the upcoming FUN
workshop in Ithaca, August 1-3) we might begin to forge an approach that helps shape the way we mentor our students.
The Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience has been on the frontlines for many years when it comes to issues associated with student growth and development in the neurosciences. We have produced, at least, the majority of students
that seek graduate training in neuroscience. We are part of the "problem," at least a major component, contribu ng to
the source of well prepared and interested neuroscience graduate students (if you call that a problem). We should play
a role in how the future of how our science should look, for our own good and the good of our students. Our unbiased/
biased insights should at least provide alterna ve perspec ves to the current alterna ves, maybe just to bring an alterna ve approach that may be in the best interest of the whole rather than the few. I hope
these thoughts and ideas inspire our group of great minds to work together and develop
What should we
new ideas that can help move science forward in a manner that is best for the whole of
society.
be telling/working
1) h p://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2014_R&Dbudget_STEM.pdf
2) Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science Technology Engineering Mathema cs. Georgetown University Center on Educa on and the Workforce.
3) Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research
from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the Na onal Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5773-5777.
with/inspiring our
students to work
toward?