Are We Short on Scientists?

[Xittenn]

So here's the question, is there an overall global shortage of scientists?

 

 

The underlying reason for the question is a bit selfish I guess. I personally highly admire the scientific community and although I have nay a degree or certification in any science related subject I like to think of myself as one anyway. The impression that I get from the scientific community however is that this is in fact not the case. I would love to be what the community considers a real scientist and this is why I have returned to school for a degree in science. But--I really hate the but--it seems that I am still incapable of acting under pressure, something I have struggled with my whole life from academics to any job I've ever had. I fully landed on my face in my last physics quiz and was unable to properly formulate through a work equation involving a spring attached to a mass connected to a rolling sphere over a pulley connected to a block sliding on an incline under a force parallel to the incline pulling the block up the hill. The theory is nothing special and I can do this sort of question . . . in my own time.

 

So this leaves me with the question why am I even trying to do this. Well for starters I see that many in the scientific community are not willing to go out on the ledge and strive for the little bits and pieces that could make the difference in many areas. Granted my reasons here are again selfish, if moving technology forward means that I will somehow improve my life, lifestyle, or longevity I am one to jump on that band wagon. There are obviously other ways that I can participate like in raising funds for research and appropriating donations accordingly. I could probably invest in research independently and delineate activities from above. I know how many scientists feel about this sort of talk as well but from where I am this is a possibility and something that I can work towards.

 

So what's the problem then? Well this goes back to the question of the post, is there an overall global shortage of scientists? One of my driving reasons for pursuing science directly is that I simply do not know any scientists and I know a hell of a lot of people--ajb doesn't count I have never actually met him. I have always felt that it is somehow my responsibility to humanity to overcome my faults and do what it is I do best, solve problems. I guess I could philosophies about the way problems could be solved from my couch but I don't regard this sort of behaviour as being productive. I'm seeing an educational psychologist to see if there is in fact a barrier between my studying and my consequential success in examination. I'm also considering changing programs from a Major in Biochemistry to a Double Minor in Math and English, I figure I could go back to game design. The problem with my fall back plan is that it makes me feel like an irresponsible human being.

 

I know this is a lot to read and if you are still reading it you are probably one of two or three. I'm just hoping to get some perspective on this because it means a lot to me and I value the opinions of those currently in the community. Just to put perspective on this my current average is probably around 72%. The real conflict comes in where I am a mentor to most of the students and the teachers regard me as someone as having a much higher capacity within the sciences. My teachers don't question my ability to perform valuable research, but if I can't make the grade it won't matter anyway.

 

Thanks for any feedback,

 

Xittenn

[swansont]

It's an open-ended question. You can do a lot with a science degree or even just the benefit of taking some science classes — you have training that has developed your problem-solving skills and can probably think critically, and these skills are transferrable to a lot of fields. From that perspective we have a shortage of people with science training.

 

If you want to get a job in your field, that's a different story.

[Xittenn]

From that perspective we have a shortage of people with science training.

 

Right, and I can be one of these people! My concern is not my ability to get a job but my ability to be a useful human being. I guess another way to say this is, the present state of human advancement is not where I feel it should be or possibly could be, and I feel that I could benefit from the theoretical level of higher advancement achievable.

 

Is the current rate of advancement hindered by the number of employable scientists or is it stifled by a lack of resources present?

 

I know there is some concern about the law of diminishing returns and all but this for me is still an open question because no one has ever answered it directly. I have no problem being actively involved behind the scenes, but I'm still not out of the research game yet. But honestly if there is more than enough qualified professionals even in the case of more resources provided than I would rather not waste my efforts to fill a space that doesn't need filling. I would love to be an active researcher but I am very capable of finding a fulfilling role elsewhere if it is not my optimal operating point. I mean I wouldn't be giving math up, and there are plenty of other fun jobs for me to fill that involve critical thinking that do not impose the pressure that is keeping me from performing optimally.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's all good, is this a poor attitude to have if I want to be a responsible human being? I know how weird that sounds . . . .

Edited March 15, 2012 by Xittenn

[CaptainPanic]

Is the current rate of advancement hindered by the number of employable scientists or is it stifled by a lack of resources present?

 

Both, but not exclusively those two things.

I think there is also a maldistribution of resources and research (focus on the wrong things), conservatism ("why advance when it was so good in the old days?"), a general lack of consensus in the world, misplaced priorities, a maldistribution of power, and a whole bunch of other socio-economic factors.

 

But a higher level of education would certainly help the world. And having more resources would make life easier too.

[Appolinaria]

Why are you fretting over a 72%? That can easily be brought up.. it's okay if you didn't do so well on your last quiz. If you don't work well under pressure, talk to your teacher about it, so they can give you extra help preparing for problems like that.... that are under a time limit. Or talk to a specialist, or your doctor. Maybe you can be allowed to have more time for these kinds of things on tests?

[Xittenn]

@CaptainPanic

I can't agree more about the socioeconomic issues, this was one of the main reasons for my choosing to undertake the degree.

 

 

The fact was I was prepared to fight socioeconomic issues, not my ability to complete the work at a sufficient level. As far as I was concerned throwing time at the problem was an appropriate means of resolve and it wasn't! I would probably need the Double Minor in Math and English to be competent in science and I'm not prepared to go that distance. I'll just have to find other ways to make the things that I see as problems better.

 

 

@Appolinaria

I'm still doing a degree, and will still focus on math, science is just too hard. It's a kick in the face but I don't have the option of spending half my life in school fixing my aptitude problems. I'll always have my books and will one day probably have some pretty cool toys in my basement as well--like an electron microscope! I can always go back when I'm 60. . . ..

[CharonY]

I agree with swansont. In academia and pure research areas we have basically a surplus on scientists (i.e. less positions than graduates). However, the base level of scientific education, and with that I do not mean the memorization of science-related info, but things problem solving skills, critical thinking and being educatable (i.e. desire to learn new things and challenge own preconceptions), is low.

[Xittenn]

This is very interesting because although I have always been aware of this lack of general awareness I have never thought of it as a pressing issue. I can see where an increase in the awareness of the general public could be beneficial in expunging some of the socioeconomic issues that are barriers to progress in many fields like environmental awareness, energy issues, medicine, and medical technologies. More awareness and a greater ability in performing critical thinking would substantially improve the way we approach all professions and even how we relate to each other socially. It would also improve the communicability of idea to application in that we could see technologies more quickly realized at the application level as a cause of a higher awareness of their existence. I will definitely be more aware of how the flow of knowledge is acting within my community after this conversation.

[Joatmon]

I may well get some negative votes for this but here goes. A balanced life is the way to real satisfaction in life. (IMO) To know your limitations and find employment that keeps you near the upper limit of your limitations and which makes you feel valued and useful is the ideal. Trying to be more than you are must be very stressful. Knowing you are useful is very pleasant. I speak as someone now retired, who had to leave school at age 16, who has no university degree, but think my epitaph can be "He certainly had a life". I have had time to relax and taste all the other joys and satisfactions of a life well lived. Don't think I have just coasted through life as my intelligence and logical abilities have been used in such tasks as fault finding complex radar systems and as a computer customer engineer (in the 1970's when computer systems were large and unreliable). You only get one shot at life - enjoy it!

Edited March 16, 2012 by Joatmon

[Carvone]

I remember reading an article a few years back. It's premise was basically that there was a real brain drain in the sciences, since everyone educated knows that it would mean pretty low money and working at the pressures of the corporate elite to continually try to improve on the alrady heavily-modified "better" mousetrap, and those with great grades (representative of those with high ambition and intelligence) tended to go into where access to the money was by studying corporate finance. Basically, it said those in the sciences were in it for true love of this profession and wanting to know about nature and its underlying laws, but would be destined for middle class working "slavery" to the Man (.... on Wall Street).

 

But hey, it's a good thing that all the most intelligent geniuses in the world decided to go to Wall Street since their supreme wisdom, intelligence and foresight has led to an unparalleled period of economic prosperity and stability!!

[ecoli]

if salary is related to the demand of labor, then judging by salaries in the sciences I'd say no.

[CaptainPanic]

if salary is related to the demand of labor, then judging by salaries in the sciences I'd say no.

If reward would be counted as a function of (1) money, (2) freedom, (3) an interesting job, (4) flexible working hours, (5) a flexible job description and finally (6) a huge sense of pride about what you're doing... Then scientists might be among the best paid people in the world.

 

But it is not. It's counted as money only. And I agree, we deserve more money.

[CharonY]

(2) is also not guaranteed, especially if you are an experimental scientist, as that depends on whether you get funding. (3) I agree. (4) depends, in reality it tends to translate in working 60+ hours a week, so in reality you have less average flexibility (in a 40h work week you would have 20 hours more to do other things). (5) I am not sure what it means and you can have (6) in many jobs, especially with a big ego.

Edited March 22, 2012 by CharonY

[Xittenn]

The principle however interesting is not entirely relevant to the question because it assumes that need is directly proportional to demand. The need for scientists can be far overshadowed by the profitability in these ventures hence no demand. So we could very well need scientists to advance the technology but have a complete unwillingness to venture on account of an nonexistent profit margin. If the SRATC is too great so that the LRATC is far from seeing its return to scale we will see firms never opening to begin with.

 

My personal stance on this now is I will pursue my degree as a Double Major Math and Computer Science and I will work in planning and analysis. As I grow I will open the industry as I see fit under the condition that I can perform such activity. I believe that current markets are competitive under the current market situation, but at the same time I believe that the current market is in its current position because it is underdeveloped and requires a new perspective.

[ecoli]

The principle however interesting is not entirely relevant to the question because it assumes that need is directly proportional to demand. The need for scientists can be far overshadowed by the profitability in these ventures hence no demand. So we could very well need scientists to advance the technology but have a complete unwillingness to venture on account of an nonexistent profit margin.

 

If there's no profit margin, is there really a need?

[Xittenn]

If there's no profit margin, is there really a need?

 

There is no reason why there can't be a need and no profit margin. If the product under current technology and innovation is inferior and of no utility then we see a suspension of action towards technologies that are of value. Following the marginal cost line of producing an inferior good with low demand the fair market value will be such that it is less than the average variable cost of production and so firms will shut down. If firms do not have a source of income that they can use to invest in future technologies the production possibilities boundary will never move, the product will never improve, and the market is left to rely on charity to sustain itself. Very few of the more significant fields of research are in a position to output goods that can establish a fair market price that is sustainable. I would like to change this because some of these technologies could see me living a better life for longer, and so for me it is worth the investment. Most people do not think like me and so to them the risk in such an investment is not realistic and is such that the benefits of these theoretical technological advancements are currently not being realized.