Too many chemists -- the letters

The reader response to Beth Halford's article on whether or not we've been overproducing Ph.D.s is in at Chemical and Engineering News. While most of the letters rehash many of the arguments that we've all had (Yes, too many chemists! No, not enough chemists!), there were a couple that presented some interesting viewpoints:

Entrepreneurship? Stephen Greer of Lansing, Michigan writes the following as part of his letter:

Nowhere in the article did I see a mention of young Ph.D.s striking out on their own and commercializing their own ideas. It’s called entrepreneurship. It’s been happening for years with biologists, many of whom founded those biotech companies. Ditto for those midcareer chemists who find themselves in a downsizing crisis. Entrepreneurship is now part of the culture in the U.S. Scientists have been doing this for 200 years, going back to E. I. du Pont de Nemours.

There should be plenty of jobs for chemists, especially in materials science, a specialty that is on the vanguard of a revolution. And materials science spans many different chemistry specialties: polymers, inorganics (batteries), and more. But these jobs will likely be at smaller companies. Some of those chemists should be encouraged to nurture their own ideas and commercialize them. It is a hard way to make a living, but very satisfying and with the potential for profound success. Professors should be telling their students starting in the undergrad years to be open to striking out on their own and forming their own enterprises with the ideas only chemists can conjure.

While I actually think entrepreneurship is a great idea for every young chemist, the problem is this: not every research problem can be commercialized. In addition, who's going to fund this boost in entrepreneurship? Venture capitalists are not exactly handing out free money these days, you know? More business acumen is going to be a handy solution, but it's hardly going to be a panacea for unemployed chemists.

Cui bono? Michael Baird of Kingston, Ontario writes:

Indeed, while one might well carry out research in chemistry because one enjoys it, no one should limit his or her horizons to what a supervisor does or, worse, to what a supervisor deems fashionable. What one really accomplishes in a quality graduate program is developing the abilities to reason, to solve problems, and to work effectively. With this broader purpose in mind, doctoral candidates should be mentored to understand that there can be interesting jobs, often involving research that is extraordinarily challenging, outside of their current, necessarily very narrow areas of expertise and interest.

I suspect that most chemists know this to be the case. However, I suspect that most chemists wish to stay within their field for any number of reasons (comfort, direct expertise, etc.) but one psychological one in particular: it justifies the cost of graduate school. I'll even give it a name:

CJ's fallacy of graduate school sunk costs: If you can find a job in your field of chemistry, that means that X grueling years of graduate school were worth it.

One can easily imagine the other thought process: I spent 5 years learning ABC chemistry, now I can't find a job doing that, but I did find a job doing MNO chemistry. Guess those 5 years were wasted! Of course, this is a faulty line of thinking. But I'll bet that it's common.

Finally, who benefits from this line of mentoring? Not the mentor, that's for sure.

Huh? Readers, if you can find a common thread in William Larsen of Southington, CT's letter, I'd like to hear it. Here it is, in all its glory:

Although one must admire John M. Deutch and George M. Whitesides, their collective perspective on the state of our art represents that of but one town (albeit quite a town) in an ever more multifaceted technical world.

The chemistry profession is not responsible for the financial boondoggles that are stripping government research funding bare. At General Electric (my employer, once home to a fellow named Langmuir), 39 new U.S. openings for scientists have been posted in the past 28 days (www.ge.com/careers). Not so bad.

My advice to college students: If I were an aspiring young chemist (I am old), I would again major in chemistry or chemical engineering. But because of the changing times, I would now minor in geology and attend with glee any ACS symposia on the early- and late-transition metals and the lanthanides. Who else but surface scientists (that is, chemists) are going to bring the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in for a landing?

I regret to inform Dr./Mr. Larsen that there are only 3 current chemistry openings at GE.

Ultimately, I think he's right -- there are a lot of Big Problems left for chemists to solve. But those positions don't seem to be coming anytime soon for all the unemployed Ph.D. chemists that are out there. Let's hope that things will change sooner rather than later.