Man has travelled from from stone-age to modern times due to scientific interventions. However, as all work is driven by money, it is the duty of world governments to double up the existing grants for science - teaching and research and also make science an essential basic subject upto high-school levels.

The first question we should ask is "is the amount of money we currently spend on science and technology justified". Do we get back as much from the investment as we put in? Do we need a lot of people studying the same problem or a few highly qualified ones? It's my natural inclination to think the more the merrier, but I have no data to show that it's fiscally responsible or effective.

Some say that what we are seeing is a correction of sorts. We had a glut of new PhDs and no careers or even jobs for them. With the reduction in government funding what we will see is a reduction in training grants to universities and more people will be turned off from getting a PhD because of the reduced prospects of securing positions and/or maintaining research labs.

If the current grants system is fair then the best and brightest will always get their grants funded and research will continue. Nevertheless, one can argue that the granting mechanisms are not so just and qualified individuals and worthy projects don't get funded. But that is another story. The future of science will be bright regardless of fiscal decisions. Men (women included) are innately inquisitive creatures and we will find ways to study the world we live in.

Hello Sir,

First of all, I would like to pass a warm vote of thanks to you for raising such an important question.

Yes, we should encourage the next generation to select science as career option. For any country a strong scientific enterprise is essential for the growth of the economy, society and off course the education system, which urges for the exigency of young bloods becoming excited enough by science that they resolve to become a professional in the field. And if you are good, you can produce result in any sector you are working in.

The only problem that can be seen nowadays demotivating students to take science as a career is the lack of job opportunities in this field. When you talk about India, our government spends almost nothing on research. An engineer, a doctor or a MBA student get way more than what our students get during their PhD period. This prospect needs to be balanced. I am not against other communities. But at least government should think about the students who have selected research as their career knowing its limitations as far as job prospects are concerned. I was surprised when I read that sweepers in USA make more money than PhD students. Government needs to take a lot many steps to encourage students to select science as a career. Apart from increasing grant for research, they should also work on some outreach program kind of thing. We have such a program at our university. We visit schools across Kerala and demonstrate basic experiments related to Optics to the school kids. We also invite students for such program at our university. These programs have been a great success. We have got many young minds who selected science as a career after seeing our demonstration. These types of social awareness program should be promoted by the Government. We need to change the mindset of the society, how they see scientist.

And coming to the future of science, it will always be bright regardless of the various restraints. Its just like we need to give ourselves a little push.

Thanks,

Upkar Kumar

Hello Sir,

Again a good question from you.

According to me science is a two edged sword as having career and service in its both arms. In simple the one who decides which one is better he/she will get it. Someone can say science is meant for money. Right in their way alone. Curiosity made the base to the research in the ancient days. The same has turned into meant for money today.

Why?

Because of the politics. We can ask why and how? but we can't get the answer. hypothetical question to answer with.

So, when the people start to believe the true scientist's curiosity towards his/her dedication to the research, then only everything will be fixed.

With politeness I would like to remind all "Survival of the fittest". Which simply implies the curiosity towards the survival. So, either job or dedication in the name of science which stands at curiosity.

Competition will be there at everywhere. If we speak about science in context with job the fittest fellow will catch up quickly than others. That is the spirit and intelligence. Spirit and intelligence won't come without the curiosity.

Researcher may work for years without any money. But I can say that is the lack awareness towards betterment. if the is the case means Nobel prize would not exist. that is boost for the researcher.

So, at conclusion undoubtedly, i can say we can offer science as a career to the forthcoming generation. Science is the basis for everything. If we look science as a job alone we can't be anymore.

Thanks...

Hello sir,

It is very genuine question raised by you and the same question is in mind of many parents and young graduates. Recently I have completed my PhD from a Korean Univ. and waiting for a good opportunity to return to India.

Here the issue, I believe is very simple but answer will be really complicated. I believe your point of interest was on India and wish to put my view in different sections.

Research and development is the basic need for improving the science and even that is one of the most important topic in presidential campaign in USA. There is need of improving research quality in India.

I do agree all the sectors are important. But in my native, people consider Engineering as the most preferred field of education just bcz its giving better access to attractive job. True but this is causing an imbalance in the scientific community. Now there are very few colleges/Univ can be considered intellect and competitive institution (in basic science and also humanities) both in terms of quality of education, research and of course the students.

Compared to the funding or research interest in developed countries and China, its very low in India. Presently heard the funding has been improved and since 2000 the PMs of India (AB Vajpayee and MM Singh) have been stressing on improvement in basic research. I am from Agriculture area and the ICAR is recruiting young graduates (MSc or PhD holders) as scientist in through competitive exams and screening processes. Now DST, DBT, NAIP and many other funding agencies are encouraging to carry out good research projects and heard from my professors, there is no lack of funding but lack of qualified research personnel. Lack of interest in R&D for a prolonged period has made most of the Univ. to lose the quality they had or the new Univ. without proper direction. Now there is a need to improve the research personnel not only by number but also by quality.

The quality of education in India. I believe our education system is more concentrating on making technically sound graduates but not scientifically. A habit of questioning the day to day problems and finding solutions to such a problem has to become a major part of student life along with the normal curriculum.

With improvement in private sector, I believe there will be an increased rate of investment in the basic research. The development taking place in the present decade will give a different status in the near future, I believe the yr 2020 will be totally different from 2010. Now the fellowship for PhD students, SRFs or RAs has been increased significantly in recent yrs. hope that is because of encouragement from the govt. I am optimistic on an improved field of basic science in the years to come, there will be a huge demand for innovative young minds but still, who knows the future ?

I have not read other contributions but just want to share my personal feeling. I do bench work just because I like it. However, I am also holding a clinician's work. With bad economy any profession can not guarantee a prosperous future. I will encourage young generation dive into science only if (s)he has the heart for it. Good scientists are what the society need but a scientist will be exhausted very quickly when facing deadline for grants continuously. This is especially worrisome when most elite schools want their research scientists obtain their salary from funding agencies. The presnt policy creates a lot of big shots who know how to write good grant but not necessary good science. Sometimes I feel some successful scientists are more like successful businessmen who know how to sell themsleves. How many of us will encourage our own children to pursue music or art career? I ask all my children to learn instruments and they all love music but how many of us will be brave enough to encourage them, although I will not deter them if they have made up their mind, to choose music as a career? At the end, I will not encourage them to pursue what they do not want to do. To choose a career without true heart is a torture.

I can really feel the frustration from young talent scientists. Not only the funcing issue but also the opportunity in research. You can come to one institute but can not find any senior one wants to help you. Sometime another young faculty come in and is better protected because (s)he is in the right research field and can obtain the whole resource. Or, you can have someone come in because of good pedigree not ability. I believe that is the causes to scare away young generation scientists. But, unfortunately, with limited resource available, that is what we are facing nowadays.

In addition to agreeing with many of the previous comments, I do think it is important to really give an accurate view of the life of a scientist, whether in academia or in industry. The "inverted pyramid" scheme that is currently employed (many, many more graduate students and post-doc positions than careers) I think is not tenable over the long run, especially given the current global financial outlook. Though it has gotten better, getting realistic advice about science as a career is essential at an early stage (hopefully during undergraduate education). In a way, it is "too easy" to just say, well I am going to grad school because I can without really thinking about the long term career aspects. This system (and I am only speaking about the US) provides the resources to provide the necessary bodies to get science done, but unfortunately does little to support capable staff scientists. It is a shame that we spend these resources training scientists and getting them to a point that they are really good at the hands-on aspect of benchwork, and then make it practically impossible for them to continue to academia if they do not want to go the Principle Investigator route. It seems like a waste.

That all being said, it is an awesome privilege to get be a scientist. If that is what you want to try as a career, then I say go for it with eyes wide open, both to the wonders of discovery, but also the realities of getting good guidance and mentorship for making a sustainable career after your post-doc.

I agree with Scott. Unfortunately not only in developed countries but also in developing countries the governments keep increasing the number of graduate programs but never have any idea about whether it is necessary or not for the future. My home country increases the medical schools from 7 to 10 with dramatical decrease in birth rate (1/3 decrease in the meantime). Now there is a surplus of medical graduates than needed. So as the PhD programs with the production pipeline increased by 10-fold over 3 years with most of the new PhDs can not find an appropriate job or just compete with bachelor degree for jobs. So many successful PI hope to get more post-docs to do the benchworks but do not consider how to help them become independent. That is one of the reasons why I have seen so many good post-docs wind up entering into medical schools due to their frustration. We should not scare away young hearts but we also have the responsibility to let them understand the reality or to help them.

A very good question, indeed. when I am training students I often get asked this question and have a tough time answering it. It is paradoxical. Science is good, it is fun, it is important....but at the same time, the current state of affairs makes it difficult to survive in science. It is not as 'lucratrive' as other fileds and, depending on the country of course, researchers and scientists have to struggle for jobs and positions let alone funding for research. The scarcity of permanent jobs, growing competition, diminishing funding opportunities, all make it a very difficult field to be inscience. Therefore, I tell my students the truth. I tell them how nice and important it is. I tell them how noble it is; but I also tell them about the funding scenario and the job opportunities so that they can decide for themselves.

We have to understand that science is not like finance - it does not necessarily generate immediate profits or outcomes and even fails sometimes; but we have to realise that it is very important. People often dont realise that science is behind all kinds of developments and cannot be just shunned. Yes, we may not benefit from it so much directly but the question is, can we do without it? All the work that is being done in any scientific field may not yield perceivable results...but thats science....the data culminates into something that is beneficial.

Therefore, I think that the governments have to start making investments in science to keep the future generations 'interested' and to keep the science going.

Not only the government but also some big companies should step in to help scientists. Big cmpanies without reasonable investment in R&D will not be successful in the future. The war between mobile phone companies is giving us the warning.

I love doing science but as a PI, I find that the farther and farther I go, the more removed I am the bench. I am more often in my office writing grants, reviewing paper, pulling together lectures/presentations, filling in administrative paper work, etc etc etc. It seems that the only people who really get to do science- I mean sit at the bench and run the experiments and collect the data- are graduate students, post-docs, and PRAs. The bench work that the post-docs and graduate students are doing is only temporary as soon they will be in the same position I am. So really, the only people doing science are the PRAs.

If they truly loved science, I would encourage the younger generation to spend several years as a PRA first. Don't just use it as a stepping stone to graduate or medical school. Consider it as a career.

That said, I think we need to put a higher value on PRAs. We need to generate good, educated, meticulous PRA because they are typically the ones doing experiments and collecting the data. This might lessen the number of "cereal box" PhD flooding the job and funding market and increase the number of reliability and efficient PRAs.