Here's my thought:
****
The MD/PhD students/applicants in this thread have a short-term view. The long-term reality is that the number of actual physician-scientist jobs out there for new graduates is small and decreasing. The more the funding is cut or the more unstable the funding becomes, the less your chances of getting a physician-scientist position.
I ran smack into this when I finished residency. I had no fellowship or research job options. So I'm a clinician. So is just about everyone else graduating nowadays. I'm not even sure what the point is of having all these MD/PhD programs and preserving our funding if there's not going to be jobs to use these degrees at the end of the pipeline.
Agree a thousand percent. If there were a 20% NIH budget cut, frankly I think 50% of the T series grants should be cut. PIs should just use their R series grants to hire staff on a temporary basis to do the work like every other normal business. This is also what some of the well known people on the Internet says (DrugMonkey, etc.)
50-80% percent of "training" positions in biomedical research should not exist. The very idea of needing a "postdoctoral fellowship" is pure mythical marketing BS created by lack of funding. You can't possibly learn all the skills, and PIs used to just have collaborators if they don't know something. AS THEY SHOULD. MSTP grads end up doing "some research", but that's because 1) they self select (because of existing wealth) 2) they self subsidize with their poorly paid clinical activities. Ha--Medicare dollars subsidizing biomedical research, clever! This is not a "success"...it's a compromise. Lower tier PhD programs are not worth going to. It's just a fact. Lower tier MD/PhD programs are worth going to, but only because 1) med school is paid for. 2) the MD is worth something. Lower tier PhD programs (I'm talking anything below USNWR 50), except for certain fields (i.e. comp sci, econ, etc.) are basically a worthless waste of time from a financial perspective. Do you know who in the end get faculty positions? 1) wealthy people, who don't really care how much they get paid, so they can afford to apply for grants and fail and fail and fail. 2) people with pedigree and got really lucky. 3) at times, workaholics who have no life outside of work. And even then your chances are very bad if you aren't lucky or don't know the right people. In fact, there are plenty of examples of people who work really hard and don't get anywhere at all and ruin their lives. A few even committed suicide. And of course this rules out women and minorities, because if you grew up poor or need to support/care for a family, how can you possibly be a workaholic and make 42k for 5 years, even if you wanted to, then apply for funding that has a 10% shot that only pays half your salary for another 5 years?
And don't get me even started on "talking to politicians". Politicians have NEVER, EVER, EVER cared one bit about the scientists working in the field. They only care about science because at times (i.e. Alzheimer's, cancer, mental health) serves some PR purpose. Don't you see that whoever Congressman you talked to who seemed "really nice" and friendly to science will NEVER think about you for more than 1 second when they vote? They have much more pressing things to worry about that actually affect their district votes.
The only way science can influence politics is if it organized itself just as any other special interest group. And in order to do that, you have to first become exclusive through licensure, guilding, etc. like the physicians. second, have a lot of money. Which, is feasible in theory, but in practice won't happen for a while since the community frankly lacks leadership.
