<p>A main point of the article in Nature is that the research funding allows for hiring of graduate students and post docs but not permanent PIs. This creates a distortion in the preparation of scientists, so that there is a ‘PhD bubble’. It also implies that the universities are complicit by accepting the funding to generate more degreed scientist than can be gainfully employed.</p>
<p>I’ve seen this at the lab where I work. Over the past decade, PI positions have declined by 25%, technical positions have shifted from permanent to temporary, and PIs compete for sufficient funding to hire post docs.</p>
<p>While I agree with Inmotion12 that it is a ‘buyers beware’ world and students bear some responsibility in defining a successful career. I do worry as a father to a budding scientist that universities are upfront with students about career prospects. </p>
<p>I don’t necessarily agree with Inmotion12’s ‘adapt or don’t’ argument. I think that is too simplistic.</p>