There is this new so-called Science Debate 2008 and I have been exchanging e-mails with the person responsible for its establishment. He is behind science and funding. Yet, when I try to present the critical experiences of being in the situation, I am told, 'thanks for the good points; we'll bring them up if there is an opportunity.' Should this not be part of the core mission of Science Debate? In a time when we are thinking about driving science through innovation, who is going to carry out the work and write the grants? Innovation just doesn't depend on a doubling of the budget; then a catastrophe in which the investments being made are lost because of unsustainable vision and management.

The critical point here is that giving more money (a finite decision) does not make sense when there are already too many postdocs unable to find fulfilling opportunities. I pointed out that the investment made in someone in grad school (avg. 6 years) and postdoc (4 years) is about $200 K in stipends alone... not even mentioning the money used for indirect and the actual research experimentation. The investment has been made; at the same time, those investments are now discarded. The sustainable solution is to enable opportunities in which those with degrees can move into places where they are valued for the skills they have. A fluid ability to make such a transition is important. Industries that simply use a search engine to get a person into a highly specified job description is just not feasible. The skills acquired during grad school are incredibly multifaceted; one truly needs to be able to showcase these to the world in a way that makes sense. As there are critical places were we do not have enough MDs, why are there not programs that allow for the accelerated MD program for PhDs? (Of course, not everyone can make this transition, but I think that this could be a great way to get physician scientists.) I have seen too many posters on the walls that encourage MDs to get into basic and translational research.... I understand the economics of this, but I think that there are also ways to utilize the talent that is already in the pipeline.

-Meredith