This is a thread on ENDING TEMPORARY POSITIONS IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.

I wrote this in response to some comments. I’m fleshing out my thoughts and shaping my opinions. I share to provoke discussion and introspection. It's ~500 words. https://twitter.com/JaseGehring/status/1304445376758337538

First, it is entirely rational to compete within the current system based on your CV. I recognize this is how I will be judged, and I act accordingly. I don't blame others for doing the same. But, “you get what you select for”; so, are we selecting for CV builders or scientists?

Here is the root cause our dilemma: PhD students, postdocs, and assistant professors are all in *artificially* temporary jobs.

Artificial meaning they are only temporary jobs because we say so.

In these positions, lateral movement is practically forbidden, and arbitrary term limits mean career success is based on repeatedly convincing your next employer of your previous accomplishments.

This has highly desirable effects from a dispassionate high level: labor is very cheap, and the workforce self-motivates to an extreme degree. Researchers are constantly stressing and pushing to make the next career leap. They take on as much as possible.

But this is NOT a competitive market, it’s the opposite, and there are corresponding disastrous impacts on quality of life and, i would argue, quality of science. Most are aware of frequent work/life imbalance. Here's a couple examples of how science suffers, too:

1. Failure, a normal aspect of science, seriously threatens early career researchers while senior PIs are somewhat shielded from failure by directing multiple projects across multiple temporary researchers.

2. Publications, nominally a way to share science, have been gamified into convincing editors/reviewers at high-IFJs to accept our work, warping our projects from start to finish. Y'all realize publish or perish is a f***ing terrible way to do the best science, right?

There is no competition across these early career positions, only extreme competition for entry at each successive stage. Most scientists are forced to physically move multiple times whether they want to or not. Even if they find a great position, it can only last for a few years

Timing can make or break a project. Talent is constantly being drained out of every lab in the name of "training".

And I would argue "training" is used as first and foremost as justification for running projects through an inexperienced, low-paid workforce.

Projects frequently die as people move away based on arbitrary time limits. Someone should really add up how much time and money are dumped in the trash every time a grad student cleans out their freezer.

This step-wise, partially-competitive market, combined with the inherent difficulty in objectively judging the quality of a scientist, means we default to counting lines on a CV, and researchers behave accordingly.

An alternative proposal: END PhD programs. END postdoc positions. Cancelled. Keep terminal master’s degrees that have both class/lab components and a small thesis. That’s your ‘training’.

Everyone after that is a “Researcher”, with a pay/promotional scale based on experience and contributions. Lateral moves are possible, and talent migrates to the best environments. NO arbitrary end dates. This is a job, maybe even a career.

The pay scale is NOT pre-determined or standardized. High-level, accomplished scientists can take on responsibilities like leading large projects, training less-experienced lab members, reviewing grants.

A management/fundraising/promotional track is an option: basically the current PI track with no mods. This can be higher-paying, depending on the market. You can keep the concept of tenure if you think it's so special.

Prestigious conference talks and awards are distributed between top bench-scientists and the management class as appropriate, replacing the current practice of managers presenting "trainees'" handiwork by default.

Expected results: university research is basically unchanged. Universities can place a tax on lab scientists as a more honest version of PhD student "tuition". Science may become more expensive, to the direct benefit of scientists. Experience is retained within laboratories.

Training is unchanged. Managers will see it in their interest to train their talent, and senior researchers will willingly share their skills. This is the current system, just without the terrifying possibility of career failure every 5 yrs or to grotesque concept of independence

No one is locked in to a position if their interests change, their life changes, or the situation in a given lab changes. Normalize scientists changing universities and labs within universities whenever they please.

Competition in the form of CV-burnishing is reduced because positions are progressive within a laboratory rather than temporary and staggered across institutions. You are accountable to your current supervisor, not the committee at your next institution.

If you want to change jobs, you will of course need to demonstrate your achievements in the form of a CV/resume just like every other job. But not on an arbitrary clock. Managers will have more power to terminate workers, too, that's how it goes.

Scientists are judged by peers in their institutions who know them/their contributions personally as well as by the broader community placing value on productive, innovative projects. Funding is distributed to successful operations and creative ideas.

In short, it works a lot like the current system. That's because these temporary positions are, in the end, exploitative and unnecessary.

When faced with an unbalanced system, the question must always be asked, "Who is benefiting from this power dynamic?"