"It might be worth pointing out that classic examples of soft-money (non-faculty) researchers doing world class work are Penzias and Wilson."
The current funding and job shortage in astronomy signals a dramatic change of direction in our profession. The individuals most acutely effected by this crisis are in non-faculty 'soft money' positions supported mostly from grants and contracts. However, one must realize that the vast numbers of soft money astronomers are not simply the result of producing too many PhDs for too few faculty jobs. Many of these individuals were 'created' to fulfill specific needs that resulted from the technological advances of the past 20 years. In the mid-to-late 1970s, the promising future of the great observatories program resulted in a call for a large number of research-capable scientists to participate in both instrumental development and scientific data analysis. Many people recognize the fact that programs such as HST would never have succeeded without these individuals. However, the current post cold war-driven change in the funding support for basic non-applied science has suddenly left a generation of capable and experienced scientists to face an uncertain future. Unfortunately, we have exacerbated the problem by continuing to produce PhDs at an alarming rate. While overproduction is a reasonable way to stimulate competition, the problem is worsened by the fact that large numbers of students strain the already overburden resources and many of these individuals are filled with unrealistic expectations and often inadequately trained to seek alternative employment.
For astronomy to continue to be healthy and diverse requires that we actively address the issues surrounding the funding and job crisis and seek viable solutions to the problems confronting soft money astronomers in general. However, this effort should be driven by more than just a sense of obligation. Soft money astronomers are a necessary and integral part of our profession both scientifically and technically. If our profession is to continue to grow with technology, we will need the expertise that many of these individuals offer.
In order to bring these issues to the forefront and to assist in seeking solutions, the Association of Research Astronomers instituted a survey of soft money astronomers in January of 1994 in an attempt to gather useful data on these individuals. The results of the survey are presented here. In response to the survey, many individuals also provided comments that eloquently express their feelings and concerns on a number of topics. These comments have served as the basis for the topical discussion that follows which summaries important issues like...
...PERCEIVED STATUS
"Our department now has more people on soft money than full-time positions. They have nothing to lose - they get overhead money and don't have to provide any guarantees or give voting rights to these other people. In addition, they are a cheap source of teaching labor.... So what incentive is there for universities to change? They have a good deal going and think soft money people should only be grateful for the opportunity to be associated with their prestigious institution."...age 45
"By the very nature of our position we are second class citizens at the University and many of the tenured faculty treat us as such. In general it is clear that the country needs to find a way to provide scientists stability outside of faculty slots since ultimately the need for scientists is greater than the need for faculty positions."...age 37
There is a general consensus among soft money astronomers that they are often perceived of as being of lesser quality and importance than their faculty counterparts. Often held up as an example of this is the fact that soft money astronomers are generally not represented on policy making panels or even in the AAS leadership. While such perceptions are certainly not universally held, experience indicates that such prejudice does exist. Unfortunately, this situation has led to an 'us and them' mentality which is both inappropriate and unhealthy. The results of the survey clearly show that soft money astronomers represent an equal and integral part of our profession with respect to both scientific productivity and service work (i.e. refereeing papers, NSF proposals, and serving on TAC/peer review panels). We must all work together to do what ever is necessary to eliminate negative perceptions and recognize the equality of and contributions made by all astronomers.
...MORALE
"I just noticed that 50% of the coauthors (i.e. 2 out of 4) on the 3 refereed papers I recently submitted are out of a job.......how can you work in such an environment?"...age 35
"I'm very concerned that the funding crisis is driving very poor science. I'm part of a large team, and in order to protect our funding we are constantly being pressured to produce papers to impress review committees -- the quality of the science is considered of secondary importance to the number of publications."...age 39
"Count me in as disillusioned, unhappy, and jaded. Asked to give 'science' as a career a grade, I'd give a 'D-'. Next time around, I won't go into science."...age 38
As in any profession, morale is an important factor in job performance. For many soft money astronomers, the current job and funding crisis has simply made a bad situation much worse and many individuals are finding themselves battling serious frustration and despair. While recognizing that solutions to the current problems will not be easy and that many soft money astronomers will have to seek alternative employment, we must all strive to make the current situation as tolerable as possible. Everyone, faculty and non-faculty alike, has a contribution to make, and everyone deserves the respect and recognition that comes with such contributions.
...SERVICE WORK AND REPRESENTATION
"...service work during last six years includes 6 NASA peer review panels, 20 papers refereed (ApJ, A&A, Nature), and 11 NSF proposals..."...age 50
"From my experience, a fair fraction of the people serving on such things as NASA proposal review panels are on soft money and yet such people are not generally associated with policy making groups or even the AAS leadership. If we equally participate, we deserve equitable representation."...age 38
The results of the survey indicate that many soft money individuals perform extensive amounts of service work, including refereeing journal articles, NSF proposals, and participating on NASA committees and proposal review panels. At times, the participation in NASA peer reviews is at a level of 50% or more with soft money people frequently serving as chairs of individual panels. This effort represents a necessary and functional part of how our profession works and it is clear that without such participation, competitive research will suffer. However, at the same time, most advisory/policy panels, including the AAS leadership, generally do not consist of soft money astronomers. Soft money astronomers are an integral part of our profession and therefore must be involved in important policy decision making by which they are often affected. More significantly, soft money astronomers include academic, government, and corporate-based grants and contract workers and as such represent a diverse wealth of knowledge, talent, and experience. Their full and active participation is necessary to keep astronomy healthy and competitive.
...AGE
"I was treated to a strident remark by a former Assistant Professor at .... that if a person hasn't secured a permanent position within 5-6 years after his/her PhD that he/she is probably 'defective' and should be otherwise encouraged to leave the profession entirely."....age 41
"This country may soon lose an entire generation of stellar spectroscopists at the current rate. I also sense a prejudice against hiring thirty-something post docs/ research scientists for the old reason that if you don't have a permanent job by 35 you must be no good." .....age 36
The attitudes and criteria involved in post-doctoral and faculty hirings are often complex and can significantly vary between individual institutions and over time. While the basis for decisions made in specific instances may seem disjointed and unfair, we must all accept that the process also involves qualitative criteria. Although at some point age can understandably be a factor in the decision making process, it should never be used as the major basis for such decisions. In addition to being illegal, such discrimination is shortsighted and makes for poor business. Productive and successful individuals who have survived on soft money grants and contracts for many years not only possess the necessary research skills, but also bring non-academic managerial, organizational, and leadership knowledge and experience that could be invaluable in an academic setting. In the least, we must erase the practices and perceptions of the past and recognize the quality and equality of individuals in non-faculty positions and realize the vast contributions they continue to bring to our profession.
...PI STATUS
"It is very difficult to get established and become a PI when you're not permitted to initiate proposals...".....age 31
"Being able to hold PI status is essential to one's visibility as an active researcher (even if the proposals are rejected!) and thus important for one's career prospects. I had direct experience of this in a job interview where I had to point out which proposals were really 'mine' on a list of accepted programs."...age 28
A major requirement for many of today's jobs is the proven ability to successfully compete for research grants. Of the more than 100 survey respondents that are 1-5 years post-degree, only 53% are allowed PI status. Consequently, many young scientists find themselves unable to compete as successfully as their counterparts at other institutions. Institutions that impose such restrictions must recognize this catch-22 situation and find some way of changing it. One solution is to require that the younger and more inexperienced post-docs have a faculty co-signer to act as a supervisor. These institutions could also require internal semi-annual or quarterly reports as a way of monitoring progress. Whatever it takes, young scientists must be allowed to gain the experience and visibility associated with PI status that is necessary to compete in today's job market.
...JOB STATUS AND SECURITY
"I spend an inordinate amount of time taking care of administrative/technical/ procedural details.....this leaves precious little time for original research, which is extremely frustrating since the ideas don't stop coming."...age 28
"I have never had any sort of job security such as tenure. While this has not been terribly damaging, I realize that if I loose my current position, I might have a very difficult task of finding another job."...age 59
"The biggest issue that I am facing in my present position is that I came here to do some original research ... but the group with which I am working tends to look at postdoctoral fellows and research associates as glorified technicians and assigns them to work that is neither original nor requires a doctoral background. The motivation for this seems to be that research associates and postdocs cost less than technicians and are in a gray area with respect to the university administration. I am troubled by the surprising number of people in situations similar to mine."....age 39
The development and operation of projects like IUE, HST, ASTRO, COBE, GRO, and EUVE to name a few have created a generation of soft money research scientists with technical and practical experiences that were largely unavailable 10-20 years ago. These experiences bring great strength and depth to contemporary astronomy. More importantly, these capabilities are absolutely necessary to the technical well-being and future of our profession and of science and technology in this country in general. For more than a decade, we have been repeatedly warned that the United States is in danger of falling behind in science and technology and must do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening. However, these words ring hollow in the ears of many experienced scientists who are now faced with an uncertain future. We must recognize the important contributions, and at times sacrifices, made by these individuals and the potential danger we all face if we lose this important capability.
...THE FUTURE
"I think that the powers that be must recognize the monster that they've created, i.e., interested young people in the sciences, lured them in, and then, once we are finally ready to play, take all the toys away. Just think of those poor people who gambled their careers on the superconducting supercollider and then were simply told to go home."...age 51
"I've told both of my kids to stay out of the sciences because of what I see happening. I'll probably make it through to retirement and be none the worse for wear. I would not like to be a young astronomer coming up through the ranks right now."...age 51
"I think most Ph.D. granting institutions should STOP training astronomy PhDs, since the job situation is going to continue getting worse over the next 10-20 years...it's immoral to keep churning out so many PhDs every year."...age 33
The future of soft money astronomers is not promising in that many will be forced to seek alternative employment. However, there are things that we can do to alleviate some of the current problems and prevent a mass exodus and serious loss of expertise. Institutions should consider reducing the number of PhDs that are produced. Continuing to populate graduate schools at past and present levels puts a serious strain on already overburdened resources and simply makes no sense considering the current market. However, we must be very careful not to move too far in the other direction since we must continue to encourage the best and brightest to enter our profession. We should also examine how we presently spend the available resources and adopt cost-effective measures where ever possible.
In addition, we have been given the message that for America to remain technologically strong, we must do more to interest young people in science. Of all of the physical sciences, the hands-on nature of astronomy offers one of the best opportunities to accomplish this. Perhaps funding agencies should require some degree of public service/outreach (public lectures, visits to schools, etc.) for every grant it awards. This has two potentially important benefits. First, better community relations will heighten public interest and support and help soften the negative perceptions that many in the general public currently have about scientists. Second, granting agencies could in turn better justify the expenditures for science by arguing to congress that it actively seeks involvement in community education. In addition, many soft money researchers must themselves grow with the changing times by realizing that long-term full time grant support will no longer be a viable option. They must creatively explore and seek alternative support opportunities in addition to grants if they wish to remain scientifically active. If this country is truly committed to maintaining the quality of US science and technology, we must all work together to actively seek long-term solutions and alternatives to the current problems we face.
