Employment and Change
S
he is an outstanding student from a small private college. He comes from a large university in the Orient. They are both completing their Ph.D. studies in a respected research university in the U.S. In the past this would be a time of joyful anticipation as the beginning of their professional careers nears, but this year these students are frustrated and distracted by the uncertainty of not knowing just where, or when, they will find a position in which to begin a career. In the 1980s this would have been a strange and suspicious tale. Today it is not so uncommon; many of us know of such young scholars and of position-seeking experienced chemists. What are the reasons for this uncertain time for chemists, even analytical chemists?Just how tough is it? Is this a temporary condition? Should educators of Ph.D. chemists change how they educate, or how many? What are the implications for the future of basic and applied research in analytical chemistry, nationally and internationally?What are the implications for our role in science and technology in general and in how chemistry benefits society? These are thorny questions, but I resist using the word crisis in thinking about them. I do not see a crisis at hand; there have been tough but temporary times for employment before-in the U.S. and abroad during the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s.What is certain is that chemistry over time will experience periods of change in employment sectors. Some of them have proven irreversible (e.g., the demise of major petrochemical research establishmentsa number of years ago). More change seems to be upon us. It is important to try to recognize and understand change, and where it seems unwise, to decry it while adapting. What are some of the current changes? Although sweeping generalitieswon't apply everywhere, it is
generally true that over the last decade industrial strategies have changed from investment in longterm strategic research in chemistry toward attention to solving chemical problems that immediately affect profitability. The result surely is that the pace of generation of new basic chemical insights and discoveries slackens and becomes more reliant on the traditional long-term research outlook of university laboratories. A job-related result, I believe, is that industrial recruiting of young people has become more targeted toward those with specific, immediately useful technical skills. By inference, less priority is being placed on kng-term development of chemist employees as a versatile scientific resource. Another area of signficant change is the globalization, and diversification, of the chemical industry. Chemical industry is of course not unique in this kind of change. It does have its costs, one of which may be a weakened reliance on the traditional recruitment of Ph.D.s from national universities and a correspondiigly weakened rationale for fostering alliances with graduate education. Both the short-term perspective of industrial chemical research and the globalization of the chemical industry may thus diminish the interactions between universities and industrial laboratories. I believe close university-industry interactions are important. We must recognize that extra efforts, both long and short grm,may be needed to counter the drifting apart of objectives and concerns. In the meantime, chemical educators must continue to play their roles in helping as much as possible our current generation of young scholars to begin their careers in chemistry.
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 66, No. 7,April 1, 1994 395 A
