Editors Letter Cite This: ACS Chem. Biol. 2017, 12, 2915−2915
Taxation on Innovation t is often stated that “education is the great equalizer.” STEM graduate education in particular holds its doors open to curious minds of any economic, cultural, and social background, training talented scientists from all walks of life. The United States has benefited from an economically diverse, highly talented graduate student pool, because students receive a small stipend in exchange for teaching and performing research, and graduate school tuition is typically waived. For the most committed and talented young scientific minds, an education without financial obligation renders a career path in science accessible. If enacted, the proposal to treat these tuition waivers as taxable income would erect an enormous barrier to recruitment of some of the best and brightest. The proposed tax on graduate students would force them to make payments on an income they never see. The finances of many of these students are already stressed by the huge financial burden of student loans. The doubling or tripling of the tax burden on these graduate students would leave them with little left over from their stipends to support themselves or their families. Ultimately, pursuing a Ph.D. in chemistry, biology, chemical biology, or any other scientific field would be an option available to only the privileged. Some may view a potential reduction in the number of STEM Ph.D.’s as a good thing, arguing that there is an oversupply of Ph.D.’s relative to the number of academic positions available. This viewpoint, however, assumes that most students are being trained to become professorsa narrow view of the purpose of a Ph.D. In pursuing a Ph.D., students learn to think independently and to solve complex and challenging problems. These skills prepare STEM Ph.D. recipients for many career options. Indeed, in 2013, the NSF Survey of Doctorate Recipients reported 2% overall unemployment for science doctoral degree holders. For those who hold a doctorate in chemistry, unemployment stood at less than 2.5%, well below the national rate.1 Trainees themselves are increasingly pursue nonacademic career paths. A recent PLoS ONE study reported that 45% of science and engineering Ph.D. students shift their interest away from an academic career as they approach graduation.2 A doctoral degree prepares one for many career paths beyond teaching and research; learning to think critically, solve problems, analyze data, and package it into a compelling story are skills valued in many fields. Increasingly, Ph.D. scientists are branching out into diverse career paths that contribute to our economy and societyresearch and development in industry, business, science writing and journalism, policy, government, patent law, and more. We need scientists that can effect change in traditionally nonscientific communities, as scientific principles and ideas applied outside of our universities are critical for advancing medicine, agriculture, and economic growthin sum, driving society forward. Many issues facing the United States and the worldhuman health, climate change, the food supplyneed young, creative,
I
© 2017 American Chemical Society
and innovative scientists. The proposed taxes on graduate students would be devastating for current and would-be grad students. Even more concerning is that these changes have the potential to change the fabric of the scientific community in the United States. The added tax burden would disproportionately affect students from working class and middle class backgrounds; many from these groups are statistically more likely to already carry economic burden of loans from their undergraduate educations. The prospect of additional financial liability would discourage many from these communities from even considering applying to grad school in the U.S. Many others will go on to pursue scientific training and careers abroad, depleting the talent pool in the United States. The U.S. scientific community cannot afford to lose its diversity, and society cannot afford to lose its next generation of scientists. A broad coalition of researchers with a variety of perspectives, ideas, and backgrounds is essential to scientific excellence. While the “grad student tax” in its current form is still an open question for becoming law, the very prospect of this burden on young scientists is chilling. Given the needs of the country, resources should be directed toward making scientific education more accessible, increasing the diversity and representation of scientists, and molding science into a true meritocracy. We cannot afford to close our doors.
■
Alyson G. Weidmann Laura L. Kiessling* AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Alyson G. Weidmann: 0000-0003-3876-2847 Laura L. Kiessling: 0000-0001-6829-1500 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2013. http:// ncsesdata.nsf.gov/doctoratework/2013/. (2) Roach, M., and Sauermann, H. (2017) The declining interest in an academic career. PLoS One 12 (9), e0184130.
Published: December 15, 2017 2915
DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.7b01044 ACS Chem. Biol. 2017, 12, 2915−2915
