But mastering the techniques in order to investigate problems should not be sufficient, in my opinion. Above all, a Ph.D. candidate needs to demonstrate a deep understanding of the basic science that underlies our current models and theories. That's absolutely necessary if you are going to be capable of challenging those models and theories.
An editorial in a recent issue of Science caught my eye because it proposes to "reimagine" graduate degrees in STEM disciplines. The authors are Ian Banks who is director of Science Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation in San Francisco (California, USA) and Prineha Narang who is a professor in Physical Sciences and Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles (Los Angeles, California, USA). [Reimagining STEM doctoral training].
Here's part of their proposal ...
But if one of the goals of granting an advanced degree is to produce professionals who can drive innovation—applying new ideas, methods, or technologies to create value—then academic programs must be available to support that outcome too.
The solution is not to replace existing PhD programs, but to add a STEM innovation PhD track. The selective program would require deep private-sector engagement in an accelerated 4-year program in which a student immediately joins a structured research project with clear milestones, crafted by a faculty member in consultation with a relevant industry partner. During the second and third years, students would participate in 2- or 3-month internships with companies that are aligned with their research.
I do not agree that one of the goals of a Ph.D. program is to drive technology to create value. It may be a consequence of mastering critical thinking but that's not the same thing. I do not think that the average student who obtains a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, geomorphology, or astrophysics has to demonstrate that they are "professionals who can drive innovation-applying new ideas."
Furthermore, the idea that Ph.D. programs at major universities would be partially controlled by industrial partners is repugnant. When I was training Ph.D. students there was no way that I would have teamed up with a biotech company or a drug company and allowed them to exploit one of my students for free research.
What do you think? Should Science be publishing such editorials on the prominent first page of the journal?
They're obviously thinking of the "T" and "E" bits of STEM (which wouldn't include the examples you give, but might include biochem insofar as it feeds in to the pharma industry). On the whole, it sounds like creating an excuse for techbros to style themselves as "Dr."
ReplyDeleteThis already exists in Canada, to some extent, in the form of the MITACs program. Essentially joint industry-academia projects with some governmental support. I've not had any of these students in my lab, but some of our department labs have hosted these students with good success.
ReplyDeleteDo I think this is a good idea? No. Collaborative University-industry PhDs were tried in the UK in the 1970s. The industrial partner saw this as a way of getting routine background research carried out, while the deeper motivation remained a proprietary secret. Do I think it was a good idea to publish this editorial? Yes. The current PhD is an inefficient ritual, focusing on what is nominally one individual's contribution to a single problem defined in advance, culminating in the writing of a tedious thesis unlike any useful technical or general interest publication, and we should be talking about this
ReplyDelete