Even as the ACS published this week an article about the employment outlook for chemists, the improvements are not equally distributed across the spectrum of recent graduates to established professionals (http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i31/Job-Trends-Look-Promising.html). Employment among chemists remains better than the employment among the general workforce, yet we are still below the heydays of unemployment below 2%.
Data from ACS about new graduates in calendar year 2013 continued to show an upturn of unemployment among new graduates growing to nearly 15%, with a stagnation of salaries across all degrees. While the production of PhD chemists has remained nearly flat over the past 20 years (about 2000 per year, according to ACS and the NSF's Survey of Earned Doctorates: http://www.sedsurvey.org/Pages/digestsandsummarytables.aspx), the production of Bachelor's degrees in chemistry has increased significantly over the past 10 years (by nearly 40%). It begs the question: have we saturated the market with chemists? Not a unique perspective (see Tom Barton's article from Jan. 2014: http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i1/Shoulder.html).
Nearly 60% of all BA/BS chemists are employed in industry or government positions, with an increasing number of "entrepreneurs" among them, whereas nearly 47% of PhD chemists are employed in academic positions. With an ever-growing number of highly-educated Bachelor's level chemists in this country seeking employment, we need to promote a business environment in this country that takes advantage of the talented chemists (and ACS members) here.
A recent report from the US Census Bureau provides some insight into where our science graduates are employed (https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/stem/stem-html/). This screen-shot of some of the semi-quantitative data illustrates how chemistry/physical science graduates are distributed among occupation groups. Roughly, 30% of physical science graduates find themselves in "STEM Occupations." So, what does this mean for training/professional development and the prospects for employment for chemistry graduates?
Call it the ravings of a lunatic Arts & Sciences dean, or the wise musings of a chemistry professional with nearly 30 years of experience in academic, industry, and national laboratory employment. A chemist, regardless his or her degree, should have a solid training in chemistry - an expertise - but should be required to have skills, or at least an understanding, in the arts, social sciences, communications, and leadership/management - also known as a "liberal arts" foundation. The ACS Committee on Professional Training, which evaluates the chemistry degree curricula of over 600 Bachelor's degree programs, should continue to highlight the need for strong communication and professional training for all chemistry graduates.
SUNY-Stony Brook is home to the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science (http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/), which promotes communication skills for all science majors, regardless of degree. Alan Alda has been a featured speaker at the open ACS Board Meeting in 2013 and is leading a workshop on communicating science to the general public at the San Francisco ACS Meeting in August, 2014 (http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2014/august/creating-buzz-about-science-to-help-solve-pressing-global-challenges.html). If there is one thing we ACS members can do to improve the employment outlook for chemistry graduates, it will be to promote the humanities and social science skills of our student members.
In the March 23, 2014 journal Science, Prof. Yu Xie provided a perspective on the "Undemocracy" of science: (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6186/809.summary). It complemented nicely the theme of the special issue: The Science of Inequality. Xie, a professor of sociology, statistics, and public policy at the University of Michigan (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yuxie/), wrote about the intrinsic inequality of science, in general, and I will provide some context focused on chemistry.
Referring to work by Price (1963) and Cole & Cole (1973), Xie commented that "scientific outputs and rewards are much more unequally distributed than other well-being outcomes, such as education, earnings, or health." Continuing, Xie wrote, "eminent scientists receive disproportionately greater recognition and rewards than lesser-known scientists for comparable contributions. As a result, a talented few can parlay early successes into resources for future successes, accumulating advantages over time." But how do we diversify the successful set?
When I served on the ACS Board of Directors Committee on Grants & Awards as chair of the subcommittee on Nominations and Selections, director Valerie Kuck and I, among the entire committee of the Board, evaluated how ACS awards were distributed by gender, ethnicity, and profession (academic v. industry). This Board committee spent several years reviewing the history of every ACS award and developed a strategy to enhance the diversity - using canvassing committees to promote diverse candidates from the field. We also considered how we could avoid implicit bias (see https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) in the selection process.
Success in diversifying the ACS awards for excellence in the disciplines will require a counter-balance of "undemocracy" as long as traditionally-underrepresented members of the discipline are starting their careers with accumulated disadvantages, to paraphrase Prof. Xie. Director Kuck recognized the undemocracy of the current system and, working with other ACS members such as Debra Rolison of the Naval Research Laboratory (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/dr-debra-rolison-receives-dual-honors-for-advancements-in-chemistry), and many other protagonists, we are making progress.
Dr. Rolison has been an advocate for "Title IX for chemistry faculty"- striving to change the face of academic chemistry and recognizing the leaky pipeline of women in science (NAS Workshop, 2000). A slow and steady increase over the past few decades of PhDs granted to women in chemistry (26% women in 1992, 37% in 2012 according the NSF: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2012/start.cfm), but fewer than 28% of women PhD chemists pursued an academic position in 2012. In the same period of time, women chemists in industry have been increasing proportionately. The pipeline into academics appears to be leaking into industry. Not a bad thing for industrial chemistry, but a challenge for academic institutions.
If we intend to increase the number of women receiving awards from the ACS, it will require a campaign to improve our canvassing of women in industry for these awards in a partnership with ACS committees such as the Women Chemists Committee, the Younger Chemists Committee, and the Committee on Minority Affairs. While we in academics should be improving the "undemocracy" of the academic setting to improve the diversity of chemistry faculty, professional member societies such as ACS should make every effort to recognize excellence while avoiding the pitfalls of being undemocratic in the canvassing, nomination, and selection processes.
How we improve the environment for diverse faculty in chemistry is another challenge... Join the OXIDE conversation about diversity at http://www.oxide.gatech.edu/
References:
J. R. Cole & S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973)
D. J. Price, Little Science, Big Science (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1963)
D. Rolison, Title IX for Women in Academic Chemistry: Isn't a Millennium of Affirmative Action for White Men Sufficient? "Women in the Chemical Workforce" (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 74-93)
Y. Xie & K. A. Shauman, Women in Science (Harvard Univ. Press, Boston, 2003)
Y. Xie Science 344, 2014, 809-10.
