Do scientists really need a PhD?

From a theoretical standpoint, a PhD is obviously not a magical "get good at science" button: there are plenty of other ways to gain competence. An example is Rick Stevens at Argonne National Labs, [1], who I'm pretty sure doesn't have a PhD (my friend worked for him once, and his bio doesn't mention it, but I don't know him personally). People like that show that a PhD is obviously not necessary to do first-class work.

On the other hand, if you want to be a principal investigator on a grant of any decent size, almost no one will believe you have that competence without a PhD. Part of this is the ridiculously rigid US scientific job market: all the arbitrary structure of a resume, even less of the rationale. You can't get a postdoc, almost trivially, without a doctorate. Even if someone wanted to give you a job as a postdoc, the university wouldn't like it, and why choose the guy without the PhD when you have other talented people who also have those three letters? And it's really hard to get a faculty position without a postdoc, so there you go.

So if I could go about becoming a principal investigator or having a nice faculty position without getting a PhD, I'd seriously consider it. But practically speaking, that's not a real possibility yet. Hopefully someday it will be.

[1] http://www.anl.gov/Administration/Bios/stevens.html

I would say, no, a scientist doesn't really need a "Ph.D.", but does need the training that a Ph.D. involves. To me, this question is very different from the question of whether someone who wants to be an industry software engineer needs a bachelor's degree (a popular HN topic). The difference is that in a science Ph.D. program, you are doing science the entire time you are there. Sure, you take a few classes as well, but these are only to reinforce concepts you'll need in your research; the entire reason you're there is to learn to do scientific research by actually doing scientific research. You are doing at school what you'll be doing in your career; you're just getting paid less for it because you're "in training".

I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a similar education by doing scientific research in an industry which does not result in a formal "Ph.D." degree, rather than an academic setting that does result in a Ph.D., it just doesn't seem like it's been tried up until (apparently) now. Personally (all other things being equal) I'd rather do a Ph.D. program in an academic setting because an industry setting would likely be constrained to research areas that are beneficial to the company.

If these students truly are primary authors on major papers in serious peer-reviewed journals, I predict that this lab will end up with some sort of joint academic agreement with a local university so that the ceremonial stapling of bio papers and minting of PhDs can be done.

The rest of graduate school (classes, a master's thesis, etc.) is just scaffolding to acclimate you to doing research. If you can skip all of that and jump right in, nicely done!

But, of those 500 kids mentioned in the Nature article, I predict many do not do top-quality published research. I would even bet their success rate (measured as "people who graduate from just running experiments other people designed") will be lower than that of a traditional PhD-granting institution, were I a betting man. The scaffolding is expensive, but is there for a reason beyond just tradition.

Five-year-olds can do that.

I have found exploring and studying nature one of the more rewarding and pleasurable parts of my life. I've done it as a member of academic institutions, but I also do it just walking in the park.

Three things I wouldn't confuse:

a) membership or funding in an academic institution

b) recognition from peers

c) practicing science

I consider them orthogonal. I consider a) a job, b) a nice perk, and c) an enjoyable pasttime or hobby. Great when they overlap but unnecessary.

As long as employers demand a credential for hiring, that credential will be necessary. In the US, few companies are willing to take on the burden of training scientific researchers. Further, much of the pure research in this country is done at Universities, and virtually all US universities require a PhD for tenure track faculty. So a PhD is a necessary credential to do scientific research in the US.

The linked article states that Asian companies are willing to invest in training smart university graduates to do research. That means the PhD credential is not required. The required credential is instead a "University Degree".

Now, if the question is whether the PhD system is the best way to create scientists, that's entirely different. There's no reason to believe the University PhD system necessarily produces better scientists than a corporate lab would. University professors are not necessarily good teachers, and University labs are not necessarily well equipped.

It's very similar to the "BS or higher in Computer Science or Engineering" credential on help wanted ads in the US. Does that BS or higher really make you a better programmer than someone who learned on his/her own? Of course not. But it's a credential, so you get it.

Disclaimer: I do have a PhD

There are a lot of differences between PhDs in different fields of research. Especially in biomed research, PhD students often seem to do extremely specialized research. Therefore, what they learn during their PhD may be much less generalizable than e.g. what CS PhD students learn. I guess it depends on the definition of a PhD whether it is necessary for a certain job or not.

Interesting comments here: http://scientopia.org/blogs/science-professor/2011/03/22/rat...

What it is is a program to get cheap labor that has the energy and low health insurance costs of youth. At some point you get thrown away and they get somebody new. The reason why P.I.'s are aging is that there are very few permanent jobs for scientists.

Perhaps these people in China are a bit more honest than the rest of us.

Outliers are often bad examples. I think it's still a good idea to go to finish college, although dropping out worked for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

So all thats happening really is that companies are finding ever cheaper sources of skilled labour to solve their current problems. Academic researcher ideally shouldn't be linked to a companies motivations... or at least not all of it.

Cause that seems to be the only metrics worth considering when answering that question.

I would guess the answer is no.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183828

(there are of course exceptions, but this is very much the general rule)

do people think # of chinese nobel prize winners will increase in years to come? realize nobel prize is a western world creation but this makes like seem no...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_coun...

The purpose of science related PhDs has always seemed to be a means to an end that wasn't financially available anywhere else. Academically, there are a lot of pursuits that you simply can not pursue outside of that setting. The science PhD is ultimately the direction you want your career to take, but you know it can't realistically take that path without some luck. And of course, the safety of academia is intoxicating on all levels. Why dive head first into research that requires funding and years of preparation when you can basically do the same thing at school without any repercussions? The PhD is a safety net for abstract thought that has little to do with the real world.

It may seem like a crazy comparison, but the sort of struggles scientists go through with their research is not entirely unlike what an artists goes through. No one really wants to acknowledge your absurd existence, and there's not really anyone to talk to when you do get on the outside. So no, success, be it financially or scientifically does not require higher education. But socially and emotionally, you can't underestimate the importance of things like a PhD.