Also, for what it's worth, I did a PhD and a post-doc and have a nice biotech job that pays well. It's not an easy road (what is?) but it's not as bleak as all-that, if you enjoy doing science.
As a result, she's applying for grants at the moment to pay a few students a paltry sum to stay and work in her lab over the summer. She will work for free. Any students who can't cover their own room and board on their own probably couldn't afford to stay and work; they need to spend 30 or 40 hours a week in the lab, which pretty much excludes other sources of income. My wife makes the point that it's unfair that poor students can't afford the experience to work in a lab as an undergraduate, even if it will benefit their careers in the long term.
Capitalism is like this, but I don't see why in this day and age there isn't sexy research that you could do just about anywhere. Research -> Patents -> Profit. Just like in most startups, if the revenue model is nothing to sell and just hope VCs keep you flush, it's not going to work out in most cases.
It sounds like the research simply isn't profitable so the lab fails. That is the definition of capitalism, and the same reason most startups fail.
We need to make good research easier to monetize and more profitable, not figure more ways to hand out grants. At least that's the Economic argument.
I mean, people renounce their belongings and live in ashrams for spiritual reasons, and they're OK with it. But let's not pretend they aren't making a trade-off.
However, a professor can choose to spend the grant money on student support rather than summer salary (thus forgoing their own salary), which is what I assume the author is referring to.
Which works if your field of study is an applied science.
I think that for many in the pure fields there is this sort of romanticized "career in science" that can cloud expectations. As with Margaret in this story, though, they eventually figure it out.
That said, I've never seen anyone do it for more than a month's gap, and very rarely.
Interesting, but not surprising, to know that scientists are known to have done this.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's assumed that's structured as a loan.
This is because when you say Science you are of course thinking "USA Science". This is pretty common in other countries.
I spend 6 entire years "collaborating" with my University waiting for my opportunity. No salary, no social benefits, no contract and all day. It was take this or take the exit and bye bye!, we have a lot of other candidates, ha ha.
This was my election. I don't blame on it.
But the worst was when (after spending all day picking-up things from the inner guts of a deeply rooten 500 Kg carcass of a dolphin) someone tells me: "you should be happy, all your wishes granted, this is what you wanted!" Yeah, to bath myself in shit, rancid fat, guts and breath formaldehyde all day is the best thing in the universe...
I think we could work on the road, actually. For as long as a PhD is, there are ways to make it less of a slog, I believe. Early career development and more relevant classes come to mind from my institution.
Also, if a postdoc is truly required these days, maybe we can shorten PhD length to 3 or 4 years? Cutting down the opportunity cost of time has nothing (directly) to do with salary...but it would have profound changes on the culture, I believe.