Actually, not demographics so much as cultural dynamics.
How has it come to pass that I can name two or three handfuls of people in my cohort (35−45) who started off as lab molecular biologists in the early 90s, and ended up saying “fuck this,” and wandering off into some other line of work?
And at the same time, I can name two or three handfuls of people younger than that, who are not lab molecular biologists but who now want to become one, or at least “get in on this bioengineering and structural/systems biology stuff?”
But the question is not why there are two groups. The question is, assuming they represent a sample of a larger cultural dynamical process, will this accelerate the attrition of the generation of faculty who created the first group, and who are unaware of the second group?
Please?
Your question/desire seems to imply that you think there is a link between the two groups — that the folks driven out in the 90’s left because of conditions that can possibly be changed/reversed/affected by the influx of wanna-be biologists [like me
].
So I guess my question is: why did folks in your cohort decide molecular biology wasn’t worth their time ?
[And are there really any faculty member still unaware of the existence of the second group, what with all the trumpeting about systems biology, the creation of PhD programs aimed at the intersection of biology & engineering etc ?]
Oh, and why on earth would –anybody– want to do structural biology ? Blergh
I personally believe the difference between the work then and now is simple to explain: kits and robots. “In my day, when we wanted to try PCR we had to move Eppendorf tubes of DNA in reagents we mixed ourselves, between three water baths, for hours…” is actually true for people in my cohort.
Kids these days have it easy. Where “easy” is some variation of “possible”.
As for structural biology, I’m thinking of the inrush of people designing molecules, ab initio.
The next generation always has it easier, but is that [relative] ease balanced by attempting to do more ambitious things, so that, overall, it’s still the same amount of work ?
No. I think it’s different for Kids These Days. Because there’s so little call, frankly, to be in the lab for 48 hours straight.
That said, in some subdisciplines you still have to be there for the bugs. But generally you don’t have all the support time and effort. So much.