Eine Studie berichtet, dass fast 50 % der Wissenschaftler zehn Jahre nach dem Verfassen ihres ersten wissenschaftlichen Artikels ihre Tätigkeit eingestellt haben, eine Statistik, die bei Frauen stärker ausgeprägt ist als bei Männern

Research, especially theoretical research, can be wholly unsatisfying without a proper group of friends and colleagues.

I wonder how they define a scientist – and whether some of these papers were fluff in order to get to a desired spot in the career (e.g. med students researching to get a residency spot) and the research was dropped after the goal was attained.

I wonder if part of the issue is scientists weren’t prepared to continually seek funding for their projects and studies. Researching sources and writing proposals for grants can be time-consuming, soul-sapping, and takes tenacity. This would depend of course where the scientist is working. In a corporate world, this isn’t as necessary (if at all?). If working independently or in a collegiate setting, it’s very central. I could be wrong.

The corporate world brings its own set of goals and expectations that may counter what scientists are used to in academia. Better pay of course but… male dominated still and can be very hierarchical I assume.

Maybe publishing doesn’t bring as much satisfaction — no marked change in stature? Lost in a sea of other papers with gate-keeping journals (outside of standards and ethics). It’s almost like unless the research benefits the general population from a commercial perspective, it’s not all that interesting outside of your peer group and colleagues.

[Going off of experiences from a friend (he, researcher) who worked in many different arenas. Also knew some researchers when I worked in a pharma (but they were happy go lucky bunch actually… all good down-to-earthers).]

I mean given there has been a huge surplus of science PhDs for decades, with only a tiny amount of jobs (in acedemia OR industry), it is no wonder most have to leave.