Defend Young Scientists

Biotech thrives on the creative dynamism of young scientists. Always has.

Young scientists are under pressure. NIH grants are on hold. If the NIH budget is gutted, and a generation is forced to find other ways to earn a living, then the biotech industry will lose.

It might not be clear for the next couple of quarters or next couple of years. But inevitably, if fewer people pursue careers in science, biotech companies will find it harder and harder to find qualified people to do the work.

Biotech should stand up now to defend the next generation of scientists.

Young scientists have been feeling the squeeze for some time. They earn starvation wages for years as graduate students and postdocs. Grants from the National Institutes of Health are so competitive, so hard to get, that the average age of a first-time R01 grant winner is past the age of 40. This makes it difficult for students, postdocs, and early career scientists to stay in the game long enough to someday pursue the dream of an independent research lab with a stable source of funding.

Nobody said science should be cushy. Scientists should expect to work hard on worthy problems to earn support from taxpayer-funded grants. But these barriers to entry are too high. It discourages people from entering science, or sticking with science when times get tough as they invariably do.

People in their 30s are often at the most creative, most productive stage of their scientific careers. This is the time to be optimistic and ambitious. It’s the time for making some of the big choices in life — what career to pursue, where to live, who to marry, how to save up to someday purchase a home.

The thrill of discovery will always be a draw. But our society chooses the extent to which we support it. We can choose to whack government science budgets and systematically devalue work at the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and other agencies. If we do, it would be familiar to what we have already done with humanities fields like visual arts, literature, theater, and journalism. Our culture largely steers young people away from these career paths, knowing that these jobs don’t pay well.

We shouldn’t allow this to happen to science, especially at such an auspicious moment in time.

Consider the opportunities in advanced biologics. We are in the early phase of a cell and gene therapy revolution.  It’s a source of competitive R&D advantage of the United States. That ought to translate into a competitive advantage for manufacturing. Jobs in this industry come with good wages, good benefits, and good career growth potential. They can also be a source of pride and dignity – no small thing.

There’s reason to think there could be a lot of these jobs in the next 10-20 years. More than 1,000 Investigational New Drug (IND) applications for cell and gene therapies are on file with the FDA. There were 1,975 clinical trials for cell and gene therapies at the end of 2024, according to the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine. Most of the product candidates in those trials won’t turn into new FDA-approved products, but some will. Some will be big.

Jobs will have to be created in specialized, customized manufacturing plants for cell and gene therapies. Advanced biologics like bispecific antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted radiopharmaceuticals are here today, and bound for growth. Many of these medicines could be Made in the USA. There are national security reasons, national competitive advantage reasons, logistical shipping reasons, and workforce development reasons to keep most of this work on US soil.

There are large swaths of the map outside of San Francisco, New York and Boston where this work can be done relatively inexpensively.

Biotech – at least its more established and profitable players — could choose to invest more in internship programs, apprenticeships, and public/private partnerships with states to develop the workforce needed to make these things.  

Cultivating people over the long term will require a shift in mindset. Like any profit-driven industry, biotech isn’t in the business of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs. It pays to be prudent when making new hires. It’s logical to want people to be ready to hit the ground running. In a harsh, risk-averse investing climate like we’ve had the past 3-4 years, it’s essential for many companies to hunker down and think about how to get through just the next few quarters.

For those able and willing to think a little more long-term, however, there’s an opportunity to reconnect biotech with the public. By standing up loud and proud for young scientists, biotech can become a symbol of individual career advancement, national economic prosperity and a healthier future for all.

Biotech can be the source of hope and optimism. It can be a symbol of the American Dream, much like how heavy manufacturing played that role in the Midwest during the 20^th century.

It will require extending a steady hand to young people. It will require taking chances on people who might not otherwise get one.

We should invest more in science education. We should invest more in cutting-edge research at our universities. We should invest more in workforce development for an array of biotech jobs.

Investing in people for the future of biotech could even help rebuild some of the trust that has eroded.

Biotech should stand up for the next generation.