The debate about the future of the independent scientific career has become arid and sterile, focusing almost entirely on accessing tenure-track jobs in universities (often collectively referred to as the academic “pipeline”). An unstated assumption of much of the discussion is that “early career” scientists who wish to become “independent” must either adapt to this rigid pipeline or “leave science” (or move to yet another career “pipeline”) and that a permanent position in the academic hierarchy should be the ultimate goal.  It is also taken almost as axiom that all changes must be driven by senior leaders in a top-down manner within existing scientific institutions. This seems unlikely given that the status quo disproportionately benefits those in senior positions, as well as extremely slow, given the glacial pace of institutional change.

We need a vastly enlarged conception of the future of science. Myself and Ronin Institute colleagues, Anne Thessen and Arika…