Graduate students, especially PhD, students comprise one of the pillars of biomedical research. They, together with technicians and post-doctoral scientists, are the main working hands and brains our nation's laboratories. PhD training in biomedical sciences begins with enrolling in a PhD granting program or department in a university / research institution. It is a common practice, at least in most universities in the US, that a student is required to take a set of courses specific to the program during the first and, if necessary, the second year. During the first year, the student also undertakes ~three projects, one at a time, in three different labs each lasting for ~ 2-3 months. These laboratory based projects, often called 'rotations', are intended to enable a student (and the laboratory head) to make an informed decision to choose a lab to enroll in and undertake thesis research project. Let's call these three unique experiences 'rotate-in' as the student goes through these experiences to select the training they desire.
The next phase, often lasting 4-5 years, is spent in a lab in one or more projects that eventually culminates in a thesis. Then they graduate with a PhD. These new PhDs comprise our scientific foundation whose productivity will determine the next phase of progress in science, health and economy of the nation.
However, transitioning from obtaining a PhD to the next phase, especially if a graduate considers a career outside of academia, has been increasingly challenging. We expect our graduates to find new cures, develop new and sensitive diagnostics, invent novel biomedical products and be leaders in biotech industries. Yet for most of our graduate students their education largely comprises of focused training in a lab in an academic setting only. After 4+ years of studying a narrow topic in an academic lab, graduate students often feel that they know very little outside of academia. When asked if they wish to consider a career in industry, they often say they don't know anything about career in industry. Many even say that they don't know of any peers who know about industry. Worse even is most faculty members, who mentor the students, themselves lack experience in industry and therefore are of little help to the students. One year, during a graduate research retreat, I was assigned to a group to discuss careers in industry. Only one faculty member amongst us had 2 year experience in industry and was able to share his experience. We all agreed that the existing training and mentorship available to our graduate students in not adequate for them to know much about careers other than academia.
I propose the following. Keep the first year as is, that is students will take classes and rotate-in labs into a thesis lab. Thesis should be completed within the next 5 years. Then let's offer students an optional year of 'rotate-out' program which will consist of three rotations, each lasting 2-3 months, in industry, government, teaching, non-profit, etc. The rotate-out would be offered as part of the PhD training but not as a requirement so that those students that finish thesis and have already found their next stage in career can swiftly move without having to rotate out. The rotate-out opportunities should be arranged by the PhD training program so that their students have a breadth of career exposure when they need it most.
Although training programs and thesis mentors often consider providing educational training as their only objective, it is common knowledge that many students consider the program and their mentors as main source of guidance for their career. Therefore, I think we should remodel our PhD training programs to include rotate-out so that our graduates can gently land into careers other and beyond academia.
I was once a graduate student and a post-doctoral fellow, and therefore feel that I can, to some extent, understand career needs of graduate students.