Science: today's guild system

Science is extremely competitive, arduous and intellectually demanding. Not to mention the excruciatingly long hours required: a six-day work week is absolutely necessary, while many go in every day of the week. I have long wondered why this army of dedicated scientific soldiers is not justly rewarded for their efforts. In terms of academic prestige, sure, a reasonable amount of effort can secure you a publication. But I’m talking about financial compensation. Why are all of these smart, hard-working, ambitious scientists paid scraps? The simple supply and demand answer, that there is a glut of scientific workers and not enough demand, is not adequate.

Times are only getting more difficult. For example, grants from NIH in the field of neuroscience had previously been awarded to about 25% of applications. While George H.W. Bush was president, these numbers dropped to an abysmal 8%. While funds often filter from the private sector to finance programs that will aid the public good, this does not seem to be the case with science. Funding is dangerously low, leading to a financial drought in which competition is steep and only the strongest survive.

My friend Hilary Spencer (Nature Publishing Group, New York) suggested an interesting model that helps to explain many of the peculiarities of the science world. If one thinks about the guild system that flourished in Europe from the 1100s to the 1700s, there are many comparisons that can be drawn between this system and the current state of science.

A guild is an association of craftsmen in a particular trade. The modern concept of a guild involves the lifetime progression from “apprentice” to “craftsman.” Usually, apprentices would not learn more than the most basic techniques until they were trusted by their peers to keep the guild’s or the company’s secrets. In order to become a master, the apprentice had to create a masterpiece retained by the guild. Similarly, a scientist is validated by his or her first publication. Furthermore, the University owns everything a scientist comes up with while employed, including intellectual property, patents, and publications. There is an urban legend that Genentech obtained a key anti-VEGF antibody for the fight against cancer when an employee snuck into the University of California, San Francisco building at midnight in order to steal the antibody which he had engineered but which now belonged to the University.

The modern patent system was set up to break the power of the guilds. The same greed for control over a scientific or technological development now affects nearly every aspect of the practice of science. Scientists are so desperate for the ownership of an idea that they will do nearly anything to protect their knowledge, even when such self-interest gets in the way of the open communication and collaboration that truly further scientific innovation.

Guilds also maintained funds in order to support infirm or elderly members, as well as widows and orphans of a guild member; provided funeral benefits; and maintained a “tramping allowance” for those needing to travel to find work. The first thing that comes to mind is the old tenured professors who don’t do much except expound. Some continue to hold tenured positions, drawing upon University funds to finance trips to Europe and other such luxuries, while their labs are largely defunct and fail to either secure grants or bring in any income to the University. In addition, abundant travel funds are available, even for the youngest scientists.

European guilds imposed long standardized periods of apprenticeship and made it difficult for those lacking sufficient capital to establish themselves, or for those without peer approval to gain access to materials or knowledge or to sell into certain markets. Similarly, young principal investigators face cutthroat competition to obtain their first R01 grant, which ensures substantial funding over the following years. Every scientist is also subject to a well-established peer review process, determining the merit of scientific findings for publication, as well as the success or failure of grant applications.

The guild system survived the emergence of early capitalists, which began to divide guild members into “haves” and “have-nots.” Similarly, there is almost a binary distinction between “good labs” and “bad labs.” Good labs are well-funded, with the newest technology and consistent publication records. Bad labs are not. The flip-side of this duality is the good labs are intensely competitive, sometimes led by ruthless PIs who see everything with an eye for eventual profit (either academic or financial).

In the countryside, where guild rules did not operate, the cottage industry thrived. The cottage industry was a network of cottagers who spun and wove in their own homes, provided with their raw material, perhaps even their looms, by the capitalist who reaped the rewards. In contrast, the scientist is always IN THE LAB. Because incubation times run on the order of hours, graduate students, technicians, and post-doctoral fellows are always there. They are there working, as well as eating, drinking, and socializing – often leading to other things. Lab culture often becomes incestuous when the lines between work and play are blurred.

Guilds ultimately fell in the 1700s-1800s. The guilds came to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer, and business development. Guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free agents who had struck out on their own. Similarly, there is fierce territoriality in science. The dominant principal investigator in a field usually makes this clear.

Karl Marx criticized the guild system for its rigid ladders of social rank. The hierarchy in science is staggering to the uninitiated newcomer. There is a definite pecking order, and one learns fast to respect the structure – or leave. Furthermore, the relation of oppressor/oppressed inherent to the guild system characterizes much of science. The psychological phenomenon persists in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

Adam Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations (Book I, Chapter X, paragraph 72): “It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established.” Guilds struggled following the industrialization and modernization of trade and industry. Europe saw the rise of strong nation-states that would directly issue patent and copyright protections, often revealing trade secrets; guild power faded. Currently, with ever stronger industrial giants like Pfizer and Genentech, many of science’s brightest stars have left academia for industry.

The thing is, discovering something new or helping to fight cancer are noble goals that may not be suited to an economic framework for analysis.