I don't normally disagree with much of what I read that relates to science. Perhaps that's because, during the course of my studies, I've become accustomed to accepting the scientific literature. Or perhaps it's because I was raised to do what I was told when I was told.

But I have had occasion to doubt at least the underlying implications of some articles that I read this year. Some content in Nature has suggested that my dream job in high-level research is all but unachievable: “Give postdocs a career, not empty promises”:http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110302/full/471007a.html, “Chemists face employment woes — but there are ways to prosper”:http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/02/, and “Survey finds science graduates neglect career planning”:http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/03/14/survey-finds-science-graduates-neglect-career-planning all imply that the future is pretty bleak for the majority of aspiring scientists who complete a PhD.

In what may be a significant turning point in my own personal history, I have decided that my future in science is not actually that hopeless. In completing a PhD, I have gained excellent time- and budget-management skills, highly developed written- and verbal-communication skills and proficiency with a range of specialized and generic software packages. And the single-minded tenacity required to complete a PhD should also be an asset when it comes to the workplace.

As I embark on the final edits of my thesis, I remain optimistic, but I know that I must be willing to adapt. I might have to sacrifice my short-term employment goals by seeking and gaining experience outside my field of study. But I feel that in doing so, I will probably become a better scientist in the long term. This approach to my future may seem unrealistic to some, but I think it is crucial for my professional survival — and my personal sanity.