According to National Science Foundation (NSF) statistics, in 1981, 34.4% of US biomedical PhD graduates entered tenure-track positions within 5–6 years of graduation. In 2001, 14.4% entered such positions. Is the 'conventional' career path of student to postdoctoral fellow to tenure becoming the 'alternative' career path? If so, why?

First, more US biomedical PhD graduates desiring tenure-track positions are diverted into non–tenure track slots commonly known as 'research assistant professor' or 'instructor'. NSF statistics indicate that between 1981 and 2001, the number of those positions doubled, from approximately 8,000 to over 17,000. In contrast, the number of tenured or tenure-track positions increased much less sharply, from approximately 29,700 to 32,300.

Second, some young scientists are discouraged from seeking tenure-track jobs because supporting a lab today requires a perpetual fight for a piece of the ever-shrinking federal budget. Between 1998 and 2003, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget doubled, increasing15% each year. In 2004 and 2005, the rate of growth slowed to 3.2% and 2.0%, respectively. In 2006, for the first time since 1970, the NIH budget will contract, by 0.1%. Of special interest to immunologists, the success rate for new research project grant applications to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) fell from 43% in 1997 to 23.9% in 2005. Before the 2006 NIH budget was announced, the NIAID estimated a 2006 success rate of 19% (most likely an overestimate, given the final cut). To its credit, the NIH recently created a New Investigators Program to provide 2 years of funding to support postdoctoral fellows who are searching for tenure-track positions and an additional 3 years of funding contingent on their obtaining such a position. Although admirable, few of those grants are actually in place (six are anticipated for NIAID in 2007).

As a basic science journal, Nature Immunology would not want to dissuade young scientists from starting their own academic labs. On the contrary, academic labs are where most of our exciting primary research submissions originate. In a perfect world, government funding would be restored to support and encourage more promising young researchers, whose training was supported by generous funding earlier this decade and who wish to remain in academia, to secure and maintain tenure-track positions. However, the bleak 2006 federal budget suggests that is not likely to happen in the near future. In the face of this challenge, alternative career paths can, for some people, provide a means for advancing in stimulating scientific occupations without contending with the unpredictable reality of budget cuts.

The 'academia-or-failure' mentality often pervasive throughout US PhD programs may, in the minds of many young scientists, stigmatize the idea of embarking on an alternative career path. Consequently, some students who are interested in pursuing nonacademic jobs are deterred from doing so and instead spend years in less-than-ideal academic positions. This academia-or-failure thought process should be reversed. Ways to accomplish this might be for mentors to openly discuss all career options and prospects with students, to help promote student attendance at career events and to keep in mind the fact that the situation facing students today is likely to be different than what they faced.

Exposure to alternative careers should be promoted by and perhaps made compulsory in graduate programs. In often intensely competitive lab environments, it is easy for students to rationalize not taking time away from the bench to seek out extracurricular career forums. Leaving early to attend such events is often frowned on by peers and mentors. One way to address this issue might be for graduate programs to arrange 'career afternoons' during program retreats. Away from the lab, in a relaxed atmosphere, with no timer ticking on a nearby bench, students would probably make a captive audience. Another way might be for graduate programs to offer access to and credit for courses that might be in other schools or colleges but that might help students in choosing and securing an alternative career path—for example, journalism courses for science writers and business courses for consultants or analysts.

Is there reason for optimism? Alternative careers are hardly unfulfilling jobs to 'settle for'. In many cases, in fact, the experiences gained while working toward a science PhD degree are essential for meeting the day-to-day demands of these positions. The ability to critically assess data, honed during years of lab meetings, is imperative for success as a scientific manuscript editor or biotechnology analyst. Consultants working with biotechnology companies must have outstanding troubleshooting skills, similar to those used while trying to make difficult experiments work. Science writers need to effectively communicate scientific stories to broad audiences, using skills similar to those used while presenting specialized papers during 'journal club'.

The availability of some of these careers is even on the rise. The number of mutual funds investing specifically in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that have been tracked by Morningstar for the last 10 years is 27; for the last 5 years, it is 136; and for the last 3 years, it is 197. Each company needs scientists to do experiments and consultants to troubleshoot projects, and each mutual fund needs analysts to understand and predict the value and success of the projects. The demand for science journalists is made obvious by opening a newspaper or watching a television news program. Important headlines—bioterror, bird flu, stem cells—require experts able to accurately communicate their importance to the 'nonscience' public. With so many alternative career opportunities out there, young researchers have reason to be optimistic. But some might need the advice and support of their graduate programs and mentors to realize that.