Almost 50% of Scientists Are Leaving Academia Within 10 Years – Here’s Why
A recent study found attrition rates to be high among scientists. Technology Networks explored why.
Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.
A new study published in Higher Education has found that nearly 50% of scientists leave academia within 10 years of publishing their first paper.
Professor Marek Kwiek, director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (IAS) in Poland, and his doctoral student Łukasz Szymula used data from the citation database Scopus to quantify attrition in science.
Attrition – defined as “ceasing to publish” in this context – was used to build a picture of the number of people opting to leave academic research.
The researchers followed two cohorts of scientists from 38 countries: a group that started publishing in 2000 (comprising 142,776 scientists, 52,115 of which were women) and a group that started publishing in 2010 (comprising 232,843, 97,145 of which were women).
The study was restricted to 16 STEMM disciplines distributed into categories of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. Kwiek and Szymula tracked individual scholarly outputs from the two cohorts until 2022.
“Our focus is on leaving science, which can be seen as ceasing scholarly publishing because large-scale longitudinal data on leaving academic employment – which would be more adequate – are not currently available at a global level,” the authors said.
Attrition in science might be less gendered than we thought
Kwiek and Szymula found that one-third of the 2000 cohort had left science within 5 years after their first paper was published, and almost half of the cohort had left by 10 years. Within 20 years, a staggering two-thirds of scientists had stopped publishing. The rate of attrition differed for men and women; by 2019, 34% of men in the cohort continued to publish, compared to 29% of the women.
Gender differences in attrition were smaller in the 2010 cohort, however. In this group, 41% of the women were still publishing 9 years after their first paper, compared to 42% of the men.
"Behind the aggregate changes for all disciplines combined, there are nuanced changes at the level of individual disciplines," Kwiek and Szymula said. "In the mathematized disciplines, there are no differences between men and women in drop-outs. The same is the case for all STEMM disciplines combined. If one already publishes in these disciplines, chances of staying in science (i.e. continuing to publish) do not differentiate scientists into men and women.”
The authors said that, traditionally, women have been believed to be leaving science more – and earlier – than men. While this is somewhat confirmed in the 2000 cohort for more recent cohorts, this gender difference may no longer be present, they stated: “For new generations of scientists, attrition in science has been on the rise and very high (58.6% of women and 57.6% of men from the 2010 cohort disappeared from science or ceased publishing within 9 years), but it seems to be much less gendered than traditionally assumed.”
Based on their data, Kwiek and Szymula believe that traditional assumptions about how people “disappear from science” may need “careful revision”.
The intention behind this study, they said, was to sketch some tentative general answers that could direct further research. Future studies might seek to address the reasons behind this rate of attrition in large cohorts.
There are many reasons why a person might choose to leave science – some motivations are shared, and others are unique. We asked former academics, now working in the science communications and biotech sectors, to discuss their experiences of leaving academia and how this decision has impacted their careers and personal lives.
Why are people choosing to “leave” science?
One contributor told Technology Networks that the academic environment often lacks a sense of comradery: "I left academia after my PhD and a brief stint as a technician. I felt wholly unsupported by my team and university, which made it very difficult to progress and grow as a scientist. I was passionate about my research, but the environment left me feeling drained and disillusioned.”
Leaving was by no means an easy decision, they continued: “At first, it felt like a defeat, like I was walking away from everything I had wanted and worked for. “I quickly found roles that valued my skills, offered growth and actively encouraged a good work–life balance. This allowed me to rediscover my passion for science in a way that wasn’t constrained by the limitations and politics of academic life."
Feelings of resentment towards the politics embedded in scientific research were echoed by another contributor: “I left academia as I lost the passion that I had for research due to the constant pressure, the ‘publish or perish’ nature and the unnecessary politics academia brings. I thought it was a sign to leave when I no longer enjoyed researching a topic that I was so passionate about once before.”
Work–life balance, while incredibly important for well-being, can be hard to strike – particularly as an early-career scientist. Ultimately, this drove Dr. Erik Wiklund, CEO of the Nordic biotech company Circio, to walk away from academic research and pursue an industry-based role: “Having completed my PhD, I realized that rather than working 70-hour weeks as a postdoc in a US lab for minimum wage and having to sleep on the lab floor, I could get a cushy job in consulting earning 3 times more, working only 60-hour weeks and sleeping in a nice hotel bed,” he said.
Wiklund’s colleague and CFO at Circio, Dr. Lubar Gaal, highlighted how the time required to specialize in a specific field doesn’t necessarily match the pace at which science progresses. Ultimately, this left him feeling pessimistic about his career prospects in academia. “I left academia very early, as it looked like a dead end to me,” Gaal said.
“My PhD was in a part of science that went out of fashion, and it would have been very difficult to get an academic position with it. Science had moved on; other topics were hotter. The other side of the story was that I was living in the Bay Area at the time of the first genomic bubble and it seemed much more exciting working on a future drug that could help people and improve their life than staying in academia and work on a problem that maybe only two to three other people but me would care and know about," he continued.
Dr. Matteo Cortese led research in genomics, neuroscience and gene therapy across 3 world-class institutes over a period 11 years. While working as a postdoctoral researcher in California, he was involved in a road accident that almost killed him. The accident spurred him to reevaluate his career path and enforce change: “In the year-long rehab that ensued [after the accident], I came to three realizations: one, the pressure of advancing my research was making me hate science, two, my mind at a desk works much better than my hands at a bench and three, reading and discussing science makes me happy.” Once Matt was back on his feet (literally, he quipped), he gave academia one last shot: “It didn’t work, so I transitioned to scientific writing,” he said.
Burnout is incredibly prevalent in STEM. Credit: iStock.
In a 2023 editorial titled “On the Importance of Mental Health in STEM”, Dr. Christian W. Pester, Dr. Gina Noh and Dr. Andi Fu note that the increasing prevalence of burnout as an “occupational phenomenon” in STEM is “an alarming sign that help is needed”. Dr. Magaret Sivapragasam, a biotechnologist and science communicator, cites burnout as a major influencer behind her decision to switch careers – and countries – to leave academic research. “I left academia because of the pressure to publish, teach, mentor, manage a team and do marketing for the university – all at the same time. It caused me a serious burnout,” she said. “I also wanted a switch in my field, and to explore a new environment. So, I moved to the UK (I am originally from Malaysia) to pursue a master’s in science communication in Bristol.”
Dr. Francina Agosti, a freelance science writer, said imposter syndrome affected her during life as an academic. “I left academia because of self-doubt. I was afraid of publishing papers with results that could be wrong. I know, I made replicates, statistics and all, but I kept thinking everything could be a lie (yep, imposter syndrome here!).”
Academic science is no doubt a competitive environment – there are limited resources and a lot of work to be done. How can researchers be better supported in managing feelings of self-worth and championing their abilities? Dr. Devasmita Chakraverty is an associate professor at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad's Ravi J. Matthai Centre for Educational Innovation. In a 2022 study, she conducted a quantitative analysis of 56 interviews with STEM faculty members across academic institutes in the US. The aim of the analysis was to examine the occurrence and experiences of individuals that self-identified as experiencing imposter syndrome. “Thematic interview analysis revealed that impostor phenomenon could be related to the following: 1) peer comparison, 2) faculty evaluation, 3) public recognition, 4) the anticipatory fear of not knowing and 5) a perceived lack of competency,” Chakraverty wrote.
“A comparison with findings from the larger study revealed that there are commonalities among faculty, PhD student and postdoctorate experiences of impostor phenomenon in STEM,” she continued, stating that the study findings warrant professional development opportunities that could help individuals across the academic pipeline.
A further issue in academic science is the requirement, in many cases, to be mobile. To pursue a career as a researcher, there’s a high possibility that you will have to move through various institutes on employment contracts that are temporary or short-term. That’s largely because the rise in the number of PhD graduates entering the job market is not matched by an increased number of institute positions.
Navigating these challenges is not conducive to building a life of steadiness, one contributor told Technology Networks: “I left academia after almost 20 years. Why? because it is difficult to find long-term stability (i.e., a permanent position). My partner is also a scientist, and it became impossible to secure two permanent positions in academia in the same city.”
We must protect and support scientists
From our informal research, it’s clear that the decision to leave science is complex, influenced by both personal and systemic factors. As attrition rates continue to rise, especially among newer cohorts of scientists, universal changes must be made in how researchers are supported in their careers and personal lives. Talented individuals are walking away from academic research, which, coupled with a reduction in the “disruptiveness” of science over recent years, is cause for concern.
Dr. Erik Wiklund, Dr. Lubar Gaal, Dr. Matteo Cortese, Dr. Lubar Gaal, Dr. Francina Agosti, Dr. Magaret Sivapragasam and several anonymous contributors were speaking to Molly Coddington, Senior Science Writer and News Team Lead at Technology Networks.
About the interviewees
Dr. Erik Wiklund is the chief executive officer at Circio, a Nordic biotech company.
Dr. Lubar Gaal is the chief financial officer at Circio, a Nordic biotech company.
Dr. Matteo Cortese is a scientific and CMC technical writer.
Dr. Francina Agosti is a freelance science writer and public relations consultant.
Dr. Magaret Sivapragasam is a biotechnologist and science communicator.