The Science of Mental Health: Emerging Epidemics and the Unstable Future of Research and Research in the U.S., Canada, and India
Some people argue that science is at the start of a movement that will encourage changes to improve mental health of researchers over generations to come. Others argue that change is happening too slowly for young scientists who are already fleeing science — an effect that could have grim consequences for the future of research and society itself.
The need to achieve positive change cannot be overstated. Doing nothing is not an option. If the next generation of researchers is as dissatisfied as our Feature suggests, then no less than the future of research and scholarship is at stake.
There are various events and workshops due to the efforts of graduate students and postdocs. Drives to form PhD student and postdoc unions on US campuses have also sought guarantees of better working conditions. “It is the beginning of a movement that hopefully over generations of academics will result in long-term change,” Evans says. “And I feel like we have all the pieces to see that happen. It just takes a while.
It is no wonder that there is a mental-health problem in science. The rates of depression and burnout are comparable with those found in high-risk occupations such as health care, according to one study.
There is consensus that a change that might already be afoot is the first step in getting mental health to become a mainstream topic of discussion. Since Evans and her colleagues published their study in 2018, they and other scientists have been invited to numerous institutions and conferences to talk about the issue. The most recent decadal survey of US astronomy and astrophysics, in 2021, conducted by the National Academies to set funding priorities every ten years, discussed harassment and discrimination in the community.
Scientists said that the epidemic was just the tipping point, according to the study co-author. The PAIN laid them bare and had been happening before. It amplified these effects.”
One study looked at more than 3000 physicists and biologists from the United Kingdom, US, Italy, and India, and recorded in-depth interviews with more than 200 scientists. It found that the pandemic only exacerbated issues that were already present10.
The findings indicated that it was a disaster, according to the senior researcher of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley.
In a 2020 survey of 5,247 graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics from 9 institutions across the United States, 38% reported symptoms consistent with anxiety and 35% had depression8. Large jumps were found in the team’s findings in 2019. The number of students with depression doubled, and the prevalence of anxiety rose by 50%8.
Scientists have concerns about the affects of all these pressures on mental health. hard data is now available from studies in the past few years. The situation is dire according to the findings.
It’s true for people who are under represented, including women, non-binary individuals, people of colour, those from sexual and gender minorities and students on low incomes. But they also affect senior researchers and scientists in different countries.
In 2015, Teresa Evans, who directed graduate biomedical career development at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, learnt that her students were struggling. But when they came to her for advice, she felt ill-equipped to help.
The rate of mental health issues was higher for female, Trans and gender-non conforming respondents than it was for male respondents. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was 55% and 57% for transgender and gender-nonconforming graduate students, 43% and 41% for women and 34% and 35% for men. Evans was surprised that women are more prone to anxiety and depression than men.
These studies encouraged the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to appoint a special committee to examine the issue in academic settings. In June of this year it released a report about pervasive and damaging sexual harassment in science.
Nature and other journals have reported on the prevalence of Bully and harassment in the academic world. But few academic leaders seem to be doing much to solve the problem. That’s not to say they aren’t listening — many, perhaps even most, are. A considerable number are trying to implement policies to improve campus well-being. But these efforts are not yielding positive results.
70% of respondents felt stressed on average, while 34% sought professional help for mental-health issues. Beyond harassment, many participants blamed funders and institutes that emphasize quantity over quality in terms of publishing and obtaining grants — all of which contribute to a poor work–life balance.
University administrations and governing bodies need to find solutions beyond the campus to do better. Ultimately, internal structures need to change to reflect how science is performed today. And modern systems of employee redress for when things go wrong — such as those that encourage whistle-blowing — need to be implemented.
Yet the research system still tends to put power in the hands of just one person, or a few people. When grants are awarded, the responsibility for them is generally given to principal investigators, not shared more widely among members of a research team. That can mean 50 or more early-career researchers in some fields are in the control of a single principal investigator. In the same way, departments and faculties have a single person at the top. The officer class is made up of people from less diverse background than the ones they are supervising.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The sharing of power, responsibility, and autonomy results in people working more cohesively, and step up when required. But if power is vested in one person, or only a few people, it can be misused to harass, undermine and bully others. This is what happens a lot.
This is why universities are structurally ill-equipped to provide redress against poor behaviour. Although universities do have both grievance and whistle-blowing procedures (which protect people from being penalized or dismissed if they disclose wrongdoing), they often discourage anonymization for those drawing attention to inappropriate behaviours or actions. Some argue that it makes complaints more difficult to investigate. In a situation in which someone perpetrating harm is also responsible for an individual’s career potential, anonymous whistle-blowing is a more fair way to get justice.