Below is a piece of correspondence submitted (and rejected) to Nature.

Being weighed, measured and still found wanting
The recent editorial in, “Do Scientists really need a PhD?” (Nature, 464, 7; 2010), suggests a relatively novel approach to higher learning than is traditionally accepted in western nations (in light of some measures in China). The editorial characterized this as the title implies, but more specifically as an “increasing rigidity and length of Western academic pipeline”, in light of possible progressive alternatives currently offered by Beijing Genomics Institute.

What the editorial did not consider, which is in lock step with any research program, regardless of Eastern or Western, is ‘Where is the money coming from?”, and more specifically, “Who is going to judge an non-traditionally trained researcher and his/her proposal, against one that is support by a PhD?”

Our academic culture is one of steps on ladder, rather than one of an apprentice in a guild. Funding agencies, whether NGOs, provincial/state, or national, almost certainly have the PhD stipulation, implicit, if not implied for any applicant. As one who has not been formally trained but has modestly made some contributions in my field, and as head of my institutional program, this is a perpetual quandary. Though I have recently found an adjunct alliance with a moderate size university (again, the larger ones wouldn’t even consider this possibility), this still does not allow access to any of these traditional funding sources. What is hoped is that some organizational leadership evolves where the practice of science is determined on the demonstrated history and the reasonably expected results.