The Trump administration rolls out a new pilot program for training PhD scientists. Is it a good idea?gettyThe National Science Foundation has announced that it will invest $47 million to pilot a new four-year Ph.D. model that will train more than 250 doctoral students by emphasizing hands-on experience in industry research and development as part of their graduate education. The program, scheduled to begin this fall at about 30 universities, is an early attempt to make good on some recommendations contained in a report, Science: A New Golden Age, released last week by White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. One of the proposals called for the government to re-allocate some of its research funding away from what the report termed “legacy institutions," part of a larger strategy to overhaul what it claims is “an increasingly calcified system.""Last week we laid out the blueprint for a new Golden Age of American Science, and this week, we are already delivering on it," said Kratsios, in NSF’s release.The program, which will be led by the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP), is designed to enable students to complete their PhD in four years. Their first year of funding would be paid by their universities, with the remainder covered by NSF and the industry partners, who would provide matching support for at least one year of practical experience for students conducting dissertation research at one of their company locations. The plan calls for students to be co-advised by academic and industry mentors.The new model redirects some of STEM students’ training from university labs, presumably also moving a portion of it away from the basic research favored by many academic scientists and toward applications that might be more useful to business and industry.The logic behind that shift is that more than 65% of recent PhDs in engineering, physical sciences and computer and information sciences who had definite job commitments, are headed to industry while “most doctoral programs remain structured for academic careers and do not adequately prepare students for industry careers.” How much of a mismatch that really represents is open for debate because universities and industries have been jointly funding research partnerships for year. In addition, if it’s true that most science and technology PhDs are taking jobs in industry, perhaps they are being better prepared for those jobs than the administration wants you to believe. A solid grounding in advanced, basic research has served the nation’s applied interests well for decades, but a case can be made for better alignment between doctoral training and the realities of the scientific workplace. In its initial announcement, NSF did not provide a list of university and industry partners. However, Pilot Wire reported that “a wide range of public and private universities across the country” were involved, including the University of Texas, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Pennsylvania. It also indicated the partner list included companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Thermo Fisher, BP, Honeywell Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce, and John Deere. Other media outlets were reporting additional partners such as Purdue, Northwestern and the University of California, San Diego.The pilots "will allow us to test how university-industry partnerships can better prepare talent for the broad range of careers that await them today," said Erwin Gianchandani, NSF assistant director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships. "We thank our initial partners and welcome conversations with additional universities and companies as we plan for long-term expansion and sustainability of the program." The initiative will surely cause more questions to be raised about the future level and direction of NSF funding under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly called for reductions in its budget. Start with this one: Is the pilot program a genuine attempt to create new pathways for America’s most talented STEM students wanting to enter industry-based careers, or is it a bait-and-switch strategy that ultimately will dilute government funding for research universities and their faculty?