During the most recent glut of scientific talent, in the early to mid-1990s, young scientists who had grown weary of being serial postdocs considered their options. The choice, for many, was to leave the bench. But the big question was, to do what? The growing economy and nascent biotech boom provided some answers. Some scientists became stock-market analysts, business-development specialists or marketing experts.

Now the climate has changed. Wall Street has less value to analyse. Many biotech firms are concerned more with survival than with developing new business. And several companies have supplanted marketing with cost-cutting.

So what are the alternatives to those business-dependent careers? One would be to apply the business skills — financial analysis, intellectual property, marketing — to a different discipline, ideally one with growth potential. For example, combining expertise in materials science with knowledge of patent law could prove to be prudent — if nanotechnology ever takes off. The downside is the risk that the promise of new areas could be just as fleeting as the information-technology bubble that burst a few years ago.

Another approach is to find a more stable setting for applying 'alternative' skills. For example, doing financial analysis at a private foundation rather than a Wall Street firm, or working in the technology-transfer office of a university, rather than the business-development unit of a biotech firm. The upside is stability; the downside, scarcity.

Or perhaps, in these uncertain times, rather than looking for ways to leave the bench, now may be a good time to find ways to stay connected to it.