Sir

It was with great sadness that I read of the suicide of Jason Altom, a troubled chemistry graduate student caught in the grip of an over-competitive research arena with too little academic guidance (Nature 395, 823; 1998 & ; 1998). The minds of many of our brightest young scientists are still clouded with the notion that, once they enter the PhD pipeline, there is no escape save for success (tenure-track research in academia) or failure (at best, industrial postgraduate research; at worst, a terminal masters degree).

Too often, the élite academic research system perpetuates this myth through an ignorance of the notion of alternative scientific careers.

I received less immediate support than I expected during my graduate studies, and was forced to seek advice beyond my thesis adviser. Through support from others, I sought an alternative career. I now have a fulfilling career in scientific publishing, where I have been able to combine my love of science and communications.

Similar alternative career possibilities exist in education, technology transfer and law, for those students who are willing to become informed and risk the (undeserved) stigma of leaving the pipeline from another exit (see Careers and Recruitment in this issue, pages 493-496).

Your editorial and report outlined some efforts by concerned scientists and academicians to address this issue. Another recent article proposes that it is the responsibility of graduate programmes to provide their students with a range of mentoring opportunities beyond that of the traditional principal investigator and to ensure that they have access to support services, but students must also take more responsibility for their own support needs (New Anat. 253,132-134; 1998).

Surely, much has been written on this subject since the PhD glut of the 1990s took centre stage among the worries of our next generation of researchers. Now, words are no longer enough; action is essential.