Mental health is a subject that is gaining attention nationally and internationally. The picture painted is bleak, resounding with the idea that poor mental health is ubiquitous and there exists no viable strategy to reverse this trend. But, highly educated students pursuing a PhD are less common to experience psychological distress, right? Wrong. In fact, recent studies that have focused on the mental health of graduate students show that psychological distress may be more common in our population than the general public.
For many years, mostly through anecdote and observation, poor mental health was considered quite common among PhD level graduate students. However, this trend was mostly ignored by administration and faculty in PhD programs due to the lack of statistical data or the acceptance that psychological distress was part of the PhD experience. On the contrary, the trend was supported and entrenched within student populations who were mostly hesitant to speak up, as their mental health crisis might label them as weak or unfit for PhD work. Now, on the heels of recent scientific surveys and analyses, the proverbial elephant-in-the-room must be addressed. Good mental health must be considered as critical to student educational outcomes as biosafety training and dissertation aims.
For the student currently suffering with a cloud of depression, panic attacks about committee meetings or heightened anxiety predating every experimental failure – you are not alone. Data supports this assertation. According to recent high-impact studies, 1 in 2 PhD students will experience psychological distress and more than 1 in 3 PhD students report moderate to severe anxiety and depression. In a way, these figures are comforting, knowing that the situation has been exposed to academic community at large. However, students deserve a better educational experience that provides them with the skills and knowledge to take on the next big endeavor of their lives. This is precisely why poor mental health must be addressed and, as a result of thoughtful improvements, a PhD will equip students with a resilience and tenacity that makes them shine in the workplace.
How might we begin to address this? Firstly, knowledge is powerful. Knowledge of the issue, ways to get help, techniques to develop resilience, techniques for introspective thinking, and the process of practicing mindful science. Mindful science is the product of applying introspective thinking towards oneself, one’s dissertation project, and one’s environment. With this tool, students will produce high quality science that stands up to the test of rigor and reproducibility, while also maintaining a suitable work-life balance and assessment of their stress and anxiety levels. These topics and tools must be taught to incoming PhD students and the outcomes will more than justify the effort of incorporating into a curriculum. Second, a student can only do so much with this knowledge if advisors, mentors, and administration are not keenly aware of the extent of this issue. Thus, faculty and administration must share some of the burden if they desire to train the next generation of scientific leaders. This burden may come as mentorship training, supportive teaching practices, or an overall effort to improve their student’s readiness to enter the workplace in areas of scientific techniques, intuitive thinking, and excellent physical and mental health. It will be well worth the effort.
Should we hope for a reversal of these bleak trends? Yes. Entire fields are devoted to the topic of reversing poor workplace practices and reducing burnout, and encouragingly, the results can be dramatic. Work will be required by all participating parties to achieve a positive result, but it can be done and should be done. The next wave of scientific breakthroughs is counting on it.