The problem is not a lack of talent

Early-career researchers (ECRs) are expected to generate new ideas, master emerging technologies, collaborate across disciplines and help address some of society's most difficult and sometimes urgent challenges. Yet the systems in which they work often make it unnecessarily difficult to build sustainable scientific careers and access a promised “promotion”.

 A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Nature Human Behaviour in June 2026 synthesized 228 samples involving 138,446 ECRs. Across outcomes, 29.9% reported elevated psychological distress. The study found only limited associations with demographic and individual characteristics and concluded that the evidence supports structural reform alongside evidence-based support services.

 That finding should concern everyone who seeks to offer or work in a healthy research system. It also connects directly with Sustainable Development Goal 3, which includes promoting mental health and well-being.

 Our voice of awareness spans researchers based in Iraq, Germany and South Africa. Despite very different contexts, we repeatedly encounter versions of the same problem where researchers can be highly trained and strongly motivated yet remain constrained by insecure contracts, disrupted opportunities, unequal access to funding and infrastructure, weak promotion rules, illustrations and limited entry into the networks where skills become grants, collaborations and influence.

                          "Training creates potential. Scientific capacity requires the opportunity to use it."

 We believe eight practical changes can begin to close that gap, including:

 1. Measure working conditions, not only research outputs

Since COVID, recurrent airport closures and mobility restrictions increasingly shape researchers’ ability to work. Publications, grants and doctoral completions matter, but they do not tell us whether a research system is sustainable. Institutions and national strategies should also examine career insecurity, workload, supervision, mentorship, resource access, progression pathways and researcher well-being.

 2. Reduce avoidable career uncertainty

Scientific uncertainty is inherent to research; career uncertainty created by poorly designed systems is not. Short-term contracts, delayed renewals, unclear progression criteria and funding gaps repeatedly interrupt scientific independence. Timely decisions, transparent pathways and bridge mechanisms where appropriate can reduce uncertainty that serves no scientific purpose.

3. Do not turn disruption into individual failure

Laboratory closures, interrupted fieldwork, mobility restrictions, conflict, administrative barriers and delayed funding can erase months or years of progress. These events should not automatically reappear on a researcher's record as missed milestones or poor performance. Institutions and funders need formal procedures for documented disruption, including extensions, revised work plans, deferred mobility or access to real partner institutions where feasible.

4. Make supervision and institutional responsibility accountable

A supportive supervisor can transform an ECR's development; poor communication, weak feedback or unclear expectations can do the opposite. Institutions should define minimum supervision standards, train supervisors in management and mentorship, and provide transparent routes for addressing problems. A scientific career should not depend on the luck of finding one supportive senior colleague or merit-based leadership.

5. Stop confusing training with structural support

Leadership courses, grant-writing workshops, communication training and well-being programs can all be valuable. But researchers cannot be trained out of structural insecurity. Capacity-building should connect to practical opportunities, funding, infrastructure, collaborations, mentorship and leadership roles, so that newly acquired skills can actually be used.

6. Treat ECR mental health as an indicator of science-system health

Confidential counselling and evidence-based mental-health services are essential, but supporting services alone cannot correct environments that repeatedly generate pressure. Institutions and funders should examine well-being alongside attrition, contract insecurity, supervision, resource access and repeated disruption. The purpose is not to create another performance metric; it is to identify where systems are accumulating pressure and losing talent

7. Protect time and energy for science

Repeated applications for short-term contracts, renewals and third-party funding consume time that could be spent on research, mentoring and collaboration. Administrative processes will always be part of science, but unnecessary repetition and chronic insecurity should not be. Employment and funding structures should allow researchers to devote more of their energy to the work they were trained to do.

8. Turn scientific capacity into access and opportunity

Training has limited value if researchers remain unable to access funding, infrastructure, mobility, collaborative networks or scientific decision-making. The Global Young Academy's Global State of Young Scientists (GloSYS) program has documented many of these challenges across regions, including funding, mobility, mentoring and gender inequities. Governments, funders, universities, academies and scientific organizations should create practical pathways that convert skills into grants, collaborations, leadership opportunities and policy engagement.

 
A shared responsibility

No single institution can resolve these pressures alone. Governments shape science, employment and mobility policies. Funders influence continuity, timelines and access to resources. Universities, all over the world, shape working environments, supervision and progression pathways. Academies and scientific organizations connect researchers across disciplines, institutions and generations.

 The question, then, is not simply how to help individual researchers cope. It is whether our scientific systems create conditions in which emerging researchers can build sustainable careers and contribute without carrying avoidable structural pressure as a personal burden.

 Scientific excellence should not depend on how much preventable pressure a researcher can endure. Science cannot afford to lose a generation. Which of these reforms is most urgent in your research system, and what changes are already working? We invite researchers, funders, institutional leaders, and scientific organizations to share practical examples in the comments.

References

1. Dreisoerner, A., Goetz, V., Frohnmayer, D. et al. (2026). Prevalence and severity of mental health problems in early-career researchers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour.
2. Global Young Academy. Global State of Young Scientists (GloSYS).
3. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being.