A week ago, a bloody event happened at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill shocked the whole

overseas Chinese community: a 2 nd year Ph.D candidate, Tailei Qi, fatally shot his advisor, associate

professor Zijie Yan. The murderer and the victim were both from China. The sky-falling doom on

Professor Yan evoked innumerable sympathies, because Professor Yan held a good reputation among

his colleagues and students for his kindness and optimism. Additionally, he was so young (only 38 years

old) when he died, his career was just about to take off, and he had two young children to support. The

murderer, Tailei Qi, has been formally charged with first-degree murder and the police are still

investigating the whole case. 

Nobody understands what kind of hatred or other reasons impelled the student to hold a gun against his

advisor. Many people suspect that the murderer must have some mental health issues, since Professor

Yan had once reported to the school that one of his students might be illusory. It is still too early to rush

to any conclusion; however, mental disorders are very prevalent in general populations. Systematic

reviews and meta-analysis indicate that anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendency are even more

serious in Ph.D students than in average population. Such predicament is not only limited to the United

States, but also in the United Kingdom, Germany,  Australia, Belgium, China, Iran, Mexico, and South

Korea, etc. 

There is some exciting news for depression treatment though: on August 4, 2023,  FDA approved a

neurosteroid oral medicine, Zuranolone (brand as Zulresso) to treat postpartum depression. Almost

within expectation, the application of Zuranolone on adults with major depressions was rejected by FDA,

partially attributing to its astonishing high price: $7450 per vial for 2 weeks’ dosage. Psychological

experts commonly agree that medication does not outright cure mental disorders. In many situations,

psychotherapy and support from families and social groups might exert more important roles. As for

Ph.D students, it is proposed that a systemic reform in the science society will be the only way to

fundamentally solve their mental difficulties and struggles. Although the population of Ph.D students is

small, this special group is essential for a country’s future global competitive advantages and

attractiveness. Numerous editors at the journal Nature appealed for a system reform in 2019 in an

article titled “A cry for help: Without systemic change to research cultures, graduate-student mental

health could worsen”.  Regrettably, all the problems outlined in the article are still there, and potentially

even worsened due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The UNC shooting highlights the urgent

need to re-call the science  society to undertake actions and give a better nurturance for our tomorrow’s

talent pool.

Original article on Nature, 13 November 2019

A cry for help 

Without systemic change to research cultures, graduate-student mental health could worsen.

Two years ago, a student responding to Nature’s biennial PhD survey called on universities to provide a

quiet room for “crying time” when the pressures caused by graduate study become overwhelming. At

that time, 29% of 5,700 respondents listed their mental health as an area of concern — and just under

half of those had sought help for anxiety or depression caused by their PhD study.

Things seem to be getting worse. Respondents to our latest survey of 6,300 graduate students from

around the world, published this week (see page 403), revealed that 71% are generally satisfied with

their experience of research, but that some 36% had sought help for anxiety or depression related to

their PhD. These findings echo those of a survey of 50,000 graduate students in the United Kingdom also

released this week. Respondents to this survey, carried out by Advance HE, a higher-education

management-training organization based in York, UK, were similarly positive about their research

experiences, but 86% report marked levels of anxiety — a much higher percentage than in the general

population. Similar data helped to prompt the first global conference dedicated to the mental health

and well-being of early-career researchers in May. Tellingly, the event sold out. How can graduate

students be both broadly satisfied, but also — and increasingly — unwell? One clue can be found

elsewhere in our survey. One-fifth of respondents reported being bullied; and one-fifth also reported

experiencing harassment or discrimination. Could universities be taking more effective action?

Undoubtedly. Are they? Not enough. Of the respondents who reported concerns, one-quarter said that

their institution had provided support, but one-third said that they had had to seek help elsewhere.

There’s another reason for otherwise satisfied students to be stressed to the point of ill health.

Increasingly, in many countries, career success is gauged by a spectrum of measurements that include

publications, citations, funding and impact. Early-career jobs tend to be precarious. To progress, a

researcher needs to be hitting the right notes in regard to the measures listed above in addition to

learning the nuts and bolts of their research topics. Most students embark on a PhD as the foundation of

an academic career. They choose such careers partly because of the freedom and autonomy to discover

and invent. But problems can arise when autonomy in such matters is reduced or removed — which is

what happens when targets for funding, impact and publications become part of universities’ formal

monitoring and evaluation systems. Moreover, when a student’s supervisor also gets to judge their

success or failure, it’s no surprise that many feel unable to open up about vulnerabilities or mental-

health concerns. The solutions are not solely in institutions doing more to provide on-campus mental-

health support — as essential as such actions are. They also lie in recognizing that mental ill-health is a

consequence of an excessive focus on measuring performance — something that funders, institutions,

journals and publishers must all take responsibility for. Much has been written about how to overhaul

the system and find a better way to define success in research, including promoting the many non-

academic careers that are open to researchers. But on the ground, the truth is that the system is making

young people ill and they need our help. The research community needs to be protecting and

empowering the next generation of researchers. Without systemic change to research cultures, we will

otherwise drive them away.