For many (I would go out on a limb and guess most) fields people may study in graduate school, there is no research outside of academia.

In most countries, being a professor is the only way to have a permanent position as a researcher in academia. You can be a researcher without being a professor, but it may involve changing your position (and country) every few years.

I can't understand why you think this is the case. You can get a full-time job in industry being a researcher. Why would you need to move every few years?

As the first step on the path to understanding, first consider: "in what fields do people get doctorates?" As a second step, consider for each of those "what industry will employ them?"

If you step over to the non-STEM (and to a lesser extent non-TE) fields, the answer to the second question tends to diminish to "academia".

I mean, yes, it is possible for me to do biochemistry in my garage without a professorship (and I do), but will people actually take you seriously? Will you get money to do your research? Where will you publish? Not all of us can be Peter Mitchell, and arguably it's harder now that government funded research has a near monopoly on the research industrial complex.

I guess it comes down to why are you doing the research in the first place. Is it for your own curiosity and self-fulfillment or is it for "people to take you seriously"? I'll admit your point about resources is completely fair and oftentimes you need the prestige to obtain the necessary resources. However there is plenty or research that can be done without insane amounts of resources (<15k). As someone who does research professionally in an area that requires minimal resources (a start up cost of 10k and reoccurring costs that are much less). I do about as little as I can get away with in terms of disseminating my work. I do the work for my own personal motivations and am not concerned about being taken seriously.

There are actually some benefits to this approach in that I don't have to work on "safe projects" that are deemed "serious research" by the community. It is actually quite liberating to work on things that others might scoff at and call you a "quack" or "wack job". And even if I am a "quack" I can honestly tell you that I am happy and feel fulfilled. Just my two cents. Life is too short to worry about everyone else.

Ah, but you can be a researcher (doing work at least as good as most PhDs) without a PhD.

Therein lies the rub.

You can also be a good, e.g., mechanical engineer without getting an engineering degree, but this is an exception to the rule.

Also, companies use the degree as an indicator of skill, so the good engineer who doesn't have a degree needs to somehow reliably demonstrate a solid understanding of the field to compensate. Obviously, from the company's point of view, one is easier to deal with than the other.

The same applies to PhDs and research. A PhD proves that the person has followed through with and understood a very precise topic of research for 2-3 years.

> You can also be a good, e.g., mechanical engineer without getting an engineering degree, but this is an exception to the rule.

That's an awfully incorrect analogy. Enrolling in a PhD program has absolutely nothing in common with getting an engineering degree. An engineering degree is conceived to give the students a pre-established set of skills and technical knowledge that meets industry demands.

A PhD program is set to help the PhD candidate research a very precise and specific topic, which more often than not is entirely irrelevant to any industry, so that in about 4 years he is able to produce some scientific findings and defend a thesis in front of a jury.

The key difference is that an engineering degree is tailored to teach marketable job skills while the PhD program is the exact opposite.

> That's an awfully incorrect analogy.

I would say "not entirely accurate", rather than "incorrect". Are you familiar with what happens in PhD research and the skills you can acquire during a PhD?

> [.،.] so that in about 4 years he is able to produce some scientific findings and defend a thesis in front of a jury.

And that's exactly what having a PhD proves: that you can start from a cursory understanding of a topic and end up contributing something novel to the field.

Given that industrial research requires you to do practically the same thing -- albeit in a more applied fashion -- a PhD is usually a good indicator when hiring for such positions. Again, there may be more suitable people for the position who don't have PhDs, but that is once again an exception to the rule.

> Are you familiar with what happens in PhD research and the skills you can acquire during a PhD?

Yes, very familiar. I've worked as a researcher in a public university and enrolled in a PhD program, but I dropped out after it was made patently clear that the whole thing was a complete waste of time.

I even had my advisor pressure me to continue working for the research group with scare tactics such as warning that getting a job would be virtually impossible and working for the research group was my only viable option.

> And that's exactly what having a PhD proves: that you can start from a cursory understanding of a topic and end up contributing something novel to the field.

...and that on its own is worth absolutely zero. You either have marketable skills or you don't, and a PhD degree does not help a PhD candidate develop marketable skills, It's years of drudge work for a research group that managed to get funding for areas which more often than not are entirely irrelevant. To develop marketable skills the PhD candidate needs to devote extra time that he doesn't have to go out of his way to make himself relevant as a job candidate.