It's interesting off the bat that the paper asserts that the primary job opportunity for science PHD's is to teach science, and laments the lack of quality professorial positions. Once it got into depth on the explanation I found myself agreeing more their analysis than not. The answer really has to be that the primary job opportunities for scientific grads should be non-academic, not Ponzi scheme professorial jobs where each professor has a dozen grad assistants who want to be professors.
You are mistaken, senior, tenured professors, particularly in the sciences, don't teach. They have grad students do that for them. They're off playing advisor and mentor for the grad students(and beyond), off working in university backed laboratories that they bemoan about being chronically underfunded working away at boldly advancing the frontiers of knowledge.
For academia, the commercial sector is a plebian undertaking subject to whims and fancies of the masses. No self-respecting man of letters would dare sell themselves out in such a way, the ones who do seemingly disappear, never to be seen or heard from in published works ever again.
Never mind the huge pharmaceutical industry that employs legions of PhD level biochemistry types, or the legion of other industries that use highly trained chemists to develop new processes, be it for new products, or better quality control.
Or the legions of PhD level people working the tech sector working on ways to ensure Moore's Law continues to hold true. The list keeps going, but since those people left academic life behind them, they do not exist to the academics.
