APPENDIX 17
Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Biology, together with the Association of Clinical Microbiologists,
British Association for Cancer Research, British Association for
Lung Research, British Crop Protection Council, British Ecological
Society, British Grassland Society, British Microcirculation Society,
British Phycological Society, British Society for Parasitology,
British Society for Plant Pathology, Freshwater Biological Association,
Institute of Horticulture, Institute of Trichologists, Physiological
Society, Society for Applied Microbiology, Society for Experimental
Biology and the UK Environmental Mutagen Society.
1. The Institute of Biology is the independent
and charitable body charged by Royal Charter to represent UK biologists
and biology. Together with its specialist Affiliated Societies
(about 70 in January 2002) it is well placed to comment on bioscience
issues such as short term contracts in research. Specifically,
this policy statement has been jointly compiled with the following
specialist societies: Association of Clinical Microbiologists,
British Association for Cancer Research, British Association for
Lung Research, British Crop Protection Council, British Ecological
Society, British Grassland Society, British Microcirculation Society,
British Phycological Society, British Society for Parasitology,
British Society for Plant Pathology, Freshwater Biological Association,
Institute of Horticulture, Institute of Trichologists, Physiological
Society, Society for Applied Microbiology, Society for Experimental
Biology and the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. It should also
be noted that many other Affiliated Societies have contributed
to this response on an informal basis as well as contributed to
previous recent discussions on this issue.
2. This statement's principal points include:—
(i) Short-term contracts are important early
on in a researcher's career but continuing them for many years,
combined with low pay, hinders normal life goals such as setting
up home and starting a family. This drives researchers away from
science. (Paragraphs 3, 6-13.)
(ii) Surveys of specialist learned biological
societies have shown the contracts question to be of priority
concern fundamental to research quality. (Paragraphs 4, 5, 16
and 17.)
(iii) There is both statistical and anecdotal
evidence that the preponderance of short-term contracts is driving
researchers away from science. (Paragraph 18.)
(iv) The Research Concordat legitimised concern
but had no teeth (Paragraph 20.)
(v) Cuts in MAFF/DEFRA R&D (of previous
Parliamentary and biological community concern) has encouraged
short-term contracts. (Paragraph 25.)
(vi) University departments need financial
incentives to change and the Funding Councils might provide this.
Those departments that do not invest in staff careers arguably
require less funding. (Paragraphs 21 and 22.)
GENERAL POINTS
Short-term contracts are important early on in a
researcher's career, but only early on
3. It should be noted that short-term contracts
should not be abolished per se. They play an important part in
a researcher's early career enabling them to enjoy a breadth of
experience simply not possible with a single contract. This enables
researchers to find their feet and identify the areas of research
in which they are best suited to work. But this is only true during
the formative years of a researcher's career. Today a researcher
can expect to move from short-term contract to short-term contract
for many years.
The UK biological community has in two surveys identified
short-term contracts as of priority concern
4. The Institute of Biology surveyed its
specialist Affiliated Societies in 1996 and 2000 as to their top
science policy concerns. Both surveys revealed that the issue
of short-term contracts was one of high priority.
The contracts question is fundamental to the quality
of the next generation of researchers
5. The results of the 2000 survey were formalised
in a report Science Policy Priorities 2001, approved by the societies,
and launched Spring 2001 at the Royal Society to the biological
science community and interested Parliamentarians. This report
stated that over half the comments received from the specialist
Affiliated Societies, or groups thereof, cited "the state
of UK research, or careers and short-term contracts" as being
of priority concern. The Institute believes that, "both [these]
are fundamental to the quality of the next generation of UK researchers
and the future of UK research."
UK researchers are both low paid and have job insecurity
6. Quite simply, the current generation
of academic researchers are both low paid and endure considerable
job insecurity due to short-term contracts. While today job mobility
is at the heart of modern career tracks, a professional in the
City of London will enjoy a good salary (and mortgage perks) and
so will be financially cushioned when faced with a career break.
Similarly, salaries in industry and commerce are markedly higher
than in academia, so affording greater financial stability yet
allowing job mobility.
When academic and non-academic professionals can
be directly compared, the comparison is stark
7. The difficulties become particularly
apparent when academic researchers can be directly compared with
their non-academic counterparts. Medical doctors provide an illustrative
example. The Review Body on Doctors and Dentist Remuneration was
established to be an independent assessor of medical practitioners'
pay. Indeed, the awards given doctors outside academia are considered
most fair (even if the hours of hospital juniors are not). However
those medics within academia enjoy far less remuneration and worse
terms of service. This disparity has been of concern to the Medical
Academic Science Committee of the BMA for nearly two decades.
Up to mid-1980s researchers were confident of ultimately
becoming permanent staff, since the 1980s the proportion on short-term
contracts has increased markedly
8. While academics' pay (especially for
young researchers) has never been particularly competitive (vis
a vis professions requiring similar comprehensive training), up
to the 1980s a researcher could aspire to tenure after an initial
short series of short-term contracts at the beginning of his or
her career. Though without high salaries, tenure provides researchers
with sufficient financial stability for them to consider obtaining
mortgages and having a family. Since the 1980s the number of researchers
has grown, but the number of tenured positions has remained more
or less static so that the proportion on short-term contracts
has increased markedly.
The combination of low pay and a lack of career security
that makes for a "double whammy" against science
9. The level of academics pay has been reviewed
on a number of occasions and there is little point repeating such
evidence here. However the Bett Report (1999) is a good example
of an independent assessment of university salaries. PhD student
stipends are even worse and the Gareth Roberts Review (2002) notes
(p119) that the 2001 PhD stipend was just £23 per annum above
the National Minimum Wage. Similarly the issue of short-term contracts
has been highlighted many times before (including by the biological
community—see paragraphs 4 and 5) and such concern prompted
the Research Concordat. It is this combination of low pay and
lack of career security that makes for a "double whammy"
against science as a career of choice. It would be possible for
science to operate in an environment of continual short-term contracts
if the level of pay was sufficiently high to provide a financial
cushion between contracts at times of uncertainty.
Student-loan debt puts off graduates, and mature
student graduates (with their extra financial commitments) are
discouraged from embarking on a career in research
10. It needs also to be noted that young
researchers these days are still paying off their student loans
which at graduate level are often as much as £10,000. There
is a clear financial motivation for the brightest and best to
leave. Furthermore, mature student graduates (who often have other
skills to bring to research teams) tend to have more financial
commitments compared to graduates who left for university straight
from school. These mature students are particularly discouraged
from a career in science.
The brightest and best can easily leave science if
a science career cannot offer them routine rewards such as the
ability to buy a house
11. The equation is comparatively simple.
The brightest and the best tend to have the most skills and so
have the most to offer outside science. As a result such talent
has the potential to leave science, and will do so if those possessing
it feel they cannot make a decent living within science. By a
decent living we mean routine things such as buying a house and
raising a family.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Does the preponderance of short-term contracts
really matter?
The preponderance of short-term contracts makes research
less attractive
12. The preponderance of short-term contracts
(combined with low levels of pay) means that career prospects
outside science are more appealing, and so researchers leave.
The brightest and best researcher are the most sought after by
others and so find it easiest to leave science. Even though some
jobs outside science are as low-paid, being permanent they offer
financial security. Of course there are others that pay better
too. Indeed, as mentioned above, while others still may also be
short-term contracts their pay is so much better that such jobs
still confer far more financial security.
This matters because research requires the brightest
and best for maximum achievement
13. Does it matter that many of the brightest
and best leave science? Not if these researchers move into industrial
research, but there is considerable opinion, much anecdotal evidence,
and even, we are sure, hard data potentially available from the
Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA), to suggest that many
of the brightest and best are leaving science altogether. This
really does matter, as scientific research requires the brightest
for maximum achievement. Secondly, postgraduate training is expensive.
While graduates leaving science are exporting scientific expertise
to the community at large and is to be welcomed, postgraduate
scientists leaving science wastes a considerable investment by
the nation.
The UK can chose to abandon a knowledge-based economy
14. Of course, UK PLC can survive without
an exceptionally skilled research community should it consider
abandoning its drive for a knowledge-based economy and to return
to a low-technology agrarian society, or alternatively a low-technology
industrial society. (High technology requires exceptional scientific
underpinning.) Such a decision is borne of political and social
choice and is not one for the scientific community alone to make.
However we (representatives of the UK biological community) are
of the firm belief that if the nation nurtures a strong and vibrant
scientific community, then economic and social benefits are more
likely to follow.
What are the implications of short-term contracts
for researchers and their careers?
Short-term contracts are of less consequence to the
youngest researchers.
15. Sequential short-term contracts are
of less consequence to the youngest researchers with no commitment
to a specific home and low financial demands. Nonetheless academically
they do necessitate a period of uncertainty and researchers' attention
in the final year of their contract is clearly divided between
their work in hand and securing a new contract somewhere. This
does not matter so much with the youngest of workers as the experience
gained with a contract involving slightly different expertise
outweighs this negative side.
Older researchers with financial commitments find
short-contracts discouraging and much time is wasted securing
the next contract
16. Older workers with financial commitments,
family ties and with higher remuneration expectations, find short-term
contracts more stressful. Indeed, as they are less mobile (being
perhaps tied to a home and/or family), and more expensive than
their younger counterparts, they may have greater difficulty in
securing another contract. The marginal gains of increased skills
diminish with each successive contract but time still has to be
spent securing each new contract. Indeed older researchers on
short-term contracts may spend more time looking for their next
contract in order to ensure continuity of income. They may even
start searching halfway through their appointment which means
that they concentrate on fulfilling and writing up their research,
ignoring interesting possible avenues of investigation. They may
even wish to leave their post early. All this is unproductive.
Some research takes longer than the typical 3-5 year
contract model
17. In biology some research takes longer
than the three to five-year typical contract model. Some tree
and plant disease studies (for example) necessitate longer time
frames of eight to 10 years. Ecological studies that require the
study of an organism, or groups thereof, throughout the annual
cycle also may require a number of cycles of study after initial
experimental design, and before a period of write-up. Finally,
short-term contracts generally have a detrimental effect on long-term
research programmes.
Is There Evidence That the Present Situation Causes
Good Researchers to Leave?
Yes. There is both statistical and anecdotal evidence
18. A look at the proportion of Fellows
of the Royal Society living overseas compared to 20 years ago
is but one indication. Anecdotal evidence has been given to the
Institute of Biology and many of its Affiliated Societies. And
there is genuine and widespread belief that good researchers are
leaving academia. However, a careful interrogation of the Higher
Education Statistical Agency's (HESA) database would almost certainly
reveal evidence of a migration from science in the form of fewer
2.1 and first class graduates continuing in science.
What Would Be the Right Balance Between Contract
and Permanent Research Staff in Universities and research institutions?
One short-term contract worker to three core-funded
19. In an ideal world it would be one short-term
contract worker to three core-funded workers. Assuming a uniform
distribution across all ages, this would mean that only the first
quarter of a researchers professional career would be on short-term
contracts. This would mean that most people would only do one
or two, possibly three at the most, postdoctorate contracts. Lecturers
need to be permanent. (Here, while university departments should
have both a teaching and a research function, not all researchers
are good communicators, neither are all communicators good researchers.)
Has the Concordat and Research Careers Initiative
made any difference?
The Concordat legitimised concern but had no teeth
20. The Concordat has been useful in legitimising
concern over the issue of short-term contracts. However the Concordat
had no teeth and as such was ineffectual. Its only real grass-roots
impact was for contract workers to feel a bit more like tenured
academic staff and a bit less like postgraduate students. If this
problem is to be resolved then university departments must be
obliged to have a minimum proportion of their staff employed in
permanent posts in order to secure certain levels of funding.
THE WAY
FORWARD
Universities need a financial incentive to change—the
Funding Councils overhead arm of dual support might provide this
21. Matters will only change on the ground
if universities are given a financial incentive to change. Eligibility
for maximum funding should only be available to those Departments
who have a minimum proportion of their academic staff as permanent
personnel. Because staffing is more to do with administration,
than the actual type of science being conducted, the Higher Education
Funding Councils are probably best placed to see through such
an initiative. Of course, there has been some concern as to the
overhead funding of university research for some time, so it is
hoped that the Funding Councils would be given a major real-term
increase in the forth-coming Comprehensive Spending Review.
Departments with many short-term contract staff realise
the flexibility and salary savings and so do not need extra funding
associated with career development
22. Dividing university departments into
two categories depending on their proportions of short-term contract
staff is fairer than any voluntary system of adherence to a code
of practice. If universities departments realise the flexibility
and salary savings associated with short-term contract research
staff, then arguably they do not need the same level of financial
support as those departments that invest in their staff with career
development and progression.
Review of any correcting mechanism is required to
address loopholes
23. Whatever mechanism is employed, to ensure
that the balance of those on short-term contracts and full-time
staff is correct, needs to be reviewed after a few years in order
to address loopholes that may have become apparent.
Research assessment must not encourage short-term
contracts
24. Whatever it is that replaces the Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) must not encourage some staff to be
declared what the RAE considers "research inactive".
This in itself has already disadvantaged female researchers in
particular, and can also be considered at worst to encourage short-term
contracts.
Cuts in MAFF/DEFRA R&D have also encouraged short-term
contracts
25. The real-term decline in research funding
from DEFRA (formerly MAFF)—that has already been the subject
of Parliamentarian concern (cf. Governmental Expenditure on R&D
(2000) and Are We Realising Our Potential? (2001)—has increased
financial constraints of a number of bioscience departments and
so contributed to the culture of an administrative need for the
potential to jettison staff, hence helped fuel the numbers on
short-term contracts. Concern over MAFF/DEFRA R&D investment
has been long, and repeatedly, identified by both the bioscience
community and Parliamentarians. It needs to be addressed promptly
and properly.
THE WAY
NOT TO
PROCEED
Forced conversion to full-time after a number of
short contracts will not work
26. It would be a mistake to say that after
a certain period of time, or a number of sequential contracts,
that a researcher must be made a full time member of staff. All
this would do would be to increase the likelihood of a researcher
failing to get a contract renewed just prior to the deadline.
This would be most disruptive for research workers and research
itself.
OTHER POINTS
European law
27. The position is unclear but there is
some concern that European law may force those who have employed
staff for a few years on a short-term contract to re-employ them
as full time staff. This may make contracts even shorter and the
position requires clarifying.
OPENNESS
28. This position statement has been formulated
by the Institute of Biology, compiled from evidence submitted
by its members and Affiliated Societies. Enquiries on this topic
from Parliamentarians should be addressed to: Jonathan Cowie,
Institute of Biology, 20-22 Queensberry Place, London SW7 2DZ.
Copyright of this statement is shared with the co-authoring Affiliated
Societies—namely the Association of Clinical Microbiologists,
British Association for Cancer Research, British Association for
Lung Research, British Crop Protection Council, British Ecological
Society, British Grassland Society, British Microcirculation Society,
British Phycological Society, British Society for Parasitology,
British Society for Plant Pathology, Freshwater Biological Association,
Institute of Horticulture, Institute of Trichologists, Physiological
Society, Society for Applied Microbiology, Society for Experimental
Biology and the UK Environmental Mutagen Society—and these
societies should be referenced by name wherever this statement
is cited as per Government policy on openness and transparency
as well as the Select Committee report Science and Society
(2000). A version of this statement will appear on www.iob.org
27 June 2002
| 
