APPENDIX 20
Memorandum submitted by the John Innes
Centre, Norwich, UK
John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK is an independent,
world-leading research centre in plant and microbial sciences.
The JIC has 791 staff and students who carry out high quality
fundamental, strategic and applied research to understand how
plants and microbes work at the molecular, cellular and genetic
levels. The JIC also trains scientists and students, collaborates
with many other research laboratories and communicates its science
to end-users and the general public. The JIC is grant-aided by
the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
1. Does the preponderance of short-term research
contracts really matter? Why?
No. The John Innes Centre seeks to deliver world-class
scientific research and this is achieved through a talented, well-trained
and highly motivated staff. The current breakdown of all staff
is as follows:
| | No.
| per cent |
| Permanent staff | 291
| 36.8 |
| Short-term research contracts | 227
| 28.7 |
| Casuals | 12
| 1.5 |
| Visiting workers/PhD students | 261
| 33.0 |
| Total | 791
| 100 per cent |
Staff on short-term research contracts account for just under
a third of the total staff. New platform technologies are creating
new opportunities for employment. The Centre strives to provide
a stimulating and well-resourced environment, which will ensure
the ability to recruit high-quality staff, at all levels, and
in which individuals can learn and apply new skills and undertake
research that will advance their careers. Turnover of staff, at
all levels, maintain a vibrant research environment, and is an
inevitable consequence of the established mechanisms of science
research funding.
2. What are the implications for researchers and their
careers?
Inevitably not all short-term contract research staff will
find permanent employment in the research sector. The Centre recognises
it employs a very large number of project scientists, with fixed-duration
contracts, who need a framework within which they can manage and
plan their careers. We recognise that in many cases the uncertainty
associated with short-term contracts has consequential problems
including motivation and retention. We identify a major systemic
requirement for a structure in which the inevitable progression
for the majority, from PhD student to post-doc and out into the
wide world, is regarded as positive and of benefit to both science
and the rest of society. We need to move towards a more positive
mentoring system in which less emphasis is placed on a single
career aspiration to be a group leader, and more on the value
of training in hands-on, problem-solving science for a whole range
of careers both in science and outside science. Leaving research
science, for example, to train as a school science teacher (for
which we have a national shortage), should be viewed as a positive
virtue, not as a failure. This is also an argument for not reducing
the number of PhD students trained. A more proactive culture,
that highlights early mentoring and professional careers advice,
will be required. A limited number of career-track positions will
be available at the John Innes Centre and could be won in open
competition by a JIC project scientist. However, due to the large
numbers involved most project scientists will move away from the
John Innes Centre to pursue their careers. Indefinite continuation
on short-term contracts, as a project scientist, is not considered
a desirable option once the six-year post-doctoral period has
elapsed. JIC project leaders are asked to ensure that as part
of their mentoring role the career plans of project scientists
should be continually reviewed.
3. Is there evidence that the present situation causes
good researchers to leave?
It is unclear whether "leave" refers to research
science in general or their current lab in particular. Comments
on the former case are presented above, but in terms of the latter
it is self evident that the 239 staff on short-term contracts,
cannot populate the permanent 55 group leader positions! Of course,
this is a direct consequence of the way the scientific enterprise
has evolved globally over the last century. Almost all science
is now conducted in teams led by a group leader. This is an efficient
system that has survived selection pressures, and is reflected
universally in the funding structures that release competitively
won pots of money designed to hire a research worker for a short
fixed time, commonly three years. It is clear that at an Institute
like ours the majority of the creative and productive benchwork
is delivered by post-docs on short-term contracts.
4. What would be the right balance between contract and
permanent research staff in universities and research institutions?
There is no "right balance". The number of research
groups nationally, and the funds available to them to run the
groups, varies with the discipline concerned, the political priorities
of the day and the supply of labour (both in and out). The balance
is a delicate one, but with strong selection pressures that push
it to adapt rapidly. At present, for example, the increased opportunities
for funding via the EU Framework programmes have inevitably increased
the number of opportunities for short-term contracts. On the other
hand the European Directive on Fixed Term Working is driving us
in the other direction.
5. Has the Concordat and the Research Careers Initiative
made any difference?
We welcome the Concordat, and the answer is a qualified yes,
particularly in highlighting the need for training. At JIC there
is a dedicated training Officer and as part of the annual assessment
procedure individuals are asked to discuss their training needs
and there are a range of computing, management and science communication
courses available. The perceived lack of career structures for
research scientists is not helpful, and we believe that nationally
and locally far more positive career advice is needed, particularly
for new and exciting exit-routes from science. There has been
no concerted action to solve many of the problems identified by
the Concordat. For example, there need to be obligations in the
grant system for better training and career advice and there is
currently an unresolved tension between the demands for research
excellence on grants and the demands for better and wider training.
6. How should policy move forward?
The EU Working Time Directive will have an impact on local
policies and unless there is a major change in national and international
funding mechanisms that support science by the provision of short-term
funding then the situation is unlikely to change. However, locally,
we believe the provision of more focused and positive career advice
is a priority, and that our alumni are a rich resource for this.
Both BBSRC and JIC should be offering regular career days together
with enthusiastic employers from all sectors that would value
staff with trained logical, practical scientific minds. Mentoring
in this area at the beginning of a post-doc's career is crucial.
Lastly, salaries for post-docs on short-term contracts is still
a major problem. Debt accumulated during the minimum six years
undergraduate and postgraduate training is severe in many cases,
and current salaries are not a major recruiting tool.
24 June 2002
|
