APPENDIX 34
Memorandum submitted by Dr Paul Robson
and Dr Gordon Allison, IGER
INTRODUCTION
We should like to address the remit of the Committee
concerning the effects that short-term contracts (STCs) have on
British science. Against a background of increasing success it
could be argued that British science is working. Contributing
8 per cent of the world's publications from only 4 per cent of
its scientific investment would appear to be a sign that more
of the same will sustain Britains position in science. At the
core of this apparent success however, is a culture of dissatisfaction,
of an inability to effectively utilise the scientific base for
the benefit of Britain and a looming crisis in recruitment. A
significant proportion of the problems facing British science
stem from the lack of a career structure engendered by a culture
of short term employment, which impacts not only on the personal
well-being of individuals but on the broader competitiveness of
British science.
Focusing on post-doctoral scientists, the preponderance
of STCs is an historical relic and is unfitting in a modern technology
driven economy. In the past a post-doctoral position was seen
as a period of apprenticeship prior to a lectureship. Today, post-doctoral
scientists make up the backbone of British science, taking on
the roles of teacher, mentor and innovator; however, they invariably
lack even the most rudimentary career structure.
The science base and the number of qualified
scientists has expanded dramatically in recent years, as is befitting
a technologically advanced nation, and yet the numbers of lectureships
have barely changed; this has left an inevitable vacuum in many
academic scientific careers. An additional consequence of this
expansion is that the teaching load borne by lecturers has increased,
making the requirement for experienced researchers to shoulder
some of this burden ever more acute.
RECRUITMENT AND
CAREER STRUCTURE
What are the consequences of the absence of
career structure that lies between completion of a PhD and a permanent
scientific post, does it simply result in a higher calibre of,
for example lecturer, succeeding from a larger pool of post-docs?
It should be noted that not all lecturers are high calibre scientists.
Some have simply taken a career path that more readily facilitated
a permanent post, such as limiting their experience early in their
careers to focus on a single area in which they can develop an
international reputation. Should limited and highly focused research
early in ones career be the model for a successful scientist?
We would argue that it should not. Broad experience of experimental
systems and fields of research is a desirable scientific attribute
that facilitates innovative and original research. However, it
is somewhat paradoxically penalised under current funding regimes.
The large proportion of STCs that do not have a named researcher
are funded at the minimum starting salary and thus effectively
closed to more experienced researchers. If an experienced researcher
is identified as the best candidate for appointment to such a
STC either additional funds must be sought or, as often is the
case, the scientist is appointed at a reduced salary.
Many post-docs do not take up a career in science
and it must be anticipated that a proportion will be lost through
natural wastage. However, the lack of a career structure is a
significant factor in this wastage. Additionally, some high calibre
scientists are lost to other countries while others tolerate a
number of STCs, becoming experienced and valued researchers but
eventually become demoralised and leave the profession as they
are unable to secure a permanent position. The lack of career
structure also impacts on the proportion of women in science,
which is disproportionately low despite, according to BBSRCs equal
opportunities, enjoying a disproportionate success rate at the
crucial BAND 6 PD appointment stage. Women are more likely to
take career breaks and many never return to full-time science.
A large part of the driver behind this efflux is the lack of career
structure, job stability and the extreme difficulty that is encountered
in regaining short-term contract employment in science after a
career break of any description.
The preponderance of STCs is impacting throughout
academic science. Recruitment of PhD students is becoming increasingly
difficult. This was addressed by increasing the PhD stipend, a
measure akin to placing a sticking plaster on a broken leg. Students
are not blind to the lack of reward in science and in particular,
the lack of career structure in science and this is manifested
as a low take-up of post-graduate studies. The Tory adage that
you could pay scientist a pittance because they would eat the
bark off the trees and still do the science will not apply if
there are no scientists in the first place.
IMPACTING ON
THE COMPETITIVENESS
OF BRITISH
SCIENCE
A modern technology-based society needs a broad
base of scientific knowledge. This is driven by high calibre modern
research that is carried out by teams of experienced and innovative
scientists. It is the degree to which these teams are transitory
that is affected by the preponderance of STCs. STCs lead to the
loss of experienced scientists both from science but also from
project areas. This stifles innovation and the exploitation of
innovation. The majority of STCs are for short three-year projects.
Many programmes of research require a longer-term approach; consequently
key research areas requiring a longer-term view are rarely even
considered viable and if they are funded, such programmes are
broken down into small units. This process frequently compromises
the ability of these projects to attract continued funding. STCs
are effectively an investment in British Science that allows an
area of research, to be established; however, in the absence of
continued funding this investment is subsequently lost. The closure
of a research programme results in a loss of scientific potential
to the scientific community and the UK and the displacement of
experience and expertise to other research areas, which themselves
may under short-term funding. It is all too frequent an occurrence
that a project costing in excess of a quarter of a million pounds,
which was judged to be internationally successful, is scrapped
as further funding was not forthcoming in the vital few months
leading up to the end of the project. The exploitation of a three-year
research program is almost invariably realised toward the end
of the funding period. This leaves very little leeway in which
to secure funding to retain vital staff required for continuity.
An additional problem is that staff on STCs are expected to live
on a prayer that funding will be forthcoming in their final year.
If staff on STC have dependants there is considerable pressure
to apply for alternative posts before the conclusion of their
current post. This leaves project supervisors with severe problems
if they are to build on a projects achievements and fully realise
the aims of a STC.
Part of the justification for STCs is that they
provide a competitive framework in which scientists can be judged
and rewarded, but against a background of an expansion in higher
education, that has been achieved without significant investment,
is this the best use of an academics time? If trends in funding
are examined over a period of time it is seen that funding of
various universities has remained fairly constant, and that literally
tens of man-years have been spent in seeking funding to essentially
maintain the status quo. While it should be acknowledged that
some degree of competition and oversight is necessary, this should
not have the enormous impact on potential productivity that is
currently occurring. It is widely accepted in the scientific community
that in the general drive to become more competitive the tail
is now wagging the dog. Many talented scientists do little else
than apply for funding, to the great detriment of their personal
research programmes. At the moment, funding assignments are made
on the merits of a proposal but critically factors such as the
reputation of the individual and more importantly of the academic
institution are vital considerations. Mechanisms exist to grade
academic institutions and their staff and consequently could be
used as a measure to assign a significant proportion of the competitive
budget. The overall use of this budget could be assessed under
existing Research Assessment Exercises. Funds could be competed
for internally allowing career management and continuity to be
part of the internal assessment. Additionally a secured research
budget would allow departments and institutes the stability to
develop expertise and focus on centres of excellence rather than
transitory success.
PROFESSIONAL CAREER
STRUCTURE
A key monitor of the utility of STCs as applied
to science is whether or not this approach is seen as viable in
other professions; if not, why is this system so readily applied
to scientific professionals? Are medical doctors expected to endure
limited tenure and to move from hospital to hospital chasing grants?
Is a medical doctor expected to become an internationally renowned
heart surgeon only to be told the funding for that particular
project is ended and he/she will have to leave those skills and
retrain as a brain surgeon instead? While other professional equivalents
demand career structure and high remuneration, however, the reward
of job satisfaction is seen to be sufficient to attract high calibre
scientists. A salutary warning should be taken from the situation
in the USA where it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract
Americans into careers in science when other professions offer
both careers and elevated remuneration. At the moment many British
scientists do value the intellectual challenge of a science career
over high remuneration but often find the lack of career structure
intolerable. In a society that has few resources beyond the innovation
of its populace can Britain afford to deny scientists the stability
of a career in which to develop both personally and professionally?
A VISION OF
VIABLE RESEARCH
IN BRITAIN
An effective scientific career structure should
be applied to all three of the following vital groups of staff
that are mandatory for internationally competitive research: Firstly,
senior scientists who guide research, initiate contracts and research
programmes, and disseminate science to other scientists, students
and the public. Secondly, experienced post-doctoral bench scientists
who are able, and encouraged, to initiate research, work as a
team to drive research forward, aid in generating publications
and supervise junior staff and students. Thirdly, support staff
who possess essential practical and managerial skills that facilitate
core research activities.
We do not propose the complete abolition of
short-term competitive contracts. Support for a limited number
of competitive post-doctoral grants would encourage young scientists
to broaden their experience early in their careers by working
in other areas of research and departments. However, we suggest
that this period of employment on STC should be limited and should
result in a more permanent appointment with a suitable career
structure. We also suggest that the majority of funding should
be assigned outside of immediate direct competition and through
a system of more long-term competition. This would require a fundamental
change in the way research funding is allocated. If this change
does not occur there will not be available the resources to develop
career structures for research scientists, which will remain transitory
and unsustainable.
Scientific funding must nurture the long-term
development of science and scientists, and should acknowledge
the professional status of scientists and the contribution they
make to a knowledge-driven society.
| 
