APPENDIX 41
Memorandum submitted by Dr M G Salter,
Department of Biology, University of Leicester
Thank you for the request to send comments on
the use of short term contracts for science workers. This is undoubtedly
an issue which concerns all contract researchers within the academic
sector. I have tried to be honest and not complain about salaries
and working conditions, which are a concern but are not the principal
reason for people leaving the profession. I work in the biological
sciences as a plant molecular biologist where the principal source
of funding is either the BBSRC or commercial funding. I have completed
a degree, a Ph.D, a far longer training period and to a higher
level than for any other profession, and in addition I also have
six years high level research experience. I will try to detail
the issues as I see them but there is no doubt that informal conversations
between scientists at meetings make me sure that my views are
not unique and represent the current state of opinion within the
profession. This is certainly evidenced by the number of people
moving into other professions. For example, a close colleague
has enrolled for a PGCE course starting this year, representing
a loss of 12 years scientific education and expertise to a sector
where the entrance requirement is a third class honours degree.
I personally find myself in the position of
being an experienced RA1A. There is no worse position for any
professional in any discipline to my knowledge. In my case my
current contract is only for 30 months because my age and experience
puts me at the top of what is a modest pay scale. The reason for
shortened contracts is that there is nothing in the awarding of
grants to take into account RA1A's higher up the pay scale, so
when moving to new contracts we are forced to have either a pay
cut or a shortened contract. This is directly related to the cash
limiting of BBSRC grants so should an experienced researcher apply
for a position there is no means to increase the salary allowances
to take account of this. As a result the work has to go exceedingly
well to be completed within the shortened contract having the
effect of there being an additional obstacle to success placed
in front of people caused by their age and experience. The only
way people can get a new contract for the full period at their
proper and hard earned point in the pay scale is by being a named
researcher on a grant.
If we accept the current reality that we will
have to look for other positions it creates a situation where
contracts are far less effective than they should be. At the start
of one of these programmes we come into a new lab (because we
were evicted from our previous one at the end of a contract) and
spend six months getting used to a new line of research and the
ways of a new lab. We then work at full efficiency for approx
18 months before starting to look for another job for fear of
impending unemployment in 12 or even six months. We can, as I
have done on this occasion, work with our Principal Investigator
and apply for a new grant with ourselves as a named researcher
but in the BBSRC rules we can only do this once so at the end
of the second grant we are then forced to leave the group. This
also assumes that the second programme will be successful, I am
currently working at 80 per cent salary on "soft money"
while we await the lengthy review process for my grant.
If we want to start our own group we have two
options. We can apply for one of a limited number of lectureships
coming up each year or alternatively we can apply for one of two
fellowships, average applicant number 350, average number available
10. If you remain optimistic even in the face of those odds and
spend three months writing a proposal for one of these fellowships
rejection brings with it no feedback, how helpful was that experience
in my training programme? Also, in contrast to our Continental
European colleagues, we have to compete for both these fellowships
and lectureships with scientists from all over the world. I appreciate
that this increases UK competitiveness but it further depresses
UK scientists who could not compete for the comparable positions
in other countries.
Should we be happy to continue working in a
group, gaining in expertise and working more and more towards
full efficiency as an RA1A, there is no mechanism for us to do
that. Were the BBSRC to operate a system of rolling grant programmes,
similar to the MRC grants for medical research in the UK or the
NIH grants available in the USA where a principal investigator
receives extended funding to research a defined area in an open
way, then opportunities would be created for extended RA1A contracts.
A researcher could then develop his or her skills in a specific
area and the benefits of this specialist expertise would be immense.
Obviously there should be opportunities to increase salary within
the BBSRC scales, perhaps similar to the level for MRC research
fellows. In this way researchers would be paid at a level which
was more commensurate with their role as professional problem
solvers. There would be additional benefits to using this system.
The grant funding system as exercised by the research councils
requires discrete pieces of work in areas where the pace of development
is so fast that grants are often obsolete before they are completed.
This creates artificial deadlines and ring fencing on research
programmes that in reality need to be flexible to account for
the pace of change. Using the more general MRC/NIH system would
give the researchers room to keep at the forefront of their discipline.
A proper balance would in my opinion be for
people to be employed for their first contract within a group
under the current three year system. If that individual proves
to be sufficiently useful to the group then funds should be available
for the Principal Investigator to employ that person on a rolling
contract. It is unrealistic to, as the BBSRC suggests, expect
Universities to pay the cost. This money must be available from
the research councils. In doing this a level for people who for
some reason are not suitable to gain there own Principal Investigators
position but who do make significant contributions to the research
effort would have some options other than leaving research.
With regard to the Research Careers Initiative
this letter is actually very similar to the one sent to the BBSRC
when they send me a form to fill in about "careers"
at the end of each contract. On neither occasion has the letter
been replied to or has there been any noticeable change in the
system. The clear fact is that the Research Careers Initiative
is merely a smoke screen to suggest that something is being done
to look after the career interests of RA1A's rather than actually
doing anything even vaguely constructive. If this country is to
compete with the US in research it has to utilise the expertise
that it has paid to train and not squander it in the way that
it currently does.
Despite the apparent tone of this letter I remain
depressed rather than angry, sure in the knowledge that I will
probably have to leave the work I enjoy at the end of this or
definitely the next contract. Of course if I do complete another
contract I can always keep a copy of this letter and use it to
reply to the Research Careers Initiative questionnaire when it
arrives in three years time, a kind of research groundhog day.
10 June 2002
| 
