Dialogue: In research science, state better pay up or shut up

Students will not be tempted to take up science and technology until research becomes a far more attractive career, writes JOHN YOUNG*.

When the Minister of Research, Science and Technology said that scientists in crown research institutes needed the "discipline of debt," I was reminded of the black-humoured cartoon which circulated among scientists as the institutes were formed.

"The flogging will continue until morale improves," it read.

Pete Hodgson's statement is one of the first to signal clearly the Government's view of the development of research it funds. Crown research institute scientists will be disappointed to discover that the changes in the Government's policy will not significantly improve their situation.

Furthermore, it is not hard to see how the future of institute science and scientists will be affected by present policy.

Scientists are not special, but they are unusual in several ways.

First, they are highly educated, having done at least three years' postgraduate study. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they must be able to focus intently on a problem for weeks, months and sometimes years, believing that the problem can be solved and that its solution will be worth the effort.

Thirdly, in recent times, scientists have been called upon constantly to think up new ideas in a market context; they must be entrepreneurial. This means that scientists must be competent in their existing area of expertise and be constantly developing new areas of understanding and marketing themselves and their work to prospective "clients." Individuals with these capabilities can also excel in many other professions.

A critical consequence of having specialised, as scientists must, is that it is very difficult to become marketable elsewhere, to develop demonstrable other skills in other fields. Being such a specialist carries the risk that one's speciality will go out of favour as the requirements for particular scientific skills change.

Since the formation of the crown research institutes nine years ago, highly competent scientists, many with international reputations, have found that their research specialisation was unwanted, and they have been made redundant. This process can be expected to continue.

Redundancy is personally disastrous because scientists' high levels of specialisation mean they have little prospect of competing in any alternative job market for a similar salary.

Every scientist now faces this prospect, which may, indeed, be an inevitable consequence of the speed of scientific advance. The fear of redundancy and salary loss is probably the major factor which makes research scientists view their vocation with such circumspection.

The Government's policy - or, perhaps, lack of a policy - has serious implications for the next generation of scientists. While it has indicated an intention to strengthen science and technology by encouraging students to take up these disciplines at a tertiary level, it is doing nothing to make research more attractive as a career.

I have an example: in September last year I was awarded a Marsden grant by the Royal Society. This is a pleasantly prestigious award. This particular award depended on recruiting a PhD student interested in molecular biology, nitrogen-fixation and plant and bacterial ecology. Its subject area is central to future studies of our ecosystems.

After three months advertising and interviewing, no suitable candidate accepted the position. Nobody from overseas applied, probably because the student stipend was so low compared with those on offer elsewhere.

However, the senior managers of my crown research institute agreed to seed the Royal Society grant with additional money to raise the student stipend, making it one of the most highly paid doctoral grants in the country.

As of now, we have short-listed one New Zealand applicant and one from overseas. At the interviews, it has been clear that it is the long-term commitment to research that is a major reason for caution.

This has not been the only project advertised for which no students can be found. There are now a substantial number of vacancies for posts in crown research institutes at the entrant level.

Should we be surprised? Intelligent people will not accept a high-cost education, low-salary prospects and the high-risk career implied in the science profession at present. It has taken a generation of students to understand this, but now the message is clear to them.

Scientists are ordinary people with the usual aspirations for middle-class belongings; family, mortgage, second or third car, occasional travel and occasional restaurant meals and so on. Twenty years ago, a Government scientist could expect to earn a reasonable middle-class salary. For instance, 20 to 25 per cent of scientists earned the same as an MP. Today, fewer than one scientist in 50 does.

In this period, the salaries of senior scientists have declined in real terms by 10 to 20 per cent.

With such a fall in salaries and promotion prospects, scientists have seen clearly that they are undervalued in contrast to many other professions whose salary increases are determined by comfortable formula or by a comfortable interpretation of market forces.

In the past, scientists generally had an ethos of service. Many, perhaps most, believed that their work served society and an international community. In recent times, the market model has been firmly urged upon them: they are working for money; service and loyalty are images of the past.

A modern technological society will not be based on the idea of self-sacrifice by its artisans. For the future, scientists will expect a salary that is sufficient to provide a middle-class income, sufficient to pay off postgraduate university fees and to provide protection against job loss in mid-career followed by low prospects of earning an equivalent salary.

Alternatively, science post-graduate fees may need to be subsidised and a system put in place for scientists whose expertise is deemed superfluous equivalent to that which allows police and soldiers to retire early. Without measures of this kind, clever students will seek their fortunes in areas other than research.

The "discipline of debt" of which the minister speaks falls squarely on research scientists who have no real control of their funding. If Mr Hodgson continues as he has stated, the future is fairly predictable.

He can offer as many carrots as he likes to students to train in technology, but they will not necessarily accept the bondage of careers as insecure and as low-paid as those in research.

The qualities which would make students good scientists also make them competent in many other professions - with less risk.

* John Young is an Auckland scientist who works for a crown research institute.