Labouring to foster Britain’s brightest in academia

Features

© Bill Parry 2002

---

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.49.14

The British Government’s third Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was revealed in July. It was preceded and followed by much excitement, much of it warranted, about this Government’s commitment to reversing the decades of under-investment in the nation’s science base. In May Tony Blair gave “the first speech by a British Prime Minister dedicated to science Bill Parry for more than a generation”. He then expressed his surprise of this fact in an article published in the New Scientist (27 July). He used the same article to list his Government’s tangible commitment to British science by indicating past, and more specifically, present and future monetary allocations and policies designed to augment the current boost to British science.

Beyond the Labour party, the CSR was met by a gush of measured delight from many in academia and a number of science-related organisations. Jonathan Cowie, Head of Science Policy at the Institute of Biology (IoB), announced in a letter to the New Scientist (10 August) that the “latest increase in government investment in the British science base is most welcome”. Dr Peter Cotgreave, Director of Save British Science, “warmly welcomed the settlement for scientific and engineering research”. Dr Rodney Eastwood, Director of Planning and Information at Imperial College, concluded that this CSR “probably represents the best settlement for science and scientists for some considerable time”. Professor Nancy Rothwell, Chair of UK Life Sciences Committee (UKLSC), also “warmly welcomed overall the Government’s continued financial commitment to scientific R&D”.

However, their sanguine welcomes came with a number of caveats.

Brain drain or brain gain?

In the Autumn issue of Physiology News, three young academic contract researchers from University College London, each at different stages of their careers, expressed their main concerns about their futures in academia. While each enjoyed many aspects and challenges of academia, several issues concerning income and job security (i.e. short-term contracts, short-term funding, low PhD stipends, uncompetitive post-doc salaries, and a poor career structure) meant that they were always open to offers outside of academia.

Did the CSR do much in these areas to stem the threat of brain drain by encouraging Britain’s brightest prospects to embark upon, or stay ensconced within, a career in academia?

I found a mixed consensus: one source was primarily upbeat about the CSR and the Government’s commitments; others readily welcomed the CSR, but added that there was still much more needed ’to stop the rot’; another influential source – Professor Sir Gareth Roberts – strongly supports the Government’s commitment to the science base, but believes that several initiatives and measures outside the CSR have also been instrumental in bringing about urgent, positive changes.

The details

There have been a number of documents published recently that have alerted the Government to the raft of serious problems that increasingly threaten the UK science base. The most influential, far-reaching and comprehensive of all was Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review, SET for success, published in April.

The Chancellor’s CSR was accompanied by a document entitled Investing in Innovation: A strategy for science, engineering and technology. Produced in conjunction by the Department for Trade and Industry, HM Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills, the document outlines in Annex A specific recommendations from the Roberts’ Report and measures that this CSR will take to fulfil them.

A number go some way in redressing the concerns the three UCL research fellows made in the last issue, and should make a positive contribution to recruiting and retaining the best in academia:

PhD Stipends

The Roberts’ Report noted and recommended that “the Government and Research Councils raise the average stipend … to the tax-free equivalent of the average graduate starting salary”.

The Government accepted Sir Gareth’s comments that “it is vital that PhD stipends keep pace with graduates’ salary expectations” and followed its recommendation, saying that it “expects the average PhD stipend for Research Council students to exceed £13,000 by 2005/06”.

What those interviewed said:

Rodney Eastwood: “The increase in the PhD stipends to an average of £13k is welcomed, as is the flexibility to award higher stipends for those researching in difficult to recruit subjects.”

Nancy Rothwell: “Certainly the increase in PhD stipends is welcome. The demand for PhD places has been declining. This will make Research Council stipends similar to those that have been offered by the Wellcome Trust for several years.”

Peter Cotgreave: “There is a real recognition that, for example, PhD stipends are too low, and they are going to go up to something like the Wellcome Trust’s level, which seems to be enough at present to attract consistently high- quality candidates across the board.”

PhD training elements

Following the Sir Gareth’s recommendation, the Government report stated that it “expects all universities to meet high quality minimum training standards on their PhD programmes, and agrees that all funding from HEFCE and the Research Councils in respect of PhD students should be made conditional on meeting these standards”. It also announced additional funding to the Research Councils to enable enhanced training for their students.

Academic fellowships

Likewise, the Government accepted the Report’s comments that “there should be a clearer path for those who have completed PhDs into academic lectureships”. The Government will also implement the Report’s recommendations and “provide funds to create 1,000 new academic fellowships (200 a year, each lasting five years) to provide more stable and attractive routes into academia”. It endorsed the idea that those who receive these fellowships should take on an ambassadorial role by actively reaching out to schools, “thereby helping to widen and enthuse the next generation of pupils about science and engineering”.

What those interviewed said:

Sir Gareth Roberts: “Some items in the Recommendations, like these fellowships, we considered more urgent because they would have an immediate short-term impact. This is definitely something that has come out of the CSR that is really important.”

Nancy Rothwell: “The new 5-year fellowships for post-docs on the academic pathway look to be a good idea, but could cause problems for universities in that they will be expected to underwrite lectureships for the fellows very early in their careers.”

Postdoctoral researchers’ salaries

The Government document supports the findings of the Roberts’ Report and its recommendations to make post-doc salaries somewhat more competitive than they have been. It stated that “the Government will fund the Research Councils in the Spending Review to increase their average postdoctoral salary by £4,000 by 2005-06.”

What those interviewed said:

Peter Cotgreave: “The rise in post-doc salaries, and the new money for the HEFCE to ‘implement’ Gareth Roberts’ report, form an explicit recognition that salaries for young scientists have been far too low. Of course, that comes with the caveat that the goal posts are constantly moving, in terms of what non-scientists are earning, so that almost inevitably means that, by the end of the three or four year period that the CSR covers, salaries and stipends will need another boost to catch up, although hopefully nothing like as badly as they do now.”

Nancy Rothwell: “The improved starting salary for early post-docs may encourage more to continue in academic science, although the more astute will look to the future and still see career uncertainty and relatively low salaries at the professorial level. This needs to be considered as part of a package, which also includes improved career management.

“Connected to the issue of recruiting contract researcher staff is the question of lecturers’ salaries, which has been left to the Higher Education White Paper [due for the autumn 2002]. It is therefore difficult to know what influence the Review will have for salaries of existing academic staff until the White Paper has been published.”

Rodney Eastwood: “We feel that these improvements to pay, training and career support for PhD students and post-docs should help those wishing to pursue a research career. It is unlikely that pay will ever be comparable to what can be earned in the private sector, but at least the government has acknowledged that the need to ensure the supply of highly skilled scientists requires additional resources.”

Short-term contracts and career development

Changes to deal with short-term contracts were well underway before the CSR, says Sir Gareth. The impetus is coming from a number of initiatives in the UK and EU legislation. The Research Careers Initiative (RCI) Strategy Group, which was expanded to include short-term contract researchers, would issue a report in the autumn, Sir Gareth indicated. This will mention a number of initiatives that they have prompted, particularly a Code of Practice for how to better manage contract researchers in terms of career development.

There’s a separate group called HEFCE’s People’s Group, which is working on issues such as gender, research students and the supervision they get or don’t get. It too is issuing a Code of Practice.

Sir Gareth said: “Effectively we have the RCI group, which has focused on short-term researchers; we have HEFCE’s People’s Group, which has been focusing on post-grad students and their supervision. What this will have produced by the end of the calendar year is some very clear guidance to all university departments on all this. The really important thing is that the HEFCE has actually said that it is unlikely to distribute the people dimension of the Research Assessment Exercise money – the so-called QR money – unless a university has taken this advice fully on board. This is a huge driving force, one of the sticks we’ve been wanting to put in place to ensure that universities do respond and do manage their research staff in a sensible way.”

Another critical driving force is an EU directive, which states that nobody can be recruited on more than two short-term contracts unless there is “objective justification” for doing so.

Sir Gareth is convinced that this will be a major change that will be embraced by British universities: “This is going to make a massive difference. It means that at the end of a four-year period, when a person has had two limited-term contracts, the university is going to have to decide whether to re- engage that person on an open-ended contract or reposition them. So that again is a huge change that has already hit the system.”

In its final report, Sir Gareth’s RCI group is likely to recommend a new Concordat, asking all universities to abide by the EU directive and the new Codes of Practice generated by the Funding Councils.

“It’s going to take a bit of time, obviously, for the culture to change,” he comments, adding that it would have eventually changed anyway. “I think these steps will accelerate the whole thing. I’d like to think that in two to three years’ time we’ll have very few examples of bad practice.”

Not all are so confident that the system will be transformed smoothly, however. Peter Cotgreave expresses some optimism, but much less than Sir Gareth: “I doubt whether we will see a huge improvement there [i.e. short- term contracts], but I do believe that the slight swing in the funding balance back towards the HEFCE from the Research Councils means that the situation will at least not get any worse.”

UKLSC, while acknowledging the need for more permanent ‘bench scientist’ positions, comments that “the problem for universities of insecure funding from research grants is still there despite the new employment legislation.” Nancy Rothwell adds that “UKLSC would like to see more financial resources being devolved to university departments to enable them to underwrite a limited number of permanent positions for contract research staff that may be financed on a rolling basis from grant income. At present it is difficult for smaller departments to do this”.

Reasons to be reasonably cheerful

The CSR’s measures to boost PhD stipends and training and to improve post-docs’ salaries and career structure, along with measures afoot to put an end to the culture of short-term contracts, certainly were exigent. It comes as little surprise that many of the people I interviewed summarised these measures and changes as “very welcome”.

Many, including Sir Gareth, Peter Cotgreave and Rodney Eastwood, add that the CSR has not just poured a considerable amount of money and initiative into the people dimension of British science: it has also invested a great deal in much of the science base, from school labs and the recruitment of teachers, to university funding, capital and infrastructure. Rodney Eastwood concludes that “the result of all these changes … can only be of benefit to all those who work in scientific research”.

It is, however, just the start required to significantly reverse the decades of severe under-funding in British science. The IoB’s Jonathan Cowie, supported by Peter Cotgreave, cautions that the CSR’s spending announcements must be put into perspective: “Unfortunately, all the recent spending pronouncements relate to investment in the Science Base (which accounts for less than half of the total Governmental investment in UK Science). How Government Departments decide to invest in R&D will therefore determine whether the increased investment in the Science Base will have a chance of nurturing UK science’s roots.”

That may be so, but things are definitely looking up and there’s some exciting momentum gathering.

And in the meantime, British bioscience PhD students and post-doc researchers will be in a slightly better position to toast to their much deserved and long overdue increased stipends and salaries, and promises of improved career training and structures. But easy does it – the increases don’t come into effect for a few years yet.