Why I am no longer a Scientist
One of the real pleasures I get from working in e-learning and academic development is the diversity of people I work with. Right now my colleagues include people with qualifications in English, Linguistics, Maori Studies and Statistics - while I have degrees in Molecular Biology and Computer Science. I have very few regrets about the path that has seen me end up in my current role, but from time to time I think about my formal training and wonder. Just recently Nature published articles on new ways in which DNA expression may be regulated and I was pricked briefly with the thought that I could have been involved in work like that - really advancing our understanding of the way the world works. Then I see posts like this one and remember why I am not a Scientist.
One of the few things that will get an angry response from me is politicians wittering on about how New Zealand needs more scientists, while they simultaneously maintain a system that treats PhD graduates as cheap slave labour or serfs (as famously noted by James Watson). There have been a series of articles looking at PhD careers in the sciences and humanities in the Chronicle of Higher Education (and here), The Harvard Magazine, and other websites, as well as the report I was involved in some years ago with the NZ Royal Society. All of these describe quite well many of the things that were influences in my decision to work in IT full time, rather than attempt to get onto the Post-Doc treadmill.
The typical experience of a scientist is to spend anything up to 10 years working (at their own risk and expense) to obtain a PhD in their chosen specialisation. 10 years. Think back 10 years and ask yourself how much the world has changed in that time. Much of the explosion of the Internet, changing economics, changing political foci. A 10 year plan is very much a leap of faith and passion. Once qualified, the lucky ones get Post-docs working as 'serfs' in a major lab working on someone else's research agenda - it has to be a major lab as science is very much about who you know. Those who come from certain labs get published more easily, find about new developments first through private networks, and get the grants that mean possible employment on your own research. The Royal Society report I noted above described the experience of successful New Zealand scientists and reported on the perceptions of their careers. Almost uniformly they were disillusioned, unhappy and regretted the place their careers had reached - and they were the best and brightest who had succeeded and obtained (relatively) generous funding for their work.
Thinking back to the people I went through my PhD with, some have been astonishingly successful. Others have never had permanent jobs in over 20 years and eventually abandoned science never having had their own career. Others, like me realised that life has many aspects that need balancing and have chosen alternatives. And I do very much enjoy my current job, while simultaneously recognising how unlikely it was that I got it.
Famous historical scientists like Newton were wealthy gentlemen living lives of independent means that gave them the opportunity and resources to do their work. The explosion of research since World War II saw the scientist population grow beyond all previous experience and many senior scientists have benefited personally from the ease of access to jobs and funding. They're now benefiting from a 'serf' population that help maintain their position. Its still common in New Zealand for universities to employ young scientists on short term contracts so they can be used while needed and then discarded when the current focus of interest wanes and something new appears. Young scientists are in a lottery for their lives - the lucky few get a 'real' job, the rest subsidise the careers of the successful. The reality is that a peer who gets a job as a tradesman (and anyone who gets a PhD could blitz those jobs) will be so far ahead of a young PhD in terms of money earned and in the ability to have a family that a PhD is unlikely to ever catch up.
The current government policies are not helping either. Research money is becoming harder and harder to obtain, both because of the recession, but also because a large amount of money is given as essentially free loans to people who should never have been at university in the first place. Universities are being pushed by TEC to increase the number of PhD graduates, through increased funds for completion and domestic fees for international PhD students. Universities are ranked by their PBRF scores, derived in part from completions, and in part from staff publications (which greatly benefit from the unpaid efforts of those 'serfs'). Young scientists on short contracts can either be hidden from the PBRF if not productive, or included if they are, and if necessary quickly removed before the PBRF census if inconvenient. Departments are ranked on their average quality score with no real attempt to recognise the long-term importance of a balance in the staffing profile of a healthy discipline.
What would it take to fix this?
Firstly, we should stop deluding young people that science is a viable career. If we need technicians we should be training them in the Polytechnics where its cheaper, more practical, and they don't get fed a lie about the great future that awaits them. Particular industries with specific requirements should be encouraged to pay for the training of future employees and should be required to front up with paid work experience opportunities.
Fees for students should double (without loans being available), with most of the new revenue being used to provide scholarships for students on the basis of academic excellence. If industry needs PhDs, they should be contributing so all of the financial risk stops being carried by the student.
All schools/departments should be required maintain a workforce where at least 25% of their staff meet the "new and emerging" category of the PBRF - and all of them should be on permanent contracts.
Somehow, businesses operating in New Zealand need to be supported (forced?) to address the significant shortfall in research and developing activity. What research that is being done in New Zealand is largely being supported by the scientists themselves and the public purse. Jobs in science in industry (rather than public university contexts) are more secure, if more limited, but they are few and far between in New Zealand.
For those still in school and thinking about science - don't. Really don't. Trust me on this.
If you really can't imagine your life without science (and if the last paragraph was persuasive then this is not you) and are prepared to give up all hope of owning a house and having a family (you might get these, but then you might win Lotto), and you have a straight A average in maths, english and science (yes - you have to write in science!), then by all means get a BSc in New Zealand (recognising that anything less than a PhD will prevent any success as a research scientist). Our undergraduate degrees are cheap (particularly with the loans but please don't abuse this privlege). But, be careful. Make sure you talk to people beyond your teachers about your ideas for the future. Most schools do not employ people with experience in the realities of science research careers and the experience of a biologist is almost irrelevant to a computer scientist or psychologist. Choose your university by looking at who the staff are in your chosen field. Make sure that they are winning grants in the Marsden and have contacts and collaboration with the top US universities. Ask around and find family friends working in the university sciences and get their assistance in making this judgement. Don't pick a university on location or because your friends are there - remember the rest of your life will be overseas so NZ contacts are of little importance.
Once you have your BSc, get out of New Zealand and into a top US university. This will give you a slim chance of a career, but be wary of the price - the chemistry letter in the first paragraph is not fictional and not an isolated case; you will be paying that price for 5-10 years for the small possibility of a career as a research scientist. When you're not working on someone else's research you'll be spending all available time writing (see, I wasn't kidding about the English) grant requests which have negligible chances of succeeding - less than 15% for the Marsden in New Zealand even though around half of the proposals are excellent science. Don't bother coming home until you are considered a world-leading expert in your field or you're ready to retire - or until something fixes the dreadfull mess that is science in New Zealand.
Yes, we produce excellent PhDs in New Zealand, and some university academics are world class in every sense of the world (including the rather limited view of the PBRF). The problem is that you need the right contacts to help get the right Post-Docs so you have a chance to work on research of sufficient significance that you share the glory - and build your own reputation. You can do it with the help of your supervisor, but its a lot easier if they are the leader in the field or work in the lab of the leader, or collaborate directly with them. This is true of some fields in some universities but you need to be careful when choosing. The most successful of the PhDs I studied alongside was lucky enough to get the chance to work in the top lab in his area in Berkeley California and this (combined with a lot of hard work) has seen his career succeed. That's what it takes.
If you're a woman, it's going to be harder. Women who change their names to ambiguously masculine versions get published more easily and get grants more often. Some fields like biology have large numbers of women so its a little easier, others, like computer science and engineering are losing ground rapidly. If you want children you will need a partner who is truely committed to your career as well as to your family - I've seen it work but its hard.
I had choices that I made as best I could. Mostly I have made them because of the people in my life. Strong relationships are, for me, more important than money or success or science. Scientists are often accused of being isolated from society and the science press often talks about the challenge of making science accessible, of dealing with the stupidity of creationism and other misuses of science thinking. We cannot address this isolation while our very existence and success depends on being isolated. Great science communicators like Professor Paul Callaghan leave me in awe, but we cannot expect such commitment and brilliance from every science graduate as the norm - the personal costs are too high for too many people.
I really admire my collagues in the science departments at New Zealand universities. They are dedicated, amazing people, committed to their fields, their students, and to New Zealand. I just wish they, and those aspiring for their success, were treated with the respect they deserve.
Please note: everything in this blog, but particularly this post, are my personal reflections and opinions. Nothing should be considered the opinion of my employer.