The hidden costs of a career in scientific research

Naturejobs Blog | posted by Jack Leeming | 28 Nov 2016
jeudi 16 février 2017
par  antonin

Does a career in science select against those unable to afford frequent relocation, unpaid work and short-term contracts ?

That a career in science is demanding is unsurprising. But alongside long hours spent in the lab grappling with abstract concepts, the number of years of education it takes to enter the professional ranks and the increasingly unstable nature of such employment, exists a further demand : money. It’s no secret that science costs money — building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and sequencing the human genome cost around €3 billion each — but what is less obvious is that entry to a career in science often requires considerable personal financial sacrifice.

Early-stage scientists are poorly remunerated, particularly at the PhD and postdoc level. Several of the world’s most prestigious and competitive universities and institutions are based in the UK (UCL, Oxford, Medical Research Council) and operate out of cities where living costs have spiralled over the last decade, yet most UK PhD students receive a salary in the region of £15,000 ($18,200). One estimate of living costs in London puts the annual cost at £15,032, leaving almost no room for error, or indeed saving.

While it is at least feasible to exist on such a stipend, this combination of low salary and high living expenses effectively selects for those prepared to take on more debt, or those with additional financial support or private wealth. In addition to this, pursuing a PhD carries substantial opportunity costs that many young people simply don’t have the luxury of saddling : why flounder in low-paying research for years instead of finding employment elsewhere ? It could be argued that a PhD is financially worth it in the end, but there are certainly no guarantees.

A further issue disadvantaging researchers without extra financial support relates to the fixed-term contracts that research scientists work under. Fixed-term or temporary contracts exist all the way down from PIs to postdocs to PhD researchers. One day you’re getting paid to do your job, the next you’re not. While such exploitative contracts are rife in today’s system, a career in scientific research actually requires this, usually for at least six years but often substantially longer.

This can force a serious financial burden on those close to completion, particularly at the PhD level. Crucial extra experiments required for a paper or thesis can add months of unpaid work to the end of a PhD. In addition, while publishing PhD research is not usually a requirement for receiving a PhD, it is absolutely necessary for pursuing an academic career. Therefore, recent PhD graduates can find themselves in a catch-22 : unable to snag a postdoc position until they’ve published their work, but unable to afford months of unpaid writing. However, if a career in research is the ultimate goal, such costs have to be swallowed without complaint to ensure that the research is published at the highest level. While it is said that publications are a currency unto their own, I’m yet to meet a landlord who accepts them.

With this in mind, it is not surprising that a recent study puts the number of UK scientists from working-class backgrounds at 15%, despite this group comprising 35% of the population. According the same study, only medicine and law are ahead of science in terms of over-representation of high socioeconomic-status workers. This is troubling : making the financial barriers to a career in science impossible for some to even consider risks not only excluding promising scientists at the early stages of their careers, but also generating further isolation between science and society.

To avoid this situation becoming worse, science as a profession is in need of serious reform. Romantic notions of research aside, pursuing a career in science at present is at best a high-risk career move, and at worst totally unfeasible. I’ve lost count of the number of discussions I’ve had with colleagues about back-up career plans for when the (almost) inevitable happens and they find themselves squeezed out of the academic rat race in their mid-to-late 30s. Almost without exception, these are intelligent, passionate and highly competent professionals, who have sacrificed their time and earning potential to advance the frontiers of knowledge. That many will have to make drastic changes to their career paths, and that even more will be prevented from considering science as a viable career in the first place, is nothing short of scandalous.

A career in science should not depend on personal financial sacrifice as much as it does. PhD students and postdocs need to be properly remunerated for the long hours they put in, and have the opportunity to continue their vocation with some sense of stability (i.e. on permanent contracts). Otherwise, the system will continue to effectively select against those who cannot afford to take such a risk with their career, and the socio-economic diversity of practicing scientists will remain low. This is a disastrous state of affairs that needs to be addressed with urgency, if the UK is to continue producing world-leading science in a time of need greater than ever.

by Dr. Nick Riddiford

Dr. Nick Riddiford is a postdoctoral research associate working on genome instability in cancer at the Institut Curie in Paris. He is passionate about giving a voice to early career scientists, and advocating for a change in the terms under which PhDs and postdocs work.

Read on Naturejobs blog










Aucun évènement à venir les 2 prochains mois


C. Villani : "on arrive à se sentir étouffé"

dimanche 5 février

[Interview de C. Villani, The Conversation, 30/01/2017]
Revenons en France avec une question beaucoup plus terre à terre : un jeune docteur en mathématique qui vient d’enchaîner un ou deux postdoc à l’étranger décroche un poste de chargé de recherche ou de maître de conférence. Il débute alors sa carrière avec un salaire de 1 800 euros net par mois. Comment qualifier cette situation et comment l’améliorer pour créer des vocations ?

C.V. : Malgré ce salaire peu reluisant, le statut du CNRS reste attractif pour sa grande liberté. Si l’on veut garder son attrait à la profession, il est important de travailler sur le reste : en premier lieu, limiter les règles, les contraintes, les rapports. Je donnerai un exemple parmi quantité : le CNRS vient de décider qu’il refuse tout remboursement des missions effectuées dans un contexte d’économie partagée : pas de remboursement de logement Airbnb, ni de trajet BlaBlaCar… De petites contraintes en petites contraintes, on arrive à se sentir étouffé. Le simple sentiment d’être respecté et de ne pas avoir à lutter pour son budget, par ailleurs, pourra jouer beaucoup. Par ailleurs, il est certain qu’une revalorisation salariale ou d’autres avantages pour les débuts de carrière seront bienvenus.

Les universités vont continuer à geler des postes en 2017

lundi 28 novembre 2016

La crise budgétaire des universités françaises continue depuis leur passage à l’ "autonomie" avec comme conséquence directe l’utilisation de la masse comme variable d’ajustement. Comment diminuer la masse salarial ? Embaucher des contractuels au lieu de titulaires, demander et ne pas payer des heures supplémentaires aux enseignants-chercheurs titulaires, supprimer des postes d’ATER et des contrats doctoraux ou encore geler des postes. Mais que signifie "geler des postes" ? Il s’agit de ne pas ouvrir à candidature des postes de titulaires ouverts par le ministères. Depuis 2009, 11.000 postes ont été gelés dans les universités dont 1200 les cinq dernières années. En 2017, ce processus continuera dans de nombreuses universités : Paris 1, Toulouse Paul Sabatier, Reims, Paris-Est Créteil, Dijon, Orléans, Brest, Paris 8, Bordeaux 3, Artois, Bretagne-Sud, Lyon 3, Limoges, Pau, Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée.

New Analysis of Employment Outcomes for Ph.D.s in Canada

Thursday 5 February 2015

An analysis of where Canada’s Ph.D.-holders are employed finds that just 18.6 percent are employed as full-time university professors. The analysis from the Conference Board of Canada finds that nearly 40 percent of Ph.D.s are employed in higher education in some capacity, but many are in temporary or transitional positions. The other three-fifths are employed in diverse careers in industry, government and non-governmental organizations: “Indeed, employment in diverse, non-academic careers is the norm, not the exception, for Ph.D.s in Canada.” - Inside Higher Edu, January 8, 2015

[Sweden] New legislation to help foreign postgraduates stay on

Sunday 27 April 2014

On 1 July this year, new legislation will come into force in Sweden that includes measures which will make it considerably easier for foreign doctoral candidates and students to stay and work in the country after graduating.

An agreement between the outgoing Alliance government and the Swedish Green party will secure a majority vote for the proposal in the parliament. (...) – University World News, by Jan Petter Myklebust, 21 March 2014 Issue No:312

On the Web : Full news here

US : Dwindling tenure posts

vendredi 18 avril 2014

Tenure is dying out at US universities.

The proportion of non-tenure-track and non-tenured faculty posts continues to rise across all US institutions, finds a report by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in Washington DC. Losing Focus : The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 201314 surveyed 1,159 public and private US institutions and found that the overall proportion of assistant professors in non-tenure-track posts was 23.4 for 201314, compared with 20.8 in 201011. Dwindling tenured and tenure-track posts threaten the ability of scientists to conduct research without interference from funders or administrators, says John Curtis, the report’s lead author and director of research and public policy for the AAUP. - Nature, 508, 277, 09 April 2014

Sur le Web : Read on
Soutenir par un don