Make sense of science

January 15, 2015

The Royal Society has recently published guidance on the career expectations of doctoral students in the sciences (“Dispel illusion of PhDs leading to jobs for life, says Royal Society”, News, 18/25 December). The statistics suggest that only a small minority are working in higher education research roles or in teaching three and a half years after graduating. The society suggests that these students should be looking outside science for their careers and polishing their transferable skills.

Yet government policy for years has been to encourage children to study science technology, engineering and mathematics subjects because the nation needs more scientists. To this end it has been allocating special funding streams through the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The government has also been enthusiastic about Centres for Doctoral Training. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is recorded as having decided to “slash the number of PhD students that it funds” by a third in order to find the money to fund these ventures with the claim that “students trained in this way are much sought-after by business and academia” (“Anger grows as 1,000 engineering and physical sciences PhDs slashed”, News, 4 August 2011).

It is no secret why there is such a dropout rate among postdoctoral scientists. Permanent posts are few and the norm is to work on a series of externally funded research projects, with one’s future at the discretion of the holder of the grant. The law may now insist on permanent or open-ended contracts after a time but those commonly include a “subject to the availability of funding” clause.

There are now rumours that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is planning to remove the remainder of the old block grant funding from Hefce (the “research” part) and give it to Research Councils UK to distribute. This would give the government more control over the availability of opportunities for postdocs. The whole system requires radical overhaul, but not in that direction.

Last year, the Royal Society, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Academy of Medical Sciences said: “clear stable career paths are needed”. So why is the Royal Society now calling for young scientists to plan to abandon hope of finding such a path, even as they begin their doctorates?

And when concerns are raised by Times Higher Education about the employability of PhDs throughout Europe (“PhD employment data ‘need to be richer’ ”, www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, 3 January), the need for the UK to tackle the present situation seems clearer still.

G. R. Evans
Oxford

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Monster behind man at desk

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. Here three students relate PhD nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision

celebrate, cheer, tef results

Emilie Murphy calls on those who challenged the teaching excellence framework methodology in the past to stop sharing their university ratings with pride

Sir Christopher Snowden, former Universities UK president, attacks ratings in wake of Southampton’s bronze award

Reflection of man in cracked mirror

To defend the values of reason from political attack we need to be more discriminating about the claims made in its name, says John Hendry

But the highest value UK spin-off companies mainly come from research-intensive universities, latest figures show