UK Scientists Assess Planned Salary Raises

Anne Macnamara Declining salary levels and a withering laboratory infrastructure have long threatened the United Kingdom's status as a major world research center. The Ministry of Education had a golden opportunity to reverse this continuing decline as part of a major higher education funding shakeup over the past few months. But senior scientists and lobbying groups charge that the government has failed to back up fine words with the necessary funding commitment. "I think it's pretty poor all round," says Peter Cotgreave, director of Save British Science, a lobbying organization. "It looks like a botched job." The principal criticisms are that the government has failed to match new funding for PhD students and postdoctoral researchers with an equivalent amount for middle-ranking lecturers or to provide fast-track promotion for junior researchers and laboratory technicians. Scientists also worry that the government has failed to make specific provision for attracting and retaining top professors. Universities have to make their own arrangements for luring superstars, and only some have the resources to do so. MARKET-VALUE SALARIES Cotgreave particularly questions the lack of "ring-fenced" funding, dedicated to the salaries of researchers after they have completed the immediate postdoctoral phase. The government had given strong signals that it would target £400 million a year, which would allow universities to bring the salaries of junior researchers more in line with earnings for those who work abroad or for private companies. In December 2002, Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons science and technology select committee, who has considerable influence over government science policy, told The Scientist that this ring-fenced money would almost certainly be among the pledges contained in last month's White Paper, which sets out higher educational strategy for the next five to 10 years.1 "To have it ring fenced is pretty special, because the Treasury hates ring fencing. It shows how seriously they're taking the issue," Gibson said then. THE SKINNY ON NEW UK RESEARCH FUNDING 244 million increase over 2002-2203 for the research component of university block grants 500 million per year by 2004-2005 for development of science research infrastructures and to allow for future planning with certainty 120 million for the 2005 and 2006 research councils 5% annual increase in research council programs and equipment 50 million more per year by 2005-2006 for collaborative research and development of key emerging technologies such as nanotechnology Improvements to the pay and training of postgraduate science researchers, and enhancement of technology, mathematics, and science education at all levels Expansion of the Higher Education Innovation Fund, with funding to stimulate enterprise The Treasury apparently did not take the issue as seriously as Gibson suggested. The White Paper vaguely states that the new Department for Education and Skills would dedicate a much smaller sum, £125 million a year, to university lecturers. Even this would not be available until 2004-2005, and would be paid only on the basis of improved teaching standards. In any case, such a sum would raise salaries by an average of only about £1,300 a year, which would fail to keep pace with a bigger increase already promised to PhD students and entry-level postdoctoral researchers. The White Paper did reiterate a July 2002 announcement that the government would devote £1.25 billion in extra funding over three years to address the immediate issue of pay for PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. The PhD stipend is set to increase from its present £6,500 to £13,000 by 2005-2006, while starting salaries for postdoctoral researchers will increase by £4,000 from a maximum of £17,000 to a maximum of £21,000 over the same period. But this would mean that lecturers would take a pay cut after completing the postdoctoral phase, and the government's failure to address this in the White Paper has attracted the sharpest criticism. "As things stand at the moment, the situation is that people who get a pay rise during their postdoctoral phase may end up having to take a pay cut when they then take a job as a lecturer or equivalent," Cotgreave says. MERIT PAY A relatively well-received, though still controversial, aspect of the White Paper is a major shakeup in the culture of research funding, away from the current egalitarian approach--rewarding status and pay according to time served--that fails to reward market demand or the prestige of the host university. Scientists broadly welcome the new approach. "If you're a Sanskrit researcher, your market value is not the same as a top physicist or biotechnologist, and if you're at Cambridge, you should be worth more than if you were at the 'University of the Middle of Nowhere,'" Cotgreave asserts. Trade unions criticize the focus on prestigious institutions and contend that the government failed to provide junior researchers and laboratory technicians the chance to gain merit-based promotions to more senior academic posts. According to Tony Bell, national secretary responsible for research councils at Prospect, the trade union representing 105,000 UK scientists, engineers and technicians, the government has missed a chance not just to exploit the country's latent talent among the ranks of lab technicians, but also to take a worldwide lead in reforming what many consider an archaic formula for assessing the value of research. "There is an inordinate weight put on papers published rather than contribution made," Bell notes. "Partly as a result of this, technicians are not getting opportunities for career progression." The White Paper does stipulate that in the future, university funding will be distributed according to a system for assessing the quality of research, based on a conventional scoring system. For the first time, however, the quality of teaching will also be used to determine funding levels, and this is not universally welcomed. "The last thing good researchers want is to waste more time on teaching," bemoans one university professor, who preferred not to be named. Such views are actually quite widespread if not openly acknowledged within the UK university research community. But Liz Allen, a senior policy adviser for the Wellcome Trust, dismisses them as shortsighted. "We welcome the stronger commitment to teaching," Allen says. "It's part of the same equation, ensuring that science research remains attractive to students." NEW CONSTRUCTION The least controversial aspect of the White Paper, almost universally welcomed, addresses the long-standing issue of declining research infrastructure, caused by a past short-term approach to project funding. In the White Paper, the government announced that public research councils will draw on an additional £120 million a year by 2005-2006 for the underlying laboratory costs of projects. NEW UK POSTDOC INITIATIVES Postdoctoral salaries to increase £4,000-£5,000 from $16,000 by 2005-2006 Improved training 1,000 new academic fellowships over five years Such projects will include £50 million each year for 2005 and 2006 for new research programs in emerging fields such as nanotechnology, which was singled out in the White Paper as a field of particular importance over the next 10 years. But the general mood among scientists is one of disenchantment with the government's failure to meet what had seemed like a firm commitment to deliver a joined up salary structure for researchers, offering a logical promotion to a higher paying post. According to Alison Wolf, professor of education at the university of London, the whole base of UK science will unravel from the top unless the salaries of leading professors at least come closer to those prevailing elsewhere, especially in the United States. Some UK universities are now well aware of the value science superstars bring by attracting and retaining top-quality professors and lecturers. "A small number of UK universities are now paying top people £100,000 a year, and in some cases [granting them] the ability to combine being a professor with some things on the side, such as setting up companies," Wolf says. But the available money will not pay for such perquisites to become general practice. More commonly, professors and lecturers do outside consultancy work to top off their meager incomes, which is a mixed blessing, Wolf says. It diminishes the time spent on research and can undermine the already fragile spirit of collegiality within a department. The government's muddle over research funding partly reflects its pre-occupation with other matters, including the likely war with Iraq, but in this case more particularly a bitter internal battle over student tuition fees, which were addressed under the same higher educational strategy review. The government wants 50% of all UK students who leave school to attend university in the future, but to reach this high target without a massive increase in public funding would require students to contribute much more heavily than at present towards their tuition fees. This is proving highly controversial, and appears to have taken the government's eye off the research ball. Philip Hunter (phunter@compuserve.com) is a freelance writer in London. 1. "The future of higher education," United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills, Jan. 22, 2003.

UK Scientists Assess Planned Salary Raises

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of