As I read the recent coverage of the NHS and the plight facing junior doctors, I wondered what it would take to start a public conversation about working conditions in my sector: biomedical research.
Just as junior doctors work towards becoming consultants, many PhD graduates aim to eventually become permanent researchers. In both careers, this tends to be a long process, lasting more than a decade and requiring multiple relocations (although in science this is often international, as opposed to national in medicine).
Despite being two sides of the same coin – today’s science is tomorrow’s medicine – biomedical research and medicine differ drastically when it comes to job stability and career progression.
PhD researchers are regarded as students rather than employees, which means that they are paid a low wage and receive no pension contribution, maternity or paternity leave, or regulation over the number of hours worked. But the reality of a science PhD is far closer to full-time employment than a studentship, particularly with the pressure to publish in a high-impact journal in order to secure a post-doc position.
Although medical graduates roughly meet the demand for doctors, the number of biomedical researchers produced at PhD level far exceeds the number of permanent positions available for them.
The number of PhDs awarded every year increased by 40% between 1998 and 2008 (pdf) in countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is ostensibly a good thing: it means providing educational benefit to the recipient, a cheap source of high-quality research and a flow of highly qualified young researchers to the market. But the oversupply leaves graduates in a precarious position. A Royal Society policy report from 2010 (pdf) shows that in the UK only 3.5% of PhD researchers go on to obtain a permanent position at a university.
Stem the flow?
Like dealing with an overflowing sink, there are two options: turn off the tap or pull the plug. Stemming the flow of PhDs by funding fewer of them is one solution. But having people who are highly trained in scientific research is a good thing for society, and therefore we should consider the second option – providing more options for people with PhDs.
A version of this is currently being realised in Germany and the US, where the PhD is being redefined as high-level training for careers outside of academia. Here, while young scientists may start their careers set on running their own lab, they undertake their research alongside meetings with industry and training in soft skills, making them well prepared to transition into non-academic fields. Additionally, people doing PhDs in Germany have recently unionised and won the right to employment status with the accompanying legal and social protection.
In the UK, transitioning out of scientific research is no easy feat, even though a PhD in biomedical science provides training in numerous skills, including numeracy, literacy, problem-solving, analysing data and, increasingly, computer programming. But young researchers are often poorly prepared for a life outside of academia, lacking awareness of their options and the many transferrable skills they have.
Some 30% of PhD graduates choose to pursue post-docs, hoping that this will lead them to a secure job. This is a treacherous path to tread because, like PhDs, postdoctoral training almost exclusively aims to prepare for a career in research. Perhaps the problem is not that we are training too many PhDs, but that too many PhDs are being encouraged to plough on with a post-doc with little hope of landing a job afterwards.
So, why don’t scientists strike too?
When I consider the uproar about the treatment of junior doctors, I wonder why scientists aren’t equally up in arms. In terms of compensation and job security, we do not have it good. Yet, we seem to be happy to suffer in silence. Considering the importance that scientific research plays in our society – driving medical innovation, providing solutions to pressing global concerns and driving the economy – perhaps now is the time to make our voices heard and speak out against the system.The timescales of scientifics research mean that the adverse effects of a strike would be heavily delayed; no one would care,or perhaps even notice, at first.
However, my feeling is that the real reasons are more complex. The combination of working in a hyper-competitive field and being branded as students, may mean that PhDs and post-docs are conditioned to see themselves as lucky and are unwilling to face up to the precariousness of the position they are in.
I would like to collect more data on this, in order to build a better understanding of the working conditions within scientific research. If you are a PhD or a postdoc working in scientific research and would like to contribute, please take this short survey.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com