Science Meets Parliament 2005 -- Elizabeth Krenske Reports

    At Science meets Parliament 2004/5, Elizabeth Krenske was a contributor to a forum entitled “Mobility and Flexibility in the Global Science and Technology Labour Market”. The forum was attended by the Honourable Phillip Barresi, member representing the Minister for Workforce Participation, and by Senator Penny Wong, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Participation. Elizabeth’s role was to discuss the issues affecting early-career researchers and suggest how these issues might be addressed to the benefit of Australian science. A summary of her presentation is given below.

The PhD-to-postdoctoral transition is one of the key stages at which scientists choose where they put their skills into practice. In this presentation I will describe some of the issues that determine where graduates choose to work, and some ways in which their decisions could be swayed to the benefit of our economy.
 

We have seen a number of constructive policy developments for Australian science in the last several years, which now have to be transformed into tangible benefits. It is no secret that one of the keys to doing this lies in creating an up-to-date research culture – or career model – that persuades our scientists to devote their energies here. Currently, a scientist, on finishing their PhD, finds that the accepted path for them is to leave Australia for an overseas postdoctoral position for several years, before returning to long-term work in Australia. Historically, this method has worked well, and in fact was necessary for our scientific development in the 20th century. But in the 21st century it is no longer so strategically helpful. We have a new paradigm, where competitive funding opportunities often keep our best minds overseas once they have gone.
 

On the other hand, we now also have numerous untapped resources that require little in the way of extra funding to capitalise upon. (1) Our research infrastructure is on its way to being globally competitive, which means that the number of qualified people wishing to work in Australia is set to rise. (2) Communication via the net is now almost effortless – from a technical point of view, the need to travel overseas is no longer so pressing. A scientist in, say, Sydney, could discuss results with a scientist in Taipei within a matter of hours. (3) We live at a time when people throughout the developed world are starting to put work/life balance among their top priorities, which can work to Australia’s advantage as it often means choosing country over career. These three things are seeds that we have to nurture into an internationally competitive research culture that can sustain Australia through the 21^st century.
 

Statistics suggest that there is actually no shortage of potential skilled workers in Australia. Although universities have made great inroads into bringing the gender balance in Science and Technology training up to the necessary standard, to the point where female students now slightly outnumber males in many disciplines, only a small fraction of those females carry on to pursue professional research. Clearly, this is not a good return on the investment that has been made. But why is it happening? It boils down to work/life balance. The simple fact is that for most women, the time constraints for having children are incompatible with the current scientific career track.
 

Benefit for Australia can be anticipated if some alternative policy measures are adopted to allow women to contribute optimally. One major disincentive would be removed if provision were made in the ARC funding agreements to allow women to suspend their funding during their pregnancy and the critical early years of their children’s lives. To do so would enable committed researchers to maximise the outcomes from their funding by placing it in trust during the early years of their children's lives and resuming intensive research when the demands on their productivity have stabilised. Of course this would be dependent on the researchers’ proven research capacity and their having demonstrated their commitment to their institutions.
 

Secondly, there is also a case for redirecting the funding that is currently allocated to the lowest-ranking PhD scholarships into a new initiative for establishing postdoctoral fellowships at the same institutions. This would not only redress the attrition that arises from the mismatch between PhD and postdoctoral placings, but would also provide the ultimate double benefit of raising institutions’ research quality.
 

There is no doubt about the benefit of international collaboration. However, in many cases this can now be achieved through greater use of electronic communication, and through short, focused research exchanges (learn and return schemes), rather than extended postdoctoral stints from which researchers often never return.
 

Finally, compared to other countries, Australia is currently disadvantaged by the lack of a centralised internet portal through which industry-based scientific opportunities are advertised. An assertive, coordinated marketing strategy such as this would play a crucial role in strengthening Industry–University links at the student level.

Scientists innately love their work. But it is no secret that the best productivity depends on the best circumstances. The issues I have raised particularly concern women in science, but of course there are many men who would also welcome an inclusive workplace model. Attracting scientists from overseas is one thing, but it must go hand in hand with creating a constructive research culture from within.

Bio: Elizabeth Krenske holds an honours degree in Chemistry from the University of Queensland. Sheis currently completing a PhD in synthetic inorganic chemistry at the Research School of Chemistry, The Australian National University. She joined WISENET in 2002.