WISENET Logo

 
                   | Issue 66 Contents |


2004 Invitational Workshop

Beyond Brain Drain: Mobility, Competitiveness & Scientific Excellence

Held at the Queensland Biosciences Precinct

Brisbane 22nd - 23rd February 2004.

 

Anna Robinson

 

Professor Peter Doherty AC FAA FRS and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Medicine supported the workshop which was a joint initiative of Australasian Research Management
Society (ARMS - http://www.researchadmin.org.au/) and the Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy (CHEMP - http://www.une.edu.au), University of New England. Proceedings can be found at http://www.une.edu.au/sat/chemp/arms/.

 

This workshop brought together an impressive and valuable group of people from many different disciplines - special to hear and meet Magda Lola, Secretary General of the Marie Curie Fellowship Foundation whose website is a magic portal: http://www.mariecurie.org/). It is not surprising that many original and creative outcomes emerged many of which are already finding their way into science culture, policy documents and ongoing consultation programs. Four new concepts were particularly notable:

 

1. Scientific research mobility not ‘brain drain/loss’: evoking a sense of exploration, dynamism and self-determination rather than net egress.

 

2. ‘e-mobility’– a new force in the field? Can ‘virtual’ supplement actual mobility through e-collaborations? This facility would certainly help researchers with problems of limited finances and inability to move due to family or other commitments.

 

3. Collective expertise: Instead of ‘individual experts’ move towards ‘collective multi/inter/trans-disciplinary expertise’ or ‘networked knowledge’.

 

4. Patterns of scientific migration: by starting to keep data and mapping change, a comprehensive study into the cause-and-effect of mobility could be undertaken. Valuable for policy determination and expediting change.

 

5. The meeting overwhelmingly concurred that (particularly junior) scientists are underpaid and have too little career structure and unpredictable future in science. The meeting also overwhelmingly concurred that this appeared to be due to limited funding and the eternal call for more government investment was heard – but is lack of funding really the cause? What about continuously making the same mistakes – eg training more students, more students, more students when most have nowhere to go. The following proposals from WISENET engendered considerable interest.

 

(a) In Australia, scientists are repressed into a ‘junior’ status for unacceptably prolonged periods of time. Could this change? Could we, for example,

  • Focus the concept of scientific training to the first four years of undergraduate learning.

  • Change doctoral status from ‘student’ to ‘Fellow’ - encouraging earlier independence (networked knowledge?) ie rather than single-supervisor training.

  • Change the perception of doctorates from one of ‘graduating students’ to ‘professional scientist’ on completion. Readily achievable by ensuring additional skills are gained during training such as management, financials, budgets, grant writing, policy statements.

  • Also introduce superannuation and include this period towards long-service leave

  • Introduce opportunities for 3 – 6 month secondment/exchange/sabbatical to other sectors – facilitating lateral mobility (also important).

  • Actively discourage scientific stasis and humiliation that is inherent in the current practice of repetitious post-doctoral contracts (some scientists do 2 – 3 post-doc’s at the same salary). On completion of ONE post-doc, scientists should automatically be promoted to the next level. The difference in salary is so small – there can be no excuse!

(b) Could we establish an International Register of Scientific Research Interests? Many existing precedents exemplify the benefits of international registers: PubMed, Protein Data Bank (PDB), Cambridge Database, GenBank, Human Genome Project, International Clinical Trials Registers. Establishment of such a register could

  • provide researchers with independently accessible information about international research groups

  • quickly locate other Australian scientists (assist with studying patterns of migration?)

  • alert the scientific community to potential international competitors/collaborators

  • allow funding bodies to more realistically evaluate the competitiveness of Australian grant applications

  • may reduce ‘scooping’ - now more frequent due to inherited competitive practices in a scientific environment that has become more global. The international scientific community accesses the same public data repositories/free software that is driving parallel research. Where is the advantage in competition? Science is not sport – no consolation prizes or second chances - just waste.
Another good question that was bounced around: why does Australia not value its researchers more? Our practices seem odd. After investing in sound post-graduate training, newly qualified scientific graduates are encouraged to go overseas for their ‘fi rst’ post-doc. Why? With HECS fees, student loans, high mortgages, partner unemployment and self-funded travel, they (particularly women scientists of child-bearing years) rarely gain from immediate post-graduate overseas experience. Many return in a state of financial hardship, usually to yet another junior post-doc. Of course it would be more enticing to stay away where there are better futures and potential earnings. Would it not be of greater economic value to Australia

  • allow them to consolidate as scientists in Australia before looking for overseas experience (utilise e-mobility)?

  • support our own researchers by funding international exchanges through ‘learn and return’ schemes at more optimum career stages?

  • give more recognition of our excellent Australian research by increasing value of intra-national scientific experience as well? There is no evidence that the science or the training is necessarily better because it is done ‘overseas’. And while overseas experience is certainly valuable, at what stage of a career is it most worthwhile?

 

Curiously, these ideas are not new. Similar discussions and suggestions can be found in:

 

1. Putting the Talent to Work, (1997) Proceedings of the Science Careers Forum sponsored and published by NTEU (National Tertiary Education Industry Union) and FASTS (Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies) held at the National Press Club, Canberra

 

2. Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (1995) A Discussion Paper prepared by the Women in Science, Engineering and Technology Advisory Group, Office of the Chief Scientist, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

 

3. Walter, W.W., (1941) Future of Medical Research, The Lancet 808.

 

Industry and overseas demands are sounding a strident call. A Chief Scientist’s Task Force to properly investigate the future for scientific research in Australia would be good. Instead of just backing Australia’s ability – shouldn’t we be maximising it. AR.

 

 

 

| Issue 66 Contents |