Dialogue: Surefire formula to make scientists - add money

The Government's decision to redirect money to encourage tertiary students into science and mathematics is good for New Zealand's future.

After all, science is responsible for the creation of new knowledge and understanding of the natural laws of our world, and, therefore, for advances in society and humankind.

Few would doubt the importance of science, technology and research, but the image is such that few students want to pursue it as a career.

The latest statistics issued by the Vice-Chancellors Committee indicate that of the 16,789 bachelors-degree students finishing last year, only 7 per cent graduated in the biological sciences, 1 per cent in mathematics, and 2 per cent in the physical sciences. This gives only 10 per cent of our graduates in science.

Will the university funding initiatives proposed by the Government increase the proportion of students in science?

Britain tried something similar in the 1980s. Places in social sciences were closed, and access to science courses was increased. Nothing changed in terms of the students' desire to do anything but science.

Britain faced (and still faces) the same issues we have - less money for research, restructuring of research organisations, insecurity of jobs and, hence, low morale in scientists.

Students are confusing the attitude of scientists to the research they do and their attitude to the environment in which they do it. Scientists love their work. It is fascinating, challenging and varied. It is also exciting.

As one of my doctoral students, Maria Castle, wrote recently: "I feel that it is essential to promote the exciting avenues science is able to create. I love the diversity of science: the fact that one day I am out in the field, the next analysing results, or preparing a paper for publication or a conference.

"I love the challenge of looking at data and exploring the possibilities as to why the results show what they do and then designing an experiment to test if my thoughts are right.

"Our sort of research, in the biological sciences, is detective work. We're always looking for the next clue and trying to solve the case, and our case is extremely challenging: how to decrease environmental contamination and yet increase production."

Simon Upton, a great supporter of science and the only non-scientist honoured by the Royal Society, said he really envied scientists because they were the only people who really loved their work.

I'm sure he was overstating the case, and that there are many others who enjoy their work. But it is worth restating that at least some non-scientists realise how much we love what we do. That is why we are prepared to spend at least seven years at university learning how to do it.

And therein lies the problem. At least seven years of study, some of which may be on student loans, and at the end of it the salaries are $35,000 to $45,000. This is similar to salaries for commerce graduates (accounting for 22 per cent of the student numbers), but they have done only three years of university study.

Furthermore, as Professor Wilkins, of Waikato University, pointed out last week, mid-career salaries for scientists are $55,000 to $65,000. In commerce, a Vice-Chancellors Committee survey in the 1990s showed that it takes less than five years to reach that salary.

Society is more concerned with dollars than it used to be, and people regard having disposable income as part of lifestyle. To change the proportion of students enrolling in different disciplines, we must look at the incentives, or personal drivers, in which disposable income (and, therefore, salary) is a large factor.

Prestige is no longer enough. There have already been reports this year that students are not choosing to enrol in medicine because the years of study and subsequent financial rewards are not sufficient to encourage them.

Reducing fees and increasing allowances in the areas where more graduates are needed is an obvious step. Increasing salaries in the required sector is also vital for the long term, as is the establishment of a proper career structure within the science sector.

These changes will help alleviate oversupplies and imbalances in tertiary graduates. They may also allow us to reconsider some values.

New Zealand's Government-led initiative is to catch the knowledge wave by changing our economic dependence from the primary industries to information technology. By doing this, an economic revolution is expected. If the emphasis changed to cultural advance, would our progress be enhanced?

Cultural advance comes from increased knowledge of the laws of nature increasing understanding of our world. It comes from fundamental research. Scientists generate the knowledge by doing research in depth and in detail.

The pressure on crown research institutes to make a profit, rather than do good science, has changed the type of research being done, not always for the better. Furthermore, in the recent Government funding restructuring, the public good science fund was removed.

What is scientific research if it is not being done for the public good? Why has Ireland, hailed as a model of economic reincarnation, just invested £250 million to create a public good science fund?

Why has Finland, that other model of economic success, decided to revamp its economy through education. Recognising the fragility of relying on one company (Nokia), it actively promoted the advantages of further education, and of science and technology, and now has 38 per cent of its graduates in science and engineering.

Here is the message for students: scientists love the research that they do. Discovery is exciting; contribution to knowledge is extremely satisfying. When I near my deathbed, I will feel content that I have done my best to make a difference and improve society's lot.

This is the message for policy analysts and the Government: in order to change the oversupply of graduates in some areas, consider instigating carrots and rewards in science, rather than barriers to progress in other areas.

In short, don't follow a model that failed in other countries. By using knowledge and innovation to focus on improving society's lot, rather than striving for dollars, we can create our own success and our own knowledge wave. Perhaps, then, others will follow us.

* Jacqueline Rowarth is dean of the graduate school and director of research at Unitec.

href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=57032">Herald
Online feature: The knowledge society

Catching the
Knowledge Wave project