Short-term research contracts in science and engineering : eighth report of session 2001-02 / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2002
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Short-term research contracts in science and engineering : eighth report of session 2001-02 / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    212/228 (page 164)
    Europe’s largest centres for the study of plant, microbial and food sciences, health, agriculture and the environment. We understand that evidence may be supplied separately from the NRP. 1.4 The authors are members of the University’s Executive Team, with responsibility for the University’s research direction, the management of its Science Schools and of its human resources and academic infrastructure. Jointly, they have experience of academic careers in science, including responsibility for managing research teams or highly specialised services. They have also contributed to national debates and been invited to give evidence to the government. 2. 1996 RESEARCH CONCORDAT AND UEA INITIATIVES 2.1 The University’s response to the 1996 Research Concordat extended beyond its immediate implementation of a Code of Practice into active support of the work of the Research Careers Initiative. It rapidly introduced its pioneering scheme to transfer long-serving research staff to indefinite appointments, where the prospects for future funding justified this action. The removal of the end date from such appointments was motivational but not unproblematic, due to the necessity of bidding for salaries by senior researchers, as described later in this submission. 2.2 The University also introduced in 2002 contingency funds to permit the promotion of contract research staff in cases where the existing grants do not allow this (such as awarded by bodies which were not signatories to the Research Concordat). It has also established a contingency fund for brief periods of bridging support between grants. This second fund is designed to allow the continuity of employment of key staff for whose further support grant applications remain under active consideration by funding bodies up to the expiry date of the current contract of employment. 3. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Committee will be well aware of the view of the Roberts Report that “entering the environment of postdoctoral research work is an uncertain and, for many, unattractive prospect” (0.48). This is a view with which UEA agrees, as we do with the reasons set out by Sir Gareth Roberts for the unattractiveness of such work. We see no reason, however, why the barriers of lack of training and career prospects should not be overcome by HEIs if funding were available to provide the resources and pay for the time needed for CRS to attend to strengthen the skills necessary to apply successfully for posts in academia as well as other sectors where employers have been critical of graduate and post-doctoral applicants. But in our view, it is not simply a matter of introducing a requirement for HEIs to make such provision as a condition of success in applying for research funding. Our own estimated costs for introducing a training and career development programme is some £12,000 per annum for 100 places. Our current total of CRS is 368: other HEIs will employ far greater numbers, with consequential increases. This amount is not large in itself, but needs to be seen in the context of increasing demands placed on our HR budget in order to respond to equal pay audits, improving gender gaps, complying with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and other legislation which places terms and conditions of employment on an equal footing. The cost of employment generally continues to rise. 3.2 Greater security in the provision of external funding, together with longer duration of grants, will permit institutions to consider seriously and to offer some limited career posts such as Scientific Officer or even their own Research Fellowships. Additional funding will also permit HEIs to address the barriers to retaining women scientists during or after a period of family formation. These include absence from research activity and its consequential effect on curricula vitae, loss of contact with developments in subject areas and new skills, and salary levels in relation to the cost of childcare. 3.3 We would, therefore, like to see a clear distinction between short-term posts suitable and available for newly-qualified post-doctoral researchers, with funding available to employing institutions to allow this group to receive adequate career development training, including transferable skills, to permit them to move on successfully. Such funding would also include an element of time to allow researchers to undertake such training. Funding should be available to pay for time needed to apply for new grants. At present, these are prepared, almost without exception, “out of hours”, regularly creating long hours at work. Women in particular comment that they “cannot imagine having children and being able to do the job [I have]”, or about being “almost desperate about having to make a choice between family and career”. 3.4 If these two changes came about, it would be possible (and expected) for universities to plan longer- term career paths for those researchers for whom it is mutually beneficial that they remain in university research. As a senior researcher has commented, “Any laboratory requires some long- term employees to create continuity (teach methodology, etc) which is vital to any research effort, and help prevent “re-inventing the wheel” as new people come in”. 3.5 We wish to take this opportunity to state that promotion criteria, with their emphasis on publications, in the main driven by the requirements of the Research Assessment Exercise, are detrimental to women during the early part of their careers, when they are establishing their own research.