News & Views item - July 2006

 

 

Scientists Need Nurturing Beyond the Schoolroom. (July 21, 2006)

    Following is a letter to the editor of The Sydney Morning Herald published on Friday July 21, 2006.

 Prof. Eugenie Lumbers

    I read with pleasure that the Government has strategies to stimulate the recruitment of young people into science and engineering, but I would say to Julie Bishop, these are not enough ("Where have all the scientists gone?", July 19).

While engaging young people in science during their school years is imperative, there are two other levels where young scientists can be encouraged.

When a student finishes a three-year undergraduate science degree, the next step to becoming a scientist is to study for honours. The honours year is the first time that a student becomes fully involved in scientific research.

Honours students require enthusiastic undergraduate teachers who are actively involved in research. It is unlikely that a leading researcher who comes in for the occasional guest lecture is going to be seen as an accessible mentor to the undergraduate.

Research costs money. A simple project in molecular biology can cost about $12,000-$15,000 in consumables (let alone the infrastructure costs). In my experience, required levels of support have not been provided by universities to researchers for educating honours students; rather, they are funded out of competitive research grants. Academics with heavy teaching loads who are likely to attract honours students have to compete against full-time researchers for research funds.

In the corporate universities of today, where staff numbers are diminishing and teaching loads and administration are ever increasing, it is becoming more and more difficult for teaching academics to maintain research programs suitable for honours research education.

So I would suggest to the minister: what about earmarking part of university funding for direct support of the research costs of honours students?

The second level at which life for a budding scientist becomes difficult is when a doctoral thesis has been submitted. At this time, scholarship stipends stop. The candidate waiting to have the thesis examined and approved is in limbo. There is no income unless the laboratory in which the work was carried out has surplus funds available.

Why couldn't a candidate who has submitted a thesis be eligible for six months of salary support so there is time to complete a project, write up papers for publication and apply for postdoctoral positions? The assumption seems to be that somehow students should be able to manage this financial hiatus independently.

Eugenie R. Lumbers Scientia

Professor Emeritus

[Note: Professor Lumbers' research interests include fetal origins of adult disease, hypertension, development of control of the circulation, renin-angiotensin system, effects on the autonomic control of the circulation, renal development and function, placental function and the placental prorenin/renin system. She is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.]