The Onus Falls as Much on the Science Sector as Industry to Develop Convincing New Faces of Science. (September 7, 2009)

The following opinion piece by Professor John Rice, Executive Director of the Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS) and Bradley Smith, Executive Director, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Sciences (FASTS) was first published in today's Australian Financial Review and is reprinted here with permission.

 ___________________________________

Onus Falls On Industry To Put A New Face On Science*

By John Rice And Bradley Smith

Australian Financial Review, Monday 7 September 2009

A critical challenge for industry, universities and science organisations is to develop convincing profiles of scientific work in the 21^st century, not least of all as the basis for attracting young people to science.
 
There is a significant disconnect between the image of a research scientist and the working life of the majority of scientifically and technologically trained graduates. In part, this has come about because of a lack of attention to how the ‘business models’ of professional scientists and technologist have been utterly transformed in the past few decades.
 
Education authorities, Government and science organisations promote the study of science on the basis that science and technology drives the global economy, and a scientifically skilled workforce is necessary for competitive advantage in both generating and adopting new technology.
 
From here there is a tacit leap to the idea that there are lots of ‘science’ jobs out there.
 
However, ‘science’ jobs have changed dramatically. Computer systems and new sophisticated instruments do much of the routine technical work that trained technicians used to do, resulting in both astonishing increases in the productivity of techno-science and changes in divisions of labour.
 
It is worth exploring the question of what role technically trained people now play in a developed economy. How have the required skill sets and roles changed over time? Do developed economies need fewer science trained people but in higher level and more specialised areas? How do employers now identify and describe the kind of science background that they require of their recruits, and the roles that they have in mind for them?
 
Anecdotally, there seems to be increasing number of firms concerned that science graduates do not have adequate technical skills upon graduation from universities and the gap is growing.
 
This does not surprise academics. The erosion of funding per student in real terms over the past twenty-five years has reduced the capacity of universities to provide adequate and comprehensive technical, laboratory, field work and other skills in undergraduate science programs.
 
However, it seems to us that the issues are more complex and interesting than simply that of skills shortages. At the heart of the matter seems to be a poorly articulated sense of how the nature of the technical workforce has changed over the last thirty years in the face of the globalisation, generalisation of ICT and technological change. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to how employers identify and describe the kind of science background that they require of their recruits, and the roles that they have in mind for them.
 
Management has changed significantly but it is not clear that we have a good handle on how working life for scientifically trained personnel has changed.
 
If you think about how the role of the shop assistant or tradesperson has changed in the face of computers and mobile phones, then the role of the scientist in the workforce has probably changed as much. Or to pose the issue in different language – how has the ‘business model(s)’ of being a non-academic scientist or scientifically trained person changed in the past few decades?
 
One problem is how much we take scientific research as the only idea of real science and any other kind of scientific worker such as teachers or industrial workers often consider themselves relegated to the 2^nd division.
 
More than 90% of science graduates do not become researchers, yet we know very little about where they go and how their training relates to career pathways.
 
Science faculties are aware of the lack of an adequate construction of science as a profession. There is an increasing number of postgraduate coursework programs specifically building high level non-research professional skills in, for example, IP management and data storage and management.
 
Engineering, law, accounting, architecture and clinical psychology have certifying powers under law for the activities they are responsible for. This economic power underpins their construction as professions. Perhaps it is unlikely that industry science will gain similar statutory recognition.
 
Nevertheless there does seem to be an imperative for convincing professional profiles of science at work. Industry groups have a key role in helping to articulate these roles. This needs to go beyond focusing on cocktails of skills and open up a more sophisticated and generative way to think about attributes of scientifically trained people in the workplace.
______________________________________

*As is common practice, the title of an opinion piece is determined by the newspapers’ editors; not the authors. We would say the onus falls at least as much on the science sector as industry in developing convincing new faces of science.