Why science professions need a shot in the arm

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE:Science is fascinating - so how come people aren't queuing up to study it?

AS I WRITE, Science Week 2008 is drawing to a close. Most Science Week activities aim to enthuse young people in the hope that many will go on to choose careers in science. Unfortunately, our efforts in this regard are having only limited success, although the most recent figures from the HEA show a heartening rise in university science intake this year.

Science is fascinating. It has discovered amazing knowledge about how the world works. We know how the world began about 14 billion years ago. We know how the stars and planets formed and how the 92 natural elements were forged in stars. We know how our solar system formed about five billion years ago. We know (in principle) how life began on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago as a simple single form and how it has evolved into the myriad forms of life that now populate the Earth.

We understand the large-scale structure of the universe and the four fundamental forces that make everything physical happen - gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Science is of immense practical importance because science-based technology runs the world - communications, information, transport, media, agriculture and so on. Science in medicine has conquered diseases that once had humans at their mercy. Science-based technology put humans on the moon and will soon put them on Mars.

So, here is the problem. Science couldn't be more interesting or important, and yet young people are not that interested in it or in taking up careers in science. Why? There are many reasons and I can only discuss a few in this article. This is a hugely important matter as the future of our economy depends on how successfully we take up science.

The biggest problem that must be overcome before we can hope to attract young people into science, engineering and technology careers in the numbers and quality necessary to realise our national economic ambitions, is the problem of public perception. People feel that jobs in science are scarce, modestly paid, of dubious status and offer poor career development prospects.

This perception exists for reasons that are not given nearly enough attention. Salaries, career structures and job status in science and engineering could be much better. If science and engineering are so important for our future well being, why is this not explicitly recognised and rewarded?

Our future economic prospects do not depend as directly on medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, law or accountancy as they do on science, and yet these are the courses in greatest demand in our universities. The reason is largely because people perceive that these other professions offer secure, highly paid, high-status, interesting careers.

The Government has set an ambitious target to double the number of PhDs being attained annually here by 2012 in order to service the developing information-based economy. But how can this target be achieved while the public perception of science careers remains unchanged? Why would young people flood into 10-year PhD training programmes (four years for BSc. four years for PhD, two years for postdoctoral experience) to face a career question mark? I acknowledge that some progress is now being made to help this problem with the establishment of structured careers for full-time university researchers, but much more must be done.

Another problem is that science is not conventionally organised as a profession. Consequently the interests of scientists are not vigorously represented at national level and the public profile of science is weak. Other professions have strong professional bodies and unions to represent them publicly, for example, the Irish Medical Council and the Irish Medical Organisation do an excellent job for medicine

Most scientific research in Ireland is carried out by university academics. Academics in general have a low profile. With the exception of a few, they don't participate prominently in public debates. The first- and second-level teaching professions are presented much more frequently and vigorously on the public stage through their unions INTO and ASTI. But how many people recognise the acronym IFUT? It stands for Irish Federation of University Teachers. Only about half of Irish academics are members of IFUT.

I am a member of IFUT. It is a worthy body and I always found it helpful. However, it has a very low public profile and this reflects the conservative instincts of its members. It is high time for this to change and I am pleased to detect a new assertiveness emanating from head office.

Science will not attract the high-quality intake it needs until negative public perceptions are reversed. This can only be achieved by convincing young people and parents that science offers high status, highly paid, secure careers. Scientists must become much more assertive in promoting their profession.

• William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC -  http://understandingscience.ucc.ie.