Under the Microscope: Science is essential to the modern world, which runs on science-based technology. Yet, science occupies a strangely ambivalent position in the popular consciousness.
Also, despite its importance and intrinsically fascinating nature, science is not a very popular career choice with young people. If this situation is to change, scientists will have to significantly improve the status of science in the public sphere.
The function of science is to discover new knowledge about the natural world. This new knowledge has powerful applications in medicine, agriculture, manufacturing, communications, and so on. The public wants science to discover new knowledge but is also somewhat fearful of this knowledge. There is a niggling suspicion that this new knowledge could be dangerous and that, in some cases, scientists "play God". These fears are fuelled by some self-appointed amateur groups that campaign publicly, particularly on environmental issues.
For example, the health implications of eating certain foods, breathing or ingesting industrial emissions, exposure to radiation, the ecological consequences of growing genetically modified crops, are fairly and squarely questions for science to answer. And yet, mainstream scientific findings in these various areas are often publicly contradicted by amateur groups that ignore the vast body of scientific evidence, dredge up the odd contradictory indication and parade it as the whole picture.
The problem is that the amateur groups are winning these arguments in the public mind. For example, they often make confident, passionate pronouncements that a certain practise is extremely dangerous. A scientist answers with an emotionless statement that evidence to date gives no indication the practice is harmful, nor is there any scientific reason to think the practice is dangerous. When asked for a guarantee that the
practice is safe, the scientist answers that science can never give guarantees. Game, set and match to the other side.
Furthermore, scientists are often reluctant to engage in public debate with these groups because such debates often degenerate into public shouting matches. Of course this reluctance only serves to confirm public opinion that the amateur groups are on the right track.
Scientists have an obligation to promote and defend science, and traditionally they have courageously done so. The theory of evolution would not have been accepted so quickly but for the vigorous public campaigning of Thomas Huxley. Why are we so timid now?
The relative lack of interest in science among young people is worrying. I don't think this trend will be reversed until public perception of careers in science changes. The current perception is that jobs in science are both relatively scarce and modestly paid.
I recently chaired an Irish Council for Science Technology and Innovation focus group that published a study entitled A Comparison of Starting Salaries for Science and Engineering Graduates. The study showed that starting salaries for science graduates compare very favourably with starting salaries for graduates in other disciplines. But, a study has yet to be carried out on the comparative salaries of subsequent career paths in science.
I can only speak knowledgably of university career paths, and I will compare science with medicine. The essential basic qualifications for a university scientist are a BSc and PhD, each taking four years to complete. A further period of postdoctoral study, at least three years, is essential if you realistically hope to secure a junior university lectureship. Openings are scarce and highly competitive, but, with luck, you will secure a position at about 30 years of age with a starting annual salary of about €35,000.
The science career ladder rises from junior lecturer through senior lecturer, to professor. The career grade one could reasonably hope to attain is senior lecturer - salary range €60,277 to €85,408. Relatively few reach professor level because there is only one per department, and it certainly takes at least 15 years to get there. Traditionally a professor is head of department, with onerous responsibilities. The current salary range is €91,326 to €117,512 per annum.
Now consider medicine. The BMed degree takes five years, following which there is a reasonably long apprenticeship, but no longer than in science, with pretty much guaranteed employment and good salary, before reaching the top of the career ladder - medical consultant.
A university medical consultant professor in a clinical area - medicine, obstetrics, paediatrics, psychiatry, pathology, surgery, medical microbiology or dentistry - is paid €202,339 per annum. A senior lecturer in these areas is paid €172,400. These salaries are double the salaries paid to scientists, and a clinical medical professor is paid more than the president of UCC, who receives €186,199 per year.
The new-contract hospital medical consultants proposed by Mary Harney will receive an annual salary of €250,000 for working a 40-hour week with public patients. These will be permanent pensionable positions. By comparison, the Minister for Health is paid €199,044 per year and the Taoiseach's salary is €252,419 for, effectively, four- to five- year contract positions.
Of course, top level medical, legal and other professionals should be well paid. But so too should scientists. The absolute level of salaries could be debated and I am conscious that the average annual industrial wage in Ireland is about €30,000. I also know that there are important reasons besides money why students choose medicine. But science should not be so relatively poorly paid compared with medicine, given its importance to the economy.
The CAO points for entry to various science areas at UCC in 2005 varied from 300 to 485, but 580 points were required for medicine. Demand for science would greatly increase if the monetary rewards were greater.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie