ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

IN WILLIAM BOYD’s novel Stars and Bars, the art expert Henderson Dores
decides to leave Britain in favour of the US, in a ‘deliberate flight from
shyness . . . a determined escape from timidity’. Finding a cure for shyness
and a decent shower in America may be low on the list for most potential
emigre British scientists. But whatever the reasons, there is no disputing
the existence of a serious exodus of British research talent – the ‘brain
drain’ – and most of it is heading for the US.

Many researchers have long believed that, unless the government markedly
improves investment, jobs, salaries and security in research, more and more
good scientists will make their temporary residence permanent. Now, more
than 1900 researchers working abroad have voiced these concerns in a petition
that was due to be presented to Mrs Thatcher on Wednesday. They hope it
will help to goad the government to improve its funding of British science.

Marie Rose Van Schravendijk, a molecular biologist who works for a biotechnology
company in California, organised the petition with the help of several other
British scientists working in the US and Europe. Their frustration with
the situation in Britain led them to establish British ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´s Abroad
(BSA) to protest at the lack of government support for scientific research
at home. As well as distributing a petition to British scientists abroad,
the BSA drafted a policy document suggesting areas where government money
would be best spent .

The BSA collected over 1600 signatures in six months, and 1939 by the
end of January. More than three-quarters of the signatures were from people
working in the US and Canada, and more than half of those signing the letter
were appointments at faculty level in academia or industry. The BSA will
compile information volunteered by contributors to the petition, in order
to help to assess the obstacles impeding the return of British scientists.

The actual number of scientists choosing to leave Britain, while perhaps
not at the levels seen in the 1960s, is nevertheless startling: every year,
about 1000 scientists and engineers obtain permanent immigration status
in the US. In 1985, the figure was 979, while in the following year, 1380
scientists obtained either permanent or non-resident status there. No one
knows how many of these scientists return to Britain.

Many of them are young, talented researchers who have just completed
their PhDs. Popular destinations include San Francisco and Boston. Not only
do these cities boast several first-rate universities, but they are also
the centres of the biotech nology and computer industries on both East and
West Coasts. ‘It’s always been a tradition for people to consider postdoc
toral research in the US,’ says Michael Bull, a recent arrival in the physics
department at Harvard University, where he is studying semiconductors. Even
after only a few months in the US, Bull is concerned by the lack of research
opportunities in Britain, in both academia and industry. ‘There is a shortage
of technologists, but no obvious place to work,’ Bull says, adding that
in his field, at least 50 per cent of British researchers elect to stay
in the US.

British researchers find it easy to work in the US partly because fewer
American students are registering for graduate degrees in their home country.
More than half of the doctorates in engineering go to students from overseas,
especially from Asia. In 1985, 67 per cent of postdoctoral researchers in
engineering, and 33 per cent of those in science, were from abroad.

Another aid to British researchers wishing to gain experience abroad
is the large number of universities and research institutions in the US.
Several other organisations, such as NATO and the European Molecular Biology
Organisation (EMBO), offer help to young researchers looking to gain experience
abroad. For many the US is their first choice. A British student with a
good research proposal and independent financial support is an attractive
package that few American investigators overlook.

The US offers most British scientists resources, facilities and ideas
that few university departments in Britain can match. For young researchers,
under pressure to ‘publish or perish’, everything possible is done to make
their environment stimulating, while removing most of the barriers. The
best-financed institutions, such as the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, have a surplus of expensive, state-of-the-art equipment which
minimises any delay to experiments. In Britain, such equipment may either
be unaffordable or may have to be reserved days in advance. The Whitehead
Institute has a large staff of administrators who order enzymes and reagents
as required. Since the institute opened in 1984 with a $135-million gift
from its founder, nine British researchers have done, or are doing, work
there.

In a survey conducted a few years before the current BSA petition, the
most frequently cited reasons for pursuing research abroad were job opportunities,
provision of facilities and the desire to widen experience. Also mentioned
were the higher rates of pay, which tends to become increasingly significant
with experience. American universities are recruiting vigorously from the
arts and humanities as well as the sciences. They can offer tempting salaries
in the million-dollar range, as well as superb facilities.

One of the best-known ‘defectors’ among Britain’s scientific elite in
the past 10 years was Richard Flavell, who in 1982 left the National Institute
of Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill in London to become research director
of Biogen, one of the leading biotechnology companies in the US. In 1988,
Flavell decided to return to academia, but rather than returning to Britain,
he became chairman and professor of immunobiology at Yale University, as
well as an investigator for the affiliated Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Flavell’s decision to remain in the US was ‘for a complex variety of
personal and professional reasons’, but, he adds, ‘I received more attractive
research support than I could expect to get in Britain.’ And Flavell believes
this to be the crux of the problem. ‘Universities have great problems in
attracting people to chairs (of departments), because they have nothing
to offer,’ he said. ‘You need to be competitive on a world scale, otherwise
you slip further and further into mediocrity. Science is an international
²ú³Ü²õ¾±²Ô±ð²õ²õ.’

George Cross, the British chairman of molecular parasitology at Rockefeller
University in New York, left Britain shortly after Flavell. Cross had been
working in industry, but commercial pressure began to compromise the direction
of his group’s research, so he looked to return to academia. And while there
were ‘no worthwhile opportunities’ in Britain, he was offered more than
one attractive position in the US.

Cross took advantage of the opportunity to go abroad because ‘the pendulum
was swinging to this side of the Atlantic’. Rockefeller University set up
a brand new, spacious and fully equipped laboratory for his group; interestingly,
Cross still recruits a large number of his researchers from British universities.

According to Cross, there are other problems in addition to those described
by Flavell. He said that universities find it difficult to recruit good
graduate students. Heads of departments ‘are looking at applications they
wouldn’t have even read before’, he added. Even the Wellcome Trust, which
offered to pay a limited number of PhD students increases of around 50 per
cent, only succeeded in recruiting a few candidates of the right quality.

Cross also believes that the lack of funds for researchers who want
to travel abroad is responsible for the decreasing number of British scientists
at these international conferences. This, he says, does little to improve
Britain’s image. Cross says he probably could not afford to leave, for personal
and professional reasons. ‘It doesn’t have to be for ever, but it is likely
to be,’ he said.

Another leading scientist, Brigid Hogan, decided to leave Britain two
years ago to become professor of cell biology at Vanderbilt University in
Nashville, Tennessee. Hogan also worked at the NIMR, where she established
herself as a leading developmental biologist. Hogan, who was given a ‘very
generous set-up’ allowance, is extremely impressed by the building and investment
in the future in the US. She also praised the attitude of the university
support staff working for her. ‘People work harder here,’ she said, ‘they
are paid well, and they do a good job.’ She has control of her own budget,
and is not limited in the amount of financial support she can ask for. Hogan
also stressed the improved opportunities for women in the US. ‘Women get
a much better deal here,’ she said. ‘Their responsibilities in policy-making
and decision-making are infinitely better here.’

The most frequently mentioned reason for leaving Britain was career
limitations. Some scientists are concerned about the rise of short-term
contracts and the lack of job security at universities; others see a shortage
of promising faculty positions when the ‘new blood’ lectureship scheme expires.
‘It seems that all the assistant professorships that are advertised are
American,’ said one postdoctoral researcher.

Not only are vacancies predominantly in the US, but as Cross pointed
out, although a postdoctoral researcher earns perhaps a little more in the
US than in Britain, the gulf widens dramatically later on. A professor earns
probably twice as much in the US, leaving most British scientists in a state
of ‘personal poverty’.

Most British scientists working in the US have PhDs before they come
to the US for the first time. They stay on for a variety of reasons. Jack
Rogers has been a postdoctoral research associate in haematology at the
Harvard Medical School for three years. He is now a strong contender for
a faculty position at the University of Colorado in Denver.

The university would automatically provide research funds for the first
two years, as well as a technician and other resources, and it would pay
Rogers at least $45 000 per year. Rogers asks, somewhat plaintively, ‘Where
in Britain could you do that?’ But he is also impressed by the independence
he would be granted in his research project.

Rogers is not exceptional. Two other British researchers are among the
candidates for a tenure-track position in genetics at the University of
Illinois in Chicago. The excellent package on offer includes starting funds
in excess of $100 000, a personal salary of almost $50 000 per year, and
two years in which to secure funding.

Steve Lambert is a biochemist who left Britain in 1982. He worked at
Tufts University Medical School in Boston for the past two years, since
gaining his PhD. According to Lambert, ‘Boston is the Mecca of science,
everyone should come here for two years. But once you get a taste of it,
it’s difficult to go back.’

Lambert felt he was given the time and independence to reach his full
potential. This may have been realised – he will shortly become a research
associate at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Duke University in North
Carolina. Lambert echoed many of the reasons given by Rogers for pursuing
jobs in the US, especially the disparity in the ease of doing research in
the US and Britain. He believes it is beneficial for Britain to train young
scientists abroad, ‘but you’ve got to be able to bring people back’. There
are many strong reasons for going back, but these are predominantly personal
ones, and have less to do with outstanding career prospects. One of the
most popular reasons cited by those who do return is the desire to have
their children educated in British schools. And for others in the US, cultural
and political differences between the two countries are too deep to make
them want their stay to be a permanent one.

But while the overall picture in Britain remains grim, there are a few
encouraging signs. There are excellent positions for biologists wishing
to return to Britain, although charitable or private trusts such as the
Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Wellcome Trust provide many of these
coveted posts or grants. The government has increased aid to some research
councils, and offered more money to graduate students.

Nor is the US a research Utopia: many excellent research proposals do
not receive funding from its government because of a shortage of funds similar
to, though not as severe as, that in other countries.

But for researchers who have or are about to return to Britain, there
are persistent doubts and many sobering stories. One young immunologist
is giving Britain a ‘last chance’, having turned down a six-figure offer
from a pharmaceuticals giant in the US. A lecturer at a large university
in the north of England is planning to return to the US just four months
after he arrived. And a third researcher, Steve Clark, will take a substantial
pay cut to become a junior lecturer at the University of Nottingham after
two years at Harvard with the support of a generous NATO fellowship. Clark
is unsure if his stay in Britain will be a permanent one. If the BSA petition
fails to make any impact on the government, this trend looks set to continue.

British-born geneticist Kevin Davies is a research fellow at the Childrens
Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He is a signatory of the BSA petition.

* * *

The exiles’ petition to Downing Street

MORE THAN 1600 people signed the petition by British ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´s Abroad.
Of these, 77 per cent were based in the US and Canada, with 14 per cent
in Europe, and a small number in Australia and New Zealand. Copies of the
petition were distributed to people working outside Britain, although obviously
it is not representative of all expatriates doing research overseas. The
petition lists the degrees and past and present universities of all the
signatories. It was addressed directly to Margaret Thatcher, and was handed
into Downing Street on 7 February. The letter states: ‘As British scientists
working abroad, we are very concerned that British scientific research is
being starved of the necessary funding, with consequent emigration of many
scientists such as ourselves. The dearth of funding for state-of-the-art
equipment, coupled with the lack of jobs and career prospects for young
academics are major obstacles in our considering returning to the UK. We
urge the government to reform its science policy . . . particularly as follows:

1) Government support for science as a fraction of national wealth invested
in civil research and development, should be increased to be in line with
other major European nations.

2) Tax incentives for industrial support of fundamental research in
institutions with open, academic type research and publication practices,
could be improved.

3) The Government should recognise its responsibility to safeguard a
broad academic base of independent scientific research on which future technological
progress can be based.’

The BSA also drafted a policy document, or ‘a minimum rescue plan’.
This 10-point plan urges the government to develop a coherent science policy
in the areas of funding for research and education. To redress the effects
of cuts made over the past few years, the BSA believes that an increase
in spending of up to Pounds sterling 150 million per year for 10 years is
the minimum required to bring Britain back to the level of other European
nations, especially West Germany and France. The plan also suggests tax
incentives for indus trial investment in research, and substan tial increases
in the salaries of university staff and the support given to PhD students.