IN the summer of 1989, Michael Letch was flipping through the job adverts in a popular magazine. He saw two ads, side by side. One was for a laboratory manager, ensuring that the water flowing to one-and-a-half million homes was safe and pure. The candidate had to know about ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy, and to have experience with different chromatography techniques. The salary was 拢15 800.
The other ad was for a marketing manager. Communications skills would be an advantage. The salary was 拢27 500, plus valuable fringe benefits, such as private health insurance and a company car. Letch promptly abandoned the laboratory where he was working 鈥� and his plans to do an MSc in process chemistry. He applied to do a master鈥檚 degree in business administration instead. He now works as a quality management consultant, for a district council. 鈥淢y salary went up by 40 per cent overnight, and my working conditions are immeasurably better,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 have an office with an up-to-date computer, a real chair and windows that open.鈥�
杏吧原创s in Britain are poorly paid. But there may be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. A few companies are toying with a radically different career structure which would pay scientists top salaries for staying in science, instead of forcing them to switch to management if they want to earn more money.
Advertisement
杏吧原创s earn less than many other professions. Lawyers, for example, study for about the same number of years, work similarly long hours and occasionally even shoulder the same kind of responsibility. Unlike scientists, though, they are terrifically well remunerated. 鈥淭he upper limit of what lawyers can earn,鈥� says Letch, 鈥渋s defined by their ingenuity.鈥�
According to the government鈥檚 1995 New Earnings Survey, which samples the salaries of people who are taxed in the PAYE system, a solicitor in Britain earns an average of 拢111 a week more than a chemist 鈥� and 拢167 more than a biochemist (see Diagram). And huge numbers of jobs that involve less training, fewer hours and minimal commitment are also better paid.
鈥淪ociety is happy to pay a pilot, a footballer, an accountant 鈥� even an estate agent,鈥� says Peter Cochrane, a director of research at BT, 鈥渂ut would decry well-paid engineers and scientists.鈥� The government鈥檚 1993 White Paper on Science, Engineering and Technology opens by drawing attention to the link between science and national wealth. 鈥淭he understanding and application of science,鈥� it proclaims, 鈥渁re fundamental to the fortunes of modern nations.鈥�
So why scientists are paid so shabbily?
鈥淭he law of supply and demand suggests there are too many of them,鈥� says Sam Edwards, professor of physics at Cambridge鈥檚 Cavendish Laboratory. If fewer scientists were on the job market, universities and private firms would have to pay more to get them and scientists鈥� wages would be pushed up. Britain has proportionately more science graduates than any other OECD country. Among 25 to 34-year-olds, 989 of every 100 000 have degrees in the natural sciences. That is almost half again the number produced by the US and Germany. Even Japan turns out fewer scientists than Britain.
However, relatively few British scientists end up working in science or related fields 鈥� only 3 per cent of the British workforce, compared with 7 per cent in Germany and 9 per cent in the US. And of the main OECD countries, only Britain showed a fall in the number of working scientists in the five years between 1987 and 1991. Since then, employment prospects have declined.
Despite the large numbers of job-seeking science graduates, some companies complain that they have trouble recruiting high-calibre candidates. 鈥淲e want people who are not just good academically, but who have good social skills and are well organised,鈥� says John Hume, director of human resources for Glaxo-Wellcome鈥檚 research and development arm. Universities are starting to do a better job of preparing scientists, says Hume. But recruiters still grumble that many scientists lack communications skills and the ability to work with other people.
In a workshop earlier this year, the Royal Society of Chemistry spelt out how industry wanted the education and training of chemists to change. Science education should be more broadly based earlier on, with skills, such as languages and finance, being included. Graduates should be more flexible and adaptable, and should be able to switch disciplines. And, they concluded, there should be fewer chemistry graduates 鈥� but those few should be better 鈥� 鈥渓eading edge鈥� chemists.
Research directors endorse these recommendations. Even the four main unions that represent scientists acknowledge in a recent discussion document, A Career in Science?, that Britain often produces 鈥渢he wrong kind and quality鈥� of science graduates.
Edwards agrees that Britain鈥檚 industrial and academic scientists are not as good as they ought to be. But it is not because Britain does not turn out top-notch people. Many of the country鈥檚 best scientists are lured away to the City or America, he says. The problem, he believes, is that British companies are not willing to pay the going price.
Some of Britains most successful companies disagree, however. 鈥淲e wouldn鈥檛 like to think people weren鈥檛 coming to us because we鈥檙e not paying enough,鈥� says Hume at Glaxo-Wellcome. Its starting salary for scientists who have just completed their PhD is around 拢24 000. A PhD with a few years鈥� experience can command something nearer 拢27 000, not far off the salary of professors. The scientists themselves seem to find the salaries attractive: on average, 20 applicants compete for each PhD-level position.
Employers do not understand how human abilities vary, counters Edwards. 鈥淥ne person is seldom just twice as talented as another,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 logarithmic. Usually, they鈥檙e several times better, or, if they can do the work and someone else can鈥檛, their infinitely better.鈥� That should be reflected in the wage, he says, and is not. The suggestion that companies cannot find excellent candidates is 鈥渞idiculous鈥�, says Edwards. 鈥淚f you pay enough, you will find someone who can do the job.鈥�
So what keeps scientists and engineers in a vocation that is undervalued? 鈥淢ost people go into science for the love of their subject,鈥� says Robert May, Britain鈥檚 Chief Scientific Adviser. 杏吧原创s also mention the thrill of discovery, the autonomy 鈥� and wearing open-toed sandals if they feel like it. 鈥淥f course, all of them would like to be paid more,鈥� says May. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just not high on their list of priorities.鈥�
It is not uncommon, he points out, for leading academics to move simultaneously up the career ladder and down the pay scale. May鈥檚 own history is a case in point. When he moved in 1988 from Princeton University in New Jersey to the University of Oxford, May took a 60 per cent drop in income. 鈥淚 did it because the most interesting, fun, scientifically engaging place looked to be Britain,鈥� he says. Such an attitude, says May, 鈥渕akes for a bunch of people who are less pushy about salary鈥�.
杏吧原创s are not just underpaid, they are generally undervalued in Britain. 鈥淚n Germany, if you鈥檙e an engineer, you put a plaque on your door,鈥� says Letch. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a ferocious respect for the technical side of things. Here, an engineer is a little Scottish bloke with oily hands.鈥�
Connor Cradden, a researcher at the Association of University Teachers, agrees. He thinks the value of technical expertise goes unrecognised in Britain, while management skills are overvalued. In most companies, the only way to move up, he says, is to become a manager.
But many scientists do not make the transition easily 鈥� or willingly. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a difference between the management of science and the science itself,鈥� says Letch. 鈥淕ood researchers are sometimes bad managers,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut it pays more.鈥�
Recognising that promoting people out of what they do best does not make good business sense, many American companies have begun to establish technical career tracks parallel to the traditional management path. Instead of being locked into the lower echelons, key technical staff now get rewards similar to top management staff 鈥� without having to desert their areas of expertise. By 1992, a survey by the management consultancy Hewitt Associates showed that three-fifths of 107 companies in the US had established dual career ladders. But there are still few examples of dual career ladders in Britain, according to a report by Incomes Data Services, a private research company.
One exception is computer company ICL, which has had a dual career track for over a decade. Wages at ICL are market-driven, says Ginny Spittle, the manager of organisation development. 鈥淲e have to pay people as much as they would get at a consultancy or with a competitor,鈥� says Spittle. This can lead to interesting situations: 鈥渢here are senior technical professionals,鈥� she says, 鈥渆arning 20 per cent more than their own managers.鈥� ICL鈥檚 highest technical position, a 鈥渇ellow鈥�, can earn the same as the most senior non-board executive.
Now, slowly, other large British firms have also begun to adopt dual tracks. Glaxo introduced its 鈥減arallel grading structure鈥� four years ago. Part of the effect has been to slightly increase scientists鈥� wages, says Hume. A couple of the company鈥檚 very best researchers are earning over 拢100 000 鈥� and they do almost no managing.
But BT has not introduced a dual track. For an engineer, the only way up is through the murk of management. 鈥淭hey always talk about how limited the market is for senior executives who can manage big companies like this one,鈥� says one middle-ranking engineer at BT. 鈥淏ut the market鈥檚 even more limited for people who have the competence to design world-class telecoms equipment.鈥� He cannot understand why chief executives are paid so much more. 鈥淚n an ideal world,鈥� he muses, 鈥済ood technical people would be like pop stars. Paid a lot to be number one.鈥�