- Email: [email protected]
Rungs on the ladder: developing a career structure for European researchers
Eur. J. Cell Biol. 83 (2004); 173 ± 174 http: // www.elsevier.de/ejcb
Editorial
Rungs on the ladder: developing a career structure for European researchers Carol Featherstone When you are at the bottom of the career ladder in the life sciences it×s often hard to see how high you can go or where it might lead you. In Europe, the academic ladder is missing at least one essential rung, and young researchers need better training to step out in new directions. In our haste to establish a knowledge economy and a coherent European Research Area, we Europeans frequently lament the loss of brains and investment capital from our continent ± especially to the USA. It is a fact that Europe is a net exporter of researchers, and this at a time when many European countries are expecting a wave of academic retirements following the expansion of the universities in the 1960s, and when some estimate that the European Union will need 700,000 additional researchers by the end of this decade. Young researchers leave Europe for the USA looking for the experience of working abroad in some of the world×s leading research institutions ± a trend that is only to be encouraged if we want to emulate our greatest competitors. But rather than returning to their home country, or to another European country, after three or five years, too many of these scientists are opting to stay put. Better conditions for research are the mostcited reason, but better and more obvious job opportunities are also a very tempting factor.
Academic careers Most researchers look for overseas experience during their postdoctoral years between obtaining their PhD and settling into a more established position in a university or research institute, or in the commercial sector. So, if Europe wants to win back its itinerant young researchers, it needs to be in a position to offer interesting job opportunities at this level in both academia and industry. The US×s academic system stands out from those in Europe (and most countries elsewhere) by having a tenure-track rung on its career ladder: the assistant professorship. Available positions tend to be advertised nationally and internationally in the autumn, candidates are selected by a panel of scientistcolleagues based on transparent criteria of scientific excellence, and the positions are awarded the following spring to be taken up for the start of the new academic year. The new assistant professor becomes an active member of her or his new department, contributing to its research and teaching activities, bringing in grant money (with its associated overheads), and participating in its administration. Being an integral part of the department, new assistant professors often
also benefit from the advice and guidance of their more senior colleagues. After five years or so, the assistant professor is considered for tenure, being judged not only on his or her research activities but also on teaching and mentoring skills and the ability to win research funds and manage them wisely. The tenure-track assistant professorship is a crucial career step towards learning the art of being an independent investigator and group leader, and, at the same time, gives the university the chance to −change its mind× if it discovers it×s hired a lemon. Nothing equivalent to the US assistant professorship exists in Europe. Instead, we have a patchwork of different national systems that neither mesh with each other nor with the US system. There is a clear gap on the ladder between postdoc and university lecturer/professor in Europe. Many experienced postdocs are obliged to stay under the wing of their group leader until their turn comes for a tenured position (as in France, for example), or to apply immediately for one of few tenured university positions (often with a high teaching load), or to get out of academia altogether. No wonder so many choose to stay in a system that seems much more accessible! It is true that over the past 10 ± 15 years, this European career gap has been filled to some extent by the creation of a variety of national and European −Career Development× schemes. In the UK, for example, the Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellowships offer successful candidates four years of generous funding including the investigator×s salary and that of a technician or research assistant, plus running expenses. This scheme and others like it give postdocs looking to set up an independent group the possibility to do so without needing first to find a tenured position. Similar national schemes now exist in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and the UK. The European Commission (EC), through its Marie Curie actions, now offers something similar (the Marie Curie Excellent Teams Award), and the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCs) have also launched a European Young Investigator (EURYI) Award. But there are not enough of them. This idea now really needs to be consolidated across Europe to produce a system that is competitive with and complementary to the US assistant professorships. We need to attract young researchers from abroad ± whether European expats or other nationals ± into a transparent and healthy European career structure. It is essential to catch these junior investigators and set them up with good working conditions while they are in their early 30s ± when they are most productive ± and
0171-9335/04/083/05-173 $30.00/0
EJCB
174 Editorial
allow them to prove themselves as independent scientists before the retirement wave hits us hard. To really improve career opportunities for young researchers in Europe, we need a very significant number of these young investigator awards, and they must be awarded at a European level to help those countries that don×t currently offer such schemes nationally, as well as to complement the existing national schemes. This could perhaps be achieved by broadening the new EURYI awards, administered by the participating national research councils. Alternatively, the EC European Basic Research Fund, projected for 2007 and operated by a new and independent European Research Council, could focus on this task, at least in its early years when limited funds may be most wisely invested in the upcoming generation. Young investigator schemes, however, are not tenure track unless there really is the promise of tenure at the end of them. At some point this prickly nettle will have to be grasped with a sure hand. Some schemes have built-in a requirement that a tenured position is offered to the candidate by the host institution before a five-year young investigator award can be extended. A provision like this must be incorporated into a European scheme to give young researchers a more solidly constructed track to a secure job.
Other careers Because the academic career structure is based on the selection of excellence, it is necessarily a pyramid; more jobs are available at the bottom of the hierarchy than at the top, and each successive layer is smaller than the one before. The result is never enough jobs for all the PhDs and postdocs trained in academia. At first sight, this may seem depressing but, on the contrary, it is a desirable situation if Europe wants to develop a knowledgebased economy, with flourishing businesses growing out of research and development. These businesses need highly trained graduates, PhDs and postdocs both for research and management positions. Sadly, the importance and value of careers in the commercial sector is often not emphasised enough by academic mentors. Students and postdocs who opt for a career in industry are often looked upon as −failures× by their peers in academia. This attitude must change, for the good of everybody. And training for these non-academic careers needs to begin early in the careers of all researchers. Communication, networking, teamwork, management and entrepreneurship are essential skills for the commercial sector (and wouldn×t it be great if all our academics had them too!). Realistic and broad career advice needs to be given from the start of a PhD, as well as training in transferable skills, backed up by regular discussions with a mentor.
Harmonic degrees Another big difference between career opportunities in the US and those in Europe is that because the US is a federation of states with a single language and culture there are few barriers to applying for jobs anywhere in the country. So, the job −pot× an individual can dip into in the US is much bigger than in Europe where most people look within their home state for a position. The question of mobility between EU member states is a major concern of the EC, and its Marie Curie Human
Resources and Mobility division is working hard to put in place not only funding mechanisms for scientists at all stages of their careers to move to another country, but also to make those moves simpler. It is, for example, trying to introduce a −scientific visa× that would bypass some of the bureaucracy when applying for jobs in another country of the EU. It is also looking at ways to recognise the status of −researcher× across Europe with unified standards of social security, health insurance, etc., and it is setting up a vast network of around 200 −mobility centres× across Europe to help mobile researchers with local rules, taxation, finding accommodation, etc., complemented by an online mobility −portal×. Another important barrier to mobility is language. Many university departments and research institutes continue to work in their local language, even for seminars and teaching purposes. If these institutions really want to tap into the wealth of talent in Europe and elsewhere, they must make the effort to adopt English as their working language. This will not only open their doors to international applicants but will also provide a great service to their students and postdocs who wish later to go out into the world for further training. But aside from the practicalities of moving to a new country to work, another barrier to applying for jobs in EU states is the disparity in the national degree structures and requirements. If you want to work in Spain, for example, your degree will first have to receive the approval of the national government ± a process that can take many months. While most undergraduate degrees are typically 3 ± 4 years long, the grading systems and standards differ dramatically from one country to another, or even between universities in a single country. Postgraduate education is even worse, with some countries having an obligatory one or two year −Masters× type qualification before the PhD. And PhDs themselves are highly variable in length and requirements (say, for first author publications in recognised journals), some involving a year of teaching before research, and the length varying from three years, to often more than six. In short, if we want to create a truly European career structure for researchers, the playing field needs to be levelled for degree structures and we need to set European standards for qualifications from higher education. Again, the EC is fully aware of this problem and working hard ± through the so-called Bologna Process ± to find solutions. There is also a trend to address the problem by stealth through the creation of several European doctoral schools (such as the Max Planck Society×s doctoral schools) that are setting their own gold standards, at least for PhD degrees. Europe is not the same as the USA and it should not try to be just like it. One of Europe×s strengths is its wealth of different cultures and intellectual traditions. We should try to exploit this to our advantage. But each EU member state on its own cannot hope to compete on a global scale. We must work together to give our young researchers all the opportunities possible to achieve their potential.
About the author Carol Featherstone is the Editor of The ELSO Gazette, the emagazine of the European Life Scientist Organization (http:// www.the-elso-gazette.org). She is also a freelance science writer and editor ([email protected]).
Editorial
Rungs on the ladder: developing a career structure for European researchers Carol Featherstone When you are at the bottom of the career ladder in the life sciences it×s often hard to see how high you can go or where it might lead you. In Europe, the academic ladder is missing at least one essential rung, and young researchers need better training to step out in new directions. In our haste to establish a knowledge economy and a coherent European Research Area, we Europeans frequently lament the loss of brains and investment capital from our continent ± especially to the USA. It is a fact that Europe is a net exporter of researchers, and this at a time when many European countries are expecting a wave of academic retirements following the expansion of the universities in the 1960s, and when some estimate that the European Union will need 700,000 additional researchers by the end of this decade. Young researchers leave Europe for the USA looking for the experience of working abroad in some of the world×s leading research institutions ± a trend that is only to be encouraged if we want to emulate our greatest competitors. But rather than returning to their home country, or to another European country, after three or five years, too many of these scientists are opting to stay put. Better conditions for research are the mostcited reason, but better and more obvious job opportunities are also a very tempting factor.
Academic careers Most researchers look for overseas experience during their postdoctoral years between obtaining their PhD and settling into a more established position in a university or research institute, or in the commercial sector. So, if Europe wants to win back its itinerant young researchers, it needs to be in a position to offer interesting job opportunities at this level in both academia and industry. The US×s academic system stands out from those in Europe (and most countries elsewhere) by having a tenure-track rung on its career ladder: the assistant professorship. Available positions tend to be advertised nationally and internationally in the autumn, candidates are selected by a panel of scientistcolleagues based on transparent criteria of scientific excellence, and the positions are awarded the following spring to be taken up for the start of the new academic year. The new assistant professor becomes an active member of her or his new department, contributing to its research and teaching activities, bringing in grant money (with its associated overheads), and participating in its administration. Being an integral part of the department, new assistant professors often
also benefit from the advice and guidance of their more senior colleagues. After five years or so, the assistant professor is considered for tenure, being judged not only on his or her research activities but also on teaching and mentoring skills and the ability to win research funds and manage them wisely. The tenure-track assistant professorship is a crucial career step towards learning the art of being an independent investigator and group leader, and, at the same time, gives the university the chance to −change its mind× if it discovers it×s hired a lemon. Nothing equivalent to the US assistant professorship exists in Europe. Instead, we have a patchwork of different national systems that neither mesh with each other nor with the US system. There is a clear gap on the ladder between postdoc and university lecturer/professor in Europe. Many experienced postdocs are obliged to stay under the wing of their group leader until their turn comes for a tenured position (as in France, for example), or to apply immediately for one of few tenured university positions (often with a high teaching load), or to get out of academia altogether. No wonder so many choose to stay in a system that seems much more accessible! It is true that over the past 10 ± 15 years, this European career gap has been filled to some extent by the creation of a variety of national and European −Career Development× schemes. In the UK, for example, the Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellowships offer successful candidates four years of generous funding including the investigator×s salary and that of a technician or research assistant, plus running expenses. This scheme and others like it give postdocs looking to set up an independent group the possibility to do so without needing first to find a tenured position. Similar national schemes now exist in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and the UK. The European Commission (EC), through its Marie Curie actions, now offers something similar (the Marie Curie Excellent Teams Award), and the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCs) have also launched a European Young Investigator (EURYI) Award. But there are not enough of them. This idea now really needs to be consolidated across Europe to produce a system that is competitive with and complementary to the US assistant professorships. We need to attract young researchers from abroad ± whether European expats or other nationals ± into a transparent and healthy European career structure. It is essential to catch these junior investigators and set them up with good working conditions while they are in their early 30s ± when they are most productive ± and
0171-9335/04/083/05-173 $30.00/0
EJCB
174 Editorial
allow them to prove themselves as independent scientists before the retirement wave hits us hard. To really improve career opportunities for young researchers in Europe, we need a very significant number of these young investigator awards, and they must be awarded at a European level to help those countries that don×t currently offer such schemes nationally, as well as to complement the existing national schemes. This could perhaps be achieved by broadening the new EURYI awards, administered by the participating national research councils. Alternatively, the EC European Basic Research Fund, projected for 2007 and operated by a new and independent European Research Council, could focus on this task, at least in its early years when limited funds may be most wisely invested in the upcoming generation. Young investigator schemes, however, are not tenure track unless there really is the promise of tenure at the end of them. At some point this prickly nettle will have to be grasped with a sure hand. Some schemes have built-in a requirement that a tenured position is offered to the candidate by the host institution before a five-year young investigator award can be extended. A provision like this must be incorporated into a European scheme to give young researchers a more solidly constructed track to a secure job.
Other careers Because the academic career structure is based on the selection of excellence, it is necessarily a pyramid; more jobs are available at the bottom of the hierarchy than at the top, and each successive layer is smaller than the one before. The result is never enough jobs for all the PhDs and postdocs trained in academia. At first sight, this may seem depressing but, on the contrary, it is a desirable situation if Europe wants to develop a knowledgebased economy, with flourishing businesses growing out of research and development. These businesses need highly trained graduates, PhDs and postdocs both for research and management positions. Sadly, the importance and value of careers in the commercial sector is often not emphasised enough by academic mentors. Students and postdocs who opt for a career in industry are often looked upon as −failures× by their peers in academia. This attitude must change, for the good of everybody. And training for these non-academic careers needs to begin early in the careers of all researchers. Communication, networking, teamwork, management and entrepreneurship are essential skills for the commercial sector (and wouldn×t it be great if all our academics had them too!). Realistic and broad career advice needs to be given from the start of a PhD, as well as training in transferable skills, backed up by regular discussions with a mentor.
Harmonic degrees Another big difference between career opportunities in the US and those in Europe is that because the US is a federation of states with a single language and culture there are few barriers to applying for jobs anywhere in the country. So, the job −pot× an individual can dip into in the US is much bigger than in Europe where most people look within their home state for a position. The question of mobility between EU member states is a major concern of the EC, and its Marie Curie Human
Resources and Mobility division is working hard to put in place not only funding mechanisms for scientists at all stages of their careers to move to another country, but also to make those moves simpler. It is, for example, trying to introduce a −scientific visa× that would bypass some of the bureaucracy when applying for jobs in another country of the EU. It is also looking at ways to recognise the status of −researcher× across Europe with unified standards of social security, health insurance, etc., and it is setting up a vast network of around 200 −mobility centres× across Europe to help mobile researchers with local rules, taxation, finding accommodation, etc., complemented by an online mobility −portal×. Another important barrier to mobility is language. Many university departments and research institutes continue to work in their local language, even for seminars and teaching purposes. If these institutions really want to tap into the wealth of talent in Europe and elsewhere, they must make the effort to adopt English as their working language. This will not only open their doors to international applicants but will also provide a great service to their students and postdocs who wish later to go out into the world for further training. But aside from the practicalities of moving to a new country to work, another barrier to applying for jobs in EU states is the disparity in the national degree structures and requirements. If you want to work in Spain, for example, your degree will first have to receive the approval of the national government ± a process that can take many months. While most undergraduate degrees are typically 3 ± 4 years long, the grading systems and standards differ dramatically from one country to another, or even between universities in a single country. Postgraduate education is even worse, with some countries having an obligatory one or two year −Masters× type qualification before the PhD. And PhDs themselves are highly variable in length and requirements (say, for first author publications in recognised journals), some involving a year of teaching before research, and the length varying from three years, to often more than six. In short, if we want to create a truly European career structure for researchers, the playing field needs to be levelled for degree structures and we need to set European standards for qualifications from higher education. Again, the EC is fully aware of this problem and working hard ± through the so-called Bologna Process ± to find solutions. There is also a trend to address the problem by stealth through the creation of several European doctoral schools (such as the Max Planck Society×s doctoral schools) that are setting their own gold standards, at least for PhD degrees. Europe is not the same as the USA and it should not try to be just like it. One of Europe×s strengths is its wealth of different cultures and intellectual traditions. We should try to exploit this to our advantage. But each EU member state on its own cannot hope to compete on a global scale. We must work together to give our young researchers all the opportunities possible to achieve their potential.
About the author Carol Featherstone is the Editor of The ELSO Gazette, the emagazine of the European Life Scientist Organization (http:// www.the-elso-gazette.org). She is also a freelance science writer and editor ([email protected]).