The EMCR Forum Executive and EMCR Program Manager, Dr Mari Kondo, on behalf of the EMCR Forum, sat down with the Australian Academy of Science’s President, Professor Chennupati Jagadish AC PresAA FTSE, recently for a Q&A on the state of the STEM sector.
Funding, leadership, and the future of the STEM sector were among the topics discussed. Professor Jagadish emphasised the importance of leaders listening to the next generation to ensure under-represented voices are heard and included in the design of solutions to address structural, systemic and cultural barriers to progression for emerging STEM professionals.
Professor Jagadish outlined the Academy’s ongoing efforts to address the decline in funding for fundamental research – the building block from which applications and innovations emerge – and outlined the Australian Government’s investment in research and development (R&D) as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) had fallen over the past decade. Increasing R&D investment to allow Australia to compete with like-minded countries would go some way to addressing some of challenges faced by EMCRs.
When someone senior gets grants, the people who do most of the work are the junior people, but they are not necessarily acknowledged. How do you think we can bridge this big gap that separates generations in research?
I let people know I’m history without my team. Science has really become a team effort. We need to have leaders who can really bring young people together and elevate them rather than elevating ourselves. In fact, in many papers from my group I was not a co-author. I’d say: I didn't contribute to that one. You don’t need to include me just because I'm the leader of the project. If you want to acknowledge me, you can acknowledge me, but I should not be a co-author.
You could ask, is it going to hurt you if you include me as a CI? But I know it’s difficult for a junior person to request this sort of support. Research integrity, ethics and morals should never be compromised. It’s a challenge that senior people really need to take leadership on rather than expecting junior people to. During my PhD, I had to put my co-supervisor as a first author in all my papers and I paid a big price for that. So, I said, I'm never going to do that again.
That relies heavily on the quality of people and the quality of leaders. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to make that an expectation from funding bodies? For funding bodies to request a genuine breakdown of all the people who contributed to the work. Then, if those people are not uplifted by the leadership, the system can automatically show how hard they worked over the years and on how many projects etc. We also need to think about incentives for increasing good behaviour.
Leaders need to set the standards. That is why you really have to treat everybody with respect. Even if the system is rigid and does not allow you to add new names in your report, supervisors should not stop there. When writing a reference, why can’t you mention that this person is the one who drove this particular project? What are you losing by helping that person?
If you are talking to ministers or business representatives, is it more important to be measuring what sort of impact EMCRs are having or, is it better to have stories, narratives, of the impact of EMCR in driving the economy or education?
Personal stories are the best because people can relate to these much better. Let us identify some stories of basic research, which really started off as nothing that anybody anticipated would lead to any applications. Then create some new stories of discovery science that led to applications, so we have a wide range of case studies to share. I often use MRI as a notable example. People were really curiosity driven at using MR measurements to look at the structure of molecules and understanding properties of molecules. Now we are using the technology for medical imaging.
We need to really find Australian stories to share. The more stories we spread about positive news of fundamental research, which has led to great outcomes for society, the more politicians and bureaucrats will understand and relate to that.
Careers have changed shapes. People do a science degree then maybe a PhD. Instead of going straight into a postdoc, they may work in science policy for a while or move into industry, then if the chance occurs, into academia. The EMCR Forum recognises that this may be a more sustainable way to live in terms of career and job security, instead of struggling through soft money issues. However, unwritten boundaries make it difficult to transition between sectors.
When the Forum tries to engage in this topic, there are so many moving parts that it is hard to advocate to one body or one minister, one sector, to emphasise the skills of EMCRs and the benefit of fluidity in careers. For example, if you want to apply for an ARC grant but you worked in industry, that portion of your life is not really recognised, even though it’s such an important experience. It is ignored because you do not get any papers, which is the metric by which you’re judged.
What are your thoughts on how we in the Forum can try and engage with this?
I agree with you that people should be able to go from industry to academia, then to industry. But more work needs to be done because of the way that universities assess candidates. These people can bring valuable experience, but universities look for international publications, impact factors, citations, and a publication gap becomes a big disadvantage. Now the government is talking about the importance of engagement with industry and the university sector is also starting to realise it. Our hope is that, once that realisation comes, more doors will open to industry engagement, and then the universities may change their thinking and start recruiting people from other sectors.
A PhD gives you analytical skills, problem solving skills, the ability to identify knowledge gaps, persistence, perseverance, resilience, team work and communication (both oral and written) skills. All those skills can be used anywhere, in whatever you choose to do. Don’t confine yourself to the topics you worked on. You have the ability to do anything in life when you put your mind to it.
Something that we hear, especially from people who’ve transitioned into more senior roles is: it was hard in our day too, stop whingeing about it! We used to work till 9 pm every night to achieve our goals and that’s what you need to do instead of complaining about work–life balance. What would be your response to attitudes like that?
We can all identify aspects that are not productive, then minimise those things and focus on things which are more productive. But nobody should be forced to work until nine o'clock. It is nonsense that just because you’ve gone through a hard time that everybody else should go through a hard time too. I have the opposite view. I had a lot of difficulties during my PhD with limited facilities. I established facilities so that my students don’t have to go through the same thing. The supervisor’s behaviour makes a big difference in terms of what the students and post-docs follow. We can create an environment where people can take care of their families, do the things they need to in life and contribute to research in the academic sector as well. There is a need for culture change.
I want to create a sense of hope for the younger generation. There are many challenges we face as a sector, but I want to reassure you that I am going to fight for you for the next four years while I’m the President of the Academy of Science. This is one thing which I can guarantee you.
© 2024 Australian Academy of Science
