Madam, – The truth, as indicated by the response of Dr Tony McElligott (August 21st) to Stephen Duff (August 19th), can indeed be galling.
Sadly, the comparison drawn by Mr Duff between training positions in science and medicine is all too apposite. In both cases, more graduates have emerged than can be accommodated by tenured positions in the Irish system, respectively as lecturers or consultants. Specifically, this has long been true in medicine. However, in both cases, graduates have alternative career options both in Ireland and abroad – not just in medicine, as suggested by Dr McElligott.
Aside from academia, trainees in science can pursue careers in science or administration in the pharmaceutical, biotech and chemical industries, in regulatory bodies, in funding agencies, in venture capital, in journalism and even in politics.
Success in the academic domain, in either science or in medicine, is competitive; training abroad may well enhance the likelihood of appointment, either as a consultant or a tenured faculty member, in Ireland. While this reality does not undermine the need to develop further career paths and opportunities for scientists in academic institutions in Ireland, the implied expectation in the recent letters of Drs. McElligott, Foran and Harney of a guaranteed, linear and locally pursued career path is unrealistic and perhaps undesirable in any career in the 21st century.
As I mentioned in my article (Opinion, August 13th) on a career in science, it is a choice that requires vision and the courage to reach beyond the parochial, but one of extraordinary fulfilment.” –
GARRET A FitzGERALD, MD,
Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics,
University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,
US.
Madam, – Inspired by my chemistry teacher to choose a career in science, I earned a PhD qualification, as did my fiancé in 2002. We left Ireland to gain experience abroad, as Stephen Duff (August 19th) explained is necessary. It transpires our repatriation last year was poorly timed.
The plentiful supply of jobs during the boom had vanished. I was fortunate enough to secure a three-year contract at a university, quite a rare occurrence for post-doctoral researchers. I am one of the lucky ones, doing what I love.
Despite continuing effort, my fiancé who hoped to work in industry has not been quite so privileged. Over a year and a half later, following eight years of study and over five years of both industrial and academic work experience, he has not found employment in the science sector.
A stated objective of the Government Strategy for Science Technology and Innovation (SSTI 2006-13) is to double the number of PhD graduates relative to 2003 levels. Following graduation, employment options are lecturing/research in the public sector or a career in industry.
The current moratorium on public sector jobs means this route to employment for PhD graduates is evaporating. The ever dwindling public purse and the McCarthy report suggest that research-funded positions are also under threat. The industry option according to Dr Declan Jordan (Finance, July 6th) currently employs a mere 9 per cent of post-doctoral researchers. If the much-desired smart economy is to eventuate, serious efforts need to be made by the Government to support the entry of PhD graduates into industry. Is the current Government spending our taxes to educate students all the way to PhD level merely to join the 400,000 (and rising) people already on the live register? This doesn’t appear to me to be a particularly “smart economy”. – Yours, etc,