Competitive funding and mismatched incentives in scientific research: The impact on early career researchers – Interview with Katherine Christian and Michael R Doran
Interview led by Marianne Chapleau
Marianne Chapleau (MC): Thank you so much for agreeing to meet with me today. I really enjoyed reading your article on research culture and the working conditions of early career researchers (ECRs) in Australia. Among others, you mention the notions of “hypercompetitive funding environments” and “low grant funding success rate”. Could you comment on these topics?
Katherine Christian (KC): A few decades ago, the success rate for grants in Australia was about 30% and now it is less than 10%. Additionally, many more researcher-only academics, than in the past, derive their salary from grant funding. This contributes to a hypercompetitive biomedical research environment in Australia.
Michael Doran (MD): Some might argue that the competitive environment leads to greater output, similar to the theories that underpin capitalist or market economies. However, the problem with the current system is that academics spend an inordinate amount of time writing grants in order to be sure that they win sufficient funding to support their salary and laboratory. Because of the high rate of unfunded grants, a considerable amount of time does not yield a direct outcome. It is well known that academics are investing inordinate amounts of time into administrative tasks, including grant applications, that do not directly contribute to research output, and this should be concerning. It may be possible to improve efficiency at both the personal and community level simply by reducing the total number of researchers competing for limited funds. It might be logical to trim the number of PhD students to better match the carrying capacity of industry and academia. Effectively, it may be more reasonable to make entry into the profession more competitive, and maintenance of the profession less competitive. Because the taxpayer contributes to the training, and often to the development of the early careers of academics, the public may realise a better return on investment if a greater portion of academics are able to maintain a career, rather than only making short-term contributions, and then having to exit research or related fields.
MC: You also mention the concept of “poor workplace culture”. I often hear from colleagues who chose to pursue a career in the industry that the culture is less “archaic” than academia. In your opinion, is this a real phenomenon and if so why do you think there is such a gap between the two?
MD: The goals of academic and commercial pursuits are different, and this has a direct influence on workplace culture. A biotech company will have few products which they aim to manufacture more efficiently, optimise their potency, and from which they aim to generate a profit. Investors expect that it will be possible to map out timelines, estimate costs, and predict profits. In such a process, it is also reasonably straightforward to assign staff complete specific tasks over a specific timeline. Because of this defined process, managing staff can be straightforward, and staff should be able to understand precisely what their deliverables must be. Companies have a vested interest in treating their staff well, as staff performance is required to meet commercial milestones. By contrast, in academia, much of the work revolves around hypothesis testing. Timelines and outcomes can be difficult to predict. This uncertainty makes management of people and resources comparatively difficult, and it also makes it challenging for students or staff to define precisely what their deliverables must be. As universities and institutions have become corporate entities, they have attempted to try to assign metrics to academics. The primary metric or output is the publication, and many students/staff are evaluated based on their publication output. The problem is that the true value of a publication can be nebulous, or at least challenging to immediately quantify, and there are warning signs that many publications may not even be reproducible. For those who have time, it is worth watching this talk by Dr John Ioannidis. He discusses research reproducibility and presents an interesting model where publication outputs influence career outcomes. What John reminds us at the end of his talk is that we need to reengineer the reward system or metrics in research, with a focus on quality and reproducibility. In addition to the broad benefit that this reengineering will bring to science, it is possible that modifying the reward system will lead to better work environments.
KC: Another problem is that ECRs who are funded by the grants of their supervisors are dependent on their supervisor and must necessarily concentrate on that supervisor’s research. This can contribute to creating a poor workplace culture because they don’t have the time to invest in their own career. When ECRs are funded by their own fellowship, they can better choose what to do with their time and usually pick up other important skills, in addition to doing research. Also, there are many ECRs hoping for these positions so ECRs become a disposable workforce.
MC: Interesting. In your opinion, why do postdocs stay even if the environment is toxic?
KC: They desperately want to stay because they love science. They will put up with poor working conditions because they love their actual work. Also, they often receive very little education on the other available options and really don’t know what else they could do instead.
MC: I was very surprised to read that 78% of the responders had considered a major career or position change in the previous 5 years. You mentioned that unhappiness in their current workplace was the cause for about the third (34.5%) of these ECRs. Others didn’t mention unhappiness but said that changing jobs would be beneficial for their career. To your knowledge, what reasons could explain why a career change would be beneficial for ECRs?
KC: Usually they don’t have permanent jobs so when they lose their grant funding they have to go somewhere else, to wherever they can get a job. This is often in another city, state or even country. Conversely, sometimes it’s best to change jobs to grow as a scientist. ECRs often report that the change of culture is difficult.
MC: In the article, you often mention the importance of having access to mentors. Do you have any suggestions for our readers who are ECRs on how to make connections with senior researchers?
KC: From our survey, only 60% of ECRs had a mentor. I think institutions need to encourage and offer mentoring programs. They also need to recognize the value of the mentoring activities their senior staff are involved in. Often, mentors are busy and they don’t get recognized for their work as a mentor. I would suggest readers to aim to have more than one mentor, to develop a good wide network, take opportunities and be bold. It can be scary to meet new people at conferences but you have to do it. You need to nurture your network as you would nurture your friendships. There is also this myth that mentoring is only beneficial to mentees, but it’s actually really beneficial for mentors too. By mentoring younger scientists, they can broaden their network too and learn new methods, concepts or ideas.
MD: I think you should have many mentors and a few champions. Champions are the ones who will write you a good reference letter. These people should ideally have worked with you and be able to speak about your talents. The world is complex, are there many who may be able to provide insights into parts of it. Most academics will be happy to help if they can; so don’t be afraid to ask. It can be useful to reach out to people outside of your department or institution, because these individuals can provide a more distant perspective.
KC: I would also suggest seeking your supervisor’s approval when you choose mentors. They might be able to provide some guidance in choosing/finding relevant mentors for you.
MC: Lastly, what do you expect regarding research culture in academia for the future?
MD: On a positive note, I believe that we will see both professional and technical evolutions over the next few years. In addition to our paper, reports by Nature and Wellcome Trust discuss challenges within the research culture. It’s useful to discuss these problems; scientists are problem-solvers, and it’s likely that we will devise solutions. I also believe that some of the challenges associated with publications will be solved by artificial intelligence (AI). There are approximately 2.5 million new research articles published per year. This is an overwhelming amount of data to assimilate or police. However, software packages, like Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, are already using computer algorithms to assimilate gene expression data from thousands to power predictive experimental tools. AI will be able to integrate the 2.5 million papers per year, identify publications that incrementally increase knowledge, and possibly identify publications likely to suffer from reproducibility problems. AI may even help determine which experiments need to be completed. If we are lucky, AI will eliminate many of the laborious aspects of science and allow us humans to focus our energy on being creative! Finally, I am hopeful that the obvious international need for a COVID-19 vaccine, and the fact that the scientific community delivered multiple options within a year, will lead to greater public support and investment into scientific endeavours. This outcome seems likely.
MC: Thank you so much for those valuable insights!
Katherine is a mentor, trainer, author, PhD candidate and research manager. She has worked in health and medical research for over 30 years, mostly for organisations conducting and supporting cancer research. Scientifically trained, she has chosen not to work in a laboratory, but to use my scientific background and a flair for organisation to manage research projects and assist scientists with the management of their research. Her objectives have included providing environments and skills which encourage effective, efficient research and to encourage and facilitate communication about that successful research to all stakeholders. The nature of her work has involved her with many early-career researchers in a range of disciplines, and she has developed skills in teaching them how to manage themselves, their research and their careers. Now, having built up a body of expertise over many years, she is further developing her involvement in this field by undertaking a PhD, topic "Challenges faced by early-career researchers in the sciences in Australia". She is working to identify opportunities to address some of those challenges. Her published book "Keys to Running Successful Research Projects: All the Things they Never Teach You" provides one such tool.
@KatherineChri15
Doran completed a BSc (Genetics) and BEng (Chemical) at the University of Alberta in Canada. As an Engineering graduate he worked as a Project Manager for Exxon/Mobile where he directed the development of heavy oil fields in Northern Alberta (Cold Lake Project). Motivated by an interest in biomedical research, Dr Doran relocated to Sydney, Australia and undertook a PhD in Biomedical Engineering at UNSW (graduation 2006). Under the talented supervision of Dr Robert Nordon (UNSW), Doran’s PhD contributed directly to the development of a now commercialised bioreactor for stem cell expansion. Doran then completed a combined Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Queensland and Mater Medical Research Institute. In 2010, Doran was awarded a prestigious QUT Vice Chancellor’s Fellowship and this stability enabled him to establish his own independent research group within QUT. In 2012, Doran was awarded an on-going Teaching and Research position at QUT. In 2017, Doran transitioned back to full time research after being awarded an NHMRC Fellowship (CFD-2, 2017-2020). Currently Doran’s laboratory is located at the Translational Research Institute (TRI) on the Princess Alexandra Hospital campus in Brisbane. His group’s multidisciplinary research interests include the study of bone, bone marrow, cartilage, and cancers that metastasise to the bone.
@DrMikeDoran