"M.J. Pearson" wrote:

> One is the relatively poor salaries which scientists can
> generally expect, compared with medicine, law, IT etc.
> Realistically, salary prospects do affect public perception of
> professions and their status, and if the subject is also perceived as
> difficult and time-consuming to learn (which physics and chemistry
> generally are), they are not a career choice except by those who find
> the subject so interesting that other considerations don't matter.
> The only Prime Minister we've ever had with a science degree
> reinforced this by the speed with which she got out of chemistry,
> into tax law and thence to politics!

I was interested to read of your comments, I agree entirely with what
you say. It is a difficult situation to resolve which has come about
through many years of neglect. Certainly in the University sector there
is a sense that the salaries are not representative of the skills and
training of the majority of people. It is interesting to note that after
the recent announcement by the Government that a good Primary Head
teacher can earn more than a University Professor. Whilst not wishing to
detract from the valuable work done in primary schools, it is clear that
in the Education sector there is a lack of emphasis on higher education.
Another change in the last decade has been the shift away from doing
research by the majority of large companies in the UK. As this research
base has been eroded there is a lack of incentive to follow a scientific
career path, indeed for those that do there inevitably comes the point
when they have to shift into a non scientific role for the career
opportunities (i.e. salary) to continue.

> The other is a longstanding cultural problem in Britain which
> affects how science and scientists are perceived.  There is still a
> noticeable persistence of the 18/19th century attitude that it's an
> OK activity for gentleman amateurs and eccentrics, but not as a real
> job.  A great deal of excellent work is done by individuals and
> organisations to communicate the real importance, interest and
> relevance of science to the public, but despite this and the
> popularity of such writers as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould,
> the idea that there are "two cultures" which are equally
> intellectually valid has never really caught on.  The engineer is
> still the bloke with the oily rag, the chemist makes bangs, pongs and
> toxic waste,  physicists invent particles with stupid names and fire
> them expensively and pointlessly at things....and so on.

An interesting observation, which I agree with. I'm not sure how we can
change this? However I do like your succinct definition of engineers,
physicists and chemists.

Regards
Douglas Halliday


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%