Yep, Sarah makes a very good point. For the last couple of years I’ve been collecting science communication job descriptions and a PhD is rarely an essential requirement – it does crop up every now and again but it’s not really typical. I also agree with Stephen that a shorter course in science communication is very rewarding – see the British Science Association’s courses page.

My collection of job descriptions is here: ScicommJobs blog | Twitter feed (this acts as quite a good index!) – I used Google to search the blog, for site:scicommjobs.posterous.com PhD, and found the following phrases where mention of a PhD has been made (evidently this won’t pick up the many job descriptions where no mention has been made!):

·         Must have a strong science background, ideally to PhD level or equivalent.

·         PhD in relevant subject and/or equivalent professional experience.

·         You will have a PhD or equivalent level of experience in physics or a closely-related discipline.

·         The successful candidate will be a proactive team member with a PhD (or equivalent) in biomedical science, have postdoctoral research experience and be... ß I’d assume that of the four this one is the keenest on someone having the PhD-level qualification.

It will depend exactly what they mean by ‘equivalent’ of course – it could mean a qualification at the same level as a PhD, or it might mean in-depth subject experience gained over a period of time. Job ads asking for a strong research background, or post-doc research as in the fourth example above would seem to be requiring the PhD level more than others.

You can query the psci-com archives here for jobs advertised on this list (just type job, jobs or vacancy etc into the search box etc) – search | browse – in fact probably worth searching for ‘PhD’ too as this comes up every now and again.

Also, if anyone reading is a science communicator working in a medical research charity / patient group, and on LinkedIn, then you might like this group.

Jo

Hi Matt,

I would look at previous job adverts (see psci-com archive) and see what their ‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ criteria are. I would imagine that, in most cases, a PhD is not specified as being essential to the post. You can build up an enormous amount of experience over the next 3 – 4 years in science communication without doing a PhD – there are many working in roles within learned societies (including CEOs) who do not have a PhD and have progressed perfectly well. A PhD is the qualification of research, not science communication. Unless the job is highly discipline-focussed (e.g. Nature Reviews Editor) or, as someone remarked, highly aligned with academia, it will be your experience and skills which will be of most interest to employers (so make sure you start building on these as soon as possible). Bear in mind also that, by the time you want to aspire to the highest levels of sci com organisations, good management skills (and even qualifications)will start to take over sci-com skills.

Having said that, a PhD will not do you any harm (but your supervisor may – so choose carefully!). A master’s in science communication may be the answer – you could do this part-time while working in science communication so you get the best of both worlds.

Good luck!

Sarah

Sarah Blackford

Head of Education & Public Affairs

Society for Experimental Biology

Bailrigg House

Lancaster University

Lancaster LA1 4YE

Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594850
www.sebiology.org