 |
 |
> either way, surely it's just not on that scientists should have to make the > decision to sacrafice a higher pay package. i admire people who do this, but > that's not to say it's something we should all be aspiring too, rather than > trying to make things a little more even? > Fair point, but how? I recall reading in New Scientist a few years ago (sorry I can't be more specific) a series of letters about scientists' pay. Someone asked why, when there were frequent comments from government about how the country needed more scientists, pay was so poor. What about market forces (very much the in thing then), he asked? I don't recall anyone answering the question. I certainly couldn't; it seemed to me that the explanation must be that people must be happy to go into, and stay in, science at the salaries available. I did ask a politician at the time (admittedly in opposition then) but he couldn't answer the question either. For myself, I know that I could be earning a lot more if I'd gone into law, medicine or accountancy, but i enjoy my job, I get a high enough salary for my needs & I know that scientists make a very important (if not publicly very visible) contribution to the NHS. I've also taught for the Open University for 22 years and use 1 or 2 weeks of my annual leave each year to work at Summer School. As many of my OU colleagues say, the pay is pretty crap, but the work is extremely enjoyable and there are lots of people apparently falling over themselves to become OU tutors. So - perhaps, according to the "market" there are enough scientists - and/or we all enjoy our jobs so much that the money isn't important? It's not cool (the terminology is familiar to me!), possibly sad, but do we want people to do it for the money? Dr MJ Pearson Department of Chemical Pathology & Immunology Old Medical School Leeds General Infirmary (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust) LEEDS LS1 3EX Tel 0113 392 3945 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%