> 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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|