Where did all the postdocs go?

What happens when you get a bunch of scientists pissed off? No, it's not the start of a bad joke; as it turns out, what happens is they write a grumpy letter and get all their friends to sign it. It'd be far more fun if they got drunk and burnt couches, but there you have it.

Last month, ten scientists were awarded fellowships paying salary and research costs, totalling over $8 million across five years. The fellowships, however, came at a cost beyond the mere financial: in the 2010 budget they were brought in to replace the previous Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) postdoctoral fellowships. To coincide with the announcement of the 2011 recipients, University of Canterbury's Melanie Massaro spearheaded a letter-signing campaign to draw attention to the loss of support for early career researchers. The letter, signed by 560 scientists and sent to, among others, the Minister of Science and Technology and the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor detailed how the new Rutherford fellowships biased against researchers earlier in their career.

What the hell is a postdoc anyway?

In short, a postdoctorate is a crazy person. They've spent the better part of a decade at university: first with a Bachelors, followed by an Honours year and/or a Master's, finally a Ph.D. – the pinnacle of lunacy. Now they are post to a doctorate, ergo postdoc.

A postdoc is no longer a student; they're paid a salary (and pay taxes!), are typically based within a university or Crown Research Institute (CRI), and get to devote themselves to research. Generally the idea is to continue along the ever slippery slope to become an ivory tower academic; in other words, your lecturer.

From 1993 to 2010 the bulk of postdoctoral funding for science and technology in New Zealand came in the form of FRST fellowships. For a three year term scientists were funded to "do research". The fellowships covered salary, research-related costs, and made provision for personal development (e.g. media training, management – stuff academics aren't necessarily good at). A later addition meant that if a fellow was employed afterwards, the host institute could apply for FRST to cover up to half the first year's salary of said researcher.

Thus, a FRST fellowship was not just a one-off payment to conduct research; the ancillary benefits were designed to aid in transition to a permanent position, preferably in New Zealand. (In fact, while fellows could take their money overseas, it was under stipulation that they returned to little ol' New Zealand). The fellowships were a little bit wonderful.

With the 2010 budget, the FRST fellowships were dissolved and "replaced" by Rutherford Discovery fellowships. Ten recipients are chosen annually, each receiving five years of funding (salary and research costs). In contrast to the FRST fellowships, the Rutherfords are open to researchers up to ten years out of their Ph.D., including those who already hold permanent positions.

Who gets funded now?

Of the ten Rutherford recipients in 2011, five were indicated to have already been holding a lectureship at the time of receiving the fellowship. The median number of years since Ph.D. submission had risen to 7.5 (cf. 2 years for the October 2008 round of FRST fellowships). Based on the old FRST guidelines (applicants must be no more than five years out of their Ph.D.), six of the 2011 recipients would not have been eligible under the previous scheme.

Why then, have the Rutherford fellowships been touted as a replacement to the FRST post-docs?

In their website Q & A, the Ministry of Science and Innovation (MSI) says the FRST funding has been "re-prioritised to an area of greater need". They reckon the limiting phase in a scientist's career is between three to ten years after submitting a Ph.D. Yet six of the ten 2011 Rutherford recipients already had a lectureship.

This brings us back to Dr. Massaro. In a letter signed by 560 scientists, Massaro outlined the reasons why the Rutherford criteria unfairly bias against early career researchers. Pitting someone two years out of a Ph.D. against someone ten years out (and possibly with a permanent position) allows little room for the recent graduate to succeed. An established researcher will often have more publications to their name, a research group of Master's and Ph.D. students to hulk out their research output, and greater access to research funding. Simply put, someone just starting out cannot compete.

Coincidentally, the day before the letter was sent (do you smell a tip-off?) the Ministry announced they would bring forward the review of the Rutherford fellowships rather than the planned review by the end of 2012. David Shearer (Labour) sparked a debate in Parliament, accusing National of underinvesting in science. National disagreed (how novel!). Whether a review of the scheme will have any effect we can but wait and see, but scepticism suggests National wouldn't have cut the FRST fellowships in the first place if they could be so easily swayed back by a few grumpy scientists. Now if they'd burnt couches, that'd be a whole other story.