Faculty salaries worth less while presidents see real-terms rise

Average faculty salaries in the United States increased at less than the rate of inflation for the second year in a row, according to a report released today by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) – but many college and university presidents saw substantial increases.

The overall increase in faculty salaries was 1.4% between 2009/10 and 2010/11, while the AAUP’s favoured measure of inflation, the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U), increased by 1.5% during 2010.

The change in remuneration varied between categories of institutions, with faculty at public institutions receiving an average increase of just 0.9%, compared with 2.1% at private institutions. And, despite the recession, the average pay increase for presidents was twice that of faculty at public institutions and nearly three times higher at private institutions.

AAUP director of research and public policy John Curtis said he was particularly surprised that presidential pay continued to increase in real terms during the recession. “When other staff are required to take unpaid furloughs, salary and hiring freezes, and cuts to benefit programmes, it seems especially inappropriate for presidents to receive double-digit salary increases,” he told Naturejobs.

Curtis said presidential salaries seemed to be primarily driven by a type of prestige competition. “Each board justifies the president’s salary by paying more than a competitive institution,” he explained. “The cycle then just keeps repeating itself, ratcheting the salaries upward.”

The report, based on a survey of over 1,100 institutions, also showed that while the number of faculty members grew, most of the new appointments were in non-tenure-track positions.

What’s your reaction to the report? Should presidents get bigger pay increases than faculty? Are you considering a move to a private institution because of your pay? Share your thoughts below.

Strategies for success in open innovation

Posted on behalf of Christof Fellmann and Nisha Narayan

The potential of open innovation to revitalize the R&D industry will only be realized if organizations provide the right environment and support, according to speakers at this year’s BioVision forum in Lyon, France.

Open innovation, in which researchers team up with external collaborators to help develop and market technologies, can help bridge the gap between industry and academia and offers opportunities to scientists who combine research with management and policy-making. But innovation can be stifled by scientific conservatism, said Leroy Hood, president and co-founder of the Institute of Systems Biology in Seattle, United States.

New organizational structures may be required to support innovation as bureaucracy impedes innovative solutions. “In the end, innovation comes from one person,” said Hood. “Its success will depend on whether this person is embedded in an environment that fosters the development and translation of new ideas.”

Organizations looking to innovate need to allow disruptive thinking and carry out high-risk, unconventional research, added Bernard Munos, founder of the US-based InnoThink Center for Research in Biomedical Innovation.

Open innovation can help keep ideas flowing in an established institute, and there are a variety of ways to implement the strategy. Energy company Total Gas & Power, for example, is trying to enter the ‘clean-tech’ sector by collaborating with start-ups. Vice-president of R&D Vincent Schachter explained that researchers from a dedicated internal R&D division work alongside the start-up company’s employees at their place of work. This strategy allows Total to circumvent the problems associated with outsourcing research and enables them to be at the source of innovation potentially driving their next-generation business model.

Making innovation a priority can also have financial benefits. While focusing on small, incremental improvements to a product or technology is often expensive, “breakthrough innovation is much cheaper”, said Munos.

Hood, Munos and Schachter were speaking at the “How to solve R&D’s challenge with Open Innovation?” session alongside other expert speakers at the BioVision forum.

Related article: Funding outside the box

Tech-savvy scientists needed for healthcare innovation

Posted on behalf of Kavisha Ramdayal

Innovators with a flair for technology can find lucrative opportunities in healthcare, according to speakers at this year’s BioVision forum in Lyon, France.

Technology can provide cost-cutting solutions in areas such as patient management, where there is substantial room for improvement. In many cases existing technologies can be exploited in innovative ways, such as the use of cellular phones for remote patient monitoring. In addition to telecommunications, other areas of growth include biotechnology, where 3G wireless technologies have already improved diabetes management and care, and nanotechnology.

Studying patient behaviour to identify unmet needs could also lead to new revenue streams, with the internet and social media giving scientists increased access to patient opinion and other data. However, the need to protect patient privacy remains paramount, particularly considering the speed of technology advancement. Alastair Kent, vice-president of the International Genetic Alliance, said new opportunities were emerging, but highlighted the need for responsible technological applications to adhere to regulations and licensing procedures.

The delivery of healthcare technologies also requires a fundamental overhaul if costs are to remain sustainable, said Nicolaus Henke, a consultant at the McKinsey Hospital Institute. If this can be achieved, Henke says technology has a significant role to play in healthcare management – although it should not be considered a substitute for the human touch.

Kent and Henke were speaking at the “How can technology innovation transform healthcare delivery?” session alongside other expert speakers at the BioVision forum.

Are long working hours inevitable for postdocs?

More than half of postdocs surveyed work at least 50 hours per week and one quarter work at least 60 hours per week.

By comparison, an employee in the United Kingdom works around 37 hours per week on average, while in France this figure is 38 hours (ref). In the United States the average working week of a private, non-farm employee is just over 34 hours long (ref).

Just 2.5% of postdocs work part-time, compared with around a quarter of employees in the United Kingdom and a sixth of employees in the United States (ref).

While the poll of visitors to naturejobs.com is not the most rigorous of measures, it highlights the long-hours culture that many postdocs are faced with. So are long hours inevitable, and what can you do if struggling with your workload?

Liliya Bondareva, a board member of Eurodoc, an organization that supports PhD students, postdocs and junior researchers throughout Europe and is based in Brussels, is not surprised by our poll results. “A postdoc position implies longer hours for a number of reasons,” she says. Complex research combined with limited funding, tight timescales and a need to publish regularly all pile on the pressure. “Working hours often include doing research, teaching, supervision and increasingly administration,” she adds.

Rob Hardwick, co-chair of the UK Research Staff Association (UKRSA) and a postdoc at the University of Leicester, agrees work outside the lab can take up a significant amount of time and deserves more formal recognition. “It is easy to see how the hours put in by the average postdoc soon stack up,” he says.

Sometimes it’s the nature of the work in the lab that means anti-social hours are unavoidable — Bondareva cites an example of a UK postdoc who typically remains in the lab until past midnight when monitoring the behaviour of cells.

A lack of employment rights exacerbates the issue in some countries, a situation that support organisations are campaigning to change. In France, the CJC (Young Researchers Confederation) is pushing to relabel postdocs as temporary research workers to highlight their contractual plights, according to spokesman François Briatte: “Private companies treat [postdocs] as ‘late-stage students’ and consequently offer wages and positions that would correspond to much lower levels of qualification.”

Contracts and union representation can offer some degree of protection. In August 2010, postdocs at the University of California formed a union and agreed a contract with the university hierarchy. While the deal says work schedules must be reasonable, there is no upper limit set on hours. “We want postdocs to be flexible about their work schedule,” says union president Xiaoqing Cao, adding that postdocs facing an unreasonable workload can file a grievance since the contract was put in place.

However, Cao says that postdocs should expect to work longer-than-average hours: “I was told to be prepared to work at least 50 hours per week when I became a postdoc. If we want to move forward with our careers, we have to work hard.” Hardwick agrees, saying long working weeks are inevitable for ambitious postdocs: “We put in the hours we do because it is highly competitive out there.”

Hardwick advises postdocs struggling with their workload to tell their supervisors or mentors and get the issue discussed at departmental committees and meetings so senior staff are aware there is a problem. “When you get to department-head level you don’t always remember what it was like to be a postdoc,” he says.

Another tactic to mitigate problems with long working hours is to try to prevent them arising in the first place. Bondareva advises postdocs applying for a position to investigate the set-up of the project, such as checking whether other institutes allow more time for similar projects and whether staff in administrative positions are also doing research, which could be a sign of overworked researchers. She also suggests checking the blogs and social media outputs of those already in similar postdoc positions: “Do they seem to have a healthy work-life balance? Do they blog a lot about their work? Is it only about work?”

Failing that, Bondareva advises postdocs under pressure to take strength from their initial motivation for becoming a researcher: “Think about the reason you are doing it, and if the reason is compelling enough, remind yourself about [it] every day.”

Have your say

Should postdocs expect to work longer-than-average hours? Can you share any tips on coping with a heavy workload? Have you been successful in improving your work-life balance as a postdoc? Share your thoughts and experiences below.