Money — it’s the crux of just about everything we do in science. Want to bring in a new student or staff member? Money. Want to do field or lab work? Money. Want to go to a conference? Money. It’s one of the things we expect scientists to be good at (and which is also a full-time profession in and of itself).
I get particularly cranky when I see money used as a barrier to diversity. I’ll explain with two examples that have recently piqued my interest.
The first is something I’ve discussed before – paying staff. I highly recommend Auriel Fournier’s post on the same topic. For me, it boils down to a simple axiom: no money = no staff. You’ll note this is similar to the currently accepted adages “No money = no gas”, “No money = no lab analyses”, and “No money = no milk for the tea room”. As we approach the (northern) field season’s peak time for hiring, I find it particularly frustrating when I see “opportunities” that are entirely volunteer, or even pay-to-work junkets. That just ain’t right.
The second is something that’s come up on Twitter recently – spending one’s own money “for science”, by which I mean incurring expenses for one’s research/job and not being reimbursed. This post by Edd Hind lays out the terrible logic, and the damning evidence.
In both cases the result is the same – science becomes only possible for those who have financial means. And that typically means white men. We need more diversity in science.
I don’t think the ideas I’m advocating are all that radical (we should pay people a decent wage for their work, and they should not have to pay for work-related expenses). And while they alone won’t solve the problem of under-represented groups in science, they’ll go a long way to making it a slightly more even playing field.
If you’re a PI – budget for your staff just as you would your lab ethanol or conference travel. Give your trainees travel advances if they’re going to incur large bills over a short period (e.g., a field season). Learn about central pools of money from the department, faculty, or graduate student union to cover conference travel, training, etc.
If you’re a trainee – discuss funding for staff and supplies with your supervisor. Seek reimbursement for costs incurred, and advocate for advances rather than reimbursement (or direct purchasing by the department/university). And know your department’s/university’s financial regs for reimbursement (or pots of money for conferences); your PI may not be up to speed on these.
If you’re an administrator – push for appropriate financial measures so that trainees aren’t out of pocket. Look at having a central pool of funding for things like conference travel (as a grad student, I got 1 conference/year covered this way).
And don’t just assume that because you could cover the cost that others could as well.
crestwind24 said:
Reblogged this on CauseScience and commented:
Great post from ‘The Lab and The Field’ about the influence of money on science and diversity in science!!!!
Tea 'n' Mango Juice said:
This.
Yes, this.
And, of course, the problem compounds. Not lucky enough to attend an undergrad university with generous financial aid (or to get a student job with flexible hours)? Good luck doing undergrad research during termtime on top of your part-time job. Need to spend your summers working — to pay tuition for the following semester, to support family, whatever — or to spend time at home? Even a break-even undergrad research stipend isn’t going to cut it. Can’t afford tropical field courses or to “work” as an unpaid field assistant, even with partial grants? Good luck breaking into fieldwork. And good luck getting to know professors for a letter of recommendation for graduate school. (I am where I am now because a prof took a math major keen on birds and decided to pay for her to go to Ecuador.)
PI’s, professors, admissions people, etc seem to forget that it takes a combination of money, luck, and social capital to get into (and be able to attend) good undergraduate universities, to have a good CV for graduate school, to have a good CV during graduate school. People fall off the “railroad to success” for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of skill or ambition. I’m so glad people are talking about the privilege of means.
Edward Hind said:
Great to see another blog post about personal spends on science. I think it’s an important topic. Dr. Brett Favaro and I have now set up a survey to try and quantify these spends. We’d be very grateful if scientists could take the survey and share it with their professional networks. Here it is:
http://goo.gl/forms/ZAtzAqGRMw
Thanks, Edd Hind.
Pingback: On trainees, money, and diversity | The Lab and Field | sunylgbtq matters