I am currently a postdoctoral researcher at one of Britain’s leading universities; I have a substantial publication record, first class honors degree and currently work for a world renowned academic. Myself along with several other chemists at the same university have been applying for jobs for the past 6 months and have struggled to get an interview let alone a job.

How can these companies complain? We study for 7 years to get a PhD, compete for very few places and get the same starting salary as someone without a PhD. The last medicinal chemistry job I applied for had over 100 applicants for one position, and they say there is a shortage of people?

The government is currently spending a lot of money training people like me to PhD level and then for us to change careers because we can not get a job in chemistry. This does not sound like there is a shortage of chemists to me!

Dr James, Oxford,

I can only echo what's been said above:
I have a First from a British "Poly" University, a good PhD from the US and 5+ years industrial experience. I'm unemployed and seemingly can't even get graduate jobs. If I could, the pay would never come close to allowing me to buy a house. I'm steeling myself to retrain as an accountant.
What I find particularly galling is people like Gordon Brown calling for more scientists. There is not a shortage of scientists who want to do science. There is a shortage of people in other professions, like politics, who understand what science is about. You can meet people who will, without shame, freely admit that they can't do relatively simple mathematics. Yet to me it seems that that is as shameful as admiting that you can't read.

michael, Northampton, UK

To echo what others were saying, when I graduated with a chemistry degree from Oxford, I realised I had a simple choice. Study for a further 3-4 years to get the required doctorate that might qualify me for jobs in the future, or take one of the jobs on offer there and then in management consulting, IT, banking, accountancy or similar. Any of which offered better starting salaries & security than the scientific jobs available after 3 more years of study. Even when looking at applying to a technical track as opposed to a marketing or managerial track within the same company (or civil service department).

Not to mention an enduring culture that sneers at scientific or technical skills in comparison to the creative or sporting. Is there an equivalently derogatory word to nerd for other fields?

This country does not value or pay its scientists or engineers enough.

Julian, Reading,

Didn't GSK recently layoff a large number of UK Scientists?

Is this statement being used by GSK to justify employing cheaper oversea's labour.

But this is not just GSK, a large number of global corperations behave this way and our Goverment allows them to.

Richard, London,

What are these guys at GSK on?
British scientists and engineers have been leaving the UK in droves for decades to seek greener pastures.
Why would we want to work in the UK for low salaries in such dumps as Harlow, Essex, and Stevenage where the cost of living is in the stratosphere.
British companies wake up, if you want highly qualified staff you have to pay them appropriately.
Further, there is a problem with the UK higher education system in that a misguided government thought everyone should have an academic degree or two. Previously many of those becoming technicians would have had an appropriate HND/HNC, now they have an inappropriate degree and are consequently disillusioned with their career. A further consequence is that there is not sufficient funding for truely academic training as the cash available has been diluted by inappropriate 'degrees'. Whilst the education policy has removed teenagers from the unemployed statistics, it has dumbed down higher education.

Richard Ward, Greensboro, NC USA

When I graduated in the seventies with a PhD in Chemistry from Southampton these companies wouldn't even give me the time of day. So I left for America and never looked back. And good riddance to all the paper-pushing 'senior vice-presidents'.

John Hargreaves, Mountain View, California

I have a master's degree in chemistry from a good university in the UK with a solid lab chemistry course. Working as a chemist with these qualifications pays less than £20k, and with a PhD is not much better, whereas working in management consulting pays over £30k and the prospects for promotion are significantly better. I have debts to pay and a house deposit to save for. Work out which one I chose. Bottom line, there is no skills shortage, just that the pharma companies aren't willing to pay a realistic salary.

Former Chemist, London,

Management Consulting, Law, Investment Banking and even accountancy all pay better. That is where the top tier grads go. Simply pay more - offer salaries at the very least competetive to the above if not more due to the low status value of being a scientist.Then only will ppl join.

It is absolutely ridiculous the profits these blue chips churn and the low salaries paid to their employees. British industry let alone pharma has declined over the years due to poor management and pathetic pay. No grad wants to go into industry as a whole now. Gone are the days of Imperial Chemical Industries, Lever Brothers and Marconi.

Alex, London,

I am a chemistry graduate who went into the law after leaving University. The vast majority of my graduating class also left science. Why? It's not because the department was underfunded (although it was) or that scientists are not respected in society (although they aren't). The few of us who did want research jobs were hampered by the fact that companies like GSK demanded that graduates had significant experience of research work (even though they had just finished a full time degree course) before they would give them a job. How were we supposed to have acquired this?
Add that to multiple assessment centres, interviews and profiling tests on the route to a job worth less than half of the most modest City salary, and you can see why most of us either left science altogether, or stayed in academia where we knew we would enjoy greater intellectual freedom.
The "brain drain" alleged by GSK above is at least partly of their own making.

Laura, London,

I am suprised by this. As a synthetic organic chemist currently doing a PhD I know a number of fully qualified chemists who have been turned down by these companies. Surely this is an example of them spinning what they see incorrectly. Employing foreign graduates who are applying because of a shortage of jobs in their own countries, as they look like they will fit in better than their British equivalents.
As well as this, with the large number of redundancies being made by these companies, I have seen that they are currently hardly recruiting at all. I am therefore suprised that 70 new scientists were even employed as this is not what I have been seeing in these companies.

Alex, London, UK

The Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) has recognised the problem in recruitment in the industry and in fact through its Resourcing Special Interest Group is meeting with decision makers within Pharma Companies this week to propose solutions to the problem.
We are proposing to make science undergraduates aware of the roles in clinical research and recruit the cream of the students into rewarding careers. According to a survey by Pharmiweb there is a 75% shortage of Clinical Research Associates in the UK, 60% shortage in Regulatory Affairs and 60% shortage in Drug Safety. The salary for a Clinical Research Associate has increased by 27% in the last 2 years. Salaries may not be as good as in financial services but not everyone wishes to work in London and how much more rewarding (in non financial terms) is it to be part of a team developing new drugs for the benefit of millions of patients.
Dr John Hooper CEO, ICR
Paul Westnedge Chair, ICR Resourcing Special Interest Group

Dr John Hooper, Marlow, UK

I am a mature PhD student, having come back to full time study after working in middle management in local government. I left a rewarding job as I considered that further education and research would be fulfilling. So fail it has abysmally failed to live up to my expectations, 15 months into the PhD.
When I finish working in R&D will not be an option, as I can earn much more with my management experience in another field, perhaps the civil service. Living in London and paying a mortgage, as well as the boring an repetitive nature of science work does not allow me the option of sticking with science.

Also the most exciting science is done when you don't spend that much time in the lab, and your students do all the work for you, which will be 20 years too late for me.

Being a woman does not help either, as having a family life would appear to conflict with the ethics of living in the department 16 to 18 hours a day.

A. Shaw, London, UK

I think training mixed with experience is vital. When you need 2 years, sometimes 5 years, experience for a trainee role - no wonder the industry is scratching its head at UK graduates. It's also a cynical attempt to keep costs down also, as I think the pay does not reflect the job either - I have friends in this industry and I am mildy pleased I switched to sales after I dropped out! But I think it is a shame and we need to obviously give kids in education now the practial experience as well as the theory to be able to succeed within higher education and be able to get into the industry. What's the point of having a qualification you can't use? I think that's the hard-pressed fact about almost 90% of graduates. They now know a degree is a waste of time, without having the relevant experience also. What's the point of putting yourself in hardship through the ardour of further higher education(like my peers) when you are not even given the chance and the opportunity does not exist for you. It is really mystifying.

Herbert, Elstree,

If market forces really applied and there was a shortage of maths, science and engineering graduates in Industry then the salaries would be much higher. What this manager is really saying is there are no inexpensive graduates to hire. There is nothing wrong with studying maths, science or engineering but make sure that these valuable skills are properly rewarded by taking a job in the City.

The science and engineering graduates from India do not have the opportunity to take highly paid finance jobs, but they do have the opportunity to move to the UK, Europe and USA.

I recommend GSK take their labs to Bangalore and face the truth that UK graduates do not want their low paid jobs. The highly rewarded sales and maketing can be kept in the UK. These managers, however, might not be so follow the lab to India.

A Gibson, Abu Dhabi, UAE

The probable reason for the shortage of scientists is the lack of decent pay and prospects coupled with the high cost of housing where most of the jobs are.

My husband has a good first degree and a PhD and, despite having an exemplary work record, was made redundant, took a couple of years to get something else suitable and eventually took up a poorly-paid academic post with very little chance of promotion.

Because of this, I actually forbade my children to take up careers in science - they would never have been able to afford to leave home! One now works as an anaesthetist in the US and the other works in finance in London. Both are happy, successful, property owning and able to go on nice holidays, etc. And I know I did the right thing!

Alicia Fox, Crowthorne, UK

The Pharma industries treat their scientists rather badly compared to their Marketing and Sales people in terms of salary and career prospects.

Bryn Garn, Greenwich,

As a science graduate with a science Phd and industrial post-doc experience, I changed my career to law 4 years ago. I don't regret the better job stability, better working conditions, better pay, appreciation and support one bit. Until the working and pay conditions improve for scientists I would encourage any scientist considering leaving the science arena to leave - and sooner rather than later!

Rachel Simpson, Cambridge,

As a Research fellow with 8 years Post PhD experience it saddens and frustrates me that the Universities are not investing in it's Scientists. We are given fixed term contracts, work long hours, treated less favourably than Lecturers (who are often very Junior in terms of experience and ability) and the pay is not commensurate with our peers who have chosen to work in other fields (finance, law, IT, etc). It is a depressing reality that many of my colleagues have left Science to pursue other careers with more financial security and prospects. Indeed, I am currently making the decision about whether to accept another short term contract or to change to a different career entirely. The sad fact is, that despite being passionate about Science, if I had to make my career choices again, I would choose another career, probably finance related, and leave Science as a hobby.

Felicity, London,

From my experience as a recent graduate of a well-regarded UK chemistry department, I find these comments highly surprising. There seems to be a certain disconnection between what the pharmaceutical companies are claiming, and their actions in the employment market. For many graduates and post-graduates big-pharma is looking an increasingly less attractive career option, as illustrated by Pfizer recently cutting 10% of their global workforce.

Martin, London,

I studied the Chemistry options on the Cambridge Natural Sciences degree course. After some work experience, I began to realise how manual and repetitive a lot of scientific research is. Basic pay is low and working in science is definitely not a status option, with little opportunity for management and leadership roles later on. Of the six of us graduating from my college, only one went into a research company - and that was in the marketing department! 16 years after graduation the rest of us are all now in the professions - management consultants, lawyers and accountants, all successful and in senior management. Its where the UK job market pulls the top science graduates, simple as that.

Nick, Oxford,

I am a PhD student studying in London. There are many of us in the lab that are and will be looking for a position in the pharma industry. Yet when we go to the talks by the companies, they tell us that the number of positions are few and far between. I can also comment on the fact that many of my fellow researchers in my lab are working at very high levels with an excellent work ethic and hold all the requirements these companies are looking for. Maybe a closer look at the universities around them instead of going abroad might help!

Daniel Nicolau, London, UK

i thinck drugs should be banned there a waiste of money and your life

michelle booth, bury, england

I graduated 2.5 years ago with an MEng from a good university, and discovered very few of my fellow students went into engineering. Why?! Because the pay is lousy!! I am now contemplating doing the same, because if I'm going to follow a low paid career route, I'd rather do something more meaningful with my life than sit in lengthy sweaty meetings debating lumps of metal!

My other mates from non-engineering courses are now all head and shoulders above me in the salary stakes, they've bought houses, go on expensive holidays etc... and i'm still struggling to pay off my student loan, let alone buy a house!

Engineers in other countries get alot more respect and pay than in the UK!

Jessica, Oxfordshire,

An acute shortfall of scientists? Sorry, that should read "An acute shortage of scientists willing to work for low pay". "Globalising" the workforce incourages employers not to invest locally when they can buy off-the-shelf overseas. No wonder our productivity per person is so much lower than France, Germany and the US.

Shaun O'Kane, London, UK

Nothing new here I'm afraid.
People were making the posters' arguments 30 odd years ago.
(From a chemistry graduate who became a computer contractor).

jasper, Chelmsford,

The source of this mayhem can be traced back to the mid-19th century. During the early industrial revolution, engineering was the driving force of progress. Then came the Dark-Satanic-Mills where science was seen as fiendish, and society scribblers gazed longingly back to a Haywain era of contented village oafs and yokels who 'knew their place'. To compound this, the upper-classes went to university to study 'the Greats', and acquire table-manners for their London clubs. Science and engineering (subjects where you got your hands dirty) were studied by the bright offspring of the working class, and hence reviled - whereas 'their betters' chose law, commerce & banking. As their peers ran the press they focused on these areas of 'excellence', conveniently ignoring the fact that Science and engineering require brains and hard work - something that was totally alien (and anathema to) the aristocracy.

ps: I got my degree in Physics in 1968. I have never worked in it since.

Peter Athey, Paris, France

I am an 06 Chemistry graduate from one of the top 5 universities in the country and i struggled to get a job at first. I am now working within thhe pharmaceutical industry and find that all my collegues are non- british. That put together with the low pay and little chance of a financially secure future i am currently looking for a job outside of this sector.
Companies need to realise they need to make it worthwhile for graduates who spend 3/4 years at university to want to join them. When they do me and all my other graduate friends (of only 1 who i know is employed) will consider staying in this sector and helping the UK to develop its pharmaceutical industry.

Amy Jordon, London,

This is a surprise. I suspect however that the main cause of a fall in graduates taking up science jobs is that these graduates -like myself in the late nineties- moved away from science to pursue a career in a different field altogether.

I tried to get into science after I graduated in '99 and was thwarted by lack of lab experience and the only job I could get was with a small lab outside of London where I was slicing up cow liver all day for analysis. I left the job in the second week when they asked me to measure out old cow and bull urine samples!

Henry, London,

My father worked for the University of Technology in Sydney for 25 years and retired last year. We have exactly the same problem back in Australia, a lack not only of students entering the sciences, but a huge lack of funding: causing the Physics department at UTS (for example) to be closed. I am studying in the US now and there are also a lack of Americans entering the sciences and engineering. US companies also have to search outside the country for talent vital to their success. The imported talent is brought into the fold, and becomes an asset for the company and for the country. Imported scientific and engineering talent is becoming a method of survival for Western companies. Rather than resist that, we should provide the conditions for them to become integrated, so that they may call our countries home.

andrew, Oregon, USA

I studied science and Imperial College and the majority of my student peers have gone to work in 'high' finance. Typical *starting* packages for graduates in the City can be 30 to 40K. This is the salary that a bio-science researcher might earn after spending 3 years on a PhD and with a further 5 years post-doc experience! Take a look at the jobs pages of New Scientist if you don't believe me. The success of London's finance industry is effecting a massive brain drain on the rest of the UK's other industries. It strikes me that we're putting all our eggs in one basket.

Stephen Grindle, London,

This is by no mean restricted to science or pharmaceuticals. When Tesco have to run programs in Poland to fill low-level positions, it shows that there is a shortage of labour in all sections of the market in the UK. There might be shortages of specific skills in some sectors , but this is certainly not unusual and hardly makes news.

James, London,

Whilst completing my PhD (in synthetic chemistry) last year I was the only Briton in a lab full of French students. Why does GSK feel the need to form an alliance with a French chemistry society when they are all over here anyway? And yes, I understand that they are talking about graduates not postgrads but the few science graduates we have do have (due to closure of chemistry departments all over the country) go into the city because the pharmaceutical industry vastly underpays in comparison. We now have student loans to pay back! From an initial class of about a 100, as an undergraduate at Imperial, I know of only 6 people who went on to do a PhD and none who entered the industry as a science graduate. The city had a greater pull. Maybe GSK should look to itself to creating a demand (well advertised and well-paid!) for scientists before complaining about the supply!

Nadia Ahmad, Sutton, UK

Don't do science - there's no money in it and most jobs are mcjobs in universities where you'll get totally exploited and paid joke pay!

Phil Walsh, Newcastle,

This has nothing to do with contempt for science. Thirty odd years ago, in my time as a student, science and scientists were highly respected and in fact they still are. It's simply a question of salary. If a pop singer, film star, business(wo)man, sales(wo)man, executive, business consultant, accountant, economist, estate agent, marketing agent, spin doctor or solicitor can command a mammoth salary, why study science where as a researcher you earn a paltry wage?

That's the society we've created and as students live in the real world how can you blame them for being realistic and taking the sensible route?

Francis Tuttle, Spain,

What hypocrisy! I am an English synthetic chemist trained at Cambridge and Harvard, and I was made redundant (along with others) by GSK in 2002. I hope all the new recruits were made aware of the sort of organisation they have joined.

Peter Sheldrake, Tunbridge Wells, UK

I'm an engineering graduate and even with 18 months real industrial experience, have struggled to find a job in the UK. In sheer frustration, I've turned my back on trying to work in industry in the UK and am now working in the finacial markets, where my skills are more appreciated, and I'm getting paid twice what the equivalent salary in my field would be. There are graduates trying to break into the UK's science and enginering fields but scores are giving up hope of securing their ideal job because companies have some wierd standard they hold up at interviews. I know 5 graduates who tried to break into their fields, and have now given up and gone into other industries where their skills are more appreciated. Out of 60 top grade graduates on my course, only 10 are working in engineering positions - what a waste of the other other 50.

Tanya, London,

The vast majority of research scientists with PhDs in the academic sector face relatively poor pay, job insecurity and a lack of jobs - a trinity that together make life very difficult compared to other professions. The government's stated aim to move us towards a 'knowledge-based economy' is just more hot air .

Pascal Drake, London, UK

I'm not surprised at this. Science and engineering has always been regarded as a worthless profession in this country - not like solicitors and lawyers who are amazingly so highly regarded they can command astronomical fees for little value. Without science we would still be living in the dark ages. Wake up Britain!

Chris Lloyd, Banbury,