Nature on inequality in science: the best take it all

The issue of unequal distribution of income in the world has become one of the most acute topics of recent years both in the academic community and among those who are far from the social sciences - suffice it to recall the bestseller Piketty, which was sold in huge circulations around the world, or protests occupy Wall Street. Research, published in the journal Nature, suggests that widening income inequality is not unique to financiers or top managers: inequality is also increasing in science.

Despite serious problems with the availability of data on salaries of scientists, the researchers argue that over the past several decades, the difference in pay between the top 1% of scientists and the rest has grown significantly.

The Gini coefficient is usually used to measure inequality: a value of 0 means that all studied individuals earn the same, 1 means that all income is in the hands of one person. The authors of How Economics Shape Science, published in 2012, show that from 1973 to 2006, the Gini coefficient of American university researchers more than doubled. During the same time, this indicator for the population as a whole has grown by only 35%. In part, such a significant difference can be explained by the fact that historically, wages in science were much more even than in the economy as a whole: even in 2006, after a twofold increase, the Gini coefficient for researchers ranged from 0.14 to 0.25, depending onresearch area, while the indicator for the United States as a whole was equal to 0.47. Nevertheless, the significant growth suggests that unequal income distribution is becoming characteristic of science.For example, at the University of California, 29 researchers working in medical laboratories earn more than a million dollars a year each. At the same time, most postdocs settle for about twenty times smaller amounts (their average salary is about $ 50,000 per year).

“Today research is very expensive andrisky, ”explains Donna Ginter, who specializes in labor economics."In order to minimize risks, universities are hiring those who have already demonstrated that they are a winner. "As the interest of universities in the most successful scientists grows, so do their salaries - the competition for the most productive researchers who can influence the promotion of universities in the world rankings or receiving grants becomes really intense. This also explains the fact that inequality is most visible in the natural sciences - these are the areas where universities are investing the most.

The situation is similar in the UK, where income inequality among academics has been on the rise since the 1990s.Ben Martin, a researcher at the University of Sussex, argues that several decades ago, the salaries that the best professors received were about twice the minimum set by unions and employers. Today the salary of the best and the “ordinary” professor differs sevenfold. The rise in salaries may be related to how money for research in the UK is distributed: about once every five years, the government evaluates the research activity of universities by distributing public funding. The assessment, and hence the funds received, depends on the citation of researchers working at the university. Sometimes educational institutions even hire researchers just prior to government audits to get the funding they need.

The rise in inequality is also noticeable in developing countries: for example, China attracts the world's leading researchers with huge salaries to promote their own universities in the rankings, while local professors, especially in regional universities, receive verymodest salaries.

The impact of growing inequality on science is ambiguous: on the one hand, it encourages researchers to work harder and promotes academic mobility. However, the low salaries of most researchers may discourage students from becoming scientists. 60% of scientists surveyed by Nature say that the prospects for young researchers today are worse than they were several decades ago.

However, according to Gary McDowell, head of Futureof Research, the growth of inequality in science is significantly constrained by the fact that most researchers do not so much value growth in salaries: when choosing an academic career, scientists usually know that they will receive less than their colleagues in business. That is why scientists do not always choose the university or laboratory with the highest salary - factors related to the possibility of productive research, the presence of strong students and interesting colleagues are often decisive.