To most students, maths and science are difficult subjects, particularly when compared with many of the Mickey Mouse courses such as the humanities. As well as that, a goodly proportion of maths and science graduates are not good teachers, although they might know their subjects well. This means that by the time students reach university, they have a poor foundation for the subjects ahead,

Once graduated, the workplace is not always attractive either. The researcher is often on short term funding, so that as a profession, science is not particularly attractive, Those who opt to work in industry also find that rates of pay are less than other professions. I know, I have been out there. Intellectually, science can be a very rewarding vocation, but unfortunately there are more rewarding jobs.

I can see the day coming when our science students will be going to India or China to get the best qualifications and jobs. Those countries are placing much more emphasis on producing scientists.

Can I turn this around another way and maybe get some feedback as well?

Over the last decade and more I have worked with many science graduates who were restructured out of a job and scrap-heaped at an early age and had to find other, quite different employment. I cannot remember any of those people as being unmotivated or jaded and almost all had PhDs. Almost all had been involved in research, at least part-time and they lost their jobs not through any unsuitability but through the misfortune of being in an organisation or unit that was being outsourced ar had lost government funding.

Fair enough you might say if their skills were out of date and they had refused to re-skill or keep up to date. However on reflection so many of these employees had not been given any option of moving sideways to another area of science or similar occupation. Further, if they had been managed during their worklives by the same insensitive and incompetent clods who handled their final redundancies, I have the deepest sympathy for them.

It appears to me that there could be a lot of unnecessary wastage of science skills, that employers are only interested in buying new graduates and resist training or re-training employees wherever possible.

What is so wrong with (say) a 45 yr old with a PhD and probably 20 years of practical experience, networking, attending conferences, reading professional mags and so on?

However, from observing the very disjointed careers of the science gradustes around me I hope the author can understand why some of us would urge our offspring not to pursue the science 'careers' he is talking about. I don't think it is by accident that certain disciplines become unattractive and employers and government need to reconsider their parts in making it so.

My dentist was a medical research scientist for 8 years, until he decided he owed it to his family to do something more financially rewarding, which offered greater security.

I share your emotion Kurt, but reality has to be the electric chair.

I heard the best expression today to explain this phenomena or Post modern reality;

NASA is tracking on a meteor that may hit earth in 2035 or there about.
So the commentary is; well we will not bother about it until the date is closer;

The point is; there will not be anyone left intelligent enough to calculate or prepare to take evasive action if it ever "It" be needed;

The education system now is our own murderous criminal; in fact forget education as an expression; it is Indoctrination and corruption now days; ethics and epistemology are victims of the Proletariat Looting strategy and economics. Everything we gained in Knowledge has been pee’d into the wind but for a few.

Name the time and place and I will be there.Intellectual H I V Aids rules now; and so be it the consiquences.

Maybe the nerdy image is more a result of a bread and circuses culture, led by politicians heard to utter that Don Bradman was the greatest ever Australian ,motivated to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a sports stadium, or announcing another resurrection of the Bradfield Scheme. Where did a similar bunch of sport tragics and science Philistines get ancient Rome? Perhaps they can think of a way to solve the water or energy crisis by kicking a footy? Maybe they could train some athletes well enough to run to the Moon, or a javelin thrower to strike a blow against cancer.

In China it is a different story, with Stephen Hawking recently lauded like a pop star would be here.

Cornflower's observations are similar to my own. I frequently see undergraduates in my profession who are highly qualified in the sciences, yet choose to train in a field that I consider of far less importance for the advancement of civilisation.

The low value given to science by Australia's politicians completely explains the skills shortage, and will not advance this country a jot.

Hey Cornflower, you have a point that many well trained scientists lose their jobs regularly due to lack of funding. I know in my sector (biomedical sciences) NHMRC grants often last for three years or so and if you don't get another grant after that you have to get another job. That said, I believe that there are organisations like the Co-Operative Research Centre for Asthma which I think fund some projects for seven years.

In my mind offering longer research grants will give actual scientists more financial stability. On the other hand giving shorter grants may give taxpayers more value for money and allows for more projects to be funded.