The Institute of Physics conducts a salary survey every few years – with the results of the latest one having just been released (see article). The American Institute of Physics (AIP) and other similar societies also carry out salary surveys.

American booty

It will not come as much of a surprise to most readers to learn that physicists in the US earn more than their counterparts in the UK. The so-called brain drain – in which British academics move across the Atlantic in search of higher salaries, better working conditions and newer equipment – is a well known phenomenon. Full-time physicists in the US earned an average basic salary of $75 000 (about £52 000), according to last year’s AIP survey. This year’s survey carried out by the Institute of Physics shows that the equivalent figure in the UK is just £31 000.

Physicists in the US also earn more additional income than British-based physicists, from activities such as teaching or consulting. Over a third of doctorates who replied to the American survey received an average of $11 000 in extra income. In contrast, those who responded to the Institute of Physics survey earned an average of just £1600 on top of their basic salary.

Both surveys show that physicists’ salaries depend strongly on a number of factors, including age, employment sector and region. In the US one correlation is particularly striking – the higher the level of education, the higher the salary. The median annual salary for those whose highest qualification is a bachelor’s degree was $60 000, while for those with masters degrees it was $63 800, and for PhDs the figure was $78 000.

In the UK, higher qualifications are of greatest benefit to female physicists. Women in their 40s and 50s whose highest qualification is a BSc earn considerably less than male physicists of the same age with an equivalent qualification. This “gender pay gap”, however, is narrower for women with an MSc or PhD, who earn just as much as men with the same qualifications, regardless of age. Indeed, the extra money earned over a lifetime by a male physicist with a PhD in the UK is £35 000, whereas a woman will earn an extra £205 000.

The earning potential of a PhD for women is, however, obscured because only about 27% of women currently go on to take a higher degree, compared with 38% of men. In fact, the average salaries of male and female physicists in Britain are £33 900 and £24 500, respectively.

The highest median salaries in the US were earned by those physicists working for hospitals or medical services – $100 000. Those working at Federally Funded Research and Development Centres (FFRDCs) earned an average of $96 000, while those working in industry took home an average of $90 200. Those employed at four-year colleges continue to earn the lowest median salary, just $50 000.

In the UK, physicists do not seem to be much better or worse off than their colleagues in other disciplines. For example, a salary survey carried out last year by the Royal Society of Chemistry showed that chemists earned a median salary of about £31 800. Electrical engineers earn slightly more: their basic remuneration, according to the 2000 salary survey of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, was £34 800.

As with physicists, male chemists are bigger earners than their female counterparts – taking home an average of £32 800 a year compared with £24 000. Having higher qualifications makes a significant difference to chemists, with a doctorate earning a chemist an average of £35 000, but a bachelors degree just £28 200. With electrical engineers, the gap is smaller: the median salary for someone holding a first degree is about £35 000 and the equivalent figure for someone with a doctorate is about £38 000.

Research won’t make you rich

Despite the financial benefit of obtaining a PhD, scientists who carry on in research earn less than those who move into other areas such as management and administration. In the Institute of Physics survey, those working in pure and applied research earn, respectively, an average of about £25 200 and £28 000, while those involved in development receive £31 200 and those in management roles take home £46 400.

The figures are similar for fellows and members of the Royal Society of Chemistry. For example, the median for general management is £49 000, finance is £40 000, consultancy is £37 000, and for managers or administrators involved in research and development it is £41 200. However, the figure for those employed in research and development but not primarily as a manager or administrator is £29 000. For electrical engineers working in research, the average salary is about £30 000.

The low pay of those in research reflects in part the poor salaries of post-doctoral researchers. Although science graduates generally earn more than the average for graduates over all disciplines, they must expect years of low pay if they decide to become a post-doc. The average starting salary in Britain after one post-doctoral research contract is just £18 500. As David Triesman, general secretary of the Association of University Teachers, told a recent Institute of Physics forum on the plight of post-docs, this is how much London Underground pays an 18 year old with five GCSEs. Indeed, while national average earnings in the UK have risen by about 150% since 1964, starting salaries for post-docs have only increased by roughly 50%.

Needless to say, the figures from across the Atlantic are higher. Post-docs in the US who have earned their PhDs within the last two years take home $36 000 if they work in universities or observatories, or $43 200 if they work in FFRDCs.

While it may be heartening to physicists that they can earn big bucks in the City, the comparatively poor salaries for researchers threatens the future health of science in Britain, as Peter Cotgreave, director of the lobby group Save British Science, points out. “On every measure, researchers in the British science base produce the goods,” he said recently. “The UK government gets more scientific papers, of the highest quality, for every pound it invests than almost any other public science base in the world. We need new incentives for the cleverest young people to stay in British science rather than go abroad or give up science altogether.”