Unpaid work and access to science professions

Unpaid work in the sciences is advocated as an entry route into scientific careers. We compared the success of UK science graduates who took paid or unpaid work six-months after graduation in obtaining a high salary or working in a STEM (Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics) field 3.5 years later. Initially taking unpaid work was associated with lower earnings and lower persistence in STEM compared with paid work, but those using personal connections to obtain unpaid positions were as likely to persist in STEM as paid workers. Obtaining a position in STEM six months after graduation was associated with higher rates of persistence in STEM compared with a position outside STEM for both paid and unpaid workers, but the difference is considerably smaller for unpaid workers. Socio-economic inequality in the likelihood of obtaining entry in STEM by taking an unpaid position is a well-founded concern for scientific workforce diversity

The labour supply effect of Education Maintenance Allowance and its implications for parental altruism

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a UK government cash transfer paid directly to children aged 16–18, in the first 2 years of post-compulsory full-time education. This paper uses the labour supply effect of EMA to infer the magnitude of the transfer response made by the parent, and so test for the presence of an ‘effectively altruistic’ head-of-household, who redistributes resources among household members so as to maximise overall welfare. Using data from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England, an EMA payment of £30 per week is found to reduce teenagers’ labour supply by 3 h per week and probability of employment by 13 % points from a base of 43 %. We conclude that parents withdraw cash and in-kind transfers from their children to a value of between 22 and 86 % of what the child receives in EMA. This means we reject the hypothesis of an effectively altruistic head-of-household, and argue that making this cash transfer directly to the child produces higher child welfare than if the equivalent transfer were made to parents

The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more about the COVID-19 vaccines, how to talk to others about them, how to challenge misinformation about the vaccines. This handbook is self-contained but additionally provides access to a “wiki” of more detailed information

Companion crop performance in the absence and presence of agronomic manipulation

© CSIRO 2007A field experiment located in southern New South Wales compared the component yields of cereal–lucerne companion crops (cereals sown into established lucerne) with the yields of cereal and lucerne monocultures. In-crop lucerne herbicide suppression, cereal crop types (wheat and barley), and top-dressed nitrogen (N) were evaluated for the potential to improve cereal production in the presence of lucerne. Plant populations and biomass, cereal grain yields, and grain quality (protein, screenings, and contamination) were measured. Over the 3-year study, cereals sown into established lucerne (4 years of age at the commencement of the experiment) yielded 17% less (P < 0.05) grain than the cereal monoculture. Companion cropping also resulted in a 71% reduction (P < 0.05) in lucerne biomass over the growing season compared with the lucerne monoculture, but a 3-fold (P < 0.05) increase in total (cereal and lucerne) biomass production. There were no differences between wheat and barley crops in the presence of lucerne, although extensive lodging in the 2003-barley monoculture did result in a significant main treatment (+/0 lucerne and +/0 in-crop lucerne suppression) × crop type (wheat and barley) interaction in grain yield, but not cereal biomass. N top-dressed after tillering onto cereal–lucerne companion crops did not increase grain yield, although it did increase cereal biomass in 2003. Whilst in-crop lucerne suppression did not increase cereal grain yields, it did increase (P < 0.05) cereal biomass and reduced lucerne biomass at cereal maturity and contamination (lucerne pods and flowers) of the cereal grain. However, this practice reduced (P < 0.05) lucerne populations, and therefore potentially threatens the longer term viability of lucerne stands so more research is recommended to develop less detrimental strategies for achieving effective in-crop lucerne suppression. This study combined with results from others, suggests that rainfall was a major factor determining cereal responses in the presence of lucerne, and although there were responses in cereal biomass to additional N and herbicide suppression, these strategies appear to only have potential under favourable growing-season conditions.R. H. Harris, J. R. Hirth, M. C. Crawford, W. D. Bellotti, M. B. Peoples and S. Norn