Sir

In Brazil, scientists need to publish more every year to obtain scarce funds, leading to an exaggerated degree of competitiveness and promoting a cultural distortion where scientometrics prevails over knowledge (as discussed by P. A. Lawrence, Nature 422, 259–261; 2003 and in subsequent Correspondence). In this highly competitive atmosphere, Brazilian science is improving. But what is the impact on the individual, particularly on new PhDs who need to establish a career?

In 2001, the Ministry of Science and Technology created a programme to affiliate 10 promising young PhDs with research centres. There were 1,154 candidates for these 10 positions. In the same year, the National Research Council offered two-year research grants varying from US$2,000 to $43,600. For the section that included biochemistry, biophysics, physiology, pharmacology and neuroscience there were 437 applications, of which 267 were approved on merit but only 20 were funded. The main selection criterion for both programmes was based primarily on number of publications and impact of the journals concerned.

We interviewed postgraduate students, postdoctoral fellows and teaching staff in one department about their concerns. A common feature was a high degree of involvement with their work. A typical statement by a postgraduate student referring to the faculty was: “They must be crazy. They live, they eat, they will probably die in that laboratory. They arrive at 8am and never leave before 10pm. Why do you think they marry among themselves?”. (The 39 established investigators included 13 married couples.)

On publication pressures, typical statements were: “[The adviser] doesn't care about my thesis as such. He believes that a thesis is the consequence of good work and good work means papers published in good journals.” Referring to colleagues' work, people mention the number of publications and the journal, not knowing exactly what had been discovered. “They evaluate people by the number of publications ... and classify them by the impact of the journals: high-impact and low-impact scientists.” Or: “If you publish a paper in Nature, marvellous, but if you do it in a Brazilian journal they will say, 'Look what a lousy contribution to science.'.” Submitting a paper evokes strong emotions: “When the journal does not accept ... you feel as if it is not only your paper but you yourself that is rejected”. Or: “It is a great feeling to have a paper accepted ... when you know that so many people have their papers rejected.”

The difficulty of obtaining research support, in a country where funding is mainly public, generates strong feelings of insecurity at all levels. “You never know if you will have money, if your application is going to be approved.” Or: “If you stop publishing you lose your grant ... You are ejected from the system; it doesn't matter what you did in the past — it only matters what you have done in the last two to three years.” One respondent said: “I knew that they would post the result of the evaluation. ... I went to the computer. My heart was pounding inside me ... My name was there, I was awarded ... I started crying and I couldn't stop. ... I went and hugged my wife, crying ... and all of that for a lousy grant of less than US$8,000 per year.”

In universities where there is no research, the thesis defence is a rite of passage, legitimization as part of the teaching staff coming mainly from the academic title of PhD. For a research postdoc, the analogy is the publication of a paper, but this affords only temporary respite, not a transition to a 'new world'. The doctoral thesis in itself is unimportant; what counts are 'papers published in good journals'. According to our interviews, legitimization never really arrives. The trajectory of the scientist becomes an increasingly difficult struggle for grants, where the individual may lose support at any time. The idea of a continuous, stable career is blurred. Instead people are in perpetual transition, repeatedly having to prove their capability, and at increased risk each year of either being eliminated or burning out if they remain in the system.