PhD: so what does it really stand for?

If PhD students are the working class of academic research and paid accordingly what needs to change?

Recently, during some particularly thorough literature research, I stumbled on a list of alternative interpretations of the acronym PhD. Most were funny: protein has degraded, parents have doubts. But one froze my face in a bittersweet grimace: paid half of what I deserve. When I was still a rookie PhD student, I read with outrage an Economist article entitled the disposable academic, which argued that doing a PhD is mostly needless. Lately, I've come to think of the PhD as more of a heavily spicy meal. It doesn't matter how much you enjoy the process, once you're done, you still have half of the pain ahead. The years of academic slog to work your way up to a full tenure slot (professorship? ha dream on!) are not much different from the work of a PhD in terms of relentless benchwork (pipetting hand disease) and unceasing literature research (pound head on desk), served on a fixed menu with professional uncertainty (please hire: desperate). All of which result in, if not professorship, then potential heavy drinking. PhD students and postdocs are the working class of academic research and paid accordingly. Although postgraduates are crucial to the generation, discussion and dissemination of knowledge, 50% pay (i.e half of what they deserve) is standard for PhDs in natural sciences and not even guaranteed in the arts and humanities. It's depressing to think that the overall salary of a PhD candidate is less than the cost of much lab equipment. Lab devices are meant to last years but, hell, what about the work of PhD students in a system where knowledge is incremental? There could be several reasons for this discrepancy. Equipment and

consumables are costly and have a substantial impact on future budget setting. The number of PhDs, meanwhile, is inflated and international competition is fierce. PhD candidates are earning a degree, which shouldn't come for free, and demands motivation and not a little self-denial including financially. PhD candidates are at their infancy in science and being trained to do something different from their education to date lessons in theory combined with practical labwork as they move into more independent, innovative research. And contributing to the advancement of knowledge requires a certain naive idealism, right? But does this mean it's okay to exploit highly educated individuals (probably heavily in debt)? No. The possible solutions are simple. The most obvious is: raise the salary of PhD students. A remedy for the resulting scarcity of resources would be stricter selection so that only the best candidates started a PhD. Realistically though, this is never going to happen. It's not because policymakers are greedy but because it would mean a reduction of PhDs and thus a slowdown of science. A second option wouldn't hinder research, and might even enhance it: cut the salary of professors by half. If there are solid reasons for PhDs being paid half of what they deserve, then the same hold good for professors. They too are doing something different from their previous jobs. After tenure, natural scientists move out of the lab and into an office from where they supervise the research of their team members. The knowledge acquired before (both theoretical and practical) still counts, but the job looks quite different. Political and managerial skills are equally essential, and nurtured for the sake of tenure, not science. Top-tier staff write proposals, manage funds and coordinate subaltern research units and are sometimes scarcely involved with the generation, presentation and

discussion of results which is the core purpose of science. Some department chairs merely take note of advancements generated from the institutes they preside over, but coauthor papers nonetheless. Wages of these academic administrators, then, don't deserve to sit even at 50%. And however grim this may sound to today's professors and those postdocs close to a permanent role, the benefits might appeal to future professors much more. Reduction in salaries for tenured staff will create new professorial appointments and reduce the imbalance between the number of temporary researchers and professors, while smaller research units will favour better supervision of PhD candidates and reduce fixed costs. Today's professors probably already earn too little, after so many years of being underpaid. As one reader wrote in response to that Economist article: "The PhD student is someone who forgoes current income in order to forgo future income." But if some of the surplus resulting from a slash in professorial salaries flowed down to PhDs and postdocs, then entry level professors would be put in a better financial position. In this light, cuts to science funding (like those we have seen recently in the US) could be an opportunity. Will they slow down scientific advancement? Most

probably, yes. But here is a chance for the elite to rethink the way science is done and stop placing merit only on the levels of grant money they gain, the papers they publish, and the prestige they acquire, but instead taking a closer look at the predicament of those who prop this community up. Advocates of competition see it as a positive outcome of the current shortage of funding and resources. But to defend job insecurity as the main incentive to scientific advancement is offensive. Science would benefit more from a harmonious coexistence of its members than by favouring ruthless competition. Jorge Cham, creator of the wittily depressing PhD Comics series, revealed that a major motivation for his sketches was to give solace to fellow PhDs struggling as he did through their postgraduate years. He interprets the acronym as piled higher and deeper. You might think of the paper bulk on your desk, but I believe he had something else in mind. PhD actually stands for philosophiae doctor, or doctor of philosophy. As we say in my native Italian: prendila con filosofia (take it easy, take it as it comes). And waiting for a change in the current system, or for a global PhD manifesto to emerge, one cannot take it any other way.

Brazil's ninja reporters spread stories from the streets

Band of volunteer citizen journalists are setting the news agenda with their 'no-cuts, no censorship' approach

Atlantic. But the live street reporting and "no-cuts, no censorship" approach has a devoted following. "We believe we are making a counternarrative to show what does not appear in the mainstream media," said Rafael Vilela, a photographer, who gets no credit on his published pictures. "It's journalism based on collaboration." Mdia Ninja has its origins in the Fora do Eixo, a group of collectives that organised music festivals and other cultural events. This largely student movement, which started in the cities of Rio Branco, Cuiab and Londrina in 2005, has spread to more than 200 areas and encompasses an alternative university, a political party and financial system. The movement launched Mdia Ninja ninja is an acronym for "independent narratives, journalism and action" in Portuguese this year as the communications arm of the movement. Its initial role was to promote gigs and run live broadcasts of concerts and conferences, but it quickly found an extra mission covering events in the favelas and small protests that nobody else reported. When one of those demonstrations a rally against increased bus fares made headlines in June so did the work of the ninjas, who were among the first to collect, curate and broadcast images of police violence against the protesters. Much of the reportage was filmed on and broadcast live from mobile phones. Other material was gathered from images posted online or sent to the group. As the protests grew to more than a million people in 52 cities during the Confederation Cup football tournament, the ninjas saw a surge in support. Anonymous Rio, which is among the organisers of the demonstrations, look to their work. The Bar Association is collaborating with them on issues of

Camped out on the concrete in Rio de Janeiro's swanky Leblon district, the Mdia Ninja have been watching and waiting for almost two months. Journalists rather than assassins, they are armed with smartphones, cameras and gas masks the tools of a fastgrowing trade in street protest news. In Leblon, they have recorded and livestreamed almost every chant, song and tussle with police in the ongoing demonstration outside the home of Srgio Cabral, the Rio state governor and target of anti-corruption campaigners. Elsewhere, they have been in the thick of the action in the long-running occupation of the city council, at marches to the TV Globo headquarters and on the frontlines of the protests that erupted across Brazil in June. Though the demonstrations have shrunk and splintered, Mdia Ninja, a journalists' collective, continues to grow in popularity and influence as it provides a channel for popular discontent with politics and the media. Largely unheard of until a few months ago, the group claims 2,000 collaborators in 100 cities, and its Facebook page has drawn 183,000 likes. Using social networks as a platform, it has broken news on police infiltrators and wrongful arrests forcing the mainstream media into sheepish followups. The work is gritty, sometimes just tedious waiting and often discomfiting. There is the risk of teargas during clashes and, even in Rio, it can be cold when the winter wind blows in from the

media freedom and police brutality. In several cases, they have also led the news agenda. Last month, Mdia Ninja sparked public indignation with images that suggested a police infiltrator might have thrown a molotov cocktail that set off a violent counter-reaction. The police deny this claim, but the coverage later picked up by Globo TV and others pushed the issue of provocateurs high up the news agenda, served as evidence for the defence of a wrongly arrested demonstrator and highlighted the gulf between street-level citizen journalists and big news organisations that often over-rely on police briefings for information. Mainstream media organisations, such as Globo and newspaper Folha, have acknowledged Mdia Ninja's transformative effect. "Folha was left in the dust," said Suzana Singer, the newspaper's ombudsman in an evaluation of the work done by the collective and citizen journalists. "It's not enough to cover protests the old-fashioned way, counting only on what your own reporters see, the police version, and images on the big broadcasters It's necessary to take into account these new sources of information." Even Globo, Brazil's media colossus, has started to run ninja footage and follow stories that started with ninja coverage. "It's not our objective to make content for Globo, but it's a good sign that they use it. This really is a turning point for the Brazilian media," said Vilela. "It shows that they can't get as close as we are, though it must be hard for them to use our images, to see boys with cellphones doing better than them."

The growing influence comes with risks. Many in the group feel they have been singled out by police to try to stop them contradicting the official version of events. "We have already taken rubber bullets, tear gas, stones, fragments of grenades. We've been sprayed with fire hoses and pepper spray and been verbally threatened. In the whole country, eight reporters have been detained and, in some cases, suffered physical aggression," said Filipe Peanha, another ninja who was detained while filming during a protest. A longer-term challenge is how to maintain the financial integrity of a group that wants to become a more powerful force for social change but does not want to compromise its noncommercial values. Mdia Ninja relies heavily on volunteers, though it is trying to build a system for donations to be channelled to reporters for air fares, accommodation, equipment and living expenses. Some supporters have offered accommodation in their homes. There is a communal wardrobe. One backer recently paid for Vilela to fly to Egypt and cover the demonstrations in Cairo. Hundreds of people have emailed the group and asked to become ninjas. But the question of how to secure funds remains controversial inside the group. Bruno Torturra, one of the main coordinators, said he had given up trying to raise money via crowd-funding because of the likely backlash from members. But there are certainly no plans to cash in through advertising. "We are making journalism as cheap as possible so that it can be more honest," said Vilela.

Bad driving: what are we thinking?

New laws to curb dangerous driving highlight the fascinating psychology of the road

Last week the UK government announced a crackdown on unsafe driving. From now on, those of us spotted tailgating or lane hogging will face on-the-spot fines of 100 and three penalty points. As road safetyminister Stephen Hammond said: "Careless driving puts innocent people's lives at risk. That is why we have made it easier for the police to tackle problem drivers." This initiative draws attention to a fascinating branch of science calledtraffic psychology, which studies the human and environmental factors that influence our driving behaviour. Decades of research in trafficpsychology suggests that poor driving is shaped by far more than carelessness or a subset of "problem drivers". Even the most skilled road users are subject to loss of social awareness, intuitive biases, contradictory beliefs, and limits in cognitive capacity. Here are 10 of the most interesting psychological biases and errors we face when behind the wheel. 1. We fail to realise when we're being aggressive or we don't care We've all had the experience of a vehicle looming in our rear view andhanging on the bumper. Many of us will also have tailgated, blocked or otherwise bullied other people in ways we wouldn't dream of doing in a face-to-face situation, such as standing in a queue. Research shows that younger drivers who score higher on personality

measures of sensation-seeking and impulsiveness are more likely to behave aggressively behind the wheel. What's also interesting is that these drivers show less sensitivity to punishment, which means that simple punitive measures are unlikely to deter the most antisocial road users. 2. We believe we're safer than we really are Once we've learned how to drive it soon becomes an automatic task. Over time we learn how to predict the actions of other drivers, which can lead to the illusion that we control them. One area where people seem especially prone to error is in the judgement of relative speed: we tend tooverestimate how much time can be saved by driving faster while also underestimating minimal safe braking distance. The computations needed to make these judgements are highly complex and don't come naturally to us. 3. We forget that other drivers are people too When someone accidentally walks into us on the street or their shopping trolley bumps into ours, the usual reaction is to apologise and move on. But when driving, near misses are often met with instant anger and in the most extreme cases, road rage. Research shows that drivers more readily dehumanise other drivers and pedestrians in ways they wouldn't when interacting in person. This loss of inhibition is similar to the way some of us behave in online environments.

4. yet we behave more aggressively to those of 'lower status' One interesting paradox is that even though we're prone to dehumanising other drivers, we still act according to social status.Decades of research shows that prolonged honking, tailgating, and other aggressive behaviours are more likely if the aggressor believes they are the more important driver. What's particularly interesting is that these judgements can be based simply on the vehicles involved, with no knowledge of the person behind the wheel: larger cars generally outrank smaller cars and newer cars trump older ones. Drivers of more expensive cars are also more likely to behave aggressively toward pedestrians. 5. We believe we can see everything happening around us Our senses receive far more information than we can process at once, which makes brain systems of attention crucial for focusing resources on the most important events. Most of the time we fail to appreciate the enormous amount of information we miss, and this can add to a false sense of security on the road. If you don't believe how fallible your attention is, try these simple tests devised by psychologist Dan Simons,here and here. The results will shock you. 6. yet we also think other drivers can't see us This one is for all the nose pickers and earwax excavators. It isn't really an issue of safety (or is it?), but you

know who you are and unfortunately so do we. 7. We attribute near misses to a lack of ability in other drivers In general, we fail to account for situational reasons as to why other drivers might get in our way or seem to act dangerously. Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error we tend to attribute the mistakes of others to their personality or ability ("what an idiot!", "what a terrible driver!"), while excusing our own errors as situational ("that bit of road is dangerous", "I had to drive that fast or I would have been late"). 8. while at the same time overestimating our own skills If you think you're a highly skilled driver, the chances are you're not. About 80-90% of drivers believe they have above-average ability, and the more skilled we believe we are at something, the less likely it is to be true. This tendency for us to be blind to our own incompetence is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Of course, the upside is that if you believe you're a terrible driver, you're probably not as bad as you think. 9. We drive more recklessly when we're going solo We generally drive less carefully and more aggressively when we're alone than when we have passengers. It isn't clear why this is, or whether we're conscious of this change in our behaviour.

10. We believe phones are safe.

hands-free

car

In the UK it is illegal to use a handheld mobile phone while driving, whereas hands-free alternatives are allowed. This is a great example of the law lagging behind science: evidence shows that using a handsfree car phone is no less dangerous than talking on a hand-held mobile phone. What makes these phone conversations unsafe isn't so much the act of holding the phone as being distracted by the conversation. The lack of body language makes such conversations especially demanding, requiring us

to commit more cognitive resources and further distracting us from the road. Driving is one of the most complicated behavioural tasks we accomplish in our lives. The fact that it seems so mundane and that there are relatively few accidents is a testament to the elegance of highway engineering, the genius of traffic signalling, and the sophistication of the human brain. Still, next time you're behind the wheel and feel annoyed, frustrated or have an itchy nose, ask yourself: are you falling prey to any of the above?