IN 1951 at Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, social psychologist Solomon Asch staged a telling experiment on groups of eight students. He showed them three lines of different lengths and asked them which one matched a fourth line. The answer was obvious.

But seven of the students were in fact actors. When they went first and gave the wrong answer, the eighth participant 鈥� the real one 鈥� was much more likely to do the same. This became known as the 鈥渃onformity experiment鈥� 鈥� proof of the human tendency to be gullible.

Throughout history, people have often been portrayed as credulous. Preachers see the trait in those who believe in gods other than theirs. Atheists bemoan the credulity of all believers. Conservatives see it in those who revolt. Leftists say it explains why more people don鈥檛.

In Not Born Yesterday, cognitive psychologist Hugo Mercier argues that actually we aren鈥檛 easily fooled, wielding psychological, biological and historical evidence to make the case that humans are hardwired to work out who and what to believe.

While the complexity of our communication makes us more adaptable, it also means staying open to beneficial messages and alert to harmful ones. That is why, Mercier says, we have 鈥渙pen vigilance鈥� cognitive mechanisms, the most basic of which he calls plausibility checking. This involves comparing new information with existing beliefs, drawing on the past reliability of sources and checking new messages against intuitions.

Mercier bolsters his case with examples from comparative biology. For example, why do fit Thomson鈥檚 gazelles jump up and down rather than run when they see predatory wild dogs? How does this deter the dogs from chasing?

鈥淔ake news can spread smears about politicians, but only among those who dislike its targets鈥�

No one knows for sure 鈥� it might be a form of deception. But Mercier argues that dishonesty (in prey or predator) would require gullibility to endure, and the need for that gullibility to confer benefits means that it can鈥檛 survive as a stable trait.

History backs Mercier up. In Nazi Germany, anti-Semitic propaganda was only effective in areas with high levels of existing prejudice against Jewish people. He also cites research on US political campaigns that concludes that their impact on voters is negligible. Studies show that fake news can spread smears about politicians, but only among those who already dislike its targets.

But what about creationism or anti-vax beliefs? And surely the open vigilance mechanisms of those who fall for 9/11 or moon landing conspiracy theories are failing them? Conspiracy beliefs are, perhaps, where Mercier is at his weakest, as he argues these aren鈥檛 down to gullibility but occur as a result of plausibility checking operating on 鈥減oor material鈥�.

For Mercier, conspiracy theories are held as reflective beliefs that can remain insulated from our other beliefs and actions. These contrast with intuitive beliefs, from which we freely draw inferences and use to ground our actions. Couldn鈥檛 the same be said of those who accept climate change science yet still fly or eat meat? Maybe it isn鈥檛 so binary.

Despite this, Mercier鈥檚 insights may help us learn more about why we can get things wrong. At the risk of being seen as credulous, I鈥檇 say he makes a strong case for gullibility being a far less prevalent and important trait than we thought.

(*When you buy through links on this page we may earn a small commission, but this plays no role in what we review or our opinion of it.)

The survey gathered data from around 4300 individuals working as scientists, engineers, academics, and in clinical trials. More than 2500 were based in the UK and almost 900 in continental Europe. The remainder, based in the US, were not asked about Brexit.

Almost two-thirds of managers who recruit scientists and engineers in the UK believe Brexit will affect their ability to attract top talent from within the European Union. Many also think the referendum result will make it more difficult to retain existing staff.

That鈥檚 despite the UK government鈥檚 declaration in December that around 3 million EU citizens living in the UK will be able to apply for the right to stay indefinitely following Brexit.

鈥淪cience is incredibly international and our labs are full of people from Europe and elsewhere,鈥� says Jennifer Rohn, a cell biologist at University College London, and founder of the campaign group Science is Vital. 鈥淓ven if people are allowed to stay, they quite rightly feel a sense of uneasiness at the idea they are not wanted and don鈥檛 want to be in a place that鈥檚 closing its doors to the rest of the world.鈥�

听

Some 63 per cent of UK-based participants responsible for hiring staff thought Brexit would affect their recruitment activities during 2018-19. Four in 10 said it would make it harder to retain existing staff, and 30 per cent believed it would mean they would have to recruit more staff from within the UK. The worries are less pronounced in mainland Europe where a third thought Brexit would have an impact on their recruitment efforts.

鈥淏rexit will have an impact on scientists, but at the moment we do not know what the impact will be, and that is creating great uncertainty,鈥� said Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, the UK science academy. 鈥淣ational polling has shown the public support migration of highly skilled people. Our government should listen to that and ensure we do not create a system that pushes people away from the UK as a place to come, live and work.鈥�

Much of the uncertainty is linked to future funding for science. The UK government has said that UK-based researchers can continue to apply for funding under Horizon 2020, the EU鈥檚 pooled research funding scheme, until it ends in 2020. After that the UK may be able to pay to participate, like other non-EU members such as Switzerland, Norway and Israel. However, that idea remains under discussion.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to live in a narrow-minded, Brexit-voting Little England鈥�

Anecdotal reports suggest uncertainties over future funding and the ability to participate in and lead EU-funded collaborations are already making the UK less attractive to foreign scientists.

Among UK-based respondents to the New Scientist/SRG survey who said they would consider relocating for work, 32 per cent said Brexit would affect where they would consider moving to. One wrote, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to live in a narrow-minded, Brexit-voting 鈥楲ittle England鈥�.鈥� Another wrote, 鈥淚 find the atmosphere pessimistic and I鈥檓 sorry to see less cross-border projects with the EC in the future.鈥�

Of those based in continental Europe and willing to move for work, 38 per cent said Brexit would affect their choice of location. One wrote: 鈥淎s a European, I might not be able to go to the UK in the future. I also feel less welcome there now.鈥�

A UK government spokesperson told New Scientist: 鈥淚t is important that Britain and the EU ensure that their research communities can continue to access the high-level skills that support innovation in science and technology. We are carefully considering the options for a future immigration system but are clear that the UK will remain an open country that attracts the brightest and the best researchers.鈥�

This article was written and edited independently by New Scientist

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淏rexit batters science job market鈥�

ARE you adequately rewarded for your work? Do you ever wonder about the salaries of other scientists and engineers around you or in different places, and think about making a change? Weighing up the benefits of taking a new professional direction can be hard, especially without reliable information on the potential earnings.

If such questions play on your mind, help is at hand. New Scientist and science recruitment company SRG have gathered data on the earnings of 4300 scientists and engineers from a wide range of sectors, fields and roles in the UK, mainland Europe and the US.

The online survey shows, for example, that one of the best ways for Europeans to up their earnings is to cross the Atlantic. While the average salary excluding benefits in the UK and mainland Europe in 2017 was 拢37,200 and 鈧�39,400 (拢34,700) respectively, in the US it was $69,600 (拢50,000).

鈥淓ngineering is the most lucrative field, with UK salaries averaging 拢46,100鈥�

Or you might want to consider Switzerland, where survey participants reported even higher salaries, averaging 鈧�90,100 (拢79,000), although that has to be balanced against higher living costs of course. Also well paid were those in the Republic of Ireland, who earn 鈧�51,600 (拢45,300) on average, and those in Germany who are on 鈧�48,200 (拢42,300). By contrast, the lowest earners were in Italy, where the average is just 鈧�30,300 (拢26,600).

The survey also reveals the extent of variations between fields and sectors. UK information technology specialists reported the highest average salaries of around 拢52,700, followed by project managers and those in regulatory roles. The lowest earners were those in quality control and in food (see 鈥�Average UK salary by specialism鈥�).

鈥淚t鈥檚 a good time for people to explore their options,鈥� says Kelly Morton, managing director of SRG. 鈥淭here are shortages of candidates with niche technical skills and experience, which, together with an increasing focus on innovation, is driving pay up in certain areas.鈥�

In the UK, respondents working in industry have the highest average earnings at around 拢40,000. Then come those carrying out medical trials, in government labs or agencies, at contract research organisations, in charities and foundations, and academia (see 鈥�Average UK salary by sector鈥�).

There are large variations here by sector, too. Engineering and pharmaceuticals are the most lucrative, with average salaries of around 拢46,100 and 拢40,200 respectively. The least well paid are people working in biotechnology and manufacturing (see 鈥�Average UK salary by industry鈥�).

Survey respondents in London had the highest average salaries, closely followed by those in the South-East. The regions with the lowest salaries were the North-East and Yorkshire and Humberside (see Map). There was a crumb of comfort for those in the North-East, where the average reported salary increase was 2.85 per cent in 2017 鈥� the highest in the UK and almost 1 per cent above that in London.

People thinking about which scientific field to enter, or considering a switch, may want to consider which skill sets are in demand. According to our survey, jobs in chemistry, the biological sciences and data analysis are the hardest to recruit for in the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, the top three are the biological sciences, bioinformatics and data analysis. In the US, the picture is similar, with biological science skills most in demand, followed by statistics and bioinformatics.

This article was written and edited independently by New Scientist

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淗ow much can you earn?鈥�

WOMEN working in science and engineering earn a fifth less than their male colleagues in the UK. And the gender pay gap increases with age and experience. That鈥檚 the disturbing finding revealed by the 2017 salary survey carried out by New Scientist and science recruitment specialists SRG.

The survey paints a stark picture of inequality. The average salary for men working in science and engineering in the UK in 2017 was 拢41,200, while women were paid 拢33,000, a difference of 20 per cent.

The UK is not alone in this. Male survey respondents in mainland Europe earned an average of 鈧�42,500 (拢37,300) in 2017, with their female colleagues 19 per cent behind on 鈧�34,400 (拢30,200). Among US participants, men averaged $73,000 (拢52,200) and women $65,300 (拢47,200) 鈥� a gap of 11 per cent; other studies have found a larger gulf.

听

听

鈥淭his chimes with what we see in other sectors and presents a picture that is far from satisfactory,鈥� says Helen Wollaston, chief executive of the WISE campaign for gender balance in science, technology and engineering, based in Leeds, UK.

The New Scientist/SRG survey gathered online responses from 4300 working scientists, engineers and academics, of which 49 per cent were women. Sixty per cent of respondents were based in the UK.

The results show how women are paid less from the moment they enter science and engineering. The youngest female respondents 鈥� aged between 25 and 34 鈥� earned 2.5 per cent less on average than their male counterparts.

The gap then grows with age and experience. Women aged between 35 and 44 earn 16 per cent less than men while those between 45 and 54 earn 23 per cent less. The gap widens to a shocking 35 per cent for women aged 55 and above.

The findings are broadly in line with other studies. Previous research has shown that the earnings of women who return to work following childbirth often fail to keep pace with those of men, including fathers. A 2016 study by Catherine Buffington at the US Census Bureau in Washington DC and her colleagues found that women in the US earned 31 per cent less than their male counterparts within a year of gaining a PhD in science, technology, engineering or maths.

鈥淲omen are paid less from the moment they enter science and engineering鈥�

They concluded that 11 per cent of this gap was down to the lower earnings of married women with children. By contrast, men with children saw no drop in earnings.

鈥淭he motherhood penalty tends to kick in post-35 when women may want to take time out of the workforce,鈥� says Maria Miller, chair of the UK House of Commons Women and Equalities select committee. 鈥淲hen they want to get back to work, often either part-time or with flexible hours, they find many sectors don鈥檛 have a proper response to that.鈥�

The gender pay gap varies across UK industries. For example, men in the pharmaceutical industry enjoyed average salaries of 拢45,200, with women 22 per cent behind on 拢35,100. The gap in biotechnology is 10 per cent.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry admits that the gender pay gap is a concern. 鈥淲e know that average pay gaps can be affected by a variety of factors but equal pay for equal work is not only a fundamental principle, it is the law,鈥� a spokesperson told New Scientist.

听

But there has been little change over time. The gender pay gap in the UK has hovered around 20 per cent since 2012, in New Scientist/SRG salary surveys.

And a recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report concluded that while the overall gender pay gap in the UK shrunk from 28 per cent to 20 per cent between 1993 and 2016, it grew slightly among graduates from 21 per cent to 22 per cent over the same period.

New UK laws require employers with 250 staff or more to publish data on their male-female pay disparities by April. Miller says this will help reduce inequalities in the long term, but called for it to be extended to smaller organisations. She adds: 鈥淭he most important change we could make would be improve the right to day-one flexible working.鈥�

Changing the laws relating to parental leave could help reduce the gap, says Miller. 鈥淯ntil we get fathers more involved in those earliest years, women will continue to find it difficult to get the right balance between their work and family life.鈥�

This article was written and edited independently by New Scientist

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淗ow the gender pay gap permeates science and engineering鈥�