Joint statement by the GfV and DGHM on the draft bill to amend the law on fixed-term contracts in science (WissZeitVG)

Joint statement by Society of Virology e.V. (GfV) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology e.V. (DGHM) on the draft bill to amend the law on fixed-term contracts in science (WissZeitVG)

Dear members, ladies and gentlemen.

With this letter, we are jointly commenting on the BMBF's adapted draft bill to amend the German Academic Fixed-Term Contract Act (WissZeitVG) of June 5, 2023. This draft provides for a four-year limit on fixed-term employment for qualification after the doctorate. An extension of a further two years is possible if the six years of the doctoral phase have not yet been exhausted and binding target agreements for a permanent position are in place. The duration of third-party funding should only constitute a permissible reason for a fixed term if the qualification-based fixed term has already expired.

In principle, we support the goal of creating reliable and promising career paths for scientists and doctors in research at universities and non-university research institutions. It is important that scientists have good employment and career conditions in the early stages of their careers in order to develop their full potential. Attractive working conditions are also crucial for maintaining and expanding Germany's international competitiveness and innovative capacity.

However, we consider the shortening of the qualification phase (post-doc phase) to four years to be extremely problematic, particularly in light of the tight conditions for contract extensions for a maximum of two additional years. The complexity of scientific work, particularly in the natural and life sciences, often requires extensive data collection and elaborate analyses, which are difficult to fit into tight time scales and often require lengthy approval procedures (e.g. with regard to genetic engineering and animal testing). In addition, the development of an independent research profile and the acquisition of own third-party funds only takes place in the phase after the doctorate and in most cases is not completed even after six years.

The development of an independent research profile and an independent research line as a prerequisite for future appointment procedures can hardly be realized in this period. This increases the risk that promising young researchers will have to leave their academic careers at an early stage.

In addition, it is important to note that the independent development of an academic career from one's own third-party funding should continue to be made possible. This is because third-party funding partly finances one's own academic position or parts of the (young) working group and thus enables researchers to establish their own lines of research and advance innovative ideas. We therefore recommend initially allowing fixed-term contracts from third-party funds, which can then be extended by the deadlines specified in the draft law.

The transition from a mentor-supervised doctoral candidate to a doctoral supervisor or co-supervisor is crucial for the development of an individual academic profile. The inequality before and after the doctorate makes it difficult for early career researchers to find qualified employees who wish to do a doctorate, as they fear that their supervisors may not be available for the entire doctoral phase. The average age of habilitations in Germany is over 40 years, while the average age of doctorates is around 30 years. According to the current draft law, the decision to pursue a permanent academic career would have to be made years before proof of the ability to carry out independent research and teaching.

We fear that the proposed amendment to the WissZeitVG will reduce the attractiveness of Germany as a research location for postdocs and lead to an exodus abroad and to industry. A fundamental increase in the number of permanent positions in university research is certainly to be welcomed, as training positions at these institutions may not be made permanent either. In addition to these, permanent positions must also be created. However, this requires additional financial resources and should not have a negative impact on competition.

We also see a lack of compatibility of family and career in the draft presented, as the proposed changes restrict the family planning of young researchers. We recommend longer, more flexible, but time-limited fixed-term periods in order to both obtain the necessary qualifications for an academic career and to enable the compatibility of family and career.

Furthermore, the abolition of the special role for doctors in further training represents a considerable obstacle. According to the Act on Temporary Employment Contracts for Doctors in Further Training (ÄArbVtrG), employment for the purpose of obtaining a specialist qualification would be possible, but only under strict conditions and without a link to research and teaching. This stands in the way of the integration of research, teaching and patient care and corresponding mixed financing. The laboriously established clinician scientist programs would also not be able to be continued. For the efficient development of medical research, it remains necessary to continue to take into account the period of specialist qualification in the WissZeitVG time limits.

In addition, it would be extremely useful to also give this consideration to those natural scientists who are undergoing further training to become specialist microbiologists, virologists, clinical chemists, etc. Both medical and scientific professions are necessary to advance clinical research in Germany, especially in times of a shortage of specialists.

It is important to make career paths in research more reliable and to introduce clear target agreements to which the subsequent career steps must be linked. However, a uniform and rigid time scheme for fixed-term appointments cannot enable a differentiated view of core tasks and scientific innovation.

In our view, the planned amendment to the WissZeitVG will not lead to more permanent positions, which are currently only available in very limited numbers at university hospitals. On the contrary, it will mean that we will have fewer and fewer excellent scientists in medicine and the natural sciences in the future and will fall behind in international competition. The reduction in staff will also lead to problems in teaching, particularly in small group teaching, which requires a lot of staff.

We would like to emphasize that the Funding of young scientists and the creation of long-term career opportunities are of crucial importance. In order to achieve this, however, realistic and flexible framework conditions should be created that meet the individual needs and requirements of the various disciplines. A blanket limitation of the qualification phase to four years does not seem appropriate to us in this context. The shortening of the qualification phase and the abolition of the consideration of further medical training are fundamentally opposed to the attractive design of the field of activity and will considerably increase the shortage of specialist staff. The draft bill therefore needs to be fundamentally revised.

We propose that various stakeholders from science and politics be involved in the further discussion process in order to find a balanced and practical solution. It is important to consider the perspectives of the scientists, research institutions and funding organizations concerned in order to develop a sustainable and future-proof regulation.

Yours sincerely

The Society of Virology e.V. (GfV) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology e.V. (DGHM) in close cooperation with the young GfV and the young DGHM.

You can find the PDF of the statement here.