We have heard it all before — and it is all true. Science, technology, engineering and maths are the skills of the future.

These "STEM" disciplines are essential not only for an informed public, but for our inevitable shift from relying on the mining and resources industry to an economy based on new ideas, discoveries and technologies.

The issue was highlighted late last month when an independent public agency, Innovation and Science Australia (ISA), released its long-awaited and much-needed strategic plan for reinvigorating the nation's science and innovation system.

The plan, Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation, contains 30 recommendations organised around various themes. The first such "imperative for action" is education.

And the recommendations are laudable, including "strengthening training for in-service teachers … [to] better prepare students for post-school STEM occupations".

But there's a catch. While STEM skills will shape the occupations of Australia's new economy, jobs along that pathway are in short supply. The result: early and mid-career (EMC) scientists are taking their publicly-funded PhDs and moving overseas.

Australia's scientific talent pool is shrinking — and young post-docs have noticed.

Despite accolades for successful scientists like Michelle Simmons, career paths for young scientists are not secure. ( Jordan Hayne )

For instance, a 2016 workforce survey by the Australian Society for Medical Research (ASMR) revealed that 83 per cent of respondents had considered leaving active research for another career option.

The majority of those respondents were mid-career researchers: between six and 15 years beyond their PhDs.

Sixty-one per cent of respondents, meanwhile, had considered leaving Australia.

Low pay and no job security

Those findings are echoed by the Australian Postdoctoral Reference Survey, conducted in the same year.

Nearly 63 per cent of respondents believe Australian researchers must have overseas experience to be competitive at home, and 55 per cent considered moving overseas.

Young researchers feel they live in a "postdocalypse" in which EMC jobs in government, academia, and industry are both poorly paid and insecure.

And this in a country where the entire scientific talent pool is comparatively small to start with.

This article contains content that is not yet available here.

Clearly, with a population of nearly 25 million, Australia does not have as many potential and working researchers and science-based industry experts as do innovation powerhouses such as the US, Germany or Korea, let alone emerging players like China.

Size alone, however, does not explain the postdocalypse. A survey of research graduates conducted by the Australian Council of Learned Academies is telling.

One respondent commented:

"Job uncertainty is appalling.

"We are the most educated people in the country and we can barely provide for our families and have at most 3-4 years' job stability. This is extremely stressful."

Why so?

Not enough options in the private sector

One reason is that there are few research jobs available in the private sector. In fact, less than one-in-three Australian scientists work in industry.

That's half the OECD average of 60 per cent; in the US four of every five researchers are in the business sector.

The UK has a similar distribution of researchers in business as does Australia, but it also has the third-highest level of small to medium enterprise (SME) collaboration with the research sector in the OECD. Australia is last on this SME indicator.

This article contains content that is not yet available here.

Instead, the majority of Australia's scientists work in universities or publicly funded research facilities, all of which are heavily reliant on funding from granting bodies like the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

The NHMRC alone contributes to over 70 per cent of health and medical research workforce salaries.

According to the 2016 ASMR report, the available funding does not meet the sector's needs — and the previous three years saw a 16 per cent loss of researchers from the major NHMRC funding schemes.

While government science investment sits around the OECD average, it's insufficient to compensate for low private sector investment in research and development. Further, expenditure and priorities are subject to political swings and roundabouts, linked to the three-year political cycle.

Where to from here?

Solutions to the postdocalypse exist.

Universities, for instance, are developing business training and internships for young scientists.

The Commonwealth could build on this approach by establishing a national industry placement scheme similar to the highly successful Mitacs program in Canada.

It's a not-for-profit organisation that manages and funds research and training programs for EMC researchers. Partners include universities, industry and the federal government.

STEM subjects and careers are critical for the future of the Australian economy. ( Getty Images/Hero Images )

Overseas, governments of comparable nations have established research/industry programs from which Australia's decision-makers could learn.

Among the most widely recognised are the Catapult Centres in the UK, Finland's Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation (SHOKS), and the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft network of institutes and research facilities in Germany

Such efforts would need to be carefully coordinated.

A good start would be a 2030 strategic plan with integrated and, yes, evidence-based strategies, not just "visions", "imperatives" and a scatter-gun series of recommendations.

Leigh Dayton is a science journalist who recently completed a PhD exploring the barriers to innovation in Australia. Hear more from Leigh on ABC RN's The Science Show.