National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

National Research Council

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) has, for some time, been concerned with the many issues that surround the education and training of scientists and engineers in the United States. Its 1993 report, Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era, emphasized the importance of human resources to the research enterprise. A second report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers (1995), urged institutions to offer graduate students expanded educational experiences so that they would be better equipped to choose from among the broad range of careers now open to scientists and engineers. This report led to the development of one guide for students, Careers in Science and Engineering: A Student Planning Guide to Grad School and Beyond (1996), and another for their mentors, Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering (1997). In the course of its work on these reports and guides, COSEPUP became increasingly aware of the need to also address the experiences of those who undertake additional research training after completing their doctoral degrees—the postdoctoral scholars, or postdocs. The present report is the result of the committee 's intensive study of the postdoctoral experience. It is concerned largely with the personal and institutional settings of that experience. The core of a postdoc's world, the research effort that is at the center of the hugely successful US scientific and engineering research enterprise, is of course of primary importance, but it is not the subject of this guide.

During the past year, COSEPUP gathered information in meetings with a total of 39 groups of postdocs and advisers at 11 universities, seven national laboratories, and five private research institutes or industrial firms. In addition,

the committee invited more than 100 postdocs, advisers, administrators, and others to a day-long workshop in Washington, DC (see Appendix D); conducted an electronic survey of research institutions (see Appendix C); met with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff; and consulted regularly with a 12-member External Advisory Group selected from institutions across the country. The informed and generous contributions of these groups are in large part responsible for COSEPUP's ability to document the characteristics of the postdoctoral experience. Besides reporting the committee's findings, this report suggests actions that can be taken to enhance the postdoctoral experience.

Although there is substantial variation in the experiences of postdocs from one field of science to another, certain elements are more-or-less common across the entire population. In the last 15 years, the number of postdocs has greatly increased and the nature of their experiences has changed in substantial ways. In some fields (e.g., life sciences), one or more postdoctoral experiences have become virtually mandatory for obtaining a regular position in academia or industry and the median time spent in postdoc positions has increased to 3.5 years. One reason for this is that graduate school programs cannot alone provide the broad range of knowledge and skills required for modern research. Another reason is that an extended postdoc period provides employment when regular positions are scarce compared to the number of students completing graduate degrees. A third reason is that postdocs want to accomplish work of substantial scope and significance in order to improve their chances of obtaining a desirable position.

Postdocs have become essential in many research settings. It is largely they who carry out the sometimes exhilarating, sometimes tedious day-to-day work. Their efforts account for a great deal of the extraordinary productivity of the United States' academic science and engineering enterprise. And yet the institutional status of postdocs, especially in academia, is often poorly defined. Consequently, although most postdocs value highly their experiences and the opportunity to engage in rewarding research without competing responsibilities, many of them are dissatisfied with their situations.

COSEPUP's analysis of the data gathered in this report indicates that the employment conditions for postdocs, especially in universities, need to be significantly improved if the United States is to develop the human capital needed to assure a healthy research enterprise and global leadership in science and technology. In many university settings, postdocs have uncertain status; they are neither faculty, staff, nor students. Consequently, there is often no clear administrative responsibility for assuring their fair compensation, benefits, or job security. Postdocs often receive no clear statement of the terms of their appointment and have no place to go to determine appropriate expectations or redress grievances. Often the sole person to whom they can turn for assistance is the Principal Investigator (PI) who hired them and upon whom they depend not only for support in their

current position but also for help in advancing their careers. Given this dependence, a reluctance to be perceived as a complainer is understandable. In contrast to the postdocs, university graduate students, faculty, and staff function under clearly stated assumptions, including: definition of expectations, rights, and responsibilities, defined pay scales, periodic evaluations, defined benefits, benchmarks for pay increases, and established procedures for consideration of grievances.

Although the stipends of most postdocs derive from grants to their faculty advisers, major granting agencies, such as the NSF or NIH, provide few guidelines on the obligations of advisers or their institutions toward postdocs. Indeed, these agencies were not able to provide COSEPUP with dependable data about the number of postdocs (in their nomenclature, Research Associates) supported by grants, or about their salaries, benefits, or length of service.

There are several unfortunate outcomes of the rapid growth of the US postdoctoral population under these irregular conditions. The range of annual compensation for first-year postdocs spans tens of thousands of dollars per year, depending on field and type of institution. At the lower end of the range—which is typical of the life sciences in academia—the pay is embarrassingly low, especially for postdocs with families, when compared to that received by professionals in other fields at analogous career stages. There is no standard health benefit package for postdocs; some receive no health benefits for themselves, and many have no health coverage for their families.

COSEPUP recognizes that part of the compensation for postdocs is the further education and experience they receive and their freedom from responsibilities other than research. The committee learned that many postdocs do indeed have stimulating and productive research experiences under the supervision of attentive, sympathetic, and thoughtful mentors. However, we also learned about postdocs who are neglected, even exploited inappropriately, while making creative and fundamental contributions to the research projects on which they worked. The need to improve the postdoctoral experience has led some institutions to formulate policies to govern their employment. In other instances, postdocs themselves have formed organizations to promote their common interests. Other indications of serious dissatisfaction are the occasional discussions of unionization and even litigation; though rare, these more confrontational calls for action are at least a sign that reform is needed.

Reform efforts will have to be collaborative. While the postdocs themselves must play a role, the major responsibility for change lies with those who have the most power: the advisers, the research institutions, and the funding organizations. Disciplinary societies can play an important role in catalyzing and supporting the reform efforts, especially because the needed changes vary by field. All these participants will need to confront difficult questions in addition to the challenges already mentioned. For example, if mentors have insufficient grant funds to improve salaries and benefits, should they consider accepting fewer postdocs to allow for larger stipends? Also, what is the optimal length of time to

be spent as a postdoc? Many are tempted to remain in their positions for five or more years because their experience and skill promise exciting breakthroughs and high productivity. Advisers may encourage long stays for the same reason, as well as because senior postdocs are particularly valuable in facilitating the education and training of graduate students and new postdocs. Junior researchers need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of remaining overly long as postdocs against those associated with alternative opportunities. COSEPUP suggests that postdocs who remain in their positions for more than five years be reclassified as regularly employed researchers. Aside from personal considerations, there may be costs to the research enterprise itself if relatively junior researchers postpone their independence and are unable to apply their energies in the pursuits of their own original ideas.

Excellent postdoctoral experiences for new scientists and engineers are critical to the health and productivity of current and future research. High school, undergraduate, and graduate students need positive messages about scientific and engineering education and research careers if they are to continue pursuing their scientific and engineering interests. There are many marvelous aspects to the present system. It is essential that this highly productive relationship between research and education be continued under optimal conditions.

Maxine Singer

Chair

Committee on Science,

Engineering, and Public Policy

Aguidance group consisting of Mildred S. Dresselhaus (Chair), Peter Diamond, Brigid Hogan, Samuel H. Preston, Maxine Singer, and Irving L. Weissman supervised the preparation of the guide.

Valuable feedback was provided by an external advisory group composed of:

• Patricia Bresnahan, Molecular Dynamics and recent postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco;

• Jerry Bryant, Director, United Negro College Fund–Merck Initiative;

• Joseph Cerny, Vice Chancellor for Research and Sam Castaneda, Postdoctoral Programs Director, University of California, Berkeley;

• Michael Cowan, Office of Student Services, Stanford University;

• Susan Duby, Director, Division of Graduate Studies, National Science Foundation;

• Jean Labus, Senior Personnel Representative, Postdoctoral Programs, Eli Lilly and Co.;

• Trevor Penning, Associate Dean for Postdoctorate Training, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine;

• Patricia Roth, Abbott Laboratories and recent postdoctoral scholar;

• Walter Schaffer, Research Training Officer, National Research Service Awards Program, National Institutes of Health;

• Marion Thurnauer, Director, Chemistry Division, Argonne National Laboratory;

• Letitia Yao, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Minnesota; and

• Michael Zigmond, Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh.

This group of experts consulted regularly via conference call to provide comments on drafts of the guide and the survey.

The committee extends special thanks to the informed and enthusiastic participants at its day-long workshop in Washington, DC; to participants in its workshop with disciplinary societies who provided a better understanding of how the postdoctoral experience varies by discipline; and to the several hundred postdocs, faculty, advisers, administrators, and federal agency staff who generously offered their opinions, critiques, and personal experiences at 39 focus groups held around the country. These individuals and organizations are identified in appendix C, appendix D, and appendix E.

We would like to express a special thanks to administrators at the institutions listed below who took time out of their busy schedules to carefully respond to our electronic survey:

Academic Institutions

Arizona State University

Columbia University

Cornell University

Harvard University

Indiana University

Iowa State University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stanford University

Tennessee State University

The University of Michigan

The University of Texas at Austin

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, San Diego

University of California, San Francisco

University of Cincinnati

University of Colorado, Boulder

University of Minnesota

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Washington University

Yale University

Medical Schools

Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

New York University School of Medicine

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine

Yeshiva University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

National Laboratories

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Environmental Protection Agency

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

US Army Research Laboratory

Industry

Eli Lilly and Company

Microsoft Corporation

Parke-Davis

Research Institutes

Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Rowland Institute for Science

This guide has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:

R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago

Patsy Brannon, Cornell University

Sarah Caddick, Cancer Research Fund

Roger Chalkley, Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Ellis Cowling, North Carolina State University

Stephen Cross, Carnegie Mellon University

Nancy Dess, American Psychological Association

Peter Fiske, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Nick Gaiano, New York University School of Medicine

David Goodstein, California Institute of Technology

Sherrie Hans, Pew Charitable Trusts

Marc Kirschner, Harvard Medical School

Jeffrey Krause, University of Florida

Henry Kronenberg, Massachusetts General Hospital

Randall Kuhn, RAND Corporation

Jules LaPidus, Council of Graduate Schools

Lisa McCawley, Vanderbilt University

Richard McGee, Mayo Graduate School

Joel Oppenheim, New York University School of Medicine

Trevor Penning, University of Pennsylvania

Elizabeth Powell, University of Pittsburgh

Monique Rijnkels, Baylor College of Medicine

William Schowalter, University of Illinois

Thomas Smith, Howard University

Teresa Sullivan, University of Texas at Austin

Shirley Tilghman, Princeton University

Michael Zigmond, University of Pittsburgh

Finally, we would like to thank the staff for this project including Deborah Stine, Associate Director of COSEPUP and Project Director; Jim Voytuk, Senior Program Officer, NRC Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, who analyzed the quantitative data on postdocs; Elizabeth Hart, Research Associate, who worked with COSEPUP in developing the survey of institutions and arranged the focus groups; Vivian Nolan, Research Associate, who analyzed the results of the survey; Elizabeth Scharl, National Academies Intern, who helped with the initial research; Alan Anderson, Consultant Writer, who worked with COSEPUP to develop the text of the guide; Stephanie Dawson, Intern, who helped develop COSEPUP's postdoc webguide; Rebecca Burka, Administrative Associate, who provided support for the workshop and other activities; Kevin Rowan, Administrative Assistant; and Richard Bissell, Executive Director of COSEPUP.

This guide addresses five primary populations, all of whom participate in the postdoctoral experience: the postdocs themselves, their advisers, their host institutions, the agencies and organizations that support them, and professional disciplinary societies. It is also intended for senior-level graduate students who may be contemplating postdoctoral work.

At the risk of some repetition, the guide addresses the primary groups in separate sections because of differences in perspective, primary objectives, and responsibilities. For those readers who wish to skim material addressed to other groups, each section contains a summary of its main points.

The text is arranged in the following manner:

• Chapter 1 summarizes the trends that have brought growth and new stresses to the postdoctoral population and provides a description of postdoctoral scholars in the United States.

• Chapter 2 describes prominent features of the postdoctoral experience.

• Chapter 3 outlines the rights, opportunities, and responsibilities of postdocs.

• Chapter 4 addresses the relationship between the postdoc and the adviser.

• Chapter 5 describes the relationship between postdocs and the institutions where they work.

• Chapter 6 provides an overview of how funding organizations provide financial support to postdocs.

• Chapter 7 summarizes the role of professional disciplinary societies in supporting the postdoctoral experience.

• Chapter 8 provides a series of principles, action points, and recommendations for enhancing the postdoctoral experience for the benefit of all participants.

Throughout the guide appear boxes highlighting “Best Practices” we have seen among various institutions and organizations. This series of “Best Practices” boxes explores the postdoc-adviser research relationship; their fictional scenarios are based on discussions from our focus groups. In addition, the actual experiences of two recent postdocs are profiled.

Additional boxes summarize highlights of the institutional survey we conducted, as illustrated below (see Box). Note that some questions requested multiple responses. More information on the survey is provided in Appendix C. We encourage institutions to use the guide as a basis for dialog among all the populations it addresses. Discussion of the postdoctoral experience can occur in many settings, including:

• Orientation sessions

• Career counseling offices

• Departmental or school “practice of science” symposia

• Job fairs and conventions

• Student discussion or support groups

• Professional society meetings

• Meetings between advisers and graduate students or postdocs

• Information interviews

• Management meetings (e.g., faculty senate, department, school)

For those developing plans to enhance the postdoctoral experience, COSEPUP has developed a web site—www.nationalacademies.org/postdocs—which includes the full text of this guide, a one-page summary of the guide, and links to the web sites of institutions we suggest provide exemplary “Best Practices.” These best-practice models can be helpful to postdocs, postdoc advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies as they explore ways to enhance the postdoctoral experience.