A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come
since the 2000 COSEPUP Report?
Kevin Finneran
Director
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Editor-in-Chief
Issues in Science and Technology
Responsible Staff Officer
Committee to Review the State of the Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers
16-18 March 2012
A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come
since the 2000 COSEPUP Report?
1.
A brief history of the National Academies
2.
The study process
3.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers
4.
The State of the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers
Revisited
5.
Committee Members
6.
How you can contribute
7.
Committee Staff
A brief history of the National Academies
Kevin to add
The study process
1. Defining the study
2. Committee selection and approval
3. Committee meetings, information gathering,
deliberations, and drafting the report
4. Report Review and Dissemination
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 4
Stage 3
The study process
Defining the study
•
National Academies staff work with sponsors to determine the specific
set of questions to be addressed by the study in a formal "statement
of task," as well as the duration and cost of the study
•
The statement of task, work plan, and budget must be approved by
the Executive Committee of the National Research Council Governing
Board.
National Research Council (NRC) Governing Board reviews and approves
the statement of task, work plan, and budget
Stage 1
January 2011
The study process
Committee selection and approval
Careful steps are taken to convene committees that meet the following
criteria:
•
Have an appropriate range of expertise for the task
•
Reflect a balance of perspectives
•
Are free from conflicts of interest
•
Other considerations
A provisional committee is approved by the NRC Chair, posted for public
comment on the Current Projects System (CPS), screened for conflicts of
interest, and then formally approved.
Stage 2
September 2011
The study process
Committee meetings, information gathering, deliberations,
and drafting the report
Study committees typically gather information through:
•
Meetings that are open to the public and that are announced in
advance through the National Academies web site
•
Information submitted by outside parties
•
Reviews of the scientific literature
•
Investigations of the committee members and staff
All information gathered by the committee is publicly available.
Deliberations and drafts of findings and recommendations are
confidential. This information is summarized and posted on CPS.
Stage 3
October 2011
The study process
Report Review and Dissemination
All National Academies reports undergo a rigorous, independent external
review by anonymous experts. Report review ensures that:
•
Reports address their approved study charge and do not exceed them
•
Findings are supported by scientific evidence and arguments
presented
•
Exposition and organization are effective
•
Reports are impartial and objective
Committees must respond to, but not agree with, reviewer comments
that are monitored by independent report reviewers. A report must pass
review before being released to the sponsors and to the public.
Stage 4
December 2012?
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Principles
1. The postdoctoral experience is first and foremost a period of apprenticeship for
the purpose of gaining scientific, technical, and other professional skills that
advance the professional career.
2. Postdocs should receive appropriate recognition (including lead author credit)
and compensation (including health insurance and other fringe benefits) for the
contribution they make to the research enterprise.
3. To ensure that postdoctoral appointments are beneficial to all concerned, all
parties to the appointments—the postdoc, the postdoc adviser, the host
institution, and funding organizations—should have a clear and mutuallyagreed-upon understanding with regard to the nature and purpose of the
appointment.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Action Points
Advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies should:
1. Award institutional recognition, status, and compensation commensurate with
the postdocs' contributions to the research enterprise.
2. Develop distinct policies and standards for postdocs, modeled on those
available for graduate students and faculty.
3. Develop mechanisms for frequent and regular communication between
postdocs and their advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary
societies.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Action Points
Advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies should:
4. Monitor and provide formal evaluations (at least annually) of the performance
of postdocs.
5. Ensure that all postdocs have access to health insurance, regardless of funding
source, and to institutional services.
6. Set limits for total time as a postdoc (of approximately five years, summing
time at all institutions), with clearly described exceptions as appropriate.
7. Invite the participation of postdocs when creating standards, definitions, and
conditions for appointments.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Action Points
Advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies should:
8. Provide substantive career guidance to improve postdoc's ability to prepare for
regular employment.
9. Improve the quality of data, both for postdoctoral working conditions and for
the population of postdocs in relation to employment prospects in research.
10. Take steps to improve the transition of postdocs to regular career positions.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Action Points
What is missing? What issues were not addressed in this report?
•
Limits to the postdoctoral population
•
Establishment of formal benchmarks for postdoctoral salaries
•
Permission for postdoctoral scholars to obtain their own grant funding during
the postdoctoral term
•
Recognition of the unique needs of foreign national and minority communities
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Postdoctoral Scholars
1. Postdocs should take responsibility for deciding whether to seek a postdoctoral
position and to define their objectives in doing so.
2. Postdocs should contribute their best efforts to the program in which they work,
and consider themselves full members of that program as long as their
appointment lasts.
3. Postdocs share with their advisers the responsibility for frequent
communication in the interests of common understanding, productive research,
and effective mentoring.
4. Postdocs bear the primary responsibility for the success of their experience,
with the support of their advisers and institutions.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Principal Investigators
1. The advisers of postdocs have the responsibility to provide a postdoctoral
experience that is fundamentally educational in nature
2. Advisers should outline, in writing, the initial expectations about the
performance of the postdoc
3. The adviser should provide mentoring as needed
4. Advisers should discuss goals with the postdoc at the outset so the
expectations of both parties are clearly delineated, and provide written
evaluations of a postdoc's progress at least once a year
5. Advisers and departments should provide career counseling and job placement
assistance.
6. Advisers and departments should consider whether postdocs may benefit from
additional mentoring by several members of an institution.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Institutions
1. Take a census of their postdoctoral population
2. Classify all postdocs in a distinctive and appropriate category that embraces
their unique institutional position
3. Institutions should establish explicit policies regarding the appointment,
training, compensation, benefits, evaluation, and career guidance of
postdoctoral scholars
4. Institutions should establish a minimum salary/stipend level for all postdocs
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Institutions
5. Institutions should adopt guidelines for the duration of postdoctoral terms
6. There should be a general progression, as a postdoctoral term lengthens,
toward more senior status
7. Institutions should periodically review the balance of interests among postdocs,
advisers, departments, and the institution
8. Institutions should not encourage unlimited growth in the postdoctoral (or
graduate student) population in the face of limited employment opportunities
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Institutions
9. Institutions should maintain a postdoctoral office or officer
10. Institutions should encourage each of their divisions and programs to examine
their roles in the education and training of postdocs and in maintaining high
standards of mentoring
11. Institutions should require evidence that funding for a postdoc is available
before PIs are allowed to hire postdocs on research grants.
12. The institution should receive and keep on file a letter of appointment or
contract signed by the postdoc, adviser, and institutional representative.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Institutions
13. The institution should ensure that postdocs have guidance in career planning
14. Institutions should ask advisers to prepare a written evaluation of their
postdocs' progress/performance at least once a year
15. The special needs of foreign nationals should be addressed
16. Each institution should encourage and financially support a postdoctoral
association that serves the social, informational, and logistical needs of
postdocs and provides a mechanism for them to communicate with institutional
leaders.
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Funders
1. Define the postdoctoral experience
2. Establish terms and conditions for funded postdocs that include appropriate
stipends or salaries, medical benefits, travel funding, leave policies,
performance reviews, career planning, skill enhancement, and tracking
3. Private funding organizations, such as foundations, should play a larger role in
encouraging best practices and setting appropriate stipend levels
4. Non-governmental organizations and foreign governments should assume their
own responsibilities for postdocs
5. Funding organizations should require that those seeking to support postdocs
under training or research grants demonstrate their qualifications for this
responsibility
6. Establish career-transition grants for senior postdoctoral fellows
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for NIH
1. Establish a central office for all postdocs
2. Establish a stipend or salary scale for all postdocs
3. Define the postdoctoral experience (as above)
4. Host annual meetings with the postdoctoral community
5. Allow institutions and PIs the ability to combine the funding from the
traineeship program and from NIH research grants so the PI may increase the
stipend for postdocs without requiring an increase in the number of hours a
postdoc must work
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for NSF
1. Establish a central office for all postdocs (as for NIH)
2. Establish a stipend or salary scale for all postdocs (as for NIH)
3. Define the postdoctoral experience (as for NIH)
4. Host annual meetings with the postdoctoral community (as for NIH)
5. Establish a mechanism for the regular collection of data on the postdoctoral
community, as happens for graduate students
Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers
Recommendations for Disciplinary Societies
1. Play a larger role in promoting the professional careers of postdocs
2. Support job searches by postdocs
3. Develop norms regarding the postdoctoral experience in their field that could be
adopted by advisers and institutions in their field
4. Collect and analyze data and provide the best available information about
career planning and employment prospects
5. Organize programs or workshops to advance professional skills
The State of the Postdoctoral Experience
for Scientists and Engineers Revisited
1.
General characteristics: How many postdoctoral fellows are there in the U.S.? Where are they
working, in what fields, and for how many years?
2.
Current conditions: Are expectations of principal investigators made clear? Do postdocs receive
adequate professional status and privileges as well as salary and benefits? Are the rules clear about
credit they receive for their discoveries, and are they receiving adequate career guidance and
development?
3.
Institutional provisions: Do postdocs serve as investigators on grants? Are questions of intellectual
property identified and provided for? At universities, is teaching required; if not, is it encouraged or
discouraged?
4.
Career paths: Where do postdocs come from? What do we know and what can we learn about
what postdocs do after they complete their programs? How well are the postdoc programs matched
with the career opportunities that are open to them?
5.
Recent trends and changes: Have previous recommendations been implemented and to what
effect? Are there other developments in the research enterprise that have had a significant effect
on postdocs?
6.
Participation in the research enterprise: Are postdocs being invited to review journal articles and
write grant proposals, either formally by journals and agencies or informally by PIs, and is this
experience useful? What are the impressions of postdocs about peer review today? Are postdocs
being used effectively in research? Are postdocs acquiring the skills they need to become
productive independent researchers in the future?
Committee Members
GREGORY PETSKO
Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry
Brandeis University
NANCY SCHWARTZ
Associate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs
The University of Chicago
SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINS
Director of Postdoctoral Affairs
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
PAULA STEPHAN
Professor of Economics
Georgia State University
H. RUSSELL BERNARD
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
LORRAINE TRACEY
Director of Biological Research and Development
Nanodetection Technology
NAPOLEONE FERRARA
Genentech Fellow
Genentech, Inc.
MICHAEL TURNER
Rauner Distinguished Service Professor and Director
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
The University of Chicago
CAROL GREIDER
Daniel Nathans Professor and Director
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
ALLISON WOODALL
Managing Counsel
Labor, Employment and Benefits Group
University of California System
JAMES PLUMMER
Frederick Emmons Terman Dean
School of Engineering
Stanford University
JOAN WOODARD
Retired Executive Vice President and Deputy Director
Sandia National Laboratories
ALBERT REECE
Vice President for Medical Affairs
Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Committee Members
GREGORY PETSKO
Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry
Brandeis University
H. RUSSELL BERNARD
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
NAPOLEONE FERRARA
Genentech Fellow
Genentech, Inc.
CAROL GREIDER
Daniel Nathans Professor and Director
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
JAMES PLUMMER
Frederick Emmons Terman Dean
School of Engineering
Stanford University
ALBERT REECE
Vice President for Medical Affairs
Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean
University of Maryland School of Medicine
MICHAEL TURNER
Rauner Distinguished Service Professor and Director
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
The University of Chicago
Committee Members
GREGORY PETSKO
Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry
Brandeis University
NANCY SCHWARTZ
Associate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs
The University of Chicago
PAULA STEPHAN
Professor of Economics
Georgia State University
H. RUSSELL BERNARD
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
MICHAEL TURNER
Rauner Distinguished Service Professor and Director
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
The University of Chicago
CAROL GREIDER
Daniel Nathans Professor and Director
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
JAMES PLUMMER
Frederick Emmons Terman Dean
School of Engineering
Stanford University
ALBERT REECE
Vice President for Medical Affairs
Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Committee Members
NANCY SCHWARTZ
Associate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs
The University of Chicago
SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINS
Director of Postdoctoral Affairs
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
PAULA STEPHAN
Professor of Economics
Georgia State University
LORRAINE TRACEY
Director of Biological Research and Development
Nanodetection Technology
ALLISON WOODALL
Managing Counsel
Labor, Employment and Benefits Group
University of California System
Committee Members
In attendance at the 2012 NPA annual meeting:
GREGORY PETSKO
Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry
Brandeis University
SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINS
Director of Postdoctoral Affairs
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
NAPOLEONE FERRARA
Genentech Fellow
Genentech, Inc.
JAMES PLUMMER
Frederick Emmons Terman Dean
School of Engineering
Stanford University
NANCY SCHWARTZ
Associate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs
The University of Chicago
PAULA STEPHAN
Professor of Economics
Georgia State University
LORRAINE TRACEY
Director of Biological Research and Development
Nanodetection Technology
ALLISON WOODALL
Managing Counsel
Labor, Employment and Benefits Group
University of California System
possibly in attendance at the 2012 NPA annual meeting
How you can contribute
•
What are the challenges facing international postdoctoral researchers?
• Earned a graduate degree outside the United States
• Funded from outside the United States
• Visa issues
•
What new job categories exist? It is possible that postdoc problems
are migrating to these new positions, or they could be a more secure
and better paid alternative?
•
What are the characteristics of postdoctoral fellows, and how does this
differ from other positions?
•
What is the current state of the postdoctoral experience with regards
to postdoctoral salaries, benefits, working conditions, institutional
provisions and policies, and postdoctoral career paths?
•
What is a postdoc? How does it differ by discipline? Do different
disciplines face different challenges?
•
What new developments have taken place in the postdoctoral
experience?
•
What career paths exist for postdocs? What is your career path?
•
What else don’t we know?
How you can contribute
Two questions:
1. If we were able to start over and build the research enterprise from scratch,
what would we do differently?
2. We invite you to suggest one recommendation that the committee should make
in its final report. What would you recommend to improve the postdoctoral
experience?
Committee Staff
Committee to Review the State of the Postdoctoral Experience
in Scientists and Engineers
KEVIN FINNERAN
Study Director
GURU MADHAVAN
Program Officer
DAVID PROCTOR
Research Associate
dproctor@nas.edu
202-334-2639
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Policy and Global Affairs
The National Academies
Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice
Institute of Medicine
The National Academies
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Policy and Global Affairs
The National Academies