TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you, everyone, for joining us today.
I am Tara Schwetz.
I'm the acting Principal Deputy Director of the National
Institutes of Health.
I'm also the co-chair of the NIH advisory committee
to the director working group on re-envisioning
the NIH supported postdoc.
I'm pleased to welcome you today to our session that we have.
And joining me, we have Dr. Shelley Berger,
who's a professor at the University of Pennsylvania,
who's also a co-chair of the working group along with me.
And we have two additional members
of the working group here--
Dr. Judith Kimble, professor at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison; and Ms. Adriana Morales Gomez,
a graduate student at Mayo Clinic.
Now, before we jump in, I just want
to provide a little bit of housekeeping remarks, as well
as a little bit of an introduction into today's topic
before turning it over to my colleague, Shelley.
So I just want to start by saying
that ensuring the future of US competitiveness
in innovation and biomedical research
is really of the utmost importance to NIH.
Likewise, and in order to do that, we must promote
the well-being and sustainability
of the biomedical workforce.
Our working group was established
to specifically address growing concerns
about the postdoctoral training system
and academic research investigators'
ability to recruit qualified postdoctoral candidates
in the future.
And the goal of this working group
is going to be to explore the status
of the postdoctoral training system,
to identify and understand the critical factors
and issues related to this perceived
decline in the number of postdoctoral fellows
in academia.
And actually, we've seen data that really support that.
And also to provide recommendations
to address those factors.
And we've been having meetings regularly
to discuss these issues and others on this topic.
And we really want to hear from you
all, the biomedical research community, about these issues.
Because your feedback and input are critical to this endeavor.
So to set the stage today, you're
going to be hearing from a few invited speakers.
We will then open it up to structured discussion
and questions from all attendees for the remainder of the hour,
before we close.
Now, just emphasize that we really
want to focus on comments from all of you all.
So we'll try to limit the amount of Q&A,
because we really want to make sure that we are listening
to what you all have to say.
Now, we'll collect that input, using the QA function
on the Zoom, which should be open now.
So please provide your comment or a note
on the topic of your comment, and then what we're going to do
is we'll invite the participants to unmute and share
their comment out loud.
We ask that each participant limit their comments
to about one to two minutes, so we can hear from as many
of you as possible.
And if you prefer to comment anonymously, we understand.
But please note that in your comment,
we ask you to flag that you would
like to comment anonymously.
And one of the facilitators will then read your note out loud,
and there'll be no attribution.
So please feel free again to start submitting
your input in the Q&A box now.
So now I want to turn it over to Shelley
to frame today's topic, which is on the role, duration
structure, and value of the academic postdoc,
and importantly this includes the impacts
on underrepresented populations.
So Shelley?
SHELLEY BERGER: Yes.
Great.
Thank you, Tara.
I'm really happy to be here and to greet everyone.
We've got nearly 400 people online.
So that's fantastic.
Here we present one view of the role of postdocs
in academic science, the postdocs
do work with principal investigators in their labs.
And the sharing of running a lab and working together
varies from lab to lab.
But one view is that postdocs work as, this
is a metaphor, as worker bees.
And historically, postdocs will go on
to become principal investigators themselves,
as in this view from Paula Stephan,
making this metaphor about the role of postdocs.
We certainly view this as one of the key topics
of what we want to talk about today,
the experience of postdocs in labs,
and how that's been evolving, how it's shaping,
how postdocs view themselves within labs.
So, going on to the next slide.
So here, using recent data from the National Science Foundation
from 2021, we're showing here the number
of US postdocs represented by the solid blue line,
and the number of non-faculty researchers
with doctorates in the dotted teal line.
So the non-faculty researchers are doctorate holding staff
who are neither postdocs nor are they faculty.
But they spend their time primarily involved in research.
So the key thing here is that the number of postdocs
have steadily increased over time since 1980.
And really, you can see as was pretty flat in the middle part
of this graph.
And then has really leveled off.
And in fact, has even begun to decline after 2020.
So in the next slide, as one indication
of what's been going on, we're showing here
the number of applications, awards, and success rates
for National Institute of Health, NRSA F32 fellowships,
which is NIH's individual postdoc fellowship mechanism.
And I think it's quite apparent that applications and awards
have been decreasing in recent years,
despite a very constant success rate.
So that's quite interesting.
So together, these data support, really I
think illustrate the idea that there's
been a decline of postdocs, and really illustrates the urgency
to address these issues.
OK, so in this next slide, we're depicting the many forces that
are really driving the decline.
And here we include the limited opportunities in academia,
so postdocs going back to this idea
that postdocs will eventually become PIs,
the opportunities have become more limited.
And on contrast, there have become new opportunities
in pharma, in biotech.
In addition, we've seen a lengthening time.
I think most of us have seen this lengthening time
to publish, and the expectations for research
really have been expanding.
And finally, I think starting with coronavirus virus
really driving this and making it quite obvious,
we've seen an increasing expectation
for work-life balance and the cost of living
continuing to increase.
So on the topic of the duration of postdocs,
data from the National postdoc association
indicates that 89% of institutions
have a term limit on postdocs.
And the limit for most of these institutions is five years.
It's critical for this working group
to carefully consider the experiences of the community
surrounding the role, duration structure, and value
of postdocs, and how that impacts
underrepresented populations.
And we're extremely pleased to have
all of you here to share your input on these matters today.
And with that, I'm going to hand back
to Tara to introduce our speakers before we
move on to your comments.
TARA SCHWETZ: Great.
Thanks so much, Shelley.
So I am delighted that we have with us here today
three folks who were invited to share their perspectives.
We'll start with Dr. Esra Yalcin, who is a fifth year
postdoc from Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's
Hospital.
She's the current president of the Boston Postdoctoral
Association and leading author of "Retaining Postdocs
by Recognizing their Worth," which
was published in Nature Biotechnology in February
of 2022.
So with that, Esra, I'll turn it over to you.
ESRA YALCIN: Thank you, Tara, for the introduction.
And thank you for the working group for inviting me today
to speak.
I'll briefly mention about three challenges as postdocs we face,
and most of these challenges are affecting
the underrepresented minorities in our postdoc community.
And I'm going to share my perspective based
on my interaction past four years
with the postdoc communities in Boston area,
as well as my own being postdoc in Harvard Medical School,
Boston Children's Hospital.
So my first identified challenge is
as a postdoc, that is I believe driving
the decline in the participation in academia,
is not getting paid well enough.
The second one is being a postdoc parent,
in especially high-cost living areas like Boston.
And third one is lack of bullying and harassment
policies, as well as clarities on them.
And we're not getting paid, I'll briefly
say how it impacts underrepresented population
in postdocs, and what are my three solutions, so
one solution to each problem.
When we're not getting paid well enough in Massachusetts,
I mean we know that there is a set NIH pay scale, that's
that starts with $53,000.
The low income level in Massachusetts
is $60,000, which means that for us, for folks holding PhD
degrees, to be able to not eligible for a social housing
in Massachusetts, we have to work a couple more
years into our postdocs.
And that ultimately affects people
of color, people of low income families,
because we no longer afford to live in a high-cost living
area that is also a hub center for science.
And it makes us feel like we're not valued enough,
our effort is not valued enough.
And the solution to that is regional cost
of living adjustment that has been proposed
by several publications, including
me and my team's last publication in Nature
Biotechnology.
The second challenge is being a postdoc parent.
It mostly affects the female parents,
because the data shows the gender gap appears
after the birth of our child, because mothers
are preparing to take care to cover the 40% of child care
costs in Boston, because it's no longer available, as working
two academic postdocs in academia.
And then eventually, it impacts basically the females mostly,
and then it causes them to leave academia.
And my solution to that is to increase the parental leave.
In some institutions, we know that there are 8 to 12 weeks
parental leave they provide.
But I offer, based on my data collection
from our communities.
16 weeks of paternity or maternity leave individually.
And then Cornell University had a practice they were offering.
In their program, they were offering $50,000
to the newly parents, to hire a lab tech assistant.
I know this applies only at lab.
But basically, that lab technician
would help continue the research,
while the parent is taking care of the newly born baby.
But I think that can set an example,
and then I hope that would open other venues
for potential solution to this postdoc parent problem.
And then third one is lack of bullying and harassment,
as I mentioned.
Again, people of color, people of different sexual
orientation, people of religion, people
of different gender, and mostly women, are affected by that.
We have enough data to show that I believe.
As a solution, when I go to a facility every day,
I see NIH returning, and that person
is an independent inspector and reporter.
And whenever there is a small violation is being detected
immediately, and then any ethical violation,
and it's been reported to NIH, and I know how seriously we
are taking this practice, my solution
is that I think we have efficient reporting
and inspection systems in place.
But I am afraid those systems are not applying
to postdocs human beings yet.
And I hope NIH can create environments
that we can more freely and openly report these cases,
and advocate for ourselves.
Again, thank you for providing me this space,
to speak for our postdocs today.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you so much for those comments
and that feedback.
Next, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Bruce Mandt, who
serves as the Associate Dean for Career
and Professional development in the graduate school
and director of the post-doctoral office
at the University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus.
Bruce is currently chair of the Association
of American Medical Colleges' group on research, education,
and training.
This is their postdoctoral training section.
With that, I'll turn it over to Bruce.
BRUCE MANDT: Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this conversation,
and for the NIH's efforts to address challenges
within our postdoctoral communities.
I've chosen to focus on three primary challenges.
One, finances.
This likely will be a main point of conversation
and also the most difficult item to address.
Regardless, the financial burden posed to many postdocs
has made continuing in this position prohibitive.
Two, mentorship.
Unlike graduate programs, there's
little oversight for postdoctoral mentoring outside
of T32 programs.
Far too frequently, postdocs are still
seen as a cost effective means to complete research projects,
and not as an investment in the future of biomedical research.
And three, uncertainty.
I believe one final challenge is the uncertainty about how
postdoc training is moving someone forward
in their careers.
But I would set expectations around length of training,
a training will occur, and clear career outcomes.
Postdocs are asked to enter into a nebulous void
of an uncertain future that in practice may
last upwards of 10 years.
Consequently, the value of the postdoc
is unclear, and can appear largely undesirable.
Some points for consideration, the current state
of postdoc training selects not only
based on interest and ability, but also
based on who has independent means
to continue in these positions.
The selection criteria frequently
advantages those who already benefit
from different forms of privilege,
and undermines our ability to build greater
representation in science.
By setting different expectations
for postdoc training based on NRSA or non-NRSA support,
the NIH currently establishes different classes of postdocs,
and cements institutional inequities.
The vast majority of biomedical institutions
use the NRSA rates to set their pay policies.
Because of this, NRSA rates have tremendous power
to affect the overall pay that both sides receive.
Given that the NIH supports the overwhelming majority
of postdocs on non-NSRA grants, augmenting expectations
for postdoc training on research grants
will have the greatest impact on postdoc training.
Finally, our international postdocs
are primarily supported on research grants, and as such,
do not benefit from the structured training
and focus on career development that NRSAs provide.
I also want to offer these potential solutions.
For finances, set regionally adjusted cost
of living NSRA rates.
And clarify NRSA language to allow institutions
to provide equitable benefits to all postdocs,
regardless of funding source.
Two, set consistent postdoc training expectations,
regardless of funding source.
Before approving a postdoc's appointment to a research
grant, require the postdoc and PI
to submit some form of a career and training plan,
potentially even uploading it to ERA commons
and require annual updates.
Require evidence of commitment to mentoring from all faculty
who want to support a postdoc.
Set consistent salary stipend amounts for all postdocs
and require following experience levels.
And place absolute limits on total time allowable
for support in postdoctoral positions.
Three, use successful models like the RACDA
to focus on additional career options.
For example, pathways to industry, which could help
build public-private partnerships.
And allow postdocs to gain industry experience while still
focusing on academic research.
And four, finally, create more early career awards
for non-tenured track faculty roles,
so individuals can amass accomplishments
in independent positions, rather than remaining as postdocs
longer than necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you, Bruce, for those comments.
And our last commenter today is Dr. Antentor Hinton,
who's an assistant professor of molecular physiology
and biophysics at Vanderbilt University.
He has also published papers on revitalizing and reimagining
the STEM pipeline, mentoring minority trainees,
and applying for faculty jobs.
I'll turn it over to you.
ANTENTOR HINTON: Thank you very much for having me.
The first thing I want to say is thank you
for allowing me to have this space to speak.
So I just want to get right into it.
So the very first thing that I think
that is critical for postdocs to see is mentoring.
There are not a lot of engagement around the practice
of mentoring.
We have now started to, as a scientific culture if you will,
to acquire the IDP plan.
But we should need to go a little bit further.
I agree with what Bruce is saying
in the context of actually uploading
the IDP plan as part of the progress report at least
per year.
But the actual case of how an IDP plan works
is usually it's updated every three to six months.
So really there should be a twice a year
requirement for mentors and the trainee to be able to say, OK,
this is the progress that we've done
in the mentoring and the career development space.
And then here's the research progress.
And these things would be needed to be evaluated equally
in order for them to acquire the funding for the next year.
Then in the context of mentoring,
there's not enough framework in the context
of the different types of mentoring.
Because I think a lot of times, postdocs
think that their PI can be all of the types of mentors
that they need.
And actually most of the time, we need a myriad of mentors
to be able to accomplish the goals that we need.
And so actually setting guidelines around and making
institutions have mentoring committees for postdocs
would allow for them to be able to have
greater access to other training opportunities.
And so that is part of that whole mentoring piece
that we need to explore more.
And one last thing about mentoring
is that we also need to think about mentoring contracts, as
well as understanding other tools, like acquiring mentoring
tools to accomplish their network on social media
and networking, as well as understanding who they are,
and how that integrates into their science.
The second point that I wanted to raise
is around how we think about funding.
So there's been a lot of great ideas about funding.
But one of the things that I really want to focus on
is that let's say a postdoc has maxed out the five years.
But they need one more year to get
that CNS paper or a top-tier paper in their society.
That means that there needs to be an alternative route,
or there needs to be a change in association with postdoc title.
A lot of the times in academia we're
actually aware of that instructor, or associate,
or staff scientist, technically some of the older generation
calls it like a super or a senior postdoc.
And so even though it's an entry-level junior faculty
position, these things should still
be associated with postdoc, but a degree
beyond where they're the five year training plan
meets for a postdoc.
It's just a different title, so that they
can stay in the system.
So if the NIH actually adjusts what they're calling postdocs,
when you have a difference in first five years,
and then a second phase, and support a specific K
for that phase, so that they can either
transition into a faculty position,
or transition out into another type of job.
And that still would be along with the training plan,
because a lot of these positions that
don't make it to directly the academia, going
to teaching or other impressive roles
within the scientific community.
So those needs could be recorded.
And that also is a trap for a lot of minority candidates,
because at the time of five years,
there's a critical junction that they
may have other responsibilities not only
within their own family structure,
but also the larger scheme of when
they're taking care of parents and other close relatives.
So we have to be accommodating for that as well
as the sliding scale.
A lot of people don't know that the minimum is not
the "maximum" quote-unquote that is set online.
It's really the minimum.
And so that also needs to be clear.
Because this is some of the negotiation that could actually
happen within the mentoring plan that, based upon these things,
your salary could increase.
With that, relocation fees are very important.
There's a lot of minority candidates
and I'm speaking as one that needed relocation costs as well
as a signing bonus, to be able to move and do
the things in that space, because I didn't have time
to work on those personal things.
I was more working on my degree at the time
when I was getting my PhD.
So this is a critical moment that could really
make a difference in how we see postdocs,
and give them the boost that they need to be productive,
excited about the science.
Because the other financial commitment has been taken
care of.
And then the very last thing that I wanted to talk about
is resources in the postdoc.
There should be a set training plan.
So we have phases of NMRA and SIMRA
out there that talk about culturally aware mentorship.
But there's not a package around the professional and career
development skills that are needed for them to transition.
So a lot of times when I'm writing
these particular articles that were mentioned,
they are talking about the skill sets
that postdocs need or graduate students need
to advance to the next stage.
Postdocs are not aware of the negotiation process.
They're not aware of what can be asked and what should be asked.
So a lot of these conversations would only
have to happen with the PI.
So we have to be a aware of those particular conversations
and adjust so that they have the information that they need
to make the most pivotal decision that's going to be
the next stage in their career.
And also training for that position,
as in the context of business.
So I really feel that the NIH should be more required
and this is my last thought because I'm a little over,
that the NIH really needs to think
about in the context of how do they do business management
or laboratory management skills for the postdoc,
so that they're successful at the next training stage.
Because a lot of them will phase out of the stage of helping,
because there's not a requirement
for mentoring committees at the faculty stage.
So that's all I have to say for now.
Thank you.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you so much.
So now, I'm going to open the floor
to your comments and questions, those folks who
are in attendance.
And as noted at the beginning of the meeting,
please share your input using the QA function.
We've already got a number of different comments
and questions coming through.
You may provide your comment directly, or the general topic
of your comment.
Again, we will then ask individual participants
to unmute, and at that time when you're spotlighted,
you will be able to unmute.
Because that function is not currently active
across the board.
But once you are spotlighted, you will have that ability.
And then we will ask you to then share your thoughts out loud,
asking you to limit your time to one or two minutes, just
to allow us, again to hear from as many people
as we can during this hour session.
Again, if you prefer to comment anonymously,
please note that in your comment.
One of the facilitators will read it out
loud without attribution.
So with that, I believe I'm going turn it over to Judith
first to go over the first comment.
JUDITH KIMBLE: OK Well, thanks.
Now it's my turn.
And I'd like to welcome Beth.
I think it's Cimini, who put in a comment
on the value of postdoctoral training to academia.
And I wonder if Beth could unmute, and tell us
about her comment please.
BETH CIMINI: Hi.
Can you hear me?
JUDITH KIMBLE: We can.
BETH CIMINI: So, my comment was related to--
and some of the panelists have already touched on this--
what postdocs will do afterward, and if they
want to stay in academia, the creation of staff scientist
or other sort of specialist roles for them.
One thing I haven't heard much about,
and again, it's not necessarily for the people on this panel,
more for the whole NIH, is about having specific training
programs for scientists specialist roles, things
like bioinformatics, or working in a microscope core
facility, or things like that.
These training programs aren't common, but they do exist.
And in general, they're very difficult to fund.
So is this something that people would
support having RFAs in order to do, essentially?
JUDITH KIMBLE: So Tara, am I supposed to answer that,
or should we just move on?
What's the protocol here?
TARA SCHWETZ: Well, again we're hoping
not to-- we can provide some clarity,
as appropriate for when there are clarifying questions.
But we want to make sure that we're hearing
from as many folks as possible.
So--
JUDITH KIMBLE: So let me just say
Beth I think that's a really great comment,
and it's important.
We think it's definitely within the things
that we're trying to think about.
And we appreciate your comments.
Thank you.
BETH CIMINI: Thank you.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: I guess I will take over now.
We would like to call Pallavi Eswara, if I'm pronouncing it
correctly.
PALLAVI ESWARA: Thank you.
I got the opportunity to be unmuted now.
Yeah, and it's Pallavi.
Thank you.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: OK.
PALLAVI ESWARA: Yes.
So for my short time that I have here,
I wanted to talk about the importance of mentoring
across the board for all postdocs,
for international postdocs, domestic postdocs,
who are not on training grants or any specific fellowship
program.
I see that as a huge lapse which leads to unaccountability.
And we don't know where these postdocs go.
So the other aspect that I wanted to talk about
was around outcomes.
How to track postdoc outcomes, and that it
should be required of all institutions which
are funded by federal grants to be tracking their postdocs.
And also, that postdoc outcomes should become an integral part
of faculty P&T dossier, and should be included
on departmental websites.
It seems like we sometimes skip who
the postdocs in each department are.
It seems like an option.
Some departments do it.
Some don't.
So there is some variability.
But if we can have some kind of requirements for all grants
that fund postdocs, that they should
track their postdoc outcomes, and also
include the names and the outcomes of their postdocs
on their websites.
It would be very helpful.
Thank you.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Thank you.
Judith, I don't know if you want to take over now.
JUDITH KIMBLE: So I think the next person we are going
to call on is Carrie Leonard.
It was comments about the parent postdoc issue.
CARRIE LEONARD: OK.
Can you hear me?
Yes?
OK.
Thank you.
Yes.
My comment was about the parent postdoc issue.
But to echo some of the points that were brought up
by the panelists, I think it really
applies to more groups that are underrepresented.
And I'm not sure if it was said, but also we
want to be thinking about people with disabilities,
and not only for people with these added life burdens,
but also things just happen.
Life happens.
And sometimes things take longer.
And I think with the applications
to the postdoc fellowships, the intention
is good to try and put these limits on.
Because I know that NIH wanted to not have forever postdocs.
But like we said earlier, when you move into this space,
like me, I'm a sixth year postdoc,
it is really just a title change.
There's not much that effectively comes with that.
And now my funding opportunities are limited.
And when you try to have a conversation with program
officers about it, the answer is often understandably
their hands are kind of tied by the policies.
And so I think just accepting as a community
that this transition from postdoc to independence
is not what it used to be.
And while the policies were put in place
to try to drive it back to shorter postdocs,
that's just not reality anymore.
And it's for several reasons, having parents,
having disabilities, illness, having other family
obligations.
And the fact that the policies are not
consistent across institutes doesn't help either,
because you may be used to one Institute's policies.
And then go look elsewhere, and you
find you've missed the mark.
And now someone who was giving NRSAs
up to three or four years, now you
had to apply within the first year.
That's very confusing.
And when you're in this kind of transition
that we're hearing so much about with these longer
postdocs, then the universities when you're
moving to this next stage, they can't commit
to giving you a higher salary.
Because it's going to depend on funding.
And then you get this other pushback
where, well, we can't say we're going to pay you,
because NIH is going to check you.
So there's this back and forth about it's nobody's fault,
and it's somebody else's responsibility.
And I think that clear communication
and clear investment from both the NIH and institutions
is needed about how to support people during this transition.
Yeah.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Thank you.
We're going to also now call on Aaron Reifler.
Sorry for the mispronunciation, Reifler.
If you can unmute and share your comments.
Thank you.
AARON REIFLER: Can you hear me?
OK.
I just wanted to say thank you again to everyone.
I loved hearing from Beth and Pallavi and Carrie as well.
I feel like most of my comments have already
been stated in some ways.
I had a few questions I put up.
But they covered things like the budgets for research grants,
how they do directly impact expectations and outcomes.
And I think that instructions need to be clearer
within those RFAs and when people write their proposals
for how mentoring will happen.
And I think that's already been touched on
from the other comments.
I am wondering about the status within the NIH regarding things
like the proposals that Bruce mentioned,
and others have mentioned, on how
we can alleviate some of the restrictions
on NRSA fellows to allow them to have benefits from their host
institutions.
And then lastly, I share some of the same concerns
that others have raised for folks, especially
those who are interested in staying in academia,
on how they would be able to make transitions
when they have difficulty finding tenure track positions,
essentially.
And as some have mentioned, there
are some universities who have carved out
roles as specialists, or as other research scientist
positions that are not on tenure track,
but exclusively in research.
And I would like NIH to address that stage, or as
a valid career path, and make sure
that there is funding that's not either training
or to fund faculty salary.
I would like there to be more acknowledgment in the research
community and in the funding agencies for those.
What ends up happening as career postdocs, which
I don't want to see happen, because I do
think that there are individuals who
are very happy being in the research
space without being a PI or without being tenure track
faculty.
And that can be very productive.
And I just want to make sure we support those tracks as well.
Thank you.
Thank you for the time.
JUDITH KIMBLE: OK.
So shall I go next?
Yeah.
So I actually am going to do two that can't
come on and talk themselves.
So one is an anonymous.
And I think for anonymous comments,
we're going to read them.
And the other one said that they didn't have a microphone.
So I'm going to read that too.
So I'm going to do two.
And the first one is from an anonymous person who says,
can we stop saying that we are trainees, please?
Have a bit of respect for highly qualified scientists
that achieve the highest academic degree
would be a first.
So that's a comment.
I think it's a great comment.
I sort of feel in my lab, people start as trainees
and then very quickly become--
but they do start out as highly qualified.
You're absolutely right.
And I think that this is an ambiguity
that we need to think about.
The second comment is from Abe [? Cukier ?]
I think is his last name.
I'm not sure.
He says he doesn't have access to a mic.
And his comment is as a PhD student,
I am driven away from a postdoc due to the ambiguity
of the structure or lack thereof.
Although the hard work put in could
be the same in industry versus a postdoc,
in industry from the interviews I
have had so far, it's structurally clear
how the next 5 to 10 years will look like.
And so the uncertainties associated with postdocs
are too big of a burden compared to other opportunities.
I think that's another really important comment.
So thank you for that.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Thank you.
And then I am going to call on Allyn Howlett,
or A-L-L-Y-N Howlett, if you would like to unmute.
ALLYN HOWLETT: I'm unmuted now, I believe.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
Yes.
ALLYN HOWLETT: Addressing some of the earlier comments,
and I made my comment before I saw these.
But most institutions are very hesitant to move postdocs
into a faculty title position, even if it's not a tenure track
faculty.
By putting postdocs in these job titles
that are staff type titles, it really
restricts their ability to continue
to look for jobs elsewhere.
Because it looks as if they are just a senior postdoc, or not
contributing.
But in today's research translational
and clinical environment, we have
lots of opportunities for individuals
to do team research that are not faculty level job titles.
This is not just a problem for the postdocs looking for jobs.
But it's also a program training grant problem.
Because the review committees tend
to think that if the postdoc has not gone on to a tenure track
faculty position that they are not successful in the training
that they received in their postdoc training grants.
JUDITH KIMBLE: So thank you for that comment.
And let's move onto the next one from Susanna Brantley, who's
talking about how a postdoctoral position sets
postdocs back from saving for their future.
Susanna?
Could you unmute yourself, please?
SUSANNA BRANTLEY: Hi.
Yeah, thank you.
So I'm on the postdoc association at Duke University.
And so this comment is personal.
But also is a thing that we've heard
a lot from a bunch of postdocs.
I just wanted to mention that I was speaking for an issue
that I've heard a lot of comments about.
So basically the idea, and it touches
on this idea that postdocs, especially
those on NIH fellowships, are not
considered employees based on ambiguous language
from the NIH.
And so that sets us back from saving
for retirement and other benefits,
for example, paying taxes on health care costs,
and things like that.
So this especially impacts postdocs
whose families are unable to help financially
support major life goals, such as buying a first house,
saving for retirement, all those things.
So it does seem to reinforce sort
of a lack of generational wealth, which
is an underrepresented group in my opinion.
And so this compounds over the low salary that's
been talked about in the long term, especially when peers
that are entering other fields like biotech industry,
they can start saving for their future.
And I think also to touch on this idea
of the anonymous comment that was just read, that what's
the value of a postdoc.
And how much value we bring by having these advanced degrees,
and training, and passion for what we do,
I think it kind of undermines our expertise and value
when we're not employees, and don't get the benefits that
come with being an employee.
And so my solution to this is that the NIH
should change its language to clarify to institutions
that postdocs should be considered employees,
and really encourage institutions or somehow require
them to provide retirement benefits and health benefits,
outside of your funding.
Thanks so much for this forum.
It's great.
JUDITH KIMBLE: Thanks so much for that comment.
Adriana, are you next or my next.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: I'm next.
Can we call on Holly Grith?
Or [? Grithe? ?]
JUDITH KIMBLE: Wright?
Holly Wright.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
Holly Wright.
HOLLY WRIGHT: Oh, OK.
Can you hear me now?
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
HOLLY WRIGHT: Great sorry I--
question or statement is that it actually
follows the previous one very nicely I think.
Tracking the outcomes for NIH funded trainees
is absolutely essential.
And I happen to be in research administration,
where I manage NSRA grants.
And we struggle with collecting that data.
We struggle with reporting it accurately,
because the taxonomy around employment
is inconsistent across institutions.
And NIH instructions regarding the language
that we use to describe our pre-docs and postdocs
and their careers following their training is vague.
As the folks managing and saving that information in order
to report it, so that it can be acted upon by the NIH,
we need clear definitions and common taxonomies
in order to ensure that we have clean and effective
current data, so that we can track
the effect of NIH training programs
as those changes are implemented.
At this point in time, it seems to me
that if the NIH suddenly changed based on what postdocs need
and want in order to be successful and move forward
in academic careers, and the NIH changed things,
we wouldn't be able to clearly explain whether or not
those changes were effective.
Because we just do not have common language around careers.
That's it.
JUDITH KIMBLE: Great.
Thank you so much.
And so I think we'd like to next call on Lisa Privette Vinnedge
if I've said that correctly.
LISA PRIVETTE VINNEDGE: Can you hear me?
All right.
Thank you for the opportunity.
And you got the name pronunciation correct.
So that's awesome.
It doesn't happen often.
So I'm a postdoc office director.
I've been in this role for eight years.
And something that really frustrates me,
because all these ideas are great.
But when I go to the institutional leadership
and the senior faculty that are making the decisions,
nothing happens because there's no incentive, I guess to say.
So I think the NIH needs to lead a culture change, and a change
in perspective that will trickle down to leaders of institutions
through meaningful actions and updated reporting
requirements to the NIH.
So the current leaders perpetuate
the antiquated culture of abuse, unreasonable expectations,
vague outcomes, no tolerance for non-academic careers.
And those leaders are running the institutions
and there's not going to be a support for building
infrastructures that build up post-docs
and help them with their career advancement
without being told by the NIH that they have to,
without some expectation of reporting outcomes,
tracking data, holding them accountable from just
a purely financial perspective.
The institutions will not do it unless the carrot of NIH
funding is something that they're
going to have to earn in order to get.
JUDITH KIMBLE: Thank you.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: We're going
to call next on Riley DeBacker.
RILEY DEBACKER: Thank you.
My comment was centered around the fact returning
to the discussion of salary, as was mentioned earlier.
Salary is a major barrier to postdocs for a lot of people,
myself included, especially like access to resources and support
from family.
And I think the NIH current postdoc
system is rather notable in that there's no adjustment based
on locality, while other federal systems like the VA,
do have those adjustments, and make those more desirable.
When I was looking for a postdoc,
I stopped looking anytime I saw the NSRA
salary, because I knew that wasn't
practical for me and my family.
And so I took a position with the VA,
because I knew it would be adjusted,
and I'd be paid a rate representing
the fact that I have significant advanced training.
And so I wonder, especially since these systems
for locality adjustments already exist in other federal systems,
if NIH is considering implementing those to help
restore some equity to the system.
JUDITH KIMBLE: Well, thank you for that.
And so the next comment will be from Erica--
and this is a challenging one, Gobrogge.
ERICA GOBROGGE: That was exactly right, actually.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I actually wanted to expand on two things that were already
mentioned that I strongly agree with.
Several people have talked about opportunities
for non-faculty researchers, so people who have PhDs,
have done a postdoc, and would like
to stay in the academic system, and specifically we
would love to see an expansion of the R50 mechanism.
We've had some former postdocs who
have gone on to be on R50s, and that's benefited I think
both them and our institutions.
So that would be wonderful if NIH
would consider expanding that.
And then to echo, I think several people's comments
about NRSAs.
We have also really struggled with that.
We have a new T32, and our institution
has really struggled.
We're a small place.
We only have 65 postdocs.
So we can't take many of the options
that other institutions have to put their postdocs on a totally
separate benefit plan.
So I would really love to see clarification that we
can employ those postdocs.
It's harming them right now.
And I would love to see that we can have clear language that we
can employ them.
So thank you for the opportunity to comment.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Thank you.
I'm going to follow up with a reading an anonymous comment.
And it says, I think the academic system is not
feasible.
There's so much stress at every level.
Postdocs are stressed because of uncertain career.
I also see new PIs struggling because they can't get R01.
I wonder if we need a more realistic approach than an IDP
to mentor, so postdocs can find other job opportunities
instead of struggling to get academia job
and then struggling to survive there.
Every year, explore the viability of academic job,
and whether or not it is worth it.
Maybe fewer postdocs and PIs would be better for everyone,
if we can't change the financial situation
and support people we get into academia.
I feel like I was drowning the whole time,
trying to make it to academic position.
I'm settling for a non-academic scientist position for now
to continue enjoying science.
JUDITH KIMBLE: So, I'm going to follow
that one with another anonymous attendee that I'll read.
It says, it appears that the only grant that
can be considered a path to independence
for international postdocs is the K99 grant.
But that comes with a timeline, to apply
within three to four years transition,
and preferably requires a first author paper.
This timeline sounds reasonable.
But in reality, postdocs, especially working
with mouse models, need much longer time to get a paper.
So my point is more number of grants
for both international/everyone, which
will facilitate transition to independent faculty
position, so more K99s.
OK, Adriana?
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
We're going to call now on Tara Fischer.
TARA FISCHER: Hi.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Can you hear me OK?
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
TARA FISCHER: OK.
Yeah, thank you so much for this forum.
And I just I have to say just briefly,
I echo what everybody has said, especially those who
have called for more permanent positions in academic research,
or at least an alternative that people
who want to stay in academia can stay in another position other
than just PI.
So if that can be done, then that would just be excellent.
And I'm happy to hear other people who also think the same.
But I wanted to ask kind of a different question
than what has been discussed so far.
And this was on a point that was made on the expectations
for lengthening time to publish.
And a part of this lengthening time to publish
is the cultural value around CNS papers,
and these glam journals.
And this being considered in their research
evaluations for positions, promotions, and funding.
Now, we posting in these journals
requires enormous amounts of data
that are unreasonable to obtain in the time
limits of a postdoc, and are skewed
towards highly funded labs, and specific institutions,
particularly affecting underrepresented labs
and postdocs.
Will the NIH consider changing research evaluation procedures,
specifically for grants and other things that
are more in line to those expressed by DORA,
being focused on the quality of research,
not the journal in which they are published?
This could really make, I think, really great advances
in changing the culture around glam journals
and the expectations for postdocs to publish
in these particular journals.
JUDITH KIMBLE: OK, excellent.
I think the next one is also an anonymous attendee.
It says, many postdocs except from the awards
granted by NIH grants to PIs.
Many postdocs, except from the awards, are granted by--
I don't know.
These PIs open postdoc positions in their labs,
but each position is filled following diverse recruitment
criteria that depends on the PI, the Department,
and the institution.
This creates a sort of black box where decisions are made with
variable degrees of success that we cannot anticipate.
Could a common application job search hub
be created to unify and democratize
the access to all positions, not only awards?
Maybe this could be achieved by creating
committees similar to review panels for grants.
It's an interesting idea.
OK, the next one, Adriana?
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yep.
We're going to call on Maya, or Maja Bucan.
MAJA BUCAN: Perfect.
Can you hear me now?
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Yes.
MAJA BUCAN: I have a comment regarding the tracking
of postdoc outcome data.
This is in my view very important,
because we were often hear at conferences
that this data do not exist.
And we heard that today from a speaker.
But this is an issue from a speaker
and also from participants, postdocs, and administrators.
I would like to remind many that actually this data exists,
that effort is organized by Coalition for Life Sciences.
And unfortunately, data comes in such a form
that it's very hard to analyze it.
There are actually 50 institutions
that participate in coalition.
So in my view, it will be very important for NIH
working group to somehow facilitate coordination
of the effort to analyze data that we have for these outcomes
where our postdocs are, because there
is tremendous value in doing it not only in aggregate,
what coalition is giving.
But also it's very impressive to look at the data
at the level of different schools
or different departments.
ADRIANA MORALES GOMEZ: Thank you.
JUDITH KIMBLE: OK.
I've been told that we only have five minutes left,
and we're going to have one more comment which
will be an anonymous comment.
And my apologies to those of you who didn't manage to get
called on.
So the comment is, there needs to be a K99 R00 award,
but for a transition from postdoc to staff scientist.
In general, the K award year limits, four to five years,
need to be extended, as these limitations just hurt postdocs
rather than keep institutions and mentors supervising
the postdocs accountable.
While these limits were made with good intentions,
they haven't kept up with the times required for publication,
and have just caused workarounds and loopholes, i.e.
or e.g.
title changes, but nothing else.
And so I think that that's going to be the last one.
And I'll turn it back to Shelley and Tara.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thanks so much Judith.
And thanks to both of you and Adriana
for facilitating that session.
We have had a tremendous number of comments and questions come
through the chat, I think pushing upwards near 150.
Obviously, we didn't have time to get to all of those today.
And so we are collecting them.
And we'll go through them, and make sure
that they are considered and discussed by the working group.
But I just want to thank you all again
for your interest in the topics, and really
grateful for everyone who provided
input and your perspective shared today.
I think this has really provided a lot of confirmation
of some of the things that we were aware of,
or had heard through other mechanisms.
But also provided a lot of really good ideas
and highlighted things that maybe were not
so much at the top of our list, or we were aware of.
I also just want to point out one other thing that we
are recording today's session.
And so this session, as well as accessible materials,
will be posted to the working group website next week.
And also, there are multiple ways
that you can engage with us.
We have a request for information
that is open through April 14, and we
invite you to comment on these issues, and that as well.
Now we have our next listening session this Friday, March 10,
at 1:30 PM Eastern time.
It's going to be focused on international postdoc trainee
concerns.
We also have additional sessions on March 17 and 20
on compensation and benefits which obviously
came up quite a bit today, as well as
job security, satisfaction, and quality of life.
So we look forward to continuing to engage with the community
through these different sessions that we have, and the RFI.
And as help them to inform our development
of the recommendations that the working
group is going to be making.
So with that, Shelly, do you want to have the final word?
SHELLEY BERGER: Yeah.
I just want to thank everyone.
This was great.
It was quite a great attendance.
We had almost 500 people, and lots of great points,
as Tara points out.
And I also want to reiterate what she said.
So this will be posted.
Many people said they wanted to listen to the speakers again.
And so I want to thank the speakers for the great points
they made, and you can listen to them again at your leisure,
and listen to the great points.
So thank you all, everybody.