TARA SCHWETZ: Good afternoon, everyone,
and thank you for joining us today.
I'm Dr. Tara Schwetz.
I am the acting Principal Deputy Director of the National
Institutes of Health.
And I'm also co-chair of the NIH Advisory Committee
to the Director Working Group on re-envisioning
the NIH supported postdoctoral training.
I'm really pleased to welcome you all today to our listening
session.
Joining me we have Dr. Shelley Berger,
who's a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
And she's also a co-chair of the working group.
We also have two additional members of the working group
here with us who are going to be facilitating the session later
on.
And that's Dr. Donna Ginther, who's
a Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas,
and Dr. Chrystal Starbird, who is an Assistant
Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
And I'd like to just begin by setting the stage for what
brings us all here today, and that's
ensuring the future of US competitiveness and innovation
in biomedical research.
This obviously is of the utmost importance to NIH.
And in order for us to be able to do that,
we must promote the well being and sustainability
of the biomedical workforce.
Now, our working group, our ACD 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 to explore the status of the postdoctoral training system,
to identify and understand critical factors and issues
relating to this perceived decline in the number
of postdoctoral fellows in academia,
and then provide recommendations to try
to address those factors.
And today NIH, we the working group
want to hear from you, the biomedical research community,
about all of these issues.
Your feedback and input are critical to this endeavor.
So first you're going to be hearing from a few invited
speakers today.
And then we're going to open it up
to structured discussion from all
of the attendees for the remainder of the hour
before we close.
Now, we're going to collect input
using the QA function on Zoom, which should be open now.
You'll see it at the bottom of your screen.
Now, in this case QA happens to be a little bit of a misnomer.
Because while we may address some clarifying questions,
we are really trying to promote this as a listening session.
And we aim to listen and hear from all of you,
hear your comments, your input, and importantly, your ideas
and suggestions.
And we ask that you please provide either your comment
or a note on the topic of your comment using the QA function.
Now, you can also opt to have one of our facilitators
read your comment aloud.
And you can also then flag if you want that to be anonymous
or not.
There's an option for that to be read aloud without attribution
in that QA function.
So please go ahead and start submitting your input
into the QA box now.
But first, before we get into that session,
I want to hand it over to Shelley
to help frame out the focus of today's topic.
That's job security, career prospects, and quality of life.
So Shelley, we'll turn it over to you.
SHELLEY BERGER: OK, great.
Hope I'm not muted.
Yeah, great.
So I want to add my welcome to Tara's.
It's really great to have a huge group of people coming on
to these listening sessions over--
this is our fourth one.
We're so excited to have everyone.
And I'd like to set the stage for today's conversation,
and I'll start with a few data points.
So here on slide one, sort of our anecdotal collection
of the many forces that we think are driving,
appear to be driving the decline and the challenges
that are experienced by postdocs.
These include the limited opportunities in academia,
the lengthening time to publish.
New opportunities have been rising
in pharmaceutical industry and biotech,
expanding research expectations, the many ways that we
can extend our research, and difficulties in work life
balance and cost of living.
So last Friday we discussed salary and benefits.
And the key topic for today is very related.
Today we're going to consider job security, career prospects,
and quality of life issues.
All right, so on slide two, let's begin
by looking at some data collected by the National
Science Foundation on graduating PhDs' career plans.
And this is part of the NSF's survey of earned doctorates.
So here you can see in light blue
that an increasing percentage of science and engineering
doctorate recipients with definite post graduate
commitments in the US are committing
to industry or business with a decreasing portion going
into academia shown in dark blue.
So in 2021, only 26% are committed to academia
while more than half chose industry or business.
And this decline you can see is largely over the last decade.
In the next slide, you will see the result of a 2020
global survey of postdocs.
This was conducted by Springer Nature.
And the results here are quite striking.
In the top panel, you can see that more than half
of the postdocs feel negatively about their career prospects
and only about 27% feel positively.
In the bottom panel, you can see that nearly 3/4 of postdocs
feel that their job prospects are
worse than those of previous postdoc generations.
All right, in the next slide then, you
can see that despite these concerns in the top left,
61% of postdocs said they were satisfied
in their current position.
However, in the bottom left, half
said that their level of satisfaction
had worsened in the last year, and only 26%
said it had improved.
So I find it very saddening that in the top right,
more than half of postdocs indicated
that they had considered leaving science because of depression,
anxiety, or similar issues related to their work.
And in the bottom right, only 20%
actually received help while 26% would like to receive help but
had not.
Together these data demonstrate the real and deep problems
faced by young researchers who are
pursuing postdoctoral training.
So then on the last slide, for all of these reasons
it's critical for the working group
to carefully consider the experiences and concerns
of postdocs and the biomedical community broadly.
And we're very pleased to have you
all here to share your input.
We welcome all comments and we hope
that you will offer your ideas and recommendations
to ameliorate these issues.
And with that, I'll hand it to Tara
to introduce our speakers before we then move for your comments
and recommendations.
TARA SCHWETZ: Great.
Thanks, Shelley.
First I want to introduce the initial speaker we have today,
which is Dr. Neal Sweeney.
He is a researcher in developmental neuroscience
and the President of the UAW Local 5810,
the union of about 11,000 postdocs
and academic researchers at the University
of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
He was among the initial group of postdocs
who worked to form the union and has served on the bargaining
team.
Since forming a union, the University
of California postdocs and academic researchers
have won dramatic improvements in pay, benefits, and rights.
So I will turn it over to you, Neal, to provide your comments.
NEAL SWEENEY: Thanks, Tara, and thanks to the committee
for inviting me.
I listened to several of the previous listening sessions,
and it was great to hear all the comments
from the postdoctoral community.
And I think it's clear from those comments
and from the initial slides that presented
that system is in great need of improvement and reform.
Low pay and benefits, lack of basic workplace rights,
and a failure to promote career pathways for early career
researchers really threaten the sustainability
of the research system.
These are not new problems, of course.
They were recognized long before we
began forming our union that you see over 10 years ago.
But through our union, postdocs have
won a number of key improvements,
including an over 50% increase in pay, guaranteed fully paid
parental leave and child care benefits,
comprehensive health benefits at low cost for all postdocs,
including for fellows and their dependents.
And by winning better working conditions,
we have created a better environment
to foster research success.
And I think this is a really important point
that better conditions for researchers
leads to better research.
As today's topic is job security and quality of life,
I'm going to focus on a key issue that deeply affects
postdocs, which is the severe imbalance in power that
leads to frequent abuses in the research workplace.
And I'm going to focus on three key areas that can be improved.
Job security, addressing harassment and bullying,
and ensuring that workers have a free and fair choice
to decide to form a union if they choose to.
Job security.
Study after study has found that postdocs
in more supportive environments such as having
more job security, more structure, better salient
benefits publish significantly more papers,
produce more patents, and win more academic awards.
But the problem is that the vast majority of postdocs
across the country lack basic job security
because they are at will employees,
meaning they could be dismissed at any time without reason.
Making matters worse, postdocs are often
appointed on short and limited contracts.
My union and other postdoc unions across the country
have won strong just cause protections
against unfair termination or layoffs
and also longer appointment links
so that postdocs can plan their life on the order of years
rather than on the order of days and months.
And this is especially important for international scholars,
as their appointments are tied to their employer controlled
visas.
To meaningfully improve the research system,
NIH should put measures in place to improve postdoc job
security.
This will in turn improve research outcomes
and increase retention.
We urge the NIH to require grantees
to have just cause protections in place for postdocs
and to ensure adequate contract lengths.
Another important right that we've won at UC
is enforceable protections against harassment and bullying
through a grievance process that involves third party
arbitration.
That same study that Shelley cited in Nature
found that 65% of postdocs have experienced bullying.
And a recent National Academies report
found academia to be second only to the US military in rates
of sexual harassment.
These issues disproportionately affect
women, trans and nonbinary researchers,
international scholars, and people of color.
Forming a union for us was a key factor
in changing these power dynamics that lead to abuses in power.
Before we had a contract, our employer, the University,
had unilateral control over addressing
harassment and bullying issues.
And the vast majority of cases were not
resolved satisfactorily for postdocs.
With a grievance process where postdocs
have an equal say with the employer,
grievances over harassment and bullying
have led to justice for survivors
in favorable resolutions where postdocs
can work in a safe and supportive environment.
So my second recommendation is therefore
to urge the NIH to require that grantees have a grievance
process with a neutral third party arbitrator
to ensure protections against harassment and bullying
are upheld for everyone.
And finally, as I hope I've made clear throughout my comments,
in my view, the main way to address power imbalance
in research workplaces is by forming
unions in which postdocs themselves have agency
to address these problems.
Unions have the power to collectively bargain
for benefits and working conditions,
to establish industry standards, and enforce contracts
and ensure that the standards that are negotiated
are implemented so that we can create equity at work.
The best way to ensure workers get a free and fair opportunity
to form unions, and my third recommendation for the NIH,
is to require grantees to remain neutral
when workers are deciding to form a union so they
can make their choice free from intimidation or fear.
I really appreciate the opportunity
to discuss these issues.
And I look forward to future conversations
about how workers and federal agencies like NIH
can collaborate on improving working
conditions and the quality of research in the US.
If any postdocs in the session or other researchers
have questions for me about how unions
can improve their research workplace,
you can get in touch with me at president@uaw5810.org.
That's president@uaw5810.org.
Thanks very much.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thanks so much, Neal.
Now we're going to turn over to our next speaker, who
is Stevie Eberle.
They are the executive director of BioSci Careers
at Stanford University where they help trainees
with all aspects of career and professional development.
And they are especially interested in issues of gender
and diversity in the workplace.
They hold an M.Ed in counseling and have 20 plus years
of experience developing curricula
and resources for all biosciences
trainees to explore and define a path toward their own careers
of choice.
With that, I will turn it over to Stevie.
STEVIE EBERLE: Thank you very much.
Neal, I have to agree with you that one of the big issues
is certainly an imbalance of power.
We were asked to answer three questions.
The first was outlining challenges faced by postdocs.
We outlined a lot of those earlier, Shelley.
I would say, number one, it's not necessarily bad
that we're losing postdocs in that we certainly have
more career options available.
There's more self awareness of themselves
and empowerment options now.
That being said, academia is not what it theoretically
was or should be.
We're losing the security of tenure, certainly funding.
I would also add to what Shelley said earlier,
which I think academia in general
is founded on sexism, heterosexism, racism, ableism,
classism, ethnocentrism, and a hierarchical system
where universities receive more money
and notoriety than others.
The postdoc is not what it used to be or should be.
It takes much longer now.
It's less promising.
It's not as worth it.
And it's not just training.
It is a job and should be treated as such.
The one thing where I would say, Neal, I both agree and curious
about is I'm actually very deeply concerned that we
actually have to have unions in order
to find equal pay and equity across the board.
Then finally, I would say there's
a bottleneck of postdocs staying when they don't know what else
to do or can't find anything else, which does take up spots
over time and also adds to the length of time
that a person finds themselves and moves
into where they want to go.
The second question we were to answer
is highlighting points for consideration
for this working group.
I would say I would highlight the concept of accountability
overall, mentoring, and the accountability of PIs.
I would like us to look at the accountability of PIs
in giving and receiving feedback and the professional treatment
of postdocs.
How effective are IDPs now that they've
been in place for a while now?
How effective is the PI as everything plus mentor model
given the intensity of teaching, running a lab,
and writing grants?
Secondly, I would say diversity beyond lip service.
We need to actually look at what is being done in the diversity
space and look at the role of implicit bias
in preventing change.
Third, I'd like to look at the time to degree and time
to completion factors in traditional training models
and what impacts these and maybe set standards for those.
Next I'd like to look at the role of tenure
and academic hierarchy in perpetuating
less than ideal accountability.
I do not oppose removing tenure, because we
do need to protect those teaching CRT,
for example, now more than ever.
But how do we keep this benefit while holding faculty
and administrators accountable?
How does this hierarchy of faculty only deans and PhD
preferred directors center faculty interests
over those of postdocs and students in general?
And the PI role is complex.
So how do we streamline it for better success?
Next we need to look at postdoc benefits suited to the job,
because the postdoc is a job.
And then finally, the role of postdoctoral
training in non-academic careers.
If we're wanting to increase, we need
to acknowledge that this training is valued elsewhere.
In terms of my recommendations, I now
have 1 minute and 42 seconds, we need
to look at new models of academia.
So HR related support.
Most jobs have HR related support
that help in giving and receiving feedback, identifying
and interviewing candidates, setting
expectations, et cetera.
We need to pair academic and non-academic staff and dean
or equivalent roles to center the training
experience, integrating academic advising with career centers
to provide early directed pathways,
and relieve some of these duties from the complex faculty job
and provide an informed, unbiased sounding board
and reviewer of progress.
Revamp tenure to keep protections
of controversial work while at the same time holding faculty
accountable for the treatment and success of their trainees
and students.
Creating clear expectations and standards for time
to completion of postdocs and for proper treatment in labs,
monitoring repeat offenders and holding them accountable.
A way for postdocs to anonymously report concerns
to NIH and it's not just up to faculty to fund postdocs.
Lastly, creating postdoctoral pathways and career clarity,
which looks like separate non-academic options
of postdocs.
So separating postdocs into two different paths.
By allowing that candor that some postdocs may
go into other fields and providing education
and preparation for these fields allows
for completion of strong academic science
but on a short term, well defined basis.
And very early education.
Understanding as early as undergrad
what science is, what the career options are,
how to choose grad school and postdocs, and the implications
of that choice.
Thank you.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you so much, Stevie.
Our final speaker for the day will be Dr. Dawn Bonnell,
who is the Senior Vice Provost for Research at the University
of Pennsylvania.
In this capacity, Dr. Bonnell shapes policy and advances
administrative initiatives for the University's research
enterprise, plays a leadership role
in strategic planning for research,
and administers the development of new research facilities.
So with that, I will turn it over to you, Dawn.
DAWN BONNELL: Great, thanks.
Well, first of all, thank you for the opportunity
to be in this discussion.
This is an important set of issues for us
to be considering.
And there's lots to talk about.
I have three comments, and I think
we'll see that there's overlap on some of these themes, which
isn't really surprising.
So let me start first with my first comment about career
pathways.
As was shown in the chart earlier
on about graduate students, it's also true
and has been referred to that postdocs
take positions in a wide variety of job descriptions
in academics, in national labs, in large corporations,
in government, in business, in startup companies.
There's a wide variation.
And while there are differences in the ratios of these outcomes
between disciplines and between institutions,
let's say, the majority of them do not
end up being faculty members, do not
end up in academic roles across the country.
And yet many are trained within universities.
So our universities across the country
have understood the need for professional development.
And I think it's fair to say that most universities have
suites of programs that employ--
suites of programs for professional development,
employ individual development plans
and so forth, and try to have frameworks
around effective professional development for postdocs.
But I think there is an opportunity now
to consider how to provide a more balanced approach
to professional development more aligned
with the portfolio of jobs that they end up
taking with much more aggressive exposure
to skill sets that match those opportunities.
I was thinking that perhaps those of us in STEM fields
might take a lesson from law or business
who provide postdocs some experience tailored
to specific job goals, for example.
I could envision numbers of ways to do this.
For internships and startups to think about research
translation, data analytics way beyond their research
that could propel them into different directions.
So there are a lot of ways to think about how
we might be able to do that.
If we're doing that, are we doing that well enough
and should be expand it?
And at this time, this moment right now
with the multiple large scale national programs
directed at practical workforce development for the next four
or five years, this might be a good opportunity for us
to partner with some of those programs
and enhance the way that we're developing the skill
sets for our postdocs for the jobs that they actually have.
The second comment that I have, and again, this was mentioned,
is the long timelines for academic positions.
We should work to have most postdocs
ready for their next stage even if it's
an academic stage in five years or less.
I mean, it just shouldn't take longer than
that if we're doing our job.
To get this to happen, part of this
would require evolving a culture of escalating expectations
for academic positions.
Which just it leads to the circle of longer and longer
time to reach that point where people think that they're
prepared then to go in.
There are things we can think about.
We could explore new pathways to academic positions.
Perhaps, for example, a track for junior
postdocs to have pre-faculty positions with a path
to tenure.
It's possible to think about doing some of these things.
And even though it would require a culture change,
if the community sees value in that, we could get it done.
I think as an example, the K grants
aim to do this in some frame.
But actually, they don't end up having the mentorship
of a department chair and the department
that's interested in them being successful in that role.
So I know that there are discussions
of these sorts going on, and I hope
that those will expand and ultimately provide
some paths that lead to success in that area and also
some strategies that allow us to get people there
in fewer years of time.
And the third and last comment I want to make
is a more sort of higher level strategy issue
about the future of the workforce.
The very important issue of compensation
was addressed in one of the earlier sessions that you had.
And it's all great to see changes being made,
and it's clear that we have to be supporting postdocs
appropriately.
I mean, that's just what we need to be doing.
There is, however, and it was kind of
hinted at, a concern about some unintended consequences.
Unless we think about how the federal agency support
the postdocs in four to five years,
the size of the postdoc workforce
could substantially decline if we
don't understand that support.
The modular grant for several agencies
hasn't changed in decades.
And many of the postdocs are supported on those grants.
Now, obviously NIH and the other agencies
have a large portfolio of programs and lots
of ways to be able to think about this.
But I think it's a good time for us
to assess how those mechanisms are working
and determine whether there are different support
mechanisms or additional support mechanisms that
would be warranted.
And it could be internally at NIH
they have been doing those studies.
I haven't seen the outcomes of them.
But this is just not the time that we
want to have this highly technical, relevant,
and extremely valuable workforce decline over the next five
or six years.
So thank you for the opportunity to speak,
and I really look forward to hearing
what the discussion contains.
TARA SCHWETZ: Thank you so much, Dawn, and again,
to all of our speakers for sharing
your insightful comments and perspectives.
And really appreciate the suggestions that you offered.
We now want to open the floor to all of your comments.
We have 400 or so people online and really want
to hear from you.
And as noted at the beginning of the meeting,
and as I see many of you are already doing,
we encourage you to share your input using the QA function.
You may provide your comment directly or the general topic
of your comment.
The facilitators will then invite specific participants
by name to share their thoughts.
And once you're invited, the host
will enable that person to unmute and then share
their comment out loud.
And we fully anticipate that we're
going to have more comments than we can address today.
So apologies in advance for that.
And we ask that each participant limit their comments
to about one to two minutes so that we can hear from as many
of you as possible.
If you wish for the facilitators to read your comment out
loud, please note that in the QA function
and they'll be pleased to do so.
Alternatively, if you prefer to comment anonymously,
please use the anonymous option that's in the QA function
and one of the facilitators will read it out
loud without attribution.
All right.
With that, I will now turn it over to Chrystal
to walk through the first comment.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Hello, everybody.
I am glad to be here today.
Before I read the first comment, which is anonymous,
so I'm going to read this one, I just two quick notes.
We will do our absolute best to pronounce your names correctly.
If we don't, I apologize.
Please feel free to correct us, but I
promise we'll do our best.
And then the other thing is this is a listening session.
So we'll try to comment afterwards less and try
to really give an opportunity to listen to all of you.
But I promise, as Tara has said, that the committee
will be aware of and receive all the comments
and have them as discussion points.
All right.
So the first comment is anonymous.
So this comment is about alternative sources
for funding.
And it says if postdoctoral researchers
play a vital role in scientific research in the US,
create a permanent workforce of academic researchers
at this level.
The problem, of course, is money.
Where will this money come from?
The obvious answer is to look at the institutions themselves.
In the last 25 years, R1 universities
have seen administration grow at vastly disproportionate rates
to the number of full time faculty.
The NIH should work with other government funding agencies
to unilaterally require institutions
provide at least 50% to 75% of base salary for full time
academic researchers and treat them
as employees with benefits.
Or alternatively, to hire tenure track faculty at a rate
commensurate with the relative growth in administration
in these institutions.
Funding mandates regulating the number
of graduate students versus permanent academic researchers
also need to be part of the equation.
R1 universities enormously benefit
from the labor of postdoctoral researchers
and they need to contribute their fair share.
Thank you for that comment, which I think
is an important one.
DONNA GINTHER: Thank you, Chrystal.
I'm going to read another anonymous comment.
I'm wondering how frequently T32s twos are initially
proposed to fund postdocs.
In my experience, the postdoc support from T32s
is often used to help PhD students transition
from their defense to their next step while being still employed
at the same institution.
Has there been any suggestion to re-envision a T32 type funding
mechanism specifically for postdocs
that can focus on department wide recruitment
of a cohort of postdocs?
Hiring postdocs as a cohort could be really valuable.
As a postdoc, I started around the same time
as three other brand new postdocs in my department.
That has helped me have a support
system of peers in all aspects of my early career.
I envision these postdoc T32s could also
include funding for professional development
aside from just visiting conferences.
Perhaps something like an organized program
for preparing for the job market with a mentoring committee
funds, to send postdocs to give seminars
at hiring institutions, and grant writing workshops,
for example.
We really appreciate this comment
and we'll take it back to the working group.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Absolutely.
The next comment is on alternative careers
and comes from Rachel Presskreicher.
Rachel, would you be willing to unmute and share your thoughts?
AUDIENCE: Yes, can you hear me?
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes.
AUDIENCE: So I am a health policy trained PhD,
and I feel like a lot of the alternative career
options and information are so targeted
to biomedical sciences, pharmaceutical, basic science,
trained researchers, and [INAUDIBLE]
they're as a second afterthought.
Like oh, if you're a social scientist,
here's some options for you.
And in the policy world, it's easy to look at government
or think tanks.
But I think there's a lot of other peers
I've had who feel like there's not a place for them
and they don't want to be in biotech or pharma.
They want to be in services research,
but they're not sure what that looks like outside of academia.
And my only other quick thought was about the K mechanisms
where it feels like--
I've been on T32, so this may be different
because I've been a, quote, "trainee."
But it feels constantly the idea is, well, you
must need more training and more training and more training.
And it's hard, because there's this idea that
to get an academic position, you need a K to bring money
in certain fields.
K99/R00.
But I don't know that I feel like I
need a ton more training because I've had so much training.
And so there's this kind of argument like,
I don't need all these mentors and training opportunities
for learning.
I need it for how do I become a faculty member?
And that's not really what is set up
and it feels like departments really
rely on you to bring money in order to justify hiring you.
But that's also not really allowed for things.
You can't apply for a K01 until you're a faculty member.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you for sharing that comment.
DONNA GINTHER: OK.
We have another comment on where additional money might
come from from Chris Smith.
AUDIENCE: So, yeah, I manage an office of postdoc affairs.
So I'm not a faculty or a postdoc,
even though I used to be a postdoc.
And I think Dr. Bonnell mentioned this point,
but the fact that the NIH modular budget hasn't increased
in 20 plus years and faculty are being sort of pushed
by their institutions to increase salary and benefits
for their postdocs without sort of other sources of funds.
And so they're trying to make their NIH grants
stretch further with less and less buying power,
essentially, as inflation has eroded their budgets.
And I think what's happening in the UC system is great.
But from what I've read in the news,
there is no central source of funds to cover those increases.
So they're essentially telling faculty
you need to find the funds.
And so it kind of comes back to a lot of pressure
on faculty, who I don't think are really the enemy here.
The system needs to better provide
resources to help them pay their postdocs living wages
and support their benefits.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you for that comment.
The next comment is on mentoring.
This comes from Sarah Kathleen.
So the comment was, is there a way
to implement an evaluation system for mentors of postdocs?
A huge reason I am no longer planning
on becoming an independent investigator
is lack of support from my mentor.
He has a number of R01s and is well funded,
but there is no oversight on his actual mentoring activities.
Thank you for sharing that comments, Sarah.
DONNA GINTHER: Yes, thank you.
This next comment is on postdoc associations and offices.
Nicole Maphis, would you please unmute?
AUDIENCE: Yes, hi, can you hear me?
DONNA GINTHER: Yes, thank you.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
So at my academic institution, there
has never been a postdoctoral association or a postdoc office
to aid postdocs with a variety of issues,
including problems with mentors and getting
the necessary professional development that we so
crave in our training.
We are currently forming a postdoc association,
but we've run into a number of troubles,
including finding financial support
to host events that could support
professional development and provide networking and job
opportunities as well as additional mentorship
opportunities and mentoring opportunities.
And what we're wondering is if is
some of this change can happen at the national level
or within that modular NIH budget, which hasn't changed in
forever, in order to provide these academic institutions
with finances to support this, to support funding and creating
postdoc offices and allowing us to do this work so we
can actually get training.
I'm fortunate in that I am [INAUDIBLE] fellow,
so I am receiving a lot of mentorship training.
I'm taking a lot of classes that are being funded and supported
by.
But unfortunately, a lot of my colleagues who are postdocs
here don't receive the same treatment.
And it happens broadly, I feel, in biomedical sciences
we're very supported.
I have a great mentor.
I have a great mentorship team.
But our postdocs on main campus in a variety of other fields
do not get the same sort of mentorship or training
that we do.
And so broadly, we've been trying to figure out
a way to navigate this.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Sounds like a challenge, Nicole.
Thank you for your comment.
We'll take it to the working group.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Thank you.
And I think this is something [INAUDIBLE]..
The next comment is from Alex Gener.
And this comment is on the terminology
that we use to refer to postdocs, the harassment
and work environment, and funding.
Alex, would you be able to unmute?
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
Can you guys hear me?
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes.
AUDIENCE: Great.
Thank you.
And thanks for the opportunity.
So a little bit of background.
So I finished my postdoc at Baylor College of Medicine
and then I worked with the CDC during the COVID response
as a bioinformatics fellow.
And then because the job market's a hot mess right now
and a lot of gears are moving, I decided
to kind of try to apply to postdoc to not give up
on academia, so to speak.
But then also I'm also starting a couple of different companies
just to try to see if we can kind of get that
off the ground.
So I'm half in academia and then half
ditching and running away and trying
to help people along the way, understanding
that most of the people that I'd be working with
are coming from academia.
So I think the first thing is just
understanding that there's this inbred concept that we have
to keep learning about stuff.
And sometimes those opportunities
rely on sucking up to mentors and putting ourselves
into these permanently vulnerable positions.
So the second we realize that postdocs are not trainees,
we're early stage scientists, I think
that will give us room to step away from that paradigm
and to actually fairly ask for resources.
The next comment kind of responding to abuse.
I've definitely seen institutions
with a lot of smart people that they pay game the system
and have boxes to check, for example, if something
bad happens.
We had an investigation, let's say, and then
nothing actually substantive comes
from that or separate investigations
are handled separately and then you don't necessarily
see the body count behind different PIs'
inappropriate behavior or different administrators'
inappropriate behavior.
I think if we looked at and were able to compare
all of the institution's grievance processes,
we would more easily be able to advocate
for less shady practices.
And that should be done before any type of recruitment.
Because once you're at an institution,
you're kind of locked in and the situation
is worse for international postdocs.
If we funded individual postdocs,
then we wouldn't have to necessarily stand
any of the abuse and we could potentially
leave to better institutions and shadier institutions
would have more pressure to improve their environments.
And then the last little bit has to do a little bit
with financial stability but then also kind
applies to all trainees or workforce members
where the NIH has a loan repayment program,
but you have to apply for it.
I think it only happens maybe once or twice a year.
And so realistically, you're in a financially tough situation
until that kicks in, and it's not necessarily guaranteed
to renew.
We can get rid of all of that red tape
if we're saying that we want to support our workforce members.
And I understand that might be expensive, but you know what?
We're smart people and we can advocate for ourselves.
And we're doing that now.
So thank you again.
DONNA GINTHER: Well, thank you, Alex.
I'm going to read a comment on mentoring
from an anonymous attendee.
One thing I've heard echoed many times over these sessions
is that a postdoc is no longer what it used to be
or what it was intended to be.
Many PIs looking to hire postdocs
are searching for highly skilled scientists
to hit the ground running rather than trainees
who want a mentored expansion of skills and hands on teaching
of the postdoc can suffer as a result.
In larger labs, postdocs may only interact with PIs
at large lab meetings or over Slack, which is not ideal.
Of course, there are PIs and institutions
that continue to help postdoc develop professionally,
but I have encountered late stage postdocs who
still have no clarity on tenure or academic structure
because no one has taken the time to teach them.
Postdocs who have limited understanding
of grant writing, grant mechanisms, and grant review
processes, again, because no one has explained.
Ideally, NIH could help provide some
of these professional developments
such as how to develop a budget for grants,
negotiating startup, chalk talks, et cetera.
Thank you for this comment.
We'll take it back to the working group.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Absolutely.
Thank you.
The next comment is on diversity in hiring
and comes from Debora Kamin Mukaz.
Debora, would you be able t?
Unmute.
AUDIENCE: Yes.
Can you hear me?
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: I can.
AUDIENCE: Yes.
So thank you so much.
I'm Debora Kamin Mukaz and I'm a postdoc
at the University of Vermont.
So we've been hearing about quality of life
and also job prospects for postdocs.
But I'm speaking for postdocs of color, especially
Black postdocs.
So we often hear that issues with diversity
are related to implicit bias.
But I think the bigger problem here is
that we need structural change.
We need structural change at the institutional level,
but we also need structural change at the NIH.
Because we do see that there are disparities
when it comes to funding for Black people
and Black postdocs.
So at the NIH level, something has
to be done in order for Black postdocs
to have similar levels of funding
compared to other postdocs in the United States.
And when it comes to the other side of structural changes also
looking at retaining Black scientists,
so what usually happens is that we
want to recruit Black scientists,
but we also have to retain them.
And we cannot retain them by just having these conversations
around implicit bias.
We have to have rules.
Institutions have to implement rules, policies,
and they have to take into account
the very particular experiences of Black scientists.
So that was my comment.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yeah.
Thank you for that comment.
This is on important points.
These are the things that we will definitely bring back
to the working group.
DONNA GINTHER: Yes, thank you.
And now we have a comment on publishing from James Gould.
James, can you unmute?
AUDIENCE: Hi, thank you.
Can you hear me?
DONNA GINTHER: Yes.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
This is Jim Gould from Harvard Medical School.
I was just commenting on the importance of, correct or not,
the importance of publications in postdoc career advancement
and faculty career advancement, especially in academia.
I think we're ignoring a key factor in training and well
being by not including publishers and journals
in this discussion, because they influence just
about every element of postdoc training,
current in postdoc training, graduate training,
as well as a transition into faculty and even into industry.
So I think we're just ignoring publications and publishers
and journals.
There is a lot going on that needs to go into that.
Postdoc tenure time, stress, misrepresentation of data,
pressure to publish in higher end journals
or not allowed to publish at all.
So I think we need to include that in our discussions.
Thanks.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Thank you for that comment.
We're not really supposed to comment too much,
but I will say we are definitely including people
from publications and journals in our working group
discussions.
Absolutely.
And will continue to do so.
So our next comment is from an anonymous attendee.
So I'll read this one.
This is about postdocs replying to Rs.
It says I think it could be useful to encourage
universities to allow postdocs to apply for R grants.
In quotes, some universities do not
allow postdocs to be PI on Rs outside the R03.
The K99 is a time limited in highly competitive grant,
but encouraging universities to allow postdocs
to apply for other mechanisms could increase success and aid
job searches.
So that's the comment.
Thank you very much for that.
DONNA GINTHER: Yes.
And now there's a comment on funding trajectory outside
of academia from Beth Cimini.
Beth, could you unmute, please?
AUDIENCE: Yes, hi.
I just wanted to say I agree with one of the earlier
panelists that it's not a problem if postdocs
don't want to stay in academia at the end of their postdoc.
But if we do want to create roles for them
to stay in academia, the obvious place to do that
is in terms of staff scientist or tech specialist roles.
But those roles are extremely difficult to fund
from the point of view of grants with modular budgets so small
and with no specialized opportunities for those.
So if we want to think about where people who are currently
postdocs can go, that seems like a major problem that
also needs to be addressed.
DONNA GINTHER: Thank you for that comment.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes, thank you.
The next comment is an anonymous comment on unfair termination
without protection.
So I'll read this one as well.
I am a postdoc at Mount Sinai and one of the major concerns
postdocs here have is that we don't
have protections against termination without cause.
Unfair terminations are especially
disruptive for international postdocs
who need to leave the country within 30 days.
We recently formed a postdoc union
to fight for better job security, which
will lead to better science.
Thank you so much for sharing that comment,
and we'll be sure to bring that up with the working group.
DONNA GINTHER: Yes, thank you.
And the next comment is about perceptions of the funding
portfolio and the connections to the DEIA efforts
from Catharine Krebs.
Catharine, would you please unmute?
AUDIENCE: Hello.
My name is Catharine Krebs with the Physicians Committee
For Responsible Medicine.
The next generation of scientists
needs to be supported and equipped
with the most ethical and effective experimental tools
and know how to tackle our most pressing health challenges
and to be competitive in biomedical research.
The NIH research portfolio overwhelmingly
favors biological mechanistic investigations
which aim to translate to pharmaceutical interventions.
This under prioritizes and defunds research
and interventions, targeting social and structural
determinants of health, thus failing to adequately support
researchers interested in addressing
health disparities who, for example, are
more likely to be Black.
Participation from researchers and research subjects
from underrepresented and socially disadvantaged groups
in NIH funded science is crucial,
but it requires a shift in strategies and funds.
Moreover, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility
efforts will continually fall short
without a significant change in scientific culture.
The Unite initiative, for example, is a promising start.
But ending structural racism is a long road ahead,
and there's a really important opportunity here when
addressing the postdoc issue.
And I also want to echo the comment
that Neal Sweeney made about the importance of forming
labor unions.
And I strongly support his recommendation
that the NIH require grantees to remain neutral when
workers are forming unions.
I think this could go a really long way
in supporting postdocs and graduate students when
forming labor unions.
Thank you.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes, thank you
so much for that comment or those comments, really,
on really important and critical topics.
The next comment is an idea on a two tier postdoc.
And this is also an anonymous comment.
So I will read it.
It says, I would like to see the implementation
of different phases within the postdoc experience.
Postdocs could start as "trainees," in quotes,
and have this period last only for a one to two year period.
Postdocs are highly skilled, so being
considered a trainee doesn't make
much sense after this period.
Being mentored is not the same as being trained.
After one to two years, they could then
choose between a variety of tracks.
Industry track, young investigator track, et cetera.
With clear definitions and guidelines.
So PIs won't push back on time being used
for internships, et cetera.
Universities would need guidance for how to implement training
for non-academic jobs.
Thank you for that.
I think that's a really exciting idea
and we'll be sure to share that with the working group.
DONNA GINTHER: And here's a follow up
comment on the pre-faculty position idea.
This person says, I strongly disagree
with the pre-faculty position idea.
That is why postdoc positions were created
and we see the results.
Adding more in between steps wastes people's lives.
These are 30 to 35 plus year old people
already in very vulnerable and unstable positions.
Adding one more of that will only make it worse.
And I agree that postdocs are not trainees.
First what are we trained for for seven plus years?
Even PhDs do not take you that long.
Calling postdocs trainees is abuse.
Thank you for that comment, and we'll take it
back to the working group.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes, thank you.
Our next comment is on funding issues
within the modular budget.
This comment comes from Lisa Privette Vinnedge.
Lisa, would you be able to unmute?
AUDIENCE: Can you hear me.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes.
AUDIENCE: Well, I've had a couple of comments.
This was on the modular budget, correct?
Yeah.
So there's been a few mentionings
of concerns about modular budgets
and their inadequacy and their inadequate buying power.
And I just wanted to add that as a faculty member,
the modular budget is now so bad that our leadership is telling
us do not even request the modular budget, because it
won't be enough to cover the needed salaries
and supplies to actually do the work you're proposing.
So I don't know if the NIH realizes that.
But I'd be curious to see if there's a declining
request in the modular budget at the same time
that you're seeing staffing issues.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yeah.
Thank you for pointing out that important comment.
DONNA GINTHER: Yes, thank you.
Here is an anonymous comment on the oversight of mentoring.
In academia, faculty are the gatekeepers to opportunity,
T32 support, and who the department will support
for a K, speaking opportunities, and professional development.
There needs to be a mechanism in place to monitor and evaluate
bias in the oversight of government funded opportunities
by faculty and the institution.
This oversight needs to be supported and transparent.
Thank you for this comment.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes.
And the next comment is also anonymous.
This comment is on mentors slash PIs and the management training
they receive or don't receive.
So I'll read this comment.
A major deficit in the academic model
is that faculty are acting as managers without ever receiving
meaningful management training.
My spouse is in business and the standards for managers
are so much higher I'm assuming in that field.
Thank you for that comment.
DONNA GINTHER: Thank you.
And we'll go to Lisa Privette Vinnedge again.
Please unmute, Lisa.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
I'm back.
So in addition to a faculty member,
I'm a director of our postdoc office.
And speaking about the financial hardships,
there's been a lot of discussion on the rising
cost of undergraduate tuition and just tuition in general
and loan forgiveness at the national level.
But I could see an opportunity with the NIH existing loan
repayment program.
So a lot of those opportunities for the LRP
are limited to clinicians or certain fields of research that
exclude a huge portion of the biomedical research
basic science workforce.
And so I think broadening that existing program would
be a really enticing way to encourage graduate students
to enter postdocs if there was a chance
that their undergraduate loans could
be repaid partially or in full.
And that would relieve a lot of their stress
as well, their financial stress, and free up their salaries
for things that would help them in their life a little bit
more.
DONNA GINTHER: Thank you, Lisa, for that idea.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: Yes, thank you.
The next comment is anonymous and it's about transparency
for institutions.
The comment reads NIH funded institutes
must reveal all of their institutional policies
so workforce members have informed consent
into which kinds of environments they may be stepping
into before recruitment.
Yes, establish a paradigm, then publicly
score universities to very clearly show how close they
are to NIH expectations.
At our institution, and I'm a postdoc office administrator,
this would greatly help our office
to make changes and justify budget allocations.
Thank you for that comment.
DONNA GINTHER: OK, we have another anonymous comment
on mentor evaluations as a component of RPPR progress
reports.
The NIH has the potential to be a driver of change.
It should require that any funds used
to cover postdoc trainees as reported on the progress
reports include a standardized evaluation by the trainee done
via portal administered by the NIH
to avoid the risk of bias coercion
to describe their mentoring experience.
And also the NIH should do a follow
up one or two years later.
Future use of research funds by the PI
to support postdoc trainees would then
be based on how their past postdocs rated
the PI's mentorship support.
This could be a powerful driver of cultural change.
And I'll continue with this.
PIs who can't effectively mentor can
continue doing research and getting research funds
but of course should not be allowed near postdocs
unless they have done some type of remediation training.
Another option is that prior to allowing the use of research
grant funds for postdocs, the PI is required
to do mentorship training and be approved
by the academic university as being adequately skilled.
Thank you for these ideas.
CHRYSTAL STARBIRD: And then the next comment,
I think perhaps the last comment, is an anonymous one.
It's a resource share.
Due to lack of mentorship on obtaining faculty positions,
we provide our postdocs the HHMI resource
Making The Right Moves.
And so there's a website associated with this
that you can find online, but it's
HHMI Making The Right Moves.
DONNA GINTHER: OK.
And here's one more anonymous comment.
It would be useful to my work as a postdoc office administrator
if I could see more national data on IDP effectiveness.
I've seen more than a few PIs refuse to take the IDP
process seriously.
And an IDP is Individual Development Plan.
TARA SCHWETZ: With that, I know that we are approaching time
here.
But I want to just take a moment before we drop off,
before everyone starts to leave, that I
want to just thank you all again for your interest
in these topics.
And we've had four different sessions, as we've said,
all with 400 plus attendees.
Lots of really great speakers who
have provided their input and ideas and suggestions.
And of course, we always appreciate the members
of the working group who have offered their time
to help not just facilitate the discussion here today, but also
on the working group itself.
Again, we, as we would have anticipated,
unfortunately didn't have time to get
to all of the about 100 or so questions and comments
that came through.
As mentioned previously, we are collecting
all of the input that has been submitted
and will share it with the working
group for consideration.
I also just want to point out that a recording of today's
listening session and accessible materials along with materials
from all of the sessions are going
to be posted to the working group website next week.
And I guess the first two sessions are actually
already available.
So I encourage you all to take a look at the website.
This is our fourth and final listening session.
It is not the last time that you can engage with us.
You can also do so through the open request for information.
That is still out and will close on April 14.
So please, we invite you to comment on these issues
there as well.
And I believe the link to the RFI
and the website should be in the chat.
I see them now.
We really look forward, though, to continue
to engage with all of you with the community
as we develop these recommendations
and as we continue to gather feedback
and have robust discussions and move forward
with the development of recommendations.
So with that, maybe I'll turn it to Shelley
for some final words.
SHELLEY BERGER: Yeah, I just want
to add my thanks to everyone.
I know many of you I see your names over and over,
so there are many people who've been very interested coming
back for all of these sessions.
We really deeply appreciate your input
and ideas, recommendations.
There have been some really interesting things that we
haven't yet thought of yet.
So we're collecting all of those and we're going to evaluate.
So thanks to the speakers today.
Great talks.
So we really appreciate that.
And to the working group members who facilitated.
Thanks to everyone.
Have a nice day.