Best Places to Work in Academia, 2007

Image Courtesy of Andre Az

For the first time since 2004, peer relations were ranked more important than tenure. Find out what your peers are saying about this year's best places.
By Edyta Zielinska

Charles Wood has jumped around quite a bit in his scientific career. Starting as a research scientist at Abbott Laboratories, Wood soon decided he preferred academic research. He spent several years at two universities, but neither were quite the fit Wood was looking for. Then, he ended up at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, one of the biggest movers on this year's Best Places to Work in Academia survey, in which our readers boosted it from 28th place last year to eighth place in this year's results. Wood says that the University of Nebraska is "definitely, without reservations," the best place he's worked.

Why Nebraska? For Wood, it's a great place to work because of the people he works with. He hasn't encountered the "big egos and prima donnas, and people who do the same work, but don't talk to each other," that he's encountered at other institutions. Wood's sentiment echoes that of our readers, who ranked peer relationships as the most important factor in a great work place, beating tenure for the first time since 2004.

This year, Massachusetts General Hospital took the top spot. The institution's employees gave Mass General, with a federal budget for life science research of $327.2 million, the highest marks for factors such as job satisfaction, peers, management and policies, as well as infrastructure and environment, and research resources. Nebraska wasn't the only big mover: Purdue University climbed from 25th place to fourth place this year (see sidebar Purdue pushes forward).

Our US readers ranked research resources the third most important factor in a workplace. Here, too, Nebraska gave Wood the resources to build his program beyond the confines of one building. His virology center, started in 2000, has grown by four faculty members, and he's currently recruiting three more. By next March, Wood plans to move into a brand-new facility dedicated to 12 research programs in virology and two other fields. With the support of the university, Wood was able to set up a research program in Zambia, where a team of 20 of his students study the transmission of HIV subgroup C. "You wouldn't imagine that you could run a big AIDS research program [in Nebraska], but we do."

Like Wood, this year's survey respondents yearn for collegiality and an atmosphere in which they are challenged and supported by their peers. They want personal security in terms of pay, benefits, and a fair tenure-review process. Researchers today increasingly value institutions that can provide funding and infrastructure that will let them continue their research when federal income stalls.

The top three places to work in academia this year are represented by three types of institutions: Massachusetts General Hospital (medical), the National Cancer Institute at Frederick, Md. (governmental), and Clemson University (academic). While most of our respondents this year come from university and college settings, other types of institutions rank highly. Many scientists say that their foray outside of the university setting has been the best choice they could have made.

Andrea Cooper has experienced the advantages and disadvantages of each type of institution firsthand. She initially worked at a government lab, spent several years at Colorado State University, and then in 2002 joined fifth-ranking Trudeau Institute, a nonprofit based in Saranac Lake, NY. Classroom teaching was never Cooper's forte, and she found that the administrative duties of the university were a distraction from her research. At Trudeau, where she studies the immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, "I can spend 95% of my time doing research," says Cooper.

When Mary Carrington moved from a university to become a principal investigator in human genetics at the National Cancer Institute at Frederick, her publication record skyrocketed. At a government-run laboratory, "I'm not busy writing RO1 grants all the time," she says. In the years she spent getting started as an independent researcher at 12th-ranking Duke, she published an average of five papers a year. Now, at NCI-Frederick, that number has jumped to approximately 14.

Paul Muchowski, a professor of biochemistry, says he was very happy at his university in Seattle, but he couldn't refuse the offer from the J. David Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which ranked seventh in this year's US survey. Here, the overall caliber of research is greater, Muchowski says. "There's a lot of deadwood at universities," says Cooper. With the institute's endowment, facilities, and resources, "my research has gone at a pace that is five times faster," says Muchowski.

Another advantage of medical centers and research hospitals, like this year's top-ranking Mass General, is the ability to streamline the bench-to-bedside process, something nonprofit institutes and universities often struggle to achieve. Michael Dyer thought of himself as a straight basic researcher working on retinoblastoma, with no interest in translational medicine. But when he came to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, this year's sixth-ranking US institution, Dyer was "inspired" to work with practicing doctors to bring his successful research projects to patients. At St. Jude, "You see patients, you see families; you're reminded on a daily basis [of why you're working there]."

International researchers are not unique to US laboratories. Many countries around the world boast of a highly diverse pool of researchers. In the United States, 31% of respondents said they were born outside the country. That number is higher in the United Kingdom, where 46% of respondents are international, and in Canada (with 55% international scientists), perhaps due to more stringent visa requirements in the United States.¹

This year, for the first time since the survey's inception in 1993, Belgium was ranked the best country in which to do research. The country rebounded following a downward trend (from fourth to sixth place) from 2004 to 2006. India, a relative newcomer in the category of best country to work, beat research heavyweights such as the United Kingdom and Sweden for the second year in a row. Read more about Brazil and Mexico, two new countries on The Scientist's list of best countries to work in First-Timers, and learn about the highest ranking US and international institutions in Best countries for Academic Research .

In the end, there is no "best" institution for everyone; naturally, that distinction always comes down to personal preference and prerogative. While Cooper dabbled in three types of institutions, she says each one worked well for her life at the time. The National Institutes of Health was perfect for her as a "youngster from London," making connections with world-renowned scientists and working seemingly 24 hours a day. Starting as a postdoc at Colorado State University, she moved up the ranks to finish an associate professorship. The Trudeau Institute, located on the banks of Saranac Lake in upstate New York, is the ideal; now that she has started her own family, she won't spend hours traveling from home to work to daycare. "I'm looking out the window onto a beautiful lake, and I can go down to the beach and have a swim right now."

The Scientist posted a Web-based questionnaire and invited readers of The Scientist and registrants on The Scientist web site who identified themselves as tenured or tenure-track life scientists working in academia or other non-commercial research organizations to respond. We received 2,072 usable responses. We asked respondents to assess their working conditions and environments by indicating their level of agreement with 39 criteria in 8 different areas. They also indicated which factors were important to them. We ranked 83 institutions - 65 from the US and 18 from the rest of the world.

To calculate an institution's overall ranking, we first weighted each factor based on the average importance score. Because several factors that ranked as important in the United States are valued less elsewhere and vice versa, we used different factor weightings to rank US and non-US institutions. The overall rankings are based on the average score per institution from all respondents on all factors weighted according to their regional importance. Detailed information on the survey methodology is available here. Our sample of scientists was self-selected, and we have made no attempt to standardize the results or to conduct detailed statistical analysis.

Survey development and analysis were carried out by AMG Science Publishing (www.amgpublishing.com)