The Postdoctoral Experience: An Associate Dean's Perspective

Illustration: Anthony Canamuccio It was once said to me, "A faculty member is only as good as his or her best postdoc." Postdoctoral researchers conduct much of the nation's research; they contribute enormously to the success of the research enterprise; they perform crucial experiments for tenure-track faculty in academic settings; and the success of these faculty often depends on the performance of their postdocs. Despite their importance, postdocs are often a forgotten community with real concerns about stipend levels, benefits, length of appointment, exploitation, quality of training and mentorship, social isolation, and employment prospects. These significant issues affect a growing postdoc population, which is approaching 35,000 individuals nationwide. Although completion of a postdoctoral training experience is the terminal scientific credential required to obtain most permanent positions in academia or industry, there is no systematic standard for such training. The recent Association of American Universities (AAU) report on postdoctoral education (Notebook, The Scientist, 12[13]:31, June 22, 1998) suggested that postdoctoral training currently resembles where Ph.D. training was almost 100 years ago when no standards existed for the Ph.D. degree. Clearly, this area of higher education needs to be addressed. At several universities, postdocs have organized their own associations to advocate change. The University of Pennsylvania has taken a different approach. Recognizing that these issues exist, the university adopted its own "Policy for Postdoctoral Fellows in the Physical, Biological and Health Sciences and in Engineering," which established standards for appointments, stipends, and benefits. It also spelled out the obligations of the postdoc and his/her faculty mentor. Realizing that the School of Medicine has approximately 70 percent of the University's postdocs, the Office of Postdoctoral Programs (OPP) was established within the school, and I am its first director. OPP currently serves 650 postdocs and their faculty mentors. Our mission is clear. We wish to improve recruitment, training, and placement of our postdocs and establish the premier postdoctoral training experience in the country. The AAU found that there was no universally accepted definition for a postdoc. This has led to the use of multiple job titles and difficulty generating accurate national data on postdocs. Postdocs are individuals who have recently completed a terminal degree--MD, Ph.D., or equivalent--and have chosen to extend their research training. This continued training period is, by definition, temporary. The postdoc title is only applicable for new graduates who are using the position to advance their careers. Penn's postdoctoral policy states that no one can be a postdoc at Penn for more than five years. This policy is enforced to ensure that a postdoc is not exploited, and that a postdoc is appointed to either the academic support staff or is encouraged to find a position here within that five-year time frame. The average age of the postdoc has increased; at Penn it is currently 34.5 years. As the postdoc population ages, postdocs confront economic and familial pressures at ages when their colleagues are normally in full-time employment and enjoying the associated salary and benefits. There is a danger in making a comparison with full-time employees, however. If postdocs succeed, the "scientific world is their oyster," and they have upward mobility to the highest echelons of the profession. If postdocs feel they are performing at a technician level and are not receiving the additional training they need to become a successful scientist, then the training is suspect, not the presence or absence of full employee benefits. It is critical to clearly differentiate the postdoc's extended research training from the role of full-time technical employees. This could be achieved by instituting highly visible advanced training guidelines. In this manner, we will be able to establish the most effective culture for postdoctoral appointees and the appropriate levels for stipends and benefits. Our university-wide postdoctoral policy states that all postdocs should receive, at the minimum, the National Institutes of Health-recommended stipend based on years of experience; an entry-level postdoc must receive at least $21,000 annually. NIH should be strongly encouraged to increase these stipend levels across the board and in an equitable manner. Our policy also states that each individual should receive health insurance and that this should not be deducted from his or her stipend. We have a new-child health leave policy that entitles all postdocs to take up to six weeks paid leave for the birth of a new child. However, our current university-wide policy for postdocs does not address many significant human resource and academic issues. Postdoctoral grievance procedures, guidelines on vacation and sick leave, a publication policy, and guidelines to deal with probationary issues have yet to be addressed. The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine is one of the top-ranked research institutions based on the research dollars and postdoctoral training grants it generates from NIH. To recruit high-quality postdocs to our program, we have established "Postdoc Postings at PENNMED" as part of our Web site (www.med.upenn.edu/postdoc). OPP also has established a standardized appointment procedure for all postdocs. The initial appointment letter states the stipend level, gives health insurance information, and the source and duration of funding. Candidates are given a copy of the university-wide policy on postdocs and are reminded to read the section outlining their obligations. All postdocs are asked to sign a participation agreement concerning patent policy and ownership of intellectual property. This important contractual language helps to prevent any misunderstandings and protects both the postdoc and faculty mentor. In order to develop a stronger sense of community among postdocs, we have begun several additional recruitment and appointment initiatives. A comprehensive orientation package including information on housing, taxes, visas, and safety is now given to newly appointed postdocs. We also run orientation sessions for new postdocs, including presentations from OPP, Environmental Health, International Programs, and Public Safety, and we host a reception. Postdocs also register with OPP, and their registration information populates our postdoctoral database. This database allows us to create a postdoctoral directory and E-mail distribution lists, and it gives us accurate demographic information on our postdocs. Other options exist to reduce the sense of isolation that postdocs feel. For example, we organize monthly postdoc roundtables where relevant topics are raised, such as academic vs. industry careers, isolation, and the mentor-postdoc relationship. In the future, symposia will be organized. Participation in these types of activities, in addition to a formalized program structure, would greatly improve the opportunities for postdocs to collaborate professionally and interact socially. The traditional model of postdoctoral training is that postdocs choose their mentors, based on the mentors' standings in given scientific fields, with the expectation that they themselves will become experts. When this model works, the postdocs can be in an enviable position. They do not have the worries of a graduate student (i.e., prelim exams and completion of a dissertation), and they do not have the worries of a faculty member (i.e., grant funding and tenure decisions); instead they can focus on doing their best science and building a competitive curriculum vitae. In fact, it can be the best of times. Unfortunately, due to concerns about their future careers, not all postdocs have this perspective. One of the primary goals of OPP is to ensure that we provide postdocs with the professional survival skills they need to be successful at the next stage of their careers. We have to take a broader view of training than we have traditionally held. We feel that our training obligation extends to ensuring that our postdocs know how to write papers and grants, handle peer-review effectively, present their data well, formulate and manage laboratory budgets, and manage and train laboratory personnel. Also, we are in the process of mandating bioethics training for all postdocs and are planning training sessions that will include lectures and workshops on professional behavior, data management and record keeping, authorship and publication, ownership of intellectual property and research materials, and human and animal studies. OPP is concerned that postdocs need exposure to continuing education. Individuals who have obtained their Ph.D. degrees may decide to change fields so that they can broaden their skill sets. Allowing postdocs to take additional appropriate course work will only make them superior scientists. An additional concern for postdocs is the lack of feedback on their individual scientific progress. In our roundtable discussions, we found that postdocs desire some form of evaluation. This suggests that we may have to "train the mentor." Often, faculty mentors train based on their own postdoc experience, and it is hard to change behavior patterns. Certainly, the need for feedback might be met by a complete postdoctoral training experience with certain programmatic requirements. These could include completion of bioethics training, a professional skills course, continuing education course work, attendance at seminar series, presentation of work at a national meeting, and a publication record. However, completion of such a program does not replace the need for individualized training at the bench. Many postdocs have expressed concern about life after the postdoc. OPP believes we have an obligation to help postdocs in their career planning and help place them in the career of their choice. This year we are planning career workshops for postdocs that will include sessions on academic careers, industrial careers, changing careers, and alternate careers (e.g., scientific writing and editing, patent and copyright law, grant administration, scientific careers in government [EPA and FDA], and science teaching). We recognize that we are preparing individuals for a broad spectrum of career choices. Individuals who initially choose to pursue either faculty positions at academic institutions or research careers in industry, may decide that they no longer wish to do bench science. We have to be prepared to assist these individuals in identifying and obtaining the training they need for alternate career choices. If an individual wants to teach science in high school, he/she should be channeled into M.Ed. programs; similarly, if he/she wants to teach at an undergraduate college, we should identify ways in which to provide adequate teaching experience. Similarly, individuals who want to follow careers in regulatory affairs or science management should be channeled into MBA programs. In our model, individuals should not be paying tuition to attain these terminal qualifications. We would prefer that sponsors of postdoctoral training realize that although some postdocs will choose alternate careers, they are still scientific professionals building on the training they have received. We would urge NIH and private foundations to consider investing in transitory advanced postdoctoral training programs that would provide funds for masters-level training for these alternate but essential careers. For those postdocs who wish to compete successfully for faculty positions, we need to help them obtain that first grant. NIH has phased out the FIRST award, and first-time applicants will have their proposals reviewed in the regular RO1 pool. Although NIH maintains reviewers will be more lenient on these proposals, only time will tell. What makes a successful grant application is the strength of the preliminary data. In my view, a new award is required for the senior postdoc. This could be a mentored transition award with the specific purpose of generating preliminary data for an RO1. Many of these views and opinions may appear radical, but if we enhance the quality of the postdoctoral training experience and begin to treat postdocs as professional colleagues, science will be the ultimate winner. Trevor Penning, Ph.D., is associate dean for postdoctoral research training, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and a professor of pharmacology, biochemistry & biophysics, and obstetrics & gynecology. E-mail: postdoc@mail.med.upenn.edu. Web site: www.med.upenn.edu/postdoc.

The Postdoctoral Experience: An Associate Dean's Perspective

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of