ASBMB calls for better wages and benefits for postdocs

The society urges the NIH to require institutions to provide basic benefits, training plans and professional development for them
Marissa Locke Rottinghaus
May 2, 2023

The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology sent recommendations to the National Institutes of Health on April 14 to improve working conditions for postdocs.

The society recommended that the NIH:
  • Ensure a livable wage, benefits, etc. for postdocs

  • Require that principle investigators help postdocs craft a training plan

  • Require that principal investigators complete mentor training programs

  • Expand programs to create more academic staff scientist positions

  • Collect data on postdoc career outcomes

“Many of our members who run labs are struggling to recruit and retain qualified postdocs,” Sarina Neote, public affairs director of the ASBMB, said. “We are glad the NIH asked for the community’s input, and we hope it will lead to better treatment of postdocs, who are a critical part of the American scientific enterprise.”

The ASBMB’s statement comes during what some in academia are calling a “postdoc shortage.” A survey by Science magazine found that three-quarters of principal investigators reported challenges recruiting qualified postdoc candidates. Furthermore, a Nature survey revealed that postdocs experience great distress with their workload and workplace culture.

Postdocs are often underpaid, leading them to struggle to meet their basic needs, such as housing and medical expenses. The ASBMB claimed that challenges such as these and lack of health insurance, childcare access and childcare funds, retirement plans and more can make postdocs feel isolated and threaten their quality of life. The society urged NIH to provide more basic benefits as well as resources to support mental health.

“Mitigating a few of these challenges would go a long way in increasing recruitment, retention and quality of life for postdoctoral researchers,” the society wrote.

In addition, becoming an academic principal investigator requires enormous sacrifices such as time away from family and constantly searching for funding, which some postdocs are not willing to bear.

“Graduate students and postdocs observe their advisers and peers struggling and become increasingly unwilling to pay the opportunity cost required to secure faculty positions that are outrageously competitive and have few perks in comparison to the challenges,” the society wrote.

Due to the temporary nature of a postdoc position, postdocs are often overworked in the laboratory without clear goals or time for professional development. “NIH should require postdoctoral training plans that detail anticipated timelines for publications, grant submissions and other milestones, and agreed upon percent effort between professional development, mentored research, and independent research,” the ASBMB wrote

However, this requirement may present a challenge for many principal investigators because they are not formally trained in mentoring. The ASBMB recommended that principal investigators undergo formal mentorship training to be eligible for NIH grants in order to help them develop training plans with their postdocs.

As the number of students earning Ph.D. degrees increases, many postdocs who want to stay in academia fail to find all types of academic positions after completing their training. The ASBMB suggested that NIH expand programs such as the National Cancer Institute’s R50 Research Specialist Award to all institutions in order to provide more academic positions for qualified researchers such as staff scientist jobs.

The society also said that pursuing an academic postdoc often does not lead to increased career trajectory or salary.

“The value of pursuing a postdoc for nonacademic careers is not well quantified.” The society encouraged the NIH to collect and disseminate data on career outcomes, such as salary and position level, of graduate students as well as postdocs to help them make informed career decisions.

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Become a member to receive the print edition monthly and the digital edition weekly.

Learn more
Marissa Locke Rottinghaus

Marissa Locke Rottinghaus is the science and policy communications specialist for the ASBMB.

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.

Latest in Policy

Policy highlights or most popular articles

'I hope that our actions show our members that we are doing our best to support them'

'I hope that our actions show our members that we are doing our best to support them'

June 6, 2023

A Q&A with ASBMB Policy Manager Raechel McKinley on the organization’s national-level advocacy for LGBTQIA+ scientists, trainees and students.

State laws change the landscape for LGBTQIA+ scientists

State laws change the landscape for LGBTQIA+ scientists

May 31, 2023

New legislation in the past 16 months has banned gender affirming care for transgender teens, teaching children about sexual orientation and gender identity, and drag shows.

Meet the 2023 ASBMB Advocacy Training Program delegates

Meet the 2023 ASBMB Advocacy Training Program delegates

May 24, 2023

ASBMB announces a new cohort of 12 ASBMB Advocacy Training Program delegates who will learn about science policy and advocacy through this summer externship

ASBMB members meet with lawmakers on the Hill

ASBMB members meet with lawmakers on the Hill

May 18, 2023

In 48 meetings, scientists advocated for budget increases for NIH, NSF and DOE.

Researchers to advocate for fundamental science on Capitol Hill
News from the Hill

Researchers to advocate for fundamental science on Capitol Hill

May 17, 2023

Sixteen ASBMB researchers from 16 states to meet with U.S. senators and representatives on Capitol Hill to advocate for basic science research funding for NIH, NSF, DOE

Will new FDA rules help dial back expedited drugs?

Will new FDA rules help dial back expedited drugs?

May 6, 2023

Recent reforms could require companies to perform follow-up studies on drugs that received accelerated approval.