Jobs

Are postdocs still invisible?

Michael Schaller Gary McDowell
By Michael Schaller and Gary McDowell
November 01, 2016

In 1969, the National Research Council published a report entitled “The Invisible University.” It was referring to the status of postdoctoral researchers, or “postdocs,” as a rarely appreciated part of academe despite being essential to producing the future leaders of the research enterprise. This status prevented equitable compensation and opportunities for career development. Postdoctoral fellows had no voice to express their needs. While progress has been made and some institutions have developed exemplary postdoctoral training experiences, this type of training is not universal, and one factor contributing to the disparity of postdoc experiences is the diverse titles used to classify postdocs.

We already have too many names for “postdoc” to count. Even though the postdoctoral position is a crucial step on the academic career path and research productivity is highly dependent on their experience, postdoctoral researchers have been slotted into various designations across departments and institutions in a piecemeal and unregulated fashion. Their positions often depend on the hiring departments, international tax codes and grant requirements.

Academe is unable to count them (most often, individual institutions cannot even give an accurate figure for their own postdoctoral researcher population). Consequently, an unknown fraction of postdoctoral researchers are missing institutional training opportunities designed to enhance career development beyond the laboratory, such as grant writing, mentoring and leadership. This invisibility also means that the range of postdoctoral benefits and salaries is vast, and individuals remain in postdoctoral positions for unknown periods of time. It is not unheard of for postdoctoral researchers to be on salaries of around $25,000 after more than a decade of experience. These incidents illustrate the difficulty in tracking the career development of postdoctoral researchers. We do not know who they are, how long they hold postdoctoral positions or where they go afterward. This means that a group recognized federally as both trainees and employees and mostly federally funded is largely an unknown entity both in demographics and training. This is a very real barrier to efforts to establish how postdoctoral researchers are contributing to the society that invests in them beyond research output. It is also a hurdle to creating a diverse and highly trained professoriate.

We are proposing a reform of postdoctoral categorization. Institutions should collect all postdoctoral hires into one grouping labeled “postdoc” that can then be broken down into as many subtitles as the institution wishes. For example, an institution may choose three titles: “postdoctoral employee,” “postdoctoral fellow” and “postdoctoral fellow paid direct.” All three titles would be allotted the same career-development opportunities and would participate in the same postdoctoral benefits program. The first classification, “postdoctoral employee,” would be paid from a grant. “Postdoctoral fellow” would refer to those paid by the institutional allowance attached to a fellowship. “Postdoctoral fellow paid direct” would mean those paid with funds made available for benefits paid directly to the postdoc. In collaboration with institutions and human resources groups, we are preparing a detailed plan to provide guidance for implementation, comparing best practices and common challenges to establish the plan.

This proposed change comes at an important time, given the new regulations regarding salary exemptions for overtime pay through the Fair Labor Standards Act. Institutions will need to track postdoctoral trainees to demonstrate compliance with these and other federal regulations. What we propose will lessen the administrative and, potentially, legal burden for institutions in addition to providing equitable training opportunities and aiding in the analysis of this critical population in academe.

Michael Schaller
Michael Schaller

Gary McDowell
Gary McDowell

Gary McDowell is the executive director of the nonprofit organization Future of Research and a resident at Manylabs.

Join the ASBMB Today mailing list

Sign up to get updates on articles, interviews and events.

Latest in Policy

Policy highlights or most popular articles

The ASBMB urges passage of FY20 omnibus with investments in science
Blotter

The ASBMB urges passage of FY20 omnibus with investments in science

December 16, 2019

The ASBMB responds to a two-part omnibus spending package that would fund the government for fiscal year 2020.

Support for women in BMB
Society News

Support for women in BMB

September 01, 2019

The society’s newest committee gathers a group of “mighty women” to promote policies of gender equity and recognize individuals who are committed to advancing the careers of women in biochemistry and molecular biology.

Your voice does matter
News from the Hill

Your voice does matter

August 01, 2019

Even in these deeply partisan times, grassroots advocacy is effective. As a subject matter expert, you can educate your legislator about the value of science.

Creative thinking necessary to change culture
Blotter

Creative thinking necessary
to change culture

June 21, 2019

Challenging the NIH to think creatively about tackling sexual harassment.

Advocating for more than money
News from the Hill

Advocating for more than money

June 01, 2019

Advocacy is about more than money. Even bills that don’t become law help identify which members of Congress support the scientific enterprise.

Biochem, with a side of advocacy
Student Chapters

Biochem, with a side of advocacy

June 01, 2019

As founder of the ASBMB Student Chapter at the College of New Jersey, Kelly McAleer turns her longstanding passion for science and science advocacy into action.