Differing Opinions within the System

Although it appears that there is no strong opposition to the underfunding of the NIH, there is opposition within the scientific establishment to changing the system such that it can be more equitable for future scientists. Graduate students and post doctoral fellows largely comprise the laboratory workforce. They work 80-100 hours a week, usually receive minimal benefits and are paid around $40,000 a year. Elizabeth Johnson, a former president of the Postdoc Association at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, remarked that,”Postdocs are an invisible workforce for a university” (Dance 26). Johnson refers to the fact that postdocs are used as “slave” labor, carrying out the bulk of experiments and acquiring data for their supervisor. We no longer seem to understand what the definition of a postdoc is. In 2007, the NPA (National Postdoctoral Association), NSF and NIH came to the consensus that, “…a postdoc is a doctorate holder in a temporary research job, receiving mentoring and training needed for the next career stage” (Dance 27). According to this definition, postdocs are scientists who have a graduate degree and are receiving the training necessary to eventually hold a full time, permanent job. A postdoc in the 1980’s might have fit this standard, but today’s postdocs are in a different situation.

A typical post-doc in the sciences should not take more than two years, however, “With these positions stretching four years or much longer, some enthusiastic young scientists molder in a kind of postdoctoral purgatory, hoping for a career that seems further away with each passing experiment” (Dance 26). As this statement from an HHMI Bulletin says, it is becoming increasingly difficult for postdocs to make the transition into a permanent position. The obstructions that postdocs face can partly be attributed to their PI’s (principal investigators) or advisors. The HHMI Bulletin discusses this issue, saying that, “Some advisors don’t take their role as mentors seriously, treating their trainees as cheap hands in the lab” (Dance 28). As I said earlier, postdocs are often used as slave labor. They are a cheap and efficient way to get research done. An HHMI investigator, Thomas Cech, points out, “Some fraction of postdocs do not get much career advice…they’re mostly being employed for the purpose of doing a certain set of experiments” (Dance 28). Cech realizes that meaningful mentoring does not exist in some labs, which is very unfortunate because postdocs need to acquire certain skills that will enable them to run their own lab. Postdocs are an integral part of the research community, so if we want to ensure that they continue their work, changes have to be made.

Based on the data I’ve presented, it seems obvious and logical that postdoctoral training programs should be reformed. There is resistance, mostly from investigators. PI’s are generally older and set in their ways. They like having lots of postdocs and graduate students working for them. The more bodies running assays, centrifuging, sterilizing equipment, preparing reagents and ordering materials, the better. The main functions that PI’s carry out are writing grants and publishing papers. Working postdocs to death is an inexpensive way of compiling the data for grants and papers. PI’s would rather not have their postdocs obtain permanent positions, because that would result in less experiments being done. Also, some PI’s have this mentality that because they had to work so hard to acquire their full time position, all students/fellows under them should have to go through the same thing. This short-sightedness and stubbornness needs to be stopped. PI’s need to realize that letting their postdocs go is not going to make their labs fail. A change in postdoctoral training will benefit everyone in scientific research. Allowing postdocs to successfully transition into a permanent position in a decent amount of time will free up spaces in labs that future postdocs and graduate students can take. Once a postdoc become an investigator, then they will be able to start contributing to the scientific community, and ultimately the world. 

With regards to the NIH, freeing up money from training graduate students and postdocs is a good idea. Allocating these funds to young scientists who are struggling to get their first grants would be more beneficial. The NIH has to work with the little money that they have; spending less on postdocs and graduate students and more on up and coming researchers will help them to fulfill their mission of improving health in our Nation.

Word Count: 735

Works Cited:

Dance, Amber. "The Best of Times and the Worst of Times." HHMI Bulletin (2011): 26-29. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/postdoc_life.pdf>.