A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come since the 2000 COSEPUP Report? Kevin Finneran Director...

A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come since the 2000 COSEPUP Report?

Kevin Finneran

DirectorCommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

Editor-in-ChiefIssues in Science and Technology

Responsible Staff OfficerCommittee to Review the State of the Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers

16-18 March 2012

A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come since the 2000 COSEPUP Report?

1. A brief history of the National Academies

2. The study process

3. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers

4. The State of the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers Revisited

5. Committee Members

6. How you can contribute

7. Committee Staff

A brief history of the National Academies

Kevin to add

The study process

1. Defining the study

2. Committee selection and approval

3. Committee meetings, information gathering, deliberations, and drafting the report

4. Report Review and Dissemination

Stage 1 Stage 2Stage 3

Stage 4

Defining the study

The study process

• National Academies staff work with sponsors to determine the specific set of questions to be addressed by the study in a formal "statement of task," as well as the duration and cost of the study

• The statement of task, work plan, and budget must be approved by the Executive Committee of the National Research Council Governing Board.

Stage 1

National Research Council (NRC) Governing Board reviews and approves the statement of task, work plan, and budget

January 2011

Committee selection and approval

The study process

Careful steps are taken to convene committees that meet the following criteria:

•Have an appropriate range of expertise for the task

•Reflect a balance of perspectives

•Are free from conflicts of interest

•Other considerations

A provisional committee is approved by the NRC Chair, posted for public comment on the Current Projects System (CPS), screened for conflicts of interest, and then formally approved.

Stage 2

September 2011

Committee meetings, information gathering, deliberations, and drafting the report

The study process

Study committees typically gather information through:

•Meetings that are open to the public and that are announced in advance through the National Academies web site

•Information submitted by outside parties

•Reviews of the scientific literature

•Investigations of the committee members and staff

Stage 3

All information gathered by the committee is publicly available. Deliberations and drafts of findings and recommendations are confidential. This information is summarized and posted on CPS.

October 2011

Report Review and Dissemination

The study process

Stage 4

Committees must respond to, but not agree with, reviewer comments that are monitored by independent report reviewers. A report must pass review before being released to the sponsors and to the public.

All National Academies reports undergo a rigorous, independent external review by anonymous experts. Report review ensures that:

•Reports address their approved study charge and do not exceed them

•Findings are supported by scientific evidence and arguments presented

•Exposition and organization are effective

•Reports are impartial and objective

December 2012?

Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers

Principles

1. The postdoctoral experience is first and foremost a period of apprenticeship for the purpose of gaining scientific, technical, and other professional skills that advance the professional career.

2. Postdocs should receive appropriate recognition (including lead author credit) and compensation (including health insurance and other fringe benefits) for the contribution they make to the research enterprise.

3. To ensure that postdoctoral appointments are beneficial to all concerned, all parties to the appointments—the postdoc, the postdoc adviser, the host institution, and funding organizations—should have a clear and mutually-agreed-upon understanding with regard to the nature and purpose of the appointment.


Action Points

Advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies should:

1. Award institutional recognition, status, and compensation commensurate with the postdocs' contributions to the research enterprise.

2. Develop distinct policies and standards for postdocs, modeled on those available for graduate students and faculty.

3. Develop mechanisms for frequent and regular communication between postdocs and their advisers, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies.


Action Points


4. Monitor and provide formal evaluations (at least annually) of the performance of postdocs.

5. Ensure that all postdocs have access to health insurance, regardless of funding source, and to institutional services.

6. Set limits for total time as a postdoc (of approximately five years, summing time at all institutions), with clearly described exceptions as appropriate.

7. Invite the participation of postdocs when creating standards, definitions, and conditions for appointments.


Action Points


8. Provide substantive career guidance to improve postdoc's ability to prepare for regular employment.

9. Improve the quality of data, both for postdoctoral working conditions and for the population of postdocs in relation to employment prospects in research.

10. Take steps to improve the transition of postdocs to regular career positions.


Action Points

What is missing? What issues were not addressed in this report?

• Limits to the postdoctoral population

• Establishment of formal benchmarks for postdoctoral salaries

• Permission for postdoctoral scholars to obtain their own grant funding during the postdoctoral term

• Recognition of the unique needs of foreign national and minority communities


Recommendations for Postdoctoral Scholars

1. Postdocs should take responsibility for deciding whether to seek a postdoctoral position and to define their objectives in doing so.

2. Postdocs should contribute their best efforts to the program in which they work, and consider themselves full members of that program as long as their appointment lasts.

3. Postdocs share with their advisers the responsibility for frequent communication in the interests of common understanding, productive research, and effective mentoring.

4. Postdocs bear the primary responsibility for the success of their experience, with the support of their advisers and institutions.


Recommendations for Principal Investigators

1. The advisers of postdocs have the responsibility to provide a postdoctoral experience that is fundamentally educational in nature

2. Advisers should outline, in writing, the initial expectations about the performance of the postdoc

3. The adviser should provide mentoring as needed

4. Advisers should discuss goals with the postdoc at the outset so the expectations of both parties are clearly delineated, and provide written evaluations of a postdoc's progress at least once a year

5. Advisers and departments should provide career counseling and job placement assistance.

6. Advisers and departments should consider whether postdocs may benefit from additional mentoring by several members of an institution.


Recommendations for Institutions

1. Take a census of their postdoctoral population

2. Classify all postdocs in a distinctive and appropriate category that embraces their unique institutional position

3. Institutions should establish explicit policies regarding the appointment, training, compensation, benefits, evaluation, and career guidance of postdoctoral scholars

4. Institutions should establish a minimum salary/stipend level for all postdocs



5. Institutions should adopt guidelines for the duration of postdoctoral terms

6. There should be a general progression, as a postdoctoral term lengthens, toward more senior status

7. Institutions should periodically review the balance of interests among postdocs, advisers, departments, and the institution

8. Institutions should not encourage unlimited growth in the postdoctoral (or graduate student) population in the face of limited employment opportunities



9. Institutions should maintain a postdoctoral office or officer

10. Institutions should encourage each of their divisions and programs to examine their roles in the education and training of postdocs and in maintaining high standards of mentoring

11. Institutions should require evidence that funding for a postdoc is available before PIs are allowed to hire postdocs on research grants.

12. The institution should receive and keep on file a letter of appointment or contract signed by the postdoc, adviser, and institutional representative.



13. The institution should ensure that postdocs have guidance in career planning

14. Institutions should ask advisers to prepare a written evaluation of their postdocs' progress/performance at least once a year

15. The special needs of foreign nationals should be addressed

16. Each institution should encourage and financially support a postdoctoral association that serves the social, informational, and logistical needs of postdocs and provides a mechanism for them to communicate with institutional leaders.


Recommendations for Funders

1. Define the postdoctoral experience

2. Establish terms and conditions for funded postdocs that include appropriate stipends or salaries, medical benefits, travel funding, leave policies, performance reviews, career planning, skill enhancement, and tracking

3. Private funding organizations, such as foundations, should play a larger role in encouraging best practices and setting appropriate stipend levels

4. Non-governmental organizations and foreign governments should assume their own responsibilities for postdocs

5. Funding organizations should require that those seeking to support postdocs under training or research grants demonstrate their qualifications for this responsibility

6. Establish career-transition grants for senior postdoctoral fellows


Recommendations for NIH

1. Establish a central office for all postdocs

2. Establish a stipend or salary scale for all postdocs

3. Define the postdoctoral experience (as above)

4. Host annual meetings with the postdoctoral community

5. Allow institutions and PIs the ability to combine the funding from the traineeship program and from NIH research grants so the PI may increase the stipend for postdocs without requiring an increase in the number of hours a postdoc must work


Recommendations for NSF

1. Establish a central office for all postdocs (as for NIH)

2. Establish a stipend or salary scale for all postdocs (as for NIH)

3. Define the postdoctoral experience (as for NIH)

4. Host annual meetings with the postdoctoral community (as for NIH)

5. Establish a mechanism for the regular collection of data on the postdoctoral community, as happens for graduate students


Recommendations for Disciplinary Societies

1. Play a larger role in promoting the professional careers of postdocs

2. Support job searches by postdocs

3. Develop norms regarding the postdoctoral experience in their field that could be adopted by advisers and institutions in their field

4. Collect and analyze data and provide the best available information about career planning and employment prospects

5. Organize programs or workshops to advance professional skills

The State of the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers Revisited

1. General characteristics: How many postdoctoral fellows are there in the U.S.? Where are they working, in what fields, and for how many years?

2. Current conditions: Are expectations of principal investigators made clear? Do postdocs receive adequate professional status and privileges as well as salary and benefits? Are the rules clear about credit they receive for their discoveries, and are they receiving adequate career guidance and development?

3. Institutional provisions: Do postdocs serve as investigators on grants? Are questions of intellectual property identified and provided for? At universities, is teaching required; if not, is it encouraged or discouraged?

4. Career paths: Where do postdocs come from? What do we know and what can we learn about what postdocs do after they complete their programs? How well are the postdoc programs matched with the career opportunities that are open to them?

5. Recent trends and changes: Have previous recommendations been implemented and to what effect? Are there other developments in the research enterprise that have had a significant effect on postdocs?

6. Participation in the research enterprise: Are postdocs being invited to review journal articles and write grant proposals, either formally by journals and agencies or informally by PIs, and is this experience useful? What are the impressions of postdocs about peer review today? Are postdocs being used effectively in research? Are postdocs acquiring the skills they need to become productive independent researchers in the future?

Committee MembersGREGORY PETSKO Gyula and Katica Tauber ProfessorDepartment of Biochemistry and ChemistryBrandeis University

NANCY SCHWARTZAssociate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs The University of Chicago

SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINSDirector of Postdoctoral AffairsUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

PAULA STEPHANProfessor of EconomicsGeorgia State University

H. RUSSELL BERNARDProfessor EmeritusDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of Florida

LORRAINE TRACEYDirector of Biological Research and DevelopmentNanodetection Technology

NAPOLEONE FERRARAGenentech FellowGenentech, Inc.

MICHAEL TURNERRauner Distinguished Service Professor and DirectorKavli Institute for Cosmological PhysicsThe University of Chicago

CAROL GREIDER Daniel Nathans Professor and DirectorDepartment of Molecular Biology and GeneticsJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine

ALLISON WOODALLManaging CounselLabor, Employment and Benefits GroupUniversity of California System

JAMES PLUMMERFrederick Emmons Terman DeanSchool of EngineeringStanford University

JOAN WOODARDRetired Executive Vice President and Deputy DirectorSandia National Laboratories

ALBERT REECEVice President for Medical AffairsBowers Distinguished Professor and DeanUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine

GREGORY PETSKOGyula and Katica Tauber ProfessorDepartment of Biochemistry and ChemistryBrandeis University




CAROL GREIDERDaniel Nathans Professor and DirectorDepartment of Molecular Biology and GeneticsJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine



Committee Members

GREGORY PETSKO Gyula and Katica Tauber ProfessorDepartment of Biochemistry and ChemistryBrandeis University





CAROL GREIDER Daniel Nathans Professor and DirectorDepartment of Molecular Biology and GeneticsJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine



Committee Members


SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINSDirector of Postdoctoral AffairsUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


LORRAINE TRACEYDirector of Biological Research and DevelopmentNanodetection Technology

ALLISON WOODALLManaging CounselLabor, Employment and Benefits GroupUniversity of California System

Committee Members

Committee Members

GREGORY PETSKO Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor

Department of Biochemistry and ChemistryBrandeis University


SIBBY ANDERSON-THOMPKINSDirector of Postdoctoral Affairs

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill JAMES PLUMMERFrederick Emmons Terman DeanSchool of EngineeringStanford University

NANCY SCHWARTZAssociate Dean for Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs

The University of Chicago


LORRAINE TRACEYDirector of Biological Research and Development

Nanodetection Technology ALLISON WOODALLManaging CounselLabor, Employment and Benefits GroupUniversity of California System

In attendance at the 2012 NPA annual meeting:

possibly in attendance at the 2012 NPA annual meeting

How you can contribute

• What are the challenges facing international postdoctoral researchers?• Earned a graduate degree outside the United States• Funded from outside the United States• Visa issues

• What new job categories exist? It is possible that postdoc problems

are migrating to these new positions, or they could be a more secure and better paid alternative?

• What are the characteristics of postdoctoral fellows, and how does this differ from other positions?

• What is the current state of the postdoctoral experience with regards to postdoctoral salaries, benefits, working conditions, institutional provisions and policies, and postdoctoral career paths?

• What is a postdoc? How does it differ by discipline? Do different disciplines face different challenges?

• What new developments have taken place in the postdoctoral experience?

• What career paths exist for postdocs? What is your career path? • What else don’t we know?

How you can contribute

Two questions:

1. If we were able to start over and build the research enterprise from scratch, what would we do differently?

2. We invite you to suggest one recommendation that the committee should make in its final report. What would you recommend to improve the postdoctoral experience?

Committee Staff

KEVIN FINNERANStudy Director

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public PolicyPolicy and Global AffairsThe National Academies

GURU MADHAVANProgram Officer

Board on Population Health and Public Health PracticeInstitute of Medicine

The National Academies

DAVID PROCTORResearch Associate

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public PolicyPolicy and Global AffairsThe National Academies

[email protected]

Committee to Review the State of the Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers

mailto:[email protected]

A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come since the 2000 COSEPUP Report? Kevin Finneran Director...

Documents

Transcript of A Decade Later: How Far Have We Come since the 2000 COSEPUP Report? Kevin Finneran Director...