Looking (Without Much Success) for New Ways to Help Postdocs

By ANA MARIE COX

Leaders of research organizations and grant-making organizations met with representatives of postdoctoral fellows here this month to devise ways to improve the way postdocs are treated. And while all participants agreed on the need for change, they couldn't agree on concrete steps to take.

The meeting continued a discussion of the postdoctoral experience that was sparked last year by a report detailing many of the problems faced by postdocs (The Chronicle, September 22). The report, "Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers," was published and the meeting sponsored by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, a joint organization of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The report cited obstacles like inattentive supervisors, lack of recognition, and grant amounts that do not adequately reward postdocs for the work they contribute to research projects. Speakers at the conference reinforced those findings and applauded the guidelines recommended in the report: limiting fellowships to five years, raising salaries, and strengthening the use of mentors.

Most speakers agreed that the next goal was to put the ideas into action. "How do we get it out?" asked Benjamin Walker, a visiting professor of psychology at Georgetown University and a member of the postdoctorate-network-advisory board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"In a city of guides, how do we keep this one from sitting on the shelf?" Mr. Walker said, before ruefully acknowledging, "I'm preaching to the choir here."

As calls for pay raises were repeated, many of those at the meeting wondered where the money would come from. Some postdoctoral fellows called on grant- making groups to require recipients to meet certain standards in how they treat postdocs.

But Maxine Singer, the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, countered with the argument that "the greater amount of freedom we give to principal investigators, the better the science."

An open-microphone "plans for action" session at the end of the day produced the meeting's liveliest discussion.

Postdocs and researchers, along with a few representatives of grant-making organizations, submitted a few success stories as well as grievances and broad outlines for what should happen next. Representatives of the University of Pennsylvania's medical school lauded their comprehensive postdoctoral-support system, singled out as a "best practice" in last year's report.

On a bleaker note, one postdoc asked the session's moderating panelists if they could see fit to donate copies of the report to her program; she was having trouble getting the administration to agree to purchase the $11.96 volume.

"If you can't get your university to chip in to buy copies of this book," replied Ms. Singer, who is also chairwoman of the panel that organized the discussion, "then I would be pessimistic that they would chip in to do what they have to do to improve their program. All I can say is, try harder."

The most radical recommendations for change came from the postdocs themselves.

One delegate pointed out that researchers who run laboratories have to take tests to prove they are competent in procedures like lab safety and handling radiation in order to receive the grant money that supports the hiring of postdocs.

When the young man, alluding to the report, suggested that researchers should have to "read this publication and take a test" to prove they are competent mentors as well, the audience broke into applause.

Audrey Ettinger, a representative of Stanford University's postdoc association, told the moderating panel that her group had posted fliers around the campus inviting postdocs to a "town-hall meeting" to discuss issues like the lack of health insurance, low wages, and getting credit for what they contribute to research.

To their surprise, she said, a union representative who had spotted the flier showed up. Citing the list of issues, he announced, "What you have here is a perfect organizing platform."

Ms. Ettinger said the Stanford group was considering a union drive.

At the end of the day, some postdocs in attendance were less than impressed with the conference's results. "Nobody can say, We can solve this problem," said Paula Krosky, a postdoc at Harvard Medical School. "It's all someone else's problem."

Sue Carson, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, "Everyone basically bitched and moaned and complained, but nobody gave any ideas about how to accelerate the process" of making things better.

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this article