“Sustainability” derives from the Latin word sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up), to support or endure. A major concern of all postdocs is our path to initiating and sustaining a fruitful career. While approximately 79% of postdocs start out aiming for a tenure-track academic position, only about 30% end up with one¹. What does it take for postdocs to decide whether or not they want an academic job? What is a successful strategy for getting and sustaining one? Discussing this was the agenda of our round-table discussion with Dr. David Roth (Chair, Department of Pathology, New York University) at the fourth annual postdoctoral retreat. To follow up on the highly interactive session with him, we polled Rockefeller University (RU) postdocs and faculty on issues raised at that discussion. In this article, we compile the opinions voiced at the retreat and in the surveys, and intend for it to kindle your thoughts and discussions. We do not intend to pass a definitive judgment on any issue.

Defining sustainability in science

Our discussion title was vague and open-ended on purpose. We wanted postdocs to tell us what concerned them most when thinking of their path to getting and sustaining a scientific career. Our (the authors’) thoughts included (i) getting a tenure-track position; (ii) sustained funding; and (iii) becoming good mentors. In addition, to some, this meant balancing cost effectiveness with creativity, or sustaining a flow of creative ideas; ensuring that their data holds validity over time, and doing science sans compromises. One RU faculty member defined this as the ability to conduct efficient research with effective reagents, tools, and manpower in a cost-effective manner. Dr. Roth thought foremost of the ability to get good students to the lab. While a good career in science needs all of the above, it is interesting that many of us worry as much about the ability to sustain scientific temperament and creativity as about funding and job-seeking. In the next few sections we summarize these various facets of building a scientific career, dividing them broadly into the ability to get and sustain (a) a job (b) funding and © scientific temperament.

Sustainability in developing a scientific career

The median age to get a faculty position is 38, and the first R01 is 42^2,3. Given the strong competition, what makes one a good job candidate in academia? Dr. Roth opined that good publications, pedigree, and recommendations suffice. Everyone agreed, but is that all it takes? RU faculty added the following to the list. First, networking: most RU postdocs and faculty surveyed felt that networking at meetings and seminars was important. We find this of note since Dr. Roth, as well as most PIs in a recent Science Careers survey⁴ downplayed networking. Second, every single RU faculty member surveyed stated that good communication skills were critical. This agrees with communication ranking #1 in a 2009 faculty survey on attributes of a successful postdoc.4,5 Given that communication ranked #7 in a national postdoc survey,4 we remind RU postdocs to be aware of the importance our faculty gives to communication skills. More reason to keep using those lab meetings as a practice ground! Teaching was another ingredient, but only for those applying primarily to teaching colleges. Mentoring undergraduates or summer interns, interestingly, did not make the cut.

We asked people to rank, in decreasing order of importance, the relative weight of the following in choosing a job: location, salary, start-up package, department chair’s leadership and faculty profile. Dr Roth, to our surprise, brought up “the identity, vision and personality of the department chair” as his primary concern. He opined that having a supportive, mentoring, and visionary department chair was important to his decision, something he is glad to have considered. This is not something we had thought of. Faculty at RU thought that the startup package and location of the university (to attract good students and postdocs) superseded the faculty profile and department chair. Postdocs, on the other hand, rated the faculty profile highest. Salary remained the bottom contender on everyone’s list.

Competition arises from disparity between supply and demand. Does this imply that the system trains more people than science needs? People were divided on this one. Some thought that this may be impacted by the lack of a retirement cut-off for baby boomer faculty. Others suggested that if all careers post-Ph.D. are included, we are training just the right amount.

Part of this issue is that many postdocs and faculty consider non-academic positions as alternate careers as opposed to a primary career path. It need not be so, but many of us struggle with the decision to not set up a lab, often fraught with much soul-searching and indecision. Given that 7 out of every 10 of us are in this position, this is not trivial. Approximately 95% of postdocs felt that they would appreciate honest input from their PI on their ability to pursue an academic career. Every single PI polled, including Dr. Roth, said that PIs will suggest an alternate career to their mentee, if they felt that he/she was not making the right decision based on mentee’s strengths. We were surprised by this, because we were not aware this really happened. Understandably, some faculty hinted that it may be unwise for them to pass personal judgment on someone’s career−what if they are mistaken? We hope that this unanimous request from postdocs for candid feedback will encourage honest discussions between postdocs and PIs. Finally, while many postdocs are keen to explore non-academic careers, many feel unsure of how to go about this, and who to tap for guidance. Be that as it may, the majority of people said that finding an alternate career remains the primary responsibility of the postdoc. Obviously PIs cannot be our role model for a career outside the lab. The onus is on us, be it tapping into alumni networks, NatureNetworks, etc., or proactively enhancing our resumes with skills we think we may need. The most we ask for, and hope to get from our PI, is a sounding board, general advice, guidance in pointing us to the right people or direction, and a supportive environment.

Sustainability in running a lab

Two trends are gaining prominence in science: translational research and collaborative science. Are these fashionable trends or a shift in scientific methodology? Everyone agreed that there is more hype for translational research than needed. While not listing it as a critical aspect of research, most people ranked it from critical to somewhat important and from “yes, important for NIH objectives” to “over emphasized/a load of ***/a way to fool granting bodies.” Postdocs tend to see this as important for publishing and funding, much more than faculty do. It seems, though, that translational research is here to stay, something to bear in mind.

Such science necessarily translates into collaborations—not all of us can run from genetics and biochemistry to tissue samples and clinical models with aplomb. Not surprisingly, 85% of postdocs feel that multi-lab collaborations will increasingly become the norm, compared to 64% of the faculty. The need for collaborations in the long run brings back to us the importance of networking—with our peers as much as with senior faculty.

Speaking of collaborations, we asked whether it was appropriate for junior PIs to collaborate with their previous mentors. Response: while not advisable, it is not a strict no. However, the discussion at the retreat indicated that, in most cases, work done in collaboration with one’s mentor will likely not be taken as your independent work. This is important to note for tenure-track positions. Therefore, starting as postdocs, we should look for projects that will define our independent roles and help augment our careers as postdocs and later, as independent investigators.

Sustainability of scientific temperament

How do we know we will be able to sustain creativity, select and mentor students, learn people- and cost-management? Is it a handicap to not have these skills honed during a postdoc (a concern voiced during our round table)? While it may seem daunting, all faculty we surveyed said that these skills are easy to develop with common sense, and not at all a handicap. But they did highly recommend other skills that we should consider critical and seek training in during our postdoc—the ability to write grants, and review papers. They suggest that postdocs should ask to be involved: to review papers, write our own papers, and help in writing grants. In addition, we should learn the skill of framing important questions with testable hypotheses, and stay focused only on the skills needed to get the job done. The bottom line: learn how to get grants, you will manage them fine. Learn how to get papers out, new ideas will follow just fine.

Summary

At the end of our discussion and polls, postdocs signed off wishing for more mentorship and interaction with their PIs and more help when gearing for non-academic routes. We urge all faculty to be more involved in helping chalk out the career path of their postdocs. At the same time, we also remind postdocs to be more pro-active. If you are missing some aspects of mentorship from your PI, it is wise to tap into alumni, seniors, or other PIs. It remains our responsibility to build a sustainable career, one to last us a lifetime.

A side comment on sustaining an annual post-doctoral retreat

The fourth PDA retreat was held at the Hudson Valley Resort, Kerhonkson, nestled in the Shawangunk mountains of the Appalachian ridge. 89 postdocs attended this year. It remains our goal, with active encouragement from Dr. Paul Nurse, to increase the participation of postdocs in future retreats to at least 150. Many attendees felt the retreat to be a great place to network, hear people describe their wonderful science at RU, and get to know people. It does help to make RU feel more collegial and collaborative. We are glad to note that most postdocs were happy with the amount of time given for inter-lab interactions, talks and organization at this retreat. By popular demand, we will continue with the overnight stay for next year’s retreat, despite the 30% cut in the PDA budget for the next fiscal year. Look out next year for more great RU science, another engaging keynote speaker, more group games like Trivia, and a best talk award. We hope we can sustain the involvement and satisfaction we saw among those that attended this year into next year!!

References:

1. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006
2. Bridges to Independence, National Academics Press
3. http://grants.nih.gov/
4. Laura Bonetta, “The Evolving Postdoctoral Experience,” Science Careers, August 2009
5. Laura Bonetta, “The Postdoc Experience,” Science Careers, August 2008