Archive for the 'Postdoctoral Training' category

Repost: Put NIH Row on Your Itinerary

Oct 11 2012 Published by under Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training, Scientific Meetings, Society for Neuroscience

As those of us in the neurosciences prepare for our largest annual scientific gathering, we should attend to a certain little task to assist with the odds of obtaining NIH grant funding. Part of that process is a long game of developing interpersonal relationships with the Program Officers that staff the NIH ICs of interest to our individual research areas. Many scientists find the schmoozing process to be uncomfortable and perhaps even distasteful.

To this I can only reply "Well, do you want to get funded or not?".

This post originally went up Nov 12, 2008. I've edited a few things for links and content.

One of the most important things you are going to do during the upcoming SfN Annual Meeting in Washington DC is to stroll around NIH row. Right?

I have a few thoughts for the trainees after the jump. I did mention that this is a long game, did I not? Continue Reading »

Share

4 responses so far

Scientific trainee pay is pretty dang good right now so stop complaining

Aug 15 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NSF, Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training

I don't know what started the round of "I only got paid X when I was a trainee" on the twitts but I noticed nobody was adjusting for inflation.

Using the US Dept of Labor calculator, I came up with the following.

For an initial frame of general reference, $30K in 2012 is equal to $22K in 2000, $17K in 1990, $11K in 1980 and $5K in 1970.

The grad stipend when I started graduate school was equal to $15.6K in 2012 adjusted dollars. For us, the NSF fellowship was a considerable upgrade and the NSF graduate fellowship from that time is equivalent to $22.6K in 2012.

Interesting. So how are today's trainees doing?

The current NSF stipend is apparently $30K, a 33% increase in adjusted dollars compared to what it was when I was a graduate student. Looking at my old training department, they are offering a 35% increase in stipend over what they were offering when I started, again, in constant dollars.

I also happened to spend some time on NIH training grant funds so I can also report that my starting postdoc salary was $28.6K in 2012 dollars. The current NRSA base is $39.3K, which represents a 37% increase.

The bottom line is this. We're in crap economic times and graduate students and postdocs are getting paid at least 33% more than I was, even going by inflation adjusted dollars.

Stop whining about your salary.

Share

165 responses so far

Is an NIH intramural postdoc worth it?

Jul 16 2012 Published by under Careerism, Intramural Research Programs, Postdoctoral Training

In your field, does it come with any particular value? Good or bad?

Is there something about the "NIH name on the CV" that advantages a trainee?

Are there critical connections of lasting worth? Or perhaps critical career opportunities- the K22 or the chance to stay intramural for ever?

Are there other Universities or research institutes that are more valuable?

Or are you best off just going lab by lab, with no particular concern for the host institution?

A letter to the blog wanted to know and I can't offer more than anecdotes and a dose of "it depends", both of which are not helpful. Any thoughts, Dear Reader?

Share

25 responses so far

Open Thread: PIs v Postdocs and other assorted yelling at each other

Jul 16 2012 Published by under #FWDAOTI, Blogging, Careerism, Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training

In case you absolutely must continue the 300 comment thread which developed under

Alternate careers" is just the next exploitation strategy?

you can have at it here.

Share

11 responses so far

"Alternate careers" is just the next exploitation strategy?

Jul 05 2012 Published by under Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training

The recent Rock Talk posts on graduate student and postdoctoral training are putting data behind truths that many find self-evident. I am struck by the ensuing commentary threads which say the NIH must do better at tracking the fates of trainees.

The subtext seems to be that the NIH should 1) care about large numbers of people training for ten years for academic careers and not achieving those jobs and 2) do something about it.

There is a very good argument to be made that the NIH is quite happy with the status quo. It permits them to get their work done more cheaply. The labor force is persuaded to work hard for less money through the strategy of dangling a PI career on a stick ahead of postdocs.

The "trainees"/labor force are induced to voluntarily put up with exploitation now because they imagine they will be compensated later for their sacrifices.

Understanding of how the odds apply to themselves is, shall we say, incomplete and optimistic.

The interests of the NIH are best served by maintaining the value of the future reward as high as possible.

With this lens we should view any NIH
protestations about alternative careers for which someone trained by them is suited with a healthy suspicion. The NIH does not have any interest in the nature of the carrot they tie to the stick. They only care that it induces the donkey to keep walking.

Share

302 responses so far

NIH taskforce recommends changes for training and sustaining the biomedical workforce

Jun 14 2012 Published by under NIH Careerism, Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training, Scientific Mentoring

Remember the task force? Well, the Executive Summary has been issued [PDF].

A few pullquotes of interest from the Recommendations:

NIH should create a program to supplement training grants through competitive review to allow institutions to provide additional training and career development experiences to equip students for various career options, and test ways to shorten the PhD training period. The best practices resulting from this program will help shape graduate programs across the country. The working group felt that including diverse types of training (e.g. project management and business entrepreneurship skills needed in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, or teaching experiences needed for a successful faculty position in liberal arts colleges) would be particularly valuable for those who go on to conduct NIH-funded research as well as benefit those students who do not follow the academic research career track.

Shorter: Alternate Careers, duh! But they expect training programs to "partner" with business, private foundations and SBIR awardees.... yeah, without putting the money into training grants for this it is very unlikely to happen.

To encourage timely completion of graduate degrees, NIH should cap the number of years a graduate student can be supported by NIH funds (any combination of training grants, fellowships, and research project grants), with an institutional average of 5 years and no one individual allowed to receive support for more than 6 years.

Emphasis added. This addition is huge, if you ask me. It makes it seem pretty serious. I like this. I'm not a fan, at all, of extended graduate training. I am not a fan, at all, of putting publication requirements of any sort in place as the barrier to the PhD. This focus on timeline is the right way to go about it.

To ensure that all graduate students supported by the NIH receive excellent training, NIH should increase the proportion of graduate students supported by training grants and fellowships compared to those supported by research project grants, without increasing the overall number of graduate student positions.

and...

To ensure that all postdoctoral fellows supported by the NIH receive excellent training and mentoring, NIH should increase the proportion of postdoctoral researchers supported by training grants and fellowships and reduce the number supported by research project grants, without increasing the overall number of postdoctoral researchers.

Some yahoo on the Twitts seemed to think that I would be dismayed by something in this report, perhaps the salary increases. If you remember comments made by PP about increases to trainee salaries you will likewise recall that his objection that these increases came in the context of a static full-modular grant limit of $250K/year, a fixed year-to-year escalation clause for traditional budget grants of about 3% and the tendency of Program to cut budgets by a module or two in any case. Salary increases put massive pressure on research grants. This plan to shift more of the postdocs currently supported by the NIH from research project grants to training grants has excellent potential to first, manage the salaries and benefits better and second to disconnect those issues from the grant budgets. There is even some potential that PIs would need fewer grants, be able to use them more flexibly (salaries are entirely inflexible save for firing people) and therefore worry less about churning out the applications.
So I love this proposal. Question is, will they look at a department like mine, assess how many trainees have been supported by research grants over time and just hand out that many slots in new TG awards? Second question is, how in the hell are they going to enforce the "without increasing the overall number of...." part? They could, I suppose, take a look at the budget justification of all the research awards in the department, subtract out these new training grant slots and then tell people they cannot put any more trainees on the research grants. maybe.

NIH should revise the peer review criteria for training grants to include consideration of outcomes of all students in the relevant PhD programs at those institutions, not only those supported by the training grant. Study sections reviewing graduate training programs should be educated to value a range of career outcomes. This recommendation could be phased in relatively quickly.

Sure it could. Easy to get the study sections on board with new initiatives is it NIH? How's that "Innovation" coming along? How are you doing in getting R21s reviewed appropriately? What about ESI applications? Are you still having to pick them up with expanded paylines or are the study sections returning appropriate scores? HAHAHHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!
The first part is good though, you can force applicants to some up with new analyses, sure. Although verification will be a nightmare. The way this is done now is mostly as added-value. That is, departments / TG groups are motivated to include all the trainees not supported by the TG itself that make the group look good. There is no requirement to mention the trainees who didn't work out, failed, went on to shame as data fakers or anything else at all. So far as I know anyway.

NIH-supported postdoctoral fellows need to be adjusted ... index the starting stipend according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) thereafter.

Sounds great...but see above. If they are going to also index research project grants to the CPI-U then no problemo. Increase my budget (even in the noncompeting years) by the amount you are requiring me to increase my postdocs' salaries / benefits and we have no problem.

The large jump between years 3 and 4 is meant to emphasize a transition from postdoctoral training to research production, and to incentivize PIs to move fellows to more permanent positions.

Yeah....that's going to work out really swell. What this incentivizes is pushing experienced postdocs along after three years and scooping up noob ones. There is no "move fellows to permanent positions" being facilitated here. Especially since they dropped the ball on superannuated postdocs/staff scientists:

The working group encourages NIH study sections to be receptive to grant applications that include staff scientists and urges institutions to create position categories that reflect the value and stature of these researchers.

That's it. After identifying the problem of sub-PI level scientists and their lack of permanent homes in the system, such as it is. This is what they come up with. FFS, I even laid out the solution for you blockheads! Look, many of these people do not WANT to be in the grant-getting rat race. They just want to do science and to let someone else worry about the details. And how are institutions supposed to "create position categories" when just one section later the report is lambasting the soft-money system? It's like they are being intentionally obtuse here. Where are the fantasy dollars supposed to come from?

Combined with the emphasis on making a salary jump to discourage keeping 7 yr+ postdocs around, this is not good. At all.

Share

39 responses so far

Grant Progress Reports: Training or PIA?

May 25 2012 Published by under Mentoring, NIH Careerism, NIH funding, NSF, Postdoctoral Training

In NIH land (and apparently at NSF) the annual Progress Report functions as the application for the next non-competing interval of support. The NIH ones are short, 2 pages, and you have to squeeze in comments about progress on the project goals and the significance of the findings. So there isn't a lot of room for all the data you have generated.

Science Professor indicates that she involves trainees in the preparation of progress reports.

I was asked to do this when I was a postdoc and I have continued the tradition with my postdocs. As you will surmise, I always think it a good idea to train postdocs in the grant-game. How much were/are you involved with progress reporting as a postdoc, DearReader?

Prof-like Substance's post was asking how seriously to take the NSF progress report. I have always taken my NIH ones pretty seriously and tried to summarize the grant progress as best I can. (Yes, I rewrite the drafts provided by the postdocs - thus is training after all.) One benefit is that when it comes time to write the competing renewal application you have a starting point all ready to go.

For the noob PIs... Don't sweat it. I've only once had a PO so much as comment on the Progress Report. In that case this person was, IMO, clearly out of line since we were right on target with the grant plan. More so than usual for me. And the PO also was misunderstanding the science in a way that was a little concerning for that little subarea of the IC...but whatevs. I made a response, the PO backed down and the project went on without further kvetching from this person.

So how about it? Do you involve your trainees in writing Progress Reports? Have you had any responses from POs on these? How seriously do you take them?

Share

22 responses so far

Protected Pockets of Time

May 16 2012 Published by under Ask DrugMonkey, Day in the life of DrugMonkey, Mentoring, Postdoctoral Training, Tribe of Science

In yesterday's discussion, I finally got a partial glimpse of the issue when NatC observed:

Discussions about how to manage and plan protected pockets of time OUTSIDE work to do whatever - walk the bulldog, play music, train for a triathlon, watch baseball, play with your kids or nieces/nephews ir travel - would be extremely valuable work/life balance discussions to have early in this sometimes crazy career.

In full disclosure this has rarely been a problem for me. I've managed to get to where I am today (such as it is) with what I think is a healthy balance of work-to-life. Obviously some, including my spouse, might disagree but the important thing is that I think this is the case. We're talking personal, subjective "balance" here and nobody can define it for you. If you have reached it, you are going to be relatively happier and if you feel imbalanced you are going to feel sad* about it.

Yes, I for damn sure wish for more hours in the day. Yes. Of course. And at each and every major stage there were things being neglected so that I could pursue some other thing. Either in the proximal, days to weeks, or in the long-haul, years to decades(!), perspective. But I have never been an obsessive and any fair read would fail to find any major imbalance.

How did I do it?

I think the most useful and general approach is that you have to be willing to fail.

Let me say it again: YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO FAIL!!!!!

I was not, I think, willing to fail at getting the PhD. This was a defined, obtainable target for which the steps were mostly clear to me. Do the research, write that shit up into a dissertation and bob's your uncle.

After that? Well, yes, of course I wanted to succeed career-wise. In one of the professorial paths preferably. But I was willing to...not. To fail.

There have been several defined choice points at which I did the considerably sub-optimal career move for the sake of issues that we shall encompass under "life". (Also career moves which might have in the long run been suboptimal but looked great** at the time. Some of this initial appearance was influenced by "life".) Sometimes I did this out of unthinking ignorance, I will admit. I didn't perhaps realize the magnitude of the risk I was running. But I for damn sure knew there was risk. Risk of not making it in some way. Of not getting on the independent research track. Of not getting funding...or not keeping it. Of letting the lab and research program crash down to nonviability.

This hasn't stopped and it continues to this day.

Is my virtue untested? Some might observe that. From the perspective of some it looks like I have a pretty schweet gig***. From above the waterline it looks okay. Something a disgruntled postdoc or Year 3 faculty member might think is pretty much IT. As in "career accomplished"...all it takes now is running it out like you always wanted to. No risk.

I don't see it that way. I still risk failures of various sorts. Mostly the big axe is the grant funding....and it is a big one, hanging over my head more often than it is not.

So much like the disgruntled postdoc and the terrified junior faculty member...I could always work harder. More. Put in more grants. Squeeze out more papers. Refine my lab efficiency to maximize the data. Chase small project funds. Woo more trainees. Hit the seminar circuit harder. Go to more meetings.

All of this would probably benefit my career. It would make things go better professionally. We'd be more productive, no doubt.

I choose not to. That's it. There's no secret. There's no special case of insulation from the risks of choosing not to work harder than the next person. You risk paying a price.

Balance implies tradeoffs. I've certainly found it to be so. There are costs to go with every benefit. Costs that may be "just" stress, may be health issues (mental or otherwise), may be definable career failures. Having "life" balance makes this inevitable. There will be tradeoffs****, people.

This is my answer to NatC's question. Choose. Choose to take the time. Make room for what is important to you. Realize that by doing so you might fail. You might.

But you know what? These St Kern and Poo types?

I know for damn sure they've failed at life.

And that I was never willing to risk.

__
*don't get a puppy to cheer yourself up.
**so we won't count these, at the time they seemed really pro-career.
***and I do, I do.
****of course it goes both ways. you may be choosing a career path that really isn't compatible with your desire to tour Europe with an opera group every summer. You may have to give up some of the "life" stuff

Share

23 responses so far

Sink or swim: In theory I'd be all over it

May 14 2012 Published by under Ponder, Postdoctoral Training

@Neuropolarbear opined:

Now that my lab is collecting data, I think my students would be more productive if I leave and stop pestering them for 2 months.

Stop pestering and stop helping them. And maybe I really mean postdocs rather than students. But I often think this.

Trainees would in many cases be better served if the PI said "Hey guys, I'm taking off on sabbatical, see you in six months or so."

I've never had the nerve to try that one out though. I can't see my way to risking my precious projects that way. Either that or I can't bear the thought of having a trainee really bollocks up their training stint with me to the point that it is an abject failure...and think I could have been more involved in oversight.

I worry, however, that this hovering weakens them.

So how about it, PI-tariat? How long would you let your trainees go without having any decent idea what they were up to? More than two weeks? More than a month?

....Six months????

Share

17 responses so far

Sink or swim

May 10 2012 Published by under CPDD, Mentoring, Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training, Society for Neuroscience

Approximately how much should the PI and postdoc or grad student attend meetings together versus separately?

I think the together part is obvious and should be the majority of the time. The PI is supposed to be introducing the trainee around.

But flying solo can be great for independence.

 

The big shottes *have* to talk to you if the PI isn't at the meeting. So I'd definitely be okay with a handful of meetings where the trainee is there without the PI.

Making it habitual, however, is MentorMalpractice.

 


Share

15 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »