The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Parallel Universe

(I wrote this article for The Postdoc Press (Issue 4) - a proud publication from MUSC Postdoctoral Association)

In my view, reality, super reality and false reality is what constitutes a Postdoc period.  It is real that we have the highest degree in science and look like Einstein and Newton to undergrads. We are greatly “wowed upon” when we tell others we try to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, or heart failure. This can pass for super reality because we are not likely going to accomplish these during our term. Now, the false reality. We work full time in a lab, yet we are not employees. Unfortunately, postdoctoral training has become more about learning and applying techniques and less about research independence (Yes, the NIH definition is pretentious or misleading). The institution owns our inventions, lab owns the data, and sadly, some of us do not even own our destinies. When I think deeply in what universe does this reality, super reality, and false reality co-exist as a “continuum”, I can come up with only one answer – The Parallel Universe!

Being a third-year Postdoc and the President of the PDA has provided me a great deal of opportunity to interact with many of you. This experience spurred me to write this article to caution both current and wannabe Postdocs.

Once a PD, be a PD for at least 2 years

When you enter the parallel universe, it is judicious to be a Data-Producing-Humanoid for 2 years. Being so is a win-win situation for both the PI and you. The new milieu exposes a fresh PD to a new project, new techniques that offer a lot of learning and new friends. Firmly setting the foot (which will likely take 6-9 months) and fulfilling the needs of the PI will likely move the project forward. While a PD gets credits for the work, a PI reassures him/herself why you are the chosen one.

Fail-fast is better than living in denial   

Time subdues everything, including ambitions. After 2 years, you must introspect whether you want to “continue” as a Postdoc. Let’s face it, a PD training is NOT for everyone and there is no need to feel guilty if you realize this after 2 years. In fact, you are better off when you attain this self-realization sooner than later. Fail-fast is a powerful mantra not just in drug discovery (to save millions of dollars), but also in Postdoc research (to save million joules of negative energy).

Much ado about “training”

In theory, a Postdoc is expected to receive training to enhance professional skills and research independence. Whereas sharpening professional skills lies in our “court”, the PI gets to “call the shots” in order for us to gain research independence. No matter what the reason is, most PDs are not “called” but instead receive “extended” training. This is where a Postdoc inadvertently obliges to become a “glorified” technician. There is learning involved in each and every day in everyone’s career and hence the word “training” must be used judiciously. Is there such a title as training Assistant Professor or training Dean, even though the incumbents are new to a field that involves a lot of learning? Unless the words Training or Trainee are eradicated in the “doctorate” world, nothing can stop the exponential increase in glorified technicians.

The midlife crisis

Nothing during the lifespan of a Postdoc is more complex and challenging than being in the middle of the five-year Postdoc period. Here is why: By continuing as a 3^rd or a 4^th year Postdoc, you send strong signals that your passion to do research is very much alive. But, this has its own repercussions which include: ever-before need to create a “trademark” to stand out in a crowd, over-exposure to lab atmosphere, encumbrances in moving the project forward because of saturation, strained relationship with co-workers and pressure from family to make a sustained living.

Quitter takes all

Let’s say you had a great run for five years. I’m sure this would have definitely provided some perks including papers, strong networking, improved rapport with PI, mastering your discipline, etc. But, if you cannot “parlay” these perks into finding a sensible job at the end of five years, then I’ve just one word for you – QUIT! Do not go overboard and continue as a Postdoc beyond 6 years unless you are promoted to a Scientist position. You are not born to fulfill the needs of a lab. And, unlike James Bond, you only live once.

In addition to the aforementioned reality, super reality and false reality, there is something else called sad reality. That is, “rules” exist for handling chemicals, radiolabeled agents and dead-mice, but when it comes to dealing with your postdoctoral training there are only “general guidelines” and not technical niceties. It is about time for a much-needed change. A “big bang” involving Postdoc associations, Human Resources, law makers, NIH and PIs must happen to separate the true reality from the other realities. Today is as good a day, as any, for all these parties to wake up!

Postdocs or Data-Producing-Humanoids

(I wrote this article for "The Postdoc Press (Issue 3)", a proud publication from the MUSC Postdoctoral Association)

Postdoctoral researcher is not just a revered title; it is an opportunity to envision things that never existed before. The data produced by a Postdoc (PD) plays a crucial role directly or indirectly for the advancement of science and technology, understand disease conditions and its treatment, support the intellectual strength and infrastructure of institutions, increase the influx of grant support which in turn helps recruit more lab personnel, handle lab finances, publish papers that puts the entire lab in spotlight, and build alliances and intellectual bridges between institutions. While there are cases where a successful PD experience results in a lucrative career, there are several instances where PDs unwittingly become an ‘academic slave’. This article carefully scrutinizes what the definition of PD means in a real world, what more a PD have to do in addition to producing data, responsibilities of institutions, funding agencies and the nation to restore the significance of a PD career.

To begin with, the January 29 (2007) letter written by Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo and Dr. Kathie L. Olsen proclaimed the definition of a PD as follows: “an individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path”.

Now, a postmortem analysis. Gone are the days where the word temporary period used to mean 2 or 3 years, but now this number spikes to 5 or beyond. There are several occasions where a 5-year PD training was marked as the upper limit (for example, to obtain a K99/R00 grant), but NIH/NSF fails to openly state this. Because of this, several institutions (and PIs to some extent) exploit PDs as a ‘cheap labor’ to beef-up their infrastructure. These days it is becoming increasingly common to see PDs beyond 5 years. If a PD career is considered a training period, then NIH/NSF must openly declare in its definition what the maximum length of the training period should be. Carefully avoiding this will result in more ‘victim’ PDs.

Let’s inspect the phrase ‘enhance the professional skills and research independence’. In labs, it is expected of any PD to produce more data and there is nothing wrong with that. What is not right these days is a lot of PDs are trained ‘only’ to produce data and not to worry so much about the future of the data or even about themselves. These doctorates know to create things that never existed before, provide scientific reasoning to complex phenomenon, troubleshoot state-of-the-art machines and publish papers, but they passively accept their bondage to labs and lack requisite skills to take a quantum leap upward. In short, a Humanoid in disguise!

The professional skills that are required in the present era includes – but not limited to – research ethics, grant writing, teaching, speaking & writing, business and negotiation, lab management. Because crafting technical skills to produce more data was assigned the top priority of most labs today and activities that promote obtaining independent funding are usually restricted to reputed institutions and that too in few labs, PDs find little room to increase the breadth of professional skills or the depth of research independence.  The initiatives taken by Postdoctoral associations across the nation to care for their peers are quite laudable. Since these associations are run by volunteer doctorates whose fulltime job is to engage in research, a more organized approach involving PIs and the institutions that foster continuous learning, improve communication and networking skills could play a vital role to fill the paucity of professional skills that the PDs lack. It must be made clear that producing more data is not an indicator of possessing professional skills.

Somehow in this practical world, knowingly or unknowingly, the very basic definition of a PD meant differently to different institutions, and it is about time NIH and NSF come forward to do something before the damage gets worse. To begin with, PDs should be recognized with a status, an open assessment and evaluation, NIH-standardized minimum salary, benefits, and help transit to regular career positions after 5-years, etc. Whenever key decisions are taken at the national level, at least 100 PD representatives (not from the NPA) must sit at the table to give their inputs. Because more science funding is the real solution, the institution should stop underpaying PDs and should look at their elected officials and demand that science be better supported.

Critics, who once passionately conducted academic research for the love of knowledge, today discourage anyone pursuing a PD career because they feel the system is antiquated and failed to fulfill its purpose. They were partially right because some of the concerns PDs face in most institutions today did not happen overnight, but are present quite some time. Concerted efforts involving PIs, academic institutions (especially the Human Resources division), funding bodies, governments and current PDs to improve the overall PD experience is the need of the hour. Otherwise, the humanoids will engender more humanoids!