(I wrote this article for The Postdoc Press, Issue-5 - an official publication from the MUSC Postdoctoral Association)
Prologue: It is widely believed that a PD
training matters only to the incumbents. However, the transient nature of
today’s economy, coupled with the highly competitive nature of science,
continuously expands the “sphere of influence” of a PD training, and affects PIs
and the institution, in addition to affecting a Postdoc. Only when the
“chemistry” matches between these three parties can an effective PD training be
envisioned. In the past, I highlighted how a Postdoc can avoid becoming a
data-producing-humanoid (Issue 3) and delineated five scenarios to caution both current and wannabe
PDs (Issue 4). In this article, I offer my perspectives how these three parties
impact PD training goals.
The
Data Hunter aka The Postdoc
The Good: The single greatest thing about being
a Postdoc is that the PD training presents an opportunity to reevaluate career
choice in a “safe mode.” Other good things include, establishing a trademark
for oneself as the training continues beyond 2 years, filling-in gaps in CV to
obtain the next job, and routinely building communication and networking
skills.
The Bad: Creating data is good, but a lot of
Postdocs fall prey to the habit of “perennial data hunting,” and when this
happens the PD training goals take heavy beating.
The Ugly: Almost every PD training comes with an
element of “inexactitude” that only gets progressively ugly as the training
year increases. A few elements include encumbrance to gain independence, slow
publishing rate, unable to attend conferences, etc. Continuing as a PD beyond
5+ years must be dealt with extreme caution because this is a “double-edged”
sword. It kills the very purpose of PD
training.
The
Bounty Seeker aka The PI
The Good: Having a Postdoc in Lab is like having
an in-house consultant for a PI. Not only the graduates and technicians are
routinely helped to kick start or troubleshoot procedures, it also sets high
standards to evolve a good laboratory practice.
Schmoozing with Postdocs helps lab save time, difficulty and MONEY!
The Bad: Efficient mentorship is the bedrock of
any PD training. Any lack of it will have a strong negative influence which not
only affects a Postdoc (short term), but also affects how the lab is looked
upon by others (long term). A PI must study the pulse of a Postdoc and help
realize his/her career dream through open dialogue. A PI must not look at
Postdocs only as a data producing machine in order to eternally renew grants.
The Ugly: The endpoint of any PD training is the
birth of research independence for a Postdoc. This can be achieved through a
transparent communication between the two parties not only about the goals of
the Lab, but also about the future career of a Postdoc. If a PI knowingly keeps
a >5-6 post-PhD years person as a Postdoc, then it is a “Labor’s lost” in
visualizing the training needs!
The
God Father aka The Institution
The Good: A strong PD training program helps
institutions to signal the influx of bright scholars to campus. Its downstream
effects include representation at science conferences, obtaining grants, educating the local
community including policymakers to invest more in science.
The Bad: Many institutions leave their Postdocs
at the discretion of a PI. While it is true that a PI’s grant pays the Postdoc,
none of the funding agencies give money to a PI who is not affiliated to an
institution. Therefore, the institution must play the role of a God Father and
discourage any “step-motherly” treatment of Postdocs to realize the fullest
potential of a PD training.
The Ugly: Establishing a framework of
accountability by an institution is what is expected by any Postdoc. Merely
having a PD program without clear policies and regulations will only result in
more victim Postdocs. Implementing myIDP, and enforcing salary and benefits set
by NIH are areas most institutions can work on.
Epilogue:
Dynamics
between a Postdoc, corresponding Principal Investigator (PI) and the academic
institution plays a stellar role in making any Postdoctoral training
meaningful. It is not too late to realize that a PD training can make-or-break
a good name of a PI or the institution. The traditional Postdoctoral training
model that places the onus on the incumbents is no longer applicable to the
current scenario. A “Good Postdoctoral Practice” is the need of the hour to envision the PD training goals.
