It used to be that the postdoctoral years were a bridge to permanent tenure-track employment. For some, that's still true, and by working with established scientists, all US and Canadian postdocs are still getting quality research training. But such training isn't enough to make postdocs competitive for permanent employment, given the growth of research positions in industry and in nonresearch career options. Because the number of students pursuing a PhD has grown while the number of academic positions has not kept pace, the percentage of PhDs pursuing academic research careers has dropped significantly. Fewer than one-third of postdocs will end up in an academic, tenure-track research position.1,2

Despite the fact that most of them will not become academic faculty, postdocs are often uninformed about their career options, and their training may neglect essential, nonresearch skills such as public speaking and grantsmanship. Indeed, in a recent survey that Sigma Xi conducted,3 the vast majority of postdocs report receiving little or no formal training in even basic skills such as grant writing. It's not that postdocs receive no training in these areas. Such training is often haphazard, with a wide degree of variability between institutions and even between labs in the same department.

This mismatch between the needs of the postdocs and the training provided often has negative consequences. Most notably, according to a 1998 National Research Council report, the time that people spend in postdoctoral positions has increased tremendously,4 with some careers even terminating in a quasi-postdoctoral, nontenured research position.

What accounts for the lack of change in the apprenticeship model, despite the evolution of research? The main problem is the failure, at the institutional level, to recognize the postdoc as a trainee. In predoctoral programs, the training status of students is recognized, and a variety of guidelines, review panels, milestones, and exams are in place to monitor student progress. The expectation is that trainees will eventually move to a more advanced position. At the postdoctoral level, however, there is a tendency to call them trainees but to treat them as employees; this removes the safeguards and quality control implemented to protect trainees, but fails to replace them with employee protections. It also removes the institutional expectation of advancement to the next level.

To address these issues and find solutions for moving forward, we formed a focus group while attending the Teaching Survival Skills and Ethics conference in Snowmass, Colo., June 7–12, 2004. The result was a set of 10 recommendations that, if adopted institutionally, would reestablish the postdoc as a trainee, in a transitory state between predoctoral training and permanent employment. Moreover, these steps would promote an environment in which the trainees can receive the advanced instruction they need to embark on successful careers. The 10 recommendations include:

1. Establish an institutionally defined, fixed training period of three to five years, with goals and milestones established by the mentor and trainee. Institutions should develop an application and review mechanism for extending the training period, procedures for formal completion of the training period, and guidelines for possible promotion to a faculty or research associate appointment following the training period.

2. Establish a regular annual or biannual review of training progress, and provide feedback to postdoctoral trainees and their mentors. This may include quantitative measures, such as number of publications, grant submissions, conferences attended, and seminars given, as well as qualitative measures such as success in meeting predetermined goals, and general satisfaction with the postdoc experience. While such a review could be handled through a number of mechanisms, a common element should be the participation of tenured professors who are not directly involved in or benefiting from the postdoc's research efforts.

3. Offer, at the institutional or program level, courses and workshops for postdocs to enhance professional development skills, including public speaking and presentation skills, grantsmanship and scientific writing, interviewing and negotiation skills, laboratory management, and mentoring skills, as well as responsible conduct of science.

4. Educate trainees about research employment opportunities in academia and industry, as well as nonresearch employment options such as careers in administration and management, science writing, patent law, and public policy. Provide access to a career-resource center for career counseling and workshops on curriculum vitae preparation and job-searching skills.

5. Standardize benefits for postdocs. While individual faculty advisors may choose to provide additional benefits, a minimal level of benefits should be guaranteed at each institution, with a standardized benefits package available for purchase by the advisor or mentor.

6. Establish a mechanism for grievances. Identify a senior academic officer or an appropriate office to serve as an ombudsperson for hearing grievances filed by postdocs. Ensure that postdocs are aware of the presence and identity of this individual or office.

7. Establish a postdoctoral committee to serve as liaison between the administration and the postdocs. This committee could include both postdocs and faculty, and should work to evaluate and enhance the postdoctoral training experience.

8. Establish a local postdoc society for meeting other postdocs, and networking with peers and potential colleagues. Encourage institutional participation in the National Postdoctoral Association (www.nationalpostdoc.org), postdoctoral attendance at scientific meetings, interdepartmental seminars and socials, and other such activities.

9. Establish an orientation to the institution for new postdocs to help integrate them into the research community. This can include basic information about benefits and services, as well as an orientation to culture and language for foreign fellows.

10. Establish an office of postdoctoral affairs, with a dedicated administrator to oversee postdoctoral training, aid in the recruitment of postdocs, and establish and support the nine points listed above.

These guidelines can be a mechanism to supplement and promote comprehensive, quality training. They will enhance the overall training experience and promote career success. They will not interfere with the basic elements of the one-on-one training experience or the bond between mentor and trainee, nor will they reduce the amount of time spent engaged in quality laboratory work, as research output is still the cornerstone of a successful career outcome.

Establishing baseline requirements for postdoctoral training is most effective at the institutional level but could also be successfully implemented by individual schools, programs, or departments. Most importantly, someone, whether it is the graduate school dean, the vice president for research, the dean of academic affairs, or an individual department chair, must be designated as the person or office in authority over postdoctoral training.

It is also essential that institutions develop a reliable method for counting and tracking postdocs, including their career outcomes, to evaluate the effectiveness of postdoctoral training policies. In the end, successful implementation of widely accepted and consistently applied postdoctoral training will improve postdoc career outcomes and satisfaction, maximize use of laboratory and institutional resources, and enhance the reputation of both the lab and the institution while attracting more competitive postdoctoral trainees.

There's no denying that it's the right thing to do.

» Robert Harper-Mangels, Northwestern University Institute for Neuroscience, Chicago

» Sid Breman, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

» Jacqui Brinkman, James Hogg iCAPTURE Center for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver

» Erika Gonzalez-Lima, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin

» Elaine Oliverio, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh

» Deborah Swope, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC (Dr. Swope's views are her own and do not necessarily represent those of the NIH or the US government.)