Introducing myIDP, the online Individual Development Plan

You Need A Game Plan

Introducing the new individual development plan, a long-term project sponsored by multiple scientific societies and universities. ‘Scientific careers are not like the board game Monopoly. In Monopoly, the rules are clear and it’s relatively easy to succeed; in fact you get $200 just for hanging in there long enough to pass “Go” on your way to the next round. But in science, it often seems there are no definite rules and there’s no guaranteed payoff for advancing to the next training round: Ph.D., postdoc, second postdoc—then what? To succeed in science, you need to have a game plan. This is especially true in the current research environment.’ To read more, please see the weblink below.

Website: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_09_07/caredit.a1200100

The Postdoc Challenge

How dedicated are you to the academic research career? Are you willing to put in the time it takes to get in line and wait for the right faculty position? These tough choices await all of us and it has to be carefully weighed against family-, political- and other social considerations. Please see the link below for further insight to postdoctoral challenges awaiting academic scientists.   
       

Website: http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/01/opinion-the-postdoc-challenge/

Best Places to Work in Academia

Institutions that were rated the best places to work in academics for the year 2012:

http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/01/best-places-to-work-academia-2012/

Harvard Researcher Commits Scientific Fraud

“…Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Hauser, who resigned from his Harvard faculty position in 2011 after an internal investigation found him responsible for research misconduct, wrote in a statement that although he has "fundamental differences" with some of the new report's findings, "I acknowledge that I made mistakes." He did not admit deliberate misconduct, however, and implied that his mistake was that he "tried to do too much" and "let important details get away from my control…" To read more, please see below.

Website: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-co.html

ScienceCareers Annual Postdoc Survey Results

ScienceCareers is published by Science Magazine and offers career advice and job postings for scientists.  Check out their recent article offering career advice for postdocs based on their annual postdoc survey:  ThePostdoc Experience: High Expectations, Grounded in Reality.

Contract Editing Jobs with American Journal Experts - First hand experience from Rebecca

I wanted to share my experiences working as a contract editor for American Journal Experts (AJE) and let other postdocs (and grad students) know about this opportunity.   AJE recruits PhD-level scientists to edit papers that were written by international authors for submission to English-language journals.  The editors try to make the grammar and style of the text sound like a native-English speaker wrote it; they don’t try to edit or even comment on the scientific content.   I joined last fall after they held a recruitment session on campus.  So far, I have edited about 9 papers (I took a big break to write a review for lab), and I think it has been a good experience.  I like knowing that I am helping the authors have a better chance of getting their work published.  Senior-level editors at AJE check each assignment and give you feedback, so you know how you are doing and can be sure that the author receives a high-quality edit on the paper.  As a result, my writing skills have definitely been fine-tuned, which has helped me write my own papers more clearly.

What I like about this job is that it is under my control.  When you sign up, you tell AJE what fields you feel comfortable with, and they only assign you papers in those categories.   For example, I edit papers in Biotechnology, Analytical Chemistry, and Biomedical Engineering.  Furthermore, you decide how many papers you want to edit each week, if any.  When I am working late in lab, or working on my own paper or a grant, I set myself to “unavailable” so that I am not distracted by editing assignments.  When I am available, I limit it to 1 paper per week (though more are allowed), so that I can do the editing in my spare time and not detract from my lab work.  The papers vary from interesting to rather routine.  It usually takes me a few hours to complete an edit, though I know that in general I am a slow editor.  The most poorly written paper I received took me about 6 hours to edit, which I was discouraged by, but the very next paper I got only took 2 hours.  It averages out.  You do get paid for each paper you edit, and while the compensation isn’t going to make you rich, it’s nice to have a little extra spending money each month.

I am happy to talk to you about my experiences if you are curious.  Anyone who is interested can apply for the editor position under Contractor Opportunities on their “careers” page:  http://goo.gl/jFYUy. 

Rebecca Pompano

rpompano@uchicago.edu

NIH Biomedical Workforce Working Group on Postdocs

On June 14^th the Biomedical Workforce Working Group at the NIH released their draft report detailing the steps they recommend the NIH take in the coming years to improve and support the personnel aspects of biomedical research.  The report which can be found here http://acd.od.nih.gov/bmw_report.pdf examines the involvement of the NIH in the financial support and training of graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, staff scientists, and physician scientists. 

As pertains to postdocs the NIH working group makes several recommendations, among them to:

·      Increase the number of training grant and fellowship slots and decrease the number of postdocs supported by research project grants in order to ensure that the postdoctoral period includes the training and mentoring opportunities that are afforded by the former slot types. 

·      Start a pilot program for extramural funding of training-based initiatives run by institutional postdoctoral offices

·      Increase stipend support to $42,000 per year with 4% increases in years 2-3 and 6% increases for years 4-7 in order to encourage PIs to move senior postdocs into more stable positions. This also aims to reduce the years spent in the postdoctoral training period.

·      Ensure that NIH supported postdocs receive the same benefits as all other employees at their institution.

·      Double the number of K99 and early independence awards and make earlier career postdocs eligible for K99 awards.

·      Require individual development plans (IDPs) of all NIH supported postdocs. 

The report also recommends that NIH study sections be encouraged to be receptive to grant applications from staff scientists, an important step in the professionalization of these ambiguous careers that fall in-between PI and postdoctoral status. 

Additionally, the report recommends that institutions receiving NIH funding be required to report and publically post career outcomes data of graduate and postdoctoral trainees.  This is much like recent pushes for accountability of law schools to claims of student success; publication of such data could be very useful to postdocs choosing between different institutions. 

You can also read about it in Science Careers: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_06_22/caredit.a1200069

While the recommendations of the NIH working group are sure to garner much interest this year, it is clear from the report that they may not be implemented simply due to funding concerns.  As always, NIH funding remains of paramount interest in our community.  The BSD Postdoctoral association public affairs committee plans to keep you informed on the status of these recommendations and on NIH funding issues in the future.  Please feel free to post a blog or otherwise comment on these recommendations and other community wide concerns.  What do postdocs at U of Chicago think are the most important steps to sustaining and improving the biomedical workforce and the postdoctoral experience?  We would love to hear your thoughts!