Reform the postdoc, return hope to science.

I’ve recently reached the end of renowned chef David Chang’s autobiography, Eat A Peach, which I enthusiastically recommend. There are some surprising parallels between the culinary industry and academia, and his lens on the former is relevant and insightful. In the afterword, on the impact of the pandemic on the culinary industry, he writes:

“And while what’s happened in the past few months has generated incredibly painful realizations about our society, we must hold on to hope. As impossible as it may seem, I believe that we can build a better version of our world…”

It’s a nice sentiment. As I read that, I started to get the idea that postdocs are the ones who represent hope for a better science – think of the next line chef that could go on to start the newest Michelin hat restaurant. 

Let me explain. Chang continued by defining his vision of the best-case and worst-case scenario for the world in 2035, which I’m going to do here as well but with science and academia:

Worst-case scenario¹

• Elsevier owns all the scientific journals. They use their monopoly power to charge scientists exorbitant fees to publish their work (including a new business model where scientists can pay for different tiers of reviewers – the most expensive tier gets you reviewers known to take no time and ask for no revisions) and charge libraries and universities further to access their journals (the selection of journals becomes largely restricted to promote political agendas). They use these profits to lobby governments to deny climate change, promote anti-vaccination misinformation, and wind back any progress on gender equality.
• There are no more new professors. In fact, there are fewer professors because promotion or tenure is purely decided by a panel of rich, old, white professors – of course, they know the most so they should decide. The remaining professors are also rich, old and white, and the content of their lectures to university students is unchecked – they espouse their opinions as fact because again, they know the most. They are also the source of all scientific communication in interviews or other discussions – you guessed it, because they know the most.
• There is no more funding for basic scientific research. The independent science foundations are abolished and the only sources of ‘research grants’ are now military complexes. Science was gradually less valued by society, and it became too competitive to conduct any basic research (the publishing costs became too expensive anyway). No one makes scientific equipment any more or creates any robust computing packages that support multiple prosocial industries, instead preferring to contribute to the creation of wartime technology powered by machine learning algorithms that are trained on egregiously biased datasets and by similarly biased people.
• All the scientists are dead. Well, the good ones anyway – they refused to contribute to the politicization of truth and paid the ultimate price. The others are the fraudsters willing to put their self-interests above anything else. They produce biased “research” that is incredibly efficient at manipulating people. The public are entranced by the clarity of the fraudsters’ world view, once informed by science.

Best-case scenario

• Aliens have arrived.² They bring amazing new technologies and knowledge that promote good in our civilization – climate change is reversed and the next extinction event has been avoided, global hunger and poverty are alleviated, antibiotic resistance is controlled and cancer is cured. Okay, maybe it’s not aliens, but something has united all humans towards deeper yet prosocial pursuits such as the possibility of intergalactic travel and further understanding of our universe. 
• Knowledge is openly accessible. Journals are no longer the main or only form of scientific content that is recognized, leading to the demise of Elsevier and other for-profit publishers. In fact, science has become so collaborative in its production and review that the content is rigorously tested, and in turn becomes highly trusted by society. The unified goals produce true diversity, equality and inclusivity in scientific structures.
• Science education is widespread. Critical thinking and science education is taught at all levels of schooling, leading to a global population that is more resistant to misinformation, protected from exploitation by scammers, fraudsters and cults. The understanding built by science stands on openly accessible scholarship, with resources shared and normed across the entire scientific community.
• Scientists are living. Not just alive, I mean actually living. Anyone can contribute to science – either to the research and development of scientific truth, or the production of trusted scientific communication content, to the protection of science from being twisted to fit political agendas and ensuring its independence. The work is so ingrained in society and its industries that any of these lines will lead to a secure livelihood.

Which of these scenarios is science moving towards? I suggest that the decisions that the early-career researchers are making are an accurate indicator of the direction that science is heading in, because well, we have kinda become some sort of working middle class³ of academia. Let me paint a picture of the current state of affairs:

A graduate, smiling proud with their freshly-minted PhD, has to find a research postdoc if they want to remain in science. This often means they have to uproot and move to a new academic institution, probably in a different state, sometimes in a new country. This means they’ll leave their friends and family, and have to build a new social network. This means figuring out a new place to live – renting a new apartment, purchasing all the odds and ends, updating insurance and healthcare providers, learning the transit. 

Once at their job, they will be under the mentorship of a new supervisor whose main priority is not to effectively mentor or train the postdoc, but further their own research agenda with the postdocs’ work. In fact, the postdoc will provide the ‘cascading mentorship’ that readily shapes the skill development of the juniors in the lab. Some enterprising postdocs will even create and lead important initiatives to improve science. In return for their work, the postdoc earns a pretty paltry salary which undervalues their PhD – for example, in the United States, making the same as a technical writer or a lab technician, which require a bachelor’s degree. 

And there’s no certainty afforded in their future. Postdocs are being turned away from academic careers. In navigating a hypercompetitive job market (one with a disparity between stable research careers and the number of hopeful postdocs), postdocs are left burnt by a string of rejections. Research institutions often advertise one, perhaps two, career openings and receive hundreds of applications. Note, these positions are usually for associate professorships in the US, or lectureships in the UK/Australia, or the equivalent elsewhere – ones that don’t provide long-term stability of livelihoods because they still require research grant funding and the pursuit of promotions and tenure.

Nature conducted an inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers recently. I don’t even need to show you the data, here are the titles of their Career Feature articles that came from it:

• Pandemic darkens postdocs’ work and career hopes
• Postdoc survey reveals disenchantment with working life
• Postdocs under pressure: “Can I even do this any more?”
• Uncertain prospects for postdoctoral researchers

Well, the early-career researchers are wisening up and they are fleeing. Postdocs are trying to recover from the accrued ruin by moving to the more respectable and balanced livelihoods afforded by better opportunities in industry. Perhaps they’re still doing research or science in some form, but it will mostly be for-profit purposes and the gains in knowledge are unlikely to be made into a public good. How many companies are trusted to provide or apply a sustainable long-term social benefit? Science is facing an exodus of talent and expertise. 

Let’s return to the scenarios I listed above – to me, this is not a sign of a science complex that is flourishing towards the best-case scenario. It is an obvious symptom that the structures are failing. Despite postdoc-ing being institutionalized across science, there’s been little reform to account for that change. Postdocs are often forgotten within the department – for example, there’s often little in the way of a formal office dedicated to postdoctoral affairs. (Take something as simple as being added to a department’s website. I was only added after I kicked up a stink about how I felt undignified and unrecognized. Thanks to the efforts of a kind faculty member, the website was updated, but even now, there remains a clear disparity between the different groups. I see this as a great metaphor for how postdocs are treated – we exist but we’re not really the responsibility or priority of the department. We are truly a precariat species.)

So, all in all, I think reworking what the postdoc is will redirect science for the better. As I’ve established above, to do a postdoc is to make a sacrifice in most cases – financially, socially, mentally. As academia has established the postdoc as a requisite career step in science, this cannot remain the case. Institutions should be responsible employers. 

Here’s what needs to be done:

1. Postdocs need to be recognized for all of their work.

Their mentorship of lab members, their skills doing the groundwork of experiments, their contributions to grant applications, their leadership in the department, their initiative in science reform, their expertise when conducting peer reviews (scientists have been complaining about the long review times for manuscripts, and it strikes me that the fewer early-career researchers that are retained, the smaller the pool of reviewers is becoming). 

This might mean more defined and dignified lines of postdoctoral work with specialization in specific areas like statistics, programming, open science, reproducibility, mentoring, or experimental techniques. You might already call these ‘research scientist’ roles, and I think access to these people will help junior faculty start up their labs, help graduate students learn how to be rigorous in science and produce better research, and improve the department’s diversity and culture.

2. Postdocs need to be paid a livable wage. 

Recognize the market value of a PhD accordingly. Speaking from my own experience in the US, this means the National Institutes of Health adjust their pay scales up, and/or remove the red tape that prevents any adjustment to postdoc salary being paid out of funding grants. I acknowledge that this probably requires an increase in the money coming in, so an increase in the government budget on science might also be needed. (Actually, I think the money that goes to the rent-seeking scientific publishing companies through article processing charges, and through the donation of peer review should be going to the scientists, mostly the early-career researchers). Perhaps grant applications should be reshaped to recognize the contributions by postdoctoral researchers that are required to conduct the research.

And in addition, academic institutions can take some responsibility and contribute to more adequate and fair pay. It seems to me that if research institutions can guarantee indefinite tenure, there is, in fact, money available to provide better employment contracts overall. And I would argue that they would get a better return on their investment – they could retain the postdoc they have trained for longer periods, reduce burdens on faculty (junior faculty especially), and postdocs doing much of the research work on the ground would be more productive if some of their struggle is alleviated. 

3. Postdocs need to be given more agency.

Academic hierarchies need to be upended and postdocs should be given more opportunity in how science is done – for example, having a voice in departments at research institutions, shaping the policies in place at funding agencies, having recognized roles in professional societies and scientific journals, and being offered more grant funding opportunities to pursue their own initiatives in science reform. 

Changing the existing power imbalances in scientific hierarchies will help lower rates of discrimination and rates of anxiety and depression vastly experienced by postdocs. Placing postdocs in more recognized staff positions may provide them access to better resources – say childcare or professional mental-health care. Simply, less postdocs will be falling through the cracks.

4. Postdocs need certainty and/or upward mobility.

Not knowing what is next gives postdocs undue stress – constantly dealing with wondering whether they’ll be employed from year-to-year, or being dependent on their own or their supervisors’ success in grant lotteries, or the low likelihood of getting a tenure-track positions to continue on in science, is no way for us to live.

At the end of the day, postdocs love science. It’s just that we need stable livelihoods while pursuing it. I think while having a lab to pursue one’s own research interests is very cool, many of us would be more than happy being an active contributor to science research in other ways. I think we would put up with a lot of the other bullshit I haven’t mentioned if we knew we were going to progress into mid-career research roles – we might even have potential to reform the institutional structures when we do make it there. 

Back to hope – to understand these harsh realities is to also believe that science can be better. That means there’s opportunity in reform, and it might actually truly change the course of the world. All I’m saying is to trust and build up the next generation of researchers. Maybe we don’t need the aliens to arrive after all⁴.