A group of scientists and science policy experts from academic institutions across the U.S. describe the detrimental effects that current employment structures have on training, compensation, and benefits for postdoctoral researchers in a point of view article in eLife.
They make the case that academic research institutions should standardize the categorization and treatment of postdocs and they provide a framework that institutions can follow.
The authors believe that the widespread use of inconsistent titles for researchers who've earned Ph.D.s and hold temporary research positions, primarily at academic institutions, makes tracking their progress difficult and counting them impossible. What's more, the authors say, different designations come with different salaries, benefits, and professional-development opportunities, leading to disparities in treatment of similarly ranked employees both within and across institutions.
"Postdocs are a key component of our biomedical research workforce," says Wesley I. Sundquist, co-chair of the biochemistry department at the University of Utah and emeritus chair of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology's Public Affairs Advisory Committee. "We owe it to them, and also to the overall health of our enterprise, to ensure that they are treated equitably and professionally, receive great scientific training and have strong career development opportunities. Standardizing postdoc titles and positions is one important step along that path."
In recent years, the number of scientists holding Ph.D.s and seeking permanent research positions has exceeded demand for them, forcing many of those job seekers to prolong their existing postdoctoral positions or complete multiple short-term stints. Given that postdoc positions are designed to be temporary, some institutions have resorted to instituting term limits to ensure turnover.
"Unfortunately, this effort has led to the proliferation of new designations for similar positions," the authors write, and devising new names for basically the same jobs has consequences. "First, scientists in other designations may not receive the training and career development that is provided to their postdoc counterparts. Second, redesignating scientists who have exhausted their postdoc eligibility so that they can simply continue to perform the same work does not constitute advancement."
In addition, changes to the overtime rules in the Fair Labor Standards Act last year prompted many U.S. universities to raise postdoc salaries. "However," the authors write, "the use of nonstandard designations has meant that these improved pay scales and benefits packages have not always been extended to researchers who are essentially postdocs."
The authors point out that some young scientists even are willing to accept unpaid positions to avoid gaps in employment.
"While this situation is rare, this is a most extreme example of inequities in compensation between scientists at a similar career stage. A task force that studied nonfaculty research positions at Boston University this past spring specifically addressed this issue," explains Michael D. Schaller, chair of the biochemistry department at West Virginia University and the lead author on the eLife article.