The Crowded Academic Postdoc: Why is this a problem and how can we fix it?
For many years pursuing scientific careers in academia has been straightforward. Prospective scientists would obtain a PhD followed by a postdoc to specialize and secure independent funding, with the goal of becoming competitive for a faculty position. In the 1980s, PhDs were likely to obtain their first R01 (a large grant and a requirement for many faculty positions) before age 38, but that age has risen to over 45 (1). On top of that, the likelihood PhDs becoming professors dropped from 41% to 16%(2). Here we will discuss some of the factors involved in setting this trend and possible solutions.
Postdoctoral fellowships are temporary research roles that prepare scientists for faculty positions, but these coveted faculty positions are getting increasingly harder to come by. This is partly driven by the increasing number of PhD students in training and stagnant faculty positions, leading to postdocs crowding in academia. To put it in perspective, 3 decades ago there were around 20,000 postdocs in the US and now there are over 64,000(3). Additionally, the NIH suggested salary of new postdocs is around $48,000, which forces young scientists to further delay personal aspirations like starting family and buying a home. These figures discourage some from continuing in academia, but PhD programs do little to train for alternate careers, leaving many PhDs stuck in postdoc positions because they are unaware of their prospects outside an academic lab.
Potential solutions to these problems have been focused at large funding institutes of research, like the NIH and the NSF. These agencies award grants to scientists based on their proposed projects after considering factors like significance and novelty. An area that needs reform is the bias towards already accomplished professors. This bias is not necessarily explicit, nevertheless statistics show that in the last 15 years younger scientists are increasingly less likely to obtain R01s than professors over 65 years old(1). This could be a result of the experienced professor knowing their way around a grant application, but some suggest it is due to the inherent gamble placed on the incoming scientist vs the already accomplished professor. It is safer to award a grant (or place the bet) to the experienced professor since he/she has already shown his/her research prowess. One solution for this bias is to place early-career scientists in a different grant pool with less emphasis on preliminary data and previously funded grants. The creation of partial R01s, which are awarded in full once preliminary data is gathered, may help early-career scientists with no lab or not enough freedom to conduct pilot experiments under their supervisor. An alternative already in place are grants specific for early-career scientists showing high creativity and productivity, such as K99, DP2 and DP5. Together these may help reduce the bias that works against the upcoming scientists, thus reducing those stuck in a postdoctoral loop.
Increasing funds for federal research agencies to better the career prospects of postdoctoral scientists has also been suggested. This could allow more research grants to be awarded, and more universities opening faculty positions. It is worth to note that the NIH, due to inflation and lack of increases in funding, has lost approximately 20% of its purchasing power. Although more funds for these agencies is indeed needed, I hesitate to believe it will solve this particular problem. This approach would be a temporary solution because the newly appointed faculty would train more students and the buildup of postdoctoral fellows would follow. This crowding of postdocs is also driven by senior tenured professors not retiring ever since Congress removed the mandate to retire in 1986. Thus, with no new faculty positions available and senior professors remaining in the work force, postdocs have a reduced chance of finding an academic faculty position. A possible way to address this is to encourage senior professors to apply for grants that include mentorship and involvement in training committees for early-career scientists. This would free up R01s and other grants for the early-career scientists while maintaining the senior tenured professors in active roles necessary for the research enterprise.
Surveys still show PhD students overwhelmingly prefer academic careers, sadly recent studies show there is only 1 faculty position for every 7.8 PhD graduates (4). Nevertheless, Americans take pride in our ability to innovate and develop skilled scientists, so I do not support the notion of discouraging students from pursuing PhDs because of the academic job prospects. A better alternative is to teach PhD students to understand their value in other industries. PhD programs can create opportunities to develop connections and transferable skills for their trainees. Ideally, career transition training should be as common as grant writing courses in PhD programs. Lastly, an honest disclosure from principal investigators about current career prospects to the incoming students is essential. A discussion about realistic career plans can help incoming students and new postdocs make better career strategies, possibly reducing our postdoc pool but ensuring those that remain be more focused, successful and aware of their growth opportunities.
References
1. Daniels RJ. A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce: Fig. 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(2):313-318. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418761112
2. Ghaffarzadegan N, Hawley J, Larson R, Xue Y. A Note on PhD Population Growth in Biomedical Sciences. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2015;23(3):402-405. doi:10.1002/sres.2324
3. Einaudi P, Heuer R, Green P. Counts of Postdoctoral Appointees in Science, Engineering, and Health Rise with Reporting Improvements. NSF 13-334.
4. Larson RC, Ghaffarzadegan N, Xue Y. Too Many PhD Graduates or Too Few Academic Job Openings: The Basic Reproductive Number R(0) in Academia. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2014;31(6):745-750. doi:10.1002/sres.2210