ASM Responds to NIH on Re-envisioning Postdoctoral Research
Michael Lauer, M.D.
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
1 Center Dr.
Bethesda, Md. 20892
Dear Dr. Lauer,
On behalf of the more than 32,000 members of the American Society for °®¶¹´«Ã½ (ASM), thank you for this opportunity to respond to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Request for Information (RFI) on Recommendations on Re-envisioning U.S. Postdoctoral Research Training and Career Progression within the Biomedical Research Enterprise. As one of the largest life science societies, ASM’s mission is to promote and advance the microbial sciences. ASM’s membership spans from undergraduate students to emeritus faculty. NIH is the largest U.S.-based source of research funding for ASM members.
To prepare this response, ASM surveyed its membership using the RFI questions, seeking information about the recommendations on their careers and the potential impacts of the recommendations on microbiology and infectious disease research. Overall, ASM members currently serving as principal investigators (PIs) in academic research labs note that it is increasingly difficult for them to recruit and retain postdoctoral trainees, as Ph.D. graduates are more likely to go to industry, which can pay higher salaries.
Furthermore, ASM members note that, in general, their universities are not well set up to handle fellowships administratively. For example, scientists receiving fellowship funds from NIH often lose access to employee benefits, such as health care and retirement, when they transition to fellowships, which discourages them from applying for these fellowship awards. An ASM member noted that their institution requires postdoc salaries to be matched with payments to the university, making it more difficult for departments and labs to pay competitive salaries to postdocs. Overhead costs are an area where respondents noted that NIH could work with institutions.
Respondents encouraged NIH to explore ways to increase support for non-principal investigator (PI) permanent staff positions. These positions could be filled by Ph.D. level scientists who are interested in a career in academic research but are not interested in a PI position. When postdocs transition to these positions, their responsibilities should be meaningfully different from their responsibilities as a postdoc. A 2012 encouraged this suggestion, noting that even a modest shift ratio of permanent staff to trainees in NIH supported laboratories could have a beneficial effect on the system without reducing the productivity of the research enterprise.
Another suggestion from respondents was for NIH and institutions to provide support for programs to help postdocs transition in their careers, such as dedicated career center personnel postdocs can contact for support; programming organized by postdoctoral associations to build postdocs’ skills and help them explore career opportunities in and outside of academia in industry, government and non-profits and a centralized NIH database with information about positions available for current postdocs across sectors.
In addition to these suggestions, ASM recommends that any final policy limiting postdoctoral appointments to 5 years include provisions to allow postdocs to pause the clock for parental and family leave, so that the policy does not penalize caregivers. Exemptions for scholars who leave laboratories due to harassment or an unsafe work environment should also be included.
Respondents also strongly supported requiring and offering ongoing training for PIs in leadership, mentoring and managing people. Similarly, ASM members suggested that postdoctoral training should include training in these skills, such as opportunities to coordinate projects and research conducted by Ph.D. students.
ASM thanks NIH for its ongoing efforts to support, grow and diversify the biomedical research workforce and for seeking community input on the ACD report recommendations. If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Zimmerman, Senior Specialist, Federal Affairs at nzimmerman@asmusa.org.
Thank you,
Stacey Schultz Cherry
Chair, ASM Public and Scientific Affairs Committee
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
1 Center Dr.
Bethesda, Md. 20892
Re: Request for Information (RFI) on Recommendations on Re-envisioning U.S. Postdoctoral Research Training and Career Progression within the Biomedical Research Enterprise
Dear Dr. Lauer,
On behalf of the more than 32,000 members of the American Society for °®¶¹´«Ã½ (ASM), thank you for this opportunity to respond to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Request for Information (RFI) on Recommendations on Re-envisioning U.S. Postdoctoral Research Training and Career Progression within the Biomedical Research Enterprise. As one of the largest life science societies, ASM’s mission is to promote and advance the microbial sciences. ASM’s membership spans from undergraduate students to emeritus faculty. NIH is the largest U.S.-based source of research funding for ASM members.
To prepare this response, ASM surveyed its membership using the RFI questions, seeking information about the recommendations on their careers and the potential impacts of the recommendations on microbiology and infectious disease research. Overall, ASM members currently serving as principal investigators (PIs) in academic research labs note that it is increasingly difficult for them to recruit and retain postdoctoral trainees, as Ph.D. graduates are more likely to go to industry, which can pay higher salaries.
Five-year Limit on Postdoctoral Appointments
ASM members have mixed reactions to the proposed policy to limit postdoctoral appointments to 5 years, with some members noting that a time limit for postdoctoral appointments would make them more likely to get a postdoc position, and others concerned that this change would make them lose their employment. Most respondents said they believe that their institutions, particularly lower-resourced institutions, are not prepared to implement this change. They noted that institutions are not currently set up to track total time spent in postdoc positions across institutions and this policy could lead scientists to simply switch institutions every few years. It is common for recent Ph.D. graduates to spend additional time in their Ph.D. lab before transitioning to a new postdoc position, a practice that was especially common for Ph.D. students who graduated during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is not clear from the recommendations if that time counts toward the 5-year limit.Furthermore, ASM members note that, in general, their universities are not well set up to handle fellowships administratively. For example, scientists receiving fellowship funds from NIH often lose access to employee benefits, such as health care and retirement, when they transition to fellowships, which discourages them from applying for these fellowship awards. An ASM member noted that their institution requires postdoc salaries to be matched with payments to the university, making it more difficult for departments and labs to pay competitive salaries to postdocs. Overhead costs are an area where respondents noted that NIH could work with institutions.
Respondents encouraged NIH to explore ways to increase support for non-principal investigator (PI) permanent staff positions. These positions could be filled by Ph.D. level scientists who are interested in a career in academic research but are not interested in a PI position. When postdocs transition to these positions, their responsibilities should be meaningfully different from their responsibilities as a postdoc. A 2012 encouraged this suggestion, noting that even a modest shift ratio of permanent staff to trainees in NIH supported laboratories could have a beneficial effect on the system without reducing the productivity of the research enterprise.
Another suggestion from respondents was for NIH and institutions to provide support for programs to help postdocs transition in their careers, such as dedicated career center personnel postdocs can contact for support; programming organized by postdoctoral associations to build postdocs’ skills and help them explore career opportunities in and outside of academia in industry, government and non-profits and a centralized NIH database with information about positions available for current postdocs across sectors.
In addition to these suggestions, ASM recommends that any final policy limiting postdoctoral appointments to 5 years include provisions to allow postdocs to pause the clock for parental and family leave, so that the policy does not penalize caregivers. Exemptions for scholars who leave laboratories due to harassment or an unsafe work environment should also be included.
Changes to the K99/R00 Award
ASM members cautioned that, in order to successfully transition to the 2 years in postdoc limit for applying for the K99/R00 award, existing criteria for reviewing awards must be significantly changed. Suggestions for new criteria included de-emphasizing publications and grant and putting greater weight on the existing innovation section, as well as interdisciplinary work, the novelty and originality of the work and the potential societal impact. ASM members also suggested redacting information about the applicant’s institution to prevent bias. Training in the new criteria and a new pool of reviewers for K99/R00 awards may be needed to successfully implement this change.Recommendations for Training for Mentors and Mentees
ASM members are generally supportive of making professional training a core part of postdocs' responsibilities, and dedicating a set percentage of time to training, professional development and networking. This training should be accessible to postdoctoral trainees and should be free or low-cost. One ASM member suggested that institutions should require professional trainings and track to see if trainees from certain labs do not regularly attend required trainings, as that could be a sign of a lab culture that does not promote or support professional development.Respondents also strongly supported requiring and offering ongoing training for PIs in leadership, mentoring and managing people. Similarly, ASM members suggested that postdoctoral training should include training in these skills, such as opportunities to coordinate projects and research conducted by Ph.D. students.
International Trainees
With about half of ASM membership coming from outside of the U.S., supporting the training of international scholars in the U.S. is of interest to ASM. Many international postdoctoral scholars are brought in under J1 visas and then transition to H1B visas after 5 years. ASM members expressed concern that limiting postdoctoral appointments to 5 years would prevent international academics from receiving H1B visas. Relatedly, having PIs complete visa paperwork for trainees creates dangerous power imbalances for international trainees. NIH and institutions should provide additional support for visa applications, taking responsibility for visas out of the hands of PIs. The R00/K99 is one of few awards for which international trainees are eligible to apply. Additional awards that international trainees are eligible for would decrease competition for R00/K99 awards.Impacts of Changes to °®¶¹´«Ã½
ASM also asked members to highlight any potential impacts of the proposed policy changes that are unique to microbiology and infectious disease research. ASM recommends monitoring to ensure that time limits for postdocs and shorter timeframes for K99/R00 awards do not inadvertently favor bacteria and viruses that are faster to study, directing research away from certain diseases. For example, Mycobacterium tuberculosis takes weeks to grow in a lab, while other bacteria may only take 24 hours to grow. Similarly, research requiring extensive biosafety precautions, such as studying Ebola, or research involving non-human primates, such as vaccine efficacy studies, is often time consuming. Researchers specialized in research requiring biosafety level-4 laboratories are more limited in where they can perform their work.ASM thanks NIH for its ongoing efforts to support, grow and diversify the biomedical research workforce and for seeking community input on the ACD report recommendations. If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Zimmerman, Senior Specialist, Federal Affairs at nzimmerman@asmusa.org.
Thank you,
Stacey Schultz Cherry
Chair, ASM Public and Scientific Affairs Committee
