I have written before about the crisis in biomedical research that has been increasingly discussed since the publication of “Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws” by Alberts et al. Several meetings have been organized by senior community members, at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Headquarters in August 2014 (see Acknowledgements here), Duke University and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in February 2015, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison in April 2015. In addition, members of the early-career researcher community organized a meeting in Boston in October 2015. These meetings have provided recommendations for ways to resolve the crisis, but, as yet, very little action has been taken. An attempt to take more concrete steps towards action was the rationale behind the “Future of Biosciences Graduate and Postdoctoral Training,” a national meeting that took place in Ann Arbor, MI, at the University of Michigan May 3 -5, 2015.
A criticism leveled at many of the meetings organized by the senior academic community has been the lack of representation of all stakeholders and, in particular, the very graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who comprise the majority of the workforce in the system. We at the Future of Research were therefore very grateful to be invited to send a representative, and I was not only able to attend as a postdoc representative, but was invited to co-chair a workshop on “New Models for Training Bioscientists.”
The results of the meeting are to be discussed in a white paper currently in development. Here, I would like to describe some of my personal experiences and perspectives as a postdoc at such a meeting. I encourage you to take a look at the hashtag #fobgapt on Twitter to find out more. This post is meant only to reflect my personal experiences, and I recognize it is subjective.
The Role of “Trainees”
As I mentioned, I was invited as a postdoc to attend and co-chair at the meeting. A group of postdocs and graduate students from the University of Michigan were also included as part of the meeting. A barrier to attending the meeting for early-career researchers was the $100 registration fee, which trainees presumably would have to cover themselves. In the future, more robust participation of trainees would be greatly enhanced by institutional support for this kind of representation. As a way around this fee, local early-career researchers were involved as part of the organizing committee, but some were also designated to those of us acting as workshop co-chairs as our “scribes.” These “scribes”—all graduate students and postdocs—would attend and take notes throughout the workshop.
When I was sent an email describing the “scribe” system, and the participant names, I was surprised. To participate, early-career researchers were immediately associated with a subservient role. This was not an intentional slight, I am sure, on the part of the organizers, and I must stress that graduate students and postdocs were able to also attend sessions as participants when not “scribing,” and certainly became active participants in many of the discussions. But it must also be understood that, as pointed out in an article by Richard Branson, those who lead or are not in subservient roles do not take notes. This theme of “well-intentioned but ill thought-out” attitudes and dominant/subservient roles would underscore, for me, much of the meeting.
Never Make Assumptions When You Have No Data
When being trained as a scientist, one of the key things we are taught is that any assumptions made in the course of our research must be substantiated by data. Without the data to substantiate a proposed model, the model is without foundation. So, it was with a growing sense of disbelief that I found many speakers would begin a talk excusing their lack of data, and then proceed to propose exactly what must be done to reform the biomedical research system. What seemed worse than those arguing in the complete absence of data were those arguing from an n of 1. “My institution does this”, “Our office does that”, “I heard of someone who does this”, and “Everyone from my lab goes into” became a mantra, repeating subjective and experiential anecdotes that began to illustrate to me that in the 10, 20, 30 years during which this issue has been discussed, hypotheses are generally not being tested by rigorous experiments.
Drawing on my scientific training, I found myself challenging these speakers with questions such as, “What data do you have to suggest there are enough jobs for PhDs who don’t end up in academia?” The answers followed a typical pattern: “PhDs are smart. The U.S. needs more smart people. Therefore there is a great benefit to training more PhDs.” This well-meaning assumption (and the cynical among us may argue that, of course, to provide the labor in the scientific workforce, any argument must be made for more PhDs and postdocs in society, but I genuinely feel this sentiment to be well-meaning) ignores the question as to whether there is a value to having PhDs resorting to service industry jobs they do not want, because the biomedical enterprise insists on training too many people. Crucial to this argument was the example of careers one can aspire to with a PhD, one being “journalism.” As pointed out by one attendee employed in science communication, those jobs are virtually nonexistent, and are not going to absorb the current excess of early-career researchers. To be sure, there is some improvement in this direction with the introduction of the NIH Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) Awards.
Discussing Diversity
I attended the session, “How to Correct Gender and Diversity Imbalances.” A key discussion revolved around increasing the number of underrepresented minorities and this has focused, intensely, on increasing the diversity of the graduate student and postdoctoral pool. This seemingly noble endeavor, however, may lead to the problems discussed in “Biomedical Science Ph.D. Career Interest Patterns by Race/Ethnicity and Gender” by Gibbs Jr. et al, in which women and underrepresented minorities become more interested in nonacademic careers, and the transition of diversity into the faculty level is not apparent. Trying to engage in discussion on this matter was very difficult.
Another discussion that I brought up was about mentoring and “the right thing to do.” I mentioned that when discussing academic careers with LGBTQ undergrads, I found a great deal of conflict in discussing my enjoyment of science, and the realities of academic career progression. So I asked the assembled group for advice. Some did not seem to understand why I had this conflict; and some advised I lie, and tell the undergraduates that there are no difficulties in career progression (perhaps following the line of thinking stated above that we cannot have “too many” PhDs).
In any setting discussing diversity, there is heightened sensitivity as to who gets a voice in the discussion, and in particular who recognizes their privilege and subjective experiences in these discussions and makes allowances for this. This session needed a clear establishment of boundaries, recognition of privilege and discussion of safe space that was unfortunately lacking. Some attempts at this were made, but they were insufficient to prevent me from leaving the session deeply troubled and stressed.
Co-chairing a Workshop
For the entirety of May 5th, I was involved in co-chairing the session on new training methods with Mary O’Riordan, professor from the University of Michigan, and the experience was, overall, a very positive one. There was a very productive conversation, and some consensus solutions appeared to emerge. There is increasing discussion about the inclusion of mechanisms to allow early PhD students to switch to a Master’s degree if they decide against a full PhD, and that this mechanism should allow students to leave with a degree that is recognized as a valued and useful qualification, and not as a failure. In my opinion, this allows us to address a problem where PhD students can end up trapped in the system for many years. The Master’s proposal began to emerge from many different workshops as a model with many merits that most felt should be actively developed.
However, a caveat that became apparent was an emerging discussion on making graduate students have “some skin in the game.” By this I mean discussing mechanisms to charge some amount of tuition for entry into a PhD, to therefore include “only the most committed,” with parallels to the medical school system immediately being drawn. This is not universally supported, but was mentioned in multiple workshops. I must report that I did not hear any suggestions about educating undergraduates about the pros and cons of choosing graduate education as a career path, and I found this very striking.
Something that particularly distressed me in this session was that, having kept politely and respectfully quiet throughout a discussion that included many ideas, with many assumptions about graduate student and postdoc intent, a graduate student raised her hand and made a comment. It was a point that was perfectly valid from the view of the graduate student. Immediately, a group of faculty around this student proceeded to shout down this comment, and I was left dumbstruck watching the stereotypical power structure play out in front of everyone, and guilty at not stepping in more quickly, while thankfully my co-chair did.
Hopes and Fears for a System in Crisis
In the examples I have given, I am aware of my perspective as a postdoc, and that my experience is subjective. I was saddened by much that I heard, but gladdened too. There were many suggestions made that were intelligently and thoughtfully discussed. Many people like to make arguments without any data, but I’m excited because so many young people want to get the data. In many ways, some of the frank opinions given were also very refreshing—I am grateful that opinions were not held back simply because I am a postdoc, but I am also shocked by some of the things that were said, that were perhaps assumed not to be shocking to my ears. Some people didn’t appear to be as sensitive to issues of diversity as I had hoped, but even this event made positive strides. I also met many wonderful, concerned people.
The great fear throughout the meeting, though, was that again, action might not be taken. Everyone agrees something must be done; no one wants to be the one to do it. Everyone agrees that everyone in the system must feel pain to make changes; but nobody agrees on the way to diminish that pain overall.
My greatest hope and, it seems, the greatest hope of many in the senior academic community, is the action being taken by early career researchers, and the potential for action that they have. The graduate students and postdocs I met at the University of Michigan certainly reinforced that hope in me; they were unafraid to engage in discussions, and gave great opinions and I very much enjoyed having my opinions and ideas challenged by them too.
And so, I did not leave the meeting disheartened, but very much invigorated. For one thing, the power of our community to collect and interpret data on these issues is huge, and the massive strides that are already being made by graduate and postdoctoral communities are already being deeply felt throughout the academic community. Early career researchers are doing the bulk of the benchwork, the interpretation, the critical thinking, the scientific communication, and the public outreach and advocacy that the scientific endeavor is dependent upon. It is therefore my great hope that as we become increasingly included in the discussions, and actions, surrounding this issue, that our contribution is recognized as necessary to effect change.
About the Author:
Gary McDowell is Executive Director of The Future of Research, Inc. (http://futureofresearch.org/), a nonprofit organization seeking to champion, engage and empower early career researchers with evidence-based resources to help them make improvements to the research enterprise. He is a COMPASS alumnus.
