Rescuing Biomedical Research

Creative solutions to sustain biomedical research

  • Home
  • The Problem
  • RBR Actions
    • Actions taken
    • Work in progress
  • Resources
    • Articles
    • Books and Talks
    • Reports and Research Articles
    • Videos
    • Websites
  • About
    • Steering Committee Bios
    • Contact Us
    • In the Media
    • Site Map
  • Blog
You are here: Home / Actions Proposed / Postdoctoral Training / Comments by Holly Hamilton

Comments by Holly Hamilton

September 13, 2016 By RBR Writing Program

Topic: Postdoctoral Training
by Holly Hamilton
Formerly: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
08/28/2016

Proposed Actions

(1) Create a mentor network to expand training and allow postdocs to be infused with a variety of philosophies/management styles. (2) “Free-range” postdocs who are permitted to propose and conduct research based on their own interests. (3) Postdoctoral training have achievable goals (not just a number of publications or the ability to land a faculty position) such as competency in independence, leadership, communication, management, and/or innovation. (4) Multiple different tracks for postdocs should be available after the first year based on skills, interests, and aptitudes.

Optional Comments on the Problem

(1) A single supervisor limits a trainee to learn only from one person- who will invariably be flawed, be unable to see certain skill gaps in the trainee, and is biased due to his/her need to compete for funding. (2) Requiring that postdocs conduct research that their supervisor’s lab is working on / has grant funding for limits innovation. Successful scientists typically attribute their discover to “following the science” rather than sticking with a set of methods known the his/her lab supervisor. (3) A lack of defined training goals for postdocs leads to a lack of clear value for people with postdoc training, allow supervisors to guilt (or even withhold reference letters for future employment) until vague benchmarks have been met, and have ultimately led to prolonged postdoc training terms. (4) The majority of postdocs will not become academic research professors. Academic training periods are currently used as a selection for the “best scientists”. Similar to “The Hunger Games” only a small fraction of the contestants will survive such as system. And I would argue that the best trainees do not make for the best academic researchers, as the duties are extremely different. Rather, postdocs should spend their first year in an open period of research and self-discovery. After that, postdocs should be evaluated by multiple mentors for their skills, interests, and aptitudes. After that a track should be recommended- dismissal (for lazy or otherwise unacceptable work), academic research, industry, policy, innovation, writing/editing, and sales).

Filed Under: Postdoctoral Training

iBiology Videos: The Biomedical Workforce

  • See more videos >>

Most Recent Input

Click on a blue header below to see the full comment.

Comments by Andrea Repetto

Posted: November 3, 2016

Non-PhD level positions undervalued

0 comments

Comments by Andrea Repetto

Posted: November 3, 2016

Reward negative results

0 comments

Comments by Holly Hamilton

Posted: September 13, 2016

(1) The training model thus far is that of the medieval apprentice- a trainee is to become a clone of his/her supervisor. (2) Trainees are rarely permitted to conduct work not expressly assigned/approved by supervisor. (3) Training goals for postdocs at a national level are unspecified. (4) All postdocs are trained as if they will become academic research professors.

0 comments

See all input >>

Upcoming Events

 
See upcoming events, or submit an event
to be listed >>

© 2021 Rescuing BioMedical Research · All Rights Reserved · About · Contact Us