Introduction

For more than a generation, postdoctoral appointments immediately following completion of the doctorate and before the start of a full-time professional position have become critically important in the preparation of many scientists and engineers, and science educators. Although the roles and significance of these appointments for professional advancement can and do vary by discipline, they share a few common elements. Chief among these, in contrast to graduate study, is the general full-time focus on research, with little or no participation in teaching, management, or opportunities for other types of professional development in academic, industrial, government, or other settings. Indeed, postdoctoral researchers (“postdocs”) play a critical role in the conduct of current research.

For many, the postdoctoral period can be one of the most scientifically productive periods of a career. As full-time researchers, postdocs can become the de facto leaders of the research and are often listed as first author on the resulting papers. Establishing one’s independent scientific interests, developing state-of-the-art scientific skills, and compiling an impressive publication record during the postdoc have become requirements for those who wish to pursue tenured academic positions and are thought to be enhanced for those on fellowships. Although the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides the funds that support about 6,000 postdoctoral researchers, less than three percent of these postdocs are supported directly through specific postdoctoral fellowships. The remainder work under principal investigators (PIs), who are supported on investigator-initiated grants. By contrast, NSF fellowships are designed to afford the opportunity for a postdoc to lead a research effort to a greater extent than may be possible on a PI’s project.

The postdoctoral appointment is an important transition from being a graduate student to becoming a scientific professional. Many postdocs and many of those who mentor and advise them recognize that postdocs also need the opportunity for personal career and professional development during this period. Still, many postdocs are not given the opportunity to acquire the breadth of skills needed to make this transition successfully. This issue can be especially important for postdocs who find at the end of their appointments that there are too few job openings where they expected to work, and that they lack many of the skills needed for other professional scientific careers. Indeed, an important measure of the success of the postdoctoral experience is not only useful research results, but also the development of an individual capable of functioning as an independent professional.

Decades ago, when the postdoctorate focused exclusively on research training, adequate numbers of research-oriented professional positions were available. Now, the numbers and choices of traditional, largely academic research positions are substantially more limited, and many more settings for pursuing professional careers exist. Scientists and engineers need more than research credentials from their graduate and postdoctoral education to be able to consider a variety of career options. However, except for a small number of targeted programs, most postdoctoral appointments have maintained the traditional research focus. Meanwhile, postdoctoral tenures in some disciplines have become longer, levels of compensation and status have not improved, and professional development needs often go unmet. Accordingly, in some cases the postdoctoral appointment appears to be of limited value in providing access to independent, productive, and creative careers outside of academia. If the postdoctoral period does succeed in providing better access to future career opportunities, are scientists from populations that are substantially underrepresented in professional positions in general, and in positions of leadership in particular, being afforded adequate access to postdoctoral positions? If ethnic minorities, women, and people with disabilities find that the choice postdoctoral positions, which are generally acknowledged in many disciplines to be critical for entry into independent professional careers, are difficult if not impossible to obtain, can new practices improve access? If not, the intellectual benefit that derives from a diverse workforce is diminished, and opportunities for sustaining scientific and engineering leadership are correspondingly reduced.

Numerous reports and conferences document the need for addressing these issues. Recent responses are encouraging. A number of granting agencies have introduced programs that broaden the purview of postdoctoral education, and some organizational websites offer assistance and guidance to postdocs. These reports and conferences also demonstrate convincingly that the status of postdocs, their preparation for independent careers, their opportunity for developing independent creativity, and their compensation and standing can and do vary substantially across and within disciplines and institutions. Many institutions that appoint significant numbers of postdocs have created offices that take overall institutional responsibility for postdoctoral affairs beyond the research. In its guidelines for a few postdoctoral fellowship programs, NSF sets stipend levels, provides guidance on benefits, and states work expectations, but its Grant Proposal Guide, which contains its overall policies and procedures, is silent about these topics.

If NSF were indeed to make changes in its policies and practices, it would need not only to evaluate the prospective effectiveness of any changes in guidelines, but also recognize and avert possible unintended consequences or negative outcomes, identify additional opportunities for policy changes not yet apparent, allow application of guidelines to individual circumstances, encourage development of new models for managing postdoctoral appointments that would meet NSF and PI expectations, and generate acceptance of revised policies by the communities that NSF serves.

Aware of the critical importance of postdoctoral training to the future health of the U.S. scientific, engineering, and educational enterprise, and of issues expressed by postdocs themselves, representatives from a wide range of institutions involved in postdoctoral training convened in a workshop to discuss how NSF policies and practices can best serve all their interests. The workshop was held November 15-17, 2004, at NSF headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Participants included postdocs who had received direct fellowship support as well as those who had worked under a PI’s grant; representatives of postdoctoral organizations; NSF-funded PIs who support postdoctoral researchers with their research grants; coordinators of postdoctoral grant programs; academic administrators, department heads and chairs; and leaders in other sectors that have a stake in postdoctoral training.