Should I Stay Or Should I Go?
Sometimes, being a PostDoctoral researcher is a tough life. Thankfully, help is at hand in Philip Bourne and Iddo Friedberg's guide Ten Simple Rules for Selecting a Post-Doctoral Position published in PLOS Computational Biology. This article is part of a series of editorials [1,2,3] which discuss various aspects of the weird and wonderful world of scientific research. They are worth reading if you're at an early stage of your career, although you may not always agree with all the advice given. For example, the article advises PostDocs to:
Think very carefully before extending your graduate work into a postdoc in the same laboratory where you are now - to some professionals this raises a red flag when they look at your resume. Almost never does it maximise your gain of knowledge and experience, but that can be offset by rapid and important publications.
Do any experienced postdocs (or post-postdocs) out there have an opinions on the importance of moving labs after a PhD? What if you're already in a great lab and like where you work? To what extent is it important to move, just to get new experience and skills? Or as The Clash once put it [4]:
♫ If I go there will be trouble, if I stay it will be double.
So come on and let me know, should I cool it or should I blow? ♫
References
- Phillip Bourne (2006) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published PLOS Computational Biology
- Phillip Bourne and Leo Chalupa (2006) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants PLOS Computational Biology
- Phillip Bourne and Alon Korngreen (2006) Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers PLOS Computational Biology
- Mick Jones (1981) Should I stay or should I go?
- Jawahar Swaminathan (2006) A ten step plan for PostDoc training nodalpoint.org
- Giampaolo Macorig (2006) Giampaolo Macorig (picture-right), "The way out? (from Hell)"
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
update: Mysteriously, Nature jobs used the Clash as a theme to their careers supplement, two weeks after this post was published. See How to ask yourself questions about major career decisions and Should I Stay Or Should I Go?. Coincidence? I wonder if they read nodalpoint?
Comments
Moving on
My own feeling is that you should move after the PhD. It's tempting to stay in your old lab, where you finally feel you understand the work, you have a routine, and that big paper is just round the corner. And, let's face it, being top dog is kind of cool, too.
You have to balance this against over-specialization, and narrow mentorship. The chances are you will continue to work on approximately the same problems if you stay. Although it's efficient, it's not necessarily in your best interest to become so one-sided immediately. A move to a different lab will broaden your horizons and get you thinking about another set of problems. Just as importantly, it will expose you to a new set of people, with different attitudes, skill sets, and priorities. Although initially daunting, this cosmopolitanism has been, for me, invaluable in shaping the way I think about science.
There is also the danger of becoming too similar to your supervisor. If people look at you and see Mini-Me, you will have a tough time convincing people of your independence. You may also have a harder time finding a position later if you're trying to set up a carbon copy of someone else's research program.
You should also consider that your first post-doc is possibly the only time in your research career when the slate can be wiped clean and you can start again, choosing any (sub)field you want. It's almost certainly the only time you will be able to do so under the mentorship of someone, rather than bumbling round by yourself.
Neil is absolutely right about career paths, too. If you don't see yourself as a lab head fairly soon (ie within a decade), you'll want to research alternative paths asap. Staff scientist positions, rather than perpetual post-doc fellowships, are great - but few academic institutions have them, although they are common in industry. The commercial sector is also becoming more plastic than before, with many companies encouraging quasi-academic atmospheres to attract researchers (think Rosetta and Genentech).
How To Do PostDocs
John Bothwell, who wrote the article about PostDoccery, has written about this post in his article How To Do PostDocs. John is busy setting up a PostDoc association in the UK, because unlike the USA, we don't yet have one. Also, since writing this, my colleagues have pointed out that mobility is favoured more highly in Biology than in Engineering/Computer Science. Since bioinformatics combines both these, it isn't clear how important mobility is in this area. Finally, the advice given by Phil Bourne is very US-centric. If you're not based in the US, then not all of the ten simple rules will apply to you.
all good advice
The "rules" are good, simple common-sense advice, I think. Moving labs is a personal decision. I think it's good to move on after the PhD. You may like where you are but you have to plan ahead - what are the odds that you'll gain permanent employment and be able to set up a group in your current workplace at some future point? Mobility is also viewed positively by many employers and funding agencies.
I'd add to the list: if you don't have a clear career plan 5 years out from the PhD, consider whether academic research is for you. I know a lot of postdocs who are 10 or more years out, enjoy research but are basically "stuck" when it comes to career advancement. If running a group and constantly applying for grants doesn't appeal, think about other avenues - sooner rather than later.
PostDoc Heaven
Thanks Neil and Chris for your advice, it is always useful to get a second opinion from outside the lab. People working in the same lab don't always give the most objective careers advice...