I just read this article in the Scientist. It makes interesting reading, since most of us are/have been PostDocs sometime or the other. The biggest problem, and getting worse, is the one of there not being enough tenure-track positions in Academia or industry where PostDocs can be accomodated after a few years of training.
So what use is a PostDoc stint anymore ? Do people here think that the age of the PostDoc is slowly going to be replaced with the PostDoc continuum, where PostDocs remain in limbo for 8-10 years or more ?
This mismatch between the needs of the postdocs and the training provided often has negative consequences. Most notably, according to a 1998 National Research Council report, the time that people spend in postdoctoral positions has increased tremendously,4 with some careers even terminating in a quasi-postdoctoral, nontenured research position.
In bioinformatics, do we need PhD's and PostDocs when most of the development appears to be on the code/service front and not so much in research ?
Something to think about.
Comments
Well...
Ideally, a postdoc/series of postdocs is to give you further research-only years and training before you get bogged down in middle level management and/or serious teaching commitments. The assumption here is that everyone is eventually going to become a group leader - which obviously doesn't have to be true any more. The alternatives I've seen in some places are "senior scientist" positions. They don't come with tenure, and they don't pay as well as higher professorships, but they aren't post-docs, either. SS's are independent researchers affiliated with one/several groups, but they don't want the hassle of grant writing, teaching, management, etc. Not a perfect solution by any means, but better than eternal post-doc syndrome.
I disagree about whether bioinformaticians require PhD/Postdoc training. It's a question of what you do: service/support provision doesn't require the amount of training that independent project management does.
How depressing
My heart sinks when I read posts like this one, because (a) that's my life, that is and (b) I'm compelled to comment and so to examine myself in the process.
I know lots of people who've done postdocs to age 40 or more. I've been a postdoc for 8 years, technically 4 contracts and have just signed up for at least another 3 years. So yes, it is quite "normal".
Tenure track is a more common notion in the USA than anywhere else, in my experience. I suppose we all imagine we might have a "permanent" job one day, but most of us don't think that far ahead when we start out. Perhaps because undergraduate and postgraduate training take so long in the USA there's a feeling that people who've committed so much time are likely to stay in the system for ever. Perhaps they just have a stronger sense that they deserve permanent positions after a certain time than the rest of us.
Bioinformatics/computational biology have changed many aspects of biological research and I think the job market is one of those aspects. Put simply, people like us are difficult to employ because we don't fit into the traditional academic niches. It's generally accepted that a tenured academic will run their own group. But what sort of group does a computational biologist, who isn't tied down to any one biological system, run? Many departments see a purely computational group as a waste of space. So most people who do computational biology are associated with a wet lab and can define a few specific areas of biology in which they are interested.
Furthermore, when it comes to employment, there is a distinct difference between bioinformatics and computational biology. "Bioinformatics skills" are not viewed as research skills by funding agencies or people who can offer you tenure. I've been on several grants in which my importance as a bioinformatician has been emphasised and have got the distinct impression that those skills are viewed merely as basic computer literacy, akin to being able to use Microsoft Office and are not sufficient grounds for recognition as a research scientist. On the other hand, "computational biology" implies an ability to perform novel research through algorithm development, complex mathematical analyses and so on.
Tenured or permanent jobs do come up - at the rate of about one a year in my experience. As with any job you don't just walk into it because you've done your time - you have to prove that you're the best candidate. In academia that means a track record - plenty of good, 1st author publications and success in obtaining funding. Again, it's hard for a "bioinformatician" to get good first author papers, because they tend to work in teams and their contribution, whilst essential, is rarely the main focus of the work. So to get those papers you need to be in a research-intensive computationally-focused environment.
Lastly, postdocs (including myself) are often poorly informed about alternatives to academia. Once you've been in the system past a certain point it becomes hard to remember what the world outside is like.