Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

While I don’t advocate postdoctoral positions for individuals unless they plan on doing bench science for the rest of their lives, postdoctoral training is a fact of life for those interested in pursuing academic careers. To that end, The Scientist.com conducts an annual survey that ranks the best 40 places for postdoctoral associates to work. The survey ranks the strengths and weaknesses of individual training institutions based on funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits, training and mentoring and family and personal life. Surprisingly, institutions are also ranked on networking, career development and mentoring and training and mentor and training that they offer to their postdoctoral trainees.

The institution that snagged the top spot on the 2010 list was the Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake, NY. Nestled in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate NY, the not-for-profit Trudeau Institute has a deserved international reputation in immunology, infectious diseases and vaccinology. When I was a graduate students (back in the dark ages), some of the greatest minds in infectious diseases held positions at Trudeau. These days; not so much—but I bet the skiing is great! Interestingly, one of Trudeau’s strengths is networking opportunities (how much networking can take place at a secluded institute on a lake in the Adirondacks). Curiously, however, one of its major weaknesses is the lack of career development opportunities. Based on my life experiences, I always thought that networking was a crucial part of career development. But then again, what do I know?

The top 10 of the list featured a couple of Massachusetts-based institutions including the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (3) and the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Institute in Cambridge (4) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, MA (9). Two national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA (8) and Rocky Mountain Laboratory, NIH Hamilton, MT (6) cracked the top ten. By all accounts, the fly fishing is outstanding in Hamilton.

As usual, there were some surprises. These included Samuel Robert Noble Foundation (2) in Ardmore, OK, the University of Colorado, Denver (7) and the Mayo Clinic (10) in Rochester, MN (not exactly cities on my top ten list). Not surprisingly, there were only two life sciences companies that made the Top 40 list; Genentech (5) in South San Francisco and as mentioned above at number 3, the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research. Once a mainstay, industrial postdocs are becoming increasingly scare and difficult to land. In many cases, these positions are not advertised and generally filled by word-of-mouth recommendations to principal investigators who are looking for postdoctoral fellows.

A quick perusal of the list revealed, as expected, that most of the 40 institutions excelled in categories that included funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits and family and personal life. In marked contrast, many of the institutions on the list were disappointingly weak in the areas of networking, career development and training and mentoring. Of the top 40, six got kudos for networking (15%), 11 for career development (28%) and only 6 for training and mentoring (15%). These abysmal statistics are somewhat shocking given that postdoctoral fellowships are mainly intended to train and prepare aspiring individuals for lifelong careers as scientists. The fact that only 25% of the nation’s best places to perform postdoctoral research offer career development training and support for postdoctoral trainees suggests that the future of the American life sciences industry may be in serious jeopardy!

Hat tip Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The competition for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding has been intensifying over the past five years or more. In the past, NIH had gone to extraordinary lengths to insure that senior investigators didn’t lose their funding so as to not hinder the progress of long standing research programs. However, in recent years, NIH funding managers have eschewed the unwritten policy of preferentially funding established investigators in favor of younger ones!  According to an article in today’s New York Times, NIH grant managers are increasingly ignoring the advice of study sections and funding scientists whose projects receive less favorable reviews than those denied money. Many of the favored funding recipients are “new investigators,” or scientists who had never before received a grant from NIH. Further, in 2007, the last year for which figures are available, “19 percent of the grants awarded to individual scientists were made as exceptions, or given outside of rankings by scientific reviewers, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Nearly all of the increase in exceptions in 2007 went to new investigators, with the young scientists’ share rising from 20 percent of all exceptions in 2003 to half in 2007.”

Not surprisingly, many senior investigators are calling “foul” despite the fact that the median age at which scientists win their first NIH grant has risen steadily, to 41 years, from 35 in 1980. While all meritorious grant proposals ought to be funded, the reality is that there simply isn’t enough money to around. As a former tenure track faculty member, I believe that new investigators deserve something of a handicap or edge when it comes to competing for their first grants. After all, how can an overwhelmed, newly minted faculty member be expected to successfully compete with established investigators who have mastered their jobs and more importantly, the art of grant writing? Sadly, the old practice of preferentially funding established investigators over new ones tended to stifle innovation and reward scientists who liked to play it safe!

We live in an increasingly competitive world where innovation is at a premium. American scientists and granting agencies must abandon their old practices if they want to remain competitive on the world stage. To that end, funding some young, innovative investigators over a few established faculty members who have enjoyed long successful scientific careers doesn’t seem like a bad investment to me! After all isn’t all about retun on investment these days?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link