Report on the Sigma Xi Survey for The Scripps Research Institute - March 2005

Did you know:

• TSRI = 14 buildings, 1635 technical and support staff, 798 post-doctoral research associates (post-docs), 293 faculty and 222 graduate students

• Post-docs = 66% men, 34% women; 34% from US or Canada, 66% from overseas, mostly on visas: J1 (visitors) (60%), or H1b (temporary worker) (37%),

• The ‘average’ post-doc has been at TSRI for two and a half years and was hired through direct contact with their principal investigator (P.I.) (only one-fifth answered a journal or web site ad). They chose to be here because of the resources and facilities, TSRI's and their P.I.’s reputation and geographical location.

• Over a third of post-docs are not satisfied with their, on average, salary of $37, 653 (range = $23,000 to $63,000) and while just over half have informally determined vacation and sick leave, 4% stated that they did not receive any vacation or sick leave at all last year.

• Although post-docs, and their family members/domestic partners are provided with many health benefits, they are not eligible for TSRI group life or disability insurance, are only vested in the Retirement plan after five years and have limited child care facilities or provisions.

Funding, Working Week and Work Output

Almost all of the experiments which are carried out at TSRI are financed by grants. Funding for post-doc positions comes predominantly through a grant awarded to the P.I. (50.5%), or to the post-doc themselves (27%). This personal funding comes mainly from a non-federal fellowship (43%), or a National Research Service Award (22.5%), with others getting funding from a government fellowship from a non-US country (12%) or the National Institutes of Health research grant (9%). 38% of post-docs think that they are not permitted to submit a funding proposal as P.I., with 24% saying they can do this, and 39% not knowing if they can or can’t.

When asked to detail their working week (Figure 1 – appendix), the average amount of time worked was 53.2 hours. Most time (31.9 hours) was spent on conducting research, with some time spent on planning experiments (7.6 hours), documenting findings (4.6 hours) or reading research literature (4.4 hours). Other activities included attending work group meetings, supervising others, making presentations and reviewing papers, with on average 3.5 hours spent on commuting to work each week. Only half of respondents are satisfied with the number of hours they work, with 26% reporting a dissatisfaction. Two thirds were satisfied with the quality of their work, but only half with the quantity of work they were carrying out. When asked how satisfied they were overall with their current post-doctoral position, 66% were satisfied and 27% were dissatisfied. Interestingly, only half of the respondents would encourage a prospective post-doc to work within their group, with 17% saying they would discourage them. Regarding an issue for international post-docs, a quarter stated that US national security related regulations were affecting their research outside of the US and a third were having difficulty traveling outside the US, visiting their home country or bringing immediate family members to the US.

In science your currency is your output of work as viewed by the outside world (Table 1 – appendix). This can include journal papers, conference papers, books or book chapters and grant proposals. On average post-docs at TSRI have put out 1.3 co-authored papers as primary author, 1.6 as non-primary author and 1 conference or working paper. There was a low average of papers as sole author (0.1), with, on average 0-3 book chapters being produced, one book and five patents. Only on average 1.3 post-docs has submitted a grant proposal as a P.I. (including fellowship proposals), with even less submitting proposals as non-P.I. (0.8, range 0-12). 1.1 had had grant proposals funded (0-8 range).

Post-doc/Principal Investigator Interaction

Post-docs at TSRI are not students, they are not, however staff, or faculty, they are classed as ‘trainees’. This status has no formal time period attached to it, and no formal process throughout a post-docs time at TSRI. This means that 17% did not receive a formal letter of appointment and only a few have attended a formal workshop or seminar on the skills they will need as a P.I., such as: writing skills (9%), public speaking skills (14.5%), or grant or proposal writing (24%), with many expressing a wish to do so.

The survey asked many question with regard to the relationship between post-docs and their P.I. (Table 2 – appendix). Over three-quarters of respondents would like to work with their P.I. to create a formal research plan, the majority who had such a plan found it very useful. Most did not receive any formal performance evaluation (77.5%, compared to 15% who did), although the majority had informal feedback (69%). Of those receiving formal evaluations most found them helpful and many who don’t receive such evaluations would find them an asset, carried out semiannually or annually.

As a post-doc (and supposedly a ‘trainee’) many of the skills needed to become an independent P.I. should be learnt in the lab. While around half of respondents had some informal training in group or lab management, project management, writing skills (including grant or proposal writing) and public speaking, only a quarter felt they had informal training in negotiating skills and conflict resolution skills. Many had no training in group, lab or project management, and most of these areas were pegged as ones where formal training would be appreciated. It is an interesting aside that TSRI, through the Post-doc office, International office or Society of Fellow, has offered meetings or seminars on many of these skills, however as P.I.’s are not required to send their post-docs to these, many are not able to take the time away from the lab to attend. Although 30% of people thought their P.I. encouraged them to receive any formal training, nearly 50% did not have any encouragement, with 3.5% being discouraged from going to any training opportunities.

Despite these figures, 86% of post-docs thought that their current experience was providing them with either good or excellent research skills, 60.5% had a similar response to communication skills, 38% thought they were gaining management skills, but only 23% rated their teaching skills as good or excellent. The flip side of this is that respective ratings of poor or fair were 14% for research, 40% for communication, 63% for management and 77% for teaching skills. While the training received seems to be adequate for continuing in an academic/research career, nearly half of respondents did not think they had gained any experience that would ‘expose them to opportunities outside of this environment’. However, 45% said they had gained some transferable skills, with 9% feeling they had a great deal of skills they could use elsewhere. When asked is “my post-doctoral position is preparing me to be an independent researcher” 78% agreed and 10% disagreed.

The main relationship that guides the post-doc’s experience at TSRI is with their P.I.. When questioned, the majority of post-docs agreed that their P.I. had an “excellent understanding of the field”, and that they “guide my research ideas”, “give me appropriate credit”, “give feedback on my work” and “co-author papers with me”. However, while around two thirds were either positive or ambiguous about many other aspects of their P.I.’s work, there were some areas where statements were disagreed with, notably “helps me”: “get into appropriate professional networks”; “balance professional and personal responsibilities”; “manage my work time effectively”; “find employment”; “make important professional decisions”, and “improve my teaching skills”.

Meetings with P.I.s occurred, for the majority, at least once a week (45.5%) or once a month (35%), although a few reported them as often as once a day (7.7%) or as infrequent as once a year (10.5%), however the definition of meeting was not given so the question could be ambiguous. Overall, using a grading system, P.I.s were scored as mostly ‘A’ (34.5%) or ‘B’ (38%), with some getting a ‘C’ (16%), a ‘D’ (6%) or an ‘F’ (<3%). Although it was stated at the beginning of this section that the post-docs main relationship at TSRI was with their P.I., only 57% considered them as a mentor, with 30% saying they would not consider them so. Impedances to a mentoring relationship included their P.I.’s time commitments, differences in professional goals and personality conflicts.

Difficulties in the Work Environment

 

Although, on the whole, there was a positive opinion of working at TSRI from post-docs (Table 3 – appendix), just over half rated their office space, computer access, technical assistance and funding for travel to conferences as inadequate, although an almost equal amount feel their lab space or equipment needs were well met.

A few people stated they had experienced research misconduct by their P.I., either with their work (3.9%) or the work of someone else in their lab (9.2%). Respondents were invited to comment on what they had seen and some are reported below:

• Abuse of power to make post-docs work absurdly long hours

• Advisors have prevented post-docs from publishing papers because they did not like the interpretation of results or the results themselves

• Animals dropped out of a group for no reason

• Failure to stick to approved IACUC protocols

• Falsification of preliminary data

• P.I.s representing post-docs ideas as their own

• P.I.s deliberately misleading post-docs about financial situation

• Termination without notification

• Ideas for projects taken without credit

• Inappropriately controlled experiments

• Publishing single author papers by omitting other contributors

After TSRI

The final part of this section dealt with the future working life of the post-doc. Of 109 respondents, 43% said they were currently looking for a job. Of these most said they were looking for a job in industry (90%) or a research university (79%), with 42% looking at government jobs, around 25% each for nonprofit or consulting jobs and around 16% interested in a job in an undergraduate institute, the communications/media/publishing industry or being self employed. Around 23.5% of post-docs need to return to their home county on completion of their post-doc position.

Society of Fellows

TSRI’s involvement in the Sigma-Xi survey was at the request of the Society of Fellows. While the majority of post-docs are familiar with SOF, around 10% do not know of its existence. Around 60% have participated in one of our events and, overall, people were happy with the organization of social events, although 13% were not happy with the frequency of these. The majority thought these events were very important.

Half of the respondents were satisfied with the organization and frequency of research symposia, and alternative careers seminars, however nearly 20% said they had not attended one of these. Around a third each were either satisfied with, dissatisfied with, or had no opinion/had not attended networking opportunities with faculty or industry representatives. Most respondents thought these activities were an important part of their working life at TSRI.

Respondents were then asked to comment on the positive and negative outcomes of SOF-sponsored events, some of the comments are as follows:

Positive aspects:

• I've been able to meet interesting speakers

• The symposia are very good, as are the seminars.

• Allows new post-docs to meet other post-docs, to have fun and discover new places

• Poster session allowed me to publicize my research to others at TSRI.

• The trip to the Wild Park was very interesting, I don't think I could have afforded it without SOF

• We're lucky at Scripps to have a dedicated group of individuals providing events for the entire post-doc population to benefit from

… and the negative:

• Too much focus on parties, not enough on professional development and networking

• Need to conduct lots of intramural games and have some more social events

• No one wants to ask questions such as the P.I.s' quality, the educational aspect of this institute, P.I.s' viewpoints on post-docs

• Networking opportunities with faculty (both TSRI faculty and outside faculty) and industry could be better.

• More can be done in social rights

• I feel the social events are geared towards singles, without families,

TSRI Post-Docs Have Their Say

The final section of the questionnaire was with regard to the life of TSRI post-docs. The majority are married/partnered (67%), with 75% of partners being employed, 22% or which are also at TSRI. The average post-docs pay for rent or mortgage is $1344 a month, and the average pre-tax monthly income of $3138. 30% of TSRI post-docs have children, with an average monthly childcare expense of $3454. Nearly half of TSRI post-docs are dissatisfied with the amount of time they spend with their family, and only a third are satisfied. A negative impact has been felt by many post-docs on buying a house (72%), getting married (33%) or having children (56%).

Lastly, there were two main open sections where participants could write their own comments. The first asked “What are the aspects of your current post-doctoral experience that most need to be improved and how would you improve them?

The main complaints that came up were, as can be gathered from the survey, salary, lab conditions and child care considerations. Some of the comments with regard to salary were as follows:

• I think salary is the most important issue for post-docs today.... increased salaries will not only attract the best post-docs to scientific research, but will also allow current post-docs to balance work and (family) life.

• Pay post-docs in academic settings what they would be worth in the real world. Post-docs have extraordinary skills in problem solving, conveying ideas, etc., that are not reflected in their salaries.

• I have a PhD and 5 years of laboratory experience, and I get paid less than someone with a BSc with less years of lab experience.

Those with their own grants, or those who would like them, were concerned with TSRI’s way of dealing with them:

• I would like the institution to take less of the grants in overhead, or to provide better information regarding how they are utilizing the funds.

• The Institute's bureaucracy affects benefits and funding I obtained from my grant.

• (I would like) more opportunities for external research funding (post-doctoral grants for non-US citizens working in the US).

Other problems were with regard to the P.I./post-doc relationship, the choice of research and the lab environment:

• Advisors should be monitored by a service independent from the institution administration for the quality of training they provide to their post-docs

• P.I. needs to be more aware of post-doc issues outside of managing his lab, including: Visa issues, benefits issues, alternative career paths, the lack of jobs in academia

• More technical help from knowledgeable technicians.

• Leading my own research project instead of supervisor always suggesting (with) ability to choose research project myself

There were also many concerns with the hours post-docs worked:

• Weekend work is expected to an extent that I can and will not consider doing (at least 10 h per Sat and Sunday combined).

• Less time expected at work per week so that there is more time to spend with my family

Another issue was how post-docs were rated at TSRI:

• All post-docs whether on a fellowship or not should be considered employees at their institution.

As post-docs are categorized as ‘trainees’, they feel they should get some ‘training’ which includes help with how they are going to continue after their post-doc”:

·         Career counseling/job placement services. Industry networking opportunities. Better lab management & research support. Management training.

·         Given the limited academic positions available, I think that very few post-docs know much about opportunities outside of academics.

• In today's research world, very few permanent job positions (tenure-track) are available to post-doctoral fellows. Since the number of tenure-track positions available are decreasing, yet the expertise of post-doctoral fellows is necessary in research establishments today, a new permanent position could easily be envisioned, whereby researchers could stay, not as a trainee, but as a fully-trained scientist.

Another area where many people were concerned was childcare facilities:

·         Child care should be available to all employees/post-docs, with a good proportion of children admitted per employees of TSRI.

• The availability of child care for post-docs is very limited. A child care supplement would really help out a lot of post-docs struggling to live in Southern California and have a child in child care.

A final issue brought up was the role of women at TSRI:

• As a woman in science, I am not happy with the representation of women in faculty positions at Scripps. In at least one department, there are no women faculty.

• (I would like) more options for women who want to have children.

The second question asked “What are the best aspects of your current post-doctoral experience?”

Many people agreed that the physical location was excellent, as well as the work environment:

• Very friendly environment in the lab and outside. A lot of interesting seminars on campus. Good core facilities

• Great to have wonderful atmosphere to do great chemistry

• Wider view and cutting edge science

• (opportunity to) interact with different cultures

One of the major aspects that post-docs liked about TSRI was the independence in research:

• Ability to set my own hours as needed to balance outside and inside the lab

• Freedom to conduct my research interests. Freedom to pursue scientific ideas in an independent fashion

• The best aspect of my work is that I am able to be very independent. My advisor and I discuss the initial strategy of my project(s) and I am left to use my own judgment for the majority of my work, with occasional guidance to keep me moving in the right direction

Many felt that there were a lot of opportunities to learn at TSRI:

• Large amount of seminars available to attend

• I did get extensive exposure to writing grant applications. Also, what work that was published did have high impact and the work is well received and respected.

• I have been lucky to have a very supportive advisor and other helpful mentors in the department.  I have had a lot of professional research guidance, and have been productive.  I have never felt pressured about deciding to start a family and have been able to take time off when my child is sick

• I have learned lots of new techniques. I am able to work by myself. I feel ready to conduct my own research. I have been able to publish my data. I have learned to be very independent.

• I have the opportunity to learn new techniques and collaborate freely with other researchers.  I have access to cutting-edge technology and world-class scientists.

Finally, a lot of people had praise for their individual mentors, here is final one comment:

• My mentor is absolutely wonderful. She's attentive and gives me feedback, which is much appreciated.

Figure 1 – The working week at TSRI (mean hours)

Table 1 – Written work produced by TSRI post-docs

Table 2 – Post-docs view of their principal investigator

Table 3 – Working Environment