Revitalizing biomedical research: recommendations from the Future of Research Chicago Symposium

Introduction

The biomedical research enterprise in the United States faces significant structural challenges¹. Since 2000, federal funding for biomedical research and development as a percentage of GDP has declined as Congressional appropriations continually lag behind inflation². Over the past 20 years, the percentage of grant applications funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has fallen by 50%. As funds disappear, biomedical research has become hypercompetitive, with the unfortunate result of fewer biomedical PhDs working in their field of training and increasing percentages leaving research altogether, compared with 25 years ago (Appendix E in 3).

For those early in their scientific careers, including graduate students, postdoctoral researchers (postdocs), and junior faculty, the pressure of structural problems in the biomedical workforce is especially heavy. Postdoctoral training has come under renewed and particularly intense scrutiny in recent years. Postdocs are an important part of biomedical research, providing most of the skilled labor responsible for scientific discovery and innovation⁴. Historically, the postdoc position was designed to be a temporary period of focused training needed for future independent research careers. However, since 1990, the estimated postdoc population has doubled, causing an increase in the average length of postdoc training to 5–6 years and resulting in fewer percentages of postdocs obtaining faculty positions. Many commentators have noted that a postdoc position today serves less as a temporary period of advanced training and more as a source of cheap scientific labor^5–7, equating to ~$16/hour with few fringe benefits. In addition, as federal funding for research has shrunk, the average age of NIH investigators and the average age at which an investigator first obtains NIH R01 funding have both steadily increased over the past 25 years³. Strikingly, fewer than 3% of NIH funded investigators are now under the age of 36³. Together, greater numbers of postdocs without permanent jobs in their academic fields has supported the concept of the ‘postdoc holding tank’.

Beyond economic forces, a lack of preparation or motivation for seeking careers outside academia appears to be contributing to the swelling number of postdocs. The skills acquired during traditional doctoral and postdoctoral training concentrate on preparation for academic careers. However, many career paths for doctorate-level scientists require a broad skill set including competencies in management, business, communications, and leadership that are not a significant focus of the traditional PhD training model^3,8. Among PhD students, interest in an academic research career declines during graduate training^9,10. However, junior scientists commonly report that faculty advisors often encourage academic research as the definition of “successful” career paths while explicitly discouraging graduate students and postdocs from pursuing non-academic careers^9,11.

In response to employment trends among young biomedical doctorates, the NIH recently initiated a program called Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST)¹² to expand career preparation for biomedical graduate students and postdocs. Between 2013 and 2014, 17 universities across the country received BEST grants, which provide five years of non-renewable funding to develop and test new approaches to career development that would complement traditional graduate and postdoctoral training. While the BEST program has largely been perceived as a success, it is unclear whether these programs will continue once the funding runs out, or whether the approaches developed within the BEST program can be broadly replicated at non-BEST institutions. Without long-term strategies to address the realities of career trends among PhDs, and absent a major shift in the research funding landscape, the outlook for continuing to attract talented young minds to biomedical research remains dim.

In response to the endemic issues in postdoctoral training, and to the larger problems of the biomedical community as a whole, postdocs and young faculty alike are increasingly engaging in advocacy efforts aimed at changing policies and practices to improve the research environment in the US. A recent notable example is the Future of Research (FoR) Symposium organized by junior scientists in Boston in 2014. A white paper of recommendations produced by FoR¹¹ was recently included in a survey of panel reports aimed at distilling necessary reforms for biomedical research¹³.

Inspired by the events in Boston and motivated by FoR’s stated desire to see junior scientists advocate for change spread throughout the country¹¹, a group of postdocs in Chicago organized their own meeting, the Future of Research Chicago Symposium (FoR Chicago), which took place on October 29, 2015 (for meeting information, see http://futureofresearch.org/chicago/). In this report, we, the organizers of FoR Chicago, lay out several major issues for reform identified by our Symposium. We summarize the solutions generated by open discussions among meeting participants and offer specific recommendations for achieving these reforms.

Part I: Guest speakers at FoR Chicago

The FoR Chicago Symposium opened with keynote lectures designed to introduce policy issues in the biomedical research ecosystem as context for participant-centered discussions later in the day. The speakers were chosen for their expertise in the policy of science, as well as to represent a diverse group of stakeholders. Nancy Schwartz, Dean for Postdoctoral Affairs at the University of Chicago, opened the day with remarks framing the topics of biomedical research sustainability and how to achieve better outcomes for scientists in training. Keith Yamamoto (UCSF), who served on the NIH task force charged with reviewing the biomedical research workforce³, delivered the first keynote lecture. According to Dr. Yamamoto, the PhD-to-postdoc transition is currently viewed as a relatively fixed part of scientific training; the postdoctoral period constitutes a “hub” from which trainees may then follow numerous career paths. Dr. Yamamoto proposed that graduate school should be the “hub” from which a newly minted PhD could opt to pursue many career paths. This would be more sensible, said Dr. Yamamoto, because many careers do not require postdoctoral training; furthermore, such a system would help control the growth of the postdoc population. Following Dr. Yamamoto, Greg Petsko (Cornell), who chaired the National Academies’ Committee to Review the State of Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers⁴, gave the second keynote talk. Dr. Petsko recounted the study, which led to the National Academies’ 2014 report, “The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited”. After presenting highlights of the report, Dr. Petsko offered some of his ideas about how the postdoc dilemma fit into larger challenges in the research enterprise related to funding, publishing, and judging high-quality science.

The keynote lectures were followed by a panel discussion exploring the evolution of scientific training. The panelists were Kay Lund (NIH), Gary McDowell (formerly of Tufts University, now with Future of Research), Mary O’Riordan (University of Michigan), and Krisztina Eleki (Chicago Council on Science and Technology), who discussed the mismatch between the aims of traditional scientific training and the contemporary career training needs of graduate students and postdocs, along with ideas for how to align training goals to better meet these needs. In both the lectures and panel discussion, audience members had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers; there was also time for informal engagement during the morning coffee break and lunch, where the speakers sat among the attendees for extended conversation.

Part II: Participant-centered discussions

In the afternoon, we invited all the participants of the Symposium—postdocs, students, faculty, staff, and others—to debate key issues and identify potential reforms through a series of moderated workshops. The workshops were organized around the following five topics: Revolutionizing Training, Curricular Reforms/Experiential Learning, Incentivizing Good Science, Funding Mechanisms, and Scientific Workforce Structure. The topics were chosen by the organizers based on key issues identified at the 2014 FoR Boston Symposium as well as similar events taking place in the spring of 2015 at the Universities of Michigan (FOBGAPT; http://www.rackham.umich.edu/fobgapt) and Wisconsin-Madison¹⁴. Participants could attend two workshops of their choosing. During the workshops, problems and solutions were written on sticky notes and grouped into relevant categories. Following the event, we compiled suggestions into briefs from each workshop, and then compared all the briefs to identify major themes. There was a notable degree of overlapping ideas among the different workshops, which underscores the interrelatedness of challenges in biomedical research.

Conclusions

Our vision for the Future of Research Symposium in Chicago was to give a diverse group of scientists, 79% of whom were PhD students and postdocs, a chance to speak out on where reforms are needed in the American biomedical research enterprise and to hear from national leaders. The proposals put forth by the Symposium participants point to several areas requiring critical attention. Scientific training for PhDs and postdocs must be recalibrated to prepare scientists to follow multiple career paths beyond the traditional route in the academy. The postdoctoral training period in particular needs to be revitalized. Young scientists should not have to treat a postdoc position as a default step on their career path, nor should PIs treat it as a source of inexpensive scientific labor. Funding agencies including the NIH and others could take steps to lend greater support to young investigators and encourage bold, innovative research initiatives. And, the scientific community should adopt cultural practices that foster a spirit of openness, collaboration, and community that will help sustain the research enterprise and attract future generations of scientists into its ranks.

Several of the recommendations put forth here echo those made by other commentators. Our proposals add to numerous calls for diversifying career training for students and postdocs, and increasing the number of permanent staff scientists employed in biomedical research laboratories^{1,4,11,13–15,20,21}. We also highlight the need for improved mentorship in academia, which reflects a common view among postdocs¹¹ and other groups studying the contemporary trainee experience in biomedical research^3,4,8,10,17. We hope that the recommendations provided here will encourage further discussion among scientists and stakeholders from many corners of the biomedical research enterprise and the larger scientific community, thereby adding momentum to the movement for broad reform of the current system.

Translating these ideas into action will require a concerted effort from stakeholders across the research landscape. Recent examples of such teamwork include the ASAPBio meeting (asapbio.org) featuring junior and senior scientists, journal editors, and funding agency representatives; the ASBMB Sustainability Summit (http://policy.asbmb.org/2016/02/01/the-asbmb-sustainability-summit/), organized by that society’s public policy branch; and the work of organizations such as the National Postdoctoral Association (http://www.nationalpostdoc.org), Rescuing Biomedical Research (http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org), and Future of Research (http://futureofresearch.org). We hope that these efforts continue to involve people from all levels of science, including junior scientists. In order to achieve reforms, groups such as these must not overlook the need to win support from rank-and-file faculty across the US. Indeed, we believe that faculty will play a critical role, perhaps the central role, in determining whether the efforts to reform scientific research succeed or fail. In our research system, faculties embody the culture of science; they train young scientists; select which grants to fund; determine which papers should be published, and where; and create institutional policy. Changing the culture of research will require them to buy into the vision of those who would reform it. This is an enormous task, but one that cannot be avoided if we are to create a better future for science and for scientists.