Insider tips on how to make your postdoc application stand out from the pack.

Guest post by B. Duygu Özpolat.

While some graduate students have resources and institutional support to help them navigate the transition to postdoc life, not everyone has a mentor to guide them through the many unwritten rules of this complex system. As a PI who has just advertised a postdoc position, I compiled a few “insider” tips for grad students on how to set themselves up for success in their postdoc applications and beyond.

Don’t be afraid to contact the PI first.

Be proactive. If you’re interested in working at a particular lab, you don’t need to wait for the PI to advertise a postdoc position to get in touch. Tell the PI why you’re interested, and ask if there are any opportunities at their lab. If you are a good match for each other, they might be able to hire you if they have funds available. If they do not have funds readily available, they can help you apply for fellowships so you can join their lab. Some institutions have internal postdoctoral fellowships that the PI might know about. Even if they’re not able to hire you, they may offer to help in other ways—for example, by referring you to other PIs who are hiring. 

Research your options.

At least a year (or more!) before you defend your dissertation, start actively looking into options for your next career move. If you’re interested in continuing in research, learn what postdoc positions and fellowships are or will be available. Researching your options in advance is especially important if you feel strongly about working for a particular PI or place, as it will give you (and the PI) time to secure funding.

Have a plan, even if it’s flexible.

You may have a very exact idea of what you want for your future, or you may want to take a more flexible approach. Either way, it’s important to outline some general career goals, stay up-to-date on literature, and take note of what interests you. This will come in handy when someone inevitably asks what you want to do after your PhD. A genuine answer, even if it’s not completely focused on one career path, will demonstrate your independent thinking skills to PIs. (Also, be sure you don’t fall into the trap of simply repeating keywords on the lab’s website. PIs can easily tell if you’re not sharing your real thoughts!) 

Learn to highlight your skills.

When reaching out to a potential employer, be sure to mention the benefits they will gain by having you on the team, not only what you will get by working there. Emphasize the expertise you will bring, how you will help elevate their research, and any other relevant skills you have. Do not forget to give details about the skills you have that are specifically highlighted in the job advertisement. This goes for any job application, at any level!

Prepare project and funding plans.

Be prepared to write your own project proposals when you join a lab (unless the PI specifies otherwise). In your cover letters, tell PIs about project plans and what specific fellowships you could apply for to acquire funding. This is key even when you are applying for an advertised (read: funded) postdoc position, because those jobs are typically advertised for two years. PIs do their best to maintain funding, but things happen, so it’s imperative that you don’t depend solely on them to fund your projects. Plus, being able to secure your own funding will give you the freedom to do research that interests you, which will benefit your growth as a scientist. 

Don’t let timing stand in your way.

Unless there’s a strict timeline for the funding or project, PIs are usually flexible about when you can start working, so don’t let timing issues discourage you from applying. If your application impresses the PI, they will try to find a way to hire you that works for everyone. They understand that you might need time to get a visa, relocate, finish one last experiment for a paper, etc. Talk to the PI about your situation during the interview process, and see if you can work something out. 

International students, don’t get discouraged.

I myself was an international student, so I understand the unique challenges it presents. Fellowship options for non-US students are limited, but they are out there. To give yourself the best chance for success, make sure you thoroughly research all the opportunities available to you. Personally, as a PI, I like to see in your application that you did your homework and that you looked into these opportunities. Also, keep in mind that you will need to have publications to be competitive in these applications, so try your best to plan ahead and get those papers published! Getting independent funding will be extremely important down the line for faculty jobs (if that’s what you want to pursue). But if there aren’t any fellowships available to you, don’t be discouraged. There are always exceptions, so keep trying and focus on showing your productivity.

Good luck in your search!

Guest post by Meredith M. Course* and Irini Topalidou.**

The career success of graduate students and postdocs (referred to here as “trainees”) is largely dependent on just one or two principal investigators (PIs). PIs influence how trainees think about science and whether they choose to stay in the field. The fundamental purpose of mentorship is for a trainee to intellectually and professionally benefit from the mentor’s experience and network. Good mentorship benefits PIs and institutions, too: well-mentored trainees will produce higher quality research, ultimately leading to labs that run smoothly and productively. Because PIs are largely responsible for defining our academic culture, who we put in these positions of power and what we expect of them deserve careful consideration.

Though a PI’s mentorship ability plays a crucial role in shaping the field, it is often undervalued and inadequate.¹ Not every PI possesses the understanding of what it means to be an effective mentor or knows how to apply these principles; some PIs have good intentions but simply don’t know how to train, guide, and support trainees; others do not prioritize good mentorship, and have no incentive to. Unfortunately, almost every academic institution— and many of their trainees— have suffered due to bad mentors. Given its significance, why is poor mentorship a persistent issue in academia? Major contributing factors include: (1) a lack of training for mentors, (2) the overwhelming demands of a faculty job, (3), a hiring and promotion method that ignores mentorship abilities, and (4) institutional protection of PIs at the expense of their trainees.

The issue develops well before a scientist becomes the head of a lab, since training to become a PI rarely includes learning to mentor effectively. During the doctoral and postdoctoral years, the chief goal of a future PI is to publish several quality, first-author papers—an expectation that does not require or promote mentorship abilities. This emphasis on research may result in outstanding experimentalists, but it does not create effective mentors.

After focusing on benchwork as a postdoc, a young PI experiences dramatic changes in responsibilities; they must suddenly excel as a mentor, manager, grant writer, and leader. Provided with little guidance, PIs are left to discover on their own, by trial and error, how to accomplish these tasks. Unfortunately, the “guinea pigs” of these trials are their trainees. Without being set up for success, overstressed PIs may end up misguiding or even mistreating their trainees.

Furthermore, because the main criterion for hiring and promoting a faculty member is the candidate’s quality of research and not their mentorship skills, institutions accumulate PIs who are not necessarily good at being mentors. In turn, this inadequacy can result not only in unsatisfied trainees, but also PIs who feel insecure or unhappy in their positions. The fact that the institutions entrusted with educating our future scientists do not require evidence of successful mentorship calls into question their role in properly training the next generation of scientists.

Because trainees depend on their PI’s guidance and support for professional success, they have difficulty finding where to turn to when a PI is either passively or actively failing to provide this support. Institutions often protect PIs because they provide grants, have tenure, or both. Institutional protection of PIs, coupled with the lack of a reporting system for trainees, can trap trainees in lab environments where they feel disempowered and alone.

The pervasiveness of poor mentorship in academia suggests that the issue is not a case of individual bad actors; rather, it is a systemic problem. Seen through this lens, we contend that mentorship reform should not fall solely to individual PIs, but to the institutions that both prepare and employ them. Institutions can begin to address this problem if they: (1) recognize the issue, (2) implement mentorship training for postdocs and PIs, and (3) use selection and evaluation methods that provide incentive and accountability.

First, the academy at all levels should recognize that capable mentorship is necessary for their trainees to have healthy and productive educational experiences, and for institutions to represent centers of educational excellence. Understanding that the responsibility of quality mentorship lies at multiple levels within the system—such as university leadership, department chairs, program directors, as well as PIs— is the first step toward improved mentorship.

Mentorship training should begin during the postdoctoral period. Postdocs interested in faculty positions should be encouraged to mentor trainees, and they should be offered mentorship training to improve their understanding of what it means to be a good mentor. This training and experience can help postdocs determine whether a position requiring mentorship truly fits their skills and interests. Alternatives to faculty positions should be considered and equally encouraged, especially for postdocs who are uninterested in mentorship.

Once hired, junior PIs should also receive mentorship training together with guidance and feedback from experienced PIs. It is crucial that this training be mandatory, as those who are unaware that they lack mentorship abilities are the least likely to seek it out. Mentorship training should be included in tenure requirements as part of the PI’s protected time, to signal to PIs that the institution prioritizes mentorship.

Equitable and inclusive strategies need to be part of mentorship training also, as trainees from underrepresented groups generally receive less mentoring than their well-represented peers, which prevents them from benefitting professionally in the same way.² Institutions should educate their PIs about this issue and outline how they expect them to combat it. Fortunately, high-quality, evidence-based mentorship trainings and tools are available freely (Entering Mentoring³ and The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM⁴ are excellent starting points), therefore institutions do not need extra resources to implement them.

Finally, institutions should realign their selection and retention criteria by requesting evidence of a candidate’s mentorship abilities for faculty hiring and systematically evaluating the PI’s ability to mentor at promotional junctures. After a PI is hired, feedback from both experienced PIs and trainees should be taken into account—and be taken seriously, which means that institutions need regular and standardized mentoring evaluations, such as the freely available Mentoring Competency Assessment.⁵ In addition, trainees who are struggling under poor mentors deserve human resources personnel to turn to when they need advice, advocacy, and protection from poor mentors. Requiring mentorship compacts^{6, 7} is another easy and free way for programs and departments to protect trainees, improve accountability for mentors, and assess mentors’ performances.

One of the chief responsibilities of a PI is mentoring future scientists, yet frustration over inadequate mentorship is frequently lamented among trainees. This is not just a failing of individuals, but signs of a system that sets up PIs to fail. Here, we’ve outlined several reasons why institutions accumulate poor mentors, and several steps they can take to ameliorate this issue. It is imperative that institutions take charge of the mentorship environment that they provide to trainees and implement selection, evaluation, and training paradigms that focus on the mentorship ability of those training our future scientists. The good news is that improved mentorship does not need to involve starting from scratch: quality, evidence-based, and free resources already exist. They deserve increased use and prioritization. Effective mentoring will not only improve the experiences of trainees, but also benefit individual PIs, institutions, and the scientific community as a whole.

*Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

**Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

References 

¹A message for mentors from dissatisfied graduate students

C Woolston (2019)

Nature 575, 551-552

DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03535-y

²NIH Scientific Workforce Diversity Office

https://diversity.nih.gov/

³Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists

J Handelsman et al. (2005) https://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/Educational%20Materials/Lab%20Management/entering_mentoring.pdf

⁴The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM Online Guide

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

https://www.nap.edu/resource/25568/interactive/index.html

⁵The Mentoring Competency Assessment: Validation of a New Instrument to Evaluate Skills of Research Mentors

M Fleming (2013)

Acad. Med. 88(7), 1002-1008

DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318295e298

⁶Mentorship Compacts/Contract Examples

UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research

https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/mentoring-compactscontracts-examples/

⁷Ten simple rules for developing a mentor–mentee expectations document

KS Masters and PK Kreeger (2017)

PLoS Comput. Biol. 13(9): e1005709.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005709

As COVID-19 spreads across the world, members of the GSA community have had to face unprecedented challenges in their professional and personal lives. To stay connected during this socially distant time, GSA invites the scientists in our community to share how they are meeting these challenges, as well as their questions and worries. 

If you would like to contribute to this series, please contact Communications Assistant Jacqueline Treboschi.

Early career members of the GSA community share how they are adjusting to the career uncertainty, lab shutdowns, and isolation caused by COVID-19.

“The COVID-19 shutdown has greatly slowed the progression of our work, which, unfortunately, is aging focused. Our institution has taken appropriate steps in closing down the university for all but non-essential work. Luckily, I am able to continue to feed colonies, however, the delay of experiments make me and others in my position worried about how this delay in progress will be viewed by hiring committees.”
—Balint Kacsoh, Postdoc at University of Pennsylvania

“One of my favorite things about my lab is our camaraderie, and its absence has made it particularly hard to adjust to working remotely. After just five days of social distancing, I found myself unable to focus meaningfully on any work-related task, and my daily schedule slowly devolved into an amorphous mess. To counteract loneliness and keep up motivation, my lab and I established Write Club. We meet in our virtual Zoom cafe, where we spend 15-30 minutes chatting, 90 minutes writing, and a final 15 minutes sharing our progress (or even the lack thereof). We initially agreed to meet for Write Club on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but it’s been so effective that you’ll find us there most days of the work week. Having a daily bit of interaction with my labmates has helped enormously – we all help keep each other accountable for making progress on our projects. But more importantly, we can re-capture a little of our lab’s magic by catching up, commiserating, and lending emotional support when we most need it.”
—Teresa Lee, Postdoc at Emory University

“I am struggling with productivity during this time. With not being able to go to lab anymore, many things I felt were almost finished now feel much further off. I am doing my best to remember that we are all going through this and to break up my goals into smaller pieces.”
—Gavin Rice, Postdoc at University of Pittsburgh

“Being a non-citizen during quarantine has a negative impact on mental health because you feel constantly anxious about family and friends living in another country; whether you’ll keep getting paid while you’re working from home; visa renewals; and job continuation.”
—Seyma Katrinli, Postdoc at Emory University

“Most of our laboratory’s work has shifted to working from home. Online meetings are working well so far. Students have been asked to move out of the university’s residences in several cities. While some universities are making it mandatory, others are allowing some of the residents to stay if they do not have anywhere else to go. In my case, I am going to move out because I had started planning to do so before the pandemic started, but this is likely not the case for everybody. Some friends have defended their theses in online meetings; at least one of them faced technical difficulties.”
—Angel Fernando Cisneros Caballero, Graduate Student at Université Laval

During my many interactions with grad students and postdocs, I have learned that a large number of early career scientists train on campuses where important career development services are not widely available. While some schools may provide a diverse array of such services, at many other institutions the only opportunity to enhance early career training outside the lab is through attendance at conferences and local symposia. Here at the GSA, we recognize the importance of offering career development training in a variety of different forums. To increase accessibility of these programs, we provide graduate students and postdocs the opportunity to apply for Career Development Symposia grants. These awards allow students and postdocs to organize local symposia that provide career and professional development opportunities for early career scientists.

As with any competitive application, it can be a bit intimidating knowing where and how to begin. Here, I’ll provide you with a few tips for a successful Career Development Symposia grant application.

Know the requirements and formatting

We’ve all heard stories about grant applications being triaged for minor errors in formatting. With all of the effort that goes into creating a well-crafted application, the last thing anyone wants is for a minor detail to take you out of the running. While we are not strict about margins or fonts, we do have some basic requirements. The most common mistakes we see for CDS grant applications is exceeding the 2-page proposal and CV limits. Be sure to carefully read through the application instructions.

Understand your audience

For these awards, you need to think about two audiences: the committee reviewing your application and future attendees.

In the application, tell us why the meeting is important to your attendees. Are you addressing a gap in knowledge that you identified? Are you providing networking opportunities with industry professionals that are not common in your area? Whatever the reason, make it clear and provide supporting evidence.

The committee needs to clearly understand how your meeting provides career development training. We often receive applications for scientific symposia that focus on the importance of the science. While this is important for the committee to know, the primary focus of the application should be on the career development opportunities to the organizers and attendees. Stating that graduate students and postdocs will have an opportunity to present their work is great. But that alone is not sufficient for a successful application. Think about how you can raise the bar beyond traditional presentations. Tell us about how the event provides a leadership opportunity for the organizers, add a structured networking event, or even provide a mini workshop on presentation skills at the start or end of the day.

Identifying and articulating career development opportunities is a key factor for success!

Have clear plans

Agenda – Organizing an event takes careful thought and detailed planning. In your application, provide a detailed agenda. This is the place where you can raise the bar a bit. Rather than simply listing the time and name of each session, provide a list of skills developed by attendees or highlight the numbers of early career speakers.

Budget – Many applicants ask me if including other sources of financial support is detrimental for their application. The answer is no. In fact, knowing that organizers have a plan of action for obtaining additional funding provides confidence that the event will be successful. It also demonstrates that other groups also see the event as valuable and relevant.

Advertising – In your application, be sure to not overlook adding information about your advertising and promotion plans. It seems like a minor detail but we want to know that you’ve thought about effective ways to advertise using a realistic timeline.

I hope these tips help to demystify the application process for these awards. We look forward to reading an application from you in the near future.

GSA is currently accepting proposals from students and postdocs for the next round of Career Development Symposia. Gain leadership experience and serve the early career scientist community!

Many postdocs feel powerless. But early career researchers can work together to take control of their future, says Sarah Dykstra, a postdoc at Tufts University and co-organizer of the Boston Symposium on Careers and Collaboration in Science (B-SOCCS). To support this process, the Boston Postdoctoral Association (BPDA) developed a career symposium designed to enhance postdocs’ formal training and to forge new connections between early career scientists.

This successful event got its start with funding through GSA’s Career Development Symposia program, but from this early seed the BPDA were able to grow their financial support by ten-fold—and scale up their event to match their big goals.  

“It was critical that GSA was so willing to put their faith in us,” says Dykstra. “Many people didn’t initially have a lot of confidence that a group of postdocs could organize a new event of this scale. GSA’s funding gave us the credibility to approach other groups for both sponsorship and partnerships.”

Drug discovery workshop led by NIBR researchers. Pictured is Alokesh Duttaroy.

The Boston Postdoctoral Association is a coalition representing postdocs from 17 academic and industry research institutions in the Boston area. It was established in 2013 to support postdoc professional development and advocacy needs.

In its first years, the group began by organizing small events and programs. But as they became more established and organized, Dykstra challenged the BPDA to develop a much larger career symposium. They decided such an event could bring their community together to foster collaboration between researchers in both academia and industry. They also wanted to empower postdocs with practical tools for enhancing their professional development.

“We were trying to fill the gaps we felt were missing in our own training,” says Dykstra. 

With this idea, they applied for and received $2000 funding from the GSA, as part of its program to support student and postdoc members organizing career and professional development symposia to early career scientists. Using that vital confidence boost and the help of another early supporter—Angela Florentino, the Broad Institute’s Program Manager for Academic Affairs—they secured space for the meeting and reached out to a wide range of groups for sponsorships and partnerships. They also received early guidance and support from personnel at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR), including the head of the NIBR postdoctoral program, Leslie Pond and several senior scientists and program directors.

To help share the workload, the event was organized through the teamwork of nearly 60 postdocs. They also tapped into the expertise of their network by seeking advice from successful event organizers and fundraisers.  

These experiences proved valuable for the organizers’ own career skills and networks. Dykstra is enthusiastic about the boost she gained from being involved, including better project management, more confidence, experience working in large teams, managing direct reports, dealing with people across different sectors, and learning about a wide range of topics that she had never been exposed to before.  

The end result was a busy 1.5-day event attended by around 350 people, with a mix of workshops, panels, networking events, scientific talks, and posters. The sessions were designed to draw early career researchers focused on academic careers, those focused on industry, and those who were undecided, bringing them to together to cross-pollinate their ideas. 

To give attendees a primer for the networking event on the first night, B-SOCCS kicked off with a talk on scientific networking from Daniel Jay, now the Dean of Tufts University’s Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences. Then came the real thing. “We packed the first floor of the Broad Institute with posters and people and food and encouraged everyone to mingle,” says Dykstra. “We couldn’t get them to go home!” 

The following day included three concurrent sessions in three general tracks: academic topics like grant writing and academic interviews, industry topics like entrepreneurship and drug discovery, and crossover topics such as communication and leadership. There were also scientific sessions and posters, with prizes.

Anchoring all this professional development and networking were two inspiring presentations. Jay Bradner, President of NIBR gave the keynote on the first night. Bradner helped pioneer the open science movement in biology, experimenting with an “open source” approach to the normally secretive world of drug discovery. The plenary talk was given by Phil Sharp, Nobel-winning co-discoverer of RNA splicing, who spoke on the history and future of biotech in the region.

When asked if she has any advice for students and postdocs thinking of organizing their own career symposia, Dykstra encourages them to apply for Career Development Symposia funds from GSA. “It would have been another year in the planning without that initial funding.”

She also emphasizes both building on the expertise of others and trusting your instincts.  

“You’re trained to analyze problems. If you think there’s a problem, acknowledge that it exists and be methodical about solving it.”  

The BPDA is already planning the next B-SOCCS, once more supported with GSA funding. This time they hope the GSA contribution will be used for travel awards to bring people to the symposium. They are also working on how to make the event even more useful to attendees. Dykstra is excited by some of the new proposals. “One of the things I learned from this experience was that although I have good ideas, together our team has great ideas.”

Applications for the next round of GSA’s Career Development Symposia are due January 10, 2017. Read these tips for a successful application first!

Guest post by Rory Flinn, PhD

There are many career paths for PhDs that don’t require a postdoc, including some faculty positions in certain disciplines. When you are exploring career options, it is important to ascertain whether doing a postdoc would make you more competitive for a career path of interest. If you determine that you need to do a postdoc, the next step is finding the right postdoc opportunity. There are many routes to securing a postdoc position. Trainees often directly inquire about possible opportunities with faculty members of interest. For some, their PhD or current postdoc advisor will facilitate a postdoc opportunity with another faculty member. Others will respond to ads in scholarly journals or via professional societies. Then there are those who will network their way to a postdoc position during a conference. Whatever the route taken, deciding to do a postdoc at a given place and under the mentorship of a particular person should be a decision that is weighed with the utmost gravity. Often, trainees only consider their interest in the research area and the research reputation of the mentor. To be clear, these elements must be factored in heavily when deciding upon a postdoc position; however, there are many more facets that should be evaluated and that could have a bigger impact on one’s career, life, and happiness.

Training environment

You should carefully assess the mentorship of the faculty member as well as the training environment of the research group and the institution. Most PhDs will conduct postdoctoral training with the goal of securing a faculty position; however, career outcomes data unequivocally shows that most postdocs will ultimately secure non-faculty positions. Even if your goal is to secure a faculty position, you should be cognizant of the hypercompetitive faculty job market ahead of you and the possibility that you may decide to make a career transition for a variety of reasons down the road. It is critical to find a supportive mentor and a training environment that has adequate career and professional development resources, both for academic as well as non-academic career preparation. There are several training environment areas to assess:

• Mentorship – How will your mentor actually help you advance in your career? Will they be supportive of a range of career outcomes? Will they be an advocate during a future job search?
• Management style – Is your boss a micromanager? Do they lay out clear expectations and provide constructive feedback? How do they deal with conflict? What is their communication style?
• Funding – Where will your funding be from, how stable, and how long? Will your position depend upon securing a fellowship/training grant spot, and if so, by when? Will you have the opportunity to seek out funding or gain grant writing experience? Will you be able to acquire the resources needed for your project?
• Project portability and niche – If interested in a faculty career, will you be able to take your project with you? Will you be able to develop a research/expertise niche for yourself that will make a unique and competitive faculty candidate down the road?
• Collaboration – Will you have opportunities to collaborate locally and externally? Will you have the opportunity to initiate and lead collaborations?
• Career and professional development – Are there career and professional development resources available to postdocs there (workshops, courses, career counseling, networking and career exploration events)? Does the institution foster a training environment that enables postdocs to become competitive for a range of career opportunities?
• Coworkers/workplace – Will you able to be friends/friendly with the others in the group?  Does the workplace environment (working hours, atmosphere, tidiness) gel with your own preferences? Will you be supervising other trainees or staff, involved in lab management, or performing routine administrative duties, and if so, is this of interest or a distraction?

Compensation, benefits, community, and locale

Many notable research universities and institutes are located in very high cost-of-living areas around the world, yet postdoc salaries and stipends are seldom adjusted for this. In addition, many schools and institutes have very limited or no on-campus or subsidized housing available for their postdocs. Never assume that the postdoc compensation offered at a given place can adequately cover basic living expenses. Postdoc training can last several years and involve multiple postdoc stints before an academic or non-academic job is secured—don’t start off the process taking a position that will have you going further into debt each passing year. You may be able to negotiate a higher starting salary or additional compensation on top of a stipend, as well as ask for a plan to receive annual pay increases. Your advisor may even have enough clout to get you into a limited pool of subsidized postdoc housing. Beyond being able to comfortably live where you work, you will also want to consider whether you will thrive beyond work. Proximity to family, friends, and support systems can make all the difference in the world during very stressful periods of time during a postdoc. There are several compensation and community elements that one should assess:   

• Salary/Stipend – Will the salary offered be sufficient to cover your basic needs and leave some disposable income for savings and fun? What is the prospect of future salary/stipend raises, when might these be expected, under what conditions, and what might a typical increase look like? If receiving a stipend from a fellowship/training grant, can this be augmented with salary from faculty member?
• Affordability and commutability – Can you afford to live comfortably within a reasonable commuting distance from work? Will you be able to afford childcare if needed now or in the future? Is the area safe, especially traveling from work late at night regularly or on occasion?
• Health benefits – Are you considered an employee of the institute? Note that many postdocs on fellowships and training grants are not considered employees and have no or limited access to institutional benefits or pay a very high premium for these benefits. Will you receive health benefits? If so, what are the costs, and can you afford this? Do the health plan options available meet your personal and family medical needs? Will you have access to affordable dental and vision insurance?
• Other benefits – Will you be receiving full employee benefits, including retirement (account access, employer match/contribution), tuition benefits for you and family members, life insurance, legal assistance, wellness benefits, gym discounts or access to an institutional gym, child care discounts or ability to enroll children in on-site childcare services, backup care, child or elder care accounts with employer contributions?
• Lifestyle alignment – Does the area align with your lifestyle? Will you be able to find groups, people, activities that enable you to enjoy your time away from work?
• Support systems – Are there cultural, religious, affinity, and/or special-interest groups in the area that will provide the support network you need? If you need to be close to family, especially for current or future help with child care, will this locale be amenable to that?         

Postdoctoral training can be an exciting period. Ask faculty about their postdoctoral training experiences and you will likely hear many recall with positivity the freedom they experienced during this time period – freedom to really explore their research interests and freedom from administrative responsibilities, extensive grant writing, teaching, mentoring, managing, etc. However, postdoctoral training can also be one of the most challenging times in your life for a myriad of reasons. It can be easy to get excited about a possible research project and ignore warning signs of poor mentorship, lack of institutional postdoc support, and a less than ideal locale. Postdoc training can last several years, and excitement about a research project will likely ebb and flow. Making sure you have what you need to live, thrive, be supported, and advance in your career should be significant factors when deciding upon a postdoc opportunity. Keep searching if you feel you are sacrificing too much or there are too many red flags. The decision you ultimately make will have a critical impact on your career, so do a thorough search and really assess opportunities that you uncover.  

About the author

Rory Flinn is the Director of Graduate Student Professional Development at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), where he designs, develops, leads, and facilitates professional development programs for graduate students. Prior to joining WPI, he served as the Director of the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at Columbia University, a role with a focus on postdoctoral career services and professional development programming. Rory conducted his postdoctoral training at NYU School of Medicine, earned his PhD in Molecular Pharmacology from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and has served as an adjunct Assistant Professor at Yeshiva University. Rory is passionate about improving graduate career and professional development and contributes to the national conversation through his membership in the Graduate Career Consortium.

Interview with Aashiq Mirza, postdoctoral fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, talks about acquiring interdisciplinary skills and practical habits for success during the early stages of a research career.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

When did you know that you wanted to work in genomics and to become a scientist?

Initially, I wanted to be a medical doctor. I changed my mind as I was wrapping up my undergrad in biotechnology and human genetics. The major turning point was during my Master’s project in Human Genetics and Biotechnology in India where we looked at a particular loss of function mutation in a population. I was really intrigued how a single nucleotide change can lead to a dramatic and dreadful effect downstream. Of course, now I realize that it is not easy or straightforward… but that was it!

Do you ever feel that there is some additional training that you wish you had during your graduate and postgraduate stages?

Some programs allow you to spend one semester or six months in another lab across disciplines to promote multidisciplinary research approaches. This makes you a more well-rounded scientist and allows you to bring back new techniques or a new competence to your own lab and project. It also helps you network and broadens your horizon so you are not limited to learning only your lab’s techniques. It would have been really nice to have this type of exchange program during my training.

Science is changing at an amazing pace. What challenges and opportunities do you think this presents to you and your field, and how are you preparing for this new world?

Aashiq Mirza during a recent visit to his PhD lab at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

I am trying to catch up with new technologies and techniques by attending different seminars and workshops. Currently, sequencing data requires a series of preprocessing steps and analyses by bioinformaticians before it can be read by medical professionals. This is a major barrier for the clinical application of gene editing and personalized genomics. To overcome this challenge, it is important to build new interdisciplinary collaborations to deliver new knowledge and technologies to the clinic.

What are the top habits that you think are important for your success?

Sometimes I feel I am overstretched and over-committed. But I still devote every second day to run at least six miles, so it is important for me to manage my time efficiently. Because of this, I tend not to procrastinate or postpone things at work, which helps me be successful. I am also a firm believer in the dogma “someone helped me and I should pass it on to others.” I am always available for my colleagues and for my friends. Helping others helps us to be more successful.

From your experience, what professional skills are often undervalued by early career scientists entering the job search?

Sometimes we overlook the spirit of teamwork and work ethic. Intellectually, one can be fantastic and hard-working, with an impeccable publication record, but she or he may not be a team worker and that can be problematic for the lab. Poor communication skills and interactions can impact the project and the principal investigator. Instead of focusing on the science, they have to spend time figuring out how to sort out nitty-gritty routine things. It affects productivity and the project in the long run.

What are the most essential steps to prepare for finding a new training position?

Firstly, reach out to your mentors because the process of applying for a new position can be confusing. I was fortunate to receive advice from Maneesh Pingle, an assistant professor in our lab at the time. He helped me identify a graduate program that best fits my interest and he encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone and seek training in new settings and countries despite several hurdles.

Secondly, know the mission of the organization. You should not apply because the lab has a big name. It is very good to do your homework and see what they expect from you. Usually, these big institutes and research centers have mission statements on their webpage. You can benefit by checking to see if they align with your long-term research goals.

Thirdly, consider the project, its progress, and your interest. Sometimes certain research projects are not open-ended questions. If you are seeking a position where the project is almost complete, it will be in the last stages and you will be left with little potential. If, for example, you are looking for a postdoc position to eventually start your own lab, you would want something that has long-term potential.

Lastly, ask about the lab environment. You don’t want to be in a lab that has a good record and great publications if life is miserable and people are not happy. This is really important because it will eventually affect you.

What do you do for fun?

I have a keen interest in old antiques, and I spend some weekends strolling down flea markets and antique shops. What used to be a new technology just 50 years back is now in a museum. Time changes, and everything is dynamic. It keeps reminding me that nothing stays the same.

About the author:

Faten Taki is the Liasion for the Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee and a postdoctoral associate at Weill Cornell Medical College. Her goal is to be able to give back to the scientific community while still growing as an early career scientist.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

As part of the Genetics Society of America’s renewed focus on early career members, Director of Engagement and Development Sonia Hall has created an innovative Early Career Scientist Leadership Program for graduate student and postdoc GSA members. Now that the Program is in full swing, Sonia talks about how it’s going and what has surprised her about working with the early career leaders and their advisors.

What inspired you to create the Early Career Scientist Leadership and Professional Development Program?

I had a very meaningful leadership experience with the GSA when I was a Trainee Advisory Representative for the Board of Directors. The Society’s leaders invested lots of time and energy in my professional development, and I was given tremendous opportunities. But I was one of very few people able to have this chance, so I wanted to share the opportunity with more of our graduate student and postdoc members.

At the same time, I’ve been a strong advocate for giving early career scientists a voice in the larger scientific community. I wanted to find a way to create leadership opportunities for them in a time efficient program that could combine service with professional skill development. This program is the result.

What are you passionate about right now?

I want to show that graduate students and postdocs can advance the scientific enterprise both at the research bench and away from it. We have great leaders in the GSA who want to see early career scientists succeed, and I want this commitment to become more visible. I truly believe that we’re stronger together than we are apart. I want early career scientists to know that there’s an entire community around them that wants them to succeed and that values their contributions.

What do you hope the participants get out of the Leadership Program?

So many things! I want them to realize that they are competent and capable individuals with tremendous opportunities in front of them. Each committee designs projects that challenge them to refine professional skills that are important for success in all career paths. From these projects, they create products that demonstrate their strengths as professional scientists. This allows them to step into the job market with evidence of their professional skills. We also hope to foster a sense of belonging to the GSA community—so that no matter what career path they take, they continue to feel connected to the society.

What do you hope the genetics community will get out of the program?

Participants choose projects they feel will address unmet needs in our community. The Communication & Outreach Subcommittee is working to demonstrate the impact the model organism community has had on the larger scientific enterprise. They aim to tell stories that send a clear message about why funding model organism research is valuable. The Policy Subcommittee is developing resources to help early career scientists to engage in advocacy or pursue careers in policy. The Career Development Subcommittee is highlighting the diverse career pathways of people who train in our community. They want to demonstrate the versatility of PhD training and to remind professional scientists that they remain part of our community regardless of which career path they have pursued.

What do the leaders do during their time in the program?

It depends! Each participant serves on a committee, and each committee has different goals. The activities of all the groups are guided by the Steering Committee, which is a hub for gathering and disseminating information, both to the subcommittees and the GSA Board of Directors. There are four subcommittees working with the Steering Committee: Career Development, Communication and Outreach, Diversity, and Policy.

All the committees meet virtually, which gives them a lot of flexibility. They are joined by a team of advisors made up of both leaders from the GSA community and experts with experience related to the projects. Some of these advisors come from outside of the genetics community. I think this is really important because it shows how we can achieve our goals better by diversifying the expertise of the group.

I am also currently working on pairing each participant with an individual mentor. I’m trying to match them with professionals who can provide career guidance tailored to their needs and interests. This is really challenging, but I think it’s important.

How’s it been going so far?

Amazing! It’s moving at a much faster pace than I expected. It has been really exciting to see the response from the community. I certainly see the value in the products of their projects but the part I love the most is recalling all of the steps they took to make that deliverable product a reality. It’s really been exciting to see the participants grow as professionals and as a community. Many of them have developed friendships and have even found ways to meet in person at various meetings. The professional friendships are one of the things I really hoped would happen but wasn’t sure would be realistic with virtual meetings. Fortunately, we appointed some truly exceptional people that really value each other, so it has worked well.

Have there been any surprises?

Other than the speed, I was surprised how great it has been for committees to work with two different advisors with different backgrounds. I knew having advisors would be beneficial, but having two different angles has made the advice so much richer. The other thing I was surprised by was how quickly participants switched from their initial hesitation—from asking permission for everything—to suddenly taking ownership of their projects and feeling empowered.

What’s happening next?

We’re onboarding our second cohort of leaders, and several committees have projects that will be public soon. We’re also starting to work on implementing new activities at GSA conferences.

Our members come from all over the globe—nearly 60 countries—so we need more Leadership Program participants from places other than North America. I would love to learn more about the training situation in other parts of the world. I would also like more representation across different institution types and regions. I know that the challenges faced by early career scientists vary from place to place. Bringing in this diverse perspective will allow us to continue to develop innovative projects.

GENETICS Editor-in-Chief Mark Johnston introduces a new peer review training program for early career scientists.

“Just tell them what you think of them.” That was the response of one of my mentors when I asked him how I should review grant applications. I was a newly-minted Assistant Professor and had been asked to sit on an NIH study section. I had only a vague idea of how to go about reviewing grant applications, so I turned to my trusted colleague for advice.

I got invited back to the study section. So I must have done something right. But it felt like being tossed into the deep end of the pool before having a swimming lesson. That’s one way to learn. But perhaps it’s not the best way.

Peer-reviewers are vital to the scientific enterprise. They provide a check-and-balance for science by critically evaluating the authors’ (their peers) stories.  They check that the data support the authors’ conclusions. Are the data convincing? Does it meet statistical standards? Have the authors done the necessary controls? By answering these questions in the affirmative, peer-reviewers validate the authors’ findings; by raising concerns about these points, peer-reviewers identify errors in the work that authors surely want to avoid. And peer-reviewers provide a check of the authors’ presentation. Is it clear? Is it persuasive? In my experience, peer-review almost always helps authors improve articles.

Peer-reviewers help editors determine which stories should enter the scientific record. Reviewers must maintain high standards to protect the integrity of the literature, but they must also have reasonable expectations of authors (their peers). Science advances incrementally, after all, and reviewers and editors need to determine how much of an advance justifies readers’ attention—to judge when a story warrants becoming a brick in the Great Wall of Knowledge. It’s a big responsibility.

You’d think such an important task would require advanced training, but there’s no formal training that I know of. Many graduate programs provide their trainees with practice reviewing manuscripts and grant applications, but the scope and effectiveness of those exercises vary widely. Some, though far from all, faculty advisors provide their students opportunities to review manuscripts, often on an informal basis. This patchy system inadvertently robs many students and postdocs of the chance to hone some of the skills central to success in science—understanding the mindset and expectations of peer reviewers and editors, critical thinking, evaluating research, and providing feedback on scientific projects not directly related to your own.

But just because we’ve always done it this way, doesn’t mean it’s the only way.

During her time serving on the GSA’s Publications Committee, Early Career Liaison Aleeza Gerstein drew our attention to this inequality and variability in peer review training. Aleeza works in a field (evolutionary genetics) in which senior students and postdocs traditionally get more opportunities for inclusion in the peer review process, so she was surprised when she learned her experience was not the norm. Across our field as a whole, students and postdocs report uneven experiences in training for peer-review. Aleeza suggested that the GSA is in a good position to help train the next generation of peer reviewers. The entire GSA community could serve as a valuable resource for our early career colleagues.

With the enthusiastic support of GENETICS Senior Editor David Greenstein (now GSA Secretary and Publications Committee Chair), the Editorial Board and the Publications Committee (particularly Elyse Hope and David Fay) are working with Sonia Hall, GSA’s Director of Engagement and Development, to develop a program that will give early career GSA members real-world peer review experience.

To pilot this program, we are currently recruiting the first group of GSA member graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty to serve as peer-reviewers for the journal.

Trainee reviewers will receive training on the principles, purposes, and best practices of peer-review, as well as guidelines and models for fair reviews that are helpful to both the authors and the editors. Participants will review manuscripts submitted to GENETICS that are within their areas of interest and expertise. Just like for any other peer-reviewer, the participants’ reviews will be provided to the authors and considered by the editor in making their decisions.

The trainee reviewers will receive feedback in two ways. First, they will read the other reviews and the decision letter. Seeing how other, more experienced, reviewers do the job will reveal much about the process and nuances of the task, as well as illuminate the path of an academic paper from initial submission through to final publication. And seeing how the editor weighs the reviewers’ opinions and takes their comments into account in coming to a decision on the manuscript will demonstrate what is most salient in reviewers’ comments. Second, we want the trainee reviewers to benefit from the expertise of the GENETICS’ editorial board, so editors will provide feedback to the reviewers about their reviews. I’m hoping that will consist of more than just “tell them what you think of it.”

And beyond the world of publishing, we expect participants to benefit in many ways. Good peer reviewers are skilled at communicating specialist information in an accessible way. They are able to give feedback that is constructive and fair. Chances like this to get feedback are remarkably rare, despite the fact that an important part of being a scientist is regularly critiquing peers and mentees! Participants will demonstrate their understanding of responsible publication and authorship practices, their willingness to contribute to the discipline, along with many of those hard-to-show “soft” skills like workplace etiquette, knowing when to seek advice, time management, and reliably meeting deadlines.

Peer-review is a cornerstone of science. We should not leave training for such an important activity to chance. The editors of GENETICS look forward to working with our young colleagues to develop the journal’s next generation of peer-reviewers.

Learn more about the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program.

Guest post by Kalyn Gackowski

What makes me unique? How are my experiences relevant? How can I show them I’m the ideal candidate? What do I know about [dream job I have never had direct experience in]? Whether you’re looking for a job or just starting your career exploration, the answer to these questions will center on transferable skills. Transferable skills are those skills you obtain from your experiences that are applicable to other contexts and positions. Being able to identify and articulate these can set you apart as an outstanding job candidate. As simple as this may seem, students often struggle to define related and relevant skills that they have acquired during their educational and professional experiences.

The more time you take to reflect and become self-aware of your skills, the more confident you are going to be in those intimidating interviews, networking events, and family holidays. Defining these skills will also greatly strengthen your application materials and lead to more interviews and job offers.

So what experiences can/should you pull skills from? It depends on the position and the field.  However, think broadly and beyond the most obviously related experiences. Volunteering, summer jobs, internships, activities, and other outside experiences can be sources of important job and personal skills.  

What skills come from your science training?  A graduate student I know once told me science has prepared him to think, learn, and adapt.  Whether or not a job requires knowledge of science, any employer would value such transferable skills in a potential candidate. Technical skills such as proficiency with specific lab techniques are great to highlight, but research experience gives you so much more. For example, I have worked in a genetics lab for three years, completed a genetic counseling internship, and am working towards a biological science major. Some of the skills I can highlight to employers include: the ability to communicate to both the scientific and nonscientific community, to read technical literature, to follow protocols effectively, to work both on a team and independently, to adapt, to solve problems, to present and network at conferences, and the list goes on.

There are many ways transferable skills can help you to stand out.

Resume/CV/Cover Letter/Personal Statement: Describe not only what you did in each position, but also what you gained. A common mistake is focusing too much on your duties and not enough on the skills you used.

Read the job description carefully, and highlight the skills sought to ensure you address them in your own words within your application.

Interviewing/Networking: Knowing your skills will help you develop your 60-second commercial and will give you confidence in your interview responses. Interview questions often ask about past experiences to gauge how you would react to a similar experience in the future. To answer these questions, you should follow an answering method called STAR which focuses on how you demonstrated and applied relevant skills.

Career Exploration/Job Search: To narrow down your job and career search, you should understand the skills you already possess, what you are qualified to do, and what skills you want to improve.

Lastly, don’t forget you are unique. There are over 7 billion people on this planet, and everyone will have different experiences and will learn something different from each experience. My biggest recommendation is to set aside time to reflect on what makes you unique. It is sometimes helpful to write out your thoughts, talk to someone like a mentor or career counselor, or read job descriptions to generate some ideas, even if you don’t apply for those specific positions.

It can be challenging to learn to talk about ourselves and market our skills, but it is a key component of professional development. In summary, to do is important, but to reflect and apply is even more valuable.

About the author:

Kalyn Gackowski

Kalyn Gackowski provides career-related services to students and alumni at Marquette University’s Career Services Center and is also an undergraduate researcher in Dr. Edward Blumenthal’s genetics lab at Marquette. She recently presented her research poster and gave a talk at the 58th Annual Drosophila Research Conference. She will be graduating this August with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biological Sciences and is looking to pursue a career that combines her professional development skills with her science background to make a difference.