Photo Credit: Ed Brown

Back in December, we wrote here about a proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Labor that would mandate that postdocs earning less than $50,440 per year would be eligible for overtime pay at 1.5 times their hourly rate. This week, the Department of Labor released its revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The changes will take effect December 1, 2016. Here, we summarize what this means for research labs, institutions, and the estimated 37,000-40,000 researchers affected by these changes.

The Final Rule announced this week looks a little different than the proposal first described last fall. In summary:

• Salaried workers who are not exempt and who earn less than $47,476 per year are eligible for overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week.
• Postdocs are not exempt and are therefore subject to the changes in the rule.
• The salary threshold overtime eligibility will rise every three years to keep up with inflation.

The National Institutes of Health and Department of Labor worked together to reach clear guidelines for postdocs. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez and NIH Director Francis Collins published a joint op-ed in the Huffington Post, announcing NIH’s plan to raise the baseline salary for postdocs funded directly by the agency through individual fellowships to $47,476, timed to coincide with the rule’s announcement. The annual increase ranges from hundreds to thousands of dollars for eligible postdocs, depending on seniority. Postdocs are now paid $43,692 (first year), $45,444 (second year), and $47,268 (third year) from individual fellowships. It’s unclear whether NIH will use the new salary threshold as a baseline for their seniority-based pay scale or if seniority will no longer be considered. Collins and Perez acknowledge the challenge this change would impose, but asserted that higher salaries were a step in the right direction, and create an “opportunity to encourage more of our brightest young minds to consider choosing careers in science.”

Not all postdocs will be eligible for overtime. The new overtime rule only applies to postdocs who are full-time researchers and do not participate in teaching and training activities as a part of their position. This largely excludes postdocs in the humanities, who regularly teach courses during their postdoctoral studies, and thus would not receive any change in their pay. As for the sciences, this loophole could lead to some post-docs being re-classified with titles that suggest they are lecturers or instructors, thereby making them exempt from the overtime rule. It’s unclear whether the hands-on training that postdocs provide to graduate and undergraduate students in research labs will be sufficient for exemption based on the teaching exception. This will likely be decided at the institutional level.

No doubt a function of the soon-to-change White House administration, the Department of Labor will implement the rule sooner rather than later. Despite calls from organizations like the American Association of Medical Colleges and American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology for a phased-in approach, the rule will be fully implemented on December 1, 2016. In a fact sheet directed toward institutions of higher education, the Department of Labor outlined three options for universities to become compliant with the rule: raise the salary of non-exempt postdocs above the new threshold, pay postdocs overtime for hours worked beyond the standard 40 hour work week, or evaluate workloads to reduce the need for overtime.

The nature of scientific research is such that the last option is not a realistic one where postdocs are concerned. Whether institutions decide to give postdocs a raise or pay overtime, the looming question remains: Where is the extra money going to come from?   Funding agencies could increase award amounts to reflect the new exemption threshold; however, budget negotiations for fiscal year 2017 have largely held funding for the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation flat for investigator-initiated research, making this an unlikely option in the next year. Without more funding to offset these costs, Principal Investigators (PIs) will need to fund these raises or hours of overtime based on budgets calculated prior to the new threshold announcement. This means that for at least the first year, some PIs will be forced to reduce the size of their research groups, taking on fewer graduate students or dropping existing postdocs.

Although Collins and Perez pledge to “work closely with leaders in the postdoc and research communities to find creative solutions to ensure a smooth transition,” with major changes in such little time, we can expect a few bumps along the road.

What are your thoughts on the new overtime rule? Please share in the comment section below.

I have always been passionate about science and outreach is something I think I’m good at. So when I received an email from GSA saying I was on the shortlist for a very important advocacy and outreach event, I thought about how I might be the best scientist to represent GSA. I drafted the following message:

I’m the perfect candidate because:
I’m super-friendly, energetic, and creative
I’m not an introvert
I can be very humorous
My poster will be both visually and scientifically appealing
I work on something most people know about, mitosis or cell division
I do outreach with underrepresented students in STEM
I use scientific art to engage the public
I serve as a Board member for SACNAS
I’m passionate about science, science education, and policy.

I hit send…and waited….

About a week later, I received an email from Chloe Poston, GSA Policy and Communications Manager, saying I had been selected to go!

I was invited to present my NSF-funded research as a poster session at the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF) Exhibition on April 26th. Chloe also organized meetings with the offices of my Wisconsin representatives, Sen.Tammy Baldwin (D), Sen. Ron Johnson (R), and Rep. Mark Pocan.

Meeting my Wisconsin representatives:

April 26th, 2016, was one of the hottest spring days in D.C. I’ve ever experienced. It also just happened to be the day I was meeting with the staff of my Wisconsin representatives.

Each office has snacks and decor related to the state. We found beef jerky, raisins and a cheesehead in the waiting area of Sen. Ron Johnson’s office.

I met Chloe Poston from the GSA in the morning and she briefed me about what to expect, and reassured me that she would accompany me on my visits. This put me at ease as she knew information I didn’t, and we worked as a team. Chloe was able to converse with them using their lingo (that I was not accustomed to). Chloe had already told me I didn’t need to prepare anything, but she suggested that bringing along a short presentation wouldn’t hurt. Luckily I took her advice. The visuals and movies really helped explain the impacts of my research and why NSF funding is important.

After visiting all three offices, I thought we had made the biggest headway with the Republican. That’s not what I expected. The democrats in my district and in Wisconsin are fully supportive of science. They assured us that they are following support for research closely, and thanked us for coming to the Hill to raise awareness about research funding. Although the office was sweltering, my presentation and enthusiasm plus Chloe’s experience and data helped win Rep. Ron Johnson’s office over. We were soon asked who to talk to about increasing NSF funding (which was great!). We mentioned Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who authored The Next Generation Research Act, which would ensure support for researchers and innovators of the future. Chloe assured me that it was a really good sign that he asked so many questions and wrote notes on our conversation.

I also couldn’t help but get excited about history and current events. Being a fan of politics, I tried to spot representatives and senators I knew. I saw some very tall men in 10-gallon hats talking with a senator, perhaps from Texas. Others chatting near the elevator asked us where we were from after overhearing our accents. I was looking for Bernie’s YUUGE office, but didn’t get a chance to see it…maybe next time.

For my poster presentation:

The Exhibition was just like any other scientific poster session you’ve been to, except there was an awkward feel in the room. I couldn’t put my finger on why, but then realized that all of the scientists presenting, including me, seemed a little uncomfortable appearing to be “dressed up”. As many of you know, the last place scientists want to be is in a suit. This meant it was pretty easy to spot the legislators and staffers, given their ease and experience wearing these pieces of clothing.

As legislators and their staffers trickled in, I whipped out my laptop, put some of my movies of C. elegans embryos dividing on a loop, and asked people if they “Wanna hear about how cells divide?” It was a lot of fun to see what policymakers knew about mitosis and to show off what cell division looks like in real time.

Explaining why I use C.elegans to study cell division to AAAS CEO Rush Holt

I spoke to other geneticists, mathematicians, physicists, staffers, NSF program officers, and even Rush Holt (rep-NJ), CEO of the Science family of journals at AAAS. I was also approached by a AAAS fellow who said I did the best job at visualizing my science to the general public. In hindsight, I would have even simplified my poster even more. But live and learn.

D.C. direct to Madison

Probably the greatest thing that happened to me was on my way home from D.C. I got to the gate at DCA and saw Russ Feingold! He’s a former WI senator now running for Ron Johnson’s senate seat! Being a huge fan, I bit my lip and acted like I didn’t know who he was (and then texted everyone I knew!).

My plan was to say hello after we landed. So I ran and got my bags and waited. Just as I gave up and went to meet my husband outside at the curb, Feingold stepped out of the airport. He must’ve seen me eyeing him (like a huge fan girl) because he said hello. From about twenty feet away, I thanked him for his service. He walked toward me and introduced himself, asked what I do. When I told him I was a professor, he wanted to know about my research and where I went to grad school. While I was chatting, I reached into my backpack to find my business cards and out came probably the dirtiest business card possible. “This is all I have and apologize for the dirt, but would like you to come to visit my lab sometime?” I said. As he walked away, I thought to myself: no one would respond to such a dirty business card.

Russ Feingold holding one of the cupcakes I baked.

Two days later, I was in my office working on a revision of my manuscript and my office phone rings. “This is Russ Feingold’s secretary. He met you at the airport the other day and would like to invite you to a dinner in his honor at someone’s home next Friday. Can you come?” First, I thought it was a joke (or a dream), but she said she would email me the details. A week later, I had a chance over dinner to talk with Feingold about science and the fate of UW-Madison, something I care so deeply about. I also baked him some cupcakes, which he loved. His office is planning a visit to my lab too. The moral of the story is: you never know when you might meet a politician – so be prepared with clean business cards and a smile!

Advice for others who want to meet with their representatives and senators

Start early in preparation of your visit. Ask GSA or other scientific associations if someone from their office can accompany you. Prepare to meet office staff that will likely be in their mid-to-late 20s. Yes – young! Remember that you have only 5 minutes to explain your research, so good visuals really do help. Movies are even better if you have them. The best way to start is to ask if they know something basic about the process you study. Like cell division or what DNA is. Then slowly work your way to why is cell division important to understand, etc. If you’re struggling with these explanations, keep working at it. Or better yet, get involved in outreach events on campus or at your institute. Be passionate about your research/teaching and be yourself. The last thing you want them to think about scientists is that we are as dry and exciting as toast.

I encourage everyone to get involved, learn about science policy, learn to be a better science educator, support STEM diversity efforts, contact your representatives and senators, post about science on social media, and any other ways you’re comfortable engaging with the public. But simply get engaged!

Ahna Skop

About the author: Dr. Ahna Skop is an associate professor of Genetics, Life Sciences Communication and the UW-Madison Arts Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research seeks to understand the mechanisms that regulate asymmetric cell division and uses the fantastic model organism, C. elegans. She serves on the board of SACNAS where she dedicates her time to foster the success of Chicano/Hispanic and Native American scientists in STEM. Her broader impacts focus on using art to engage the public with science and has several public installations of scientific art on the UW-Madison campus. She has run the bi-annual C. elegans art show at the international C. elegans meetings since she was a grad student. In her free time, she runs the C. elegans Researchers Facebook page and has a foodblog, foodskop.com. Her Twitter handle is: @foodskop

Ahna Skop explains why she uses C. elegans to study cell division to Rush Holt, current CEO of AAAS and a former Congressman from New Jersey.

Last night, a milieu of scientists, Congressional staffers, members of Congress, and representatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF) filled the banquet room of the Rayburn House Office Building to show how investments in STEM research and education are fueling American innovation. Among those scientists was GSA member Ahna Skop, an Associate Professor of Genetics and Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Skop arrived to the poster session after having spent the day on Capitol Hill sharing her enthusiasm for conducting model organism research in C. elegans, understanding cell division, increasing diversity in science, and using the beauty of microscopy to engage the public in her research on cell division.

Dr. Skop signs-in at Senator Ron Johnson’s office.

“It’s essential that NSF remain a major part of the funding discussion for researchers who are also passionate about teaching and outreach,” she told a staffer in Rep. Mark Pocan’s (D-WI-02) office. “NSF has a mandate for education that Congress must support.”  Skop also met with the offices of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who recently sponsored the Next Generation Researchers Act, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), a fiscal conservative who has a growing interest in the life sciences. Policymakers were fascinated with Skop’s microscopy images of mitosis, which she used as a reminder that support for fundamental research enabled the development of visualization tools like green fluorescent protein.

The poster session was organized by the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), a consortium of 140 organizations united by a concern for the future vitality of the national science, mathematics and engineering enterprise. GSA, a member of CNSF, works in concert with these organizations to increase the national investment in the fundamental research and education initiatives supported by the National Science Foundation. Among the senior officials and Members of Congress visiting the 40 posters representing NSF investments across the country were NSF Director France Córdova, former Congressman and CEO of AAAS Rush Holt, and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA-09).

Dr. Skop on her way in to Senator Tammy Baldwin’s office

The push to improve awareness of NSF’s contributions and increase its funding is critical as the agency’s budget has remained relatively flat in the past few years. The President’s budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2017 asks for $7.964 billion for NSF, of which $400 million is mandatory funding that Congress is unlikely to accept. This was demonstrated earlier this month when the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill which allotted $7.51 billion to NSF, ignoring the mandatory funding proposal and leaving the agency with a meager $46 million increase over FY 2016.

Feeling the impact of repeatedly low budget increases, the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) at NSF placed the Collections in Support of Biological Sciences and Instrument Development for Biological Research programs on hiatus for fiscal year 2017, pending the results of an evaluation to assess their “impact and scalability.” Notably, this decision was rooted in the need to prioritize other initiatives in the BIO budget, suggesting that an infusion of funding could allow support for emerging programs without impacting existing ones. During her visits with policymakers, Skop mentioned these programs explicitly, citing the C. elegans stock centers as an invaluable resource for her research that Congress should be proud to support.

You can share your  voice in support of the National Science Foundation too.  Write your members of Congress today to tell them why NSF funding is important for your research.

To learn more about the CNSF exhibition, visit www.cnsf.org and #SeeNSF on twitter.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has issued a Dear Colleague Letter inviting those with current research support to request supplemental funding to enhance the training experience of graduate students.

Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)

PIs supported by NSF’s Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) may request additional support for their PhD students in ways that enhance their professional development without negatively impacting dissertation research or increasing the time to degree.

Funding is available to support two types of activities. First, funding may be requested to support student participation in experiences that extend beyond their discipline and/or broaden their career options. For example, funds may be used to support the student for a brief internship period in the private, non-profit or academic arena, or to obtain specialized skills in a cross-disciplinary setting. Second, funds may be requested to compensate trainees to attend professional development courses (not formal degree programs) that enhance skills needed to be competitive in the job market. Courses with special emphasis on training in quantitative biology and/or acquiring skills that improve broader impacts (e.g., communicating science to the public) will be considered a priority.

MCB expects to make no more than 15 awards per year of $6,000–12,000 each, and requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact one of the cognizant program directors for more information as soon as possible. All requests must be received by May 20, 2016.

Other programs within the BIO Directorate are not participating at this time.

Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)

Grantees from EHR—as well as other Directorates—may apply for supplemental funding to support doctoral student participation in “education-related training experiences that broaden their skill sets and their career options, preparing them for a variety of STEM-related careers.” Specifically, EHR will support three types of activities:

• Participation in internships, training experiences, or collaborative research with private, non-profit, government, or academic organizations that promote informal STEM learning (e.g., museums; film, broadcast media, and science journalism; digital media and gaming; citizen science; school and community programs). Opportunities can include, but are not limited to, communication and media training programs that prepare students to be effective communicators to public audiences, internships focused on informal STEM learning research and evaluation, and training in exhibit and program design and delivery.

• Participation in internships, training experiences, or research and development activities in collaboration with education researchers and/or social science learning scholars to acquire new teaching skills and competencies, to gain exposure to new STEM educational research areas, or to test novel approaches for improving the engagement of K-12 or undergraduate students in authentic, career-relevant experiences. For example, doctoral students might spend a visiting term with a discipline-based education research group to learn about its research foci and relevant methodologies.

• Development and piloting of new and innovative programs for groups of graduate students focusing on (a) specific transferable professional skills or (b) career development and preparation for a variety of STEM career pathways. For this activity, projects must include active NSF Graduate Research Fellowship awardees and Honorable Mentions from a single campus or from several institutions within a region, including minority-serving institutions. Programs should include a plan to ensure participation by Fellows and Honorable Mention recipients who are women, members of underrepresented minority groups, persons with disabilities, and veterans. (This opportunity is limited to lead investigators of Graduate Research Fellowship Program institutional awards.)

The first two opportunities noted above should benefit individual students but may be requested by PIs on any active NSF award.

Requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact the cognizant program director for more information as soon as possible. All requests must be received by May 31, 2016.

Other Directorates

Information about opportunities from other NSF directorates may be found in the Dear Colleague Letter.

Additional Information:

• “Dear Colleague Letter: Improving Graduate Student Preparedness for Entering the Workforce, Opportunities for Supplemental Support” (NSF 16-067), April 15, 2016.
• “New Funding Opportunity,” MCB Blog, April 22, 2016.

The White House National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) has developed a pair of portals to connect undergraduates and graduate students to Federally-sponsored opportunities. These resources compile programs across federal agencies, which may be searched or browsed by discipline, location, and more.

• STEMUndergrads.science.gov includes listings for undergraduate fellowships, scholarships, courses, internships, prize, and institution-based awards for undergraduate programs.

• STEMGradStudents.science.gov includes listings for graduate fellowships, scholarships, traineeships, internships, and collaborations; scientific meeting support; thesis research; prizes; and institution-based awards for graduate programs.

Among the agencies who are included in the new portals are the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation (NSF), Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Geological Survey.

CoSTEM was established in 2011 to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM education. Its co-chairs are France Córdova, Director of NSF, and Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) has put two funding programs on hiatus, pending an evaluation of the “long term resource needs and research priorities” within the directorate. The suspended programs are both within BIO’s Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI).

Collections in Support of Biological Research (CSBR)

The Collections in Support of Biological Research program had been providing funding for three major activities:

• improvements to secure and organize collections that are significant to the NSF BIO-funded research community;
• secure collections-related data for sustained, accurate, and efficient accessibility to the biological research community; and
• transfer ownership of collections.

The collections supported by the program include established living stock/culture collections, non-living natural history collections, and ancillary collections such as preserved tissues and DNA libraries.

Those of particular interest to the GSA community include the San Diego Drosophila Species Stock Center, Chlamydomonas Resource Center, Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, Bacillus Genetic Stock Center, and E. coli Genetic Stock Center.

The program also experienced a similar pause in funding in 2013 during a shift from an annual to biennial deadline cycle (which was later reversed). Although DBI acknowledges the importance of infrastructure provided by the CSBR program, they are concerned about the relationship of the program to other related NSF programs.

To that end, NSF is soliciting feedback from the community and is especially interested in responses to the following questions:

• Is the scope of collection support provided by CSBR adequate and appropriate to address the research and education community needs? If there are gaps, what are these and how should they be addressed?
• What is known about how the collections-related programs (CSBR, Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections, and the Collections track of Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology) leverage one another (anecdotal evidence is welcome!)?
• What are the impacts of the CSBR program that are innovative and/or transformative in understanding unanswered questions in biology or that significantly impact education or outreach?
• Are there other issues or metrics that should be considered during evaluation of the CSBR program; e.g., encouraging data publications that cite specimens, societal benefits (such as environmental impacts, education/workforce development, and economic benefits), etc.?

GSA is working with several living stocks collections—as well as our policy partners—to develop a formal response, but we encourage individuals to submit their own comments to NSF by writing to DBICSBR@nsf.gov.

The Drosophila Species Stock Center is asking its users to write a letter to NSF supporting the value of living collections, and describing how important the center is to their research and STEM training.

They encourage users to try to include any one (or all) of the following in their letter: 1) how they use the stocks in their research, 2) if/how they use stocks in STEM training, 3) how stocks have facilitated new and exciting research trajectories.

We also invite members of the community to share your perspectives with GSA through comments below or by email to society@genetics-gsa.org. Your input will help us develop a response that is appropriately inclusive.

Instrument Development for Biological Research (IDBR)

The Instrument Development for Biological Research program had been supporting the “development, production, and distribution of novel instrumentation” that address needs in areas of biological research supported by NSF BIO. This has included two types of proposals:

Type A – Innovation: Proposals for the development of novel instrumentation that provides new research capabilities or, where appropriate, that significantly improves current technologies by at least an order of magnitude in fundamental aspects such as accuracy, precision, resolution, throughput, flexibility, breadth of application, costs of construction or operation, or user-friendliness.

Type B – Bridging: Proposals for transforming ‘one of a kind’ prototypes or high-end instruments into devices that are broadly available and utilizable without loss of capacity. If appropriate, PIs should seek SBIR/STTR Program, or similar support mechanism for implementation of broad distribution following an IDBR award.

The program has not supported access to an instrument in a user facility nor to enhance research capabilities in a specific lab or institution.

Additional Information:

• Nala Rogers, “Biologists ask NSF to reconsider plan to pause collections funding program,” ScienceInsider, March 25, 2016.
• Anna Nowogrodzhi, “Biological specimen troves threatened by funding pause,” Nature News, March 21, 2016.
• National Science Collections Alliance, “NSCA and Others Urge NSF to Reconsider CSBR Hiatus,” March 24, 2016.
• Bethany Drehman, “NSF places two biological infrastructure programs on hiatus,” FASEB – The Washington Update, April 7, 2016.

 FY 2017 Budget Process Underway

President Obama submitted his budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to congress at the beginning of the month, proposing funding levels for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to accommodate a nearly $1 billion increase in mandatory spending to fund special projects like the BRAIN, Precision Medicine, and Cancer Moonshot initiatives. If this budget is accepted, NIH Institutes and Centers that are not involved in these projects will not see any funding increase above the FY 2016 levels. Research advocates are concerned that this would lead to a decline in success rates in those centers as the number of grant proposals continues to increase. NIH Director Francis Collins shared his optimistic outlook on the proposal with The Wall Street Journal. The budget also includes a 6.7% increase in funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as an increase for the US Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), reported here last month.

The mandatory spending proposals for NIH and AFRI are not likely to be adopted by Congress. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), stated that mandatory funding “diminishes fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight.”

In the House, members of the Appropriations Committee released a call for Representatives to submit programmatic requests to the Committee. These requests assist the Committee in determining what agencies are of most importance to House members and their constituents. You can encourage your representative to support the NSF and the NIH by responding to this e-action alert.

It is still relatively early in the Federal budget process (see graphic below); stay tuned for updates on how budget proposals might impact scientific research funding.

Photo Credit: The National Priorities Prioject

Next Generation Researchers Act

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee unanimously approved the Next Generation Researchers Act, submitted by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). In an guest column in the Wisconsin State Journal, Senator Baldwin describes the bill as a means to “build opportunities for new researchers, help address the debt burden that young scientists face today, and invest in the future of research, science and innovation.” The legislation establishes a “Next Generation Researchers Initiative” to be housed in the Office of the Director at the NIH. This initiative would be tasked with developing or modifying policies within NIH to:

• Enhance training opportunities for research-related career options;
• Strengthen mentorship between new and veteran researchers;
• Enhance workforce diversity efforts;
• Improve new researchers’ success in obtaining renewal funding; and
• Coordinate with agencies and academic institutions to improve tracking of trainees and their career progress.

In addition to the creation of the Next Generation Researchers Initiative, the bill asks that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a comprehensive study on policies impacting the next generation of researchers in the United States, culminating with a report to be presented to Congress within 5 years of the law’s enactment. The bill specifically asks the study to address administrative, cultural and legal barriers to research careers, evaluate the impact of sequestration on the next generation of researchers, and provide recommendations to improve entry to and sustain careers in research for the next generation.

If passed, this legislation would align nicely with NIH’s agency-wide strategic plan, which called for improved data collection, training, and workforce diversity efforts.

GBSI BioPolicy Summit 2016

This month the Global Biopolicy Standards Institute (GBSI) hosted its 2016 BioPolicy Summit, “Research Reproducibility: Innovative Solutions to Drive Quality.” At this convening of researchers, administrators, journal editors, and scientific societies, former GSA President Judith Kimble (University of Wisconsin) used her keynote address to point to the hyper-competitive research environment caused by insufficient research funding as the underlying explanation for some of the reproducibility challenges that science is facing. To lower the amount of competition, Kimble highlighted the need to reduce the number of researchers, as funding increases for research are not sustainable for the long term. She also called for a shift from an expectation of clinical relevance to the importance of the research question and noted that many innovative ideas are never proposed for fear of not being funded. Kimble ended her talk with current progress in research reproducibility, citing GBSI’s Reproducibility 2020 report, efforts to share research results early through mechanisms such as bioRχiv, and a request for applications to train graduate students in good laboratory practices from NIH.

Especially for geneticists

The coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology products (think GMOs) is being updated in a joint effort between the Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The next public meetings, planned for March 9, 2016, at EPA’s Region 6 office at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas and March 30 at the University of California, Davis. Each public meeting will offer an opportunity for comments from the public.

With the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 omnibus bill  signed into law and in effect, Congress now shifts its attention to the budget for FY 2017, which begins on October 1. To aid in this process, the House Appropriations Committee has asked individual Representatives to submit “Programmatic Requests.” These requests are used by the Committee to identify what programs are most important to other members of the House.

Several factors including a Presidential election and a dispute over the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice could make this a difficult and contentious year. To keep Representatives aware of the importance of sustained and predictable funding for continued research progress, it is important that members of the scientific community contact the offices of the House members.

Please use our legislative alert to send messages thanking your Representative for their past support and urging them to submit Programmatic Requests on behalf of research agencies including the NIH and NSF.

To send a message to your Senators and Representative, all you need to do is provide your email address and ZIP Code and make any edits you wish on the draft text provided.

The deadlines for these requests are in March so please submit your request today and then share  this message with your colleagues.

Following the much appreciated budget increases for scientific agencies in December, science and health advocates alike were ecstatic at the mention of a “cancer moonshot” in President Obama’s final State of the Union Address to the House of Representatives. It is reported that the White House  plans to request $755 million for cancer research funding as a part of the larger, $1 billion ask to fund the entire initiative in fiscal year (FY) 2017. Where those funds will go remains to be seen, however the first meeting of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, with Vice President Biden at the helm, took place this week with 13 agencies represented—including the NSF and NIH. It seems likely that the National Cancer Institute will be the largest recipient of any such budget increase at the NIH, and it was the only Institute within an agency explicitly named as a task force member.

NIGMS Council

Speaking of NIH, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) held an Advisory Council Meeting last week, where innovative funding and data took center stage. Director Jon Lorsch, reported the progress of the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) Pilot. MIRA was launched to provide a stable funding source for an investigator’s entire research program, rather than a per project basis. An analysis of the initial MIRA applicant pool suggested that approximately 25% of those eligible to apply in this first round submitted a MIRA proposal, and the applicant pool was similarly diverse in gender and race/ethnicity, as compared with the pool. Lorsch suggested that NIGMS would be issuing new funding opportunity announcements for MIRA in the near future with the expectation that the program would be available to all NIGMS investigators within the next year or so.

As part of the omnibus appropriations bills for FY 2016, NIGMS is receiving nearly 6% in additional funding over the previous year. To ensure that this additional support does not cause a one-year peak in funding that cannot be sustained, NIGMS is proposing to fund several short-term priorities in addition to bolstering multi-year R01s and the like; for example, the institute may provide equipment supplements or offer 1–2 awards to help promising but risky applications collect preliminary data.

Assessments of the National Centers for Systems Biology, NIGMS MERIT, and Program Project Awards were presented to the council. No decision was made, but there could be some changes on the horizon as some existing mechanisms may be eclipsed by new funding mechanisms that are currently in the pilot phase.

The council approved a pilot for a new technology development funding mechanism, which separates technology development into early and late phases. The early phase mechanism is a two year, $250,000 investment that is intended to be high risk, requiring no preliminary data or need to apply the technique to a biological question. The late phase mechanism would be a 3–5 year award with no budget cap, where preliminary data exists with functioning prototypes available for the first biomedical application. These funding solutions come after the NIGMS requested input from the scientific community on how it should consider “the biomedical technology research and development space at all stages, from exploratory to mature.” GSA responded to this request, stating that “NIGMS is in a strong position to provide leadership in this area because it already supports a diverse array of foundational work across many disciplines. This institute should therefore invest sufficient resources in technology development to ensure that this critical field continues to thrive.” We expect this new program to provide the support necessary to move far-reaching technology ideas to tangible tools for basic research.

Science & Engineering Indicators

Last month at the National Science Foundation, the National Science Board released the 2016 volume of its Science and Engineering Indicators report. This sweeping data set, presented to Congress covers science education, workforce, and public attitudes on scientific issues. Notably, the study found that only 28% of Americans think that scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified crops; 37% think they are safe to eat. On a positive note, the GSA community should be pleased to know that strong public support for basic research funding remains steady at more than 75% (see Figure 7-14), and the percentage of people who agree that the government spends too little for scientific research continues to increase (see Figure 7-15). The full report can be found here.

Request for agriculture research funding

Providing a preview of President Obama’s proposed budget for FY 2017, set to be unveiled next week, the US Department of Agriculture announced that the President will request $700 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grants program. This would double the program’s current funding level of $350 million. AFRI supports projects at universities and research institutes that address food safety and quality, nutrients in plants, plant growth, and antimicrobial resistance strategies. In a move toward stable funding for agricultural research, the budget includes a legislative proposal that $325 million of the total request be considered mandatory funding. This could make AFRI, which began seven years ago, a permanent funding source to support a sustained research effort to improve agriculture, food, the environment and communities.

Especially for geneticists

The gene editing conversation continues with commentary posted here and here. The National Academies of Sciences and Medicine continue their consensus study on the scientific, medical and ethical considerations of human gene editing, holding a public meeting on February 11, 2016. GSA plans to attend.

The coordinated framework  for the regulation of biotechnology products (think GMOs) is being updated in a joint effort between the Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Public meetings are planned for March 9 in Dallas and March 30 at the University of California, Davis.

A proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Labor could soon mandate that postdocs making less than $50,440 per year will be eligible for overtime pay at 1.5 times their hourly rate. Research labs are generally not prepared to track overtime hours and many do not have the additional funds available to pay postdocs above their current stipend. As the Department of Labor deliberates on the final rule, many questions remain. We outline the issue along with some concerns and potential outcomes in this post.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Postdocs often join research groups to expand their training and expertise in a well-defined corner of science by training with an established and respected mentor. In fact, this once optional training period has become almost required in the life sciences.

In many ways, a postdoctoral position is like other early career positions outside of academia: the hours are long, the daily tasks aren’t always glamorous, and your boss–or primary investigator (PI) in the case of a postdoc – can influence your future success. However, postdocs are anything but green entry-level employees; they are highly trained individuals who have worked on an independent research project in a research laboratory through 5-7 years of graduate study.

When it comes to pay for postdocs, most universities follow the minimum salary guidelines for trainees set by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for those on National Research Service Award traineeships and fellowships, which pays a first year postdoc with no experience $42,840  But everyone isn’t paid from this type of grant and many earn salaries lower than this minimum.  One survey reports that the earnings vary between $37,000 and $63,000 per year for postdocs in the United States.  Add this to the fact that many of the nation’s top universities where postdocs congregate are located in some of the country’s most expensive cities. Consider this monthly salary for a single individual living in Boston—which is home to several of the top genetics programs in the country— where the average rent for the metropolitan area was $1200 per month in 2014. It’s probably no surprise that postdocs quickly saw President Obama’s announcement to alter overtime exemption requirements as an opportunity to shed light on their situation.

The legislation in question is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, and other employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. The proposed change to FLSA would mandate that employees with a salary under $50,440 would be classified as “non-exempt” and be eligible for overtime pay at a rate of 1.5 times the hourly rate.

Postdocs across America rallied behind the proposed rule change, signing petitions and writing letters asking for an increase in minimum salary to $50,440 or to be considered for overtime pay. Organizations like the National Postdoctoral Association and the University of California’s postdoctoral union, UAW Local 5810, wrote position statements urging the Department of Labor to implement the proposal, converting a large sector of the scientific workforce from exempt to non-exempt status. Other groups like the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and the American Association of Medical Colleges issued statements advocating for any change to be incremental. With the comment period now closed, the Department of Labor is deliberating on the information gathered and will issue its final ruling in July 2016, according to the proposed timeline.

While we can’t say what the final ruling will be, GSA explores some of the potential outcomes for postdocs and the scientific enterprise if the rule is implemented to require that postdocs paid under $50,440 be paid overtime.

In one scenario, an institution could pay postdocs overtime. This possibility requires a significant administrative burden on the PI, the postdoc, and the institution. The postdoc would have to document all hours worked to determine which should be considered for overtime—a departure from the average academic laboratory culture. The PI would have a more difficult time estimating the cost of postdocs for budgets in grant proposals and justifications. Paying overtime to postdocs who regularly work well beyond 40 hours per week would likely cause a reduction in such positions in even well-funded research groups.

In another scenario, an institution could opt to raise the postdoc salary to at least $50,440. This option would require PIs to identify ways to meet the higher salary requirement from existing grant funds—at least for the first year or two of implementation. Funding Agencies could increase the amount of funding per grant to offset these costs, but this would require steep budget increases from Congress. It is more likely that providing this raise will lead to a reduction in postdoc positions across labs.

In a third scenario, the Department of Labor could explicitly exempt postdocs or training positions more generally from these classifications. Currently postdocs paid from research grants awarded to their PI are generally considered employees by institutions, while postdocs with individual fellowships and traineeships are classified as trainees. Should the rule be amended to include language specific to postdocs, this discrepancy would have to be addressed. If the proposed policy mandates that institutions change the way they classify postdocs, then the rule will impact benefits, visas, taxes, and more.

Rapid changes to the system could have dramatic implications. Even the National Postdoctoral Association has called for a graduated approach to increasing stipends. Without an increase in federal funding, the long term effect would inevitably be a reduction in the number of academic postdocs. Studies on the biomedical workforce have called for such a decrease for years (e.g., a 2000 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) as a remedy to the low postdoc salary; however, phase-in would not be simple.

NIH raised its minimum postdoc salary for fellowship recipients by 7% in 2014 and again by 2% in 2015 in response to a 2012 Report from the Biomedical Workforce Working Group that called for stipend levels to “better reflect years of training.” If the implementation time for these recommendations is a bellwether, it could take a few years for the agency to change its salary policies in response to the forthcoming ruling by the Department of Labor.  Unofficial comments from well-informed NIH employees suggest that the agency hopes for an exception or clarification of how it should proceed in the final rule. Congress could also impact the way NIH responds through the legislative process.

While we await the final word on the revised Fair Labor Standards Act, one thing is clear: anyone with a stake in postdoctoral training should be prepared for potential changes.

Do you think academic postdoc salaries should be raised through the mechanism of overtime or a Department of Labor salary minimum? How would an increase in postdoc salary impact your research lab? Share your comments below.