|
Contact
Us
|
|
home
> meetings > 2002 >
fall.htm
|
Site
Map |
| 2002
Annual Fall Meeting - Fall Forum |
 |
SUMMARY
| FALL
FORUM
ASSOCIATION OF NEUROSCIENCE
DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS
FALL FORUM
NOVEMBER 2, 2002
ANDP
Forum on "How to Get the Most out of Your Postdoctoral
Experience"
Report by Postdoctoral
Researchers Drs. Glennis Julian, Russell Romeo, and Jeanette Simpson
The Association for
Neuroscience Departments and Programs (ANDP) held a forum entitled
"How to Get the Most out of Your Postdoctoral Experience" on
Monday, November 4th at the 32nd Annual Society for Neuroscience
meeting. This forum was conducted and sponsored by the ANDP to provide a
platform in which students, postdoctoral researchers, and senior
neuroscientists could discuss what search committees look for when
hiring faculty/research scientists. The forum began with welcoming
remarks from ANDP president-elect, Leslie Tolbert, PhD, followed by a
brief update by ANDP's past-president Ed Stricker, PhD, on a recent
survey conducted by ANDP to gather information about neuroscience
programs and departments. These comments were followed by brief
presentations by Drs. Paul Shughrue, Lynne Bianchi, and John Hildebrand,
from Merck Research Laboratories, Oberlin College, and the University of
Arizona, respectively. Their presentations outlined what their
responsibilities are at their current positions and what qualities,
backgrounds, and expertise they look for when hiring a faculty member or
research scientist. Given their varied backgrounds and current
positions, Dr. Shughrue was able to provide the perspective from a
biotech/pharmaceuticals company, while Drs. Bianchi and Hildebrand were
able to provide the perspective of a small, liberal arts college and
large research university.
Their comments were
structured around an outline of potential topics prepared by Dr. Tolbert
and distributed before the meeting. These included the relative
importance of the following factors in hiring: reputation of major
advisor, reputation of the graduate and postdoctoral institutions,
knowledge of specific techniques, demonstrated originality of research,
ability to work in teams, demonstrated independence, teaching experience
during graduate or postdoc years, oral and written communications
skills, and number and quality of publications. Remarkably, even though
these senior scientists come from disparate backgrounds and
perspectives, the qualities they look for when hiring a future colleague
were very similar. For instance, excellent written and oral
communication skills were very important in all positions. In addition,
the reputation of the applicant's major advisor (both PhD and
postdoctoral) and institutions where the applicant obtained his/her
training were moderately important factors, as were quantity and quality
of publications, and ability to work with others. There were also some
differences, however, in what these senior scientists look for in future
hires. For example, Dr. Shughrue indicated that biotech companies are
more interested in a particular skill(s) you could bring to their
research division, while teaching skills and experience are less
important. He also gave a general overview of the differences between
biotechnology and academic research positions in general. The main
difference is less emphasis on basic research and more on applied
science. He emphasized the importance of the ability to work with strict
project deadlines and the willingness to take a project beyond basic
science to clinical aspects, and to switch projects when necessary. In
contrast, Dr. Bianchi remarked that 4-year liberal arts colleges would
be more interested in one's desire to teach and in recent teaching
experience, and whether one could present evidence of his/her ability to
work well independently. She recommended volunteering to lecture for
classes during a postdoc to gain experience in teaching. She also
pointed out the importance of developing a research program that can
incorporate undergraduate training, rather than graduate students and
postdocs. Dr. Hildebrand agreed that the above were important qualities
when looking for potential hires at the larger research universities,
but he added that the applicants should be able to provide evidence of
research funding competence. That is, the potential hire ideally should
have secured his/her own funding during the postdoctoral years and have
applied for and successfully competed for grant support . There was a
short discussion arising from questions from the audience about how to
demonstrate originality in research. Dr. Hildebrand recommended choosing
a postdoctoral advisor who will allow and encourage, in the "end
game" of postdoctoral training, at least part-time pursuit of a
research project that is initiated by the post-doc and independent of
the advisor's own program, so that the trainee can get started on a
project that she/he can take to a new faculty position.
Following these
presentations there was a brief question and answer period in which
questions were asked by both the audience and a panel of postdocs
including; Drs. Jeanette Simpson (Johns Hopkins University), Russell
Romeo (Rockefeller University), and Glennis Julian (University of
Arizona). One question weighing heavily on the minds of those in
attendance was how long one should plan to be at their postdoctoral
position. Specifically, people wanted to know how long is too long, or
how short is too short. The speakers agreed that leaving one's
postdoctoral position after the first year or two may undercut the
necessary training one needs for future success, while staying for 5 to
6 years may suggest academic stagnation, unless, of course, extenuating
circumstances were responsible for the prolonged stay or outstanding
productivity was demonstrated during this extended period. Other
specific questions were addressed to individual panelists or the panel
in general. For instance, Dr. Shugrue was asked the best way to get a
job in industry, what specific talents were looked for, and how early to
apply for an industry position. He replied that networking with people
via meetings, mentors, and lab connections was the best way to get a
foot in the door in industry. He also reminded the audience that, unlike
academia, industry does not undergo cyclical hiring periods and that the
time period between applying for a position and hiring is often very
short. The expertise he specifically mentioned as being currently useful
in the biotechnology market were in physiology, pharmacology,
neuroanatomy, histology, and behavioral studies. A question addressed to
Dr. Bianchi concerned the role of grant funding at a small liberal arts
school and how the infrastructure of the school affected the ability of
a researcher to obtain grants. She responded that while grant funding
was often not needed for salary it was often very necessary for research
expenses. She also mentioned that special panels are available to review
grants from researchers at smaller colleges, but that funding from these
grants was often relatively small and grants required more frequent
renewal. Dr. Hildebrand was asked how to get to the interview stage in
applying for an academic research position. He answered that letters of
recommendation and the quality of the written personal statement were
key in setting yourself apart from other candidates for consideration.
Other questions to the panel in general addressed specific issues of
women in science and the effects of non-residency status. The question
and answer period was followed by a few closing remarks by Dr. Tolbert.
We feel it would be very
helpful for this forum to become a regular event at the annual meeting.
It would also be helpful if different speakers participate in this forum
from year to year. All the speakers this year began with the caveat that
the information and suggestions they were offering were personal
opinions and that others in similar positions might have different
opinions and insights. A format that allowed a longer time for questions
and answers would be useful as well, as time ran short. All in all, the
forum provided valuable and important information for all of those in
attendance.
|
