Originally posted in 2022 on a different blog, I’ve included this again here along with a recent related episode from the podcast. Sadly, things have not changed enough for me to need to update this in 2025.
I was recently quoted in a Nature news piece about the paucity of postdocs. However, the article couldn’t dive into what being “valued” actually entails so I thought I’d discuss this more. There’s also a 2025 episode of the Preprints in Motion podcast exploring this more too.
However, to start with, there is no one-fits-all answer. Some people should be in academia, some people should be in industry, some in medical writing, some in consulting etc… And, to avoid landing myself in any trouble I’d like to spell it out as clearly as I can; I am writing here based on *lots* of conversations with postdocs and PhDs. There will be things I feel too but this post is me writing in an expert capacity. It will also be generalised statements that some people will relate to whilst others may feel I’ve missed things — if that’s the case please add them in the comments or contact me and I can update as needed. Finally, please don’t attack me or label me as being “too negative”. I am simply stating things that are shared by many (who don’t always feel they can speak out) and that is backed by the current evidence.
What does “being valued” entail?
Being valued isn’t tied to a single thing and different people will need different things to feel valued by an employer or manager. Indeed, you can feel valued by one but not both of those. However, I would argue that the entire value package in academia, particularly at the postdoc level, is lacking and not at all “competitive”.
When people think value, one of the first things they associate with that is salary. Thankfully, this is one area most people accept is lacking in academia. And it is an academia problem, not a postdoc problem as every stage (except the inept senior management) is underpaid in academia. Salary also hits differently depending on where you live. In the UK, if you live outside of the golden triangle (London-Oxford-Cambridge) then a postdoc wage may be considered pretty good, especially when compared to working class wages that largely exist in the North. However, within that golden triangle the postdoc wage doesn’t stretch; as I’ve already written about elsewhere. The other component to salary is that we’ve spent 8+ years in education during which we don’t pay into our pensions, we don’t earn a real wage and we’re delaying life. The postdoc period then comes with a poor wage (undergraduates can get entry level graduate jobs at not much lower a starting salary) and often involves lots of moving which is expensive and further complicates settling down and doing the “adult” things. The average postdoc is paid around £6,000 less than the UK average wage¹. I always find it sad that society values science so little that governments are not incentivised to spend more on STEM, especially after the vital role bioscience played in the pandemic.
Value also comes in the form of recognition and reward for our efforts. This is one area in which academia fails spectacularly. Academics views papers (and first author papers at that) as a suitable reward. Papers are also the things used to judge us, which makes them a very twisted reward indeed. A reward would be a pay increase based on exceptional work (non-paper based) or even just a verbal recognition of a person’s efforts in departmental meetings. But the majority of tasks in academia are not recognised as they don’t lead to a paper; so how could you expect people to feel valued when you ignore the majority of their effort? The bigger problem here is that this disproportionately impacts women and minorities who are the ones who perform the bulk of community and unseen tasks. This doesn’t just come from management either, other postdocs seem remarkably keen to bring each other down — careerism is the absolute ruin of science (but more on that another time).
And on that note, the feeling of being respected is also intricately linked with feeling valued. Postdocs get distinctly less respect than a PI even though they may be no less experienced. It’s almost as if that step of fellowship/lectureship conveys “expert” and the rest of the postdoc pool are what? Not experts? This isn’t just academia either, in the “real world” postdocs are still not held in the same regard as a freshly minted PI. I think postdocs are often seen as a temporary pair of hands to do the bidding of the PI and little more². When papers are published, if you’re lucky enough to get media attention, it is the PI who almost exclusively gets that attention and recognition. It is the PI who is invited to conferences and seminars to talk about the work. Sure postdocs can present at a conference but we’re rarely actually invited to speak as a PI is. In the long term, it is the PI who benefits more than anyone else from those publications. Most postdocs will leave academia where papers really don’t matter that much, besides showing that you can write and as evidence of completing a project. Yet it is the postdocs who run themselves into the ground working long (unpaid) hours and weekends to get the papers done in the 3 year limits of grants.
Recognition and respect also interect with the wider support for postdocs. Traditionally, the postdoc period was supposed to be a training position although this is not only now outdated but I’m not sure there has ever been acceptable training. I’ve never worked at a place that has any tangible training plan in place and whenever I suggest such things I face remarkable resistence to the idea. To quote from a brilliant piece; “in labs throughout the country, including those on the cutting edge of research, mentorship practices still take their cue from the earliest European colleges, where a single, experienced, sage-like scholar served as mentor to a group of excited and engaged students. This literally medieval basis for mentorship in science is so entrenched that most research training programs at the graduate and postdoctoral levels take a hands-off approach to mentoring, leading to a wide variety of mentorship experiences for trainees, even within the same departments and programs”. There is a distinct lack of support for career development (something I’ve definitely experienced myself) with university level offerings varying hugely in quality and utility. PIs are sorely under-equipped for supporting people in positions outside of academia, though far too many are also incapable of supporting academic careers. The whole system needs to rethink the role of postdoc and to provide structured training from the university and PI-level for skills that will land non-academic careers. I honestly believe that the biggest barrier here is simply that if we acknowledge that a postdoc is not actually a training position then the salary would need to increase significantly.
Work-life balance. Nobody in academia should need me to write any more than that as we’re all well aware of how non-existent that can be. If an employer values you then they want you to look after yourself and take time away from work. Hell, even if they don’t care about you, if they care about your work output they will want the same thing. Academia fails miserably here and it does so under the gaslighting guise of “passion”. My PhD PI and current PI both frequently tell me to take holidays and are both hugely supportive. However, I’ve been in positions where I’ve been horribly overworked and I still witness a toxic culture of constant working. I really struggle with understanding where the pressure in academia comes from. The research is not so essential that it can justify the pressure. Academia moves slowly so the career progression can’t really justify the pressure either. Maybe it’s the short contracts and messed up way we “value” and judge success. Having a life in conjunction with being successful at work should be the norm but within academia this is absolutely not the case.
One of the things not directly mentioned in the Nature article is the improving and expanding biotech industry. This is discussed well across Twitter and in an excellent newsletter by Elliot Hershberg. The impact of this is that there is a genuine “competitive” environment that can pay postdocs better and give postdocs an actual careeer trajectory based on competence and ability rather than pure luck. The biotech industry has it’s own problems and is still largely concentrated in specific areas (Bay area in SF or around Cambridge in the UK as examples) which are very expensive areas to live in. But it represents a challenge to academia strong enough to be pulling away even senior academics and academia, as slow as it is, certainly won’t adapt in time to prevent the best leaving.
It’s really not that difficult. Postdocs want 1) better environment and pay commenserate with training, experience and education required (to have an acceptable quality of life compared to those who didn’t enter academia) 2) an environment of respect for postdocs which includes support for our careers (in or out of academia) and better appreciation of our efforts and 3) recognition for our work, beyond just papers.
There are some brilliant PIs out there who contradict everything I’ve said here and I don’t want this post to detract from them. But we need to aim at the lowest level so that nobody is lost or hurt by inadequate systems.
Who’s responsibility is this? Well, it’s the funders, the uni’s and the PI’s. Postdocs are never going to come together enough to stand up for each other — there’s too much competition and it’s too precarious a position. Funders need to take an active role in combating the abuses and toxicty. It is ultimately their responsibility and it is a responsibility that they have negleted for too long. Universities are businesses. They will always protect their bottom line and reputation — we’ve seen that time and time again even in extreme situations. So we cannot rely on university management to police themselves. But the government/funders could create an independent body to oversee academic misconduct and complaints of abuse. There is no shortage of brilliant people with brilliant ideas — those “field leading” PIs are replacable and noone should be given a job for life. That kind of security leads to complacency and a lack of accountability — and abuse. My biggest problem is always that, although systemic change is unlikely, there are no excuses for not making local environments better. This is the direct responsibility of PI’s (at a lab level) and heads of department (at a larger local level). I utterly hate seeing failures locally.
Ultimately, it is clear that the system is broken. People are crying out with stories illustrating just how bad things have gotten. People are also screaming out with solutions which must (& does) often feel like screaming into the void. As long as we continue to allow luck to be the main driver in academic careers and success we will not break free of the current system. If people are willing to accept that change is needed and willing to listen, instead of attack, then we can all work together to create a better future in academia.
- The average UK wage is ~£38,131. The average postdoc wage is ~£32,000 (this isn’t as easy to accurately calculate as I thought it’d be but is based on “averages” from a variety of sources).
- This is a great quote from an eLife piece; “If you don’t have your own lab, if you’re not producing last-author papers and getting grants, you are taken less seriously as a scientist. When people discuss their posters with me at conferences, they may look around a bit more, anxious not to miss the opportunity to talk to a ‘big fish’.”
Photo by Jackson Simmer on Unsplash
Rippling Ideas 