Everything you wanted to know about career ascendency but were afraid to ask

Michael van Dyke Ph.D. and Douglas Boyd, Ph.D.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Emails: mvandyke@mdanderson.org

dboyd@mdanderson.org

Tel: MVD-713 792 8594

Tel: DB: 713 563 4918

Session I (DB).

• The route to an academic/industrial career,

• Growth in # trainees and postdocs in US market,

• Faculty hiring at universities (medical schools),

• Research funding– NIH $$$– Success rates in getting first grant

• Career diversification of our (GSBS) Ph.D. graduates

• International trends that currently favor career ascendancy in the biomedical sciences (USA)

• Is an intermediary positions after post-doc (Instructor) beneficial for career ascendency?

• Some non-traditional jobs

• Who to ask for career advice?

• Importance of establishing time lines.

Session II (MVD) Noon-June 19.

• What are faculty searches looking for

• How competitive is the academic market?– Experience of DB and MVD on search committees

• Domestic vs. foreign applicants– Does one have an advantage?

• What are large and small institutions looking for– Publications, grants, pedigree

• Non-faculty positions in academia– Running a Core Facility

– Research Scientist in a laboratory.

Career Tracks for Ph.D. Recipients in Biomedical Sciences

Ph.D. Student 4-6 years

Postdoctoral Fellowship(s) (3-4 years) (X2)??

University Faculty (Research/teaching)

Industrial Position (Pharmaceutical/Biotech)

Non-traditional track (e.g. administration, medical writer, aviation science, pharma/biotech sales, paralegal, FDA (drug regulation))

Junior Faculty Position?

First Question…

• Is the supply (Ph.D. students, postdoctoral fellows) and demand (faculty appointments, vacancies in industry) balanced??

Substantial Job Growth Nationwide (increased demand)

• Advertisements in Science for life science positions:

– 1973• 26 in a typical issue of the periodical,

– 2004• 109 in typical issue of the periodical

– Increase of >300 %

Growth in # of individuals receiving Ph.Ds

(increased supply)

• Nationwide,

• Our own GSBS

National Growth Trend in Ph.D graduates in Biomedical Sciences

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

# P

h.D

s Biological/BiomedicalScience Ph.Ds

# Ph.Ds conferred by University of Texas GSBS (1980-2008)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1978 1988 1998 2008

Year

# G

SB

S P

h.D

. Rec

ipie

nts

# GSBS Ph.D.Recipients

Trends in Postdoctoral Population growth and its contribution to “supply”?

• US (and US resident),

• Foreign

Growth in US/Foreign Postdoctoral Populations and # Principal Investigators

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,0001

979

19

84

19

89

19

94

19

99

20

04Year

# I

nd

vid

ua

ls

Total Postdocs

Principal Investigators

Foreign Postdocs

US Postdocs

Source- Foreign postdocs: the changing face of biomedical science in the U.S. Garrison et al. FASEB J. 2005

differential

crossover

What about the demand end?? Are the # of tenure-track faculty appointment also increasing at

medical schools??

60 % of postdoctoral fellows pursue tenure-track positions in academia

(Babco and Jesse 2005)

Total and New Faculty 1970 to 2006 in US Medical Schools

13Source: http://www.aamc.org

Good news-faculty growth ??

but first time hires unchanged

Career outcomes for our GSBS Ph.D. graduates

• Historical and recent outcomes

Career outcomes of our GSBS Ph.D. Recipients (2 cohorts)

• 10 year follow up– 1970/1972- queried as to career in 1980/1982– 1996-queried as to career in 2006

Career Outcome (1970-1972 cohort)

75

84 4

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% P

h.D

. Gra

du

ate

s

Fac

ulty

/Re

sear

ch(T

enur

e-tr

ack

)

Indu

stry

NIH

(Adm

inis

tra

tion

)

Po

stdo

cto

ral

Oth

er

(com

pute

rse

rvic

e m

an

ager

,sc

uba

div

er

inst

ruct

or)

Career

Career Outcomes of (70-'72 Ph.D Graduate cohort)

n=24

Note high % of faculty

Subsequent diversification of careers in GSBS Ph.D. Recipients

33

9

4

17

11

2

4

11

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fa

culty

/Re

sea

rch

(Te

nu

re T

rack

)

Fa

culty

/Re

sea

rch

(No

n-T

en

ure

Tra

ck)

Re

sea

rch

Aca

de

mic

a (

no

n-

Fa

culty

)

Ind

ust

ry

Clin

icia

n

Te

chn

olo

gy

Tra

nsf

er

Po

std

oct

ora

l Fe

llow

Oth

er

(ho

use

wife

,sa

les,

tea

chin

g h

igh

sch

oo

l)

Po

sitio

n U

nkn

ow

n

% P

h.D

Gra

du

ates

(19

96 C

oh

ort

)

Career Outcomes (1996 cohort)Total Faculty

=42 %

Non

-fac

ulty

in a

cade

mia

but…

note

non

-ten

ure

trac

k po

siti

ons

• “New graduates in the life sciences will continue to find the relatively few research and tenure-track positions in academia extremely competitive”

– Babco and Jesse (2005)

Career diversification of our graduates is similar to that nationwide (2005)

• 55 % in academic institutions– But nearly half of these are in non-tenure positions,

• 5 % in non-profit organizations,

• 27 % in business sector,

• 10 % in government,

• Remaining 3 % Ph.Ds in other sectors

• Babco and Jesse (2005). BioScience 55: 879-886.

You’ve got in!!

• You’re a new Assistant Professor hire– What about research funding??

????

The Public Purse (i.e. National Institute of Health (NIH)-one of the major sources of funding)

• Funding for biomedical research– Trends in funding

23

NIH Budget in Current and Constant Dollars

$11,881$12,771

$13,687

$15,643

$17,814

$20,513

$23,188

$17,128 $17,495$18,297

$21,012

$25,709

$31,337 $31,131

$29,648$29,137

$26,740

$29,465

$11,341

$28,100

$29,465

$29,137$28,524$28,626

$18,966

$23,068

$28,130

$31,748

$28,473$27,502

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Pres

Budget

Do

llars

(M

illio

ns

)

Total NIH ($ Millions)

Constant 2007 ($ Millions)

Program to double NIH budget in 5 years

Recent updates on the Public Purse-2009

• Stimulus package (President Obama)

– Payline increased to 16 % (yeah!!),– Some unfunded grants within 10 % get 2 year awards,– Challenge grants.

What does this all mean for getting that research grant??

Success Rates for New (Type 1) Applications,Including First R01 Award

25.3%

18.2%18.8%

20.6%

26.2%26.6%25.8%

24.7%

21.9%

20.6%

27.1% 26.7%

20.0%19.2%

19.2%

17.9%

20.0%

24.1%24.5%24.9% 25.4% 25.5%25.9%

23.5%

20.5%

16.3%18.5%

18.7%19.5%

21.5%

23.0%21.9% 22.1% 21.8%

21.3%20.7%

16.9%15.9%

14.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Su

cc

es

s R

ate

All Research Project Grants (Type 1)

R01 (Type 1)

First R01 Award

Trend shows increaseGood news!!

Other good news: factors favoring future traditional career ascendancy in USA

• International competition for students and researchers

– Singapore, European Union,

– Council of Graduate Schools indicate # foreign applicants declined 25 % between 2003 and 2005

Trend in International Applications to our GSBS

2009 data ~30 % down compared with 2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

# In

tern

atio

nal

GS

BS

Ap

plic

ants

So….the pendulum swings back and forth

Does an intermediary position (e.g. Instructor) facilitate career ascendency in academia?

• For a cohort of MDACC instructors (cohort 2002-2008)

– What % were promoted internally?

– Of those who departed MDACC, what % were promoted at the other institute?

Career Outcomes in academia for MDACC Instructors

N.B. Point of diminishing return with time!!

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

%

Non

-tenu

retra

ck A

ssis

tant

Pro

fess

or

Tenu

re T

rack

Ass

ista

ntP

rofe

ssor

% Instructors Promoted at MDACC (2004-2008)

n-=54

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

Non-

tenu

retra

ckAs

sista

ntPr

ofes

sor

Tenu

re T

rack

Assis

tant

Prof

esso

r or

grea

ter

Ex-MDACC Instructors promoted at other Institutions

n-=46

What about life outside of Academia?

Some non-traditional jobs (more on these in Session II)

• Running a Core facility,

• A research scientist position in a laboratory,

• Research in a start-up company,

• Administration,

• Editor for a journal,

• Patent law,

• Regulatory Affairs,

• Clinical Service,

• Teaching,

• Technology Transfer

So you’re undecided: which faculty member(s) should you ask for career advice for ACADEMIA?

• Your mentor?• may/may not be a good person,

» Track record in placing trainees in the career path you are interested in?

• Faculty on departmental faculty search committee• He/she could advise you on what THEIR dept is looking for info:

BUT-may be uninformative for other departments/institutions.

So you’re undecided: which faculty member(s) should you ask for advice on NON-TRADITIONAL

careers?

– Your mentor?

• might/might not be the best person » limited insight, » prejudice against non-traditional route,» track record

– Some faculty might be able to put you in touch with persons who have taken this route,

– Graduate school Alumni,

– Boyd/van Dyke (pondered over this for 15+ years)- have contacts.

• Some other considerations– Start thinking about your career objectives NOW

• What do you like doing?• What are your strengths/weaknesses?• Are you a social butterfly or a “loner”?

– Speak up• Faculty/mentors are there to help but you have to approach him/her.• Talk to more than one investigator.

– Time Frames• Establish Early (VERY important)

– Time flies by VERY quickly.

Summary• Employment in Academia:

– Have not seen an un-employed Ph.D in our career outcome queries,• But situation where under-employed individuals,

– Academic positions harder to secure cf 30 years prior.

• Factors favoring career ascendancy:– Decreasing Ph.D. applicant pool from overseas,

– Expansion of non-traditional careers in research.

• Factors hindering career ascendancy:– Reduced retirement of faculty (traditional),

– Increased pool of national Ph.D. recipients,

– Large pool of international Ph.Ds.

• Employment in non-Traditional jobs:– Wide range,

– Find someone who has taken such a career path or who can put you in contact with such a person,

– Different priorities, expectations, culture, mindset compared with academia.

The End

Career Outcomes (1987/1988 Cohort)

27.0 27.0

5.4

24.3

16.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Fa

culty

/Re

sea

rch

(Ten

ure

Tra

ck)

Ind

ustr

y

Clin

icia

n

Po

std

oct

ora

l Fe

llow

Oth

er

(ad

min

istr

atio

n, d

atab

ase

ma

nag

em

ent

, Edi

tor,

Me

dic

al W

rite

r)

% P

h.D

. Gra

du

aat

es

(198

7-19

88)

drop in faculty appointments

increase in trainee #

rise in non-traditional careers

Traditional Routes

Research/teachingPharmaceutical/Biotech Industry

Ph.D. Recipients by Age

Doctorate Recipients by Age Group (2006 cohort)

0.4

44.7

32.2

10.5

5.36.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 >45

Age group

% T

ota

l

Either way

• Looooooooots of training……but in 1998 survey of GSBS students from (graduating 1966-1998)

– 82.5 % of GSBS students are appropriately employed in light of their education,

– 92.7 respondents very satisfied or satisfied with GSBS education,

– 83.8 % would either very strongly or strongly recommend GSBS

http://gsbs.uth.tmc.edu/alumni/surv98.htmlResponse rate= 70 %

• Academic research scientists:

– A Ph.D. program and dissertation …requirements for the job, …can take 6-8 years. Add ..several years (postdoctoral) of one's career to qualify for coveted tenure-track positions.

– During the postdoc phase, ..likely to teach, ..experiments that require you to check in at all hours, publish research – for a salary that may not exceed $43,000.

– ..made tougher still by fact that in many disciplines, not nearly as many tenure-track positions as there are candidates.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/15/pf/training_pay/index.htm

But… is it really that dire???

Some concerns regarding the expanding pool of Ph.D.s

• “…usually not possible for every Ph.D. trained to become a faculty member. “Tragically, there is a current pool of Ph.D.-trained individuals…laboring under the incorrect presumption that if they only work hard enough and long enough, there will be a faculty job...”– - Stephen Ekker Ph.D.

• The “route to (academic) success, so common a decade ago, is usually now limited to a relatively lucky few that picked the right project in the right laboratory at the right time. The net result is a pool of highly skilled individuals in (an) academic holding pattern, and that pool is growing each year.”- Stephen Ekker Ph.D.

NIH COMPETING RPG* PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: TRENDS IN APPLICANTS, AWARDEES, AND FUNDING RATES

FY 1998-2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal Year

Nu

mb

er o

f In

vest

igat

ors

(in

th

ou

san

ds)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fu

nd

ing

Rat

e

Number Reviewed Number Awarded Success Rate

RPG 46

*RPG activity code in R00, R01, R03, R15, R21, R22, R23, R29, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37, R55, R56, RL1, RL5, RL9, P01, P42, PN1, UC1, UC7, U01, U19, U34, DP1, DP2, RL1, RL2, RL5, RL9. Also includes RPGs from NLM as of FY07.  

Funding for Research Grants

$6,152$6,539

$7,047

$7,662

$14,903

$10,046

$8,626

$13,776

$12,624

$11,309

$9,955

$14,673$15,030 $14,853 $14,923

$15,402

$9,747

$9,031

$8,195

$7,312

$6,434

$5,680$5,136

$4,683$4,332

$10,176 $10,288 $10,122

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Pres

Budget

2009Est

Do

llars

(M

illio

ns

)

All Research Project Grants

R01 + R29

Budget Gains From NIH 5-Year Growth CampaignHave Been Eliminated

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Fu

nd

ing

Lev

el (

in B

illio

ns) Actual NIH

Estimated NIH Budget Growth At1969-1998 Average (9.0%)

Program to double NIH budget in 5 years