Institutions that receive NIH funding should collect information on the career outcomes of both their graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, and provide this information to prospective students/ postdoctoral researchers and the NIH. Such information should include completion rates, time to degree, career outcomes for PhD trainees, as well as time in training and career outcomes from postdoctoral researchers over a 15-year period. Outcome data should be displayed prominently on the institution’s web site. This will require institutions to track the career paths of their students and postdoctoral researchers over the long-term. One way to do that would be to assign graduate students and incoming postdoctoral researchers an identifier that can be used to track them throughout their careers. This could be part of a unique researcher ID system that would allow tracking of all researchers throughout their career. The ID would need to relate to any NIH ID assigned to the individual.In the live chat hosted by ScienceCareers a couple of weeks back, I got to ask Professor Tilghman about this issue. Her response (and a followup by Beryl Benderly) were interesting:
Comment From Chemjobber: I support the push for universities to devote resources to tracking the career outcomes of their graduates and publishing that information. How committed are the universities to make this happen?
Shirley Tilghman: Chemjobber: Universities will be committed if the NIH requires such tracking as a condition of receiving federal funds.
Comment From Beryl Benderly: For how long a period would universities be required to track graduates' careers?
Shirley Tilghman: Beryl, the committee was proposing tracking for period of 10-20 years. We settled on 15 as a compromise. By that time individuals have usually settled into their career.Gotta say, I like the cut of Professor Tilghman's jib. We'll see if any of the draft report's recommendations get implemented by NIH. Also, an revealing comment from Joseph LaManna, president of FASEB:
Comment From Chemjobber: Is there a sense from the political side (i.e. senior NIH or Congressional officials) of the sacrifices (monetary and otherwise) that people make to go into biomedical science?
Joseph LaManna: We have found that there is a tremendous amount of bipartisan respect for the research community in Congress. We have also found that the leadership at NIH is very eager to discuss issues and potential solutions with working scientists. The problem is simply (?) too little available resources in a poor economic climate.I think Professor LaManna's final comment is dead on. At the moment, many of the problems of academic science (and perhaps even #chemjobs) could be fixed with a better economic climate. Would that it were so easy.