Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Appendix D Summary of Workshop on Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience DECEMBER 21, 1999 WASHINGTON, DC SUMMARY A n all-day workshop on the postdoctoral experience was attended by an over flow group of more than 100 people from universities, national labs, federal agencies, research institutes, industries, foundations, and disciplinary societies, including 25 who were invited to make brief presentations. The committee was impressed by the high level of interest in this topic, and by the spirited opinions of all participants, including postdocs, researchers, administrators, and other con- cerned parties. (A list of workshop participants follows this summary.) The discussions, chaired by COSEPUP member Mildred Dresselhaus (and attended by COSEPUP Chair Maxine Singer for part of the session), were orga- nized by the following topics: administrative status, compensation and benefits, classification and titles, career planning, postdoctoral offices and associations, foreign-national postdocs, and good mentoring practices. The comments were too extensive and diverse to capture in a single brief document. This summation, therefore, is intended to offer a representative and informal sampling of specific comments from a diverse group of people and institu- tions. Many of the comments reflect efforts to enhance the postdoctoral experience by improving the status, working conditions, and recognition of postdocs. 159
160 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES â¢ Institutional goals for postdocs vary widely by field and sector. For example, preparing a postdoc for âindependenceâ does not fit the indus- trial culture, where more research is done in teams. â¢ Postdocs [at universities] may be âshadow people.â They donât have a place. Sometimes we have to use certain titles to get what we want for them. â¢ At Mayo, we classify them as research fellow (1-3 years), then senior research fellow (4-7 years), then research associate, which can last indef- initely. â¢ At Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a postdoctoral office was created four years ago to handle postdoc appointments, benefits, housing, etc. The office sends a letter to advisers after 18-24 months informing them how long a postdoc has been in their lab and whether itâs time for a salary increase as required by guidelines. In the fourth year an extensive letter is sent asking for a CV and publication record; the PI and department chair evaluate the next step: will the postdoc be renewed for a fifth (and final) year? After that they either leave or become a research associate, with faculty benefits. This keeps them from falling through the cracks. â¢ Each institution needs to rewrite policy to suit its particular mission and pass it around to postdocs and faculty. â¢ The University of Pennsylvania started a postdoc policy in 1996 for the medical school. â¢ A postdoctoral office must not infringe on the postdoc-adviser relationship. â¢ At Caltech, theyâre between faculty and staff and students. When we started the postdoctoral scholar position, they wanted oversight because they wanted a relationship with the administration, not just the faculty. â¢ At NIST we have central funding, like portable fellowships, so the post- doc doesnât have to be stuck with one adviser. In several cases weâve switched them to new advisers. â¢ UPenn keeps a database on all postdocs, including place and date of terminal degree, visa status, research field, what theyâve published. â¢ At Alabama/Birmingham all phases of postdoctoral appointments had been left to the discretion of each department. One of the first priorities of the postdoctoral office was to identify all postdocs on campus and create a database. The disparity between what postdocs were being paid became disturbingly evident, and steps are now being taken to bring salaries more in line with national standards. â¢ When a Howard Hughes grant is initiated, we have a contract with terms and conditions. Itâs still hard for us to track how fellows are treated. We
APPENDIX D 161 stipulate that $5,000 of the institutionâs allowance is for health benefits, but we see that some postdocs are getting it and some not. â¢ At Chicago weâd like more open and fair hiring, through a central source. Itâs difficult, because now itâs done when you meet someone at a con- gress and talk them into writing you into their next grant. â¢ At Vanderbilt we require annual reappointment and ask department chairs to approve it. This allows institutional controls. I refuse to reappoint without suitable salary level, justification, and an evaluation. â¢ At Cincinnati, we approved a postdoc policy two weeks ago. Weâve been working on it for two years: health, vacation, maternity leave, drugs, salary at NRSA levels, and benefits from general university funds. â¢ The University of California did a broad âvision statementâ for postdocs in 1998, and each of the nine campuses is trying to conform. â¢ At UCLA, with 900 postdocs, the graduate division (not the university) took the initiative to put them in the same division, with the same facili- ties and benefits. CAREER PLANNING AND TRANSITIONS â¢ Postdocs need skills that are applicable in any career. A postdoc must gain experience for the next career step. Theyâre not just a person in your lab. â¢ Most advisers are academics; they donât know what industry expects. They need to hear more from the âfinalâ employers. â¢ We shouldnât use the term âalternative careers.â This implies that any- thing outside the university is inferior: public policy, writing, teaching. These are just âcareers.â â¢ Industry employers are looking for âsoftâ skillsâthose not developed at the bench. â¢ The Burroughs Wellcome Fund provides âbridging awardsâ of 40-45K for the transitional time after a postdoc. â¢ A transitional grant isnât needed. It may take a year or so for a postdoc to get up to speed, especially if changing fields; after that you can begin to see how theyâll do. They should start looking for a job after three years, and five years is a reasonable time to figure out if this work is for you. â¢ Five years is plenty to see if a person is going to be an individual investi- gator; you may know even when they get their PhD. The difficulty is, if they donât seem ready there arenât a lot of other options. â¢ At UPenn, the time limit is five years; after that they go either to 1) staff scientist or 2) academic track, where they start getting independent fund- ing. The most rapidly growing sector in science is the soft-money posi- tions, like post-postdoc.
162 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS â¢ At Hopkins, the limit for postdocs is six years, but you can come in after working somewhere else. We need an overall time limit. â¢ Both UCSF and the University of Chicago sponsor science career forum at which postdocs can give poster presentations and meet with employers. â¢ At Alabama/Birmingham, each postdoc can take at least one class per year, paid for by the postdoctoral office. We help those who want experi- ence teaching and compensate for their time away from the lab. â¢ At Einstein, there is no formal career planning office, but monthly work- shops about 1) academic careers, led by new assistant professors who had postdocs, and 2) other careers, with people from scientific publishing, patent law, journals, and Wall Street. â¢ Postdocs need to know how to teach. Being âallowedâ to teach is the wrong word! â¢ Teaching is very time-consuming if done well. It has to be worked out with the adviser. â¢ Some institutions donât hold to NIH standards. Postdocs are in a very vulnerable situation. If more had portable grants and could move, theyâd be in a stronger position to enhance their career. â¢ NIH has five-week courses three times a year in writing, speaking, etc. Some fellows have adjunct jobs teaching in the evening. â¢ Every postdoc should attend at least one professional meeting a year. â¢ Women are still at a disadvantage in science. A disproportionate number go into soft-money positions. According to a William and Mary survey, dissatisfaction is higher among women than among men. Women shouldnât be penalized for taking time to start a family. CLASSIFICATION AND TITLES â¢ NSF grantees are getting older, over 30; a lot are married, a third have significant debt. They need benefits. â¢ Nobodyâs categories are perfect; each institution has to adapt something that works. Postdocs should get the best of both worlds, not the worst of both worlds. â¢ Some of the most gifted postdocs may be penalized if theyâre classified as fellows; the institution may or may not come up with health benefits. â¢ At UPenn we consider postdocs in advanced research training, in prepa- ration for next career steps, whatever they might be. We have an obliga- tion to train them. From that definition comes everything else. But we have two classes of people doing the same thing and treated differently by federal regulations. We have federally funded NRSA postdocs, on training grants, then we have the large majority supported by RO1s, which OMB Circular A21 calls a fee for service situation, who are taxed like employees and get benefits.
APPENDIX D 163 â¢ At Eli Lilly Co, there are 75 postdocs who are classified as âpostdoctoral scientist/fixed-duration employees.â Ten years ago all employees were considered full-time; now there are many contractors. â¢ At West Virginia, a postdoc is on a research track that can go on forever, but it affords a way to do that with benefits. â¢ At the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, we define them as students in training. Health is picked up by the grant, or if not, by the PI. Itâs university policy. We supplement grants if theyâre too low from the university foundation. After four years they become employees and get institutional benefits. Monitoring doesnât work at the local level. â¢ OMB A21 has created some problems and affected the rate of compensa- tion. There are efforts to change that. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS â¢ Postdocs are not trainees; theyâre producing most of the results in the labs of America. We owe it to ourselves to compensate them right from the start. It would be better to have a smaller number of postdocs but better paid. They might be expected to do more. Now, itâs âMy postdoc doesnât work hard, but what do you expect for 25K?â â¢ Postdocs with a MD degree are paid on the house officer salary scale, which irritates PhDs. But if you brought them down to PhD scale, you wouldnât get any MDâs to do research. â¢ At Caltech if the amount of stipend doesnât meet our minimum, we insist that the PI bring them up to that. â¢ We have an ombudsperson at NIH and it is fabulously useful, especially when you donât have someone in the lab to talk to. â¢ NIH raised the [NRSA] stipend because they had a lot of money in FY99. It was based on a general feeling that the scale was low, not on a philo- sophical change. If this report recommends a raise, it doesnât mean it will be done, but it will provide a general tone. â¢ At UC, a postdoc receives full benefits: health, dental, parental leave. No retirement. Five years is the legal limit of how long you can keep some- one without paying into retirement. â¢ At Einstein, 85 percent of postdocs are on the NIH grants of PIs. The lab is required to pick up any difference below NRSA. â¢ At Vanderbilt, trainees and research grant people get paid the same. The trainees donât get retirement, but they also donât pay FICA, so they come out essentially the same. â¢ The issue about pay is one of basic fairness. Weâre losing the best and brightest people. Weâve got to get the salaries up, like at Los Alamos, where we pay 45K. Theyâre 8-10 years behind when they start working
164 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS [in permanent positions]. These people are the software that drives science. â¢ At UC, there is no money from the regents or legislature. We need that. We need to speak out, justify it. Postdocs need reasonable compensation. â¢ We make them work like dogs and then cast them off at the end. â¢ If you give them 40K, theyâll have to take a salary cut to get a job. â¢ Weâre losing American researchers. To someone from another country, 26K and get in the door, thatâs huge. â¢ At Howard Hughes we try to be flexible with allowances. If a fellow has a spouse with benefits, we let the fellow use that for child care. â¢ At JPL and Caltech salary is 42K, except slightly higher for computer science and electrical engineering. The lab picks up about 70 percent of benefits. There are 30 days vacation. â¢ At Iowa, salaries are now set at twice the graduate stipend; mid-upper 30s. full benefits, except retirement. â¢ At NIST, they try to match the salary of the average land-grant university assistant professor at approximately 50K, plus $5,500 for travel. â¢ NRSAs are considered stipends, not salaries, to offset the cost of living during training. The philosophy behind them is to share costs among postdoc, adviser/institution, and NIH. â¢ Vacations are often a difficult issue, since advisers are reluctant to delay the lab work. If a postdoc is funded on an RO1 through the payroll system, the benefits are the same as for other employees; for fellows there is seldom any provision for vacation. â¢ Full-time employee benefits have a cost; at UPenn the overhead rate is 31 percent. EVALUATIONS â¢ There should be an annual appraisal of both the adviser and the postdoc. These should go to the director of the institution and be part of the basis for discussion of their performance. â¢ The institution has a responsibility to report back to the sponsors. Itâs usually public money. This is viewed as onerous, but Iâve also heard complaints from PIs that private institutions ask for even more information. â¢ Lilly is just starting evaluations for postdocs. They write up objectives at beginning of year. Thereâs a mid-term review, and at the end they look back at how theyâve progressed. â¢ From a practical standpoint, postdocs may never get written evaluations, but maybe the guide will help get more consulting and evaluating on an informal basis. â¢ At UT/Memphis, fellows and residents are reviewed by various commit- tees once a month, and again every six months. Itâs very specific.
APPENDIX D 165 FOREIGN POSTDOCS â¢ According to NSF data, about half of the postdocs come from abroad, and about 50 percent of those stay on in the US. This varies by field as well. Returning home is a function of the educational system and job prospects in the country. â¢ According to an AAMC study, in the last five years many more foreign postdocs, especially Chinese, have stayed, as have Eastern Europeans. Western Europeans do not stay. â¢ In the early 1990s, more Chinese students stayed in the United States because of the 1992 Chinese Student Protection Act passed by Congress in response to the Tienimen Square Protest. The Act allowed students from the Peopleâs Republic of China to apply for permanent residency in 1993. The Act has expired and it is now difficult for students on tempo- rary visas to convert to permanent residency status. â¢ Scientists should not be isolated. Science is increasingly international. In the US there is little recognition of the value of going abroad, even though NSF offers grants for this. â¢ There are cases where Asian postdocs are treated as cheap labor and paid the minimum allowed by the immigration office (14K). MENTORING â¢ Advisers may experience conflicts between their own best interests and the postdocâs. The postdoc is in some ways at the mercy of the adviser in making choices. â¢ Postdocs need to lay out a roadmap of expectations and goals. â¢ Postdocs must develop skills theyâll need for the future. They need to spell this out in advance in a letter. Thatâs difficult when on PI grant, because the PI doesnât want to let the postdoc out of the lab. It has to be spelled out. â¢ At Lilly, adviser selection is done with care. They have to demonstrate theyâve been successful in mentoring technicians before they can get a postdoc. Postdocs meet with a science council of senior management to showcase their work, network, and discuss any issue or grievance. â¢ You need oversight of mentoring by senior colleagues or postdoc com- mittee meetings: the fellow, the adviser, and someone else. We need written evaluations; in industry youâd never think of not having them. Thereâs a huge imbalance of power. I take a risk in coming here today. â¢ At NIH we encourage multiple mentors. We donât have mentoring com- mittees. This seems like a good idea, but faculty members donât like it, and fellows thought it might be confusing having more than one adviser.
166 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS A formal system where someone is criticizing the adviser has problems, but feedback is important. â¢ At Pitt we require formation of a postdoc mentoring committee. Postdocs pick potential role models. Nothing contentious happens, but in rare cas- es where there are problems [with the adviser], this can pick it up. In most cases the postdocs get valuable feedback on their work. â¢ At Einstein, we have weekly work-in-progress sessions. All postdocs present their work once a year. If a person is floundering, the group will get together specially and advise. â¢ At MIT, when postdocs are going to give papers, they give a dry run for us first. â¢ Graduate students need mentoring before they begin a postdoc on what to expect and what questions to ask. POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATIONS (PDAS) â¢ PDAs are essential so postdocs are not marginalized. â¢ At Einstein a committee of 3-4 postdocs runs an association which deals with intellectual issues, social issues, housing; holds postdoc programs 4-5 times per year for faculty and postdocs. â¢ At Mayo, a PDA reduces the isolation. There are labs right next door you never know about. It expands the vision of what we can do with science. Now Iâm doing something different from what I thought I wanted to do. â¢ At NIEHS faculty resisted us in the beginning because they thought we were trying to unionize. That isnât true any more. We have many pro- grams. It is important to my professional development. â¢ Howard Hughes fellows meet once a year and postdocs present their research and network. â¢ At Johns Hopkins, the PDA provides a liaison with the administration, creates a social network, reduces the isolation. When we bring things to the administration they are more than willing to help us. For example, in the last few months weâve arranged dental insurance. Each department pays $8 per postdoc per year to support the organization. â¢ We started out feeling that we didnât have a voice. We got officers, and now have good communication with the administration. It should be run by postdocs; the administration wonât know to come up with these issues. GENERAL POINTS â¢ Funding agencies have a responsibility to set guidelines that promote best practices. â¢ The guide should have more âhow-toâ information: what should the post-
APPENDIX D 167 doc be asking of the university and adviser? What should the mentor ask of the postdoc? â¢ We donât want to be heavy-handed, but the time is right to raise the bar for both postdocs and advisers. Both can do better.
168 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS PARTICIPANTS LIST Workshop on Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience December 21, 1999 The National Academies Washington, DC COSEPUP Members Etty Benveniste Associate Dean, Office of Postdoc Mildred S. Dresselhaus Education Chair, COSEPUP Postdoc Guidance University of Alabama, Birmingham Group and Birmingham, Alabama Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics Beverly Berger Massachusetts Institute of Technology Director, Office of University Partnerships Maxine F. Singer Department of Energy Chair, COSEPUP and Washington, DC President, Carnegie Institution of Washington Sandra Blackwood Program Coordinator Workshop Participants Office of Postdoc Education University of Alabama, Birmingham Clifford Attkisson Birmingham, Alabama Dean of Graduate Studies Associate Vice Chancellor of Sharon Borbon Student Academic Affairs Executive Assistant to the Provost University of California, San Francisco California Institute of Technology San Francisco, California Pasadena, California Jack Bennink Henry Brenzenoff Chief, Viral Immunology Section Acting Dean NIAID, National Institutes of Health University of Medicine and Bethesda, Maryland Dentistry of New Jersey Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Newark, New Jersey
APPENDIX D 169 Jerry Bryant Michael Cowan Director, Science Education Associate Dean for Student Services Initiatives Stanford Medical School United Negro College Fund Stanford, California Fairfax, Virginia Charles Craig Henry Bryant Interim Associate Dean for Research National Institutes of Health West Virginia University Bethesda, Maryland School of Medicine Morgantown, West Virginia Joan Burrelli Senior Analyst Kyle Cunningham National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Affairs Coordinator Arlington, Virginia University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California Roger Chalkley Senior Associate Dean for Rebecca Custer Biomedical Research Program Administrator Vanderbilt University Medical Center Jet Propulsion Laboratory Nashville, Tennessee Pasadena, California Joan Chesney Aphi Daigler Professor of Pediatrics Programs Coordinator University of Tennessee, Memphis Division of Biological Sciences Memphis, Tennessee University of Chicago Daryl E. Chubin Susan Duby Senior Policy Officer Director, Division of Graduate National Science Board Education National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia Arlington, Virginia Mary Clark Alicia Dustira Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs Deputy Director, Division of Policy Harvard Medical School and Education Boston, Massachusetts Department of Health and Human Services Deborah Cohen Rockville, Maryland Coordinator of Student and Postdoctoral Training Programs Seznec Erwan National Institutes of Health Scientific Assistant Office of Education Embassy of France Bethesda, Maryland Washington, DC
170 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Di Fang Jong-on Hahm Manager of Demographic and Director, Committee on Women in Workforce Studies Science and Engineering Association of American Medical The National Academies Colleges Washington, DC Washington, DC Bridgitte Harrison Robert Fellows Coordinator Professor and Head University of Cincinnati University of Iowa College of Cincinnati, Ohio Medicine Iowa City, Iowa Robert Hershey Consulting Engineer Gil Gilbert Robert L. Hershey, PE Association Dean, Graduate School Washington, DC Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas Janet Hom Administrator, Office of Postdoctoral Mary Golladay and Graduate Training Program Director Postdoc and Graduate Affairs Human Resources Statistics Program Baylor College of Medicine National Science Foundation Houston, Texas Arlington, Virginia Jack Hsia Sharon Gordon Chief, Academic Affairs Director, Office of Education National Institute of Standards and National Institute of Dental and Technology Craniofacial Research Gaithersburg, Maryland National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland Martin Ionescu-Pioggia Officer Michael Gottesman Burroughs Wellcome Fund Deputy Director for Intramural Research Triangle Park, North Research Carolina National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland Eric Iverson Public Policy Associate Gerald Grunwald American Society for Engineering Professor and Associate Dean Education College of Graduate Studies Washington, DC Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
APPENDIX D 171 Nirmala Kannankutty Mary McCormick National Science Foundation Senior Program Analyst Division of Science Resources Studies Howard Hughes Medical Institute Human Resources Statistics Program Chevy Chase, Maryland Arlington, Virginia Richard McGee Kevin Kelley Associate Dean for Student Affairs California State University, Long Mayo Graduate School Beach Rochester, Minnesota Department of Biological Sciences Long Beach, California Linda Meadows Assistant VP for Research Mohammad Khoshnevisan Ohio State University National Institute of Dental and Columbus, Ohio Craniofacial Research National Institutes of Health Vid Mohan-Ram Bethesda, Maryland Science Writer Scienceâs Next Wave Lisa Kozlowski 1200 New York Avenue, NW Post Doc Fellow Washington, DC Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland You-Hyun Moon Science Counselor Jean Labus Korean Embassy Sr. Personnel Representative Washington, DC Postdoctoral Program Coordinator Eli Lilly Company Mayumi Naramura Indianapolis, Indiana Visiting Fellow National Institute of Allergy and Susan Lord Infectious Diseases National Institutes of Health National Institutes of Health Deputy Director, Training and Rockville, Maryland Education National Cancer Institute Clinical Norine Noonan Division Assistant Administrator Bethesda, Maryland Research and Development US Environmental Protection Robert Mahley Agency President Washington, DC The J. David Gladstone Institutes San Francisco, California
172 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Joel Oppenheim Michael Princiotta Associate Dean, Director Post Doc Fellow Sackler Institute, New York National Institute of Allergy and University Infectious Diseases School of Medicine National Institutes of Health New York, New York Bethesda, Maryland Roslyn Orkin Stephen Quigley Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs Science Policy and Management Harvard Medical School Consultant Boston, Massachusetts Washington, DC Sonia Ortega Rao Mrinalini Program Director Associate Dean, Graduate College National Science Foundation University of Illinois at Chicago Division of Graduate Education Chicago, Illinois Arlington, Virginia Alan Rapoport Arti Patel Senior Analyst Pre-Doctoral Intramural Research Division of Science Resources Training Award Program Studies National Institute of Environmental National Science Foundation Sciences Arlington, Virginia Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Ian Reynolds Department of Pharmacology Trevor Penning The University of Pittsburgh Associate Dean Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Postdoctoral Research Training University of Pennsylvania School Susan Rich of Medicine Director, Office of Postdoc Education Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta, Georgia Philip Perlman Associate Dean, Southwest Grad Robert Rich School Manager, Professional Services University of Texas Southwest American Chemical Society Medical Center Washington, DC Dallas, Texas Monique Rijnkels President, Postdoctoral Association Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas
APPENDIX D 173 John Russell Peter Syverson Associate Dean of Graduate Vice President Education Research and Information Services Washington University Medical Council of Graduate Sciences School Washington, DC St. Louis, Missouri Michael Teitelbaum Walter Schaffer Program Director National Institutes of Health Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Training Officer New York, New York Bethesda, Maryland Philippe Tondeur Dennis Shields Director Professor, Developmental and Division of Mathematical Sciences Molecular Biology National Science Foundation Albert Einstein College of Medicine Arlington, Virginia Bronx, New York Jim Voytuk Allan Shipp Project Officer Assistant Vice President Office of Scientific Engineering and Biomedical and Health Science Personnel Research The National Academies Association of American Medical Washington, DC Colleges Washington, DC Robin Wagner Associate Director of Graduate Charles Shuler Services Director and Professor Career and Placement Services University of Southern California University of Chicago Center for Craniofacial Molecular Chicago, Illinois Biology Los Angeles, California Valerie Williams RAND Corporation Chris Simmons Washington, DC Federal Relations Officer Association of American Universities Pauline Wong Washington, DC Post Doc Fellow Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Patricia Sokolove Biological Chemical Department Associate Dean, Graduate School Baltimore, Maryland University of Maryland, Baltimore Baltimore, Maryland
174 ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Letitia Yao Janet Zinser Research Associate Associate Director, School of University of Minnesota Medicine Minneapolis, Minnesota Office of Postdoc Programs University of Pennsylvania Jonathan Yewdell Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Chief, Cellular Biology Section National Institute of Allergy and Daniel Zuckerman Infectious Diseases President, Johns Hopkins Postdoc National Institutes of Health Association Bethesda, Maryland School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Tamara Zemlo Baltimore, Maryland Policy Analyst Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Bethesda, Maryland