postdoctoral research plan example

Slip to main content

Lex Academic®

• Blog & Resources

How to Write a Postdoc Research Proposal | Lex Academic Blog

6 December 2021

By Dr Michelle Liu (DPhil Oxon)

In an increasingly competitive job market, securing a postdoc somewhere is probably the best option many recent graduates can hope for. In the UK, where I am writing from, there are postdoc positions tied to specific research projects with restricted areas of research. There are also postdoc positions (e.g., British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships, Leverhulme Early Career Fellowships, Mind/Analysis Studentships, various JRFs at Oxford/Cambridge colleges) where areas of research are unrestricted.

Writing a postdoc research proposal is almost nothing like writing a paper for journal publication. For a start, grant referees may not be in your subject area, in which case striking the right tone and level of technicality in your proposal is important. Moreover, some of funders may care a lot more about impact than your average journal reviewers. So, it may be essential to think about whether your research project has wider applications and ramifications.

In this blog post, I will discuss what I think might be helpful for someone writing a postdoc research proposal. Given my area is philosophy, what I am offering here is perhaps more pertinent to philosophy than other subject areas (though I hope the general tips will apply across different disciplines in the Humanities). I shall mainly focus on writing research proposals where areas of specialisation are open. Of course, two successful research proposals can look quite different. So, it’s worth looking at some successful samples, if you can, before you start.

First, what topic should you propose? You should definitely propose a topic that you are already very familiar with. This could be an extension of your PhD thesis. Alternatively, it could be a new area that you have already begun to research. Not everyone can sustain a passion for one topic for 3-4 years. It’s likely that some of you started working on other topics during your PhDs. But if it’s a new area, then it should be a topic you already formed plans to write papers on – or even better, have published in. It is not an understatement to say that writing a research proposal is often a retrospective process. Sometimes, you already have a good idea of what your research outcomes will be, though the details still need filling in. You are working backwards in your proposal, guiding your grant reviewers through how one should go about investigating the topic.

A catchy title is also a good idea.

In terms of the overall structure of the proposal, I tend to think it’s helpful to have three sections: the introduction, the main body, and the outcome.

The opening paragraph is where you introduce your research topic to your (very often) non-specialist audience. Make sure you avoid jargon and write in plain English, but in an engaging way that captivates your readers. Think about why your topic is worth pursuing.  Why should anyone care? It’s worth considering how your own research compares and contrasts with the existing research on the topic. Make sure you give the impression that your project is exciting and will make a new contribution to the field.

The main body of the proposal goes into details about your aims and methodology, and exactly how you will carry out the project. The first thing to consider is timeframe. How might you divide your research time? What issues do you want to investigate for each period? For a typical three-year research fellowship in the UK, you could, for instance, divide it into three one-year periods and focus on investigating one question for each period.

I find it very helpful to frame the research plan in terms of guiding questions, with one question naturally leading to the next. Framing it in this way helps bring out your research goals and outcomes. For each question, think how you might go about answering it. What kind of literature do you want to engage with? Is there a popular view in the literature that you would like to criticise? Is there a hypothesis you want to investigate? You might have already made up your mind that you want to argue for thesis T when answering the research question you pose. But in this case, it may still be helpful to frame T as a hypothesis that you want to investigate in order to give referees a future-orienting sense of the project. In my own experience, I often find myself unsure of how to answer a specific research question that I raised. The advice I have received is that it is better to be specific and clear about what you want to argue for, even if you are not quite sure of it. Sometimes, you might have to put things in a way that sounds more confident than you actually are. It’s okay to be speculative; you don’t necessarily need to stick to your research plan. Also, I think it is better to show ‘positive’ outcomes (e.g., arguing for a new theory T) rather than ‘negative’ outcomes (e.g., arguing against theory X).

Depending on the nature of the topic, it may be appropriate to investigate it using case studies. In my own Leverhulme-funded project on polysemy, I investigate three case studies:  gender terms, sensation terms, and emotion terms. It is worth thinking about why these case studies were chosen. How are they related to each other? What overall purpose do they serve? In my own work, the three case studies were carefully chosen to encompass three different classes of words, i.e. nouns, verbs, and adjectives, from which wider philosophical implications about polysemy are to be drawn.

In the final section of the proposal, you should lay out the specific results you aim to achieve through your project as well as its wider impact. If your research is divided in several periods, think about what your output is for each period. It might be a specific paper for each period, in which case state the provisional title of the paper and the journal you are aiming to publish in. Again, this might not be what you in fact achieve if you secure the grant. It is also worth considering where you want to disseminate your research. Are there conferences that you want to attend or organise?

It is almost obligatory to include a section in the research proposal about the wider implications of the project. What significant impact does the research promise? It would be ideal if your project has wider social ramifications, such as clarifying conceptual confusions in a popular debate or resolving issues in certain clinical or policy-making contexts. If social impact is hard to find, it is still important to talk about how the project can advance debates in your field and what potential it has for applications in related research areas.

Finally, don’t forget to include references at the end as you are bound to cite research in your proposal.

Getting Feedback, etc.

There are other aspects of a postdoc application besides writing a research proposal. Some funding bodies give generous research allowances, in which case you will need to draft a budget outlining how you want to spend the money. This can involve various things from purchasing books to organising workshops or conferences. If the latter, it is important to give a breakdown of the costs. Where do you want to host the conference? How many speakers do you want to invite? How much would it cost to host each speaker? The last question depends on whether the speaker is domestic or international.

Often, you will also be asked to summarise your past and current research experience in your application. Here, you will inevitably mention your doctoral work and the papers that you have already published, that are under review, or that are in preparation. It is important to give the impression that your existing research experience naturally leads to your proposed project. Try to convey the idea that you are ideally suited to conduct the proposed project.

If your project is tied to a host institute, it is vital to explain (either in your proposal or elsewhere) the reasons for choosing a particular institution. What are its areas of expertise and how are they related to your research project? Mention members of the department whose work is relevant to yours. Also, how does your research contribute to the teaching and research in the host department?

Now that you have a draft for your research proposal, it is important to get a second opinion. In most universities, there are research offices dedicated to helping academics secure grants. Writing a grant application is a meticulous and formal process that involves peer reviews – something I was utterly unaware of when I was fresh out of my DPhil. However, graduate students or graduates who have not yet secured a university position are unlikely to have access to the expertise in the research office. In these cases, it would be wise to seek help from your supervisors as they are likely to offer useful insights.

Just as there are general tips that one can give to improve one’s chances for journal publication, I believe there are patterns that converge in successful grant applications. Like others, I am slowly figuring out both cases through experience and the helpful advice I’ve received from others over the years. Of course, it is undeniable that luck often plays a decisive role in grant success. My Leverhulme project on polysemy didn’t make it through the internal selection round at one institution, but I was lucky enough to apply at the last minute and eventually secure funding with my current institution. I hope that what I offer here may be helpful to some recent graduates, and I welcome others to share their successful experiences.

Dr  Michelle Liu is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Hertfordshire. Her project is titled ‘The abundance of meaning: polysemy and its applications in philosophy’. Liu completed her DPhil at the University of Oxford in 2019 and was a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire from 2019 to 2021.

Be notified each time we post a new blog article

Feb 20 2023

• Writing a Winning Postdoctoral Research Proposal: A Guide and Template

Eddy Haminton

Career advice

If you are interested in pursuing a postdoctoral position, one of the first steps is to write a research proposal that outlines the project you plan to undertake. A postdoctoral research proposal is an important document that can help you secure funding, support, and a position at a university or research institution. In this blog post, we will provide a guide to writing a postdoctoral research proposal, as well as a template to help you get started.

The purpose of a postdoctoral research proposal is to demonstrate your research expertise, creativity, and vision, as well as to provide a clear plan for the research you plan to undertake. A good research proposal should be clear, concise, and well-organized, and should provide a strong rationale for the proposed research. It should also outline the research objectives, methods, and expected outcomes.

Here is a basic template for a postdoctoral research proposal:

I. Introduction

• Provide a brief overview of the research area and context for your proposed research
• State the research problem or question that your project will address
• Provide a rationale for the importance of the proposed research

II. Objectives and Research Questions

• Clearly state the research objectives of your project
• Provide a list of specific research questions that you plan to address

III. Background and Literature Review

• Provide a summary of the key literature in the research area
• Discuss how your proposed research builds on and contributes to the existing research

IV. Methodology

• Provide a clear and detailed description of the research methods you plan to use
• Explain how your methodology will help you achieve your research objectives
• Discuss any potential limitations of your proposed methodology and how you plan to address them

V. Expected Outcomes and Significance

• Clearly state the expected outcomes of your research
• Discuss the potential impact and significance of your research for the research area and beyond

VI. Timeline

• Provide a timeline for the completion of the proposed research
• Break the project into specific milestones and indicate the time required to complete each milestone

VII. Budget

• Provide a detailed budget for the proposed research
• Indicate the costs associated with equipment, materials, travel, and other expenses

VIII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key points of your research proposal
• Reiterate the importance and significance of your proposed research

When writing a postdoctoral research proposal, it is important to tailor your proposal to the specific research area and institution you are applying to. It is also important to be realistic about the feasibility of your proposed research, given the time and resources available.

In conclusion, a postdoctoral research proposal is a critical document that can help you secure a postdoctoral position and funding for your research. By following the template above and tailoring your proposal to the specific research area and institution you are applying to, you can increase your chances of success. Good luck with your postdoctoral research proposal!

Tags: Writing a Winning Postdoctoral Research Proposal: A Guide and Template

Discovering Technical Talent for the Electric Car Revolution through Multiple...

February 07, 2023

Visiting Vietnam: A nice place with beautiful beaches and islands

April 20, 2023

Guarding the Gates: A Comprehensive Guide to Business Cybersecurity

September 27, 2023

Featured Jobs

Editors' picks, recent posts.

Exploring Hydrafacial Cost: What to Expect from this Skincare Investment

May 21, 2024

Why Engineering Might Be the Career for You

March 29, 2024

Water Catchment Systems: An Essential Guide for Homeowners

March 27, 2024

Revolutionising Food Production Recruitment in the UK: Overcoming Challenges &...

March 22, 2024

The different settings that FNPs work in

March 18, 2024

Digital Marketing as a Career

March 17, 2024

This site uses cookies to deliver our services and to show you relevant ads and job listings. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy , and our Terms and Conditions . Your use of AcademicGates’s Products and Services, is subject to these policies and terms. If you do not use the cookie, some functions may not work properly.

Postdoctoral Fellowship Research Statements: What I Wish I Knew Before Writing

Written by Andrew Feldman

Of course, the odds of receiving postdoctoral fellowships are not high (typically single digit percentages). Knowing these odds, I applied for eight fellowships: four through university departments and four through government agencies. I initially felt like I had no idea how to be successful, especially since I received none of the 12 doctoral fellowships I had previously applied for. I also had a rough start: my first postdoctoral fellowship application was rejected a month after submission for being slightly out of scope. It certainly required mental fortitude to continue through this application process.

After speaking with colleagues in my field, common themes emerged in how they approach proposals, especially in how to write a stand-out research statement. At this point starting the fifth year of my PhD, I understood the importance of conveying a strong vision in my research statement: it is essential for getting and staying funded regardless of how stellar one’s publication record is. While I knew the motivation and methodology well, my colleagues taught me that conveying my vision in a convincing, focused, and exciting way for other scientists is a different matter. I believe their collective advice was pivotal to improving my research statement and ultimately getting me on the “funded” pile for three of the eight fellowships. I share some of these insights here.

1) Why now? Why me? When formulating your idea, focus on ensuring that your proposal answers why this research should be completed right now, as opposed to anytime. Many committees strongly weigh how much of a priority your research question is. The best introductions will extend beyond an informative literature review and directly state why answering your question is necessary and urgent.

They also want to know: why are you the best person to address this problem as opposed to someone else? Explicitly sell your fit to your research problem and your vision. Lean on your PI choice here – PIs can fill in any technical knowledge gaps and provide complementary tools to those learned during your PhD.

Most surprising to me is how much focus you need place on “why now? why me?” in your motivation. There is no fixed number, but be sure you spend more real estate motivating why the problem and approach is so amazing rather than on addressing every pitfall with your research question and approach.

2) Your audience is broader than you think. Many proposal writers will incorrectly assume (like I initially did) that their committee will include that harsh reviewer of their journal articles who can identify all methodological shortcomings. Rather than trying to defend against this omniscient and unlikely reader, keep the focus on convincing a researcher of an adjacent field that your questions and approach are spectacular. An excellent research statement will ultimately excite any researcher enough to fund the work.

Another nuance to consider: postdoctoral fellowships are mainly offered through federal government agencies (i.e., NSF, NIH, etc.) and specific university departments. Government-based fellowships will be reviewed by researchers closer to your field (but not quite as close as that of a journal article review). In this case, lean slightly towards convincing them that you understand the limitations of the approach and that your background fits the problem. By contrast, university departmental fellowships will typically have committees of professors that will not be in your exact field. For this audience, lean towards exciting them with an accessible, clear problem motivation, provide only a broad overview of the methods you would use, and be very brief.

3) Spend time just thinking: resist the urge to open Microsoft Word and start typing. Spend time purely thinking and schematically charting out your research problem and anticipated results. If you sufficiently plan, the statement will write itself.

4) Less is more: your reviewers are just as busy as you are. They want to see your main idea fast. You may see a ten page limit and feel an urge to cram in as much material as possible. I did this initially, but the statement will quickly become noisy. Instead, prioritize reader friendliness. This means more pictures and less walls of text. Reviewers are thankful for 1.5 spacing, 12 point font, and schematic figures with question marks and arrows that clearly convey your research questions. Use parsimony in discussing methods – mention only the essential methods and main anticipated challenges.

5) Start early: I started formulating my research statement in June 2020. My first deadline was in early August 2020. While this seems early to start, it was not! Give yourself at least two months before your first fellowship deadline to formulate a problem with your prospective PI (or any co-PIs) and write your statements. Provide adequate time for your PI(s) to provide feedback on your ideas and statements. If applying to multiple fellowships with different PIs and/or different project topics, start even earlier.

Lastly, I encourage asking your colleagues for help. Folks around you regardless of career stage have likely spent a significant portion of their time writing research statements. The MIT Communication Lab was a great source of help for me that I used multiple times! Don’t be afraid to ask for help. I was always glad I did.

Students & Educators  —Menu

• Educational Resources
• Educators & Faculty
• College Planning
• ACS ChemClub
• Project SEED
• U.S. National Chemistry Olympiad
• Student Chapters
• ACS Meeting Information
• Undergraduate Research
• Internships, Summer Jobs & Coops
• Study Abroad Programs
• Finding a Mentor
• Two Year/Community College Students
• Social Distancing Socials
• Planning for Graduate School
• Grants & Fellowships
• Career Planning
• International Students
• Planning for Graduate Work in Chemistry
• ACS Bridge Project
• Graduate Student Organizations (GSOs)
• Schedule-at-a-Glance
• Standards & Guidelines
• Explore Chemistry
• Science Outreach
• Publications
• ACS Student Communities
• You are here:
• American Chemical Society
• Students & Educators

Writing the Research Plan for Your Academic Job Application

By Jason G. Gillmore, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, Hope College, Holland, MI

A research plan is more than a to-do list for this week in lab, or a manila folder full of ideas for maybe someday—at least if you are thinking of a tenure-track academic career in chemistry at virtually any bachelor’s or higher degree–granting institution in the country. A perusal of the academic job ads in C&EN every August–October will quickly reveal that most schools expect a cover letter (whether they say so or not), a CV, a teaching statement, and a research plan, along with reference letters and transcripts. So what is this document supposed to be, and why worry about it now when those job ads are still months away?

What Is a Research Plan?

A research plan is a thoughtful, compelling, well-written document that outlines your exciting, unique research ideas that you and your students will pursue over the next half decade or so to advance knowledge in your discipline and earn you grants, papers, speaking invitations, tenure, promotion, and a national reputation. It must be a document that people at the department you hope to join will (a) read, and (b) be suitably excited about to invite you for an interview.

That much I knew when I was asked to write this article. More specifics I only really knew for my own institution, Hope College (a research intensive undergraduate liberal arts college with no graduate program), and even there you might get a dozen nuanced opinions among my dozen colleagues. So I polled a broad cross-section of my network, spanning chemical subdisciplines at institutions ranging from small, teaching-centered liberal arts colleges to our nation’s elite research programs, such as Scripps and MIT. The responses certainly varied, but they did center on a few main themes, or illustrate a trend across institution types. In this article I’ll share those commonalities, while also encouraging you to be unafraid to contact a search committee chair with a few specific questions, especially for the institutions you are particularly excited about and feel might be the best fit for you.

How Many Projects Should You Have?

While more senior advisors and members of search committees may have gotten their jobs with a single research project, conventional wisdom these days is that you need two to three distinct but related projects. How closely related to one another they should be is a matter of debate, but almost everyone I asked felt that there should be some unifying technique, problem or theme to them. However, the projects should be sufficiently disparate that a failure of one key idea, strategy, or technique will not hamstring your other projects.

For this reason, many applicants wisely choose to identify:

• One project that is a safe bet—doable, fundable, publishable, good but not earthshaking science.
• A second project that is pie-in-the-sky with high risks and rewards.
• A third project that fits somewhere in the middle.

Having more than three projects is probably unrealistic. But even the safest project must be worth doing, and even the riskiest must appear to have a reasonable chance of working.

How Closely Connected Should Your Research Be with Your Past?

Your proposed research must do more than extend what you have already done. In most subdisciplines, you must be sufficiently removed from your postdoctoral or graduate work that you will not be lambasted for clinging to an advisor’s apron strings. After all, if it is such a good idea in their immediate area of interest, why aren’t they pursuing it?!?

But you also must be able to make the case for why your training makes this a good problem for you to study—how you bring a unique skill set as well as unique ideas to this research. The five years you will have to do, fund, and publish the research before crafting your tenure package will go by too fast for you to break into something entirely outside your realm of expertise.

Biochemistry is a partial exception to this advice—in this subdiscipline it is quite common to bring a project with you from a postdoc (or more rarely your Ph.D.) to start your independent career. However, you should still articulate your original contribution to, and unique angle on the work. It is also wise to be sure your advisor tells that same story in his or her letter and articulates support of your pursuing this research in your career as a genuinely independent scientist (and not merely someone who could be perceived as his or her latest "flunky" of a collaborator.)

Should You Discuss Potential Collaborators?

Regarding collaboration, tread lightly as a young scientist seeking or starting an independent career. Being someone with whom others can collaborate in the future is great. Relying on collaborators for the success of your projects is unwise. Be cautious about proposing to continue collaborations you already have (especially with past advisors) and about starting new ones where you might not be perceived as the lead PI. Also beware of presuming you can help advance the research of someone already in a department. Are they still there? Are they still doing that research? Do they actually want that help—or will they feel like you are criticizing or condescending to them, trying to scoop them, or seeking to ride their coattails? Some places will view collaboration very favorably, but the safest route is to cautiously float such ideas during interviews while presenting research plans that are exciting and achievable on your own.

How Do You Show Your Fit?

Some faculty advise tailoring every application packet document to every institution to which you apply, while others suggest tweaking only the cover letter. Certainly the cover letter is the document most suited to introducing yourself and making the case for how you are the perfect fit for the advertised position at that institution. So save your greatest degree of tailoring for your cover letter. It is nice if you can tweak a few sentences of other documents to highlight your fit to a specific school, so long as it is not contrived.

Now, if you are applying to widely different types of institutions, a few different sets of documents will certainly be necessary. The research plan that you target in the middle to get you a job at both Harvard University and Hope College will not get you an interview at either! There are different realities of resources, scope, scale, and timeline. Not that my colleagues and I at Hope cannot tackle research that is just as exciting as Harvard’s. However, we need to have enough of a niche or a unique angle both to endure the longer timeframe necessitated by smaller groups of undergraduate researchers and to ensure that we still stand out. Furthermore, we generally need to be able to do it with more limited resources. If you do not demonstrate that understanding, you will be dismissed out of hand. But at many large Ph.D. programs, any consideration of "niche" can be inferred as a lack of confidence or ambition.

Also, be aware that department Web pages (especially those several pages deep in the site, or maintained by individual faculty) can be woefully out-of-date. If something you are planning to say is contingent on something you read on their Web site, find a way to confirm it!

While the research plan is not the place to articulate start-up needs, you should consider instrumentation and other resources that will be necessary to get started, and where you will go for funding or resources down the road. This will come up in interviews, and hopefully you will eventually need these details to negotiate a start-up package.

Who Is Your Audience?

Your research plan should show the big picture clearly and excite a broad audience of chemists across your sub-discipline. At many educational institutions, everyone in the department will read the proposal critically, at least if you make the short list to interview. Even at departments that leave it all to a committee of the subdiscipline, subdisciplines can be broad and might even still have an outside member on the committee. And the committee needs to justify their actions to the department at large, as well as to deans, provosts, and others. So having at least the introduction and executive summaries of your projects comprehensible and compelling to those outside your discipline is highly advantageous.

Good science, written well, makes a good research plan. As you craft and refine your research plan, keep the following strategies, as well as your audience in mind:

• Begin the document with an abstract or executive summary that engages a broad audience and shows synergies among your projects. This should be one page or less, and you should probably write it last. This page is something you could manageably consider tailoring to each institution.
• Provide sufficient details and references to convince the experts you know your stuff and actually have a plan for what your group will be doing in the lab. Give details of first and key experiments, and backup plans or fallback positions for their riskiest aspects.
• Hook your readers with your own ideas fairly early in the document, then strike a balance between your own new ideas and the necessary well referenced background, precedents, and justification throughout. Propose a reasonable tentative timeline, if you can do so in no more than a paragraph or two, which shows how you envision spacing out the experiments within and among your projects. This may fit well into your executive summary
• Show how you will involve students (whether undergraduates, graduate students, an eventual postdoc or two, possibly even high schoolers if the school has that sort of outreach, depending on the institutions to which you are applying) and divide the projects among students.
• Highlight how your work will contribute to the education of these students. While this is especially important at schools with greater teaching missions, it can help set you apart even at research intensive institutions. After all, we all have to demonstrate “broader impacts” to our funding agencies!
• Include where you will pursue funding, as well as publication, if you can smoothly work it in. This is especially true if there is doubt about how you plan to target or "market" your research. Otherwise, it is appropriate to hold off until the interview to discuss this strategy.

So, How Long Should Your Research Plan Be?

Learn more on the Blog

Here is where the answers diverged the most and without a unifying trend across institutions. Bottom line, you need space to make your case, but even more, you need people to read what you write.

A single page abstract or executive summary of all your projects together provides you an opportunity to make the case for unifying themes yet distinct projects. It may also provide space to articulate a timeline. Indeed, many readers will only read this single page in each application, at least until winnowing down to a more manageable list of potential candidates. At the most elite institutions, there may be literally hundreds of applicants, scores of them entirely well-suited to the job.

While three to five pages per proposal was a common response (single spaced, in 11-point Arial or 12-point Times with one inch margins), including references (which should be accurate, appropriate, and current!), some of my busiest colleagues have said they will not read more than about three pages total. Only a few actually indicated they would read up to 12-15 pages for three projects. In my opinion, ten pages total for your research plans should be a fairly firm upper limit unless you are specifically told otherwise by a search committee, and then only if you have two to three distinct proposals.

Why Start Now?

Hopefully, this question has answered itself already! Your research plan needs to be a well thought out document that is an integrated part of applications tailored to each institution to which you apply. It must represent mature ideas that you have had time to refine through multiple revisions and a great deal of critical review from everyone you can get to read them. Moreover, you may need a few different sets of these, especially if you will be applying to a broad range of institutions. So add “write research plans” to this week’s to do list (and every week’s for the next few months) and start writing up the ideas in that manila folder into some genuine research plans. See which ones survive the process and rise to the top and you should be well prepared when the job ads begin to appear in C&EN in August!

Jason G. Gillmore , Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Hope College in Holland, MI. A native of New Jersey, he earned his B.S. (’96) and M.S. (’98) degrees in chemistry from Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. (’03) in organic chemistry from the University of Rochester. After a short postdoctoral traineeship at Vanderbilt University, he joined the faculty at Hope in 2004. He has received the Dreyfus Start-up Award, Research Corporation Cottrell College Science Award, and NSF CAREER Award, and is currently on sabbatical as a Visiting Research Professor at Arizona State University. Professor Gillmore is the organizer of the Biennial Midwest Postdoc to PUI Professor (P3) Workshop co-sponsored by ACS, and a frequent panelist at the annual ACS Postdoc to Faculty (P2F) Workshops.

Other tips to help engage (or at least not turn off) your readers include:

• Avoid two-column formats.
• Avoid too-small fonts that hinder readability, especially as many will view the documents online rather than in print!
• Use good figures that are readable and broadly understandable!
• Use color as necessary but not gratuitously.

Accept & Close The ACS takes your privacy seriously as it relates to cookies. We use cookies to remember users, better understand ways to serve them, improve our value proposition, and optimize their experience. Learn more about managing your cookies at Cookies Policy .

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA |  service@acs.org  | 1-800-333-9511 (US and Canada) | 614-447-3776 (outside North America)

• Terms of Use
• Accessibility

Copyright © 2024 American Chemical Society

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Postdoctoral Fellowship

Affiliation Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Division of Hematology, Oncology, Stem Cell Transplantation, and Cancer Biology, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America

* E-mail: [email protected] (LM); [email protected] (CMB)

Affiliation Asian Liver Center and Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

Affiliation Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America

• Ke Yuan, 
• Lei Cai, 
• Siu Ping Ngok, 
• Li Ma, 
• Crystal M. Botham

Published: July 14, 2016

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004934
• Reader Comments

Citation: Yuan K, Cai L, Ngok SP, Ma L, Botham CM (2016) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Postdoctoral Fellowship. PLoS Comput Biol 12(7): e1004934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004934

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2016 Yuan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: Dr. Ke Yuan is supported by American Heart Association Scientist Development Grant (15SDG25710448) and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Proof of Concept Award (SPO121940). Dr. Lei Cai is supported by Stanford Neuroscience Institute and NIH NRSA postdoctoral fellowship (1F32HL128094). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Postdoctoral fellowships support research, and frequently career development training, to enhance your potential to becoming a productive, independent investigator. Securing a fellowship sends a strong signal that you are capable of conducting fundable research and will likely lead to successes with larger grants. Writing a fellowship will also increase your productivity and impact because you will learn and refine skills necessary to articulate your research priorities. However, competition is fierce and your fellowship application needs to stand out among your peers as realistic, coherent, and compelling. Also, reviewers, a committee of experts and sometimes non-experts, will scrutinize your application, so anything less than polished may be quickly eliminated. We have drawn below ten tips from our experiences in securing postdoctoral fellowships to help as you successfully tackle your proposal.

Rule 1: Start Early and Gather Critical Information

Crafting a competitive fellowship can take 6–9 months, so it is imperative that you start early. You may even want to start looking for postdoctoral fellowships before you finish your doctoral degree. Compile a comprehensive list of fellowships that you can apply to. This list should include key information to organize your game plan for applying, including Sponsor (agency sponsoring the fellowship) name; URL for funding information; Sponsor deadlines; and any other requirements or critical information.

To find suitable fellowships, start by asking your faculty mentor(s), laboratory colleagues, and recent alumni about their experiences applying for fellowships. Federal agencies in the United States, such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF); foreign governmental agencies; and other organizations, such as societies, foundations, and associations, often solicit fellowship applications. Additionally, many institutions offer internally supported fellowships as well as institutional research training grants.

Once you have an exhaustive list of fellowships you are eligible for, start gathering critical information that you can use to inform your writing. Read the fellowship instructions completely and identify the review criteria. Investigate the review process; NIH’s Center for Scientific Review reviews grant applications for scientific merit and has a worthwhile video about the Peer Review Process [ 1 ]. Sometimes Sponsors offer notification alerts about upcoming funding opportunities, deadlines, and updated policies, so make sure to sign up for those when offered. Also, gather previously submitted applications and reviewers’ comments for the fellowships you will to apply to. Both funded and unfunded applications are useful. Sometimes Sponsors make available funded abstracts like NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), and these provide critical information about the scope of funded projects.

Many institutions have internal policies and processes that are required before a proposal can be submitted to a Sponsor. These requirements can include waivers to assess eligibility and internal deadlines (five business day internal deadlines are standard), so make sure you also gather relevant information about any internal policies and processes required by your institution.

Rule 2: Create a Game Plan and Write Regularly

Writing a compelling fellowship takes time, a lot of time, which is challenging to balance with a hectic laboratory schedule, other responsibilities, and family obligations. To reduce stress, divide the fellowship requirements into smaller tasks by creating a detailed timeline with goals or milestones. Having a game plan with daily and/or weekly goals will also help you avoid procrastination. Make sure you are writing regularly (i.e., daily or every other day) to establish an effective writing practice. This will increase your productivity and reduce your anxiety because writing will become a habit. It is also important to make your writing time non-negotiable so other obligations or distractions don’t impede your progress.

Rule 3: Find Your Research Niche

It is crucial that you have a deep awareness of your field so you can identify critical knowledge gaps that will significantly move your field forward when filled. Keep a list of questions or problems inherent to your field and update this list after reading germane peer-reviewed and review articles or attending seminars and conferences. Narrow down and focus your list through discussions with your mentor(s), key researchers in your field, and colleagues. Because compelling projects often combine two seemingly unrelated threads of work to challenge and shift the current research or clinical practice paradigms, it is important to have a broad familiarity with the wider scientific community as well. Seek opportunities to attend seminars on diverse topics, speak with experts, and read broadly the scientific literature. Relentlessly contemplate how concepts and approaches in the wider scientific community could be extended to address critical knowledge gaps in your field. Furthermore, develop a few of your research questions by crafting hypotheses supported by the literature and/or preliminary data. Again, share your ideas with others, i.e., mentor(s), other scientists, and colleagues, to gauge interest in the significance and innovation of the proposed ideas. Remember, because your focus is on writing a compelling fellowship, make sure your research questions are also relevant and appropriate for the missions of the sponsoring agencies.

Rule 4: Use Your Specific Aims Document as Your Roadmap

A perfectly crafted Specific Aims document, usually a one-page description of your plan during the project period, is crucial for a compelling fellowship because your reviewers will read it! In fact, it is very likely your Specific Aims will be the first document your reviewers will read, so it is vital to fully engage the reviewers’ interest and desire to keep reading. The Specific Aims document must concisely answer the following questions:

• Is the research question important? Compelling proposals often tackle a particular gap in the knowledge base that, when addressed, significantly advance the field.
• What is the overall goal? The overall goal defines the purpose of the proposal and must be attainable regardless of how the hypothesis tests.
• What specifically will be done? Attract the reviewers’ interest using attention-getting headlines. Describe your working hypothesis and your approach to objectively test the hypothesis.
• What are the expected outcomes and impact? Describe what the reviewers can expect after the proposal is completed in terms of advancement to the field.

A draft of your Specific Aims document is ideal for eliciting feedback from your mentor(s) and colleagues because evaluating a one-page document is not an enormous time investment on part of the person giving you feedback. Plus, you don’t want to invest time writing a full proposal without knowing the proposal’s conceptual framework is compelling. When you are ready to write the research plan, your Specific Aims document then provides a useful roadmap.

As you are writing (and rewriting) your Specific Aims document, it is essential to integrate the Sponsor’s goals for that fellowship funding opportunity. Often goals for a fellowship application include increasing the awardee’s potential for becoming an independent investigator, in which case an appropriate expected outcome might be that you mature into an independent investigator.

We recommend reading The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook ( www.grantcentral.com ) [ 2 ] because it has two helpful chapters on how to write a persuasive Specific Aims document, as well as other instructive chapters. Although a little formulaic, the Workbook’s approach ensures the conceptual framework of your Specific Aims document is solid. We also advise reading a diverse repertoire of Specific Aims documents to unearth your own style for this document.

Rule 5: Build a First-Rate Team of Mentors

Fellowship applications often support mentored training experiences; therefore, a strong mentoring team is essential. Remember, reviewers often evaluate the qualifications and appropriateness of your mentoring team. The leader of your mentoring team should have a track record of mentoring individuals at similar stages as your own as well as research qualifications appropriate for your interests. Reviewers will also often consider if your mentor can adequately support the proposed research and training because fellowship applications don’t always provide sufficient funds. It is also useful to propose a co-mentor who complements your mentor’s qualifications and experiences. You should also seek out other mentors at your institution and elsewhere to guide and support your training. These mentors could form an advisory committee, which is required for some funding opportunities, to assist in your training and monitor your progress. In summary, a first-rate mentoring team will reflect the various features of your fellowship, including mentors who augment your research training by enhancing your technical skills as well as mentors who support your professional development and career planning.

As you develop your fellowship proposal, meet regularly with your mentors to elicit feedback on your ideas and drafts. Your mentors should provide feedback on several iterations of your Specific Aims document and contribute to strengthening it. Recruit mentors to your team who will also invest in reading and providing feedback on your entire fellowship as an internal review before the fellowship’s due date.

You also want to maintain and cultivate relationships with prior mentors, advisors, or colleagues because fellowships often require three to five letters of reference. A weak or poorly written letter will negatively affect your proposal’s fundability, so make sure your referees will write a strong letter of recommendation and highlight your specific capabilities.

Rule 6: Develop a Complete Career Development Training Plan

Most fellowships support applicants engaged in training to enhance their development into a productive independent researcher. Training often includes both mentored activities, e.g., regular meetings with your mentor(s), as well as professional activities, e.g., courses and seminars. It is important that you describe a complete training plan and justify the need for each training activity based on your background and career goals.

When developing this plan, it is helpful to think deeply about your training needs. What skills or experiences are missing from your background but needed for your next career stage? Try to identify three to five training goals for your fellowship and organize your plan with these goals in mind. Below are sample activities:

• Regular (weekly) one-on-one meetings with mentor(s)
• Biannual meeting with advisory committee
• Externship (few weeks to a few months) in a collaborator’s laboratory to learn a specific technique or approach
• Courses (include course # and timeline) to study specific topics or methods
• Seminars focused on specific research areas
• Conferences to disseminate your research and initiate collaborations
• Teaching or mentoring
• Grant writing, scientific writing, and oral presentation courses or seminars
• Opportunities for gaining leadership roles
• Laboratory management seminars or experiences

Rule 7: STOP! Get Feedback

Feedback is critical to developing a first-class proposal. You need a wide audience providing feedback because your reviewers will likely come from diverse backgrounds as well. Be proactive in asking for feedback from your mentor, colleagues, and peers. Even non-scientists can provide critical advice about the clarity of your writing. When eliciting feedback, inform your reviewer of your specific needs, i.e., you desire broader feedback on overall concepts and feasibility or want advice on grammar and spelling. You may also consider hiring a professional editing and proofreading service to polish your writing.

Some fellowships have program staff, such as the NIH Program Officers, who can advise prospective applicants. These individuals can provide essential information and feedback about the programmatic relevance of your proposal to the Sponsor’s goals for that specific fellowship application. Approaching a Program Officer can be daunting, but reading the article “What to Say—and Not Say—to Program Officers” can help ease your anxiety [ 3 ].

Rule 8: Tell a Consistent and Cohesive Story

Fellowship applications are often composed of numerous documents or sections. Therefore, it is important that all your documents tell a consistent and cohesive story. For example, you might state your long term goal in the Specific Aims document and personal statement of your biosketch, then elaborate on your long term goal in a career goals document, so each of these documents must tell a consistent story. Similarly, your research must be described consistently in your abstract, Specific Aims, and research strategy documents. It is important to allow at least one to two weeks of time after composing the entire application to review and scrutinize the story you tell to ensure it is consistent and cohesive.

Rule 9: Follow Specific Requirements and Proofread for Errors and Readability

Each fellowship application has specific formats and page requirements that must be strictly followed. Keep these instructions and the review criteria close at hand when writing and revising. Applications that do not conform to required formatting and other requirements might be administratively rejected before the review process, so meticulously follow all requirements and guidelines.

Proofread your almost final documents for errors and readability. Errors can be confusing to reviewers. Also, if the documents have many misspellings or grammar errors, your reviewers will question your ability to complete the proposed experiments with precision and accuracy. Remove or reduce any field-specific jargon or acronyms. Review the layout of your pages and make sure each figure or table is readable and well placed. Use instructive headings and figure titles that inform the reviewers of the significance of the next paragraph(s) or results. Use bolding or italics to stress key statements or ideas. Your final documents must be easy to read, but also pleasing, so your reviewers remain engaged.

Rule 10: Recycle and Resubmit

Fellowships applications frequently have similar requirements, so it is fairly easy to recycle your application or submit it to several different funding opportunities. This can significantly increase your odds for success, especially if you are able to improve your application with each submission by tackling reviewers’ comments from a prior submission. However, some Sponsors limit concurrent applications to different funding opportunities, so read the instructions carefully.

Fellowship funding rates vary but, sadly, excellent fellowships may go unfunded. Although this rejection stings, resubmitted applications generally have a better success rate than original applications, so it is often worth resubmitting. However, resubmitting an application requires careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. If available, speak to your Program Officers because he or she may have listened to the reviewers’ discussion and can provide a unique prospective or crucial information not included in the reviewers’ written comments. Resubmitted fellowships are many times allowed an additional one- to two-page document to describe how you addressed the reviewers’ comments in the revised application, and this document needs to be clear and persuasive.

The ten tips we provide here will improve your chances of securing a fellowship and can be applied to other funding opportunity announcements like career development awards (i.e., NIH K Awards). Regardless of funding outcomes, writing a fellowship is an important career development activity because you will learn and refine skills that will enhance your training.

• 1. National Institutes of Health. NIH Peer Review Reveal—a front-row seat to a review peer review meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA .
• 2. Stephen W. Russell and David C. Morrison. The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook–National Institutes of Health Version. Available: www.grantcentral.com .
• 3. Spires MJ. What to Say—and Not Say—to Program Officers. The Chronicles of Higher Education. 2012. Available: http://chronicle.com/article/What-to-Say-and-Not-Say-to/131282 .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US), Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000.

Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

5 The Postdoc and the Institution

Institutions benefit in many ways from the presence and activities of post-docs. Most importantly, their work supports the overall intellectual strength of the institution. Successful postdocs help plan and carry out the institution’s research programs, build alliances and intellectual bridges to other institutions, raise the reputation of laboratories and departments, mentor graduate students, and increase the inflow of grant support.

In return, institutions have the responsibility to support their postdocs with adequate compensation and benefits, a supportive infrastructure and working conditions, appropriate institutional recognition and standing, and mechanisms for advancing their careers and finding subsequent positions.

• The Institutional Status of the Postdoc

In many government and industrial settings, postdocs are treated much like other researchers with regard to institutional status, compensation, and other benefits. In universities, however, most postdocs are identified and recruited by individual faculty members to work on specific research grants. The university’s administration may have only an approximate picture of the postdoctoral population and provide few mechanisms to standardize benefits or institutional status. Postdocs may be regarded as benefiting a particular investigator rather than the institution as a whole. In such cases it is the postdoc who suffers, receiving uncertain or no institutional standing and inadequate levels of compensation and benefits.

Best Practices Sample Surveys of Postdoctoral Populations

Some postdocs seeking to enhance their experience have started with basic questions: How many of us are there and how can we reach each other? This was the motivation at Baylor College of Medicine in 1997: “No faculty or administrator knew how many postdocs were working at Baylor ,” recalls an official, “let alone how to contact them.” It took six months to design a survey that asked the right questions and to establish a web site. The survey asked for issues of importance to postdocs, how postdocs rated their tenure so far, and what goals and priorities should be set for the newly formed postdoc association.

Postdocs at the University of California at San Francisco conducted an extensive survey in 1996 that received 419 responses from 1,076 postdoctoral scholars (one-third with MDs, two-thirds with PhDs). Respondents, whose mean age was 32 years and half of whom were foreign, reported poor perceptions of the job market and of prospects for their own careers. These perceptions were most pessimistic when interactions with their mentors were infrequent. Of the PhD post-docs, 21 percent said they had prolonged their postdoctoral position because of difficulty in finding other employment. This finding led to a recommendation for improved career guidance, mentoring, and performance evaluations, and to ongoing efforts with the administration to enhance those functions.

The postdoctoral association at Johns Hopkins , founded by postdocs, gathers survey information annually from both program directors and postdocs. Of the program directors, it asks if their division: 1) has a committee to help with postdoctoral issues; 2) has a mentoring committee to provide guidance and evaluation of post-docs; 3) does annual performance reviews of postdocs; 4) has a formal orientation for new postdocs; and 5) pays for fellows’ health benefits.

The exit survey of postdocs at Johns Hopkins has grown more sophisticated and extensive over the years, and now poses 81 questions on issues related to compensation, source of support, benefits, goals, responsibilities, career planning, mentoring, accomplishments, future employment, issues of concern, and family issues. The primary concerns of postdocs have changed somewhat over the years moving from personal to professional issues. In 1992, the greatest concerns were personal safety and health insurance; in 1997, the greatest concerns were salary levels and future job placement ( Figure 5-1 ).

In its 1998 study of the postdoctoral experience, the AAU committee wrote that “…the lack of institutional oversight of postdoctoral appointments, coupled with the evolution of postdoctoral education in a number of disciplines into a virtual requirement for a tenure-track faculty appointment, creates an unacceptable degree of variability and instability in this aspect of the academic enterprise.” 1 Through its meetings with postdocs and advisers, COSEPUP has found that uncertain status, low pay and benefits, and lack of professional recognition are indeed issues of concern at many universities. This section describes those issues and lists initiatives that some institutions have found helpful.

Primary Concerns of Postdoctorates at Johns Hopkins University. Source: Data collected by Johns Hopkins University Postdoctoral Association as presented in Science , 1999, Vol. 285, p. 1514.

Variations in titles

Cosepup survey results how are postdocs classified at your organizations.

Most of the organizations surveyed (50 percent) used the term “fellow” with smaller numbers classifying their postdocs as “employee” (40 percent), “trainee” (35 percent), “associate” (23 percent), “faculty” (13 percent), “student” (13 percent), and “staff” (10 percent).

The “other” ways to classify postdocs included “employees-in-training,” “scholars,” “visiting postdoctoral scholars,” and “students in training.”

Recently, for example, one medical school counted 17 appointment categories for postdocs. After establishing a postdoctoral office, this number was reduced to three, and a uniform policy was applied to all. Other institutions report various systemic inequities. For example, postdoctoral researchers paid from the grants of advisers are usually considered temporary employees and qualify for employee health plans, parking facilities, vacations, and other benefits. Postdoctoral fellows, however, who have received their own funding directly, may be considered neither students nor employees and thus may or may not receive health benefits from (or through) their institution or lab. A standardized system of nomenclature can help avoid these inequities. (In addition, funding agencies, especially federal agencies, should require and fund health care benefits; see Chapter 6 .) See Table 5-1 for a summary of some of the differences between classifying postdocs as a student or employee.

Another advantage of consistent status is that it can allow universities to track their postdoc populations after they finish their terms. This is extremely difficult when postdocs are paid and classified in widely different ways.

Examples of Differences in Entitlements based on Classification of Postdocs as Students or Employees.

• Incorporating the Postdoc into the Institution

Institutions have taken a variety of steps to incorporate postdocs into their programs and classifications structure. This section examines postdoctoral policies, offices, and other mechanisms that respond to the needs of postdocs.

Establishing institutional policies

The first step in improving the status of postdocs is to establish institutional policies for them. This often begins with a simplified classification scheme. At the University of Notre Dame, the Graduate Council’s Postdoc Committee recommended a new category of employee for “postdoctoral scholars,” distinct from students, faculty, or staff and placed under the supervision of the graduate school. Each institution needs to adopt policy guidelines that both suit its particular mission and gain the support of postdocs and faculty.

Because of their hybrid training-and-working status, postdocs do not easily fit into simple categories at most institutions. Many institutions have struggled with this challenge, with different results: At Vanderbilt University the postdoc is a research fellow; at the University of Iowa, a postdoctoral scholar; at Stanford University, a student; at Eli Lilly, a postdoctoral scientist/fixed-duration employee.

The vast University of California system tackled this issue in 1998. The Council of Graduate Deans’ Report on Postdoctoral Education recommended that “Postdoctoral scholars should be constituted as a distinct group of individuals … clearly separate from students, other academic employees, staff employees, and resident and house staff…” Although they did not indicate their reason for this decision, it was presumably because the nature of research funding determined the classification of postdocs. The council recommended at least two sets of appointment titles: One set, for postdocs who are paid by an adviser’s research grants, must be employees and “therefore require academic titles,” another set, for postdocs funded through fellowships and traineeships, are not considered employees. The San Diego campus decided on three titles: postdoctoral fellow (individual awarded a fellowship), postdoctoral trainee (supported by a UCSD training grant), and postdoctoral scholar (neither a fellow nor a trainee). 2

The Mayo Graduate School of the Mayo Clinic, which considers itself a “hybrid academic/industrial environment,” devised a different solution. Postdocs are considered “valued professionals in their final stages of development” and are offered a clear progression of positions from training toward full employment. The progression includes research fellow (up to three years), senior research fellow (3–7 years), research associate (a springboard to independence), senior research technologist (employment in technology), and professional associate in research (employment in research). Mayo believes that “some mix of temporary and permanent research workers is necessary to achieve the end results.”

An adviser at the University of Pittsburgh concludes: “Nobody’s categories are perfect. Each institution has to devise something that works. The postdocs should get the best of both worlds, not the worst of both worlds.”

Establishing a postdoctoral office

A second helpful step in improving the status of postdocs is to assign an officer the job of monitoring postdoctoral policies and providing advice and resources. At present, it is common for post-docs in universities to lack a “point person” who can answer their questions and provide information. At the University of Colorado, all postdocs are now appointed through a central office, which allows that institution to apply appropriate policies and track its postdoc population.

One goal of postdoc offices is to ensure consistent application of policies. The University of California at San Francisco, for example, now requires a formal hiring letter, jointly signed by the faculty mentor and department chair or other university official, along with a statement of goals, policies, and responsibilities applicable to postdoctoral education. These details include expected duration of support, compensation, and benefits. Initial postdoctoral appointments may last no longer than two to three years, and can be extended only when adviser and postdoc jointly agree that renewal would advance the postdoc’s career. As a general rule, total time spent is limited to six years.

A postdoctoral office can accomplish other useful functions: organize orientation and professional development programs; maintain a career center; publish an orientation manual; encourage best practices by mentors; act as a liaison between postdocs, advisers, and administrators; provide a certificate of completion; and keep a directory of the postdoctoral population, including more experienced postdocs who are willing to mentor new arrivals. Some offices help post-docs learn about research program development, job seeking, grant writing, teaching, the mechanics of running a lab, and other professional skills, such as management, negotiation, meeting organization, and conflict resolution.

A well-conceived postdoctoral office is sensitive to the needs of the adviser as well as to those of the postdoc. “It would seem that a postdoctoral office is logical if it helps define the postdoc’s status,” said one adviser. “But if it restrains the way the PI can do science, it won’t work.”

The structure of a postdoctoral office will vary with the institution and size of the postdoctoral population. An existing office for graduate students can handle many functions for postdocs as well. Some of the needs of foreign post-docs may be met by an existing office of international students.

In terms of staffing, two kinds of expertise are useful. The first is a person with postdoctoral and research experience who can offer informed advice to both faculty and postdocs. The second is a human resources person with expertise in student, staff, and faculty issues.

Best Practices Creating a Postdoctoral Office

• Offer dual leadership for the office: a faculty researcher who can discuss laboratory and mentoring issues, and two persons trained in human resource issues;
• Design a template for an appointment letter and compile an orientation package containing information on health insurance, housing, visas, taxes, off-campus living, the registration process, and other postdoc issues; faculty use both the letter and package to inform appointees;
• Standardize postdoc appointment procedure and employment policies, including stipends based on the NIH National Research Service Award (NRSA) scale, a six-week parental leave policy, and uniform health benefits;
• Initiate a database of information on postdocs, including date and institution of terminal degree, discipline, research specialty, publications, and visa status (45 percent of the postdocs at Penn are foreign postdocs).

From the outset, planners realized that the office needed to serve not only the postdocs but also their faculty advisers. They created a web page that PIs can use to list their postdoc openings. The web page is advertised in Science and Nature , at no cost to the PI, and has links to postdoctoral associations and other resources. A postdoctoral association was formed to represent the postdocs.

Another pioneering postdoctoral office was started at Albert Einstein College of Medicine four years ago. In addition to many of the functions at Penn, Einstein also sends a letter to all advisers after a postdoc has been in their lab for 18–24 months, advising them that it may be time for a salary increase. In the fourth year a more extensive letter asks for each postdoc’s CV and publication record. The adviser and department chair are then asked to decide whether the postdoc will be renewed for a fifth year, and what might be expected after that; additional years require faculty-level benefits. This policy effectively places a cap on postdoctoral terms.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham established an Office of Postdoctoral Education for its 325 postdocs in 1999. It serves as “a natural extension of the existing services already being offered to graduate students, and emphasizes the training aspects and formal communication link” between postdocs and the administration. The explicit goal of the office is to provide opportunities for postdocs to identify and acquire skills needed for successful career development. A second goal is to “enhance the postdoctoral experience by promoting intellectual growth and facilitating the goals of mentors and scholars.” The office provides a model acceptance letter, specifies an appointment procedure (and provides a checklist), conducts a mandatory orientation for new appointees, sets a term of four years (with the possibility of extension to five), and maintains a “postdoctoral scholar applicant tracking system.”

An institution cannot always solve practical problems of housing, parking, and day care, especially in large and/or expensive cities. But even basic informational resources can improve morale and speed the search for a dwelling or other resource. As one dean put it, “Every minute a postdoc spends looking for a parking space is a minute lost from more productive activities.”

Career guidance

A primary function of the postdoctoral office is to provide support for postdocs who are searching for jobs. While advisers are often best positioned to contact and suggest potential employers in their own field, a postdoctoral office can offer job counseling for other fields or sectors, coordinate and publicize recruiter visits, maintain contacts with former postdocs, post job openings, and hold workshops on employment trends. A career office can also assist with the basic mechanics of job seeking: how to write a CV, prepare a cover letter, organize slides for a talk, and so on. Especially helpful are statistics on recent jobs taken by postdocs, especially permanent positions. According to COSEPUP’s survey, only a few institutions have career service offices that are focused on postdocs (see Box).

A central postdoctoral office constitutes not only a practical resource but also a focal point to unite a dispersed population that may number a thousand or more. At the same time, each large division or school (e.g., the school of engineering, arts and sciences, etc.) needs to address its own particular postdoc population. For example, the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins designates a faculty member to discuss professional or personal issues related to the postdoctoral experience with any postdoc or faculty member.

Postdocs need the most assistance when they first arrive. Argonne National Laboratory provides a Newcomers’ Office, whose offerings range from lists of recent appointments (to introduce newcomers) to recycled furniture for arriving families. A volunteer spouse’s program is also available.

COSEPUP Survey Results Does Your Organization Provide Job Placement Services for Your Postdocs?

About half do … either as part of general student/employee services, through the adviser, or from an assigned individual whose sole responsibility is to work with postdocs (and/or graduate students). For the other half, job placement is the dual responsibility of the adviser and the postdoc. A few organizations mentioned such resources as career centers, job fairs, job placement web sites, and general student services. Several reported that job placement activities are localized and vary by institutional unit.

Best Practices Developing ‘Survival Skills’

• How to choose a postdoctoral adviser
• What should and should not be expected from an adviser
• How to establish goals for a postdoctoral experience
• Intellectual property rights
• The resources available at their institution
• How to build a community of mentors
• How to develop a professional network
• How and when to become independent
• How to leave the institution on good terms

As a key mechanism, the task force has developed a Survival Skills and Ethics Workshop for postdocs, graduate students, and faculty. The workshop, held several times a year, offers programs and advice on such topics as writing research articles, making oral presentations, job hunting, teaching, writing grant proposals, personnel and project management, and responsible conduct.

Similarly, the NIH fellows organization sponsors three skills development seminars a year for its on-campus fellows. Topics include writing, speaking, and teaching; it has also arranged for a fall job fair, extra travel awards, and adjunct jobs teaching in the evenings.

Postdocs often need help with practical questions: How do the requirements of research institutions differ from those of undergraduate teaching colleges? What kinds of internships provide the best preparation for professional careers? How is an industry job search different from a university job search? What different skills are required?

Best Practices Postdoc Handbooks

One of the early priorities of most postdoctoral associations (or postdoctoral offices) is to produce a handbook to orient postdocs to institutional and area services. The NIH Fellows’ Handbook , produced by the Fellows’ Committee, could be considered the granddaddy of postdoc handbooks, offering nearly 60 categories of information from Acronyms Used at the NIH to Washington Metropolitan Area Activities. There are informative sections on appointments, conflict resolution, ethical conduct, housing, leave policy, mentoring, ombudsperson services, parking, post-fellowship employment, research conduct, and many other topics.

The fundamental goals of the Fellows’ Committee, as explained in the Handbook, include promoting education and career development, fostering communication among fellows and within the larger NIH community, helping inform fellows about policies, and serving as a liaison to the administration.

Similarly, the NRC’s Research Associateship program produces the Policies, Practices, and Procedures: A Handbook for Research Associateship Awardees to serve its approximately 700 associates, most of whom work in national laboratories. The handbook has chapters on definitions, accepting an award and beginning tenure, stipends, visas, insurance, taxes, travel, relocating, patents and publications, renewing an award, and terminating an award. Like most handbooks, this one is found on the web. 3

For NIH, see ftp://helix ​.nih.gov/felcom/index.html ; for NRC, http://www ​.nas.edu/rap

Most nonacademic organizations offered both orientation sessions to discuss benefits and information about benefits with the letter of acceptance.

• Other Responsibilities of the Institution

There are many useful steps the institution can take, not only by offering services but also by publicizing best practices that help integrate postdocs into the institution and make their work more productive.

COSEPUP Survey Results Which of the Following Benefits Is Provided at Full Compensation to All Postdocs, Regardless of Adviser or Funding Source?

At academic organizations, the only benefits offered by more than half the respondents were e-mail accounts, library access, and vacation time. Smaller numbers offered on-campus parking or the equivalent (45 percent), sick leave (45 percent), parental leave (31 percent), dental insurance (28 percent), and disability insurance (28 percent). Only 7 percent offered child care, and 10 percent paid travel expenses to conferences where the postdoc would be presenting.

Benefits at nonacademic institutions were relatively generous. Nearly 90 percent offered dental insurance, disability insurance, e-mail accounts, vacation time, sick leave, and life insurance. More than half offered parental leave, parking, retirement funds, and library access. One-third offered child care and cost-of-living salary adjustments.

How Is the Postdoc Made Aware of Benefits that Are and Are Not Available?

From academic organizations, the three largest categories with similar numbers of responses were as follows: 1) the adviser bore the responsibility of discussing benefits with the postdoc, 2) an orientation meeting where benefits were discussed was offered to all entering postdocs, and 3) each postdoc received a letter before arrival that outlined the organization’s policies. Three organizations explicitly stated that no information on benefits was formally provided, and additional comments indicated that some institutions report this information informally or have initiated a process of including benefits information in an acceptance letter.

Mentoring committees

Cosepup survey results what neutral parties are responsible for handling grievances of the postdoc.

Responses to this question indicated a wide diversity of mechanisms. The largest number of organizations (76 percent) said that a dean or department chair handled grievances; smaller numbers pointed to a human-resources staff person (51 percent), the adviser (46 percent), or an ombudsperson (43 percent).

Institutions reported a wide variety of “other” methods for handling postdocs’ grievances, from “same as junior faculty” to “office of grad studies and research” and “ombudsfolks—faculty peer adviser selected by postdocs”). A few reported that most of the responsibility lay with a single person; a smaller number described a more flexible process (“Dispute resolution guideline for College of Medicine postdoctoral fellows; Ad hoc committee makes recommendation to associate dean for research and graduate education”).

It is true that experienced investigators have little time to spare for additional duties. However, postdocs have found that even brief discussions (one to two hours per meeting) can bring valuable rewards in new perspectives and suggestions.

Ethical development

Institutions should emphasize the importance of professional development and ethics as a central feature of mentoring. By establishing seminars or workshops on research conduct and ethics, the institution can supplement what is learned from the adviser and provide a baseline code of behavior for all postdocs. 5

The imbalance of power in the adviser-postdoc relationship increases the possibility of misunderstandings and abuses. A desire for a grievance procedure is commonly reported by postdoc surveys, and the AAU recommends that each institution’s core policies should provide mechanisms to resolve grievances. The University of California system, for example, recommends that campuses establish a standard grievance procedure for postdocs that is written, protects due process, contains clear time lines, and requires a clear statement of alleged grievance and requested remedy. 6 The COSEPUP survey shows that institutions handle grievances through a variety of mechanisms (see Box).

The role of the ombudsperson

What can a postdoc do when he believes his department chair or other senior scientist should just be thanked in a paper’s acknowledgements, but the adviser insists on including such individuals as coauthors? What can a postdoc do when she is told to work on a project in which she has no interest?

One reason grievances are difficult for postdocs to resolve is that they often arise from the decisions or actions of their advisers. Similarly, deans or department chairs may be seen as siding with the institution. In an attempt to provide an independent and impartial person to assist in resolving disputes or misunderstandings, some institutions have found that an ombudsperson can be helpful. An ombudsperson serves as an informal information resource, receives complaints, and assists in resolving disputes on a confidential basis. The ombudsperson is a facilitator, not a decision maker.

One university dean praised his institution’s ombudsperson as a sympathetic and confidential person to whom postdocs can turn. The NIH, which has some 2,800 postdocs on its main campus, has hired an ombudsperson to head a Cooperative Resolution Center, defined as “a neutral site for resolving work-related conflicts.”

Special needs of foreign nationals

Postdocs on temporary visas comprise approximately half of all postdocs in the US. Many need help, both before and after they arrive, in resolving visa questions, finding housing, meeting other postdocs, and arranging bank accounts, credit cards, driver’s licenses, and Social Security numbers. Because of cultural and language barriers, foreign postdocs also experience far more social isolation than US postdocs, which potentially reduces their contributions as teachers, research collaborators, and members of the community. (For a thorough discussion of visas, see the US Department of State’s web site at travel.state.gov/visa;exchange.html .)

Many institutions can respond to such needs simply by publicizing an already existing office of international affairs. Access to information about visa issues and grant requirements, in particular, can make an institution far more attractive to foreign scientists and engineers, and increase the possibility that the best of them will choose that institution. Stanford University has enhanced its visa processing by contracting with an outside specialist. 7

Foreign postdocs often need encouragement in strengthening their command of English. Postdoc advisers at Vanderbilt University have found that verbal skills are the best indicators of overall career success, and that those with poor English require an average of two more years to find US jobs than those with language proficiency.

COSEPUP Survey Results Does the Organization Have Staff Who Deal Specifically with the Special Needs of Non-US or Foreign National Postdocs?

Most respondents (70 percent) answered yes; only 8 percent answered no, and 8 percent reported that the needs of non-US postdocs were handled by the adviser.

Most of the “other” responses indicated a pattern of offering postdocs the same access to international services as students and other scholars.

If Offered, in What Areas Do Foreign National Postdocs Receive Assistance?

Virtually all respondents (97 percent) assisted foreign nationals with visa issues, and more than half offered assistance with tax issues, housing, and English language studies. Smaller numbers reported assisting with Social Security questions (43 percent), driver’s licenses (11 percent), and credit references (11 percent).

Several institutions offered help with household furnishings and support groups for spouses and dependents.

Postdoctoral associations

One of the postdoc’s most common complaints is a feeling of isolation and the lack of a peer group through which to communicate with the institution. Postdoctoral associations can fill both needs, helping to build community and improve communication. Because postdocs are a transient population, these associations need institutional support to survive. An institution that encourages a postdoctoral association signals to postdoctoral candidates that their concerns are taken seriously.

These new associations (one of the first was founded at Johns Hopkins in 1992) sometimes begin with the indispensable step of counting the number of postdocs at an institution, as was the case at the University of California at San Francisco (see Box, Postdoctoral Associations ). The UCSF Postdoctoral Scholars Association, formed in 1995, has worked with the university to formalize a grievance process, bring postdoc representatives to committees that set postdoctoral policy, establish an annual orientation for postdocs, and offer access to group health insurance.

COSEPUP Survey Results Is There a Postdoctoral Association or the Equivalent at Your Institution?

Most organizations (58 percent) reported that no postdoctoral associations are available. Just over one-fourth reported the presence of postdoctoral associations run by the postdocs themselves. In some cases, postdoc associations or councils are run by the institution.

The “other” responses included one other postdoctoral association run by post-docs and called a “postdoctoral council.” One institution reported an association run jointly by postdocs and the institution. Most indicated that postdoctoral activities were either informal, located within a laboratory or department, or focused on a particular group (such as a group of Chinese students and scholars).

If Your Organization Has a Postdoctoral Association or Equivalent, What Are Its Main Functions?

Almost all these organizations (93 percent) reported that postdoctoral associations provided professional and social activities for postdocs. Most (79 percent) said that the associations acted as liaison between postdocs and administration. Half noted that associations provided information for postdocs on issues of general interest, and some (36 percent) said that the associations appointed representatives to the organizations’ administrative councils.

COSEPUP’s survey indicated that only a small minority of institutions have formed postdoctoral associations. The primary goals of existing associations are to provide a liaison with the administration and to provide professional and social activities for postdocs (see Box).

Stabilizing the postdoctoral population

Best practices postdoctoral associations.

The first postdoctoral association, organized at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in 1992, grew out of a concern for safety when several postdocs were assaulted outside the laboratory at night.

“Before we started,” recalls current co-president Lisa Koslowski, “we had no benefits, no salary guidelines, and morale was very low. Now we have minimum salary guidelines on the NIH model, health benefits, and a good relationship with the institution. When we bring issues to them, such as safe parking facilities, they are more than willing to help us. In the last few months we’ve worked out a plan for dental insurance.” To stay abreast of current concerns, the group conducts annual surveys of all postdocs, including entrance and exit interviews.

Postdocs at the University of California at San Francisco formed their Postdoctoral Scholars Association (PSA) from a variety of motivations: to create a resource and sense of identity for a largely undefined group, out of the “frustration that PhD scientists feel when they compare their career and mentoring with those of medical professionals,” and out of concern about career prospects for biomedical scientists. The PSA later combined with the Graduate Students Association to spur the creation of a Career Office for Scientists, which offers career counseling, helps with the mechanics of résumé preparation and effective interviewing, and compiles databases of alumni who have connections in academia and industry.

Postdocs at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park developed a Trainees’ Assembly “to foster the professional advancement of postdocs, visiting, and predoctoral fellows and other non-tenured, non-permanent scientists.” The group disseminates information at a web site, publishes an Orientation Handbook , and sponsors a seminar series where trainees can present research projects or lectures and receive critiques. They also have forums on professional topics (e.g., grant writing, industrial and non-academic positions), a science fair with local scientific colleagues, a distinguished lecturer lunch, outreach activities in the community, and monthly pizza socials.

A group at Albert Einstein College of Medicine was formed in 1996, according to cofounder Paula Cohen, to revitalize its postdoctoral programs and image. “Einstein was faced with the problem of being the poor cousin of New York institutions.” Dominant themes in the response to a survey of postdocs were insufficient mentoring, a lack of interaction with other labs, and limited teaching opportunities. Most of the group’s suggestions for improvements had to do with increased information and interpersonal contact. The administration was supportive in designing a series of reforms to improve career guidance, mentoring, and the overall quality of postdoc life.

Although this COSEPUP report does not specify mechanisms for stabilizing the postdoctoral population, it does reiterate the concerns of the Trends report with respect both to hiring more permanent laboratory workers and restraining the size of the postdoctoral population. Mechanisms should be adopted by individual institutions. For example, an institution might restrict the employment of postdocs whose stipends/salaries fall below a certain level. If adequate compensation is not provided by the funding organization, the institution would then appoint the postdoc only if supplementary funding is made available.

Some early predictions that postdoctoral associations would become adversarial or union-like organizations have not materialized. Leaders of the Johns Hopkins association, for example, describe their group as a vehicle for sharing information with one another and communicating their concerns to the administration. “There is no need for a union,” said one member, “when communication is open.”

Informing graduate students about the postdoctoral experience

Many, and perhaps most, postdocs begin their appointment without a clear idea of what to expect from the experience. The success of an appointment may depend heavily on early communication with the adviser about expectations and responsibilities. Therefore, institutions and mentors of graduate students have an important role to play in educating them about the postdoctoral experience before they decide to undertake this advanced training. Important questions to consider are the level of their own research skills, training needs, and career goals. For further discussion of career decision making, see COSEPUP’s “Careers” guide, cited in the bibliography.

Summary Points

In many institutions, the administration may have only an approximate picture of the postdoctoral population and no policy to standardize institutional status or benefits.

An important step is to establish postdoctoral policies on such matters as titles, expected terms, and institutional status. This status may strongly affect benefits and other financial issues.

Some institutions have established a postdoctoral office or officer to serve as an information resource for postdocs and to organize programs for postdoc orientation, professional development, and career services. Such an office can also encourage good mentoring, act as liaison between postdocs, advisers, and administrators, and track the postdoctoral population.

Many institutions offer financial and logistical support for postdoctoral associations, which constitute a vehicle for discussing issues of concern to postdocs, building a social network, and communicating with the administration.

Some institutions are experimenting with the use of “mentoring committees” to provide additional perspective and guidance to the postdoc.

Institutions can help resolve grievances by establishing mechanisms, including an ombudsperson, to work toward conflict resolution.

Each institution should ensure that foreign postdocs have a resource person or office to advise them on such issues as acculturation, visa compliance, income taxes, and language skills.

AAU, 1998. Cited above.

See web site saawww ​.ucsf.edu/psa/

For further details and examples, see the National Academies’ Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering , 1997, available via the web ( www ​.nap.edu/readingroom/books/mentor ).

As referenced earlier, the National Academies’ publication, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research , 1995, may be useful in such discussions.

Council on Graduate Deans, University of California, Report on Postdoctoral Education at UC , Fall 1998. See web site www ​.ogsr.ucsd.edu/PostdocEdu/Report.html .

Visa requests at Stanford’s School of Medicine originate in the sponsoring department and are then routed through the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs for approval and forwarded to the Bechtel International Center for processing. Bechtel, which is able to process J-1 requests in one week, also offers seminars for administrators on visa completion.

Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council, Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists , Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998. [ PubMed : 20845561 ]

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US), Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 5, The Postdoc and the Institution.
• PDF version of this title (1.8M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

• The Postdoc and the Institution - Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scie... The Postdoc and the Institution - Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Nsf mentoring plan template.

Each NSF proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers and/or graduate students must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals.

Filter by Policy Area

• Faculty Research Policies
• Effort Policies
• Research Compliance Policies
• Research Finances Policies
• Proposal Submission Policies

Filter by Policy Type

• FAS Policies
• University Policies

Scientists Are Very Worried About NASA’s Mars Plan

Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET on May 22, 2024

In the Martian lowlands, one rocky crater is dotted with small holes, winding from the floor to the rim like breadcrumbs. Their clean and cylindrical appearance is distinctly unnatural, suggesting the work of aliens—which it is. For three years, a robot from Earth has been collecting samples of rock and soil into six-inch-long tubes, whirring and crackling on the otherwise quiet planet. The robot, a rover named Perseverance, has deposited some of the samples on the Martian surface in sealed tubes. The others, about two dozen so far, remain stored inside the rover's belly.

Perseverance will stay on Mars forever, but the majority of its carefully packaged samples are meant to return to Earth. The Mars Sample Return mission, known as MSR for short, is one of the boldest undertakings in NASA history, as consequential as it is complicated. The endeavor, which involves sending an extra spacecraft to the red planet to retrieve the samples, serves as a precursor to getting future astronauts home from Mars. It’s a test of whether the United States can keep up with China’s space program, which is scheduled to return its own Mars samples in the 2030s. It could uncover new information about our planetary neighbor’s history, and reveal a picture of the cosmic wilderness that was the early solar system. Some scientists hope the dusty fragments will contain tiny fossilized microbes that would prove life once existed on Mars. Those tiny life forms will have been dead for who knows how long—but still would be evidence of a second genesis in our own backyard.  

If, that is, the samples ever make it back to Earth. NASA officials recently announced that the sample-return effort has become too expensive and fallen worryingly behind schedule. The latest estimated cost of as much as $11 billion is nearly double what experts initially predicted, and the way things are going, the samples won’t arrive home until 2040, seven years later than expected. At a press conference last month, NASA chief Bill Nelson repeatedly called the state of the Mars Sample Return mission “unacceptable,” a striking chastisement of his own agency, considering that MSR is an in-house effort. Officials have put out a call—to NASA’s own ranks and to private space companies—for “quicker and cheaper” plans that don’t require “huge technological leaps” to bring the samples home.

[ Read: Scientists really, really want a piece of Mars ]

NASA officials say that they remain committed to the return effort, but researchers—including the agency’s collaborators who work on the project—are concerned. “The path forward is not clear,” Aileen Yingst, a geologist at the Planetary Science Institute who works on the Perseverance mission, told me. Scientists who study Mars are worried that the mission will be downsized. Scientists who don’t study Mars—and a few who do—are frustrated, because MSR consumes so much of NASA’s budget. Scientists can’t imagine NASA giving up on the mission entirely, but the debacle has even prompted some whispered jokes about China coming along and claiming the tubes on the surface before NASA can fly them home. Last year, an independent review ordered by NASA ominously warned that “by abandoning return of Mars samples to other nations, the U.S. abandons the preeminent role that [President John F. Kennedy] ascribed to the scientific exploration of space.”

If and when the MSR tubes come home, their contents could dramatically shift our understanding of Mars. The first NASA spacecraft to land on Mars, in 1976, carried instruments designed to examine Martian soil for evidence of tiny, metabolizing life forms but didn’t find anything conclusive. Some bits of Martian rock, ejected by colliding asteroids, have made it to Earth as meteorites. (And scientists have tried to find proof of life in these, too). But such fragments arrive scorched by atmospheric reentry, their composition altered and contaminated from the journey. Pristine samples are far more tantalizing.

MSR would deliver Martian dirt straight from an area that scientists believe holds a promising chance at containing signs of life from 3.5 billion years ago. The Perseverance rover is exploring the shores of what scientists believe was once a lake, at a crater called Jezero, where the sedimentary rock may bear signs of a once-habitable world, or preserved life itself. The samples might also offer hints about Earth’s origin story. The rocks that existed here 4 billion years ago, when the solar system was just getting started, have since been crushed, melted, and eroded away. But Mars, a world lacking plate tectonics and serious weather, still bears rocks from the time of its very formation.

[ Read: The most overhyped planet in the galaxy ]

The promise of such samples has been a top research priority for planetary scientists for over a decade. The original plan to do so, devised by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is accordingly ambitious, involving several different spacecraft to retrieve the capsules, launch them into Martian orbit, and fly them back to Earth. No astronauts are involved, but Mars scientists have likened the mission choreography to the Apollo program in terms of complexity.

That plan was apparently destined to unravel from the start. NASA’s independent review found that MSR had “unrealistic budget and schedule expectations from the beginning" and was "organized under an unwieldy structure," with "unclear roles, accountability, and authority.” Technically ambitious missions always cost more, and MSR is arguably one of the most complicated that NASA has ever undertaken. But the scientists who help NASA set exploration priorities have no control over the budgets of the resulting programs—Congress does.

Last summer, some congressional appropriators briefly threatened the entire MSR effort with cancellation. This February, facing uncertainty over the money that Congress would allocate for MSR in the next fiscal year, the JPL laid off more than 500 employees. (Congress has since allocated a fraction of what NASA spent on the mission last year.) Thanks to budget concerns, NASA has delayed the launch of a telescope that would monitor potentially hazardous asteroids near Earth, and put on hold a proposed mission to study Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field.

Some scientists fear that MSR will draw resources away from other potential projects to search for life in places that they now believe to be far more promising than Mars. The search for alien life in the solar system has long been guided by water, and in the 1990s, when NASA kicked off a golden age of Mars missions, the red planet’s ice regions seemed appealing. But in the years since, other celestial bodies have become more compelling. A moon of Saturn, Titan, is the only body in the solar system besides Earth that has bodies of liquid on its surface, even if that liquid is methane. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, and Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, are both likely icy worlds with subsurface oceans; on the latter, cracks in the ice release plumes of salty water, hinting at something like deep-sea hydrothermal activity on Earth. NASA is launching an orbiting mission to Europa later this year, and the latest survey of planetary scientists advised NASA to start working on another to Enceladus. “If I could go anywhere, I would go to Enceladus,” Brook Nunn, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington, told me.

[ Read: Mars’s soundscape is strangely beautiful ]

Even some Mars scientists believe that Mars is no longer the top candidate. Darby Dyar, a planetary geologist at Mount Holyoke College, has spent decades studying Mars. “If anybody should be enthusiastic about the returned samples, it’s me, and I am,” she told me. But now she works on a NASA mission to Venus, a planet that might rival Mars as a candidate for extraterrestrial life, and she says she wouldn’t prioritize MSR over her current research.

For scientists who support Mars exploration, MSR is a problem, siphoning funds away from other efforts to study it. “There’s so many aspects to studying a planet that do not involve analyzing small amounts of rocks in the lab,” says Catherine Neish, a planetary scientist at Western University, in Canada, who’s working on an international mission to map the ice deposits in Mars’s mid-latitude regions. NASA pulled its financial support from that project in 2022, citing MSR’s cost as part of its motivation. And planetary scientists have recommended prioritizing a mission to drill deep into the ice at the Martian poles, far from Perseverance’s domain, where conditions could be just comfortable enough to support small life forms now.

NASA is well aware of the all-consuming nature of MSR. As the mission is redrawn, officials have said they are even willing to consider proposals that would bring home just 10 sample tubes, one-third of the amount initially planned. Lindsay Hays, a program scientist at NASA’s planetary-science division, told me that NASA will seek input from the science community about which sample tubes to return. “NASA has a responsibility to use taxpayer funds in the most effective and efficient way possible,” she said. “But it’s also part of our mandate to the nation to do things that have never been done before.”

[ Read: Too much of a good thing at NASA ]

Most planetary scientists aren’t happy with a potentially scaled-back approach either. “You’ve decimated the science, because now you’re not going to get the diversity that you could have if we brought back the full suite of samples,” Phil Christensen, a geologist at Arizona State University who co-chaired the community’s latest decadal survey, told me.

A badly delayed sample-return mission would fracture NASA’s grand vision for its Martian future. By the 2040s, NASA intends to be focused not on the red planet’s soil, but on sending astronauts there and, crucially, bringing them back. That operation relies on having successfully practiced launching off from Mars, which NASA hasn’t yet managed with MSR. Instead, the agency is back at the drawing board, hoping to find a way out of an $11 billion pit. Officials expect to finish reviewing new proposals and come to a decision on the mission’s future in the fall. Meanwhile, Perseverance chugs along, excavating the mythical oasis of Jezero Crater with each curated tube.

This article originally misstated which planet Enceladus orbits. It also misstated the target region of a Mars ice-mapping region.