postdoctoral research plan example

NSF Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan Sample Template

From NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), January 2018: Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must upload under “Mentoring Plan” in the supplementary documentation section of FastLane, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project.

View the  Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan sample template .

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Nsf postdoctoral mentoring plan template.

Each NSF proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers 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

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NSF 101: The postdoctoral mentoring plan

The postdoctoral mentoring plan has been an NSF requirement since 2007, recognizing the important role that mentorship plays in the postdoctoral experience and their future career paths. While you will find many templates online, NSF does not endorse a prescriptive format and encourages researchers to lead the way in creating unique strategies for supporting their mentees.

According to the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide: "Examples of mentoring activities include, but are not limited to, career counseling; training in preparation of grant proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplinary areas; and training in responsible professional practices."

At the heart of mentoring are personal relationships that are unique to every mentor and mentee. In that spirit, consider the questions below as you create a mentoring plan to build the foundation for a fruitful working relationship between you and your mentee.

Set and communicate your expectations

• What are your expectations for your mentee, and how will you communicate these expectations for the mentoring relationship?
• How will you clearly communicate your mentoring philosophy, working environment and culture, policies and other important considerations to a mentee working with you and your team?

Convey your responsibilities as a mentor

• What can a mentee expect from you throughout the mentoring relationship?
• Can they expect timely feedback on their work, regularly scheduled meetings, assistance in making connections/networking or notifications about relevant opportunities?

Tailor your plan

• Can you personalize your mentoring plan if/when a mentee has been chosen?
• How will your plan be responsive to your mentee's needs, interests and goals?
• How does the plan recognize that there are multiple pathways to success and ensure the plan is tailored to what success would look like for the mentee?

Promote a supportive work environment   

• What steps can you take to promote a work culture where mentees feel valued and supported and to foster a sense of belonging as an authentic member of the team?
• How will you create an environment where mentees feel comfortable taking calculated risks?
• How will mentees be empowered to learn from mistakes?
• How will conflict be managed and communicated, particularly among trainees with different personal and cultural identities?
• How will the contributions of all team members be recognized?
• How are the research teams' values and priorities decided upon and conveyed?

Strengthen a broader ecosystem of support

• How will you identify opportunities for your mentee that lie outside of your strengths as an individual mentor?
• Can you form mentoring teams that can advise on different disciplines, career or life paths, connect postdocs excluded due to their ethnicity or race with mentors that have similar identities, further develop your knowledge and skills as a mentor?

Assess progress

• How will progress towards goals and mentorship quality be evaluated? Individual development plans can provide one route to goal setting that work well in some environments, or you and your mentee may find another method that is better suited to your goals, values and working styles.
• How will you plan to co-create, revisit and revise your mentoring plan over time with your mentee?

Intentionality in designing a postdoctoral mentoring plan can provide a foundation for the success of postdoctoral researchers who are vital to the scientific enterprise. Mentoring is key in enabling postdocs to bring forth their innovative ideas and reach their full potential while overcoming numerous barriers, particularly for those who have been excluded due to their ethnicity or race. Mentees may also be facing additional common challenges, such as separation from support systems, immigration challenges, caregiver responsibilities or financial difficulties.

Mentoring is a powerful opportunity to broaden your impact on the scientific community. If you are interested in learning more about strategies to improve postdoctoral mentoring, you can find the latest NSF-funded research on the topic through the NSF award search !

About the Authors

Stephanie Gage AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

Stephanie Gage is an interdisciplinary neurobiologist working in science and technology policy. She earned a PhD in Neuroscience from the University of Arizona studying olfactory-guided behavior and applied this expertise at the USDA – ARS and at the Georgia Institute of Technology. As a AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Stephanie now works at the National Science Foundation in the Information and Intelligent Systems Division in the CISE directorate, and the Integrative  Organismal Systems Division in the BIO directorate.

Julia Gerson AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

After completing her Ph.D. in Neuroscience, Julia completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan. Afterward, she joined the National Science Foundation as an American Association for the Advancement of Science Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Advancing Informal STEM Learning Program within the Division for Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings in the Directorate for STEM Education.

Xoco Shinbrot AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

Xoco Shinbrot is a conservation social scientist by training, now working in national and international policy spaces. She earned a PhD in Ecology investigating how individuals and communities adapt to climate change, how to improve participation in public science, and the socio-economic impact of forest carbon offset programs. Following her post-doc at Cornell University, she now works in the Arctic Sciences Section in the Office of Polar Programs at the National Science Foundation as a Science and Technology Policy Fellow.

Related Stories

NSF 101: The NSF brand identity

Exploring the science of the sun during the eclipse

Invention to Impact: The story of LASIK eye surgery

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

Instant Communication: How SMS is Revolutionizing Business Engagement

July 27, 2023

9 Personality Traits of Truly Confident People: How Many Do...

August 15, 2023

The Influence of Social Media on Human Resources

September 20, 2023

Featured Jobs

Editors' picks, recent posts.

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

How to Choose a Healthcare Staffing Company: Caliber Health &...

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.

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

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 .

Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan

Proposals requesting support for a postdoc must include, in no more than one page as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Examples of mentoring activities include career counseling, training in preparation of grant proposals, publications and presentations, guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring skills, how to collaborate effectively with other researchers, and training in responsible professional practices. Proposals that do not include the requisite mentoring plan will not be accepted for submission in NSF's proposal submission system.

Proposal plans should include information about NYU programs established in support of the University’s postdoc community. To supplement the important personal mentoring by the training supervisor in research skill development and knowledge of the proposer's discipline, NYU has an Office of Postdoctoral Affairs to provide career development in other areas, such as professionalism, communication, leadership and management. Postdoctoral Fellows who are funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are also required to participate in Responsible Conduct of Research training in topics including: research misconduct, conflict of interest, collaboration in science, publication practices and responsible authorship, ownership, acquisition, storage and sharing of research data and mentor/trainee responsibilities. In addition, Postdoctoral Fellows are eligible for NYU sponsored membership in the New York Academy of Sciences and the Science Alliance , a consortium of universities and research institutions committed to advancing the next generation in science and technology.

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

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Request for Information on Researcher and Educator Use Cases for the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR)

Deadline extended to March 31, 2024.

January 24, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) resources and tools are rapidly advancing and becoming vital to science and engineering research and education. Progress at the AI research frontiers and effective use of AI in other research domains and in education often requires access to research infrastructure resources that may be difficult to find, access, and utilize, such as large-scale computing resources, AI-ready datasets, pre-trained models, and software tools. This accessibility challenge poses risks to the health of the U.S. AI research ecosystem and our nation's ability to responsibly harness AI to drive innovation and discovery.

As directed by the National AI Initiative Act of 2020, NSF and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) led a Task Force that established a high-level implementation plan for a National AI Research Resource (NAIRR). The NAIRR is envisioned as a shared national research infrastructure to connect U.S. researchers and educators to computational, data, models, software, and training resources needed to advance both AI research and research employing AI. The primary motivation is to ensure that AI resources and tools are equitably accessible to the broad research and education communities in a manner that advances trustworthy AI and protects privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

As a first step toward realizing this vision, and as directed in President Biden's Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI, NSF and other federal agencies are now collaborating on a pilot implementation of the NAIRR over the next two years. The NAIRR pilot will bring together government-supported and non-governmental-contributed resources to demonstrate the NAIRR concept and to deliver early capabilities to the U.S. research and education community.

The NAIRR pilot is anticipated to facilitate researcher access to the large-scale computing resources, data infrastructure, AI-ready datasets, pre-trained models, software and tools, and related skill training resources required to advance AI research and to use AI in scientific research and education.

Objective of this Request for Information (RFI). This Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) encourages response from the broad U.S. science and engineering research and education community to an RFI that is being conducted on behalf of the NAIRR Pilot federal interagency working group. The goal is to gather current and anticipated research and education use cases for the NAIRR Pilot and to also identify current and anticipated challenges and barriers that researchers and educators may face in accessing and using AI resources and tools for their activities. This DCL and the RFI do not invite research proposals.

Use of the information gathered. The information gathered in this request will be used by federal agencies participating in the NAIRR pilot to better target and shape the design of the NAIRR pilot, its complement of resources, and future activities related to AI infrastructure for research. Participating agencies reserve the right to publicly post aggregate analyses on a government website; personally identifiable information from the individual responses will not be disclosed. It is recommended not to include proprietary or other sensitive information in the response. The primary submitter may be contacted for more information or clarification.

How to respond to this RFI. Individuals and groups of individuals in all research and education domains are invited to submit responses using the online submission form .

The online submission form requests the following information:

• Primary information about the submitting author(s): Primary submitter's name, affiliation, and valid contact email address (to be used only by the agencies for potential follow-up contact to the submitters); any additional submitting authors and affiliations; the research/R&D or education discipline(s) being represented or of relevance to this response; and your roles(s) in the research and/or educational activities to be described in this response.
• Research and education use cases for the NAIRR: The research and/or educational activities that you are pursuing or anticipate pursuing that require/would require the use of AI infrastructure resources and tools that the NAIRR may provision (such as computing, AI-ready datasets, pretrained models, software and tools, skill training resources, and other resources); indicate how you currently use or anticipate using AI resources in the research and/or education activities you described above (for instance, in performing research to advance or understand AI methods, using AI to advance your disciplinary research, or using AI in your classroom).
• Barriers and challenges to accessing and using AI resources and tools: Please describe the challenges and barriers that you have encountered or anticipate encountering in employing AI resources to perform the current or anticipated activities you identified in Question 2. (For instance, access to data and materials, computing and other technical resources, need for training or skills development, etc.).
• Priorities for accessing and using AI resources: The NAIRR intends to provide access to the following categories of AI-related resources [a list is presented that can be ordered]. Please rank these categories in order of importance and urgency for your research or education activities. In the accompanying textbox for each category, optionally enter examples of what you currently use or anticipate needing. Please comment here on your selections and on the extent to which you need training and user support to use AI tools and/or resources, including access to experts.
• Other comments: Please comment on anything else you would like to tell us regarding AI and NAIRR.

Submission deadline. Please complete all required questions on or before 5:00 PM Eastern time on March 31, 2024.

For questions concerning this RFI or the NAIRR, please contact [email protected] .

Dilma Da Silva Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering

Katie Antypas Office Director CISE/Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure

Susan Marqusee Assistant Director Directorate for Biological Sciences

Susan S. Margulies Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering

Alexandra R. Isern Assistant Director Directorate for Geosciences

C. Denise Caldwell Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences

Sylvia M. Butterfield Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences

James L. Moore III Assistant Director Directorate for STEM Education

Erwin Gianchandani Assistant Director Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Alicia J. Knoedler Office Head Office of Integrative Activities

Kendra Sharp Office Head Office of International Science and Engineering

• GradPost Blog

Don't miss our Spring 2024 Funding Forecast

Spring Quarter usually marks the end of the academic year, but finding funding is a continuous process! Check out this sample of upcoming deadlines of funding opportunities for postdoctoral, doctoral, graduate, research, and other short-term awards or travel grants. Various deadlines listed. Consult websites for current details and application information.

Spring quarter usually marks the end of the academic year, but finding funding is a continuous process! So, if you are looking for financial support for the coming year or next, remember to routinely look at funding postings so you get an idea of what topics or issues are getting funded. Spring and summer are also great times to prepare your fellowship application materials - personal statement, research statement, and academic CV.

Below is a sample list of upcoming deadlines. Regularly inform your faculty adviser about your current research ideas and progress as this is very important when requesting letters of recommendation. Also, be sure to check the program websites regularly for the most updated information on important dates and submission details. Good luck!

NOTE: Please report any broken links to Funding Peer Liliana Garcia

Jump to information about: Postdoctoral Fellowships Dissertation Support Graduate and Doctoral Support Research Support Other (Travel, Short-Term, Award, Summer, etc.)  

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS

Mar 15  The Hindle Postdoctoral Fellowship (history of technology)

Apr 1 German Historical Institute Doctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowships

Apr 1 SHOT- NASA Postdoctoral Fellowship (history of space technology)

Apr 1 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Aerospace History

Apr 1 American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowships

Jul 15 David B. Larson Postdoctoral Fellowship in Health and Spirituality

Sep 15 Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellowships in Israel for U.S. Citizens 2020/2021

Sep TBD American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowships

Oct 1 National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) International Program INVEST Drug Abuse Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Oct 15 American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowships

Oct 18 NSF Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships

On-going Incorporating Benefits & Costs of Environmental Regulation in Computable General Equilibrium Models Research with the US Environmental Protection Agency

Various deadlines Funding Opportunities for Postdoctoral Scholars - list via Harvard website

Various deadlines Postdoctoral opportunities in medical research - via Stanford website

Various deadlines Minority Postdoctoral Opportunities List

Various deadlines Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Fellowships

Various deadlines Special Programs for Postdoctoral Fellows - via National Science Foundation

Various deadlines Post-doctoral Opportunities List - from the National Institute of Health

Various deadlines - Postdoctoral Positions at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory  

DISSERTATION SUPPORT

Feb 25  Melvin Kranzberg Dissertation Fellowship (history of technology)

April 1 Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations Marilyn Blatt Young Dissertation Completion Fellowship

Apr 1 Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) Dissertation Research Grants

May 1 North American Conference on British Studies Dissertation Research Fellowship

May 1 Grants for Health Services Dissertation Program (R36)

Jul 17 Linguistics Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement - grant application must be submitted with your advisor and through Office of Research

Jul 20 Biological Anthropology Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement - grant application must be submitted with your advisor and through Office of Research

Aug 1 Grants for Health Services Dissertation Program (R36)

Aug 15 Cultural Anthropology Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement - grant application must be submitted with your advisor and through Office of Research

On-going Research Opportunities at the US Forest Service Research and Development (R&D)

On-going Archaeology Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Awards (Arch-DDRI) - grant application must be submitted with your advisor and through Office of Research

On-going Documenting Endangered Languages Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants - grant application must be submitted with your advisor and through Office of Research

On-going Geography and Spatial Sciences Program Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (GSS-DDRI) , National Science Foundation (NSF)

Various Deadlines Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Opportunities  

GRADUATE & DOCTORAL SUPPORT

Apr 1 Batten, First Union, and Peter Nicolaisen International Fellowships

Apr 1 SHOT- NASA Predoctoral Fellowship (history of space technology)

Apr 10  National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Fellowships

Apr 15 Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society Graduate Fellowship (National Deadline; local chapter deadline is usually 2 weeks earlier)

Apr 15 BHW Group Women in STEM Scholarship

Apr 30 Government of the Slovak Republic approved the establishment of the National Scholarship Programme

May 8  Google India PhD Fellowships

May 8  Google China/Hong Kong/Japan/South Korea Phd Fellowship Program

May 11 American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation) New Century Scholars Doctoral Scholarship

Jun 15  American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Fellowship for Minority Doctoral Students

Sep 7 American Heart Association Predoctoral Fellowships

TBD American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation) Graduate Student Scholarship

TBD PEO International Peace Scholarship (IPS) - also open to international students studying in the US

Various Deadlines Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations Fellowships and Grants  

On-going Gerda Henkel Foundation Ph.D. Scholarships in the Historical Humanities   

RESEARCH SUPPORT

Apr 1 Research Fellowships in Aerospace History

Apr 1 Harry S. Truman Library Institute Research Grants Program Apr 10  National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships Apr 12 Horton Hydrology Research Grant from American Geophysical Union

Apr 13 Project Management Institute's Research Grant Program for the study of project, program or portfolio management

Apr 15 Emerging Crises Oral History Research Fund

Apr 19 American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation Student Research Grant in Early Childhood Language Development

Apr 19 American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation Student Research Grant in Audiology

Apr 24  Japan-US Friendship Commission and the National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships for Advanced Social Science Research on Japan

Apr 30 International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) - Graduate Fellowship Program

Apr TBD Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program

May 1 NRC Research Associateship Programs (RAP)

May 1  US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) Graduate Student Research Program

May 2 National Institute of Justice Graduate Fellowships in STEM

May 15 Deutsches Akademisches Austaauschdienst (DAAD) Short-Term Research Grants (for research in Germany)

Jul 15 The Leakey Foundation Grants for Research Related to Human Origins

Aug 1 NRC Research Associateship Programs (RAP)

Sep 15 Fulbright Canada-American Scholars Awards

Sep 15 Kluge Fellowships (humanities and social science research)

Oct 15  Harry S. Truman Library Institute Research Grants Program

TBD UCHRI Grants and Fellowships

TBD Graduate Fellowship for Research in Japan

TBD Merck KGaA Research Grant Competition

Various Opportunities New York Public Library Research Fellowships

Various Deadlines Smithsonian Institute Fellowships

Various Deadlines Metropolitan Museum of Art Research Fellowships

Various Deadlines Center for Disease Control (CDC) Fellowships

On-going Dirksen Congressional Research Grant

On-going The Spalding Trust Grants for the Comparative Study of Religions

On-going Statistics Fellowship with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

On-going OCS ORISE Fellowship with the Food and Drug Administration

On-going Digital/New Media Fellowships with Dept of Health and Human Services

On-going Dept of Energy Opportunity in Fuel Cell Research

On-going National Institute of Health Individual Graduate Partnerships Program

On-going Title VIII Research Scholar Program American Councils - in-country, independent research for three consecutive months to nine consecutive months in Russia, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe  

OTHER (Travel, Short-Term, Award, Summer etc.)

Mar 31 Sara Finney-Johnson Scholarship - Delta Sigma Theta Sorority

Apr 1 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery

Apr 7 Short-Term Carter Center Graduate Assistantships in Atlanta

Apr 8 Charles Koch Institute Summer Internship

Apr 10  National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships

Apr 28 Mary Murphy Graduate Scholarship - Delta Sigma Theta Sorority

Apr TBD Interfaces Graduate Training Program at UCSD - in biological, engineering, physical and health sciences

Apr TBD Lupus Foundation of America Summer Fellowships

May 1  Academy Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting (no citizenship requirements)

May 1 James P. Danky Fellowship in Print and Digital Culture

May 15 Catherine Prelinger Award (women's history)

May 31 PSA/Journal of Postcolonial Writing Postgraduate Essay Competition

Jun 5  SACNAS Travel Fellowships

Jun 26  LGBT Studies One-Month Research Fellowship at Yale University

July TBA  National Air and Space Administration (NASA) Internships *NOTE: Select opportunities are also open to citizens from countries participating in the NASA International Internship Program.

Sep 1 Samuel H. Kress Foundation Conservation Grants Programs

Sep 1 Samuel H. Kress Foundation Art History Digital Art History Grant Programs

Fall TBD Presidential Management Fellows Program US Office of Personnel Management

Rolling Deadline - Veteran Research Supplement with the Center for Integrated Access Networks

• See us on facebook
• See us on twitter
• See us on youtube
• See us on linkedin
• See us on instagram

Two key brain systems are central to psychosis, Stanford Medicine-led study finds

When the brain has trouble filtering incoming information and predicting what’s likely to happen, psychosis can result, Stanford Medicine-led research shows.

April 11, 2024 - By Erin Digitale

People with psychosis have trouble filtering relevant information (mesh funnel) and predicting rewarding events (broken crystal ball), creating a complex inner world. Emily Moskal

Inside the brains of people with psychosis, two key systems are malfunctioning: a “filter” that directs attention toward important external events and internal thoughts, and a “predictor” composed of pathways that anticipate rewards.

Dysfunction of these systems makes it difficult to know what’s real, manifesting as hallucinations and delusions. 

The findings come from a Stanford Medicine-led study , published April 11 in  Molecular Psychiatry , that used brain scan data from children, teens and young adults with psychosis. The results confirm an existing theory of how breaks with reality occur.

“This work provides a good model for understanding the development and progression of schizophrenia, which is a challenging problem,” said lead author  Kaustubh Supekar , PhD, clinical associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The findings, observed in individuals with a rare genetic disease called 22q11.2 deletion syndrome who experience psychosis as well as in those with psychosis of unknown origin, advance scientists’ understanding of the underlying brain mechanisms and theoretical frameworks related to psychosis.

During psychosis, patients experience hallucinations, such as hearing voices, and hold delusional beliefs, such as thinking that people who are not real exist. Psychosis can occur on its own and isa hallmark of certain serious mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is also characterized by social withdrawal, disorganized thinking and speech, and a reduction in energy and motivation.

It is challenging to study how schizophrenia begins in the brain. The condition usually emerges in teens or young adults, most of whom soon begin taking antipsychotic medications to ease their symptoms. When researchers analyze brain scans from people with established schizophrenia, they cannot distinguish the effects of the disease from the effects of the medications. They also do not know how schizophrenia changes the brain as the disease progresses. 

To get an early view of the disease process, the Stanford Medicine team studied young people aged 6 to 39 with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, a genetic condition with a 30% risk for psychosis, schizophrenia or both. 

Kaustubh Supekar

Brain function in 22q11.2 patients who have psychosis is similar to that in people with psychosis of unknown origin, they found. And these brain patterns matched what the researchers had previously theorized was generating psychosis symptoms.

“The brain patterns we identified support our theoretical models of how cognitive control systems malfunction in psychosis,” said senior study author  Vinod Menon , PhD, the Rachael L. and Walter F. Nichols, MD, Professor; a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences; and director of the  Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory .

Thoughts that are not linked to reality can capture the brain’s cognitive control networks, he said. “This process derails the normal functioning of cognitive control, allowing intrusive thoughts to dominate, culminating in symptoms we recognize as psychosis.”

Cerebral sorting  

Normally, the brain’s cognitive filtering system — aka the salience network — works behind the scenes to selectively direct our attention to important internal thoughts and external events. With its help, we can dismiss irrational thoughts and unimportant events and focus on what’s real and meaningful to us, such as paying attention to traffic so we avoid a collision.

The ventral striatum, a small brain region, and associated brain pathways driven by dopamine, play an important role in predicting what will be rewarding or important. 

For the study, the researchers assembled as much functional MRI brain-scan data as possible from young people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, totaling 101 individuals scanned at three different universities. (The study also included brain scans from several comparison groups without 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: 120 people with early idiopathic psychosis, 101 people with autism, 123 with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and 411 healthy controls.) 

The genetic condition, characterized by deletion of part of the 22nd chromosome, affects 1 in every 2,000 to 4,000 people. In addition to the 30% risk of schizophrenia or psychosis, people with the syndrome can also have autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is why these conditions were included in the comparison groups.

The researchers used a type of machine learning algorithm called a spatiotemporal deep neural network to characterize patterns of brain function in all patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome compared with healthy subjects. With a cohort of patients whose brains were scanned at the University of California, Los Angeles, they developed an algorithmic model that distinguished brain scans from people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome versus those without it. The model predicted the syndrome with greater than 94% accuracy. They validated the model in additional groups of people with or without the genetic syndrome who had received brain scans at UC Davis and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, showing that in these independent groups, the model sorted brain scans with 84% to 90% accuracy.

The researchers then used the model to investigate which brain features play the biggest role in psychosis. Prior studies of psychosis had not given consistent results, likely because their sample sizes were too small. 

Vinod Menon

Comparing brain scans from 22q11.2 deletion syndrome patients who had and did not have psychosis, the researchers showed that the brain areas contributing most to psychosis are the anterior insula (a key part of the salience network or “filter”) and the ventral striatum (the “reward predictor”); this was true for different cohorts of patients.

In comparing the brain features of people with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and psychosis against people with psychosis of unknown origin, the model found significant overlap, indicating that these brain features are characteristic of psychosis in general.

A second mathematical model, trained to distinguish all subjects with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and psychosis from those who have the genetic syndrome but without psychosis, selected brain scans from people with idiopathic psychosis with 77.5% accuracy, again supporting the idea that the brain’s filtering and predicting centers are key to psychosis.

Furthermore, this model was specific to psychosis: It could not classify people with idiopathic autism or ADHD.

“It was quite exciting to trace our steps back to our initial question — ‘What are the dysfunctional brain systems in schizophrenia?’ — and to discover similar patterns in this context,” Menon said. “At the neural level, the characteristics differentiating individuals with psychosis in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome are mirroring the pathways we’ve pinpointed in schizophrenia. This parallel reinforces our understanding of psychosis as a condition with identifiable and consistent brain signatures.” However, these brain signatures were not seen in people with the genetic syndrome but no psychosis, holding clues to future directions for research, he added.

Applications for treatment or prevention

In addition to supporting the scientists’ theory about how psychosis occurs, the findings have implications for understanding the condition — and possibly preventing it.

“One of my goals is to prevent or delay development of schizophrenia,” Supekar said. The fact that the new findings are consistent with the team’s prior research on which brain centers contribute most to schizophrenia in adults suggests there may be a way to prevent it, he said. “In schizophrenia, by the time of diagnosis, a lot of damage has already occurred in the brain, and it can be very difficult to change the course of the disease.”

“What we saw is that, early on, functional interactions among brain regions within the same brain systems are abnormal,” he added. “The abnormalities do not start when you are in your 20s; they are evident even when you are 7 or 8.”

Our discoveries underscore the importance of approaching people with psychosis with compassion.

The researchers plan to use existing treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation or focused ultrasound, targeted at these brain centers in young people at risk of psychosis, such as those with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome or with two parents who have schizophrenia, to see if they prevent or delay the onset of the condition or lessen symptoms once they appear. 

The results also suggest that using functional MRI to monitor brain activity at the key centers could help scientists investigate how existing antipsychotic medications are working. 

Although it’s still puzzling why someone becomes untethered from reality — given how risky it seems for one’s well-being — the “how” is now understandable, Supekar said. “From a mechanistic point of view, it makes sense,” he said.

“Our discoveries underscore the importance of approaching people with psychosis with compassion,” Menon said, adding that his team hopes their work not only advances scientific understanding but also inspires a cultural shift toward empathy and support for those experiencing psychosis. 

“I recently had the privilege of engaging with individuals from our department’s early psychosis treatment group,” he said. “Their message was a clear and powerful: ‘We share more similarities than differences. Like anyone, we experience our own highs and lows.’ Their words were a heartfelt appeal for greater empathy and understanding toward those living with this condition. It was a call to view psychosis through a lens of empathy and solidarity.”

Researchers contributed to the study from UCLA, Clinica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, the University of Oxford and UC Davis.

The study was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute’s Uytengsu-Hamilton 22q11 Neuropsychiatry Research Program, FONDEYCT (the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development of the government of Chile), ANID-Chile (the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (grants AG072114, MH121069, MH085953 and MH101779).

About Stanford Medicine

Stanford Medicine is an integrated academic health system comprising the Stanford School of Medicine and adult and pediatric health care delivery systems. Together, they harness the full potential of biomedicine through collaborative research, education and clinical care for patients. For more information, please visit med.stanford.edu .

Artificial intelligence

Exploring ways AI is applied to health care