NIH’s Survey on Recommendations on Re-envisioning U.S. Postdoctoral Research Training and Career Progression

In 2023, NIH, one of the largest funders of public research, suggested recommendations to improve the postdoc experience and is now actively seeking additional public feedback. These recommendations are informed by a 2023 Report written in response to over 3500 submissions by postdocs to an NIH RFI in 2023 and four subsequent listening sessions. In parallel, there has been a growing body of research on the indignity of postdoc appointments. Together, these reports detail pervasive problems including low pay, short and insecure contracts, widespread bullying and harassment, insufficient resources for international researchers, and more; and propose a variety of well-intentioned solutions that call on the NIH and other institutions to increase their investment in research and researchers.


The recommendations below are a subset of the NIH’s 2023 Report and represent a significant shift from existing policies on the postdoctoral experience. They will have impacts beyond NIH postdocs as policies by NIH are generally adopted by other funding bodies and institutions. It is important that all postdocs and early-career researchers have their voice heard by submitting a response to the NIH’s Request for Information. Below are the recommendations that the NIH are requesting feedback on as well as potential responses.

Recommendation 1.3 Part 1: Limit the total number of years a person can be supported by NIH funds in a postdoctoral position to no more than 5 years.

  • Describe any potential benefits, opportunities, challenges and/or consequences to the postdoctoral workforce or the extramural research community if NIH were to limit total years of NIH-supported funding support for postdoctoral scholars. 

  • Please describe any existing NIH or extramural institutional policies that could pose challenges for the implementation of a policy to limit aggregate NIH funding support for postdoctoral scholars.

  • Creating a 5-year postdoc funding limit must go hand-in-hand with supporting permanent research positions beyond the postdoc. Increased funding for academic jobs with good pay and benefits and clear career progression is something postdocs across the US have been advocating for years. If done well, this recommendation has the potential to expand the breadth of research career paths, improving research quality, continuity, innovation and education as well as improving retention, recruitment and advancement of researchers from backgrounds nationally underrepresented in academia. However, both NIH and institutional policies can impede the promotion of postdocs into these permanent scientist positions: many institutions force K99 awardees to extend their postdocs (denying promotion) on the basis that the K99 is a training grant. Other institutions, including the University of California system, allow postdoc promotions to project scientists upon winning large NIH grants like the R01 or K99. If NIH’s funding limit recommendations are not accompanied by a practice of promoting postdocs and investments in post-postdoc positions, they will lead to universities not renewing appointments after 5 years. This could exacerbate problems for postdoctoral scholars who need more time in their projects, security in their immigration status, and for overall progression of research projects and transfer of knowledge within labs.  

Recommendation 1.3 Part 2: Limit the total number of years a person can be supported by NIH funds in a postdoctoral position to no more than 5 years.

  • Please describe any key NIH or extramural institutional policies, processes or resources that should be developed, improved or expanded to address any potential challenges associated with limiting aggregate funding support for postdoctoral scholars.

  • What mechanisms should be put into place by extramural institutions to support transitions for postdoctoral scholars nearing the end of the five-year period? 

  • The NIH must invest resources to support permanent research positions beyond the postdoc and establish mechanisms to enforce that institutions abide by NIH guidelines. The NIH should envision stable research career paths for postdocs outside of the tenure-track academic pipeline and set standards for salary, benefits (e.g. healthcare, retirement, and childcare), and appointment security with clear career progression. Postdocs nearing their funding limit should receive clear guidance on promotion criteria for these permanent scientist positions. Receiving NIH funding should be contingent on institutions developing these resources and pipelines. Any postdoc term limit should also allow flexibility for postdocs that for different reasons, including immigration status, health condition, childbirth, or natural disaster, need to stay in their current position for more than 5 years. Most importantly, postdocs must have a voice in any institutional changes to appointment limits and promotion policies. The NIH must require employers to remain neutral when workers decide to form a union and to engage in collective bargaining without delay and in good faith as a condition of receiving federal funding. 

Recommendation 2.2 Part 1: Revise the K99/R00 mechanism to focus on ideas and creativity over productivity. 

  • Describe any potential short- and long-term benefits and/or challenges to the postdoctoral workforce that may result from limiting the K99/R00 eligibility timeframe to no more than 2 years of postdoctoral experience.

  • Shortening the K99/R00 eligibility timeframe is a poor solution to addressing issues in postdoc career progression that will harm vulnerable scientists. Refocusing the grant mechanism on ideas and creativity over productivity is worthwhile and must be implemented with specific changes to the application materials, evaluation criteria, and guidance to reviewers. Without these intentional changes, however, postdocs will continue to be evaluated for limited funding by their past productivity and the funding success of their mentors. These pressures, which already disadvantage postdocs from underrepresented backgrounds, would be magnified under a shortened eligibility window. For many postdocs, creativity and strong ideas are developed over time; productivity in the first two years is highly dependent on discipline, research model, and career factors including a change in field, caregiving breaks, or postdoctoral time spent in the PhD lab. Further, international postdocs would be greatly harmed by this change. A majority of postdocs in the US are international and the K99/R00 mechanism is one of the few grants international workers are eligible to apply for. Given the importance placed on the K99/R00 award for academic positions and future funding, limiting the eligibility for this career development program is likely to have significant, long-term negative impacts on the NIH’s stated mission for a strong, creative and diverse research workforce. 

Recommendation 2.2 Part 2: Revise the K99/R00 mechanism to focus on ideas and creativity over productivity. 

  • How should the K99/R00 mechanism and review criteria be revised to better emphasize creative ideas and innovation over research productivity?  What specific criteria or metrics should be used to evaluate creativity and potential impact of applicants’ research proposals?

  • Provide input on key NIH and extramural institutional policies, processes or resources that may need to be developed or revised to ensure that changes to K99/R00 program eligibility do not negatively impact access to these awards to a broader range of postdoctoral scholars.

  • An emphasis on ideas and creativity over productivity is worthwhile if it promotes the development of a diverse research workforce. However, it can easily backfire if productivity is simply substituted as a metric of creativity and innovation, perpetuating the publish-or-perish culture of academic science and worsening systemic inequities. In general, review criteria should de-emphasize the evaluation of research productivity. Creativity and innovation should be directly and indirectly assessed across the application materials. For example, in the Candidate section, review criteria should incentivize diversity in training conditions (i.e. learning a new discipline, research model, or method) and eliminate references to the candidate’s prior research productivity. Candidates should be encouraged to apply for the K99/R00 when their ideas are ready, regardless of their time post-PhD, number of publications, or amount of preliminary data. Their proposed work should be judged on creativity and innovation as well as its potential to open new lines of inquiry if successful; creative, higher-risk projects should not be discounted due to a lack of preliminary data. These changes may be piloted with a targeted “moonshot” K99/R00 mechanism to evaluate impacts on applicant and awardee diversity, if any. Overall, these changes would require substantial investment from the NIH to revise review criteria, mentor applicants in writing strong applications, train reviewers, and protect against conscious and unconscious reviewer bias that seeks to measure creativity and innovation by productivity.

Recommendation 4 Part 1: Promote training and professional development of postdoctoral scholars and their mentors.

  • Provide suggestions/strategies for how NIH and extramural institutions can ensure that career and professional development training becomes an integrated and measured component of the postdoctoral experience.  What policies and resources should institutions establish to ensure equitable access to career and professional development training for all postdoctoral scholars? How can institutions address barriers to participation, such as limited availability of training programs or conflicts with research obligations?

  • Professional development opportunities are essential to prepare postdocs for their next career steps and have been a key demand when unionized postdocs have negotiated collective bargaining agreements with their employers. Receiving NIH funds should be contingent on the institution’s commitment to following minimum standards of offering professional development opportunities. As one example, institutions should encourage postdocs to develop IDPs (individual development plans) with their mentors. IDPs provide a planning process that identifies the worker’s individual research goals and professional development and career objectives. IDPs should also include an outline on how the postdocs mentor/PI will provide resources and opportunities to assist with the postdocs research and career goals. As another example, institutions should provide protected time off for career development activities including teaching, service, or scientific meetings outside of the scope of the postdoc’s direct project. The NIH and extramural institutions must also invest in far greater funding mechanisms for conference and professional development opportunities, for example as supplements on R01s or other grants that commonly support postdocs. Most importantly, postdocs must have a voice in developing institutional initiatives towards professional development. The NIH must require employers to remain neutral when workers decide to form a union and to engage in collective bargaining without delay and in good faith as a condition of receiving federal funding.

Recommendation 4 Part 2: Promote training and professional development of postdoctoral scholars and their mentors.

  • What specific skills and competencies are essential for individuals serving in the mentor role for postdoctoral scholars? How should institutions require and support mentor training to ensure the effective mentorship of postdoctoral scholars? Describe any necessary resources required by investigators and institutions to support the implementation of required training opportunities for mentors

  • Are there opportunities for collaboration between institutions, funding agencies, and professional organizations to enhance career and professional development opportunities for postdoctoral scholars?  How can partnerships with industry, government agencies, and non-profit organizations contribute to the enrichment of postdoctoral training experiences?

  • No single mentor or mentorship training should be responsible for the training and professional development of a postdoc. Instead, institutions should embrace a more comprehensive model for supporting postdocs: postdocs should be encouraged to identify multiple mentors and cultivate a mentoring team; postdocs should be welcomed into departmental and institutional communities to foster social and scientific connections; and institutions should develop infrastructure and resources to support postdocs and their mentors throughout their tenure. These resources could include funding for mentoring activities, workshops on skills like conflict resolution and cultural competence, networking events to connect postdocs with mentors in academic and non-academic sectors, and enforcement of mentoring policies such as annual review of a postdoc’s Individual Development Plan. Institutions must also develop and enforce policies to evaluate mentoring effectiveness and remove abusive mentors from positions of power. Receiving NIH funds should be contingent on the institution’s commitment to following minimum standards of mentorship policies and practices, and funds should be blocked to institutions who retain faculty with a track record of abusive mentoring behavior. Most importantly, postdocs must have a voice in developing institutional policies on mentoring. The NIH must require employers to remain neutral when workers decide to form a union and to engage in collective bargaining without delay and in good faith as a condition of receiving federal funding.