So, you want to be a Program Evaluator when you grow up…

Posted July 22nd 2010 at 5:54 am by Beth

Since Dave has started us off on the “So you want to be a blank when you grow up” series, I’m going to take the lowest of the low hanging fruit and tell you all about what I’ve learned since becoming a program evaluator!  But first I’d like to mention two things:

  • If there is a type of career you are particularly interested in, let us know and we’ll see what we can dig up.
  • If you are a PhD who hasn’t followed the tenure track and would like to share your experiences with our readers in this series, please let us know. We’d love more guest posters!

— Now, onto the exciting world of program evaluation! So, you want to be a Program Evaluator when you grow up… Evaluation is a great career for a PhD, because it allows you to use the skills you developed in your training – research skills, problem solving, critical thinking, project management, and more. Though I’d not heard of evaluation as a field per se during my education, it actually is quite established as a profession.  If you want to get a good sense of what evaluation is all about, I’d suggest checking out:

Each of these societies’ websites have a wealth of information about evaluation, including things like evaluation standards of practice, literature, conferences and workshops, and, importantly, job postings and requests for applications for contracts.  Which brings us to the question:

In-House Evaluator or Independent Consultant?

There are pros and cons to both, of course.  Working in house (like I do) offers things that are appealing both personally (like a stable income and benefits) and professionally (like the ability to have a thorough understanding of the programs you evaluate, the opportunity to work with programs over the long-term and see them flourish, and a chance to build evaluation capacity in your sector1.  Working as an independent consultant offers benefits like flexibility of when and where and on what you work and the chance to make a lot more money than you will in-house.  Apparently there is a tendency for evaluators to flip between in house and independent throughout their careers (as one colleague described it to me, you get sick of the bureaucracy of working in-house, so you go out on your own for about 5 years, then you get lonely from working on your own for so long, so join an organization. And repeat).  You can, of course, combine the two – for example, having an in-house job and do small evaluation projects on contract on the side).  And working for an evaluation firm – where you have some security, benefits, etc., but some of the flexibility of working on your own – is a possibility as well.

Training in Program Evaluation

There are a number of training opportunities to learn more about program evaluation and to build particular skills.  The above-named societies offer a variety of training workshops, as does the Evaluators’ Institute. As well, if you are interested in doing more schooling, you can get graduate-level training in program evaluation at:

As well, the CES has recently launched a credentialing program, and though it’s still early days, I think it will be well worth working towards obtaining that credential, especially if you plan to work as an independent consultant. And a few resources worth checking out: In addition to the wealth of resources on the CES, AEA, EES websites, here are a few things that I would recommend reading:

Final words: Like Dave said about science writing, it’s worth starting to build your portfolio of evaluation projects early. You can certainly use aspects of your graduate research as a demonstration of your skills, but picking up some small evaluation projects while you are in school – perhaps even working under a more established evaluator as a mentor – would be good way to start off your portfolio.

  1. if such a thing appeals to you, like it does for me. [↩]
  2. Patton has also recently published a book called Developmental Evaluation – I haven’t read it yet, but it’s probably worth checking out [↩]

No Comments

Beth, July 22nd 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jobs

So, you want to be a Science Writer when you grow up…

Posted July 15th 2010 at 4:06 pm by Dave

QUICK HIT:

Exciting news from the fight for global access to medicines and health technology development – a new organization called Mind the Health Gap is working to bring researchers, developers, and advocates together to tackle the problems of technology development, effective delivery, and funding.  No small goal for sure, but an exciting workshop is taking place this September and more information on the group can be found here.

—

In chatting with Beth over the last few months about future topics for the Black Hole site, we identified a need to push out some information that might begin to alleviate some of the stresses on the science trainee environment in Canada.  The low hanging fruit in this category seems to be one that affects most current and prospective PhD holders and is underscored in past entries here and here.

We thought we could help fill the career guidance gap left by many trainee programs by launching a series of entries entitled “So you want to be a blank when you grow up”, the first of which is below…

So, you want to be a Science Writer when you grow up…

Throughout the course of my own training, I have encountered a number of fellow trainees that have a passion for science writing and they live amongst a sea of those that do not.  For those considering a career shift toward this passion, I think the first critical step is to figure out what kind of science writing you are interested in…  loosely I’ve broken it up into three categories:

Popular
Feeding the brains of the public

Technical
Accurately explaining scientific protocols and/or information

Editorial
Consolidating or shifting a scientific field, making policy, designing programs, lobbying for change

I would guess that all forms of writing are not equally appealing to everyone, but also that the wonderful heterogeneity in our population produces people that have a passion for all three types.  Trying your hand at these styles of writing should not wait until you’re two months before graduation and in panic mode about “what do I do next?” and it really is up to you to figure out what type of career you might want to pursue.  Some advice on how to test out these different styles while still in your degree program is below:

Popular:

Technical:

  • Write up a protocol for a book chapter (i.e.: current protocols)
  • Write up protocols for internal lab databases and get feedback from lab members
  • Read and improve Wikipedia entries around techniques or machines that you utilise every day

Editorial:

  • Write a review on a topic in your field (this doubles as a great start on your thesis introduction)
  • Write a letter to the editor or freelance article on a science based issue of public concern
  • Start a journal club in your institute to identify key experiments that are missing from research papers and how the papers do or do not move the field forward (i.e.: start thinking like a journal editor)

Once you have figured out the type of writing you like, it’s time to consider the types of jobs that are out there for such styles of writing.  I’ve listed a few examples below, but they are here as a guide so you can get a sense of the type of thing to look for:

Popular

  1. Science Journalism (Newspapers, Magazines, Television, Radio, etc)
    1. Print based, online, or backroom script writing/research for radio/tv
    2. Extra training (i.e.: journalism programs) might be considered and a great resource is J-Source.ca which appears to have a pretty comprehensive list of options
  2. Non-Profits/Charities/Societies
    1. Making science exciting for particular groups (kids, patient groups, etc)
    2. Examples: Let’s Talk Science and Hospital for Sick Children

Technical

  1. Industry brochures, manuals, etc (Job Example 1, 2, and 3)

Editorial

  1. Science Journal Editor – remember that all editors are not specifically for reading/reviewing research articles.  Examples include here, here, and here.
  2. Policy Analyst for organizations like the Suzuki Foundation or Fraser Institute
  3. Report writing for organizations like the Council of Canadian Academies or Health Canada

—

If you’re really serious about science writing, I would suggest a look at the following resources as well:

The Canadian Science Writers’ Association
Get in while you’re still a student – $35/yr vs. $75!

    The Science Media Centre of Canada
    Keep apprised of the latest with what promises to be a critical tool for science journalists in Canada

      Association of British Science Writers
      A little more transparent than the CSWA with its job listings and quite a lot of great ideas and information

        Final Words

        The last piece of advice that I can think of is for you to start as soon as possible with building a portfolio.  Nobody will ever hire you on the basis of “everyone has always said I can write well” or “I had the best grades in my English class”.  Many of these portfolio items need not be completely unrelated to your field (e.g.: book chapters, reviews, press releases, protocols, etc) so be creative with how you get your writing experience.  Also, many universities have very active and engaging extra-curricular programs that might be worth exploring so don’t be afraid to start writing articles for these groups or to develop your writing skills at professional development workshops.

        And last but certainly not least – I’m not a proper science writer and don’t have the wealth of experience that many proper science writers do, so don’t be afraid to ask questions to such people or even request information interviews if you’re very interested in what they do.  If any such writers are reading this, please offer up more suggestions as well in the comment box below!

        2 Comments

        Dave, July 15th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        Why does anyone think science is a good job?

        Posted May 24th 2010 at 7:08 pm by Beth

        “A science researcher at Harvard now earns an annual salary that is only 1/50th the price of a family-sized house in Cambridge, a fact that may not be lost on an intelligent female Harvard undergraduate choosing a career.” (Source)

        The announcement of the new Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) – 19 scientists granted $10 million over 7 years to establish research program in Canada – has raised some eyebrows for its notable lack of women among the recipients.  We’ve talked a bit about this issue here before, notably about the mat leave issue and the disadvantage one faces in a career in academics should they choose to take time off to have kids.  But while reading some of the articles and blog postings about the CERCs, I came across this interesting article, which poses the question: “Why does anyone think science is a good job?”

        From the article:

        The average trajectory for a successful scientist is the following:

        1. age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
        2. age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
        3. age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
        4. age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
        5. age 44: with (if lucky) young children at home, fired by the university (“denied tenure” is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s

        Not to mention that academics who make the above salaries aren’t just putting in a 40-hour work week with four weeks paid vacation and stat holidays that aren’t spent working on the next grant application, as they would be in another, higher paying, career. Put like that, it’s not hard to see why I – and many people like me – have gotten off the academic career track, regardless of whether or not we have/plan to have kids.  In fact, when I see the fierce competition that recent PhD grads and post-docs face trying to land a tenure-track position, it makes me wonder why so many people are willing to fight so hard for what, in many ways, is a thankless job1.

        Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that no one should ever become an academic researcher.  In fact, I think that academic research is essential – we can’t leave science solely in the hands of industry, for example.  But I think we need to give some serious thought to the compensation and work-life of our academic scientists. So while we talk about the ways to advocate for appropriate compensation and benefits for postdocs to help keep good scientists in the game – a very important issue, to be sure – we also have to be thinking about what comes after that for those postdocs who are lucky enough (or is that “unlucky” enough?) to land a tenure-track gig.

        1. Maybe in the comments section those of you who have chosen to stay on the academic career path can shed some light onto why you think being an academic scientist is a good job? [↩]

        1 Comment

        Beth, May 24th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, Jobs

        Two heads are better than one: Making a case for jointly run labs

        Posted May 23rd 2010 at 10:05 pm by Dave

        While I was completing my doctorate, I was in a “big” lab. At its peak, the lab reached about 25 people (~8 each of graduate students and post doctoral fellows plus technicians and research students). Competing for time and attention with the boss was a definite reality – and my particular supervisor was not exactly working a 40 hour week either… the double all nighter before a conference trip was not an uncommon sight with trainee meetings often running well into the late evening and weekends. Clearly this model can work as numerous professors have been spun out from this lab and others just like it, but it takes a pretty special person to be able to train and direct the research of nearly 20 junior scientists. Additionally, it does not exactly work toward reducing the major stresses caused by the changing human resources of science.

        This blog entry is a pitch for the large scale adoption of an idea that could be used to put a major dent in the number of professor hopefuls that are currently drowning in a sea of competition that has more sharks added daily. The amount of physical lab infrastructure that has been added over the last 20 years (especially through the efforts of the Canada Foundation for Innovation and charities too numerous to name) has been exceptional in Canada – just look at the MaRS Discovery District in Toronto as a shining example. With this relative abundance of space compared to the 1990s, many more groups are growing to big lab status having major implications on the training and research workload thrust on a single lab head. What we have yet to embrace is a shift from the “top-down, one person runs this show” mentality and this blog entry details the benefits that might be gained from having jointly run laboratories.

        Hybrid Vigor: The tag team effect
        We all know professors who do some things brilliantly, and make a miserable mess of others. Some are excellent experimentalists but just can’t seem to nail that massive grant while others thrive on big picture blue sky thinking, but lack the ability to help their trainees troubleshoot the nitty gritty. In any case, finding the perfect combination is a rarity and it stands to reason that some of these deficiencies could be complemented by a joint lab head with those particular strengths. A nice analogy is found in something my brother used to throw at me whenever I thought a musical was entertaining – “good singers do opera, good dancers do ballet, a musical tries to combine them both and ends up wallowing in mediocrity”. While I still maintain that there are people who can do both quite effectively, I can also see that sometimes it’s a good idea to let the singers sing and the dancers dance.

        Reduced down-time
        Ask a new tenure track laboratory professor about their first two years of research productivity in the new lab. My guess is you’ll be hit with a barrage of “not much because it took a long time to set up _____, _____, and _____”. If a newly minted principal investigator were instead able to join a group that already has things running smoothly, the list of blanks would be cut down dramatically and they could get on with the research much more quickly.

        Mentoring
        If one of the joint lab heads is more senior than the other, there is a remarkable opportunity to benefit from close mentoring. Poor navigation of the institute, university or external politics and administration are the first things that come to mind for slowing down research for no good reason. If the senior professor derives direct benefit from a successful junior researcher, then the help from this end will flow much more rapidly. Additionally, the trainees in the lab would benefit from having multiple perspectives on their research projects.

        Possible Career Changes
        Why do very few experienced laboratory scientists enter politics, journalism, or industry? Because if they left their laboratory full of graduate students, post doctoral fellows, and current grants, they would never be able to come back. If you could take a year or two to try something out (something like what UBC based Nobel laureate Carl Weiman just accepted from the Obama team) and leave your lab and trainees in the trusted hands of your co-investigator, the decision would be made substantially easier. As it stands now, a 3-6 month sabbatical sometimes cripples a lab’s productivity or an individual’s aspirations to complete a thesis – in short… there is never a good time to leave the lab.

        In the end, the jointly run lab model would create more jobs without unreasonable strain on the overall laboratory research budget, would allow more time energy for alternative projects and teaching by the top tier of researchers, and would result in a more diverse training environment for graduate students and post docs. Importantly though – this cannot be made into a short term training post and needs to carry the same stability that a standard assistant professor position would carry and hold the same potential for career progression. It’s time to change the old model of “one person in charge” as team science becomes increasingly prevalent and good scientific training is often the first thing to get cut from busy professor’s schedules.

        Would love to hear your thoughts.

        PS: A huge thanks to Philip B, Mike O, and Lindsay G specifically for some great chats about this series of thoughts.

        No Comments

        Dave, May 23rd 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs

        Let the Discussions Begin!

        Posted May 12th 2010 at 11:38 am by Marianne

        —
        Quick Hit:
        A big welcome to our second guest blogger Marianne Stanford, current chair of the CAPS group. As a follow up to Carl’s excellent article on the CRA’s response to the CAPS letter on Post Doc status. This is exactly the type of discussion that needs to be had and The Black Hole site is happy to be able to give it some e-presence. Please weigh in and let us know what you think and look forward to summaries each quarter that will synthesize the ideas in these articles and your comments!
        —

        Firstly, I would like to commend Carl Wonders on a thoughtful and valid assessment of the potential implications of the CRA ‘clarification’ on postdoctoral fellow (PDF) taxation. I’d like to follow up on that discussion from examining the issue from a different angle. I personally have been a PDF for 6 years, at two different institutions in Ontario, a president of a postdoctoral association and more recently the Chair of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS). My opinions are my own, not solicited or contributed to by CAPS, but certainly formed by my many discussions with that group. I personally in the past 6 years have been classified as the typical ‘no distinct status’ that most PDFs in Canada share, an ‘employee’ PDF of a research institute and most recently as a ‘trainee’ or academic PDF receiving tax exemption on my stipend. The ideal situation for a PDF in Canada has in the end little to do with exactly how they are paid or taxed, but requires that they are appropriately compensated for experience, extensive education and enormous contribution to the scientific endeavour. Indeed, considering that many graduate students and technical scientific employees bring home considerably more than the average PDF indicates that this needs to change. How that change is enacted must be carefully and thoughtfully done so as not to penalize the current PDFs nor prevent new PhDs from entering the Canadian PDF system.
        Having PDFs treated akin to medical residents is a wonderful idea, but no matter how it appears to be stipulated by the CRA it isn’t feasible in the current system. Why? Frankly, it is due to how we are compensated. PDFs, by in large, are paid from public research fund budgets through granting agencies – either directly through fellowships or indirectly through competitive grants earned by our mentors. Residents, who perform clinical duties are paid from health care budgets, not academic research ones. In our case, the granting councils, particularly the Tri-council of NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR have a lot to say about the nature of our tenure. They have explicitly said that the postdoctoral period is one of extended training and not one of employment. Thus, this explains the modest stipend levels and why like graduate student scholarships, PDF fellowships should be tax exempt. Obviously this message did not reach the CRA or the government of Canada. So, assuming that they rather than granting agencies, provinces and academic institutions gets to decide who is a legitimate trainee, where do we go from here?
        The obvious choice is employment. The problem with this is the assumption that a simple change in status will result in higher wages, extended health benefits, job stability and overall better conditions for PDFs. It will by its nature allow PDFs to contribute to EI, CPP, RRSPs, but I emphasize the word CONTRIBUTE. That does not necessarily mean a higher wage to cover those contributions. Indeed, in my personal experience, employment status in and of itself only resulted in a smaller paycheque. That may sound glib, because it did results in significant changes to the nature of my relationship as a PDF, and provided me a number of basic rights that I lacked prior to the change. However, I was in a good lab, with a great mentor and a clear career path. When we approached our institute with our new found ‘employee’ status looking for benefits we thought we were due, we were promptly informed that we were a ‘temporary, contract employee’ not entitled to the extended benefits of permanent research staff. By its very nature, a postdoctoral period is NOT a career, thus is temporary, even up to 6 years. Thus, access to anything other than basic employee deductions is likely to require significant negotiations and will depend on employee relations within the individual institutions. This is not something that will be mandated nationally, unless instituted by those who provide our funds – the funding agencies. Thus, before any PDF seeks employment status they need to be clear of its implications. Unless and until we can first lobby for reasonable and well earned compensation (closer to the $70,000/year the government suggests we receive than the $38,000/year average stipend that currently exists) than a change in status will likely hit the individual PDF very hard, in the pocketbook. On the other hand, for the first time in history, both the government and the CRA have provided us with solid evidence that the current system is not appropriate and requires significant change. They must now mandate the national community (particularly the publically funded research councils) to enact this change in a reasonable and proactive way.

        2 Comments

        Marianne, May 12th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs

        The CRA response to CAPS: Implications and where should we go from here?

        Posted May 11th 2010 at 7:00 am by Carl

        QUICK HIT:
        The Black Hole team is thrilled to welcome its first guest blogger to the site. Carl Wonders is a post doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto and one of the founding members of the UofT Post Doc Association. We are always open to ideas for guest blog entries on a one time or regular basis, so please do not hesitate to get in touch with us. Great article Carl, we’ll look forward to our readers’ responses!

        The CRA response to CAPS: Implications and where should we go from here?

        Last year, in response to the growing controversy over the taxation of postdocs in Canada, the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (“CAPS”) submitted a formal letter to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA). The letter specifically addressed the lack of uniformity over what a “postdoctoral fellow” is and how their income should be treated. On April 28, 2010, the CRA responded:

        “The CRA has never [emphasis mine] accepted that Academic PDFs [postdoctoral fellows] are generally students with exempt scholarship income for purposes of income tax. We have written several letters to this effect, both prior to and after 2006, when most scholarship income became fully tax-exempt. The focus of the letters has varied between the nature of the income (as scholarship income, employment income, or research grants), and the role of postdoctoral fellows (as students, employees, or something else), however, the answer has generally been consistent.”

        The CRA took things farther:

        “Generally, the CRA does not consider Academic PDFs to be “students” as that term is used in the Act. Rather, the CRA views Academic PDFs to be the same as other individuals who are required to undertake a period of paid training after completing their studies prior to pursuing an independent professional career. In our view, Academic PDFs are most similar to apprentices, articling students, and medical residents.”

        While the consistency of the CRA can certainly be debated, it is now clear that the CRA does not view postdocs as students for the purposes of taxation, at least as far as the scholarship exemption goes. Lumping us in with apprentices, articling students, and medical residents is curious, but probably done to put us in a category of individuals receiving training en route to an independent career. Unfortunately, this shared categorization is not recognized by most universities. Medical residents in Ontario (and I believe throughout Canada) particularly are in a far better position than postdocs at the same institution. To use the situation at the University of Toronto as an example (http://www.pgme.utoronto.ca/tax.htm), medical residents:
        • Are paid on a T4
        • Receive a T2202A (they’re not eligible for tax exemption as they aren’t on scholarship, but they do get tuition/education credits)
        • Are eligible to receive a T2200 and thus claim employment expenses (something that only salaried or commission-based employees can do)
        • Get full employee benefits (supplementary health insurance, life insurance, etc.)
        • Get topped up to 75% salary when they go on maternity leave
        • Have their salary scaled according to how many years they have worked (http://www.pairo.org/Content/Default.aspx?pg=1094)

        In other words, medical residents are employees who are also receiving training. Thus, U of T, and indeed the majority of universities throughout Canada, is treating two groups of “training professionals” (medical residents and postdocs) completely differently, despite the fact that the CRA is now on record as considering them to be in the same category! I would suggest using this fact as Argument 1 as to why postdocs should be considered employees. Consider that employee status would provide:
        • The ability to pay into CPP and EI. This is especially important for postdocs looking to take parental leave, as you must work 13 consecutive weeks at an insurable (EI-paying) job to be eligible.
        • The ability to contribute to RRSPs. Fellowship income does not count as “earned income” for the calculation of RRSP deduction room (although, see quotation below)
        • Improved benefits including supplementary health insurance. While some universities do have a plan to buy into (e.g. U of T), it’s certainly not ideal. Some institutions have begun to remedy this situation, as the University of British Columbia in April 2010, started to allow postdocs to buy into the staff plan. Hopefully other universities will follow this example in the future.
        • The potential for scheduled wage increases. Unless you receive a higher-paying fellowship, chances are you haven’t received much of a raise since starting. I know I’m making the same amount of money as when I started three years ago. Employee status would go a long way towards preventing this from happening, and open the door to potential unionization. In the UK, postdoc wages are scaled based on experience, and this scaling is also included in the NIH guidelines for postdoc salaries in the US.

        One final point. The CRA makes a curious statement towards the end of their letter, which may prove somewhat useful (emphasis mine):

        “…Academic PDFs often asked for amounts to be classified as research grants, rather than employment income or scholarship income, as research grants were allowed deductions for certain expenses (unlike employment income), while still qualifying as eared income for purposes of contributions to registered retirement savings plans (“RRSPs”) (unlike scholarship income)….In some cases, the income received by an Academic PDF could be properly included in income under paragraph 56(1)(n); in most cases, we would expect either section 5 (for employment income) or paragraph 56(1)(0) (for research grants) to apply.”

        My interpretation of this is that the CRA is saying that postdocs have the option of treating their income, which is reported as a scholarship/fellowship (T4A, Code 05) as a research grant (Code 04) even if it is not reported that way on the postdoc’s own T4A. Indeed, the tax code does include a provision that would allow someone receiving a fellowship to report it as a research grant if the money was received “solely for the purpose of conducting research.” This is something that I had advocated two years ago to the University of Toronto Postdoctoral Association. At the time, the concern was that, should the CRA rule in our favor regarding the tax exemption, switching back to a scholarship might be problematic. Now that that door is officially closed, I see no reason to not re-classify fellowships as research grants in the future and perhaps to go back and do the same for prior years.

        In summary, I feel that the best course of action to take is to begin lobbying for employment status for postdoctoral fellows across Canada. The fact that the 2010 Budget says in no uncertain terms that postdoctoral fellowships are not tax exempt should put to rest any ideas of fighting for classification as students for tax purposes. Furthermore, I believe that the long-term benefit to employee status (EI, scaled salary, better benefit packages, etc.) far outweigh the shorter-term benefits of tax exemption. I would strongly urge CAPS and the rest of the postdoctoral community to consider this as they continue to move forward.

        4 Comments

        Carl, May 11th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs

        The Council of Canadian Academies – Thriving, Surviving, or Doomed to Fail?

        Posted April 25th 2010 at 9:01 pm by Dave

        Quick hit:

        1. The Stem Cell Foundation has been nominated for a Webby – the Oscars of the Internet – in the category of Best Activism Website. It’s quite impressive that they were nominated as these are a big deal, and what’s even more impressive is that when I cast my vote, they had a slim lead! It’s not often that support for medical research will hit the radar of activists so if, like me, you think they did an excellent job of communicating a positive and inspiring message about scientific research, vote in order to help them win the People’s Voice Award. Also, don’t forget to consider signing the stem cell charter if you haven’t already.

        The Council of Canadian Academies – Thriving, Surviving, or Doomed to Fail?
        Created in 2005, the Council of Canadian Academies is a not-for-profit corporation that supports science-based, expert assessments to inform public policy development in Canada. It was created with $30 million seed funding from Government which expires in 2015 and just underwent its midterm assessment last week. The report was generally positive and indeed to the casual reader it would appear the CCA has a lot to be proud of and not much to worry about. Digging a little deeper though, one gets the feeling that the CCA is facing a critical juncture in its existence and faces the very real possibility of becoming a heck of a lot less effective in 2015.

        The panel, James Wilsdon (Britain’s Royal Society), E. William Colglazier (US National Academy of Sciences), Luc Vinet (Rector, of U de Montreal), and Margaret Bloodworth (former Canadian senior public servant) highlighted the council as a unique body within Canada with much opportunity to grow, was strong and credible in its membership, and covered a wide variety of topics. This is all too common in Canada – we build it, prove its quality, and then funding dries up because it’s not new and exciting anymore. Genome Canada barely escaped this fate after becoming one of the most effective networks of scientists in Canada with renewed funding in 2010 after being left out in 2009. The CCA will probably not be so lucky. Am I premature in assuming that the Canadian Government will not renew funding for the CCA? Perhaps, but I think the writing is on the wall with the way the organization has been treated in its first five years. Instead of being closely linked to the National Science Adviser and the Prime Minister’s Office as it was in 2005, the CCA was pushed into the Ministry of Industry and is now filtered through the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. I’ve ranted about this earlier but the important point for the CCA and Canadians who want to see it continue is that no matter how good a report is (which in the CCAs case is “very”) it is rendered completely useless if not actually read by policy makers, industry and community stakeholders.

        The Council has had some major impacts on the Government sponsors that have requested reports. The mid-term assessment highlights the fact that 6 of the Council’s first 8 reports have had substantive impact on the sponsor’s thinking. A clear-cut example is when Natural Resources Canada asked for a feasibility report on gas hydrates as part of the long-term fuel supply and based on the CCA report, now funds two major gas hydrate programs. The CCA can also adapt reasonably quickly to short term policy demands as evidenced by the report that was generated for Indian and Northern Affairs to assess the scientific priorities of their May 2008 Visioning Workshop. This report was completed more quickly, involved fewer meetings, and demonstrated that the CCA could perform multiple functions depending on the depth of information required.

        However, as the panel also pointed out, the CCA lacks visibility beyond their sponsors and has an almost exclusive dependence on Government sponsors. And these are the crucial issues that need resolution in order for Canada to retain an independent body of experts to provide advice on science policy.

        In Britain and America, such bodies are much more established and much better funded (often through private philanthropy) and play a major role in policy making. The scientific community, and the members of the public who believe in evidence based policy making, needs to help ensure that the CCA is not disbanded in 2015 and we have a reasonable amount of time to get this momentum created.

        So, I encourage you to read the reports, see the type of information that is being created, and then spread the word to your friends, family and colleagues to help build a support structure that will preserve this institution. And let’s not wait until 2015 to read the article about the removal of funding for the CCA – please Canada, don’t let another good institution fall by the wayside.

        Reports from the Council of Canadian Academies

        •Better Research for Better Business
        •The Sustainable Management of Groundwater in Canada
        •Innovation and Business Strategy: Why Canada Falls Short
        •Vision for the Canadian Arctic Research Initiative: Assessing the Opportunities
        •Energy from Gas Hydrates: Assessing the Opportunities and Challenges for Canada
        •Small is Different: A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of the Nanoscale
        •Influenza Transmission and the Role of Personal Protective Respiratory Equipment: An Assessment of the Evidence
        •The State of Science and Technology in Canada

        Assessments underway:

        Approaches to Animal Health Risk Assessment
        Integrated Testing of Pesticides
        Research Integrity in the Canadian Context
        State and Trends of Biodiversity Science in Canada

        1 Comment

        Dave, April 25th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in General, Jobs, Science Communcation

        Making Little Scientists: The Plight of the Postdoc Who Wants To Have a Family

        Posted April 22nd 2010 at 6:29 am by Beth

        A comment on one of Dave’s recent postings got me thinking about an “issue affecting trainees” that we haven’t yet talked about here on The Black Hole: babies.  Specifically, the having of babies and where to keep your babies while you are in the lab.

        Having Babies

        PhDs take a long time and by the time you are done that and have started a postdoc or two, you might start thinking you are getting to an age where you’d like to have a family!  So, the discussion about whether postdocs are “employees” or “trainees” has implications beyond the “taxable or not” question.  What kinds of benefits trainees get is important because maternity/paternity/parental leave is funded primarily by Employment Insurance (EI) and, if you are lucky, a top-up from your employer.  If your pay isn’t counted towards EI insurable hours, you won’t be eligible for EI should you decide to have a kid and take some time off for maternity or paternity leave.  And even if you are eligible for EI, it only covers a portion of your income, and given that postdoc salaries are already low, it may not be a livable amount.  If your employer doesn’t provide a top-up to this amount1, it can be a big problem!

        Where To Put Your Baby Once You Have It

        If you manage to survive your maternity/paternity/parental leave on your meager EI (should you be lucky enough to get EI) and head back to the lab, you face something that all new parents who work outside the home face: daycare.  Daycare spots are hard to come by2 and the ones that are available are expensive – I saw a poster recently that pointed out that a year of daycare costs more than a year of university!.  For example, at UBC ChildCare Services, a month of daycare for a child between the ages of 4 and 18 months will cost you $1,105 – that’s $13,260 per year!  And if you are taking home $35,000 a year with an NSERC/CIHR scholarship, that’s 38% of your take home income!

        Beyond the Money

        Even beyond all the financial implications of having a kid, there are implications to taking time off that are particularly important for academics.

        I remember being in my Masters program and hearing one of my profs lament that so many females who could have gone on to be excellent scientists left academics to pursue other careers because they wanted to have a family.  In his experience, a lot of females who did their Masters degrees went on to do a health profession degree, such as medicine or occupational or physical therapy, instead of doing a PhD because in those other fields, “if you take a year off for maternity leave, you can come back to your job and start up where you left off. In science, if you take a year off, you are left in the dust.”

        Fast forward to my doctoral program: I remember having a conversation with a prof while we were putting together a grant application and her CV noted her two six-month leaves of absence for maternity leaves for her two kids.  She said, “Things are better now than they used to be.  Now you can put a maternity leave on your CV as a “reason for gaps in your productivity” and they have to accept it. You are still disadvantaged because if it comes down to you and someone else who didn’t take a leave, they have more papers and they’ll get the grant (or the job), but at least now you can write in your mat leaves.”

        Academics is fast-paced and if you take time off during your postdoc to have a kid or two, you’ll have gaps in your publication and grant record and you’ll be behind on the latest advances in your field.  Waiting until you’ve attained a faculty position – when you’ll at least have a more reasonable salary and probably even a maternity/paternity/parental leave top up – isn’t ideal either, as a new faculty member needs to be focused on getting tenure, so again gaps in your publication/grant record and getting behind in your field will be a problem.  Wait until you have tenure, especially if you’ve done several years as a postdoc or research associate before landing that tenure-track job, and the fertility train may have passed you by!

        Of course, all of this is just my thoughts on the prospect of having a baby while being an academic, based on discussions I’ve had with colleagues (some of whom have done it, some of whom have thought about it).  I’m curious to hear what others’ thoughts/experiences are with this?

        1. I don’t have any data on this, but I’m willing to bet that few, if any, universities provide maternity/paternity top-ups as a benefit to their postdocs [↩]
        2. people start to get on wait lists for daycare during their pregnancy, even if they aren’t planning to send the kid to daycare until after a full year of maternity leave [↩]

        7 Comments

        Beth, April 22nd 2010 | Tags: , , , , ,
        Posted in Jobs

        Old Debate, More Participants: What do 80% of PhD holders do for a career?

        Posted April 12th 2010 at 12:59 pm by Dave

        I received a pamphlet the other day entitled: Careers Support for Life Science Post Docs
        Page-2Page-3Page-4
        (thanks to Anne and Lynn for letting me post this!)

        This got me thinking and building on the momentum from Beth’s Why do PhDs leave and What Types of Jobs are out there entries along with the heated discussion around my Say No to the Second Post Doc entry I decided to have a look around Canadian universities to see if programs were present for the 80% of PhD holders who will pursue an alternative career.

        Through that search, I identified great variability, with some universities having good institutional support (e.g.: University of Alberta) and others doing an impressive job on their own as concerned post docs (e.g.: University of Toronto). Many still lag far behind though… so I’ve selected highlights that are generally applicable and worth a visit:

        University of Calgary
        A newsletter that looks sharp, is generally relevant to post docs and could easily serve as a model for other post doc (or research institute) newsletters. One of the themes that I see here and recurring throughout the country is a lack of role models for PhD holders – hence the interview approach… find a handful of people who have PhDs and ask them where they are and how they got there. I’ll look forward to reading future issues.

        University of Toronto
        If you’re going to have a post doc association… follow this lead and have a Career Development Coordinator. The majority of your members will not be going down the professor route, it makes absolute sense to have someone who knows what resources are available at your university and in the city for them to speak with.

        University of Alberta
        Institutional Support… for real. It looks like there was Killam money put into establishing something permanent for post docs – this is a great way to ensure the long term stability of information/resources and avoid the problem that many trainee groups cannot get their heads around – how to do succession planning. There are many organizations that get started with the energy of a handful of interested people and then fade into oblivion. Institutional support (i.e.: an office, a contact in senior admin who is permanent, a mailing address, etc) is critical to the long term success of these organizations.

        McGill University
        Has emphatically stated that Post Docs are trainees… in fact, they are all mandatory members of the Post-Graduate Students’ Society at McGill. This comes with a good array of career services, though it does seem that they are mostly tailored for graduate students. Not all post docs would want this status, but it is certainly a way of handling things like group benefits and access to facilities.

        University Affairs
        A great set of resources for post academic career planning in Canada including great articles, podcasts, blogs (Career Sense and Margin Notes), and news/events pages.

        The best set…
        There are many great examples in Canada that Universities can mimic in their own institutes, but the best set of alternative career resources to be found for PhD holders seems to be on the American Association for the Advancement of Science website under the Careers Section. These booklets are a MUST READ for PhDs looking for a non-tenure track career path. The other sections of the AAAS careers page are also quite extensive (again, why does Canada have no equivalent to the AAAS for its scientists?). Granted, this is US-centric, but it still far outweighs the type of resources available in Canada and offers great advice for those struggling with the decision between 80 and 20.

        Here in Cambridge, they’ve really put a lot of effort into ensuring the success of their academic trainees. It makes so much sense too, because every person that comes through your university is a reflection on your university.

        Canadian Universities need to learn this and invest in their people.

        Some great examples from a post doc’s point of view:

        First – a dedicated full time office for life science post docs (another for physical sciences and another for social sciences/humanities)

        Second – a vibrant post doc society that provides numerous guides (finding a post doc, finding accommodation, how to supervise, etc), hosts social events, and organizes professional development seminars.

        Third – an idea I’d never heard of, but again makes a whole lot of sense… they have a database of Cambridge alumni who have agreed to be contacted for advice/questions about where they ended up with their PhDs. It’s a free service called GradLink – I’ve browsed it and it covers hundreds of different disciplines from across the world.

        Another interesting follow up question that I’ll certainly blog about on another occasion:

        Are Canadian Institutions training Post Docs to have the core competencies suggested by the National Post Doc Association?
        1. Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge
        2. Research skill development
        3. Communication skills
        4. Professionalism
        5. Leadership and management skills
        6. Responsible conduct of research

        Admittedly, most of these depend on a good supervisor who cares more about training the next generation of scientists rather than getting the next paper out. It seems so short sighted (and a little self-centred) to think that a single lab’s productivity with respect to “knowledge learned” could outweigh that of multiple labs run by well trained scientists…. but like I said – another time perhaps.

        3 Comments

        Dave, April 12th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs

        Quarterly Summary: “CAP”ital Action and Effective Communication

        Posted April 1st 2010 at 5:38 pm by Dave

        This quarter has been a very active one for the Black Hole site, marked most notably by a tripling of site traffic in the month of March. Admittedly, most of this increased traffic was due to Budget 2010 and the sheer panic it invoked in the post doc community. Fortunately, the momentum that I hoped would continue has certainly done just that. Two prime examples of this forward movement over the last quarter have been:

        1. The Canada Foundation for Innovation model of autonomy and flexibility was named “world’s best practice” and the contribution to developing both the quality and quantity of research infrastructure was highlighted. The matching investment in people needs to be the focus going forward, let’s hope the policymakers realize this. They have built it… will the scientists come?

        If you are a prospective post doctoral research fellow, the answer right now is “probably not” as a flurry of bad press surrounds Canada as a place to complete this part of one’s training. It’s curious because Canada definitely has excellent core components in place for research success with great equipment and buildings, internationally heralded expertise, access to other scientists and patient samples, etc etc. So what’s wrong with the picture? The answer lies in the second burst of momentum from this quarter

        2. What exactly is a post doctoral fellow? – in Canada there is certainly no easy answer and it seems that they are classified as trainees, students, or employees depending on which status benefits them the least. In Britain and Australia, a post doc certainly leans toward the employee side of the coin with good wages (often 25-35% higher than Canadian post docs), benefits similar to other employees at the institute, pay taxes, etc etc. In Canada, however, post doctoral fellows often get terrible wages (78% earn less than $40,000 after 10+ years of university training), benefits are inconsistent at best and often absent (though UBC just made an impressive announcement about PDF benefits), and Budget 2010 proposes to make post doctoral fellowships taxable.

        The momentum from the Canadian Association of Post-Doctoral Scholars in recent weeks has produced the following:
        - An FAQ entitled “What is a post doctoral fellow?”
        - An online petition to maintain the competitiveness of a postdoctoral research career in Canada
        - A campaign that has gotten recognition for post doctoral fellows in Parliament

        Great to see this kind of effort being put forth to improve the trainee environment in Canada. Let’s hope we get some results!

        This quarter also saw The Black Hole become even more connected as exemplified by our growing toolbar of excellent links to check out including recent additions of:

        Canadian Programs
        CIHR Science to Business Program – Program to encourage and enable individuals who have obtained a recent health-related PhD to pursue an MBA
        The Science Creative Quarterly – UBC based online collection of scientific articles that are spiced up for a general audience

        Excellent organizations/resources for Canada to learn from
        The Royal Society – The UK’s national academy of science which is leaps and bounds ahead of the Royal Society of Canada when it comes to public and governmental interaction
        The Society of Biology– A whopping 80,000 members who support the strong presence of biology in academia, industry, education and research

        Other blogs of interest
        Margin Notes – University Affairs blogger Leo Charbonneau tackles many of the institutional issues that are discussed heavily on this site – great insights and wonderfully in touch with the hottest topics.
        rENNISance Woman – Self described Cancer Research grant wrangler Cath Ennis and her thoughts form a frequently updated Nature Network blog worth reading!

        As for blog entries, Beth has been squirreling away on entries related to the theoretical (What is Science? and Evaluation vs. Research) and the very practical (Talking Science to Non-Scientists and Community Collaboration) sides of science. She also introduced us to the CIHRs Science to Business program which aims to equip PhDs in the medical sciences with MBAs.

        I’ve been (again!) a little less focused and was certainly side-tracked in Budget season with entries related to taxes, moving forward from the budget, and the CAPS campaign.

        The story of how DNA and genetics became buzz words on everyone’s lips is one that I often share with people about the importance and long term impact that public outreach can have (especially when it comes to a general willingness to support research in the area) – this tipped off two entries ( >The Least Work Principle and
        Getting Involved in Science and Society        ) and was followed up with an entry on my current pet peeve in Britain which is going to consistently underwhelming climate change related talks.

        Other entries on the lack of science policy in Canada and the importance of scholarships and networking to one’s future career generated good buzz, but also resulted in a strong criticism of our blog and other blogs for being far too focused on complaining about the situation. While politely disagreeing with this being the case for the Black Hole site, I have made a mental note (and followed up with physical entries!) to give credit where credit is due on the many great things happening in the country and continue to keep an extremely open mind to future solutions.

        Hope you’ll all continue to read and contribute, it’s been a fun six months so far!

        PS: If you’re interested in writing a guest blog entry or a regular blog column, please do get in touch.

        2 Comments

        Dave, April 1st 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
        Posted in Financial, General, Jobs, Science Communcation
        « Older Posts