Why does the name matter if the job gets done? We argue that a multitude of job titles or designations obscures attempts to address problems in the biomedical research workforce and can also negatively impact individuals in these positions.

If we want to optimize the biomedical research workforce, we need to determine how best to support researchers at each level of their career, including faculty, staff scientists and trainees at all levels. Implementing rational policies that achieve this aim requires us to define the existing workforce, project the composition of the workforce that will be needed in the future, and perform cost/benefit assessments. Although such analyses may seem unnecessary because simple market forces could, in principle, adjust the workforce to meet the needs of the enterprise, biomedical research does not respond to classic market forces in the same way as other industries (Alberts et al., 2014). Therefore, the workforce needs to be managed by other mechanisms. An initial step toward this end is to track the outcomes of postdoctoral training accurately (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2014; Polka et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2016) – a task that has not been performed despite repeated recommendations to do so, and which is made more challenging by difficulties in simply defining the postdoc workforce in the first place.

The true number of postdocs in the US is uncertain, with recent estimates ranging between 30,000 and 80,000 (Heggeness et al., 2016; National Institutes of Health, 2012; Ferguson et al., 2014). For over three decades postdoc numbers have generally increased each year, although the past few years indicate a decline (Garrison et al., 2016). However, dramatic year to year fluctuations in the reported postdoc census at individual institutions, in some cases due to the reclassification of postdocs, contributes uncertainty and makes it difficult to analyze trends (Pickett et al., 2017). Independent academic positions (and equivalent positions in government labs and industry) have grown with a much shallower trajectory than the postdoc population (Schillebeeckx et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2014; Heggeness et al., 2016). Consequently, there is a labor gap in which supply (i.e., the number of postdocs on the job market looking for permanent positions) exceeds demand (the number of positions available; Mason et al., 2016). As a result, highly trained scientists progress through, but then stall in, an ever-lengthening postdoc stage, further increasing the labor gap (Bourne, 2013; Powell, 2015).

Instituting term limits on postdoctoral positions to improve career development and advancement is a recommendation that has emerged from most analyses of the biomedical workforce (Pickett et al., 2015). Unfortunately, this effort has led to the proliferation of new designations for similar positions, which circumvents the goals of the recommendations in several ways. First, scientists in other designations may not receive the training and career development that is provided to their postdoc counterparts. Second, re-designating scientists who have exhausted their postdoc eligibility so that they can simply continue to perform the same work does not constitute advancement. In some cases, postdoc term limits have even had the unintended consequence of pressuring trainees to work without compensation as “volunteers” so that they can better position themselves for career advancement. Consolidation of job titles would allow standardization of training and career development opportunities for all individuals at this career stage.

Other recommendations for sustaining the biomedical research enterprise include increasing postdoc compensation, improving benefits and making postdocs employees of institutions (Pickett et al., 2015; Alberts et al., 2014; National Institutes of Health, 2012; Bourne, 2013). In response to changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime rules proposed in 2016, many US institutions voluntarily increased postdoc salaries. However, the use of non-standard designations has meant that these improved pay scales and benefits packages have not always been extended to researchers who are essentially postdocs. Indeed, only about half of US institutions follow the recommended minimum salary set by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in their National Research Service Awards ($47,484 in 2017; Ferguson et al., 2014). Standardization of postdoc designations is an important first step toward addressing these discrepancies.