Postdoc or technician (reprise)

I have decided to hire a postdoc. My feeling is that if your lab is small and you have enough money to get a good postdoc you should do so. A technician can be much more helpful when your lab is packed and you to generate 10 clones a week and pour 50 plates a day. I truly understand the value of a technician. In fact I have seen a few technicians that can blow away most postdocs, but the chances of me finding (and being able to afford) one at this juncture is remote.

The intersection of economics and academic research presents an enormous challenge

NIH is riding the economic-stimulus wave generated by the actions of President Obama and Congress. A large bolus of this money is being expended through the "Challenge Grant" mechanism. The awards will be for up to $500,000 a year for 2 years. This money will directly impact the economy and perhaps this is the main, if not only, point.

Only a few of us will reap the benefits of this money - out of the more than 10,000 applications expected I am told by a reliable contact at NIH that only 200-500 grants will be awarded. Most of the 10,000 or so applicants will spend the coming weeks writing in vain as we struggle to make the April 27 deadline. Those that do succeed will have only 2 years to produce results, as opposed to the more typical time frame of 4-5 years afforded by the R01 funding mechanism.

The areas for funding are broad and are defined by short descriptions. I can assure you that there are thousands of cases in which faculty are trying to stretch and bend their research to fit into one or more of the available funding topics. You could very easily argue that the blame goes to the faculty that try to grasp fruit that is out of their reach. However, I would liken these grants to dangling a juicy rib eye in front of a starving tiger.

With NIH money (in the form of new R01 grants) being restricted in the form of lower and lower pay lines, it is becoming harder and harder for young faculty to achieve their goal of obtaining funds to drive their research. This trend has changed the landscape of academic research over the last 10 years. It is now an even more fierce battleground than ever before and I believe that the younger generation of scientists are the ones going hungry. Perhaps the economic stimulus money could have been used to simply lower the bar a little allowing more of those who have been struggling to get funded to finally cross the funding threshold. I do see the benefit of the challenge grant to the economy - immediate spending over a short term of 2 years. But how much will this short-term gain cost our scientific community? Time will tell.

Postdoc or technician?

I am an Assistant Professor with some newly-acquired loot who finds himself asking the question, "should I hire a another postdoc or a technician?"

I have never been in a lab composed of technicians, so I don't have a good feeling for the pros and cons. I do know postdocs, since I have worked with them, was once a postdoc myself, and have now had two in my own lab. My success rate so far with postdocs is 50% - the first one I managed I kindly refer to as the overpaid high school intern. Therefore, I am reluctant to hire another postdoc for fear that my success rate will drop to 33%. On the other hand, the idea of scoring applicants for a technician position, when I do not know what skills and traits make a good technician, is a quite daunting.

As many young professors know, it is difficult to attract good people to your lab. Although many of us do not have a formal background in business management and human psychology, such training seems essential to cultivating a vibrant and productive research program.

If anyone has any comments about my new postdoc vs technician dilemma, I welcome them.

Cheers!