Ninan Abraham, Ph.D.
As a postdoc who sat on the Implementation Committee on career development and duration, I found the process of multiple consultations with postdocs reflects very favorably on the Gladstone’s commitment to postdoctoral training. I can think of no comparable approach in other institutes I’ve worked in. The postdocs on the committee were frank and insightful, and I found our chair, Izzy Charo, highly receptive to our observations. I was happy to have been able to contribute.

Patricia Bresnahan, Ph.D.
I am very encouraged about the changes to the Gladstone Postdoctoral Fellows Training Program. Those changes recognize the significant contribution of postdocs to the research program at Gladstone. It is also significant that the postdocs were a part of the discussion. I served on the mentoring committee, an area that is very personal and difficult to regulate. I applaud the directors addressing this issue. Mentoring can’t be changed overnight, but clearly Gladstone is trying to enhance this process. Another survey in the future may give us a measure of the success of these efforts. The changes to the pay and benefits were remarkable. The across-the-board pay raise and restructured annual raises to reflect increased experience are a solid show of faith on the part of the Gladstone Directors and PIs. The process itself was also remarkable. The considerations for the pay and benefits were openly explained. Overall, the changes are very positive. Although the current postdocs are the immediate beneficiaries, Gladstone will benefit by increased interest by future postdoc applicants.

Manuel Buttini, Ph.D
Immediately after the presentation at the August 26th meeting, the postdocs I spoke to were so agreeably surprised that they were speechless. Most postdocs have problems with money during their postdoctoral training and with finding a job afterward, so the new program will be of enormous benefit to us. Although the outside world has changed in the last ten years, in terms of cost of living, research funding, and the job market, the world of the academic postdoc has not. Other institutions have recognized that changes were needed, but Gladstone is the first to take concrete action. The changes in the program are fantastic, not only because of the higher salaries, but also because of the career counseling and training to prepare us for the job market. Postdocs from other institutes will undoubtedly be envious. I served on the Stipends and Benefits Subcommittee and was very happy to participate. I was especially impressed by the ability of the group to make compromises and reach consensus on some very difficult issues. The PIs invested a great deal of effort in the process, and the postdocs appreciate it immensely.

Mary Beth DeYoung, Ph.D.
The results were beyond my expectations. When we were asked to fill in the postdoctoral survey, we had no idea what the outcome would be. The cost of living adjustment is fantastic and will make a big difference. Also, money has been eliminated as a source of conflict between the mentors and postdocs. The entire process turned out to be very collegial. We felt no risk in voicing our opinions, and the response was outstanding. This new program recognizes that postdocs are in training and are not employees, but rewards postdocs for their experience, knowledge, and technical abilities. The transparency of the system is excellent. It is a strong statement that unfairness in compensation will not be tolerated at Gladstone. In addition, I was on the Mentoring Committee, and I believe that the process itself was instructive. A number of issues were discussed, and Mike McCune helped us focus on specific constructive actions that could be taken to resolve these issues. In the end, I believe this program will benefit both the postdocs and Gladstone. We will enjoy the benefits of improved mentoring and career development, and Gladstone will have another selling point with which to attract the very best postdocs. I hope that other Institutions will follow the Gladstone''s lead to improve their postdoctoral programs.

Eric Foehr, Ph.D.
I was on the Stipends and Benefits Subcommittee with Mark Goldsmith. Representing the views of the Gladstone postdocs was a responsibility everyone on the subcommittee for stipends and benefits took very seriously. A great deal of debate and research was put into deciding on a transparent and equitable salary scale. The issues of (1) merit versus years experience based compensation and (2) the pay differential between postdocs with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees were especially thorny issues. My main goal was to get an across-the-board increase in salary for Gladstone postdocs and create a fair and consistent system. In the end, I feel we helped bring significant changes in the compensation system and put Gladstone in the forefront of postdoc compensation and training. I am glad that I was given the opportunity to participate in the subcommittee. I think the process (from survey to implementation) is a great example of teamwork between PIs, postdocs, and the administration.

Chris Haskell, Ph.D.
I am really encouraged by the new postdoctoral training program. The whole process worked well. Opinions were sought from everyone. The committees really parsed out the issues and presented excellent solutions. In particular, the rapid implementation of the salary adjustment demonstrated solid commitment by Gladstone for the program. That bodes well for the other longer-term improvements to the mentoring and career development aspects of the program.

Julie Morrow, Ph.D.
I was very impressed by the whole process. Everyone had an opportunity to openly express opinions. The issues were fully aired, and significant changes have been implemented. The biggest change is in the pay and benefits. San Francisco is a very expensive place to live, and postdocs are spending more time in training. This across-the-board pay increase is a great help for all of us. The issues addressed by my own committee, the Mentoring Committee, are long-term. We now have a process in place. Perhaps more importantly, the open discussion initiated by this process raised everyone’s awareness, and hopefully the programs/guidelines implemented will be reviewed for their effectiveness on a yearly basis.

Alison O’Mahony, Ph.D.
I am very pleased by the new Gladstone Postdoctoral Fellows Training Program. The resulting changes are extremely positive and represent a recognition of the postdocs’ contributions to Gladstone’s success. I was particularly pleased with the process. Although I was not on a specific committee, I was afforded the opportunity for considerable input to the work. It was an empowering experience that gave us a sense of truly belonging. We are not just lab fodder. And the postdocs responded with genuine commitment to the process. We are all now linked to Gladstone. It is a part of our academic pedigree, and our career success will be a function of Gladstone’s success. The best outcome was the elimination of the merit raises. This was a constant source of dissention even among the postdocs who received repeated excellent annual evaluations. The new system will reward postdocs for additional training.