Metamorphosis  of  young  investigators  in  science  A  critical  appraisal  of  PhD  affairs  by  the  Utrecht  Graduate  School  of  Life  Science  PhD  community  (Manifesto  compiled  during  the  GSLS  PhD  day  

2016)  Genoveva   Keustermans  MSc*1,   Remco  Molenhuis  MSc*2,   Femke   van   Rhijn-­‐Brouwer  MD*3  &   Peter-­‐Paul  Zwetsloot  MD*4  

*  Authors  are  listed  alphabetically  and  all  contributed  equally    

 

Author  affiliations:  

1Chair  Graduate  School  of  Life  Sciences  PhD  Council,  Member  of  the  Infection  and  Immunity  Education  Committee  

2  Member  UMCU  O&O-­‐raad  (Research  &  Education  council),Prout  representative  (PhD  Network  of  Utrecht  University),  Member  GSLS  PhD  council  

3  Representative  of  the  Regenerative  Medicine  program,  PhD  council  Utrecht  Graduate  School  of  Life  Sciences,  Member  of  the  MD-­‐PhD  sensor  group  

4  Member  of  PhD  initiative  Pro-­‐Motion  

 

The  past  years  have  been  turbulent  for  the  scientific  community  with  major  changes  in  money  flows  and   funding,   new   stakeholders   and  an  evolving   scientific   citizenship   that  makes  everybody  eligible  for  an  opinion  on  science;   its  output,   its   focus  and   its   future.  Recipients  and  stakeholders  are  now  seated   alongside   scientists   at   every   step   of   the   scientific   process;   as   emphasized   in   the   ‘National  Science   Agenda’,   leading   to   an   increased   focus   on   societal   value   and   valorization   and   the  consultation   of   the   civilian/patient/end-­‐user   in   many   decisions.  As   such,   PhD   candidates   take   on  more   than  one   task  within   this   system.  On  one  hand,  by  undergoing   the  process  of  education  and  training,  these  candidates  strive  to  achieve  the  best  within  their  own  groups,  University  and  society;  while  on   the  other  hand  PhD  candidates  are   the  working   force  behind   the  brunt  of  daily   scientific  practice.  Despite  their  essential  role  in  the  scientific  process,  PhD  candidates  are  rarely  a  partner  in  discussions  about  the  future  of  science.  Reforms  in  the  scientific  system  will  have  a  major  impact  on  PhD  candidates.  Therefore,  the  current  scarcity  of  a  ‘PhD’  perspective  is  unacceptable.    

It  is  through  this  unique  position  of  both  receiving  and  practicing  science  that  the  Utrecht  Graduate  School   of   Life   Sciences   (GSLS)   PhD  body   has   taken  up   interest   in   the   institution   of   Science   and   its  potential   future.   Thus,   during   the   annual   PhD   day   organized   by   the   Utrecht   GSLS   (February   12th  

2016),  PhD  candidates  convened  to  discuss  the  future  of  science   in  order  to  gain  insight  in  the  PhD  perspective  of  these  matters.    

The  PhD  day   comprised  of   focus  group  discussions,  presentations   from  profs.  Bert  Theunissen  and    Frank  Miedema,  a   course  market,   a   collective   voting   session  on   the  outcomes  of   the   focus  groups  and   a   newly   introduced   prize   for   the   Supervisor   of   the   Year.   Six   focus   groups  were   formed,   each  discussing   a   sub-­‐topic   relevant   to   the  GSLS   PhD   candidates.   Each   group   subsequently   created   two  propositions   which   summarizes   the   most   important   points   raised   during   the   discussion.     In   the  

plenary  session  afterwards,  all  participants  were  invited  to  vote  upon  the  propositions  through  an  e-­‐voting  system.  

Here,  we  present   a   summary  of   the   focus   group  discussions   and   the   results  of   the  plenary   voting,  forming  an  analysis  of   the  current   state  of   science  as  discussed  by   the  participants  of   the  PhD  day  focus  groups  and  attendees  of  the  plenary  meeting.   .  Given  the  essential   role  of  PhD  candidates   in  the  scientific  community,  this  position  paper  should  be  taken  into  account  by  policy  makers  who  try  to  shape  new  scientific  policies  and  metrics.    

Funding  vs  Integrity  

Currently,   grant   committees   are   a   major   player   in   deciding   what   research   is   conducted.   Grant  applications   are   often   judged   on   the   CV   of   the   PI   and   the   return   on   investment   of   the   proposal.  Proposals  that  will   lead  to  a  tangible  result   in  a  short  time  frame,  submitted  by  PIs  with  more  high  impact  papers  will  have  better  chances  of  getting  funded.  The  focus  group  discussing  this  topic  felt  that  this  ‘system  of  doing  science’  is  not  acceptable.    

Curiosity  driven  research,  i.e.  research  focused  on  basic  questions  instead  of  having  a  direct  societal  applications,  is  essential  to  drive  scientific  knowledge.  However,  given  the  requirements  that  are  put  forward  by  e.g.   funding  agencies,   curiosity  driven   research   is  often  not   feasible.  Time   limits   (e.g.  1  PhD  project  of  3-­‐4  years)  do  not  allow  for  longer  studies,  and  curiosity-­‐driven  studies  may  never  lead  to   output   in   terms   of   papers,  which   hampers   future   grant   applications.   Scientific   output   is  mostly  measured  in  terms  of  ‘impact  factor’  instead  of  the  actual  value  of  the  results  discussed.    

Thus,   the   current   system  of   doing   /   funding   science   needs  major   changing,   as   perverse   incentives  lead   to  a  shortsighted  and  a  short   term  vision  with   regard   to   ‘output’  and   ‘results’.  59%  of  all  PhD  candidates  present  at  the  PhD  day  agreed  with  this  statement.  76%  of  all  PhD  candidates  present  at  the   PhD   day   agreed   that   other   factors   aside   from   ‘publication   record’   should   be   considered   in  funding  applications.    

Aside   from   the   ‘system   factors’   identified   by   the   focus   group,   participants   felt   that   individual  scientists   also  have   the   responsibility   to  pull   their  weight.   For   instance,   in   the   sharing  of   data   and  research  methods  and  holding  each  other  accountable  for  quality,  not  only  through  the  official  peer-­‐review  process.  One  of  the  proposed  alternatives  was  a  ‘thumbs  up  /  thumbs  down’  metric  to  judge  the   quality   of   research   papers   instead   of   citations.   Importantly,   the   focus   group   felt   that   we  shouldn’t   compete   with   other   scientists   but   all   fight   for   common   knowledge,   factors   that   are  discussed  further  in  the  following  sections  

Science  communication    Three  factors  are  currently  taking  center  stage  when  discussing  the  topic  of  science  communication.    Intertwined  with   each  other,   open   access   publication,   peer   review  and  data   sharing   are   of   pivotal  importance.  When  looking  at  statements  3  and  4  regarding  reviewer  comments  and  raw  data  (figure  3)   we   see   no   overwhelming   difference   in   opinion   amongst   all   the   participants   of   the   PhD   day,  however,  when  centering  in  on  the  focus  group  discussion  dedicated  specifically  to  this  topic  various  common  threads  appear.      When   analyzing   open   access   publication,   there   was   consensus   with   regards   to   the   fact   that  publications  should  indeed  be  open  access.  This  is  especially  due  to  the  fact  that  research  is  mostly  publically  funded  and  should  thus  be  available  to  the  public.   In  addition  to  this,  current  publication  systems  seem  to  result  in  a  profit  for  the  journals  and  not  the  researcher  that  is;  researchers  pay  to  have  their  work  published  but  must  additionally  pay  in  order  to  access  other  work  in  the  journal   in  

which  they  place  their  data.  The  same  holds  true  for  citizens,  who  pay  double   if   they  want  to  view  tax-­‐funded  research.      Upon  dissecting  peer  review,  it  was  evident  to  the  focus  group  that  political  pressures  influence  the  current  process  of  review,  creating  a  bias  in  a  system  that  was  designed  to  safeguard  the  quality  of  science.  To  combat  this  political  sway,  several  actions  were  suggested;  reviewer  comments  should  be  published   alongside   articles,   individuals   working   closely   to   a   topic   may   not   review   a   publication  discussing  said  work  and  finally  a   fail-­‐safe  should  be  designed   in  which  editors  are  notified  when  a  reviewer  publishes  an  article  on  the  same  topic  as  a  paper  he/she  has  rejected  within  a  (short)  period  of  time.      Finally,   on   the   subject   of   data   sharing,   it   was   postulated   that   raw   data   should   always   be   made  available   to   reviewers   in   order   to   uphold   the   quality   of   work   published.   This   sharing   of   raw   data  should  however,  not  jeopardize  the  privacy  of  any  participants  within  the  research.  As  a  concluding  remark,   the   focus  group  agreed   that   true  negative   results  or   reproducibility  data   should  be  clearly  linked   to   publications   through   comment   sections,   letters   or   databases   accompanying   the   research  articles.    Motivation  for  doing  a  PhD  

In  this  focus  group,  various  reasons  for  starting  a  PhD  project,  from  ‘liking  the  project’  to  ‘needing  a  PhD  to  be  able   to  specialize  as  a  medical  doctor  were  discussed.     Intrinsic  motivation  was  deemed  the  most  essential  factor  for  doing  a  PhD  by  the  participants,  with  85%  of  the  PhD  candidates  present  at  the  PhD  day  agreeing  that  intrinsic  motivation  is  essential.  However,  extrinsic  motivations,  such  as  needing   a   PhD   for   your   next   career   step,   are   an   equally   valid   reason   to   do   a   PhD,   as   long   as   the  quality  of  the  work  does  not  suffer.  This  is  reflected  by  the  fact  that  only  24%  of  all  PhD  candidates  agreed   with   the   statement   ‘It   is   wrong   to   start   a   PhD   just   to   enhance   your   future   career  perspectives’;  76%  thought  it  to  be  a  valid  motivation.  

In   the   end,   all   the   participants   in   the   focus   group   wanted   their   work   to   ‘mean’   something,   by  contributing  to  science  or  clinical  practice.  Participants  also  felt  a  certain  responsibility  toward  their  institute  and  to  society  (including  the  funders)  to  deliver  a  quality  thesis.  However,  this  responsibility  came  with  the  warning  that  the  pressure  of  gaining  significant  result  in  order  to  publish  articles  was  postulated  to  lead  to  the  possibility  of  fraud.  Many  participants  describe  how  doing  science  grew  on  to  them  and  became  a  goal  in  itself  instead  of  a  means  to  an  end.      

PhD  competencies  

Once   graduated,  many   PhD   candidates   will   not   have   the   opportunity   to   stay   in   academia,   as   the  number  of  PhD  candidates  has  increased  over  the  past  decades  and  post-­‐graduate  positions  are  very  limited.  Of  the  GSLS  PhD  candidates  that  that  are  not  planning  a  medical  specialty,  only  38%  plan  to  have  a  future  career  in  science  (figure  2  ).   In   line  with  this,  78%  of  PhD  candidates  beyond  the  first  year  of  their  PhD  study  agree  that  they  should  be  trained  in  skills  required  outside  of  academia.  

In   this   respect,   the   recent   NFU-­‐initiative   to   define   key-­‐competencies   for   PhD   candidates   is   highly  appreciated  by  PhD  candidates.   In   consultation  with   supervisors  and  peers,   the  PhD  candidate  can  identify  competencies   that  he  or  she  could   improve,   followed  by  taking  specific  courses  offered  by  the  GSLS  course  center  (e.g.  time-­‐management,  supervising  students,  communication,  fund-­‐raising).  Competencies   acquired   during   the   PhD   study   are   also   of   value   in   a   non-­‐academic   setting.   For  example,  supervising  MSc  students  will  bring  in  general  management  skills.  However,  the  majority  of  PhD  candidates  are  not  yet  aware  of  how  to  translate  courses   in  competencies  such  as  supervising  students  to  a  more  general  setting  (figure  3).    

Many  skills  that  are  considered  advantageous  for  the  PhD’s  future  career  are  developed  ‘naturally’,  adopted   during   the   PhD,   which   might   be   partially   explained   by   the   employee-­‐status   of   PhD  candidates  in  the  Netherlands.  These  skills  include  handling  with  stressful  situations,  teaching,  selling  yourself  and  being  independent.  Indeed,  many  skills  needed  inside  academia  are  comparable  to  skills  needed   outside   academia.   However,   even   with   the   definition   of   competencies   and   courses   and  creating   awareness   about  naturally   adopted   skills,   there   is   a   great   responsibility   for   supervisors   to  guide  candidates  in  developing,  both  general  skills  and,  a  unique  differentiating  ‘niche’  set  of  skills.    

Education  and  Training  

The   multi-­‐faceted   development   of   PhD   candidates   includes,   but   is   not   limited   to,   the   research  conducted.   During   our   PhD   tracks  we   get   the   opportunity   to   teach   and   be   taught.   Education   and  training  could  be  differentiating  one’s  time  as  a  PhD  candidate,  although  not  every  person  chooses  to  follow   courses   or   educate   students.   During   the   general   conclusions   among   participants,   common  opinions  were   that   PhD   candidates   should   all   have   the   possibility  to   teach   and/or   delve   into   new  topics  for  their  own  personal  growth  and  development.  It  is,  however,  the  candidates’  intrinsic  drive  and  motivation  that  should  guide  this  choice  of  differentiation.  All  young   investigators  should  have  the   opportunity   to   learn   new   skills,   which   should   not   only   be   scientifically   interesting   and/or  important   but,   should   focus   on   personal   development   of   careers   and   plans   in   and   outside   of  academia  (figure  3).  We  are  not  always  aware  of  the  opportunities  we  have  with  regards  to  training  and  future  career  perspectives  (figure  3).  The  means  to  this  development  should  be  offered  by  the  university  as  courses  or  in  any  other  format  e.g.:  involving  employers  outside  of  academia  in  training,  education  and  career  perspectives.  This  proposition  is  also  one  of  the  recommendations  proposed  by  the  KNAW  in  a  recent  exploration  of  the  Dutch  PhD  culture1.      

Supervision  

In  the  UU  scientific  system  candidates  usually  have  at  least  two  supervisors,  namely  a  promotor  and  co-­‐promotor.   These   individuals   are  given   the   responsibility   to  guide  PhD  candidates  along   the   first  steps  of   their  academic  career.  Although   this   is  a  mandatory   function  of   supervisors,  discrepancies  are  exhibited  in  daily  practice  amongst  PhD  candidates  of  Utrecht  University.  In  the  discussion  group  mixed   opinions   were   shared   about   what   supervision   should   entail   during   a   PhD   track   and   a  unanimous   opinion  was   shared  on   a   few  basal   requisites   for   supervision:   supervisors   should  meet  with   their   PhD   candidate   on   a   regular   basis   to   discuss   their   projects,   there   should   be   particular  attention  on  monitoring  the  long-­‐term  progress  of  the  young  investigator,  and  larger  issues  such  as  expectations  and  personal  development  should  always  be  approached  (figure  3).    

Supervisors   should   in   essence   understand   every   facet   of   their   charge   in   order   to   tailor   their  supervision  to  help  their  apprentice  achieve  and  develop  the  most.    

In   order   to   highlight   and   commend   successful   supervision,   the  GSLS-­‐Supervisor   of   the   Year   award  was  launched  this  year.  This  prestigious  prize  was  awarded  to  prof.  Frank  Huisman,  as  he  and  all  the  final  nominees  excelled  in  the  categories  deemed  most  important  to  successful  supervision:  tailored  mentorship,   focus   on   personal   development   and   regular   supervision,   which   gave   their   PhD  candidates  the  feeling  of  empowerment,  and  academic  and  personal  stimulation.  

Conclusion  

PhD  candidates  embody  a  unique  group  as  both  trainees  and  employees  at  our  Universities.  As  such,  the  current  transition  of  the  institution  of  Science  is  felt  and  noticed  from  many  perspectives  by  PhD  

                                                                                                                         1  Koninklijke  Nederlandse  Akademie  van  Wetenschappen  2016  |  64  pages  |  ISBN  978-­‐90-­‐6984-­‐701-­‐6  

 

candidates.   The  PhD  body   should  ultimately   function  and  be  heard  as  one  voice   taking  part   in   the  scientific  community.  Policymakers  both  in-­‐  and  outside  of  academia  should  thus  take  notice  of  these  future  educators/scientists  and  involve  them  in  discussions  if  possible.  Along  with  their  participation  within   the   scientific   system,   candidates   should   be   aware   of   the   current   flaws   it  may   hold   and   be  proactively   involved   in   his   or   her   development   and   future.   If   properly   educated,   supervised   and  enthused,  the  PhD  body  is  one  of  the  critical  masses  in  this  system.  We  feel  that  transparency  is  key  for   the   future   self-­‐evolution   of   Science,   as  many  more   stakeholders   (society,   companies,   etc)   will  influence   the   future   of   Science   in   many   ways.   In   this   ongoing   process   we   have   tried   to   raise  awareness   of   these   topics   at   Utrecht   University   within   our   GSLS   community,   the   UU,   and   also  (inter)nationally.   To   maintain   and   expand   on   the   current   quality   of   PhD   education   in   Dutch  universities   the   PhD   body   should   remain   involved   in   the   process   of   understanding   and   discussing  issues  within  the  scientific  system  because,  in  the  end,  we  are  and  will  be,  the  Future  of  Science.    

 

FIGURES  AND  LEGENDS  

 

 

Figure  1:  Expected  duration  of  PhD.  PhD  candidates  attending  the  2016  annual  PhD  day  of  the  Utrecht  GSLS  were  asked  for  

the  expected  duration  of  their  PhD  project,  via  e-­‐voting  during  the  final  plenary  session  (N=89).  PhD  candidates  not  

planning  a  career  as  medical  specialist  (n=65)  contrasted  with  PhD  candidates  pursuing  a  career  as  a  medical  specialist  

(n=24).  

 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Medical

Non-Medical

ExpecteddurationofPhD

<3years 3years 4years 5years >5years

 

 

Figure  2:  Planned  career  after  PhD.  PhD  candidates  not  planning  a  career  as  medical  specialist  were  asked  for  their  career  

plans  after  graduation  (n=65).  PhD  candidates  plan  a  career  in  academia  (38%),  at  a  company  (23%),  at  a  government/non-­‐

profit  organization  (12%),  or  don’t  know  what  to  do  after  graduation  (28%).  

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PlannedcareerafterPhD(non-medical)

inacademia atacompany atagovernment/non-profitorganisation don'tknow

 

Figure  3:  Statements  by  PhD  candidates.  PhD  candidates  attending  the  2016  annual  PhD  day  were  split  over  six  different  

subgroups  to  discuss  the  following  topics:  Funding  vs  Integrity,  Science  communication,  PhD  competencies,  Motivation  for  

doing  a  PhD,  Supervision,  and  Education  and  Training.  Each  subgroup  of  PhD  candidates  formulated  two  statement,  which  

were  subjected  to  e-­‐voting  during  the  final  plenary  session  of  the  2016  annual  PhD  day  (N=89).  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Statement1:Thecurrentsystemof'doingscience'needsmajor

changing

Statement2:Contributionsotherthanpublications(e.g.peer-review,

teaching)shouldbeincludedascriteriaforobtainingfunding

Statement3:Reviewer commentsshouldalwaysbepublished

alongsideanarticle

Statement4:All rawdatashouldalwaysbepublished,unlessthis

jeopardizesprivacy(e.g.ofpatients)

Statement5:DuringyourPhD,youshouldbetrainedinskillsrequired

outsideofacademia

Statement6:Ifyoudon'tself-evaluate,youshallnotgraduate!

Statement7:Intrinsicmotivationtocontributeknowledgetosociety

isimportanttodelivergoodscience

Statement8:It iswrongtostartaPhDjusttoenhanceyourfuture

careerperspectives

Statement9:Regularcommunicatingandcomparingexpectations

frombothPhDstudentandsupervisorareatooltoimprovequalityof

supervision

Statement10:Supervisorsshouldpayattentiontopersonal

problems,suchasdisappointmentsandhowtocopewiththem

Statement11:EducationduringPhDcanbesufficientforwork

outsideofacademia(e.g.acourse'howtosuperviseaMScstudent'

canactasamanagement course),butwearenotawarehow

translate thisintoacommercialsetting

Statement12:Weknownotallofuscanstayinacademia,butitis

reallyhardtoseewhat isoutthere,whatotheropportunitiesare

availableoutsideacademia

StatementsbyPhDcandidates

"Agree" "Disagree"