Proceedings of a Summit—in Brief

Convened July 22–23, 2025

Reimagining STEMM Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Career Development
Proceedings of a Summit—in Brief

Many of the challenges that science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM)¹ graduate students and postdoctoral scholars have long endured have recently been exacerbated by the rapid withdrawal of federal funding, changes in federal policies around immigration, decreases in employment prospects, and persistent echoes of difficulties that surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, early career STEMM professionals—individuals entering graduate school or seeking postdoctoral positions—face decreasing programmatic support, resulting in smaller cohort sizes. Amid growing tension and uncertainty, critical questions have reemerged around the role of trainees within this complex system and their place in a rapidly changing future. This confluence of events has created a landscape which invites a comprehensive examination and fundamental rethinking of the STEMM enterprise towards clarity on priorities for reform and advancement in the future. On July 22-23, 2025, the Board on Higher Education and Workforce of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) convened a Summit with a focus on reimagining the training and career development of STEMM graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. The Summit was held both online and in person at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, DC.

The Summit followed an initial conversation series in 2024 on the Roles, Responsibilities, and Expectations of STEM Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars.² Sessions during the Summit aimed to elevate themes from this previous conversation series, with a primary goal of identifying key levers and actions to ensure the sustainability of the U.S. STEMM research enterprise while continuing to support, engage, and promote the success of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in STEMM careers.

This summary follows the conversations that were shaped as a series of “what if” questions, intended to encourage participants to reimagine what possibilities an ideal STEMM research ecosystem might hold, along with some “what is/are” questions to contextualize and ground conversations in current, albeit shifting, realities. The Summit planning team hoped that these framing questions would inspire conversation among participants and panelists at the event, as well as provoke further discussion beyond the two days.

__________________

WELCOME AND OVERVIEW OF DAY ONE

Workshop co-chair Julie Posselt, University of Southern California (USC), opened the Summit by acknowledging that nearly half of those who begin Ph.D. programs do not complete them. This signals that there is plenty of room for change and reimagining in this system. Posselt reminded the audience that the primary goals of the Summit build on a body of work from the National Academies and others, which has consistently pointed to the necessity of investment and intervention in graduate studies.³

She also shared her own experience of instability, commenting on the recent unionization of graduate students at USC. While unionizing has created a challenging environment, Posselt maintains that the disruptions to the status quo on campus have opened long-standing practices up to scrutiny that they never received. She suggested that our current political climate has similarly created conditions whereby transformative change may be more possible now than at any other time in the history of U.S. graduate education. She invited participants to be provocative in their inquiries and to reimagine their own roles in the STEMM enterprise.

Workshop co-chair Joerg Schlatterer, American Chemical Society, acknowledged decades of unanswered calls for educational reform in STEMM post-graduate training. He encouraged the audience to lean into uncertainty, commenting that “when we come together like this, uncertainty can transform into optimism, opportunity, and creativity.” Harkening back to his own personal journey as an emigrating postdoc from Germany, he remarked that what stood out to him most about the U.S. scientific enterprise was the STEMM community’s boundless optimism.

However, he cautioned that recent dramatic changes in the U.S. sociopolitical landscape could create a turning point. This may cause international talent to question if the United States is still a place to come to build a future and contribute to the scientific enterprise and economic growth. Schlatterer warned that this uncertainty could echo across a generation.

Marcia McNutt, National Academy of Sciences, delivered her opening remarks virtually. Building on comments that she gave at the June 2025 State of the Science address,⁴ she emphasized the importance of thinking creatively to create and cultivate educational and workforce development environments in which all STEMM professionals can thrive. She stressed to participants that the National Academies is becoming more nimble and more responsive in its critical work, including its continued focus on STEMM education and workforce.

Cynthia Friend, the Kavli Foundation, which supported the Summit, also delivered virtual remarks. She noted that the needs and expectations of early career scientists have been evolving for decades, with the COVID-19 pandemic and recent shifts in federal funding accelerating these shifts. Friend identified the drivers of these shifts as the mounting challenges that early career scientists face in securing permanent positions, leading to multiple postdoctoral appointments, longer training periods, and greater difficulty in attracting and retaining international talent. She suggests that unionization is a symptom of tensions in how research, training, and career development are organized in the United States.

Friend concluded by underscoring two central challenges for the scientific community: (1) how to adapt to these disruptions in ways that improve training and inspire early career scientists, and (2) how to shape a new paradigm for graduate and postdoctoral training that establishes more resilient structures that are responsive to both present and future needs. She emphasized that the current pressures on the scientific enterprise present an opportunity to reimagine the future of the U.S. STEMM workforce and enable it to support and foster top talent.

OPENING KEYNOTE: WHAT IS THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF POSTGRADUATE STEMM CAREER DEVELOPMENT?

Dan Pomeroy, Scientific Citizenship Initiative, moderated the opening keynote session and introduced his commissioned paper on the same topic, prepared at the request

__________________

of the Summit planning committee.⁵ His paper explores insights into the systems that shape STEMM graduate education, the drum beat of calls for reform, and the progress that has been made on the subject over the past decade through the work of educators, students, policymakers, administrators, and institutional leaders.

Donna Ginther, University of Kansas, gave a keynote talk focused on an economic view of the supply and demand which influences the early career STEMM landscape. The data which informs Ginther’s work—the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Survey of Earned Doctorates—had not been collected for 2025 at the time of the Summit, and therefore, she noted that her presentation did not reflect the current moment. She additionally acknowledged that there is no single source of data on postdoctoral scholars in the United States, which generally results in undercounting.

Regarding the supply of early career STEMM talent, Ginther said that the numbers of postdoctoral researchers in STEMM have mostly been flat except for in engineering—where the number of postdoctoral scholars has increased three-fold since 2000. Ratios of postdoctoral scholars to graduate students in science have fallen over the past 30 years, suggesting that the United States is shifting toward producing more graduate students and fewer postdoctoral scholars.

She noted that it is also important to think about the internationalization of this career stage since the 1990s. She focused on the two biggest broad fields of STEMM education: biomedical sciences and engineering. Since 1994, 20 percent of biomedical doctorates were awarded to non-citizens, while non-citizens make up 50 percent of biomedical postdoctoral scholars. This contrast is even more dramatic in engineering, with non-citizens comprising 50 percent of awarded doctorates and 70 percent of postdoctoral scholars. Ginther suggests that the internationalization of the postdoctoral scholar is indicative of three factors: 1) the appeal of United States’s status on the cutting edge of science; 2) the value that non-citizens put on U.S. work experience; and 3) the laxity in visa caps that academic employers enjoy in comparison to industry employers.

Regarding the demand for early career STEMM talent more broadly, Ginther acknowledges that industry employment is an increasing driver of demand. The year 2013 marked an inflection point in doctoral employment by sector: industry employment started to grow while academic employment began to decrease.⁶

As postdoctoral scholarship is intended to be a temporary period of advanced training, Ginther said “this is an investment in human capital, we expect that human capital yield as a positive return.” However, her work demonstrates that postdoctoral scholars earn 17 percent less than their counterparts who move directly into industry, government, or nonprofit jobs. These earnings do not catch up even after 15 years⁷—leading Ginther to conclude that the postdoctoral training period has no discernable economic value other than the rare possibility of getting an academic tenure track job. She concluded that most doctorate earners would be better off skipping the postdoctoral career stage.

In speaking to the current moment, Ginther highlighted several recent findings presented at the National Bureau of Economic Research conference on Early Career Scientists that she hosts.⁸ Her colleagues have recently demonstrated that graduate student unions increase stipends, but reduce the demand for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, and that these unions also reduce the time to completion of the Ph.D. degree.⁹ Other papers found that international postdoctoral scholars received less overall support for independent research, which materializes in lower pay and increased surveillance and monitoring when compared to their counterparts. Another paper found that gaps in federal research funding decreases lab size and lowers research productivity. A very recent publication found that federal funding increases and Ph.D. production are roughly related 1:1, indicating that as government funding increases doctoral degrees increase. Overall, her takeaway was that funding matters with respect to productivity and career prospects.

__________________

Ginther highlighted that the scientific enterprise is currently experiencing “supply shocks” due to the cancelation of grants and contracts, massive budget cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NSF, and newly restrictive immigration policies. She suggested that these kinds of cuts do not typically affect tenured faculty but will decrease the numbers of early career scholars moving through the system. Generally, a reduction in supply would yield increases in salary. But because demand is not held constant, this will not be true. Recent reports have suggested that universities are reducing or suspending graduate admissions.

Overall, Ginther made three suggestions to address the current moment through reimagining several systems:

1. Reimagining the federal statistical system to address the paucity of high-quality data on postdoctoral scholars. Ginther reminded the Summit participants that “you can’t fix what you don’t measure.”
2. Reimagining incentivization of faculty to reward and recognize mentoring. The current system incentivizes faculty to get grants and hire people who can finish the work that the grants entail.
3. Reimagining a STEMM educational enterprise which trains early career talent to interact broadly—in a way that catalyzes industry partnerships, patents, and economic growth.

Ginther concluded with a message to policymakers that “basic science is the secret sauce for U.S. leadership in the global economy. If we eat the seed corn, which are our graduate students and postdocs, 10-15 years from now, our economy will stagnate.” She remarked that it is critically important that we recognize that our scientific discoveries are essential for the national security and economic growth of this country.

WHAT ARE GRADUATE STUDENTS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING IN THE UNITED STATES?

The first panel began with a welcome from Priyanka Bushana, a recent participant in the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship at the National Academies, who moderated the discussion. Bushana emphasized “the lack of transparency and preparation for what graduate school entails” as a persistent challenge in graduate education. She prompted the initial discussion by asking panelists to reflect on emergent issues in early career STEMM education and to highlight issues that should be obvious to students considering graduate studies. Bushana encouraged the panelists, Beatrice “Bia” Caffé, Washington State University; Alyssa Paparella, Baylor College of Medicine; Alex Rich, Yale School of Medicine; and Don Dixon, Vanderbilt University, a recent graduate and new postdoctoral scholar, to reimagine a better system.

Bushana initiated the discussion by asking panelists to reflect on major barriers in STEMM graduate education and how the current political moment has exacerbated existing issues. Dixon highlighted the impact of funding instability, noting that many offers to graduate school were being rescinded for the Fall 2025 cohort, leading some prospective students to consider foregoing graduate school altogether. Rich echoed this, pointing to increased uncertainty in career transitions, including a reduction in postdoctoral positions. Caffé further detailed how current graduate students are “losing their funding in the middle of their academic journeys” due to grant cuts. She then highlighted the specific financial insecurity faced by graduate students on 9-month appointments, especially for international scholars on F-1 visas. Caffé explained that these students often spend three months of their lives without any income, as F-1 visa regulations severely restrict international students from securing non-academic, short-term, off-campus employment that exists as seasonal employment.¹⁰

Bushana asked panelists what they wished they had known before entering graduate school. Dixon reflected that success in graduate school requires networking and building support systems—skills that are rarely emphasized in undergraduate education. He emphasized the importance of identifying a department culture, mentor, and cohort that sets trainees up for success.

Panelists also described significant barriers to accessing appropriate resources, particularly for those from underrepresented backgrounds. Paparella explained that for students with disabilities, there is a significant lack of

__________________

transparency, stating that “no one explains how to get support or accommodations.” She highlighted a lack of consistency in accessible resources between institutions, making it very hard to find support or advocacy unless those spaces already exist at any given student’s home institution. Rich agreed, noting faculty often serve as the variable point of information for these issues, contributing to a lack of transparency.

Panelists also highlighted the detrimental impact of rollbacks to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Rich expressed the feeling that the STEMM enterprise is losing ground, stating “we have gone from having a really hard time acknowledging that there was a lack of underrepresented folks within STEMM [...] to more targeted recruitment [...] Now, it’s like we’ve taken a step back, we can’t even acknowledge the environment that we’re in.” She explained that being unable to acknowledge the need for support for minoritized populations means that we cannot collect data or information on it, and that makes it difficult to address. Paparella directly linked this regression to disabled students, stating, “disability was always the last consideration for DEI... now, with all of these DEI rollbacks, it’s kind of completely neglected once again.”

Mental health and burnout were also concerns expressed by the panelists. Caffé noted the emotional toll of realizing that graduate work rarely follows initial expectations. To combat burnout, Paparella added that institutions and faculty mentors must ensure that students are taking care of their health and are encouraged to take appropriate time off to be able to recharge. She emphasized that cultural awareness from mentors and institutions is critical because different students face different issues, but all students “need time and space in order to recharge and become better scientists.” Panelists agreed that imposter syndrome is widespread and compounded by systemic inequities such as financial insecurity, disability, and international status. Bushana noted that this is a place where supportive mentorship can help, acknowledging that while a lot of expectations are placed on faculty, even small gestures like words of affirmation can go a long way in creating a more conducive working environment.

Turning to solutions, Bushana asked panelists what improvements could be made to Ph.D.-level STEMM education. Dixon highlighted the value of Individual Development Plans (IDPs), recalling his surprise that an IDP was required in his postdoctoral training, but not during his graduate studies. Rich brought up the issue of transferable skills and how existing professional development resources often fail to reach students. She emphasized that the solution is to “access students within the communities where they already exist: through their labs and their faculty mentors.”

The panelists further explored coalition-building and unionization. Caffé shared that beyond stipend negotiations, she found organizing at Washington State University to give graduate students a platform to advocate for and set expectations regarding mentorship, transferable skills, and specific protections for international students. Rich corroborated this through her experience of unionization, stating that unionization freed Yale’s student government from “having to advocate just to have enough money for food” and allowing them to focus on broader conversations about what graduate education should look like. Rich mentioned that prior to unionization, “30 percent of Yale graduate and professional students were food insecure.” Although graduate students at Vanderbilt University are not unionized, Dixon agreed about the importance of financial security, adding that the “average time to degree—around six years—is a long time to be struggling socioeconomically.”

Bushana then prompted a discussion on the contested “student versus worker” debate. Rich unequivocally stated, “I haven’t felt like a proper student since my first year of grad school. I don’t take classes anymore, I work in the lab, and I teach. The transition to worker is inherent in the curriculum already.” Paparella explained how this divide in labeling creates uncertainty for disabled students: as a student, accommodations are clearly laid out, but as a worker without a union contract, “it was left to me and my PI to figure it out.” Caffé summarized that graduate students are both students and workers, and it is important for graduate students to acknowledge that interconnected identity and ask who benefits when they are classified one way or the other.

Bushana asked about positive mentorship experiences, which she defined as mentorship and support in pursuit of appropriate resources to achieve personal and career goals.

Panelists called for stronger incentives for faculty to invest in mentorship and for recognition of mentorship as a core responsibility, not an optional service. Dixon explained that good mentorship “humanizes high-level research” and helps students understand that uncertainty is part of the process. Rich highlighted the importance of being seen as a person and having space to explore personal and career paths. Paparella defined a good mentor as someone who can “recognize all of my identities” and learn to help her feel empowered. Caffé underscored the value of peer mentorship, which often fills gaps left by faculty.

An audience member inquired about industry involvement in graduate education. Dixon noted that many astrophysics graduates transition into data science. He emphasized that “it is important [at this] stage of their training, [to] at least see where else they could go.” Paparella admitted her own limited knowledge of what industry looks like and stressed that knowledge about industry is not reaching graduate students so they can make the informed decision. Caffé, while supporting “more pathways to industry,” also urged that “we should be focusing on some energy on how we make sure that academia, traditionally, still exists and persists and is valid.”

WHAT IF WE COORDINATED PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE GRADUATE EDUCATION?

Lorelle Espinosa, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, moderated the next panel, in which panelists serving multi-sector, multi-institutional initiatives discussed their efforts to coordinate programs which support key components of graduate education. She emphasized the critical nature of resource sharing in times of scarcity.

Julia Kent, Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), provided an overview of her work and her role in the Innovation in Graduate Education (IGE) Hub.¹¹ CGS is an organization representing more than 460 universities that grant master’s and doctoral degrees. They advocate for and develop effective practices in graduate education and research. The IGE Hub, funded by the NSF, aims to encourage new, transformative approaches to STEMM graduate training. Its projects focus on areas like mentorship, professional development, and identity formation.

The primary goal of the IGE Hub is to foster collaboration among awardees to ensure their collective impact is larger than the sum of its parts. Kent noted that they are actively working to scale these innovations and create bridges with the broader scientific community through alliances with scientific societies. She highlighted the importance of building community to drive change, inviting anyone interested in these topics to participate in the Hub’s virtual events and online community. Kent emphasized the value of bringing together people with diverse perspectives and asking what they need and want from each other. A needs assessment of the IGE community revealed that community members were not just interested in their specific research topics, but in the methodologies and lessons learned from other grantees.

Corrie Kuniyoshi, American Chemical Society, discussed the development of the ChemIDP, an IDP designed specifically for careers in the chemical sciences.¹² Kuniyoshi also described work she leads around assessing, developing, and implementing IDPs in STEM graduate education: the Impact Indicator and Instruments for Individual Development Plans (I3IDP).¹³ She framed the IDP journey like a video game with three levels of intensity. Level 1, she explained, is about access: providing a basic template and information on available careers, which can sometimes be a “check box approach.” Level 2 is about impact: focusing on developing a community by creating cohort experiences, offering mental health resources, and providing access to mentors. A key aspect of this level is evaluation and measuring the impact of interventions. Level 3 is about mindset: developing a holistic understanding that recognizes the individuality necessary for successful IDP processes. Kuniyoshi’s core advice was to try new things and measure what you want to change.

Sara Xayarath Hernandez, Cornell University, discussed her work with the Equity in Graduate Education (EGE) Consortium, a community of diverse R1 institutions that provides a platform for its members to learn from each other and adapt each other’s strategies to meet unique institutional contexts.¹⁴ Hernandez highlighted that even within a single institution like Cornell, with over 80 different doctoral programs, it is like working with “80

__________________

different micro-organizations, with 80 different cultures, and 80 different ways of doing things.” The challenge is to create structures that meet shared needs while providing flexibility.

Hernandez acknowledged the tension from institutions pulling inwards and becoming more competitive when resources are scarce. She mentioned that in an increasingly competitive environment, institutions must be willing to exchange information and work together to think about the collective good. Hernandez warned that “it’s very easy to start to backslide … when the stakes start to increase.” In her view, open communication and collective action are vital during times of reduced funding and increased risk aversion. To combat this, leaders must communicate with students and faculty, even when they lack all of the answers, and provide opportunities for community members to share their experiences. She stressed the need to protect those most vulnerable to these changes and to continue advocating for diversity and inclusion.

Kent agreed, emphasizing the importance of moving outside of a comfortable grouping of institutions or disciplines. For example, she suggested creating working relationships between R1 universities and community colleges to create transparency and support networks that can accommodate the diverse paths that students take into graduate education. She stressed that this is especially important because, currently, “tolerance for risk is decreasing.”

Espinosa asked panelists about the opportunities that have surfaced during recent hardships, prompting Hernandez to speak to the burden that the changing political climate puts on faculty. Instead of creating new requirements, Hernandez is integrating critical topics like mentor development into existing spaces, like faculty meetings and retreats. Kuniyoshi highlighted that effective mentorship involves empowering students to take ownership of their own development. This approach encourages a shift from a single, top-down mentorship model to a more holistic, collaborative one.

Espinosa polled the audience to see where they saw the greatest opportunities for collaboration at the moment. Kent commented on the prominence of “industry” as an answer, cautioning against relying on any single sector to “save” graduate education. Kent shared that industry is not always focused on the long-term, and that while industry partnerships offer valuable hands-on experience and can provide new avenues for student success, they are not the only solution. However, Kent made note of several excellent models for university/industry collaboration for those who were interested in learning more. She noted that an IGE member, Himanshu Jain will be hosting an event on forming industry-university partnerships for doctoral training.¹⁵ She also made note of the A2i program out of North Carolina State University (NC State) which has been scaled across institutions.¹⁶ These models are promising, but not quick fixes. She cautioned that seeing increased buy-in from industry will take a lot of work and investment.

WHAT IF WE CONSCIOUSLY PREPARED EARLY CAREER SCHOLARS FOR A VARIETY OF CAREERS?

As an introduction to the next panel, moderator Emily Miller, Association of American Universities (AAU), welcomed panelists by sharing her hope that we can continue to advance career and professional development in this new and challenging context, and continue to support the full range of professional aspirations held by doctoral and postdoctoral scholars.

Miller presented a historical overview of key milestones during the past 40 years of professional development programming for early-career STEMM professionals. She particularly honored and expressed gratitude for the professional contributions that have been made by many Summit participants, including the Graduate Career Consortium, the National Postdoctoral Association, and the publication and development of several reports and resources.

Roman Holowinsky, Erdős Institute, described the genesis and growth of the Erdős Institute,¹⁷ which aims to addresses the gap between Ph.D. training and career opportunities outside of academia by leveraging alumni connections. The institute currently houses mini-courses, project-based boot camps, and job workshops. The Institute’s boot camps are driven by challenges submitted by industry partners and are

__________________

focused on cohort-based learning in high-demand fields like data science and AI. These programs not only provide valuable upskilling but also help students build resilient professional networks. Holowinsky noted that the Institute helps to meet a demand from employers who recognize the potential of Ph.D.s to move into management and leadership roles. The programming also addresses a fundamental need for mentorship outside of academia and job market exploration for early-career STEMM professionals, while providing employers with a highly educated recruitment pipeline.

Cynthia Fuhrmann, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, a co-author of the popular MyIDP tool, and a leader of the Professional Development hub (pd|hub), recounted her own experience. When she did not have access to career development resources, she connected with other students to build a student-led platform for career exploration. This led to two key realizations: that there is immense value in having intentional, structured programming to support the career and professional development of graduate students and postdocs, regardless of their chosen career path; and that there is value in creating cohorts of individuals with shared experiences and interests. These cohorts allowed her to normalize the challenges she was facing and learn from her peers. Through her work with the pd|hub, funded by NIH’s National Institute for General Medical Sciences, Fuhrmann has created resources that make it easier for universities to adopt evidence-based practices in career and professional development.¹⁸ pd|hub’s funding has allowed the workshops to be tested at 36 implementation sites, meaning that the materials have been curated, peer-reviewed, and tested around the country. pd|hub also hosts a Scientific Society group, which has developed resources for advocacy within home institutions for those who are interested in advocating for sustained career and professional development.¹⁹

Phil Trella, University of Virginia, spoke about the Ph.D. Plus program at the University of Virginia,²⁰ a comprehensive professional development initiative with three core components: 1) a Foundational Series focused on early professional development needs for incoming graduate students covering basic skills like project and time management; 2) a Career Design Series for self-assessment that tracks with IDP goals; and 3) a Research Communication component, in recognition of the fact that communication skills are critical regardless of career path. Beyond these components, Ph.D. Plus hosts specific career-related modules, programs in specific fields, and training opportunities through an internship program. Trella noted that students who participate in these programs report an increase in their career competence and have a better understanding of how their skills transfer to non-academic roles. He emphasized that these programs also help students build peer cohorts and “feel less alone” in their career exploration. This cohort-based approach builds career resiliency by fostering a supportive community where students can lean on one another and learn from shared experiences.

Current Ph.D. candidate Ashley Moses, Stanford University, shared the personal motivation behind her initiative, Ph.D. Paths.²¹ She created a database of Ph.D.s who have pursued diverse careers outside of academia, complete with interviews detailing the emotional and logistical components of their transitions out of academia. Moses explained her mission to “normalize career discovery in the Ph.D. journey” and empower students to find fulfilling and meaningful careers. By providing stories of successful professionals, she aims to demonstrate the world of possibilities that validates the inherent value of a Ph.D. Her work directly addresses the existential crisis that many students face when they realize they may not want to be a professor, and it counters the narrative that they are a “failure” for leaving academia.

Miller asked the panelists to discuss barriers that they have encountered in their work. Moses mentioned that professional development is often viewed as a distraction from a graduate student’s primary research, which makes students feel like they cannot spend time on it.

__________________

Fuhrmann agreed with Moses, mentioning that these spaces are seen as extracurricular and often taught in an anecdotal “this is how I did it” style, rather than with evidence-based pedagogy. She explained that there is a large body of work on career and professional development, and that it even has its own core competencies, including project management, teamwork, and presentation skills, which are essential for any career path. To address this, she urged universities to recognize the value and importance of professional development as a critical component of early career training.

Fuhrmann spoke about reimagining the role of professional development in graduate students’ training. She suggested developing a national-level guide for mentors on how to have career-focused conversations. Fuhrmann reiterated that even when resources are in place, graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often do not participate in training until close to the end of their training periods. This is another reason to ensure that these tools are built into core curricula. Trella shared his experience with the utility of making foundational professional development programs mandatory for incoming students. He has been able to do this for several departments at his institution, which has ensured that those departments were able to ensure that entering students find time for such activities in an already-packed curriculum.

Holowinsky spoke about reimagining barriers to funding, describing how the Erdős Institute secured sustainable funding by convincing employers that they should pay to access the talent pipeline of Ph.D.s. He called for recognition that “Ph.D.s are incredibly valuable.” Holowinsky explained that their model is a 50/50 split between academic and corporate funding, based on the recognition that if employers are benefiting from hiring the most educated people in the country, they should be paying for it. Trella added that university investment can also be secured by demonstrating the value of professional development competencies to faculty, even those who are focused on academic careers. By showcasing how skills like communication and project management are essential for a faculty career, he has earned trust and opened the door to discussions about other career paths.

Fuhrmann also spoke about career resilience, citing research that demonstrates that it is not a static trait, but a learned skill.²² She listed internal factors that contribute to career resilience, pointing out that many of these skills are learned in career and professional development programs and through mentorship: self-advocacy, self-awareness, self-reflection, self-care, flexibility in career growth, and a sense of agency. She also noted that external factors like peer support and career mentoring are crucial for resilience. Cohort-based learning becomes even more important during times of decreasing graduate enrollments, she said, as it provides a valuable community of support. Moses added that supporting students can be as simple as faculty members showing interest in the aspirations of graduate students. She emphasized that this simple mentality of support can significantly shift a student’s career optimism.

WHAT IF WE LEARNED FROM CURRENT GRADUATE EDUCATION AND POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING SYSTEMS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?

Committee member Rigoberto Hernandez, Johns Hopkins University, moderated the next panel, which virtually convened panelists representing a selection of international programs.

Thomas Busch, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST), described his home institution, a unique postgraduate university in Japan dedicated to creating an international research environment. With around 80 percent of its students coming from overseas, OIST intentionally cultivates a global peer community. A key feature of the OIST model is that students, not funding, drive the research. All students choose their own supervisors and thesis topics based on their interests, ensuring that academic freedom is at the core of their work, Busch explained. To allow students to focus entirely on their research and studies, OIST provides benefits typically associated with full-time workers, including family support, subsidized on-campus housing, childcare, and healthcare. The university maintains a fixed 3:1 student-to-faculty ratio and requires all students to participate in professional development. Busch explained that by investing in the well-being and professional growth of its people, OIST is building a culture that values retention, diversity, and curiosity, which in turn leads to better, more impactful science.

__________________

Florent Bernard, Delegation of the European Union to the United States, discussed how the European Union (EU) is working to make research more appealing to early career professionals. One of the methods for doing this is to create standards for all research environments, such as The European Charter for Researchers.²³ This is a set of principles that promotes integrity, gender equality, ethical behavior, and academic freedom, with the latter even being enshrined in some member states’ constitutions. Another place where the EU is implementing standards is in creating harmonization for researcher working conditions, ensuring that all researchers, including graduate researchers, are treated as full-time workers with access to social security and health insurance.

Recognizing that many researchers do not stay in academia, the EU has also developed a European Competence Framework for Researchers.²⁴ This guide helps early career researchers identify and articulate the wide range of skills they gain during their studies, including project management, grant negotiation, and science communication for policy. Bernard emphasized that this framework not only benefits individual researchers by making their skills more transferable but also helps to internationalize science by creating a common language for career progression across different countries and sectors.

Chris Turner, UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), explained that UKRI is the largest funding body in the UK, funding around 20 percent of UK doctoral students. While they do not act as a regulator, their funding power gives them significant influence and the opportunity to improve doctoral experiences. UKRI has issued a clear statement of expectations that all students receive training in skills that are valuable in both academia and industry, such as knowledge exchange, commercialization, and interdisciplinarity.

Turner presented four “cornerstones” of UKRI’s investment strategy: capacity, capability, culture, and behavior. She stressed that investing in people is how you get good science. “Capacity” ensures that the research activity is being supported alongside a competitive financial offer that inspires STEMM professionals to dedicate their lives to research. “Capability” is about ensuring the right skills are in the right place at the right time. “Culture” focuses on creating a respectful, valued work environment that encourages retention and diversity of thought. Finally, “behavior” is about using funding as a tool to incentivize good practices that contribute to a positive culture shift in academia.

Hernandez then asked both the audience and panelists, “What do graduate students need for success?” Turner provided contractual context: to ensure students finish on time, UKRI requires students to have a clear 3-year (full time work) plan for their Ph.D., preventing them from having to work for free. Turner also noted that UKRI is moving toward a multi-mentor system to provide students with support beyond their PIs.

All speakers agreed on the added value of international experiences in science, as they prepare researchers for a global workforce and provide them with broader networks. Bernard described a model by which the EU recruits cohorts of 10 to 15 Ph.D. students at a time to be a part of a short-term project-based consortium across various member countries. Through this model, students get to travel to different labs to build an expansive network and engage in cohort-based learning, setting them up for success during and after their program. When asked about what postdoctoral scholars need for success, Turner mentioned that UKRI uses cohort-based learning to teach postdoctoral scholars about skill transferability, thereby building career resiliency.

The panelists also addressed the need to professionalize the roles of graduate students and postdocs. Turner was explicit about the definition of employment, stating that in the UK, if a student teaches or provides a service to the university, they are an employee and must be paid a salary. However, the UKRI model provides the benefits of a full-time worker, allowing students to focus on their research during their studies.

When asked what professional societies could do, Busch offered a simple philosophy: “Fund, then get out of the way.” Both he and Bernard agreed that trusting researchers with stable funding is the best way to support them and foster a culture of innovation.

__________________

FIRST DAY CLOSING: WHAT IF WE DEVELOPED NEW APPROACHES TO FINANCING GRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES?

The first day concluded with a discussion reimagining the traditional model of graduate education through federal funding mechanisms, presented in the format of a fireside chat between Daryll Pines, President of the University of Maryland (UMD), College Park, and Victor McCrary, Chair of the National Science Board and Vice President for Research at the University of the District of Columbia.

Pines began by discussing Vannevar Bush’s model of research funding.²⁵ He noted that this model has shaped the past 75 years of scientific inquiry in the United States and the world, defining interactions between basic science, use-inspired science, and translational science. Historically, he explained, it has been a very successful model in supporting breakthroughs. It also has shaped the development of graduate student research. This year, on the 75th anniversary of NSF’s founding, the compact between the federal government and academia has never been more challenged, he noted. While acknowledging the financial pressures on this model and trying to find solutions that produce resilience against funding shifts, Pines reminded the attendees to take this opportunity to reimagine and create a more efficient and publicly engaged research ecosystem that improves STEMM graduate education. McCrary made a point to clarify that while the global events of the past six months have shaped this discussion, this conversation started in earnest at least 4 to 5 years ago.

In their conversation, the two leaders explored how to reshape funding and training programs, particularly the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). McCrary suggested tailoring GRFPs to specific industries or state-level needs, such as a GRFP focused on quantum computing, or a “North Dakota NSF GRFP.” He argued that this approach could help maintain the program’s funding in a tight budgetary landscape by demonstrating its direct value to local taxpayers and distributing financial support across key parties. This could also identify candidates for graduate education that may have otherwise been missed.

McCrary pointed to the growing demand for return on investment from STEMM graduate education for state universities and taxpayers. He explains that Vannevar Bush’s approach was intentionally organic and bottom-up, but that it creates a lag between public funding and producing change for public good. This funding model results in a need to explain the value proposition of graduate education. McCrary and Pines posed their own provocative, intentionally uncomfortable “what if” questions to interrogate this system. They asked the audience to challenge the status quo alongside them and to think creatively about the possibilities for a new system of graduate education. What if a graduate student did their Ph.D. work in collaboration with the mayor of a big city?—asked McCrary. What if their dissertation was written in the format of policy documentation that gave suggestions for implementation? Pines, too, questioned why the dissertation model has been stagnant for so long, and asked: What if a dissertation could be a business startup? What if an individual could complete a doctorate as part of a team? Pines reminded the audience that the National Academies have demonstrated that team science accelerates breakthroughs in multiple reports.²⁶

They also challenged the five-to-seven-year timeline for doctoral degrees, arguing for a more flexible and efficient model. This shift might also require greater emphasis on exposure to industry in early-career training, perhaps through graduate-level co-op experiences. Pines added that since 61 percent of all graduate students in the United States pursue careers in industry or government or at non-profits, it is time for these sectors to play a larger role in funding doctoral training. McCrary added that since 1980, industry has funded more research than the federal government. The National Center of Science and Engineering Statistics reported that as of two years ago, industry funded almost $890 billion of research, whereas the federal government only funded $265 billion.²⁷

McCrary challenged the notion that research is solely the purview of those with post-graduate degrees. He asked

__________________

the audience to think about the history of Bell Laboratories. 75 percent of their employees did not hold degrees when it was founded in 1925; the first engineers were recruited from farmland due to their hands-on experience with machinery. He compelled the audience to think about a system that incorporated NSF support that better integrates undergraduates and even community college students into research projects to create a more inclusive pipeline. He highlighted the great work that community colleges often do in community-based research: creating clear public good for their communities.

McCrary made it clear that while basic research is vital, a shift toward NSF funding supporting a more “top-down” approach that includes use-inspired research is necessary. McCrary and Pines concluded that the solution is not to abandon basic research or to rely solely on industry. Instead, it is to forge new partnerships and find a balance between all sectors. An audience member underscored this point in a question, suggesting that industry’s involvement in funding could also lead to its participation in designing competency-based graduate education, which “might also allow us to shift how we select our students to entertain the broadest array of talent, which … is a real positive.”

KEYNOTE: WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION CHANGES ON GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES?

The second day opened with a contextualizing fireside chat exploring the state of graduate education amid a “polycrisis” between Bryan Alexander, Georgetown University, and Suzanne Barbour, Duke University. As defined by Alexander, the “polycrisis” describes the multiple, overlapping global crises, from geopolitical shifts to climate change, that exacerbate and accelerate each other. He suggested that the polycrisis has informed conversations about immigration and intellectual freedom, and it ultimately will have ramifications for how we can reimagine graduate education. Barbour responded that the worst thing to do at this moment would be inaction, stating, “one should never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Thinking back on the last five years, Barbour commended how an individualistic society has learned to leverage collective action to make a difference, noting that recent change has been driven by coalitions built by organizations like AAU, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and other, discipline-focused professional societies. In general, Alexander sees higher education as having a collective action problem, in that it does not collaborate well across the borders of its campuses. Barbour connected this to Gen Z students, which she described as a generation of activists shaped by the internet and the pandemic who increasingly see themselves as “workers first before they see themselves as students.” She mused that a key part of their instruction might be helping them find value in collective action.

Barbour described today’s student leaders as having a “much broader frame of reference” and being able to “step outside of their own contexts” to speak to shared experiences across disciplines. This skill, she argued, is driven by their access to information, which empowers them to make a difference. She observed that, “students are more career-focused now than they were in my time. In my time, I think we had the luxury of being less focused than students have to be now.”

The conversation repeatedly addressed recalcitrance at the faculty level as a key barrier to change. Barbour noted that while administrators can plan, “things don’t change at universities until the faculty engage and understand.” She argued that administrators must show faculty the value of reforms by using data to demonstrate how improved mentorship leads to more productive student careers, ultimately benefiting faculty members’ own success. She suggested that success metrics should expand beyond papers and keynotes to include how many students are well-mentored and land in their desired career paths.

The two also discussed how AI will change higher education. Alexander surmised that AI could be used to fill mentorship gaps. Barbour agreed, referencing a National Academies’ report suggesting that students are best served by a constellation of mentors, and that AI could potentially be one of them.²⁸

The discussion concluded with questions from the audience. When asked by Priyanka Bushana how she balances the tension of negotiating with unionized students while supporting their collective action, Barbour advised seeing

__________________

the bargaining table as an opportunity for conversation, not argument. She stated that the shared goal of faculty and students is to ensure students receive the “best possible graduate education,” which makes “coming together rather than coming apart” the most effective strategy.

Responding to a question about the future of graduate education, Alexander pointed to the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”²⁹ He argued that this bill, which ties federal funding to graduate employment outcomes, could fundamentally reshape higher education by forcing a re-evaluation of educational purpose.

Finally, audience member, Debra Stewart, asked the panelists to address the problem confronted in the Ken Pruett quote: “the genius of graduate education in the United States is that no one is in control, but that’s also its Achilles heel.” Barbour responded by bringing the conversation back to faculty, asserting that if we can convince faculty that being more responsive mentors is going to make the university more responsive to their needs, push their careers forward, make them more productive, and make their students have more productive careers and lives, they will respond. She stressed that the current policies and structures are still based on a model thought up by the NSF in the 1950s. She urged the audience to “rethink that as well,” arguing that the policies in place need to change to reflect the more diverse group of people now shaping the future of science.

WHAT IF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS STOPPED COMING TO THE UNITED STATES?

Chris Glass, Boston College, opened the next panel by raising the stakes on the urgency of this conversation, reporting that a couple of days prior, the new director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, was sworn into office. He has said that it is his goal to eliminate optional practical training (OPT), which allows international students to temporarily stay in the United States following receipt of their degree. Glass noted that 250,000 international students currently participate in OPT. Additionally, his research on these policies indicates that the 3-week pause in H-1B visa appointments during the summer could lead to a 7 to 10 percent decline in international students.

Michael Clemens, George Mason University, focused his presentation on an economic view of this topic. Clemens’ presentation pulled from his paper, which was commissioned by the Summit planning committee and co-authored by Amy Nice and Jeremy Neufeld.³⁰ To frame the discussion, he stated that the anticipated reduction in international students is part of an explicit program to exclude foreign talent from the United States. He quoted Vice President J.D. Vance, who has argued that international students take spots that would otherwise go to U.S. citizens. Clemens highlighted that this political rhetoric is being followed by concrete actions, including mass revocations of student visas, a 17-country visa ban, and the seizure and detention of students. Additionally, action has been taken against universities using resources to retain international talent. He noted further anticipated actions, including the end of Optional Practical Training (OPT), which is the number one route for foreign STEMM graduates to contribute to the U.S. economy, as well as restrictions on H-1B visas.

Clemens presented data to illustrate the tangible economic impact of these policies. He stated that since the year 2000, 34 percent of the entire Ph.D.-educated STEMM workforce in the United States is foreign-born and U.S.-educated. According to Clemens and his co-authors, this demonstrates that the United States has successfully retained a significant portion of the foreign-born talent that it educates. He explained that a large majority of this retention happens through “front door” mechanisms like OPT and the H-1B visa program. If these programs are eliminated, Clemens stated, the United States would lose at least one-third of its international STEMM workforce over the next generation, a loss that he called a “massive and persistent hole in the prosperity and opportunity for all Americans.”

Clemens cited data which show that workers born and educated in the United States are not a substitution for the foreign-born workers educated in the United States. In particular, he referenced research by Kevin Shih,

__________________

which found that a decrease in international students after 9/11 led to a decrease in domestic enrollment, because universities became less able to fund their programs without the tuition revenue generated by international students. Clemens asserted that the positive effects of international STEM workers are significant and include more innovation, higher wages for both high- and low-skilled domestic workers, and an increase in business activity and entrepreneurship. Clemens also cited research showing that immigrants make citizens more productive, with a significant portion of immigrant-led business activity benefiting non-immigrants who work alongside them. He concluded by stating that in 10 years, the anticipated hole in the economy from losing foreign-born talent would be at least the size of South Carolina’s GDP, which is a magnitude above any direct administrative costs cited to justify these new policies.

Allan Goodman, Institute of International Education, offered a historical perspective, presenting a dose of optimism that he gained while conducting research for a book that he is writing about American’s embrace of international education and exchange since 1630. According to his research, despite periods of xenophobia and restrictive policies throughout history, international student numbers have consistently grown in the United States. He makes a case that the tradition of welcoming international students is in “the American DNA.” He believes that the United States will continue to be a magnet for international students because they can do things here that they cannot do in their home countries. He additionally suggested that the students who come to the United States generally have wanted to come for a long time; he does not think that current policies will deter them in the long run.

Further, he recognized that OPT has survived assaults before, and that because U.S. universities are not centrally operated by the government and have the freedom to set their own admissions policies, he suggested there is a buffer against political action. He also pointed to demographic trends, noting that many countries, like India and Nigeria, cannot build universities fast enough to meet the demand of their growing youth populations. Goodman’s biggest worry is that one of these countries might ban its students from coming to the United States, which could be the only thing to “clog [his] optimistic view.”

Sonali Majumdar, Princeton University, shared an institutional perspective from the view of an international scholar. She noted that while the current U.S. immigration system works for those who want to stay in their specific field of study, it makes career changes incredibly difficult due to visa restrictions. She shared her personal journey, which included 17 years of navigating the U.S. visa system to get her green card, and urged early-career professionals not to be risk-averse because “things might still work.” Majumdar also highlighted the financial and logistical burdens of her immigration journey, including frequent visa renewals and administrative leaves that would take her away from her research. Sharing some stories she gathered for her new book on navigating science as an international scholar,³¹ she explained that this constant stress can lead to deficit thinking and designing one’s life around the feasibility of immigration rather than career aspirations. She stressed the importance of institutional support, including providing transparent information and training faculty on the specific challenges international scholars face, such as the lengthy administrative processes for visa renewals.

Tim Kodalle, Berkeley Lab, a postdoctoral researcher from Germany, shared his personal perspective on the differences between the U.S. and European academic systems. He noted that the term “postdoctoral student” is strange to him, as he and his peers are workers, not students earning a degree. He highlighted the precarious nature of U.S. postdoc contracts, which can be as short as six months, a stark contrast to the multi-year contracts common in Europe. Kodalle explained that a U.S. research experience is often seen as “almost mandatory” for a successful faculty career in Europe. However, he expressed frustration at how hard it is to transition out of the early-career stage in the United States. He revealed that he is being actively approached by other countries like France and Australia for positions that would advance his career, emphasizing the growing competition for international talent.

__________________

Audience questions centered on the risks of bringing international students to the United States, such as academic espionage and supply shock. Goodman acknowledged these risks but argued that the United States has managed them for centuries. He added, “what we haven’t managed well is telling the story of why it matters … when an international student community is on your campus. The whole community benefits.”

Audience member Nabila Riaz raised a concern about the OPT clock: a policy that requires international scholars to find a new job within three to four months of losing their old one. She asked what safety nets could be put in place to help these scholars. Majumdar acknowledged that the burden falls largely on the individual and suggested that the most effective option to move forward would be to hire an immigration lawyer who can help navigate the system. While grace periods were lengthened during the pandemic, Majumdar noted, the underlying policy still creates immense pressure and instability for international scholars.

Majumdar added that a way to address these issues is through storytelling. She highlighted the work of national organizations like the National Academies and AAU in communicating the value of international scholars. She expressed hope that the more we hear and share stories, the more obvious the impacts of immigrants will be to the country.

The discussion concluded with a call to action, with Goodman urging faculty and administrators to have brief conversations with their local representatives and share the stories of international student contributions to the United States.

WHAT IF WE RESTRUCTURED THE POSTDOCTORAL CAREER STAGE IN THE UNITED STATES?

Summit planning committee member, Stefano Cataldi, Columbia University, moderated the next panel discussion. He introduced himself as a postdoctoral scholar and union organizer who has successfully bargained two contracts for postdoctoral workers at Columbia and emphasized the power of working together through the current polycrisis. Cataldi serves as a delegate for the United Auto Workers (UAW) higher education council, working in conjunction with union leadership across the country. He shared that common goals for all higher education unions in the United States include improving working conditions for early-career researchers through lawsuits and political advocacy.

Gary McDowell, Lightoller LLC, is a freelance academic and the author of a paper the planning committee commissioned that critically assesses if the postdoctoral training stage is accomplishing what it was intended to do in the United States.³² McDowell discussed the value in reimagining the postdoctoral career stage as a reenvisioning of support for all early career scientists. He has spent a decade advocating for data collection on the postdoctoral career stage. Echoing Ginther’s remarks on the paucity of available data, he said, “as scientists, we gather data about things that we care about and not knowing how many postdocs there are indicates how much we actually care about them.”

McDowell highlighted a fundamental problem: that the early career scientist stage is billed as training in how to run an academic lab. He recounts new faculty contacting him to say “we’re not trained how to manage. We’re not trained how to mentor.” To force change and push the academic ecosystem for accountability, McDowell has shifted the Overton window in his paper and his arguments, adopting the position of “abolish the postdoc,” a stance meant to force the academic community to defend a model that he believes nobody would invent today.

Keith Micoli, New York University Langone Health, reflected on the slow but steady progress he has witnessed in the past 22 years since he finished his postdoctoral studies and in his current position as Associate Dean of Postdoctoral Affairs. The formation of the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) was transformative for him during his postdoctoral journey, in helping him realize he was not alone. Micoli recognized that the work of reimagining is very difficult, but that he agrees with McDowell, that nobody would imagine the system we have today. Currently, he describes postdoctoral working conditions as a “worker in a lab that is basically renting space from a larger institution.” He has seen little accountability for training, baseline qualifications,

__________________

and baseline expectations for what a postdoctoral training period should accomplish. The lack of standardization is a great concern for him.

Tom Kimbis, NPA, defined the ideal postdoctoral career stage as a reflective period where a scientist works to gain independence. He said that the postdoctoral experience should include project and team management, the ability for postdoctoral scholars to broaden their disciplinary knowledge, opportunities to develop translatable professional skills, greater engagement with peers, and additional mentorship in preparation to be a leader. “This is not our current reality,” he said.

Kimbis wishes for the postdoctoral scholar to be a position of honor, rather than a temporary, low-paid job. He advocated for a significant cultural shift that recognizes postdocs as highly educated early-career researchers and future leaders. He stated that the current “churn and burn” model explained in McDowell’s paper underpays and undervalues these researchers, forcing them to work long hours on someone else’s research at the expense of their own aspirations. Kimbis views the current period of disruption as a crucial opportunity to invest in the best and brightest by rebuilding the postdoctoral model. He noted that while it may not be easy, the benefits to society through innovation and entrepreneurship are well worth the effort.

Elza Rechtman, Mount Sinai, is unionized with UAW 4100, and provided a firsthand account of how unionization has addressed many of the issues raised by the other panelists. Her own drive to unionize came during the COVID-19 pandemic: she had just moved from France with a two-year old son when the lack of institutional support for childcare during the pandemic highlighted the precarious nature of her position. Through collective bargaining, her union secured significant wins, including the highest minimum salary in the country, guaranteed housing, fully paid parental leave, and paid visa leave and visa expense reimbursement for international scholars. To her, this demonstrated that there are supports that institutions can give international scholars, to create conditions more conducive to their ability to work and immigrate with ease. She concluded that the core issue in the postdoctoral career stage is a power imbalance, and that collective bargaining gives workers a seat at the table to enact real change.

Chanele Polenz, Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS), joined virtually to share a Canadian perspective. She highlighted CAPS as a volunteer-run resource and advocacy organization that operates at the federal level in Canada. A key part of CAPS’s work is its advocacy agenda, which is informed by the national survey it has conducted for over 20 years. This survey collects longitudinal data from Canadian postdocs, including those who have gone on to work in the United States and elsewhere. CAPS’s data show that about 70 percent of respondents still find that the postdoctoral experience was valuable to their careers, but she stressed that there is still significant room for improvement. She argued that a cultural reimagining is needed within the entire research ecosystem to truly value postdocs and support people at this early career stage.

At Cataldi’s direction, the panel explored the contested classification of postdoctoral scholars as “trainees” versus “workers.” Kimbis noted the NPA’s recent decision to remove the term “trainee” from its definition, and Rechtman highlighted that New York City union contracts have done the same. “We’re usually the most skilled people in the labs: we mentor staff and students,” she said of her aversion to the “trainee” label.

McDowell expressed concern for the “intellectual infantilization” of postdoctoral scholars, describing them as “Schrödinger’s postdoc” treated as both incompetent trainees and yet also responsible employees who are expected to conduct most of the science in a lab. He argued that universities benefit from maintaining the “trainee” label, as it enables them to avoid providing adequate compensation and support.

The discussion also touched on the question of whether unionization is the only way to achieve change. The panelists agreed that while unions can be highly effective, collective advocacy outside of a formal union is also important. Rechtman explained that grievance procedures in union contracts have allowed postdocs to resolve conflicts, such as workplace bullying, in ways that would have been impossible before. At the same time, Micoli acknowledged the risks of retaliation that discourage

many from filing complaints. Kimbis emphasized that collective action beyond unions is also important, pointing to the NPA’s new institutional recognition program as a data-driven accountability mechanism to “move the entire field forward a little bit at a time.”

Finally, an audience member suggested that there is much that is not widely understood about the postdoctoral scholar population. McDowell describes the career stage as a “catchall bucket” that encompasses individuals with widely varying goals, from those who are looking for more time to finish work up from their recent dissertations to those for whom the position represents a pathway to citizenship. The audience member asked whether the field should define baseline expectations to standardize the career stage such as what a Ph.D. graduate should be able to achieve upon starting a postdoc, or what professional development should be required during postdoctoral training, and whether such expectations could even be accreditable. This framing resonated with panelists, who agreed that standardization could provide much-needed clarity and transparency, while also helping to identify institutions that are excelling or falling short. Kimbis pointed to the NPA’s new institutional recognition program as an early step in that direction, and others suggested that stronger data collection and competency-based frameworks could form the foundation for national conversations.

WHAT IF INDUSTRY HAD AN ACTIVE ROLE IN SUPPORTING ACADEMIC CAREER DEVELOPMENT?

Moderator and Summit planning committee member, Lee Ellen Drechsler, Procter & Gamble (P&G), began by dispelling a myth, namely that industry cannot and will not simply pick up the gap left by a reduction in federal funding. She stated that while industry invests heavily in research, it would be irresponsible for multinational companies not to “participate in the science where it’s most welcome in the world.” She hopes that will continue to be in the United States.

To banish the notion that industry collaboration is unattainable, though, she shared that the work that happens in academia and industry is much more similar than different. A lot of the work is already done collaboratively.

Over the last two or three years, P&G has hired 85 Ph.D. scientists and engineers. Drechsler surveyed these individuals in the two weeks before the Summit. She asked these relatively new hires: beyond the expected critical thinking and problem-solving skills, what did you bring to P&G from your academic careers? The new hires identified collaboration and communication as key strengths developed in academia. She also asked what these individuals wish they had known or done before being hired; most said that they wished they had had some exposure to industry experience and more digital skills. She concluded by emphasizing that industry values early-career researchers for their perseverance and the unique skills developed in their postgraduate studies.

Kenneth Olliff, Boston University, was commissioned by the planning committee to author a paper on this subject along with his former colleague Jasmin Patel.³³ He argued that the current moment of financial crisis for universities could be a turning point in how academia and industry work together. He noted that industry and universities are frequently misaligned in that they have different cultures and paces of work but also have a history of working together synergistically. He provided a historical lens on this relationship, noting that prior to World War II and the Vannevar Bush model of federal research funding, universities and industry had a much more collaborative relationship. After this shift, universities reinvented themselves as “grant-getting machines” for federal dollars.

Olliff noted that while federal funding has been a major driver, industry’s spending on research has grown exponentially and now far outstrips federal investment. However, over the past 50 years, the percentage of industry’s spending going to universities has remained flat at a mere 6 percent. He stated that this makes it clear that “industry is not coming to save us.”

Olliff explained that a shift began in the early 2000s, with universities starting to embrace more market-oriented activities like entrepreneurship programs. He noted that new federal mechanisms like the NSF’s Regional Engines program are also incentivizing these partnerships. He

__________________

categorized today’s traditional engagement models between industry and academia as happening through 1) student engagement, 2) sponsored research, and 3) technology transfer. While sponsored research represents a significant amount of money, Olliff pointed out that universities are now desperate for new funding, and many are telling him they are willing to “basically accept whatever terms” to work with industry. He described this as ideal conditions for a “great realignment” where the top universities will try to be better partners for industry, and top companies will try to revitalize these connections.

He gave examples of new models that are already being developed. Amazon is building an AWS (Amazon Web Services) physical presence on Caltech’s campus to invest in specific research areas like quantum computing. He also mentioned that companies are investing more in the education required to develop early career talent, like Google’s micro-credential course in AI at the University of Michigan. Olliff concluded by identifying key factors for successful collaboration: understanding each other’s cultures, having strong leadership and champions of work on both sides, and building the necessary infrastructure to overcome bureaucratic hurdles. He said that industry and academia have resources that are different, but synergistic—and that together, there is great potential.

Ingrid Montes, University of Puerto Rico, brought another perspective to the conversation, positing that the United States needs to develop competencies that prepare students for any career. She emphasized the importance of systems thinking, interdisciplinary work, data fluency, and science communication, skills that prepare researchers for deadline-driven environments. She remarked on the graduate student panel from the first day, particularly the students’ comments that they felt completely disconnected from industry. She argued that current academic evaluation systems, which focus on metrics like publications and citations, do not adequately prepare students for industry roles. Montes suggested that a cultural shift is needed to recognize and reward students for “doing something else,” such as developing a patent or intellectual property, rather than just focusing on traditional measures of success.

Rhonda Sutton, NC State, provided a concrete example of a successful university-industry partnership in the Accelerate to Industry (A2i) program. A2i, an NSF-funded initiative also mentioned by Kent on the first day, uses six modules to expose early-career researchers to industry. She emphasized that students learn from industry professionals and industry partners inform the types of projects students work on. Sutton described part of the A2i grant that involved writing a toolkit to create an A2i cohort to support other campuses in developing and using their own A2i programs. Currently, she noted, there are 40 other schools and campuses in this cohort.

Sutton also described NC State’s Centennial Campus, an intentionally created space where academic buildings and industrial buildings are co-located, fostering collaboration and talent development. Sutton shared a success story of a graduate student who, after going through the program, felt empowered to start a company with his faculty mentors, showing how these experiences can enable entrepreneurship. She explains that the university must be both a mediator and instigator in these spaces.

Kristina Thorsell, independent consultant, is an expert in technology policy and strategic partnerships. She spoke to the broader context of critical technologies like AI, quantum, and biotech. She stated that these technologies underpin national security and economic opportunities. Thorsell challenged the audience to think about a cultural shift whereby academia recognizes its role in preparing the workforce of tomorrow. She noted a change in how companies engage with universities: a decade ago, companies came to universities to learn about cutting-edge research; now, they come to hear students pitch their research as a way to identify talent for a future pipeline. Thorsell stressed that this is an opportunity for all sectors—government, universities, and industry—to work together to meet these challenges and seize new opportunities.

The panel’s discussion explored the practicalities and challenges of academia-industry partnerships. In response to a question about how P&G views the role of postdoctoral scholars, Drechsler said that her company hires Ph.D.s directly and views postdocs as temporary sponsored appointments. She noted that companies see

value in these positions as a way for researchers to make a decision about their career path. Thorsell added that there are creative ways to structure these experiences for international scholars who might face visa difficulties in accepting or exploring an industry role, such as joint appointments or company-sponsored work on campus.

The conversation then turned to the potential risks of a closer relationship between academia and industry. An audience member voiced concern that the scramble for new funding sources might cause universities to lose sight of their mission to produce basic research benefiting society, even when there’s no market incentive. Olliff responded that while this concern is valid, in academia, the pendulum has swung so far toward pure research that a realignment with applied work is a healthy change. He also argued that the internal ethos of the academy, which pushes for intellectual integrity, is a strong safeguard. Drechsler agreed, stating that the last thing the world needs is to “water down science.” She added that it is P&G’s job to pay attention to what the company does not yet know it needs, which is a core reason for collaborating with universities to support basic research.

The panelists also discussed how to make these partnerships work. Sutton emphasized the value of an online speaker series and sponsored “immersion weeks” to provide access to students at institutions in less accessible locations. Thorsell advised universities to hire someone who understands industry contracts to facilitate collaborations and overcome bureaucratic hurdles.

CLOSING REMARKS

On behalf of the Summit planning committee, Posselt reflected on the key themes that emerged over the two-day event. She reminded the audience that the Summit was a collective effort to identify actions needed to ensure the sustainability of the U.S. STEMM research enterprise while supporting the next generation of researchers. Posselt acknowledged this monumental task, restating the Summit’s goal as attempting to “create conditions that are able to move good ideas of reimagining into some productive, actionable, and particular strategies.”

Posselt highlighted the raw materials necessary for systemic change, including consensus, data, funding, and time for deep change to take hold. She stressed the importance of a new set of norms and skills for students, faculty, and the system as a whole, noting that multisectoral engagement is “clearly not going to be optional.”

Based on learnings from her last book on change management and the dynamics of change in STEMM graduate education, Posselt summarized the dynamics of the path forward:

1. We do not have to come to consensus about a single set of effective practices to move the story forward; the evolving context that we are part of makes aligning on principles instead of effective practices a more sustainable goal.
2. Political and emotional aspects of change cannot be ignored.
3. There are limits to the managerial approaches to change; graduate student and postdoctoral scholarship and wellbeing is not just affected by the context of the university, but also by microclimates created in research labs.
4. We need coordination and strategy; if we do not have this, we are missing opportunities for moving, convening, and norm-setting.
5. Well-moderated, ongoing discussions across differences that typically separate us is something that builds understanding, trust, and respect—all of which are essential for deep change.

Posselt additionally articulated that a systemic approach combines both bottom-up and top-down forces. Bottom-up change, she explained, is a cultural process and recognizes that advocacy is always going to be an important part of the political process. She emphasized that while this is crucial, it is not enough on its own; top-down structural change is necessary to create resilience against external forces. Finally, a third type of change, “inside-out” change, produces the most resilience and involves individual reflection on inherited norms and collective learning.

Finally, Posselt reflected on the idea that in U.S. graduate education, “no one is in charge,” which is both its genius and its weakness, and that this highlights the urgent

need to address the gap between knowing what works and having the structures to implement it.

The summit ended with Schlatterer making a final call to action: he asked the audience to consider who should be at the table as the community moves toward change, as addressing these complex challenges will require collaborative effort and buy-in from everyone within the system.

DISCLAIMER: This Proceedings of a Summit—in Brief was prepared by Priyanka Bushana, Rian Lund Dahlberg, and Sarah M. Rovito as a factual summary of what occurred at the summit. The statements made are those of the rapporteurs or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all summit participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Julie Posselt (Co-Chair), University of Southern California; Joerg Schlatterer (Co-Chair), American Chemical Society; David B. Allison, Baylor College of Medicine; Stefano Cataldi, Columbia University; Lee Ellen Drechsler, Procter & Gamble; Rigoberto Hernandez, Johns Hopkins University; Breanne M. Jaqua, A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona; Hironao Okahana, American Council on Education; Zakiya S. Wilson-Kennedy, Louisiana State University. The National Academies’ planning committees are solely responsible for organizing the summit, identifying topics, and choosing speakers. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteurs and the National Academies.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Summit—in Brief was reviewed by E. Scott Adler, University of Colorado Boulder; Amy Burkert, Carnegie Mellon University; Adira Colton, University of Maryland, College Park; and Janet Rutledge, Council of Graduate Schools. Marilyn Baker, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

SPONSORS This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and The Kavli Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

STAFF Rian Lund Dahlberg, Sarah M. Rovito, and Karla Riley.

SUGGESTED CITATION: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Reimagining STEMM Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Career Development: Proceedings of a Summit—in Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29283.

For additional information regarding the summit, visit https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/roles-responsibilities-and-expectations-of-stem-graduate-students-and-postdoctoral-scholars-a-conversation-series#sectionProjectScope.

Policy and Global Affairs Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.