The Postdoc Trap

On long postdocs, false stability, and why more scientists need a backup plan for their future

A few days ago, I spoke with a scientist who had spent 8 years as a postdoc before losing his contract. And despite being a highly educated and trained scientist, he still hasn’t found another job.

I’ve seen many scientists fall victim to the same trap. You commit to being a researcher in academia, despite all the instability, the low pay, and the vague future, because you stick to the belief that if you just push a little further and for a little longer, you’ll eventually land that secure permanent academic position.

But for most people, that never happens.

And it’s not that they didn’t make an effort. They are actually the ones who cared enough to keep tolerating conditions that would have pushed most other people out much earlier.

I think a lot of the conversation around academia focuses on the people who want to leave, like the ones who become disillusioned, get frustrated, and decide they want a different life. I understand that story very well, and I have written about it a lot.

But the reality is that many scientists who leave academia didn’t actually want to. They wanted to build a life around research. They weren’t trying to turn their PhD into a stepping stone for consulting or biotech or venture capital. They genuinely want the academic life where you get to ask difficult questions, mentor students, build a research program, and spend your entire life and career close to discovery.

And unfortunately, those end up being the people that can suffer the most at the hands of academia. Because if you are willing to keep believing, academia will usually give you just enough to stay.

One more postdoc, short-term contract, round of uncertainty that is sold as an opportunity, and one more reason to think that if you can just survive this stage, you’ll make it where you want to go.

But for many scientists, they never reach their goal because a lot of these careers begin to depend on a handful of outcomes that are only partially within someone’s control. Did the project work, did the lab have funding, did the paper land in the right journals, did the timing line up, did your PI advocate for you, did the department happen to be hiring in your area, and did the committee decide that your work counted in the right way?

People talk about all careers, but especially academic ones, as if they are linear meritocracies with a few obvious milestones. In reality, they are often narrow funnels built on contingency, scarcity, luck, and prestige.

And unfortunately, by the time many scientists realize that academia may never give them the opportunities they worked for, they have been there for so long that leaving becomes much harder.

So they end up in this terrible middle ground where they’re too far in to pivot easily, too experienced to get entry level roles, and too academically branded to be understood quickly by industry.

I’m not writing this to tell people not to pursue academia. I still think academic research matters a lot, and a lot of industry innovations depend on the work academic scientists do. And I think there are wonderful mentors, meaningful careers, and people who are genuinely built for that path.

But I do think more scientists need to be aware of the structure of academia clearly before they spend years going down a dead end. No matter how much you love research or feel passionate about your field, it’s not going to pay your bills or guarantee you a career.

---

If I were in your shoes...

If you are a scientist who wants to stay in academia, I wouldn’t tell you to give up on that, but pursue it with your eyes open.

I would get very honest, very early, about what your field actually rewards. What actually seems to move people into stable roles? Are the people getting hired all coming from a tiny cluster of labs? Are they all landing the same kinds of journals? Are they all carrying prestigious funding? Are they all in one narrow subfield? If so, are you meeting those expectations? It’s hard, but really try to honestly audit yourself and your progress so you don’t end up lost with no direction 5 years later.

I would also stop waiting until I was burned out or unemployed to build relationships outside academia.

Don’t abandon your scientific goals, but don’t let academia be the only context in which your work makes sense. I would talk to scientists in biotech, publishing, consulting, medical communications, policy, data roles, startups, and anywhere else my background could create value. It’s not that you’re planning to leave immediately, but you don’t want your first non-academic conversation to happen in the middle of a crisis.

I would still work towards the future I hope for, but prepare for alternate endings in case the future doesn’t work out exactly as you planned.

---

In My Orbit

I just finished watching a new show on Netflix called Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen. It’s a horror mini-series, and I really liked how it started. I think the first episode was actually the best one. It had the perfect atmosphere and combination of being dark and creepy without being over the top or unbelievable, and had just enough jump scares to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Unfortunately, I think the ending of the show was a let down. There were quite a few things that didn’t end up getting explained, and it felt less like a horror show and more like a modern horror/comedy mix. I like that genre as well, but the show slowly transitioned from the beginning of the series to the end, and it kind of ruined the overall vibe in my opinion. If you have any recommendations for a horror series or movie, I’d love to hear!

---