The biomedical-research system in the United States now faces a host of external problems, financial and political. But as institutions panic over the looming prospect of reduced federal support for scientific research, it’s important not to forget another big problem we were already facing: the internal, systemic mistreatment of postdoctoral scholars.
In 2023, a working group organized by the National Institutes of Health studied the postdoctoral training system, looking for explanations of why more and more science Ph.D.s are passing up postdoc positions in academe to go straight into industry. One of the three factors cited (alongside financial strain and inadequate career support in academe): power imbalances that allow abusive faculty mentors to operate unchecked. As one postdoc in the NIH report put it: “All the problems of bullying, abusive advisers that plague Ph.D. programs are only magnified in postdoctoral positions.”
This has long been an open secret, but the NIH report has had the effect of shining a light on the underside of a very large rock, propelling the issue of academic bullying to center stage. Now the question is whether anyone is going to do anything about it.
All postdocs know the stories:
- A principal investigator (PI) at a large biology institute was regularly heard belittling and shouting at his mentees for even minor infractions — like taking an Uber during conference travels.
- A PI in psychiatry research at a medical school threatened to terminate his postdocs’ contracts if they didn’t take overnight shifts to monitor patients, even though that task lay outside their scope of duties.
- “My PI installed a webcam in my office to spy on me, encouraged me to manipulate data, mistreated students, and ridiculed my colleague in front of students,” one reported as part of a recent global survey. “There were no consequences for the PI.”
- A researcher in California recounted her hair being grabbed by a scissors-wielding tenured professor, who (jokingly or not) threatened to cut it off if she couldn’t produce a “brilliant idea.”
Even when a PI has legitimate concerns about the quality of a postdoc’s work, clearly the accounts above are no way to handle them. Beyond creating a toxic workplace, such actions undermine any efforts to develop a younger generation’s skills and attract future talent. Left unchecked, this type of unprofessional behavior fosters a cycle of abuse: Mentors operate with impunity while mentees suffer in silence, often leaving academe to avoid being harassed again.
The exodus is evident in the National Science Foundation’s annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, which shows a steady decline in the proportion of Ph.D.s committing to work in academe, from 52 percent in 2002 to 33 percent in 2022 across all fields, and from 42 percent to 22 percent in science and engineering fields. Meanwhile the proportion of science and engineering Ph.D.s who went into industry or business jumped to 62 percent in 2022, from 40 percent in 2002. Part of that shift can be explained by higher salaries in industry fields and/or by the oversupply of Ph.D.s for the limited number of tenure-track openings in higher ed. Compared with industry, academe can offer Ph.D.s more independence and a better work-life balance with flexible deadlines, but those advantages are only possible if universities foster a healthy and supportive environment for postdocs and junior faculty members.
Some universities, often prompted by labor activists, have taken steps to improve the employment conditions of postdocs. That progress may stall as a result of the Trump administration’s cuts to research support: A 2025 survey of postdocs found that 54 percent already have been affected by federal actions (such as having their job or grant threatened). These cuts could lead campus leaders to claim that they are prevented from doing much more on behalf of postdocs.
But there is a simple and inexpensive step that universities could take now to fix workplace culture for postdocs: adopt adequate grievance procedures. On that front, many institutions continue to come up short. Among the key problems:
Opaque or, worse, deliberately byzantine reporting mechanisms. As a postdoc at Yale who has created resource guides on these issues, I’ve been approached by trainees who feel bullied by a supervisor and are confused about what to do: Who should they contact? What’s the difference between offices that provide “official” versus “unofficial” resolutions? And what might happen if they go on the record with a complaint? When targets of bullying and discrimination cannot easily report their grievances, those problems remain hidden and patterns of abuse continue unchecked.
When a grievance is reported, many institutions react with indifference and drag their feet on a resolution.
Fear of retribution. Without robust safeguards in place, postdocs often face a daunting choice: endure the abuse or risk their career prospects by speaking out. Their fear is not unfounded. In a Lancet study on academic supervision, 69 percent of the targets of bullying were graduate students or postdocs, with one in three reporting that they experienced retaliation after reporting abuse.
Whether in the form of academic penalties or damage to future employment opportunities, such fear can silence those who might otherwise come forward. In a yet-unpublished survey, postdocs at an American institution were asked why they hadn’t reported incidents of abuse or harassment by their PI. Their responses told the story:
- “I knew if I pursued this, it would only get worse.”
- “I fear retaliation from my PI.”
- “My PI blocked me [from switching advisers], demonstrating that I either stay stuck or leave the institution.”
An inadequate institutional response. When a grievance is reported, many institutions react with indifference and drag their feet on a resolution. Even when a faculty member is the subject of several official complaints that the administration labels “concerning,” the outcome is usually unofficial, with no disciplinary action taken. In the Lancet study on academic supervision, for example, 57 percent of respondents who had reported a complaint said that either nothing happened (41 percent) as a result, or the bully was protected (16 percent).
At Yale, my home institution, recent data on discrimination and harassment showed that in the two-year period from January 2022 through December 2023, 43 of 94 complaints resulted in investigation, yet only six of the complaints were found to be in violation of campus policies. An additional 36 complaints that met the threshold for review were not investigated. That lack of follow-through discourages mentees from filing complaints and leaves them feeling ignored.
International postdocs, who hold more than half of all postdoc positions in the United States, are a particularly vulnerable population given their visa status. A few years ago, Li Jiang, a Chinese postdoc at the University of California at San Diego, had her contract terminated when she brought up concerns regarding data manipulation. In the end, it seems that public protests, not the “appropriate channels,” saved her position. In another case I know of, an international postdoc in biology at an East Coast institution got permission from her PI to take a two-week vacation to see her family for the first time in two years. But as the trip grew closer, the PI changed his mind. She took the trip anyway. Afterward, the PI took her off the project as co-first author, excluded her from department retreats, and disparaged her among colleagues. Informal mediation only led to increasingly antagonistic behavior from the supervisor. Unable to get back into the lab, she is at risk of losing her visa.
How to break the cycle. An environment in which abusive mentors are emboldened, and even protected, undermines the very foundations of academic training necessary to foster a successful and sustainable biomedical-research force. It’s heartening that the NIH working group appears to agree. Two of its six official recommendations referenced the need to “promote and ensure accountability for mentoring responsibilities” and to “require institutions to provide safe research environments free of harassment.” In the summer of 2024, the NIH requested additional information on how to carry out some of its recommendations.
Where all of that stands now that the Trump administration has taken office is unclear. But the biomedical-research community does not need to wait to act. We have the information we need. It is time we stop enabling abusive mentors and take steps to mitigate harassing behavior. Among the steps that research universities should take:
- Overhaul grievance procedures to ensure that reporting mechanisms are clear, accessible, and effective. An ombuds office that meets international standards would provide a confidential, independent, and neutral one-stop shop for postdocs.
- Offer robust protections against retaliation — including intimidation — and provide timely, decisive responses to complaints. Create pathways for postdocs to access letters of recommendation or even legal assistance in cases in which litigation is possible or their immigration status is threatened.
- Improve the mentoring and supervisory skills of faculty members. Offer training on “bystander intervention” and on “how to be an ally.”
- Commit to applying grievance procedures consistently and fairly — and then do so.
- Evaluate academic departments to assess the effectiveness and compliance with institutional grievance procedures. The outcomes of complaints and evaluations should be reported to funding agencies and oversight committees.
By acting decisively, universities can uphold their responsibility to foster a safe, supportive, and equitable research environment for all and advance the next generation of biomedical research — a goal that is especially urgent in an era where that next generation seems more at risk than ever.
