A distinguished group of scientists gathered this past June in Montreal at the 17th Scientific Meeting of the IBMS to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing young scientists as they embark on their research careers. The central theme to emerge was the international opportunities now available to researchers able to travel abroad for their postdoctoral training.

After opening remarks by session chair Dr. Jane Aubin from Toronto, Canada, Dr. Miep Helfrich from Aberdeen, UK described her own move from Leiden, The Netherlands, to do postdoctoral work in London, UK before moving to Aberdeen as background to career development options for young scientists in Europe. Pursuing postdoctoral training in European countries, home to many great universities both old and new, is a smart idea, she stressed, because funding opportunities may be more promising there than in one’s own country. In addition, many European countries have excellent research infrastructures, including the presence of independent research institutes, and there are also many well-established research societies specifically in the bone and mineral fields. Furthermore, principal investigators in Europe are wise to consider taking on postdocs from abroad because these young scientists are well-educated, are often highly experienced, and provide cultural diversity to the laboratory.

Like Dr. Helfrich, Dr. Edith Bonnelye also encouraged students to complete postdocs in different countries as a way to expand their horizons. Dr. Bonnelye had herself left France to pursue postdoctoral training in Toronto, Canada before returning to her current position in Lyon, France. Dr. Bonnelye stressed the importance of thinking and planning well in advance as the process of securing a postdoctoral position abroad can be a lengthy one. Dr. Bonnelye also underscored the value of getting to know potential mentors, committee members within the university and the importance of interviews. After completing a postdoc abroad, young scientists should not return to their PhD laboratory, Dr. Bonnelye cautioned, because both the lab and the young scientist will have changed, creating a new dynamic that may make it difficult for the fledgling researcher to develop and grow under the same mentors of the past. Dr. Bonnelye also emphasized to the audience the value of training in English-speaking labs for non-native English speakers, since English is the primary language of science - of grants, contracts and scientific papers.

Dr. Masaki Noda from Tokyo also emphasized the desirability of working abroad by focusing on Japan, where he said there are more opportunities for young investigators than ever before. Dr. Florent Elefteriou, who moved from France to do postdoctoral training in Texas and then on to Nashville, Tennessee, as an Assistant Professor, also highlighted the value of moving to a new country, and like Dr. Bonnelye, placed particular emphasis on developing good interviewing skills.

The session's final speaker, Dr. Steven Teitlebaum from St. Louis, Missouri, focused on opportunities available in the US. It is difficult, he noted, to secure funding in the US - the National Institutes of Health budget has been flat since 2003. In fact, funding for individual investigators is better in France or Japan than in the US. However, for those still hoping to succeed in America, where there are still many postdoctoral opportunities, Dr. Teitlebaum indicated that what is most important for a young investigator is to choose his or her mentor carefully. A good mentor teaches survival skills in the competitive scientific landscape of the US and elsewhere. Central to a continued and thriving career is to have papers published in high impact journals that will increase the young investigator’s visibility, which is important for securing grants; good mentors will help young researchers tackle good projects and write the kinds of papers that will be published in the better journals. Finally, Dr. Teitlebaum recommended staying in a lab for at least 3 years as a postdoctoral fellow: the first year is for adjusting to the lab and participating in the research, the second is for starting to make original contributions to the lab's work and directions, and the third is for exploiting the novel contributions and directions by completing papers.

To wrap up the session, a question-and-answer period that followed the main presentations brought up additional issues of concern to young scientists, including the relative importance of teaching, the desirability of becoming a physician scientist, and the possibility and usefulness of changing fields. All-in-all, the international diversity of both the session's speakers and the audience reflected a theme of opportunity and promise available to young scientists able to venture abroad.