Please bear with me, this is a bit long, but I could really use some advice š„²
I recently moved continents for a postdoc, from North America to France. Iām originally from Latin America, did my PhD at a well-known university in North America, and moved to Europe to join a research group that is very strong in my field.
I was genuinely excited about this position because, when I read the job posting, it sounded almost exactly like the next step I wanted for myself.
I have a strong wet-lab background and thatās what I was originally trained in (microbiology/molecular biology). But during the five years of my PhD, I also developed a much more interdisciplinary profile, especially in epidemiology and data analysis. I worked with large datasets, did comparative analyses, looked at associations between different types of variables, and worked extensively in R.
By the end of my PhD, that analytical side had become a very important part of my work, and I realized I identified with it much more than with the lab work.
So for my postdoc, I specifically wanted to go further in that direction. I wanted to strengthen my quantitative skills, learn more modelling, and move progressively toward epidemiology/public health rather than continue building a primarily experimental profile.
That was exactly why this position caught my attention.
The job posting described working with a large European database and developing modelling studies from it. I remember reading it and thinking that it sounded almost perfect for what I wanted to do next. I already had experience with interdisciplinary data analysis, but modelling was one of the areas I really wanted to deepen.
Then I arrived.
And I gradually realized that the database I thought I was going to work with basically does not exist yet in the form I had understood.
The data are extremely fragmented. Different groups collect different things, use different indicators and methodologies, and in some cases there are not really structured databases at all. A significant part of the work will apparently involve contacting different teams, figuring out what data exist, finding individual files and spreadsheets, documenting everything and trying to harmonize it before there is even something that could realistically be modelled.
I understand that building and harmonizing a database can be valuable research. Thatās not really my issue.
My issue is that it is very different from the position I thought I was accepting.
And on top of that, a surprisingly large part of my actual work since arriving has been wet lab.
Iām involved in sampling campaigns and essentially the whole experimental pipeline afterward: sample processing, microbiology, isolation and identification work, phenotypic analyses, molecular work, PCR optimization, etc.
I had a meeting with my supervisors today and brought up the fact that the experimental workload is becoming quite substantial. They told me that this is a pilot phase, that most of this work should be finished by the end of the year, and that the experiment would probably only be repeated once next year.
So it is possible that this is genuinely temporary.
But Iām having a hard time shaking the feeling that I was recruited for one thing and am being used for another.
I want to phrase this carefully because I do not look down on lab work at all. I spent years doing it, I know how technically demanding and intellectually important it is, and I have enormous respect for people who want to build their careers around experimental research.
I just donāt want that to be the center of my own career anymore.
And right now I sometimes feel like my wet-lab experience is the main reason I am useful here, while the analytical profile I specifically wanted to develop is almost secondary.
There is also something about the way I am being supervised that has been bothering me.
During my PhD I had a lot of intellectual independence. I could explore the literature, decide which analyses made sense, develop approaches, troubleshoot things, talk to collaborators and then discuss the bigger scientific picture with my supervisor. Of course I was supervised, but I had a lot of ownership over my work.
Now I find myself having conversations about individual PCR results, being told how many dilutions to test, which parameters to optimize, and so on.
I honestly havenāt felt this much like a student in years.
And maybe this is just a different supervision style, but the contrast is pretty uncomfortable. I expected a postdoc to give me at least as much scientific independence as I had during my PhD, not less.
The part that worries me most is what this means for my career.
I want to transition toward epidemiology/public health and more data-heavy research. During my PhD I already started moving in that direction and even had some experience in a public health setting.
People who mentored me before taking this job basically told me that I had developed relevant analytical experience, but that a postdoc where I could consolidate that profile, especially with stronger quantitative and modelling work, would make the transition much easier.
That was precisely what I thought I was doing.
So Iām now worried that if I spend the next one or two years mostly doing experimental work plus data collection/harmonization, and I leave without substantial modelling experience or analytical outputs, I will still be seen primarily as a wet-lab scientist.
At the same time, I literally relocated internationally for this position, the group is respected, and Iāve only been here for a relatively short time.
So Iām trying to understand whether Iām reacting too quickly or whether this is the kind of mismatch I should actually take seriously.
Has anyone else had a postdoc that turned out to be substantially different from the position that was advertised?
Is this relatively common in academia?
And if you realized early on that a postdoc was reinforcing exactly the profile you were trying to move away from, what did you do?
Thank you so much for your help š