Wow - hard to believe that over a year has passed since I wrote this post, yet comments are still coming in.

I am truly sympathetic toward all who have had such grueling experiences. On some level, it is depressing, but at the same time, I am grateful that you are sharing your experiences because you're letting other people know they are not alone.

And I will add, there can be light on the other side (and it's not a train!). In my second postdoc, I have rediscovered my passion for research. I am enthusiastic about my work again. Independence and creativity have returned. Also my spouse would tell you I'm a lot easier to live with ;)

To all who are currently struggling through this experience - keep your heads up. There is hope. Good luck and good (job)hunting!

nimbud (apologies if this is a substantially delayed response) - Of course the best case scenario occurs when the parting is mutual and amiable, and your supervisor will write you a decent letter. These situations rarely fall into 'best case' though.

A reference letter from the first postdoc adviser may not be crucial if you're early in your first postdoc and your other references are strong. If you can use someone in your lab or a collaborator/mentor outside the lab, then that may be satisfactory.

If a potential employer asks for a reference from your supervisor, then of course you must provide it. If there are specific points of concern, this may be a good point to discuss them with the potential employer, but again be sure to keep it as professional and neutral as possible.

During a recent roundtable discussion I attended, another issue concerning co-first authorship was raised. In a specific example discussed, order and co-first authorship was decided, but it wasn't until the paper was accepted and going through proofs that anyone knew the journal did not permit shared authorship. The limitation was not listed in the authors' instructions. Thus if co-first authorship is deemed important, it might be a good idea to contact the journal editor prior to submission and decide on authorship revisions or alternative journals for submission.

I've been using Wunderlist for over a week now-and it's awesome! Thanks for featuring it here.

This looks great! I've been fighting-somewhat unsuccessfully-to stay on top of all the little aspects of my projects. Looking forward to trying it out!

Hi there, BugDoc! Thanks for stopping by. You have a good point re: motivation/productivity. This is a critical piece for any postdoc, regardless of whether they know what they want to do or not.

Several months ago I attended a very informal talk given by Jack Szostak in which he talked about the progression of his own career. Most of us know him for his Nobel Prize winning work on telomeres, but his career really has been a winding path--and now his lab is into 'origins of life' work on RNA and membranes. His approach is finding an interesting question to which he thinks he and his lab can make a unique contribution. He's found new areas of interest by sitting in on colleagues' courses and attending workshops. Granted, as an HHMI investigator, he's got a bit more flexibility to go after riskier questions.

I'm with Geeka and have a general problem with intentionally mislabeling solutions or having some secret code. This is especially problematic if the person leaves without cleaning up properly (which unfortunately happens a great deal).

I have heard of someone labeling their bottles as, for example, "PBS+ATB"--where ATB is "anti-theft buffer". I think that or "contaminated" is probably a safer/more responsible way to combat the problem... outside of addressing the issue directly.

Thanks for the advice! I will try to get this set up :)