As the title declares, I would like to know the difference.
Sometimes both jobs demand a Ph.D. in bioinformatics and even with experience; other times bioinformatician position asks only for Msc, or you could find a person that already had a postdoc to work as a bioinformatician.
So, what are the duties for both positions? What is their future career or step?
A staff/employee position should carry the title bioinformatician since it would indicate some permanency (as much as can be expected in today's world). Post-doc would clearly indicate a time limited appointment (I think it may be 5 yr or less post-PhD per NIH rules in US).
Since there is an abundant supply of applicants employers tend to ask for the kitchen sink in the job descriptions.
I would expect the difference to be around the question: are you conducting your own research or doing other people's analyses. A postdoc position should be your own research ,publications etc and a job as a bioinformatician to support others research. There are, however, exceptions to this. There are postdoc expected to support others, write software etc., conceptually cheap labor and on the other hand, jobs that let you conduct your own research entirely or part of your time and pay as a job.
I'm a bioinformatician. I have a Masters in Bioinformatics and no PhD. I have worked as the sole bioinformatician in a lab, as well as part of a team of bioinformaticians.
I can confirm that we largely work with post docs and instructors/professors on their research. We can have our own projects, but that is mostly because we choose to make our and our colleagues' lives easier. I've rarely seen any independent investigation initiated by a bioinformatician. Personally, I've created data analysis workflows, optimized pipelines, created databases and set up team backup solutions.
As for pay, yes, we do get paid moderately well. I think we get paid better than a post doc in the US. However, our career pathway is not as open as a post doc's. We can only progress based on our experience (or if we go for a PhD), so our path for personal growth is quite limited if you look at just academia. On the other hand, we have invested significantly less effort than post docs have, so the onus to forge our own path has rightfully fallen on us.
Not necessarily. People with professional degrees (e.g. MD equivalent from a country other than the US) can also be appointed as post-docs in the US. Some choose to do this while they work on their US medical licensing.
To complement other answers, I think postdoc implies some mentoring on the part of the PI/lab employing you. However, as already mentioned, the lines are blurred and different labs/institutes use different job titles. For example in the UK a postdoc is usually called a research associate and a research fellow is a lecturer while in the US, it tends to be the reverse (fellow = postdoc, associate = staff scientist). I think that when considering a job, there's no substitute to getting information about what the job entails directly from the lab/department where you're supposed to work.
Not necessarily, this is why this needs to be discussed with your employer and this also has to be aligned with your career goals. In the current environment what matters to get a PI position are papers with your name on them, a scientific question that you can sell as being worth pursuing for the next 5-10 years and that you're well equipped to tackle this question. How your track record is evaluated can vary a lot in different places. There are also a number of PI positions that are part service and part own research.
A staff/employee position should carry the title
bioinformaticiansince it would indicate some permanency (as much as can be expected in today's world). Post-doc would clearly indicate a time limited appointment (I think it may be 5 yr or less post-PhD per NIH rules in US).Since there is an abundant supply of applicants employers tend to ask for the kitchen sink in the job descriptions.
Hopefully bioinformatician pays better as well.