Specific groups have historically been, and continue to be, underrepresented in the biomedical research workforce, especially academia. Career choice is a multifactorial process that evolves over time; among all trainees, expressed interest in faculty research careers decreases over time in graduate school, but that trend is amplified in women and members of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups ( Golde and Dore, 2004 ; Fuhrmann et al., 2011 ; Sauermann and Roach, 2012 ; Gibbs et al., 2014 ; Roach and Sauermann, 2017 ). This work was designed to investigate how career interest changes over time among recent neuroscience PhD graduates, and whether differences in career interests are associated with social identity, experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training, and personal characteristics. We report results from a survey of 1479 PhD neuroscientists (including 16% underrepresented scientists and 54% women scientists). We saw repeated evidence that individual preferences about careers in general, and academic careers specifically, predict current career interest. These findings were moderated by social identity and experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training. Our findings highlight the important influence of the advisor in shaping a trainee’s career path, and the ways in which academic culture is perceived as unwelcoming or incongruent with the values or priorities of certain groups. They suggest several areas for positive growth, ways to change how we think about the impact of mentorship, and policy and programmatic interventions that extend beyond trying to change or “fix” the individual and instead recognize the systemic structures that influence career choices.

In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (FDA-OWH) was created to provide leadership and policy direction for the Agency regarding issues of women's health. Within its first year, the FDA-OWH established a science program for women's health research, promoting the development of sound policy and regulation. In a little over a decade, the program has provided approximately 14 million dollars to fund more than 100 women's health research studies covering a broad range of health topics affecting women across their lifespan. Some studies, such as those elucidating drug effects on QT prolongation in women and drug-dietary supplement interaction, have had significant influence on regulatory decisions. Other studies have provided sound scientific data on sex and gender differences supporting FDA guidelines to protect women's health. This paper describes the science program at the FDA-OWH, providing examples of how funded research impacts regulatory policy.

Neuroscience is one of the fastest growing fields and highlights the excitement about research, but it also demonstrates the impact that our large scientific community can make in prioritizing equity and inclusion throughout science. I discuss strategies at multiple systemic levels where opportunities and interventions could be implemented to enhance neuroscience workforce diversity.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (FDA OWH) has supported women's health research for ∼20 years, funding more than 300 studies on women's health issues, including research on diseases/conditions that disproportionately affect women in addition to the evaluation of sex differences in the performance of and response to medical products. These important women's health issues are studied from a regulatory perspective, with a focus on improving and optimizing medical product development and the evaluation of product safety and efficacy in women. These findings have influenced industry direction, labeling, product discontinuation, safety notices, and clinical practice. In addition, OWH-funded research has addressed gaps in the knowledge about diseases and medical conditions that impact women across the life span such as cardiovascular disease, pregnancy, menopause, osteoporosis, and the safe use of numerous medical products.

Enhancing the diversity of the scientific workforce is critical to achieving the mission of NIH: "To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability." However, specific groups have historically been, and continue to be, underrepresented in the biomedical research workforce, especially academia. Career choice is a multi-factorial process that evolves over time; among all trainees, expressed interest in faculty research careers decreases over time in graduate school, but that trend is amplified in women and members of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Fuhrmann, Halme, O'Sullivan, & Lindstaedt, 2011; Gibbs, McGready, Bennett, & Griffin, 2014; C. Golde & Dore, 2004; Roach & Sauermann, 2017; Sauermann & Roach, 2012). Neuroscience as a discipline has characteristics that may exacerbate the overall trends seen in the life sciences, such as a greater growth in the number of awarded neuroscience PhDs than in other life sciences fields (US National Science Foundation, 2016b). This work was designed to investigate how career interest changes over time among recent neuroscience PhD graduates, and whether differences in career interests are associated with social identity (i.e. gender and race/ethnicity), experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training (e.g. relationship with advisor; feelings of belonging), and personal characteristics (e.g. confidence in one's potential to be an independent researcher). We report results from a survey of 1,479 PhD neuroscientists (including 16% underrepresented (UR) and 54% female scientists). We saw repeated evidence that individual preferences about careers in general, and academic careers specifically, predict current career interest. These statistically significant preferences mostly had medium to low effect size that varied by career type. These findings were mediated by social identity and experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training. Our findings highlight the important influence of the advisor in shaping a trainee's career path, and the ways in which academic culture is perceived as unwelcoming or incongruent with the values or priorities of certain groups. For women, issues of work/life balance and structural issues of academia, and for UR women in particular, lower confidence in their ability to be an independent researcher, affected their interest in academia. Both women and UR men in our study report a lower importance of autonomy in their careers. UR respondents report feeling less like they were a part of the social and intellectual community. However, they have formed beneficial relationships with faculty outside their PhD institutions that, particularly for UR women, are associated with increased interest in academia. Our findings suggest several areas for positive growth, ways to change how we think about the impact of mentorship, and policy and programmatic interventions that extend beyond trying to change or "fix" the individual and instead recognize the systemic structures that influence career choices.

No abstract