Promoting the Transition to Independent Scientist: A National Career Development Program

Bruce, Martha L.; Bartels, Stephen J.; Lyness, Jeffrey M.; Sirey, Jo Anne; Sheline, Yvette I.; Smith, Gwenn S.

doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182254399

Cited by 40 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This network also could be supported by the NIH (similar to the new National Research Mentoring Network). We note that this type of mentor matching has promoted the transition to independence for Geriatric Mental Health physician-scientists (28,29). With the advent of Web-based conferencing, the optimal mentors for a physicianscientist could be recruited, regardless of institutional affiliation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

Milewicz

Lorenz

Dermody

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Investigation

176

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In June 2014, the NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group completed a year of data collection and deliberation, and released a report about the status of the PSW (1). The report is a combination of good news and bad news. The good news is that, despite the decline in the NIH budget, the size of the PSW has remained relatively stable. The bad news is that the current demographics, diversity, and career progression of this workforce raise concerns about the future. For a start, although apparently stable in size, the PSW is even smaller than many of us realized, and the apparent stability has hidden important demographic trends. In American Medical Association surveys of the nearly 1 million (and rising) MD physicians in the United States, only 14,000 (1.5%) consider research to be their primary focus (1). Even fewer have NIH grant support; only 8,200 physicians are principal investigators on NIH grants, split evenly between MDs and MD-PhDs (1). The number of extramural NIH-funded physician-scientists with research program (R series) awards has been essentially constant for the past 20 years, while the number of nonphysician (PhD) NIH-funded investigators has increased by half over the same period, reaching 19,400 in 2012 (1). As a result, the percentage of NIH awardees who are physicians has fallen to 30%. Although public policies have encouraged an increase in the number of medical schools and medical students in the US, and medical school admission policies have placed value on undergraduate research, the percentage of physicians focused on research has fallen.At the same time that the PSW has remained stable in size, data in the report show that the average age of the workforce is rising, as older investigators remain employed and younger investigators have not emerged in sufficient numbers. The average age at which a physician-scientist received his or her first NIH R01 grant in 2011 was 44 years for MD-PhDs and 45 years for MDs: approximately 10 years older than in 1980 (2). R01-funded investigators (physicians and nonphysicians) younger than 37 years have all but disappeared, and the time from graduating medical school to obtaining a first faculty position has increased to over 10 years for MD-PhDs and even longer for MDs without a PhD. Women and minorities are underrepresented, having opted not to enter or remain in the workforce. Thus, gathering places for physician-scientists look mostly like clubs for older white men. Without corrective action, the PSW appears headed for a population crash as older investigators retire. We recognize that younger physician-scientists have not entirely disappeared; they just take longer to obtain faculty appointments and independent NIH grants. This situation creates an extended waiting period that we call the holding zone, which contributes to the disturbing demographics (Figure 1). Enough talk, let's do somethingThe NIH advisory group noted these trends and made recommendations that should be considered (1). Rather than repeating them here, we would like t...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

Milewicz

Lorenz

Dermody

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Investigation

176

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of specific programs, however, have found that some organizational or personal factors do contribute to this transition. 7 These organizational or program factors include: the augmentation of research funds by private sources (e.g., foundations), 8 mentoring 9,10 (particularly when centrally overseen 11 ), protected time for research training, 11 grant writing training and support, 10 time management training, 10 and access to statisticians and other experts. 10 Personal factors include: experience publishing peer-reviewed papers early in one’s career 12 and early submission of extramural grants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Career Success and Its Contributing Factors for Clinical and Translational Investigators

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To understand the factors that facilitate career success for career development awardees in clinical and translational science and to reconceptualize understanding of career success for this population. Method In 2013–2014, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with former NIH KL2 or K12 scholars from nine Clinical and Translational Science Award-funded institutions. Participants either had or had not secured independent funding at least two years after the end of their last K award. Questions covered the factors that facilitate or hinder junior investigators’ transition to independent funding. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and the transcripts analyzed thematically. Results Forty individuals participated, with equal representation by men and women and by independently and not independently funded investigators. Personal factors that facilitated success included: networks, persistence and resilience, initiative, autonomy, and personal and professional balance. Organizational factors included: appropriate mentorship, protected research time, and institutional resources and support. Even independently funded participants described challenges regarding career direction. Five participants without independent funding modeled a broad spectrum of successful career paths, having assumed leadership positions not reliant on grant funding. Alternative definitions of career success included: improving public health, enjoying work, seeing mentees succeed, and receiving external acknowledgement of successes. Conclusions Awareness of the factors that facilitate or hinder career success can help junior faculty, mentors, and institutional leaders support career development in clinical and translational science. New definitions of career success are needed, as are career paths for faculty who want to engage in research in roles other than principal investigator.

show abstract

“…9 Indeed, the failure of an investigator to obtain independent funding is a primary cause of attrition from their academic research career path. 10 By helping investigators improve their grantsmanship skills to more effectively compete for funding, RDC hopes to bolster career stability while advancing the research enterprise at U-M.…”

Section: Rdc Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model for a University-Based Clinical Research Development Infrastructure

Havermahl¹,

LaPensee²,

Williams

et al. 2015

Academic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Research Development Core (RDC) is housed within the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan (U-M). Established in 2006, RDC provides no-cost, in-person consultations to help U-M investigators strengthen their grant proposals. RDC offers investigators feedback and critique on all aspects of their study design, plus partnerships, funding mechanisms and future directions. This article describes RDC’s model and provides data describing the success of its services. The RDC is composed of a multidisciplinary team of professionals in grant development. It is comprised of two senior faculty co-directors from the U-M Medical School, two senior biostatisticians, outside faculty content experts, and RDC administrative staff. Investigators contact RDC to request a consultation and submit advance grant materials for review by the RDC team. During the consultation, investigators explain their project and identify challenges. The RDC team and additional experts offer feedback that is captured in meeting notes and provided to investigators. RDC commitments beyond the meetings are implemented and carefully tracked. Investigators may also request grant editing, budgeting, or proposal submission assistance. Investigators utilizing RDC have been awarded $44.5 million since 2011. The demand for RDC consultations doubled from 2010 to 2011, and reached a high of 131 consultations in 2012. Investigator feedback has been positive: 80% reported RDC had a strong impact on their proposal, and over 90% indicated they would recommend RDC to colleagues. MICHR is committed to providing investigators with RDC services to better ensure strong grant applications and successful research careers.

show abstract

Promoting the Transition to Independent Scientist: A National Career Development Program

Cited by 40 publications

References 29 publications

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

Understanding Career Success and Its Contributing Factors for Clinical and Translational Investigators

Model for a University-Based Clinical Research Development Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About