Rethinking the Physician–Scientist Pathway

Abstract

Physician–scientists have the potential to generate fundamental as well as translational breakthroughs. But many trainees who intend to pursue a hybrid career in research and patient care ultimately leave one or the other behind. In this Invited Commentary, the authors draw from their experience as early-career physician–scientists to frame physician–scientist training as having 2 phases: first, learning to think like a physician–scientist; second, learning to act like a physician–scientist. These phases roughly correspond to (1) clinical training (from medical school through residency or fellowship) that incorporates research exposure, and (2) a structured period of graduated research independence once the physician–scientist has become clinically autonomous. There are many effective ways to pursue each phase; what matters most is flexibility in the first phase and sustained support in the second. Accordingly, the authors suggest many potential reforms, including at the levels of the National Institutes of Health, private funders, as well as universities and research hospitals. The authors argue that rethinking physician–scientist training to support individualized paths to an independent hybrid career can help recruit and retain physician–scientists for years to come.

Effectiveness of simulation-based clinical research curriculum for undergraduate medical students - a pre-post intervention study with external control

“…While conducting simulation training of clinical skills, simulation-based clinical research curricula facilitate students’ development of essential research knowledge, skills and confidence. Organic integration of both aspects can effectively nurture proficient physician-scientist [ 28 ].…”

What are the chances? Clinician scientist` career pathways in Germany

“…Despite their global importance in science policy [15], there is little empirical research on CSPs in Germany (exceptions are: Bossé et al [3]; Hendriks et al [10]). This stands in contrast to the situation in Canada (Twa et al [14]; Bookey-Basset et al 2022 [2]; Pietrobon et al [13]), the USA (Eshel and Chivukula [9]), Asia (Yoon et al [19]) or Australia (Eley et al [8]; Eley et al [7]), where everyday challenges of clinician scientist pathways and training are widely discussed.…”

Moments of Possibility: Holocaust Postmemory, Subjunctivity and Futurity in Katja Petrowskaja’s Vielleicht Esther (2014) and Robert Menasse’s Die Hauptstadt (2017)

“…The subjunctive approach therefore coalesces with a strong ethical agenda for both writers, which opens up a horizon beyond the intrafamilial transmission of Holocaust trauma, as the description of past catastrophes is complemented by what Amir Eshel calls their 'redescription' [emphasis in the original, MRL]. 18 This entails a recalibration of Holocaust memories in light of their future and their future opportunities. This happens at a time when the generation of eyewitnesses is perishing and the memory of the Holocaust has become increasingly entrenched in ritual and routine -developments which raise urgent questions about the preservation and transmission of this memory for the future.…”