Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Is it time to reduce the length of postgraduate training for physician-scientists in internal medicine?

Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and patient care, yet the long periods of time required to complete training may impede expansion of this workforce. We examined the relationship between postgraduate training and time to receipt of NIH or Veterans Affairs career development awards (CDAs) for physician-scientists in internal medicine. Data from NIH RePORTER were analyzed for internal medicine residency graduates who received specific CDAs (K08, K23, K99, or IK2) in 2022. Additionally, information on degrees and training duration was collected. Internal medicine residency graduates constituted 19% of K awardees and 28% of IK2 awardees. Of MD-PhD internal medicine-trained graduates who received a K award, 92% received a K08 award; of MD-only graduates who received a K award, a majority received a K23 award. The median time from medical school graduation to CDA was 9.6 years for K awardees and 10.2 years for IK2 awardees. The time from medical school graduation to K or IK2 award was shorter for US MD-PhD graduates than US MD-only graduates. We propose that the time from medical school graduation to receipt of CDAs must be shortened to accelerate training and retention of physician-scientists.

Using focused ethnography to inform biomedical research infrastructure enhancement at primarily undergraduate institutions

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports 24 IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) Programs that help develop university-based biomedical research capacity in states that historically receive low levels of extramural grant support. To assess the effectiveness of the Arkansas INBRE in meeting its biomedical research capacity-building goals, we evaluated how the context (i.e., local and institutional settings) at two undergraduate institutions impacted variability in science faculty use of program resources. Data were collected by in-depth interviews with faculty and administrators (N = 9), focused observations, a review of Arkansas INBRE databases, and internet searches. Content analysis was used to code interview transcripts and field notes, and then qualitative data were integrated with data from databases and internet searches to construct two institutional case summaries. Constant comparison was used to identify similarities and differences between the institutions that helped to explain variability in how frequently faculty used Arkansas INBRE resources, including an enrollment crisis at undergraduate institutions in the United States and the presence or absence of a robust research culture at each institution. These findings were used to suggest program improvements (e.g., classroom-based research) that could further strengthen biomedical research capacity in Arkansas. As some barriers to program effectiveness are likely found in other IDeA-eligible states, improvements suggested for the Arkansas INBRE could apply to INBRE programs elsewhere.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article describes results from an approach to program evaluation (i.e., focused ethnography) that has not been previously used to evaluate grant mechanisms. This "experience near" approach, which involved qualitative interviews and firsthand observations, lent valuable insights into how broader and institutional contexts at two primarily undergraduate institutions hindered or facilitated use of Arkansas INBRE resources. The insights gained can be used to enhance the Arkansas INBRE, which aims to strengthen the statewide biomedical infrastructure.

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators

As the largest funder of basic biomedical research in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has an interest in maintaining a sustainable, productive workforce of investigators. Over the years, NIH has implemented several programs to attract early-stage investigators and other applicants without prior NIH support. The latest of these is the Next Generation Researchers Initiative. These programs have been shown to be successful in meeting NIH-wide goals but their success for any particular NIH institute or center (IC), and in any particular year, is determined by a variety of factors, some extrinsic to an IC's funding decision process. Each IC must balance support for new investigators with funding for productive ongoing programs of research. We examine historical trends in support of new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) over a 22-year period, as well as trends in some major extrinsic influences on that support. The results indicate that NIH's new investigator programs have succeeded in maintaining a balance between the support for new NIAID investigators while also continuing to support an expanded pool of established investigators. The programs have been particularly effective in providing support to early-stage investigators.

What's another year? The lengthening training and career paths of scientists

Lengthening doctorate and post-doctorate training allow science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Ph.Ds. to persist in high-intensity academic research environments at the cost of significant lifetime earnings. Using the largest longitudinal survey of U.S. Ph.D. recipients, I construct career paths for 135,599 STEM research doctorate holders over six job types and two employment statuses. Examining Ph.D. cohorts in four major STEM fields from 1950 to the present, I find evidence that the increasingly prevalent postdoctoral position allow STEM Ph.Ds. to remain in high-intensity academic research positions, albeit not necessarily on the tenure-track. However, these research opportunities come with an approximately $3,700 deduction in annual earnings per postdoctoral year. Taken together, STEM Ph.Ds. must weigh the non-pecuniary costs of remaining in academic research with this earnings loss to determine if postdoctoral positions are a worthwhile investment.

Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022

IMPORTANCE

Both citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.

RESULTS

There were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

A roadmap of strategies to support cardiovascular researchers: from policy to practice

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Cardiovascular research has therefore never been more crucial. Cardiovascular researchers must be provided with a research environment that enables them to perform at their highest level, maximizing their opportunities to work effectively with key stakeholders to address this global issue. At present, cardiovascular researchers face a range of challenges and barriers, including a decline in funding, job insecurity and a lack of diversity at senior leadership levels. Indeed, many cardiovascular researchers, particularly women, have considered leaving the sector, highlighting a crucial need to develop strategies to support and retain researchers working in the cardiovascular field. In this Roadmap article, we present solutions to problems relevant to cardiovascular researchers worldwide that are broadly classified across three key areas: capacity building, research funding and fostering diversity and equity. This Roadmap provides opportunities for research institutions, as well as governments and funding bodies, to implement changes from policy to practice, to address the most important factors restricting the career progression of cardiovascular researchers.

The Structural Shift and Collaboration Capacity in GenBank Networks: A Longitudinal Study

Metadata in scientific data repositories such as GenBank contain links between data submissions and related publications. As a new data source for studying collaboration networks, metadata in data repositories compensate for the limitations of publication-based research on collaboration networks. This paper reports the findings from a GenBank metadata analytics project. We used network science methods to uncover the structures and dynamics of GenBank collaboration networks from 1992–2018. The longitudinality and large scale of this data collection allowed us to unravel the evolution history of collaboration networks and identify the trend of flattening network structures over time and optimal assortative mixing range for enhancing collaboration capacity. By incorporating metadata from the data production stage with the publication stage, we uncovered new characteristics of collaboration networks as well as developed new metrics for assessing the effectiveness of enablers of collaboration—scientific and technical human capital, cyberinfrastructure, and science policy.

An intersectionality lens is needed to establish a global view of equity, diversity and inclusion

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have become essential considerations in different academic fields in recent years, attracting an increasing number of voices and perspectives from different groups. There is a need for an intersectionality framework that is inclusive of both the local and global diversity of researchers. Here, we present an intersectionality framework called KLOB which structures barriers to academic success into four components: knowledge exchange (K), language (L), obligations (O), and biases (B), and thus helps to think about the cumulative effect of multiple barriers that individuals from different backgrounds encounter to succeed in academic activities such as scientific publishing, which is the primary currency of academic success in our current system. This framework highlights both local and global disparities in socioeconomic, linguistic, and discriminatory factors that determine the opportunity of individual researchers to succeed in academia. We emphasise that individual researchers have no control over most barriers they face because of where and how they were born. Implementing solutions to address barriers associated with KLOB requires a multiscale vision and initiatives that tackle local and global inequities.

The enduring pursuit of public science at U.S. land-grant universities

Since the 1990s, universities have faced a push toward output commercialization that has been seen as a potential threat to the public science model. Much less attention has been given to the enduring nature of internal organizational features in academia and how they shape the pursuit of traditional scholarly activities. This article exploits four waves of representative, random-sample survey evidence from agricultural and life science faculty at the 52 major U.S. land-grant universities, spanning 1989-2015, to examine faculty attitudes/preferences, tenure and promotion criteria, output, and funding sources. Our findings demonstrate that faculty attitudes toward scientific research have remained remarkably stable over twenty-five years in strongly favoring intrinsic and public science goals over commercial or extrinsic goals. We also demonstrate the faculty's positive attitudes toward science, an increased pressure to publish in top journals and secure increasingly competitive grants, as well as declining time for science. These trends suggest a reconsideration of university commercialization strategies and a recommitment of universities and their state and federal funders toward fostering public agricultural and life science research.

The Association Between NRMN STAR Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy and Grant Submission

Background

Eliminating the NIH funding gap among underrepresented minorities (URMs) remains a high priority for the National Institutes of Health. In 2014, the National Research Mentoring Network¹ Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR) program recruited postdoctoral, early-stage and junior faculty to participate in a 12-month grant writing and professional development program. The expectation of the program was to increase the number of grant submissions and awards to URM researchers. Although receiving a grant award is the gold standard of NRMN STAR, instilling confidence for postdocs and early-stage faculty to submit an application is a critical first step. Based on our previous study, a sustained increase in trainee self-efficacy score over a 24-month period was observed after completing NRMN STAR.

Methods

The current study sought to determine the association between self-efficacy score and grant submissions among two cohorts of trainees. Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy was measured using a 19-item questionnaire previously described by and used in our own work, which was originally adapted from an 88-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.² A binary variable was created to identify trainees who submitted an initial or revised proposal vs those who abandoned their proposal or were still writing. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation.

Results

As of June 20, 2019, 12 of the 21 (57%) trainees had submitted a grant proposal (eg, NIH, other federal or non-federal grant). For every point increase in 12-month post assessments, Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy scores across all domains had a 44% higher prevalence of submitting a grant after controlling for race, sex, education level, academic rank, research experience, duration of postdoctoral training, institution type, and NRMN STAR cohort.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that NRMN STAR had a positive impact on trainees' confidence in grant writing and professional development activities, which resulted in higher grant submission rates.

50 years of radiotherapy research: Evolution, trends and lessons for the future

Rapid and relentless technological advances in an ever-more globalized world have shaped the field of radiation oncology in which we practise today. These developments have drastically modified the habitus¹ of health professionals and researchers at an individual and organisational level. In this article we present an analysis of trends in radiation oncology research over the last half a century. To do so, the data from >350,000 scientific publications pertaining to a yearly search of the PubMed database with the keywords cancer radiotherapy was analysed. This analysis revealed that, over the years, radiotherapy research output has declined relative to alternative cancer therapies, representing 64% in 1970 it decreased to 31% in 2019. Also, the pace of research has significantly accelerated with, in the last 15 years, a doubling in the number of articles published by the 10% most productive researchers. Researchers are also facing stronger competition today with a proportion of first authors that will never get to publish as a last author increasing steadily from 58% in 1970 to 84% in 2000. Additionally, radiotherapy research output is extremely unequally distributed in the world, with Africa and South America contributing to ∼3% of radiotherapy articles in 2019 while representing 23% of the world's population. This disparity, reflecting economic situations and radiotherapy capabilities, has a knock-on effect for the provision of routine clinical treatment. Since research activity is inherent to delivery of high quality clinical care, this contributes to the global inequity of radiotherapy services. Learning from these trends is crucial for the future not only of radiation oncology research but also for effective and equitable cancer care.

Animal reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2: calculable COVID-19 risk for older adults from animal to human transmission

The current COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the highly contagious respiratory pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), has already claimed close to three million lives. SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic disease: it emerged from a bat reservoir and it can infect a number of agricultural and companion animal species. SARS-CoV-2 can cause respiratory and intestinal infections, and potentially systemic multi-organ disease, in both humans and animals. The risk for severe illness and death with COVID-19 significantly increases with age, with older adults at highest risk. To combat the pandemic and protect the most susceptible group of older adults, understanding the human-animal interface and its relevance to disease transmission is vitally important. Currently high infection numbers are being sustained via human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, identifying potential animal reservoirs and potential vectors of the disease will contribute to stronger risk assessment strategies. In this review, the current information about SARS-CoV-2 infection in animals and the potential spread of SARS-CoV-2 to humans through contact with domestic animals (including dogs, cats, ferrets, hamsters), agricultural animals (e.g., farmed minks), laboratory animals, wild animals (e.g., deer mice), and zoo animals (felines, non-human primates) are discussed with a special focus on reducing mortality in older adults.

Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success

Mastering the art of grant writing is one of the most essential skills to obtaining research funding. Given the importance of pursuing high-quality surgical research and supporting the academic goals of surgeon-scientists, ensuring that surgeons have the necessary skills to write effective and successful grants is of paramount importance. In this article, we present 10 strategies for composing a strong research grant application. These strategies apply to federal or nongovernmental funding agencies and are broadly relevant to basic, translational, and clinical investigators. We believe these recommendations can help surgeon-scientists be effective grant writers and compete successfully for research funding.

NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology

INTRODUCTION

Neurosurgeons represent 0.5% of all physicians and currently face a high burden of disease. Physician-scientists are essential to advance the mission of National Academies of Science (NAS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) through discovery and bench to bedside translation. We investigated trends in NIH neurosurgeon-scientist funding over time as an indicator of physician-scientist workforce training.

METHODS

We used NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) to extract grants to neurosurgery departments and neurosurgeons from 1993 to 2017. Manual extraction of each individual grant awardee was conducted.

RESULTS

After adjusting for U.S. inflation (base year: 1993), NIH funding to neurosurgery departments increased yearly (P < 0.00001). However, neurosurgeon-scientists received significantly less NIH funding compared to scientists (including basic scientists and research only neurosurgeons) (P = 0.09). The ratio of neurosurgeon-scientists to scientists receiving grants was significantly reduced (P = 0.002). Interestingly, the percentage of oncology-related neurosurgery grants significantly increased throughout the study period (P = 0.002). The average number of grants per neurosurgeon-scientists showed an upward trend (P < 0.001); however, the average number of grants for early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, showed a significant downward trend (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Over the past 23 years, despite the overall increasing trends in the number of NIH grants awarded to neurosurgery departments overall, the proportion of neurosurgeon-scientists that were awarded NIH grants compared to scientists demonstrates a declining trend. This observed shift is disproportionate in the number of NIH grants awarded to senior level compared to early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, with more funding allocated towards neurosurgical-oncology-related grants.

FastTrack, a strategy to shorten time to degree

Recent reports express concern about the sustainability of the biomedical research enterprise in its current form. Recurring concerns include the predictability and sustainability of funding for research, regulatory burden and training the next generation in the biomedical workforce. One specific concern is the duration of training periods during pre-doctoral and post-doctoral studies. This article addresses the issue of time-to-degree (TTD) for doctorates. Many reports stress the importance of shortening the TTD, but provide no recommendations to achieve this goal. Herein, factors potentially affecting TTD are discussed and one mechanism that harmonizes undergraduate and graduate programs is proposed as a strategy to reduce the TTD.

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science

There is growing concern that the innovation system's ability to create wealth and attain social benefit is declining in effectiveness. This article explores the reasons for this decline and suggests a structure, the open science partnership, as one mechanism through which to slow down or reverse this decline. The article examines the empirical literature of the last century to document the decline. This literature suggests that the cost of research and innovation is increasing exponentially, that researcher productivity is declining, and, third, that these two phenomena have led to an overall flat or declining level of innovation productivity. The article then turns to three explanations for the decline - the growing complexity of science, a mismatch of incentives, and a balkanization of knowledge. Finally, the article explores the role that open science partnerships - public-private partnerships based on open access publications, open data and materials, and the avoidance of restrictive forms of intellectual property - can play in increasing the efficiency of the innovation system.

Postdocs' advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses

BACKGROUND

The decision of whether to pursue a tenure-track faculty position has become increasingly difficult for undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral trainees considering a career in research. Trainees express concerns over job availability, financial insecurity, and other perceived challenges associated with pursuing an academic position.

METHODS

To help further elucidate the benefits, challenges, and strategies for pursuing an academic career, a diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars ("postdocs") from across the United States were asked to provide advice on pursuing a research career in academia in response to an open-ended survey question. 994 responses were qualitatively analyzed using both content and thematic analyses. 177 unique codes, 20 categories, and 10 subthemes emerged from the data and were generalized into two thematic areas: Life in Academia and Strategies for Success.

RESULTS

On life in academia, postdoc respondents overwhelmingly agree that academia is most rewarding when you are truly passionate about scientific research and discovery. 'Passion' emerged as the most frequently cited code, referenced 189 times. Financial insecurity, work-life balance, securing grant funding, academic politics, and a competitive job market emerged as challenges of academic research. The survey respondents note that while passion and hard work are necessary, they are not always sufficient to overcome these challenges. The postdocs encourage trainees to be realistic about career expectations and to prepare broadly for career paths that align with their interests, skills, and values. Strategies recommended for perseverance include periodic self-reflection, mental health support, and carefully selecting mentors.

CONCLUSIONS

For early-career scientists along the training continuum, this advice deserves critical reflection before committing to an academic research career. For advisors and institutions, this work provides a unique perspective from postdoctoral scholars on elements of the academic training path that can be improved to increase retention, career satisfaction, and preparation for the scientific workforce.

Changes in the National Cancer Institute's R01 workforce: growth, aging, retention, and policy implications

Scientific progress and discovery of preventions and cures for life-threatening diseases depend on the vitality of the biomedical research workforce. We analyzed the workforce of cancer researchers applying for and receiving R01 awards from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from fiscal years 1990 to 2016, the last year prior to implementation of the Next Generation Researchers Initiative. Here we report that the NCI R01 Principal Investigator (PI) workforce expanded 1.4-fold and aged over this time frame. We tracked 9 age groups and found that the number of PIs in the 3 oldest groups increased dramatically, in contrast with the younger groups. Sustained increases in the number of funded older PIs stemmed from increases in the number of older PIs submitting applications, rather than higher funding rates for older PIs. The decline in the number of funded younger PIs was driven in part by (a) a marked increase in time from PhD degree to first R01 application and award, as well as (b) a decrease in retention of PIs in the funded R01 workforce beyond their first R01 award. The NCI is using these and other analyses to inform strategies and policies for attracting, supporting, and retaining meritorious early-career researchers.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation

Importance

For decades, the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) has been providing funding for meritorious research to investigators for studies on head and neck cancer. Recently, the AHNS Foundation sought to evaluate the impact of its funds for investigators and research.

Objective

To examine the mechanisms and outcomes of research funding by the AHNS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An online survey was sent to all AHNS grant-funded principal investigators who had received funds from 1998 to 2018. Over this time, approximately $1.5 million in grant funding was awarded for research. Grants were separated into 2 groups: pilot and resident grants (PRs), approximately $10 000 each type of grant for 1 year, and career development grants (CDAs), approximately $20 000 to $80 000 over 1 to 2 years.

Results

Of 82 awardees, 49 individuals (60%) responded to the survey (36 men [73%]), including 28 recipients (57%) of PR grants and 21 recipients (43%) of CDA grants. Twenty-six studies (53%) were reported as translational, 20 studies (41%) were basic science, 2 studies (4%) were clinical, and 1 study (2%) was outcomes research. At the time of the award, 19 recipients (39%) were faculty/attending physicians, 11 recipients (22%) were fellows, and 19 recipients (39%) were residents/students. Twenty of 21 CDA grants (95%) were given to fellows or faculty. Thirty-seven grants (75%) resulted in publications, with a total of 84 publications reported. Nineteen CDA grants (90%) and 18 PR grants (64%) resulted in publication. Thirty-one (63%) investigators were awarded another grant after their AHNS grant: 19 CDA (90%), 8 pilot (44%), and 4 (40%) resident awardees reported having a future grant. Fourteen respondents (29%) reported a future K, R, or other major foundation grant. Of all awardees, 46 recipients (93%) were still conducting research and 40 recipients (82%) reported serving as academic faculty. Respondents also noted associations between grants and mentorship, investigator development, institutional support, and academic promotion.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that, over the past 20 years, the AHNS funding mechanism has resulted in 80% of awards generating publications and 63% resulting in future funding. The additional benefits of AHNS grant awards on the culture of research is also substantial. Continued analysis of these data may help guide future AHNS funding and award decisions.

The costs and benefits of a modified biomedical science workforce

Analyses of the biomedical research workforce, the biomedical research enterprise, and its sustainability have identified a number of threats and offered many solutions to alleviate the problems. While a number of these solutions have been implemented, one solution that has not been broadly adopted, despite being widely recommended, is to increase the number of staff scientists and reduce dependency on trainees. The perceived impediment of this is the cost. This paper explores the costs associated with laboratory personnel and the benefits, in terms of productivity, associated with different positions in the workforce. The results of this cost‐benefit analysis depend upon the values assigned to different metrics of productivity by individuals and institutions. If first and senior author publications are the most important metrics of productivity, a trainee‐dependent workforce is much more cost effective. If total publications are the most valued metric of productivity, the cost effectiveness of trainee and staff scientists is reasonably equitable. This analysis provides data for consideration when making personnel decisions and for the continued discussion of modification of the biomedical research workforce. It also provides insight into the incentives for modification of the workforce at the grass roots, which must be considered by institutions genuinely committed to workforce modification to sustain the biomedical research enterprise.

National Institutes of Health Research Funding to Academic Surgical Oncologists: Who Are We and Where Do We Stand?

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary public funding source for surgical research in the United States. Surgical oncology is a highly academic career, but NIH funding for surgical oncologists (SOs) is not well characterized.

METHODS

The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried to identify R01-and-equivalents grants awarded to departments of surgery (DoS) between 2008 and 2018. Surgical oncologists were considered to be those who completed a Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO)-accredited fellowship (breast or complex surgical oncology).

RESULTS

Of 1101 projects, 510 (46.3%) were led by practicing surgeons. Among these, general surgeons accounted for most grants (31%), followed by SOs (20.8%). Women represented 211 (24.1%) of the grantees. However, SOs had a higher proportion of female investigators than other surgeons (30.0% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.001). The SO grantees had fewer years of experience (YoE) (12 years; interquartile range [IQR], 8.75 vs. 13 years; IQR, 13 years; P = 0.003), lower senior status (≥ 24 YoE), fewer investigators (4.0% vs. 18.9%; P < 0.001), and fewer PhD holders (30.8% vs. 65.5%; P < 0.001) than the overall cohort. Projects led by SOs accounted for 1121 publications (14.1%), with a higher proportion of high-impact articles (26.3% vs. 9.7%; P < 0.001), and were more likely to hold a registered patent (odds ratio [OR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-8.74; P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Among surgical subspecialties, SSO-accredited surgeons accounted for the largest share of the NIH grants. The SO grantees were younger in their career and had higher-impact scholarly productivity. A smaller proportion of female SOs received NIH grants than males, but this gender disparity was less significant among SOs than among other surgical specialties. Fellowship programs should continue to stimulate groundbreaking research by integrating grant-writing training and mentorship.

Identifying translational science through embeddings of controlled vocabularies

OBJECTIVE

Translational science aims at "translating" basic scientific discoveries into clinical applications. The identification of translational science has practicality such as evaluating the effectiveness of investments made into large programs like the Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Despite several proposed methods that group publications-the primary unit of research output-into some categories, we still lack a quantitative way to place articles onto the full, continuous spectrum from basic research to clinical medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

I learn vector representations of controlled vocabularies assigned to Medline articles to obtain a translational axis that points from basic science to clinical medicine. The projected position of a term on the translational axis, expressed by a continuous quantity, indicates the term's "appliedness." The position of an article, determined by the average location over its terms, quantifies the degree of its appliedness, which I term the level score.

RESULTS

I validate the present method by comparing with previous techniques, showing excellent agreement yet uncovering significant variations of scores of articles in previously defined categories. The measure allows us to characterize the standing of journals, disciplines, and the entire biomedical literature along the basic-applied spectrum. Analysis on large-scale citation network reveals 2 main findings. First, direct citations mainly occurred between articles with similar scores. Second, shortest paths are more likely ended up with an article closer to the basic end of the spectrum, regardless of where the starting article is on the spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method provides a quantitative way to identify translational science.

Leveraging a collaborative consortium model of mentee/mentor training to foster career progression of underrepresented postdoctoral researchers and promote institutional diversity and inclusion

Changing institutional culture to be more diverse and inclusive within the biomedical academic community is difficult for many reasons. Herein we present evidence that a collaborative model involving multiple institutions of higher education can initiate and execute individual institutional change directed at enhancing diversity and inclusion at the postdoctoral researcher (postdoc) and junior faculty level by implementing evidence-based mentoring practices. A higher education consortium, the Big Ten Academic Alliance, invited individual member institutions to send participants to one of two types of annual mentor training: 1) “Mentoring-Up” training for postdocs, a majority of whom were from underrepresented groups; 2) Mentor Facilitator training—a train-the-trainer model—for faculty and senior leadership. From 2016 to 2019, 102 postdocs and 160 senior faculty and administrative leaders participated. Postdocs reported improvements in their mentoring proficiency (87%) and improved relationships with their PIs (71%). 29% of postdoc respondents transitioned to faculty positions, and 85% of these were underrepresented and 75% were female. 59 out of the 120 faculty and administrators (49%) trained in the first three years provided mentor training on their campuses to over 3000 undergraduate and graduate students, postdocs and faculty within the project period. We conclude that early stage biomedical professionals as well as individual institutions of higher education benefited significantly from this collaborative mentee/mentor training model

All downhill from the PhD? The typical impact trajectory of U.S. academic careers

Within academia, mature researchers tend to be more senior, but do they also tend to write higher impact articles? This article assesses long-term publishing (16+ years) United States (U.S.) researchers, contrasting them with shorter-term publishing researchers (1, 6, or 10 years). A long-term U.S. researcher is operationalized as having a first Scopus-indexed journal article in exactly 2001 and one in 2016–2019, with U.S. main affiliations in their first and last articles. Researchers publishing in large teams (11+ authors) were excluded. The average field and year normalized citation impact of long- and shorter-term U.S. researchers’ journal articles decreases over time relative to the national average, with especially large falls for the last articles published, which may be at least partly due to a decline in self-citations. In many cases researchers start by publishing above U.S. average citation impact research and end by publishing below U.S. average citation impact research. Thus, research managers should not assume that senior researchers will usually write the highest impact papers.

The role of scientific communication in predicting science identity and research career intention

The number of biomedical sciences PhDs persisting in academic faculty careers has been declining. As one potential influence on trainees’ intention to persist, we investigate the development of scientific communication (SC) skills, hypothesizing that attitudes and behaviors regarding scientific writing, speaking, and presenting predict academic research career intention, through science identity. After adapting a social-cognitive career theoretical model of SC to include science identity and mentor practices, we conducted a longitudinal survey of 185 doctoral and postdoctoral fellows. Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships among SC productivity, SC self-efficacy, SC outcome expectations, mentor practices in SC, science identity, and research career intention. Results confirmed the overall model and revealed additional specific pathways: SC productivity and SC outcome expectations directly predicted career intention; SC productivity and mentor practices predicted science identity through SC self-efficacy. Demographic factors did not predict intention when controlling for SC variables. Findings support a model of SC skill development as a predictor of research career intention (R² = .32). The finding that SC language use predicts science identity has important sociolinguistic implications. The key factors in this process are actionable at the trainee, mentor, and institutional levels, suggesting potential for SC interventions to increase career persistence.

Building a Professional Identity and an Academic Career Track in Translational Medicine

Biomedical scientists aim to contribute to further understanding of disease pathogenesis and to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic tools that relieve disease burden. Yet the majority of biomedical scientists do not develop their academic career or professional identity as “translational scientists,” and are not actively involved in the continuum from scientific concept to development of new strategies that change medical practice. The collaborative nature of translational medicine and the lengthy process of bringing innovative findings from bench to bedside conflict with established pathways of building a career in academia. This collaborative approach also poses a problem for evaluating individual contributions and progress. The traditional evaluation of scientific success measured by the impact and number of publications and grants scientists achieve is inadequate when the product is a team effort that may take decades to complete. Further, where scientists are trained to be independent thinkers and to establish unique scientific niches, translational medicine depends on combining individual insights and strengths for the greater good. Training programs that are specifically geared to prepare scientists for a career in translational medicine are not widespread. In addition, the legal, regulatory, scientific and clinical infrastructure and support required for translational research is often underdeveloped in academic institutions and funding organizations, further discouraging the development and success of translational scientists in the academic setting. In this perspective we discuss challenges and potential solutions that could allow for physicians, physician scientists and basic scientists to develop a professional identity and a fruitful career in translational medicine.

Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion

Uncertainty is expected to enter into our grant allocation processes at many points, not limited to those directly involving assessment by peers. The selection of grants for funding is thus prodigiously low in statistical power and will remain so. The replacement of current systems with some form of lottery, as has been proposed, seriously risks weakening the quality of applications. Opportunities exist for agencies to encourage and reward greater clarity and innovation in research outcomes.

An evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Early Stage Investigator policy: Using existing data to evaluate federal policy

To assist new scientists in the transition to independent research careers, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented an Early Stage Investigator (ESI) policy beginning with applications submitted in 2009. During the review process, the ESI designation segregates applications submitted by investigators who are within 10 years of completing their terminal degree or medical residency from applications submitted by more experienced investigators. Institutes/centers can then give special consideration to ESI applications when making funding decisions. One goal of this policy is to increase the probability of newly emergent investigators receiving research support. Using optimal matching to generate comparable groups pre- and post-policy implementation, generalized linear models were used to evaluate the ESI policy. Due to a lack of control group, existing data from 2004 to 2008 were leveraged to infer causality of the ESI policy effects on the probability of funding applications from 2011 to 2015. This article addresses the statistical necessities of public policy evaluation, finding administrative data can serve as a control group when proper steps are taken to match the samples. Not only did the ESI policy stabilize the proportion of NIH funded newly emergent investigators but also, in the absence of the ESI policy, 54% of newly emergent investigators would not have received funding. This manuscript is important to Research Evaluation as a demonstration of ways in which existing data can be modeled to evaluate new policy, in the absence of a control group, forming a quasi-experimental design to infer causality when evaluating federal policy.

Developing Faculty in Emerging Areas of Interdisciplinary Research

The availability of new techniques and technologies to answer important medical questions is accelerating at a breathtaking pace. In response to these exciting new opportunities, clinical departments, in general, and departments of medicine, in particular, have broadened their research portfolios. Organization of the traditional structures of clinical departments, research infrastructure, training programs, and rewards for faculty has only begun to catalyze emerging research areas such as artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, bioengineering, cell and tissue engineering, cost effectiveness, health services, implementation science, integrative epidemiology, medical informatics, nanomedicine, and quality improvement. Success in these emerging areas of research requires interdisciplinary collaboration on a much larger scale than in the past. The effectiveness of efforts to recruit, develop, mentor, and promote faculty in these exciting areas will be critical to the success of departmental and institutional research programs. We describe examples of initiatives from our 5 departments of medicine designed to develop and promote faculty conducting research in emerging interdisciplinary areas. We focus on core resources, training, organizational structures, and recognition and promotion. Faculty have a compelling opportunity and obligation to pursue emerging research areas that have the potential to further improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. As departments prepare to meet this exciting opportunity in the future, the lessons learned must inform investments in faculty development. Although many of the strategies outlined herein could and should expand beyond any individual department, departments of medicine have a distinct obligation and opportunity to lead this effort.

Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Survival of junior scientists in academic biomedical research is difficult in today’s highly competitive funding climate. National Institute of Health (NIH) data on first-time R01 grantees indicate the rate at which early investigators drop out from a NIH-supported research career is most rapid 4 to 5 years from the first R01 award. The factors associated with a high risk of dropping out, and whether these factors impact all junior investigators equally, are unclear. We identified a cohort of 1,496 investigators who received their first R01-equivalent (R01-e) awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 2003 and 2010, and studied all their subsequent NIH grant applications through 2016. Ultimately, 57% of the cohort were successful in obtaining new R01-e funding, despite highly competitive conditions. Among those investigators who failed to compete successfully for new funding (43%), the average time to dropping out was 5 years. Investigators who successfully obtained new grants showed remarkable within-person consistency across multiple grant submission behaviors, including submitting more applications per year, more renewal applications, and more applications to multiple NIH Institutes. Funded investigators appeared to have two advantages over their unfunded peers at the outset: they had better scores on their first R01-e grants and they demonstrated an early ability to write applications that would be scored, not triaged. The cohort rapidly segregated into two very different groups on the basis of PI consistency in the quality and frequency of applications submitted after their first R01-e award. Lastly, we identified a number of specific demographic factors, intitutional characteristics, and grant submission behaviors that were associated with successful outcomes, and assessed their predictive value and relative importance for the likelihood of obtaining additional NIH funding.

Examining trends in the diversity of the U.S. National Institutes of Health participating and funded workforce

Here, we use recent U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) data to document trends in the NIH-funded workforce over time. Consistent with previous studies that were initiated by NIH, we find that the number of scientists funded on competing R01-equivalent (R01 Eq.) and research project grants (RPGs) increased 2-5% per year between 2009 and 2016. Primary beneficiaries of this growth were experienced investigators (Exp), whereas the share of funding awarded to early-stage investigators (ESIs) and new investigators (NIs) declined. The decline occurred even after NIH instituted the New and Early-Stage Investigator policy in 2009. When we evaluate the investigator pool, we find that women and racial and ethnic minorities represent a higher percentage of NIs and ESIs relative to Exp. Thus, trends of diminishing support for NIs and ESIs may negatively impact the diversity of the current and future biomedical research workforce. We find some recent gains among women and Hispanics as part of the applicant and awardee pool for both R01 Eq. and RPGs, but significant, large gaps persist among nationally underrepresented racial minorities. Our findings suggest a need to prioritize investments and support of ESIs and NIs, groups in which women and racial and ethnic minorities represent a larger proportion of the applicant pool, to enhance diversity in the NIH-funded workforce.-Nikaj, S., Roychowdhury, D., Lund, P. K., Matthews, M., Pearson, K. Examining trends in the diversity of the U.S. National Institutes of Health participating and funded workforce.

The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers

New data from the NIH reveal that the scientific return on its sponsored research reaches a maximum at around $400,000 of annual support per principal investigator. We discuss the implications of this 'sweet spot' for funding policy, and propose that the NIH should limit both the minimum and maximum amount of funding per researcher.

The future of graduate and postdoctoral training in the biosciences

This article summarizes the outcomes of the second national conference on the Future of Bioscience Graduate and Postdoctoral Training. Five topics were addressed during the conference: diversity in leadership positions; mentoring; modernizing the curriculum; experiential learning; and the need for better data on trainees. The goal of the conference was to develop a consensus around these five topics and to recommend policies that can be implemented by academic and research institutions and federal funding agencies in the United States.