Bridges to Independence Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 15-33
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 15... ...
a culture where young investigators are discouraged from either entering the field or, when in the field, get discouraged about taking risks and bringing science into the new directions that it needs to go." Many people, including Nobel laureates, share the concern that scientists at the beginning of their research careers who are unsuccessful at obtaining initial grant support may leave the academic research enterprise altogether (Jenkins, 2003)
|
From page 16... ...
100% 90% over 55 80% applicants 70% 51 to 55 60% 46 to 50 ofsuccessful 40% 50% 30% 41 to 45 Percent 20% 10% 36 to 40 0%1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000or less 35 2002 Fiscal Year FIGURE 1-2 Age distribution of principal investigators receiving competing R01, R23, R29, and R37 research awards, by percentage of total awards made to each age cohort. Source: Office of Extramural Research, NIH.
|
From page 17... ...
5.0% Numberofawards 2000 Number 4.5% tonewinvestigators 1800 investigators 4.0% 1600 researchof newto 3.5% 1400 3.0% 1200 awards awards 2.5% 1000 2.0% 800 newto researchof 1.5% 600 investigators 1.0% 400 Percent 0.5% 200 0.0% 1998 1999 FiscalYear 2000 2001 2002 0 FIGURE 1-4 NIH awards made to new investigators. The histogram shows the percentage of NIH research awards that have been made to new investigators (left axis)
|
From page 18... ...
Marshall Nirenberg, for instance, had his own independent lab at NIH when he was just 27 after only 2 years of postdoctoral training, unraveled the genetic code when he was 31, was an NIH section head at 35, and received a Nobel Prize at 41. He was doing risky independent research with intramural support from the NIH in his 20s.
|
From page 19... ...
There are also significant financial costs in which additional time spent in low-paid postdoctoral positions comes at the expense of possibilities for greater compensation in industry or in other career endeavors. COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF TASK Because of concerns about the effect of this increasing age of first grant on the careers of new investigators and their ability to undertake highrisk research, the NIH asked the National Academies to recommend some mechanisms to foster the independence of new investigators in biomedical research.
|
From page 20... ...
It may be that, in fact, NIH needs to work with the academic institutions and the National Academies and everybody else to redefine career pathways." Simply put, there are not enough tenure-track academic positions for the available pool of biomedical researchers. Very little that the committee can recommend will cause a sudden explosion in the number of such
|
From page 21... ...
Universities, research institutions, professional societies, public and private funding agencies, academic administrators, senior faculty, junior faculty, staff scientists, postdoctoral scientists, and others have a responsibility for working together to address these issues. The committee provides its report and recommendations for all of these groups in addition to the NIH itself.
|
From page 22... ...
Rather than argue for a greater number of independent positions, the report considers that the current career structures and opportunities for independence adversely affect the future of the biomedical research workforce as well as the success, productivity, and research directions of individuals who do pursue such careers. The increase in age of independence for new investigators has largely coincided with the growth of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
|
From page 23... ...
The various programs discussed in the report are meant to complement each other and provide opportunities for members of a diverse scientific workforce with varying career objectives. In most cases, the pragmatic recommendations provide a framework for a new policy or program, discussing the salient characteristics but without stipulating every detail; the committee feels that the NIH staff, with appropriate backing and resources, is well positioned to use its reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate implementation.
|
From page 24... ...
Previous recommendations have been offered but, in many cases, not even attempted. Since ignored previous recommendations were offered, the situation has worsened for new investigators.
|
From page 25... ...
(See Box 1-2 for NIH's definition of new investigator.) The traditional view of "independence" in academic biomedical sciences as being listed as a Principal Investigator (PI)
|
From page 26... ...
Specifically, we do not intend "inde pendence" to mean necessarily "isolated" or "solitary," or to imply "self sustaining" or "separately funded." committee's interpretation of "independence." The committee seeks to broaden the concept of independence beyond that of a tenure-track professor to include other career trajectories such as a staff-scientist track of highly trained and talented individuals engaged in independent research but without necessarily having their own laboratory. Moreover, increasingly collaborative research projects with multiple investigators and the growth in non-tenure-track positions necessarily alter what independence means.
|
From page 27... ...
And the earlier recommendation to establish career transition awards provided a set of very focused programs designed to meet specific institute goals, rather than the more general program suggested. While the committee appreciates the need to meet a variety of objectives, fostering the independence of new investigators has not been a significant NIH-wide goal addressed in a coordinated fashion.
|
From page 28... ...
Further, not all the institutes award the K22, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, one of the most important supporters of basic biomedical research, does not have a K22 program. It is clear that the K22 awards are designed to fulfill specific research goals of the institutes that offer them, rather than provide the more general career development function advocated in the previous recommendations.
|
From page 29... ...
Separately constituted study sections to consider new investigator applications might solve one problem but create others because there are relatively few applications from new investigators during any one review cycle. Thus, new investigator study sections would either have to review very broad ranges of proposals -- risking insufficient scientific expertise in some areas -- or pool applications over longer periods of time -- delaying the consideration of proposals from new investigators.
|
From page 30... ...
This increases the need for programs intended to support independent research groups -- including those overseen by new investigators -- to have the necessary resources. In addition, some researchers, especially at medical schools, are often expected to pay for a fraction of their own salary out of grants, putting additional demands on the size of awards.
|
From page 31... ...
However, grant programs administered by private funding agencies are more likely to have annual meetings and other networking functions that create informal communities of awardees and, sometimes, representatives of the funding organization can provide informal feedback. Career Guidance The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP, 2000)
|
From page 32... ...
(A list of registered attendees is included in Appendix B.) In addition to speakers and committee members, workshop participants included representatives from the NIH -- ranging from postdoctoral researchers to institute directors -- and other government agencies, professional scientific societies, university researchers and administrators, tenured faculty, untenured faculty, staff scientists, postdoctoral researchers, and others interested in and knowledgeable about the issues confronting new investigators.
|
From page 33... ...
The next three chapters walk through various career stages and the steps needed to foster scientific independence at each of those steps: Chapter 4 focuses on the postdoctoral experience, Chapter 5 on the transition to a first independent position, and Chapter 6 on establishing stable research programs. Finally, Chapter 7 offers the committee's conclusions.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.