The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers Breaking Through (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Dear Colleague Letter
Appendix C: Dear Colleague Letter
Pages 145-152
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 145... ...
an evaluation of the impact of Federal budget constraints on the next generation of researchers; and (C) recommendations for the implementation of policies to incentivize, improve entry into, and sustain careers in research for the next generation of researchers, including proposed policies for agencies and academic institutions." The committee is examining evidence-based programs and policies that create more opportunities, incentives, and pathways for successful transitions to 145
|
From page 146... ...
As the committee explores the evidence base and potential reforms for the final report, we are seeking input from the full range of stakeholders on the barriers that the next generation of researchers will face as they aspire to and maintain independent research careers in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. We are especially interested in the community's perspective on recommendations offered in previous reports or literature that have not been implemented, and we have highlighted some examples in the subsequent pages.
|
From page 147... ...
In addition to requesting your input, we ask you to forward this request for content to those colleagues and thought leaders, as well as affiliated partners in biomedical and behavioral research, who you think might make a unique contribution to this study. Please note that any information you or your colleagues share with the committee will be made public, but anonymous, through our project website, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
|
From page 148... ...
However, the por s tion attributable to the federal government -- by far the largest contributor -- has declined steadily over time,1 and NIH funding has fallen more than 15 percent in real dollars from FY 2003 to FY 2017.2 Most recently, the Administration's 2018 budget proposal includes an additional cut to NIH of more than 20 percent, including roughly a two-thirds reduction in the indirect costs that go to sponsoring institutions.3 Although considerable concern has been expressed surrounding the impact of funding reductions on the vigor of the U.S. biomedical research enterprise, we are particularly interested in the impact these reductions would have on the next generation of researchers.
|
From page 149... ...
or co-PIs on fewer and smaller grants than other investigators, and so may be more vulnerable to the loss of a grant award on renewal.10 Further evidence suggests that the aging workforce appears to be drawing grants away from younger investigators, and models demonstrate that the aging of the NIH funded biomedical workforce is likely to continue.11 The NIH has intervened over the years to address these trends and the longterm stability of the workforce, including through the introduction of the NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) , the Director's New Innovator Award Program (DP2)
|
From page 150... ...
The concerns expressed in the community about this aspect of the biomedical enterprise are numerous, including preparation of trainees for non-academic career pathways, and the possible tension between training experiences and labor roles.19 Regarding postdoctoral positions in particular, previous studies and reports have examined the impacts of salary levels and benefits; prolonged and uncertain postdoctoral periods; inconsistent training opportunities; the absence of formalized career paths for advancement; as well as new evidence suggesting that outside of tenure-track academic jobs, employers do not financially value postdoctoral training.20 There are a number of theories in the literature as to the leading causes of these problems. Some say that postdoctoral researchers are not provided adequate data to empower them to make fully informed decisions about their training and career.21 Others locate the problem in a failure to create pipelines that guide students towards a diversity of biomedical careers.22 And still others point to deeper, structural problems in the system -- for instance, the advocacy group Rescuing Biomedical Research are among those who claim that at the heart of the trainee 14 FASEB.
|
From page 151... ...
The capacity of the system to support the best science will be subverted if systemic barriers thwart the recruitment of the best and brightest scientists irrespective of their race, gender, socioeconomic, or ethnic background. Although the federal government has pursued a range of interventions over the years, and is now actively pursuing additional initiatives in the wake of a 2012 NIH working group report from the Advisory Committee to the Director, studies indicate that we are continuing to fall short of the full objective of achieving diversity in the workforce.27 Another vulnerable group in the current biomedical research system is the physician-scientist population.
|
From page 152... ...
Journal of Clinical Investigation, 125(10)
|
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.