by Gary McDowell | Jul 6, 2017 | Events & Networking, Ideas for change, Policy
Next week in Boston there will be 2 events with opportunities for you to hear about, and participate in, discussions about the next generation of researchers. On Wednesday July 12th, there will be a panel discussion entitled “Reimagining the Future of Science with a New Generation of Investigators” at the Partnering for Cures meeting. The discussion focuses around the fact that the majority of U.S. biomedical PhDs will work outside academia, and yet are still being pushed down the academic tenure-track “pipeline”, and what changes can be effected to alter this situation. The panelists include Kafui Dzirasa, junior faculty at Duke and a member of the Next Generation Researchers Initiative Study (see below); Kristin Krukenberg, board member of Future of Research; Daisy Robinton, postdoc at Harvard and Boston Childen’s; and David Van Vactor, Professor of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School. Simultaneously, on Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th of July, the Next Generation Researchers Initiative study will have its 3rd committee meeting, and for the first time it will not be held in DC but at Sanofi at 270 Albany Street in Cambridge, MA. The public component of the meeting will be held on the morning of Thursday July 13th: the public agenda is here, and you can RSVP here, feel free to come along and listen/participate. We have posted previously about the scope of this study, which is discussing how to facilitate the production of the next generation of independent researchers. Future of Research President Jessica Polka and Executive Director Gary McDowell are both on the study and will be in Boston for the meeting. ...
by Gary McDowell | Jun 30, 2017 | Uncategorized
This article was originally published on the Careers blog and is shared here with the permission from the American Society for Microbiology. The link to the original article is found here. This article was written by policy activist Adriana Bankston. Career progression in academia depends on multiple factors. Traditionally, the metrics most widely used to assess how successful a researcher is and how likely they are to progress in their academic career have been quantifiable items, such as the number of grants, publications, presentations, posters, etc. However, researchers also engage in many other, less tangible activities that are not regarded as being equally valuable to the traditional metrics. Those in academic careers are expected to mentor people, review papers and grants, serve on committees etc. Academics tend to focus less on these activities, and there is a lack of resources and training in these areas. In many cases, expertise in performing intangible activities (e.g., writing grants and papers) is necessary for developing the quantifiable items. However, in a culture where the product is the main metric, the process of learning and teaching others how to become experts in these activities is not valued. Although critical to academic success, these activities constitute only a small part of a researcher’s application for grant funding, job promotion, etc. As a consequence, participating in these activities is also not rewarded properly in academia. It can be difficult to assess their impact, especially if not resulting in a product right away. It may take an extended amount of time for them to have an effect on the training of academic scientists. In addition,...
by Gary McDowell | Jun 28, 2017 | Ideas for change
Future of Research is looking to recruit new members to our Board of Directors, with up to 10 places potentially available, and applications close July 1st! Members of the Board serve for two years. We are looking for people interested in taking a lead on small projects, or in working groups, to support the work of the organization and help us in our goal of helping junior researchers organize local meetings; increasing transparency about the academic system; and generally advocating for change for junior researchers. The time commitment expected is 1-2 hours per week. We would be happy to receive applications from anyone interested in helping us, regardless of field, career stage or location. Please spread the word! To apply, fill out the form here: https://goo.gl/forms/5rrmu9RY9qT5By7s1 and send a brief CV to info@futureofresearch.org – feel free to contact us for more information! The applications are open until July 1st....
by Gary McDowell | Jun 16, 2017 | Ideas for change, NIH, Policy
FoR recently posted a statement supporting the National Institutes of Health proposal to put a cap on the level of funding that individual investigators can be awarded from NIH. That proposal was dropped on June 8th at the Advisory Council to the Director’s meeting. We however are joining with investigators across all career stages to urge NIH to reopen discussion about capping funding of individual investigators, through a petition you can sign at Change.org: “Cap NIH funding for individual Investigators to save the future of biomedical science” We again ask you to get in touch with NIH about this issue, as detailed in the statement below, which you can also find in PDF format here: Future of Research calls on the NIH to reconsider abandoning its plans to cap NIH funding for individual investigators On June 7th, 2017, Future of Research (FoR) issued a statement (https://tinyurl.com/yahvps79) supporting the National Institutes of Health’s proposal to limit grant support by implementing the Grant Support Index (GSI). On June 8th, 2017, at the Advisory Council to the Director, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins announced that the cap proposal would be dropped in favor of the Next Generation Researcher’s Initiative (https://tinyurl.com/ydaxm3b4), which instead will call for reassignment of funds at each individual institutes towards early and mid-career investigators. Juan Pablo Ruiz, a graduate student at NIH, expressed the junior research community’s disappointment in the discussion (see https://tinyurl.com/y8usocwp from 4:11:54 to 4:23:38). We are extremely disappointed at the sudden abandonment of discussion of the proposed cap on funding. Despite assurances to the contrary, it appears that the concerns of a small...
by Gary McDowell | Jun 8, 2017 | Uncategorized
Future of Research is looking to recruit new members to our Board of Directors, with up to 10 places potentially available. Members of the Board serve for two years. We are looking for people interested in taking a lead on small projects, or in working groups, to support the work of the organization and help us in our goal of helping junior researchers organize local meetings; increasing transparency about the academic system; and generally advocating for change for junior researchers. The time commitment expected is 1-2 hours per week. We would be happy to receive applications from anyone interested in helping us, regardless of field, career stage or location. Please spread the word! To apply, fill out the form here: https://goo.gl/forms/5rrmu9RY9qT5By7s1 and send a brief CV to info@futureofresearch.org – feel free to contact us for more information! The applications are open until July 1st....
by Gary McDowell | Jun 7, 2017 | Ideas for change, NIH, Policy
As described in our recent post, the National Institutes of Health have proposed a cap on the level of funding that individual investigators can be awarded from NIH. In “New NIH Approach to Grant Funding Aimed at Optimizing Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars“, NIH Director Francis Collins announced the move in an attempt to redress imbalances with funding, and to particularly focus on early- and mid-career investigators. We have asked you to get in touch with NIH about your opinions on the GSI, and have issued a statement ourselves below in support of the proposed measures, which you can also find in PDF format here: Overview The Board of Directors of Future of Research (FoR) wish to express our support for the National Institutes of Health’s proposal to limit grant support by implementing the Grant Support Index (GSI): https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/new-nih-approach-grant-funding-aimed-optimizing-stewardship-taxpayer-dollars. We applaud the NIH for using data to shape its policies on the distribution of limited research dollars. There is ample evidence of diminishing returns as a single lab continues to receive additional funding. The number of principal investigators who would be affected by the proposed cap is dwarfed by the number of additional awards that could be more efficiently distributed across NIH investigators. As pointed out in a recent analysis of the distribution of R01s, certain institutions and investigators may be more affected than others. Investigators and institutions are likely to be biased in the face of a potential loss of funding – a measure that institutions erroneously use as a metric of their success – and as roughly 65% of NIH-funded investigators have the equivalent of one R01...
