ACTION OF THE MONTH:
National Academies of Science Feedback

 

 

 

 

*UPDATE*

Two studies, currently underway at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, are soliciting public input as part of their process this month, and they need to hear from you. The Committee on Revitalizing Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century invites public input here on its Discussion Document and Call for Community Input now through September 29, 2017, but below we will now focus on the Next Generation Researchers Initiative.

 

 

Submit your comments online

 

To help you send in your thoughts on how to create the next generation of independent scientists (with a large focus on postdocs), FoR Board Member Adriana Bankston has provided example answers to the input form below. Scroll down to see what the form looks like, and whether Adriana’s comments inspire you to think of what is most important to you.

 

It is extremely important that the committees receive as much input as possible, to hear as wide a variety of perspectives and to be made aware of as much of the information available as they can be. Please take some time to fill in these surveys, and pass them along to everyone you know with opinions on these issues!

 

The Next Generation Researchers Initiative

This committee of the National Academies is examining the policy and programmatic steps that the nation can undertake to ensure the successful launch and sustainment of careers among the next generation of researchers in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, including the full range of health sciences supported by NIH.

 

You can read the Dear Colleague Letter, visit the Web Portal for public input, and view the summary Response to Prior Recommendations document. The web portal is at www.nas.edu/NextGenDCL and is open for comment until October 1.

 

Disclosure: FoR President Jessica Polka and FoR Executive Director Gary McDowell both sit on this committee. Please submit thoughts to the committee through the form; anything sent directly to individual committee members cannot be used unless you are also prepared to share it with the whole committee. Gary and Jessica have recused themselves from discussions at FoR about ideas for input to this study.

 

Example Input: Next Generation Researchers Initiative

I. Level, Sources, and Stability of Research Funding

 

Examples of recommendations that we have heard from stakeholders, or that have been proposed in the literature, and on which the Committee would be interested in the views of the community, include:

 

  • Congress should move to advanced or multi-year appropriations or provide more flexible carry-over authority for the NIH budget.
  • Congress should increase the amount of NIH funding that goes to the NIH Common Fund.
  • The NIH should expand the number of awards provided through the Director’s New Innovator Award Program (DP2).
  • Colleges and universities should revise their criteria for promotion to reduce the emphasis on individual research grant and publication credentials.

 

INPUT:

What comments would you like to share on this issue?

 

Characters used: 225 out of 250.

Research funding should increase to benefit the entire scientific enterprise, and not just particular investigators. It should also reward other contributions besides publications and grants, including service and mentoring.

 

Please describe any recommendations, programs, or initiatives that address this issue.

 

Characters used: 235 out of 250.

I would recommend a more even distribution of funds so that funding is not only accessible to a few select investigators. This would also support early career investigators, enabling them to drive science forward with innovative ideas.

 

II. The Scope of Grant Award and Review

 

Examples of recommendations in these areas that we have heard from stakeholders, or that have been proposed in the literature, and on which the Committee would be interested in the views of the community, are:

 

  • NIH should modulate the duration of its research project grants to move to either longer or shorter awards, perhaps across the board, or for early career investigators in particular.
  • NIH should alter the K99/R00 program to focus it more specifically on creating opportunities for independent and innovative research.
  • NIH should act to limit the number of grant applications per investigator and the turnaround time between submission and decision.

 

INPUT:

What comments would you like to share on this issue?

 

Characters used: 248 out of 250.

Modulating the duration of grants across the board is difficult as it is highly study-dependent. However, I support rewarding innovative research, in particular as performed by early career investigators, to incentivize them to remain in academia.

 

Please describe any recommendations, programs, or initiatives that address this issue.

 

Characters used: 222 out of 250.

I would recommend limiting the number of grants awarded to senior investigators who might already have plenty of funding, and instead allocate more funds to early career investigators who might be just starting their lab.

 

III. Training, Mentoring and Transparency

 

Examples of recommendations that we have heard from stakeholders, or that have been proposed in the literature, and on which the Committee would be interested in the views of the community, are:

 

  • Universities should take action to make available to trainees comprehensive data in areas such as time to degree completion or end of fellowship, salary and benefits, and career outcomes.
  • Universities and NIH should actively implement policies to shift from a reliance on postdoctoral fellows and graduate students to staff scientists in research laboratories, including through an expansion of grant programs for staff scientist support.
  • NIH should shift to a regime where a far greater number of postdoctoral fellows are supported by training grants or fellowships rather than research grants.

 

INPUT:

What comments would you like to share on this issue?

 

Characters used: 241 out of 250.

Greater data transparency could make the single most important difference in changing the scientific enterprise. A reliance on staff scientists may aid in reducing the number of graduate students and postdocs to help advance the enterprise.

 

Please describe any recommendations, programs, or initiatives that address this issue.

 

Characters used: 250 out of 250.

I would recommend that different types of entities, including universities, publish data obtained on their trainee populations. This could also include an analysis of whether staff scientists are helpful in advancing the mission of their institution.

 

IV. Underrepresented Populations

 

Examples of recommendations in these areas that we have heard from stakeholders, or that have been proposed in the literature, and on which the Committee would be interested in the views of the community, are:

 

  • NIH should gather demographic data and outcomes for all trainees supported through RPGs
  • Universities should take action to target the postdoctoral population for improved diversity, in light of evidence that the structure of postdoctoral fellowships is deterring underrepresented populations from pursuing faculty careers.
  • Academic medical centers should take action to reform, centralize and better integrate medical and research postgraduate training for MD-PhDs.

 

INPUT:

What comments would you like to share on this issue?

 

Characters used: 245 out of 250.

A greater support for diversity of the biomedical workforce is required, including more resources and information available to underrepresented populations. A database of fellowships they are eligible for and available contacts might be useful.

 

Please describe any recommendations, programs, or initiatives that address this issue.

 

Characters used: 223 out of 250.

Individual labs could be evaluated based on their commitment to diversity among their lab members, and rewarded for such commitment. Universities should ensure that they also have adequate support outside of the laboratory.

 

Should the Committee on the Next Generation Researchers Initiative consider any additional issue(s)?

Yes

No

Additional issue(s) for consideration:

Issue title: Professional development for early career researchers

 

Describe the relevance of this issue to you:

 

Characters used: 222 out of 250.

Early career researchers need to be taught many skills which they will utilize in their daily job and beyond. Providing them with resources needed to learn these skills would also benefit the scientific community at large.

 

Please describe any recommendations, programs, or initiatives that address this issue:

 

Characters used: 247 out of 250.

Early career researchers could take mandatory courses in leadership, business, management, grant writing and mentoring prior to starting their lab, as well as enroll in a peer-to-peer mentoring program between a junior and a senior faculty member.

General comments:

Anything else you’d like to share with the committee?

 

Characters used: 677 out of 1000.

I would like to emphasize multiple points necessary for career development of junior researchers that the Committee can address:

1) expose them to multiple types of research experiences, such as internships and other programs at the university level in which they can participate in conjunction with their current laboratory studies.

2) provide them with more information about potential fellowships and traineeships which they might be are eligible for, and various ways to assess their level of competitiveness.

3) address particular hurdles faced by international researchers in terms of participating fellowships and traineeships (funding eligibility, language barriers etc).

 

Thanks for reading this far, and thanks for submitting input and making your voice heard!