The Supervisory Role of Life Science Research Faculty: The Missing Link to Diversifying the Academic Workforce?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Clement L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7173632 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Supervisory Role of Life Science Research Faculty: The Missing Link to Diversifying the Academic Workforce?
Clement Laurence L Leung Karen Nicole KN Lewis James Bennett JB Saul Naledi Marie NM
Journal of microbiology & biology education 20200410 1
In addition to developing innovative research programs, life science research faculty at research-intensive institutions are tasked with providing career mentoring and scientific training to new generations of scientists, including postgraduate, graduate, and undergraduate students. In this essay, we argue for a redefinition of mentoring in laboratory research, to thoroughly distinguish three essential roles played by research faculty relative to their trainees: advisor, educator, and supervisor ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe contributions of Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) to biomedical innovation have been difficult to measure because of the challenges involved in tracing knowledge flows from their origin to their uses.MethodsThe authors examined patent citation linkages between AMC research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and patents. In prospective analyses, they examine the extent to which articles resulting from NIH grants to AMCs awarded between 1990 and 1995 were cited in drug and medical patents. The authors then examine the extent to which these patents are associated with marketed drugs. In retrospective analyses, they examine the share of drugs approved between 2000 and 2009 that have citation links to NIH-funded AMC research.ResultsThe prospective analyses show over a third of AMC grants resulted in publications that were cited in patents. Most the patents are drug and biotechnology patents, and are assigned to private firms. Patents citing NIH-funded AMC publications were associated with 106 new FDA approved drugs, half of which are new molecular entities and a quarter of which are priority NMEs. The retrospective analyses showed that about half of the new molecular entities approved over the 2000-2009 period had citations links to NIH-funded AMC research.ConclusionsThere are strong links between articles from NIH-funded AMC research and private sector medical patenting, including drugs. More research is needed to better understand the types of links the citations represent and their implications for public policy.
| S-EPMC4787535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Environmental health information resources lack exposure data required to translate molecular insights, elucidate environmental contributions to diseases, and assess human health and ecological risks. We report development of an Exposure Ontology, ExO, designed to address this information gap by facilitating centralization and integration of exposure data. Major concepts were defined and the ontology drafted and evaluated by a working group of exposure scientists and other ontology and database experts. The resulting major concepts forming the basis for the ontology are "exposure stressor", "exposure receptor", "exposure event", and "exposure outcome". Although design of the first version of ExO focused on human exposure to chemicals, we anticipate expansion by the scientific community to address exposures of human and ecological receptors to the full suite of environmental stressors. Like other widely used ontologies, ExO is intended to link exposure science and diverse environmental health disciplines including toxicology, epidemiology, disease surveillance, and epigenetics.
| S-EPMC3314380 | biostudies-other
Project description:Building on group discussions and interviews with life science researchers in Austria, this paper analyses the narratives that researchers use in describing what they feel responsible for, with a particular focus on how they perceive the societal responsibilities of their research. Our analysis shows that the core narratives used by the life scientists participating in this study continue to be informed by the linear model of innovation. This makes it challenging for more complex innovation models [such as responsible research and innovation (RRI)] to gain ground in how researchers make sense of and conduct their research. Furthermore, the paper shows that the life scientists were not easily able to imagine specific practices that would address broader societal concerns and thus found it hard to integrate the latter into their core responsibilities. Linked to this, researchers saw institutional reward structures (e.g. evaluations, contractual commitments) as strongly focused on scientific excellence ("I am primarily paid for publishing…"). Thus, they saw reward structures as competing with-rather than incentivising-broader notions of societal responsibility. This narrative framing of societal responsibilities is indicative of a structural marginalisation of responsibility practices and explains the claim, made by many researchers in our sample, that they cannot afford to spend time on such practices. The paper thus concludes that the core ideas of RRI stand in tension with predominant narrative and institutional infrastructures that researchers draw on to attribute meaning to their research practices. This suggests that scientific institutions (like universities, professional communities or funding institutions) still have a core role to play in providing new and context-specific narratives as well as new forms of valuing responsibility practices.
| S-EPMC7286937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ability of health professions faculty to design, teach, evaluate, and improve relevant curricula is vital for teaching improvement science (IS) skills to trainees.ObjectiveWe launched a Foundational Improvement Science Curriculum (FISC) to build faculty competence in IS teaching and scholarship, and to develop, expand, and standardize IS curricula across one institution.MethodsFISC consisted of 9 full or half-day sessions over 10 months in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years. Each session required pre-work, including readings, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Open School modules, and personal improvement projects. Sessions included brief didactics, group activities, planning, and feedback on curriculum development. An evaluation strategy was employed, including pre- and post-program self-assessment, competency mapping, evaluations of didactics and overall program, and participant satisfaction.ResultsForty individuals from 23 academic programs voluntarily completed FISC, representing 20% of graduate medical education (GME) programs and 50% of primary GME programs in addition to undergraduate medical education (UME) and nursing programs. Median self-assessed competency scores (mid versus final score; scale 1-9, 9 high; P < .05 for all comparisons) improved over the course for all competencies for knowledge (3 versus 7), application (2 versus 7), curriculum design (2 versus 7), and scholarship (2 versus 5). Eighteen new or revised IS curricula were developed across GME, UME, and nursing programs.ConclusionsFISC offers a feasible model to enhance and support faculty development in IS and IS curriculum design.
| S-EPMC6919187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012.ResultsA total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs.ConclusionsTo improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.
| S-EPMC3966727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census and compares the results with earlier surveys.The census was conducted in mid-2014 with distribution to all radiation oncologists, educational affiliates and trainees listed on the college database. There were six email reminders and responses were anonymous. The overall response rate was 76.1%.The age range of fellows was 32-96 (mean?=?49 years, median?=?47 years). The majority of the radiation oncologists were male (n?=?263, 63%). The minority of radiation oncologists were of Asian descent (n?=?43, 13.4%). Radiation oncologists graduated from medical school on average 23 years ago (median?=?22 years). A minority of fellows (n?=?66, 20%) held another postgraduate qualification. Most radiation oncologists worked, on average, at two practices (median?=?2, range 1-7). Practising radiation oncologists worked predominantly in the public sector (n?=?131, 49%), but many worked in both the public and private sectors (n?=?94, 37%), and a minority worked in the private sector only (n?=?38, 14%). The largest proportion of the workforce was from New South Wales accounting for 29% of radiation oncologists. Radiation oncologists worked an average of 43?h/week (median?=?43?h, range 6-80). Radiation oncologists who worked in the private sector worked less hours than their public sector or public/private sector colleagues. (38.3 vs. 42.9 vs. 44.3?h, P?=?0.042). Victorians worked the fewest average hours per week at 38?h and West Australians the most at 46?h/week. Radiation oncologists averaged 48?min for each new case, 17?min per follow up and 11?min for a treatment review. Radiation oncologists averaged 246 new patients per year (median?=?250, range?=?20-600) with men (average?=?268), Western Australians (average?=?354) and those in private practice seeing more (average?=?275). Most radiation oncologists considered themselves as specialists (n?=?151, 60%), but nearly all those from South Australia were generalists (n?=?15, 94%) as were three-quarters of those from private practice. A minority of radiation oncologist respondents (10%) intended to retire within 5 years with a further 16% within 10 years.There was a stabilisation of trainee numbers in Australia and New Zealand with no increase compared with 2010 (142 in 2014 vs. 143 in 2010). The most common age bracket for trainees remained 31-35 years. One-third of trainees were of Asian descent and nearly half held other degrees. The majority of trainees were satisfied with their career, but 30% were not entirely satisfied. Nearly half of trainee respondents would have reconsidered their choice of specialty had they known about the possible oversupply in the workforce with 12.4% undecided about continuing their career in radiation oncology. There were still 16% of trainees with no protected time during the working week, and a further 21% with only 1?h. Only one trainee respondent preferred to work in private practice, and job availability remained a concern for 89% of respondents.The radiation oncologist workforce numbers have increased at a much slower rate, and unemployment remained low. Many parameters remained similar to the 2010 survey. However, there has been a decrease in the average number of new patients seen per year, working hours and also a slight decrease in the time spent per new patient. The trainee numbers have stabilised, but job availability remained a concern. A significant proportion of trainees were not satisfied with their career.
| S-EPMC5061100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program is a longitudinal, 1-year, virtual faculty development program for early- and mid-career faculty members that crosses specialties and institutions. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes among 3 years of participants.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey study evaluated postcourse and 1-year outcomes from three graduated classes of the ALiEM Faculty Incubator program. The program evaluation survey was designed to collect outcomes across multiple Kirkpatrick levels using pre/post surveys and tracking of abstracts, publications, speaking opportunities, new leadership positions, and new curricula.ResultsOver 3 years, 89 clinician educators participated in the program. Of those, 59 (66%) completed the initial survey and 33 (37%) completed the 1-year survey. Participants reported a significant increase in knowledge (4.1/9.0 vs. 7.0/9.0). The number of abstracts, publications, and invited presentations significantly increased after course completion and continued postcourse. A total of 37 of 59 (62.7%) developed a new curriculum during the course and 19 of 33 (57.6%) developed another new curriculum after the course. A total of 29 of 59 (49.2%) began a new leadership position upon course completion with 15 of 33 (45.5%) beginning another new leadership position 1 year later.DiscussionThe ALiEM Faculty Incubator program demonstrated an increase in perceived knowledge and documented academic productivity among early- and mid-career medical educators.
| S-EPMC8241569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite huge sums spent on academic clinical raining worldwide there is surprisingly little research to inform policymakers. This study addresses the junior faculty in the UK's cancer research community through both current Fellows and senior clinicians and policymakers. Funding organisations under the National Cancer Research Institute umbrella currently support 176 junior faculty fellows (studying towards MD [2 year postgraduate research degree] or PhD) with the majority in medical oncology (49%). Craft specialities (surgery and pathology) had a very modest presence in the junior faculty. The cancer research specific junior faculty makes up a major component of all available junior faculty from National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) partners (ca. 31%) and is supported both by direct funding to Fellows and via junior faculty positions on clinical programme grants. There was almost universal support for the value of the research experience despite only two thirds of the current cohort expressing a desire to continue to the next level (Clinician Scientist grade). Major issues identified were mentorship, supervision time, pay parity and fit with new UK Clinical Research Collaboration / Modernising Medical Careers (UKCRC/MMC) clinician training programme.
| S-EPMC5543842 | biostudies-other
Project description:Responsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science.We explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs.We conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010.Approval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant.These findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.
| S-EPMC5810666 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceHow the COVID-19 pandemic has affected academic medicine faculty's work-life balance is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of perceived work-life conflict with academic medicine faculty intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or declining leadership opportunities before and since the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, settings, and participantsAn anonymous online survey of medical, graduate, and health professions school faculty was conducted at a single large, urban academic medical center between September 1 and September 25, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-assessed intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or turning down leadership opportunities because of work-life conflict before and since the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsOf the 1186 of 3088 (38%) of faculty members who answered the survey, 649 (55%) were women and 682 (58%) were White individuals. Respondents were representative of the overall faculty demographic characteristics except for an overrepresentation of female faculty respondents and underrepresentation of Asian faculty respondents compared with all faculty (female faculty: 649 [55%] vs 1368 [44%]; Asian faculty: 259 [22%] vs 963 [31%]). After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were more likely to consider leaving or reducing employment to part time compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 225 [23%] vs 133 [14%]; P < .001; reduce hours: 281 [29%] vs 206 [22%]; P < .001). Women were more likely than men to reduce employment to part time before the COVID-19 pandemic (153 [28%] vs 44 [12%]; P < .001) and to consider both leaving or reducing employment to part time since the COVID-19 pandemic (leaving: 154 [28%] vs 56 [15%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 215 [40%] vs 49 [13%]; P < .001). Faculty with children were more likely to consider leaving and reducing employment since the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 159 [29%] vs 93 [17%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 213 [40%] vs 130 [24%]; P < .001). Women with children compared with women without children were also more likely to consider leaving since the COVID-19 pandemic than before (113 [35%] vs 39 [17%]; P < .001). Working parent faculty and women were more likely to decline leadership opportunities both before (faculty with children vs without children: 297 [32%] vs 84 [9%]; P < .001; women vs men: 206 [29%] vs 47 [13%]; P < .001) and since the COVID-19 pandemic (faculty with children vs faculty without children: 316 [34%] vs 93 [10 %]; P < .001; women vs men: 148 [28%] vs 51 [14%]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, the perceived stressors associated with work-life integration were higher in women than men, were highest in women with children, and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The association of both gender and parenting with increased perceived work-life stress may disproportionately decrease the long-term retention and promotion of junior and midcareer women faculty.
| S-EPMC8207238 | biostudies-literature