Literature DB >> 17565084

New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species".

Howard B Dickler1, Di Fang, Stephen J Heinig, Elizabeth Johnson, David Korn.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although concerns have persisted for decades about the production of new physician clinical scientists and their success in receiving and sustaining research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), no comprehensive analysis documents the experiences of first-time investigators with an MD over a long period.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the perseverance and comparative success of physician-scientists competing for NIH research (R01) grants awarded over 40 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A longitudinal, comparative study of all first-time applicants and recipients of NIH R01 grants between 1964 and 2004 stratified by the principal investigators' major degrees (MD, PhD, or MD and PhD) and their proposed involvement in research of humans or human tissues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of first- and second-time NIH R01 grant applicants and recipients by academic degree and by research type (clinical vs nonclinical).
RESULTS: The annual number of first-time investigators with an MD only as NIH R01 grant applicants remained remarkably stable over 4 decades (41-year mean of 707 [range, 537-983] applicants). Among first-time applicants, those with an MD consistently had less success in obtaining funding (mean annual percentage [MAP], 28%) than either investigators with a PhD (MAP, 31%; P = .03 vs MD only) or both an MD and a PhD (MAP, 34%; P<.001 vs MD only and P = .002 vs PhD only). Among investigators who obtained a first R01 grant, those with an MD were consistently less likely (MAP, 70%) than those with a PhD (MAP, 73%; P = .04 vs MD only) or those with an MD and a PhD (MAP, 78%; P<.001 vs MD only and P = .007 vs PhD only) to obtain a subsequent R01 grant. First-time applicants with an MD were much more likely to propose clinical research (MAP, 67%) than applicants with an MD and a PhD (MAP, 43%) and applicants with a PhD only (39%). First-time applicants with an MD only who proposed clinical research were funded at lower rates than their MD-only counterparts proposing nonclinical research (23% vs 29%, respectively; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: From 1964-2004, the number of physician-investigators applying for first R01 grants showed little net change. Physician-investigators consistently experienced higher rates of attrition and failure, even after receiving a first R01 grant, and those proposing clinical research were less successful in obtaining funding than physicians proposing nonclinical research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17565084     DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.22.2496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  41 in total

1.  Full report from the first annual Heart Rhythm Society Research Forum: a vision for our research future, "dream, discover, develop, deliver".

Authors:  Christine M Albert; Peng-Sheng Chen; Mark E Anderson; Michael E Cain; Glenn I Fishman; Sanjiv M Narayan; Jeffrey E Olgin; Peter M Spooner; William G Stevenson; David R Van Wagoner; Douglas L Packer
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 6.343

2.  Education for physician clinical researchers: should one size fit all?

Authors:  Ellen W Seely; Gordon H Williams
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.689

3.  The challenges facing GI investigators today and what (more) the GI societies can do to help.

Authors:  Vincent W Yang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  The pipeline: preparing and training pulmonary scientists for research careers.

Authors:  Herbert Y Reynolds; Ann Rothgeb; Sandra Colombini-Hatch; Dorothy B Gail; James P Kiley
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 2.584

5.  Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH.

Authors:  Sean C Lucan; Robert L Phillips; Andrew W Bazemore
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  If you hold it off-hours, will they come? Results from a feasibility project intended to stimulate interest in the physician-investigator career path among medical oncology trainees.

Authors:  Tow S Tan; Tamana Walia; Eva Galanis; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Aminah Jatoi
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Are MD-PhD programs meeting their goals? An analysis of career choices made by graduates of 24 MD-PhD programs.

Authors:  Lawrence F Brass; Myles H Akabas; Linda D Burnley; David M Engman; Clayton A Wiley; Olaf S Andersen
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  Challenges and opportunities for reinvigorating the physician-scientist pipeline.

Authors:  Dania Daye; Chirag B Patel; Jaimo Ahn; Freddy T Nguyen
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 14.808

9.  Future Directions of Training Physician-Scientists: Reimagining and Remeasuring the Workforce.

Authors:  Wyatt P Bensken; Avindra Nath; John D Heiss; Omar I Khan
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 6.893

10.  Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons(SAGES)statement on the relationship between professional medical associations and industry.

Authors: 
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.