Literature DB >> 24867910

Retaining clinician-scientists: nature versus nurture.

Susan M Culican1, Jason D Rupp1, Todd P Margolis1.   

Abstract

In their IOVS article "Rejuvenating Clinician-Scientist Training" (published March 28, 2014), Balamurali Ambati and Judd Cahoon rightly point out the dearth of new clinician-scientists in ophthalmology. Within the context of their suggestions for increasing the number of successful clinician-scientists, they claim that the traditional MD-PhD training programs and K awards have failed to produce individuals who will carry on the important work of clinically relevant research that will improve patients' lives and sight. In this response we present data, including information on the career paths of graduates of the Washington University ophthalmology residency, that call into question the presumed failure of MD-PhD and K award programs and show that, in fact, graduates of these programs are more likely to succeed as clinician-scientists than are their peers who have not trained in such scientifically rigorous environments. We propose that, rather than a failure of early training programs, it may be obstacles that arise later in training and among junior faculty that prevent promising careers from reaching maturity. Funding, one rather large obstacle, takes the form of imbalanced start-up monies, less National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to young investigators, and study section composition that may work against those with clinically driven questions. We also explore the challenges faced in the culture surrounding residency and fellowship training. We agree with Ambati and Cahoon that there needs to be more innovation in the way training programs are structured, but we believe that the evidence supports supplementing the current model rather than scrapping it and starting over with unproven initiatives. The data on training programs supports the contention that those who have already made substantial investment and commitment to the clinician-scientist pathway through participation in MSTP or K training programs are the most likely to succeed on this career trajectory. To muffle the siren song of private practice and retain those best prepared for the clinician-scientist pathway requires additional investment as their careers mature through protected research time, mentorship, and advocacy. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  career development; clinician-scientist; education

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24867910     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14605

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  4 in total

1.  Success in Attaining Independent Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees in Ophthalmology: An Extended Follow-up.

Authors:  Nicholas J Protopsaltis; Allison J Chen; Vicky Hwang; Steven J Gedde; Daniel L Chao
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 7.389

2.  Sustaining the Clinical and Translational Research Workforce: Training and Empowering the Next Generation of Investigators.

Authors:  Helen L Yin; Janice Gabrilove; Rebecca Jackson; Carol Sweeney; Alecia M Fair; Robert Toto
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  Research Funding, Income, and Career Satisfaction Among Clinician-Scientists in Ophthalmology in the United States.

Authors:  Alexander M Rusakevich; Nicholas J Protopsaltis; Rajesh C Rao; Daniel L Chao; Glenn Yiu
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 5.488

Review 4.  Factors that influence career progression among postdoctoral clinical academics: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Veronica Ranieri; Helen Barratt; Naomi Fulop; Geraint Rees
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.