- Joined
- Nov 18, 1999
- Messages
- 2,499
- Reaction score
- 3,029
Historically assumed to be bimodal with 'winners' (NIH grantees) and 'losers' (no NIH $) but per outcomes data from a few years ago actually appears to be more of a normal distribution reflecting the catch-as-catch-can nature of funding these days.
Maybe I'm misreading that Table but isn't that 49.5% in relation to 100% of professional activities? For a clinician-scientist, that seems about right. I mean, every clinician has other duties. I'm actually surprised its that high. 1 R01 typically only afford 30 to 40% salary effort.'Assuming the job market allows' being operative here. I probably should have pasted Table 4 instead, which shows that even among those with stated career intention being ft research scientist at graduation (which was the vast majority of this sample), mean research time was only 49.5%.
Fair enough, and personally I agree with you that this is realistic, but there is still this '80% research' being touted as the ideal, and likely the expectation of those listing their career goals as 'full-time research scientist.'Maybe I'm misreading that Table but isn't that 49.5% in relation to 100% of professional activities? For a clinician-scientist, that seems about right. I mean, every clinician has other duties. I'm actually surprised its that high. 1 R01 typically only afford 30 to 40% salary effort.
I mean yeah, I would assume the majority of these people are not on the tenure track. I'm on the clinical track and I currently have 40% research time (it bounces around year to year), and I bet that's not atypical. The institution I was at when I transitioned from fellow to faculty had a minimum requirement of 50% funded research time to enter the tenure track.How does this fact figure in with things like tenure? it seems incompatible with building up the portfolio you'd need to make the case, right?
Ha. That means typically means 2 R01s (unless its an R and a foundation grant or something). Good luck with that. Like how many people put 51% effort on an R just to keep themselves on that track?Fair enough, and personally I agree with you that this is realistic, but there is still this '80% research' being touted as the ideal, and likely the expectation of those listing their career goals as 'full-time research scientist.'
I mean yeah, I would assume the majority of these people are not on the tenure track. I'm on the clinical track and I currently have 40% research time (it bounces around year to year), and I bet that's not atypical. The institution I was at when I transitioned from fellow to faculty had a minimum requirement of 50% funded research time to enter the tenure track.