NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group Report 2014

[vitalamine]

Some interesting material here for those who watch these things.

There are a few recommendations that caught my eye, though I won't hold my breath for these to materialize.

#5 Establish Physician Scientist-Specific K99/R00 Equivalent Granting Mechanism

#6:Expand Loan Repayment Programs & Increase Dollar Amounts of Loan Forgiven.
Expand program to all students pursuing physician scientist research careers regardless of research area
or clinical specialty


Summary presentation available here:
http://acd.od.nih.gov/reports/PSW_ACD06062014_Slide.pdf

Full report is available here:
http://www.acd.od.nih.gov/reports/PSW_Report_ACD_06042014.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

I discussed the report with several of the members of the panel. In my view, the strongest data that supports recommendation #1, strong funding for MSTPs, is Figure 3.33, which shows the effect of MSTP on the likelihood for future research project (R01) funding. However, fundamental questions remain: 1) Is this the effect of selecting the best students by MSTPs (a self-fulfilling prophesy)?, 2) Is it the effect of the quality of training during MSTP?, or 3) Is it a combination of both?

 

[StIGMA]

I discussed the report with several of the members of the panel. In my view, the strongest data that supports recommendation #1, strong funding for MSTPs, is Figure 3.33, which shows the effect of MSTP on the likelihood for future research project (R01) funding. However, fundamental questions remain: 1) Is this the effect of selecting the best students by MSTPs (a self-fulfilling prophesy)?, 2) Is it the effect of the quality of training during MSTP?, or 3) Is it a combination of both?

1) This point should clearly not be "selecting the best students" but to an enrichment of better students relative to overall PhD students.
2) Does this refer to quality of PhD training (there should be no tangible difference between PhD and MSTP PhD training if institutions are controlled), or is this implying that the medical training improves research skill/ability to ask relevant questions?
3) Perhaps it is choosing students to MSTP programs that have a stronger desire to maintain a research career. I'd estimate that the average MSTP matriculant has more research experience than the average PhD matriculant, so MSTPs can select students with a stronger 'research drive'.
4) Perhaps the MSTP pathway allows students to network better than PhD students? (Or perhaps other important unrecognized features exist, such as MSTP programs pushing their students toward research careers/keeping their students' minds focused on the research pathway [which by itself is not "higher quality" training by the MSTP]). I'd also wager that MSTP grant applicants are more biomedically applicable (translational) than the average PhD grant applicant.

 

[Fencer]

Please notice that the comparator in Fig. 3.33 wasn't PhD students, but non-MSTP MD/PhD graduates. I should have said, not best students but "students with high academic achievements" with perhaps, a more intensive pre-matriculation research experience.

 

[StIGMA]

Please notice that the comparator in Fig. 3.33 wasn't PhD students, but non-MSTP MD/PhD graduates. I should have said, not best students but "students with high academic achievements" with perhaps, a more intensive pre-matriculation research experience.

Do you think the data should be parsed more carefully for combined degree graduates versus those who pursued both degrees separately? Most of the analyses, including 3.33, group all MD/PhD's together, regardless of the order or source (MD/PhD program or not) of degree [hence, PhD students (with MD, regardless of source) are included].

Separately, Figure 3.35 demonstrates that less than 10% of MD/PhD first time grant applicants have been on an MSTP grant, which seems rather low (127/1587).

If I can speculate based on how I know my program works, only the most research-savvy/least likely to drop out ("best") students get put on the MSTP. Is this what the Workforce counts as an MSTP appointment? If so, couldn't the difference in award rates be primarily because the program puts its own best students, who they can identify in the PhD phase (a second selection past the original application), on the MSTP? If this is the case, then the results of this Workforce seem rather inconsequential and are not in themselves a good basis to support MSTP funding, as who counts as MSTP is already 'elected' to be the most successful. The data could be considered heavily biased.

 

[vitalamine]

I just noticed grantslave ( http://www.grantslave.com/ ) has a blog entry on this report. I think it is worth reading. I've pasted the concluding sentence below.

"The fact that the authors of the recommendations, ignoring the findings presented in the report, think that they can alleviate the shortage of physician-scientists by luring young investigators with goodies up front and hoping that they will forget about increasing pressures, stress and instability downstream is astonishing."