For someone who is 80-20 clinical, what is the benefit of applying for a grant and being more research? With the NIH salary cap it sounds like a pay cut with more dedicated research time?
Please advise this non-PhD
Please advise this non-PhD
Question for Academia - is there a benefit to doing more research?
- Thread starter d32
- Start date
- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,657
- Reaction score
- 3,473
Loaded question. Answer very much depends on the Chair and how the institution "values" research. In the old days there was sufficient margin in clinical revenues to subsidize research to a degree. Not any moreFor someone who is 80-20 clinical, what is the benefit of applying for a grant and being more research? With the NIH salary cap it sounds like a pay cut with more dedicated research time?
Please advise this non-PhD
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 8,624
- Reaction score
- 10,698
ONLY apply for a grant and being more research if you have a burning passion to do it that cannot be substituted by seeing more patients. You should (I was going to say WILL but who knows in current market) make more money doing the latter over the former EVERY time.
depends on the setup though. not every department (is it more or less than half, I defer to you all in academics) is RVU based.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 944
- Reaction score
- 3,297
For someone who is 80-20 clinical, what is the benefit of applying for a grant and being more research? With the NIH salary cap it sounds like a pay cut with more dedicated research time?
Please advise this non-PhD
Great question. Im going to give kind of a broad answer because this question is worded kind of broadly.
The most important thing is to understand the criteria for promotion in an academic job. Most require some publications. Most have an expected time frame. You should also understand the reward for promotion in that job. In the job I had, the salary raise associated with promotion was not that much money, there really werent other benefits... I still do not really understand why people care so much about promotion. If grants do not matter at all for promotion, there is no reason you need to go for one as part of your career.
The main reasons are personal fulfillment, fame/glory, and... ego? Haha. I dont know, but it needs to come from a strong personal interest because the objective upsides are not that strong.
I had an external grant and it had zero impact on my effort on paper. Departmental leadership roles were an easier way to get protected time out of clinic. That said, whether that time on paper is operationalized so that you are actually protected to do research varies wildly by department. I've heard of people who are only 20% clinic, but are covering clinic many days per week due to staffing issues. Even if you get a grant, and even if you negotiate protected time paid for by that grant, there is no law or contract that requires them to preserve that.
As others have said, this totally at the discretion of the chair, so maybe go ask them? If loads get overwhelming in clinic, you better believe they will pull you in to see patients instead of turn patients away.
I have been recommending new grads negotiate for research time at home instead of in clinic because I believe that would protect the time more.
Regarding pay, if you were fully funded by the NIH, you'd have a cap. No one does this though, not even Rad Onc physician scientists. NIH salary cap is well below academic median pay for RO so it gets supplemented with something else. If someone asked me to take a pay cut, Id probably leave lol. That's so offensive.
Where the extra money comes from is their problem, not yours, and there are lots of options. They should probably be transparent about that with you though IMO. They should pay you a fair salary based on your job description in my opinion. If you are 80/20 you should make the same salary as any other 80/20 in the department with similar rank.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,488
- Reaction score
- 3,012
Agree with all of this. Talk to your chair. The biggest benefit should be that you genuinely want to do the work. Every place is different, but at most, If you are 80% clinical, its doubtful that you need a grant to get promoted. It usually should not hinder your path but that is not uniformly true. More often than not, the benefits may be more intangible. If your department does satellite coverages, maybe being partially funded pulls you from the pool of clinical faculty to some degree. At my institution, the upside would easily outweigh the cons. I like to hope that is the case at most places, but I know it is no uniformly true.
The other big question to address is does your department/institution have the infrastructure to actually help you do the work. If you get a grant now, and then are not able to physically do the work you proposed, it could (though not a guarantee at all) impact your ability to get funded in the future if your situation changes.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 944
- Reaction score
- 3,297
Oh man, yea this is huge. I wish I did due diligence on this because I learned it the hard way. You will care the most about your own grant than everyone else in your department by far.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
I'm probably best to answer this. I was 80% clinical just 5 years ago and recently got to 60% on grants, 30% clinical.
I have no objective explanation for why anyone would want to do this. You need to have a passion for research and academics. I am happy to help anyone who is trying to be a physician-scientist in radiation oncology.
As others wrote, institutions that are serious about research will support your salary on grants above the NIH cap.
I have no objective explanation for why anyone would want to do this. You need to have a passion for research and academics. I am happy to help anyone who is trying to be a physician-scientist in radiation oncology.
As others wrote, institutions that are serious about research will support your salary on grants above the NIH cap.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2019
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 804
To be fair, in hard core academia, obtaining tenure through obtaining multiple federal grants is considered the apex of achievement.
I think the logic is that only the elite performers have this ability. And that the knowledge generated can positively impact society.
By contrast, in the academic employed environment, treating cancer patients is considered a more mundane pursuit akin to calling a plumber for a broken toilet?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 1,070
Not radonc but similar sitch, and in broad strokes if an institution cares about research 1) they will have infrastructure for it 2) they will subsidize your salary so you’re not taking a hit; I’m about 40% research but make the same as my 100% colleagues. Also institutions benefit incredibly from grants both financially and reputationally
This is my goal, though more 50/50.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
It's all a game. My RVUs look more like someone who is 50-60% clinical anyway. At one point on my K I was 25% clinical on paper but RVUs like 80%.
There are a lot of other factors in there like how many patients you cram into your clinics and how much coverage you have to do in your clinical time. Also different places calculate these things differently.
