Search

BACKGROUND: The surgeon-scientist brings a unique perspective to surgical research. The Association of Academic Surgeons and Society of University Surgeons foster the development of surgeon-scientists through foundation awards to residents and junior faculty. We sought to evaluate the academic success of surgeons who received an Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons award. METHODS: Information was collected for individuals who received a resident or junior faculty research award from the Association for Academic Surgery or Society of University Surgeons. Google Scholar, Scopus, and the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results were used to assess scholarly achievements. RESULTS: Eighty-two resident awardees were included, 31 (38%) of whom were female. Thirteen (24%) are now professors, 12 (22%) are division chiefs, and 4 (7%) are department chairs. Resident awardees have a median of 886 citations (interquartile range 237-2,111) and an H-index of 14 (interquartile range 7-23). Seven (13%) went on to receive K08/K23 awards, and 7 (13%) received R01s, with a total of about $200 million in National Institutes of Health funding (79-fold return on investment). Thirty-four junior faculty awardees were included, 10 (29%) of whom were female. Thirteen (38%) are now professors, 12 (35%) are division chiefs, and 7 (21%) are department chairs. Faculty awardees have a median of 2,617 citations (interquartile range 1,343-7,857) and an H-index of 25 (interquartile range 18-49). Four (12%) received K08 or K23 awards, and 10 (29%) received R01s, with about $139 million in National Institutes of Health funding (98-fold return on investment). CONCLUSION: Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons research awardees experience high degrees of success in academic surgery. Most resident awardees pursue fellowship training and remain in academic surgery. A high percentage of both faculty and resident awardees hold leadership positions and successfully achieve National Institutes of Health funding.

BACKGROUND: Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity. OBJECTIVE: Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database. MAIN MEASURES: Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical school NIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40. KEY RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98). CONCLUSION: Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

BackgroundLong-term follow-up for clinician-scientist training programs is sparse. We describe the outcomes of clinician-scientist scholars in the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K12 program in emergency care research up to 8.7 years after matriculation in the program.MethodsThis was a cohort study of faculty clinician-scientist scholars enrolled in a NHLBI K12 research training program at 6 sites across the US, with median follow-up 7.7 years (range 5.7-8.7 years) from the date of matriculation. Scholars completed electronic surveys in 2017 and 2019, with the 2019 survey collecting information for their current work setting, percent time for research, and grant funding from all sources. We used NIH RePorter and online resources to verify federal grants through March 2021. The primary outcome was a funded career development award (CDA) or research project grant (RPG) where the scholar was principal investigator. We included funding from all federal sources and national foundations.ResultsThere were 43 scholars, including 16 (37%) women. Over the follow-up period, 32 (74%) received an individual CDA or RPG, with a median of 36 months (range 9-83 months) after entering the program. Of the 43 scholars, 23 (54%) received a CDA and 22 (51%) received an RPG, 7 (16%) of which were R01s. Of the 23 scholars who received a CDA, 13 (56%) subsequently had an RPG funded. Time to CDA or RPG did not differ by sex (women vs. men log-rank test p = 0.27) or specialty training (emergency medicine versus other specialties, p = 0.59).ConclusionsAfter 7 years of follow-up for this NHLBI K12 emergency care research training program, three quarters of clinician-scientist scholars had obtained CDA or RPG funding, with no notable differences by sex or clinical training.

Objectives/hypothesisTo better understand the obstacles facing residents and K-awardee faculty in choosing a clinician-scientist career in otolaryngology.Study designAnonymous survey.MethodsAn anonymous, online Qualtrics survey was sent to residents participating in T32 training grants and K-awardee junior faculty. The survey was sent to the residents with the permission of their program chair. The results of this survey were compiled and analyzed. A separate survey was sent to current K-awardees in U.S. academic programs. Both surveys were then compared to a survey published in 2008 to determine if the concerns and obstacles faced by aspiring clinician-scientists are still present.ResultsResidents felt that combining a research and clinical career presented many obstacles, including a lower salary, competition with PhDs for grant funding, and the lack of departmental support. Prolonging their training to include a fellowship was not a deterrent. Family/spousal issues which ranked as the primary concern previously were no longer given the same level of importance. The major concerns of K-awardees were the economic disparity of clinician-scientists with their clinical counterparts, the lack of mentors, and department support. Forty percent received their K-award after first try, 100% after two revisions, and one has received an R grant funding.ConclusionsThe obstacles facing clinician-scientists in otolaryngology are highlighted by this survey and require attention by our academic programs, National Institutes of Health, and specialty societies.Level of evidenceNA Laryngoscope, 132:1555-1560, 2022.

The lack of racial diversity among the winners of United States biomedical research prizes reflects a chronic problem of the underappreciation of certain groups of biomedical scientists. Asians continue to be severely underrepresented as awardees of United States biomedical research prizes, a trend that shows no obvious recent improvement.

PURPOSE: National Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender. METHOD: In 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time. CONCLUSIONS: Most K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

PurposeNational Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender.MethodIn 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics.ResultsOf the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time.ConclusionsMost K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

BackgroundIn 1976, the U.S. Sugar Association (SA), a globally networked trade organization representing the cane and beet sugar industry, won the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) Silver Anvil Award for a crisis communication campaign. Their campaign successfully limited the diffusion of sugar restriction policies to control obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and dental caries, and marked the beginning of the modern-day SA. The sugar industry continues to resist measures to reduce sugar consumption, therefore understanding and addressing industry opposition is crucial to achieving global targets to reduce non-communicable disease.MethodsWe critically analyze common crisis management rhetorical strategies used by SA to defend itself from perceived wrongdoing, and sugar from perceptions of harm using a thematic content analysis based on Hearit's Corporate Apologia theory. Data sources were internal SA documents related to the 1976 Silver Anvil Award in 1) PRSA records, 2) Great Western Sugar Company records, and 3) William Jefferson Darby Papers.ResultsSA, using prototypical apologia stances (counterattack, differentiation, apology, and corrective action) and rhetorical dissociation strategies (appearance/reality, opinion/knowledge, and act/essence) constructed a persuasive narrative to successfully defend sugar from a product safety crisis, and the sugar industry from a social legitimacy crisis. SA's overarching narrative was that restricting sugar, which it claimed was a valuable food that makes healthy foods more palatable, would cause harm and that claims to the contrary were made by opportunists, pseudoscientists, food-faddists, lay nutritionists or those who had been misled by them. SA's apologia does not meet criteria for truthfulness or sincerity.ConclusionCorporate apologia theory provides an accessible way of understanding sugar industry crisis communication strategies. It enables public health actors to recognize and predict industry corporate apologia in response to ongoing product safety and social legitimacy challenges. Industry counterarguments can be examined for truthfulness and sincerity (or the lack thereof), and explained to policymakers considering sugar restriction policies, and to the public, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of illegitimate industry communication efforts to oppose regulation and legislation.

There is growing concern that the physician-scientist is endangered due to a leaky training pipeline and prolonged time to scientific independence (1). The NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group has concluded that as many as 1,000 individuals will need to enter the pipeline each year to sustain the workforce (2). Moreover, surveys of postgraduate training programs document considerable variability in disposition and infrastructure (3). Programs can be broadly grouped into two classes: physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) that span residency and fellowship training, and research-in-residency programs (RiRs), which are limited to residency but trainees are able to match into PSTPs upon transitioning to fellowship (Figure 1). Funding sources for RiRs and PSTPs are varied and include NIH KL2 and T32 awards, charitable foundations, philanthropy, and institutional support. Furthermore, standards for research training and tools for evaluating programmatic success are lacking. Here, we share consensus generated from iterative workshops hosted by the Alliance of Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) and the student-led American Physician Scientists Association (APSA).

ObjectivesIn the United States, emergency medicine (EM) researchers hold proportionately fewer federal career development awards than researchers in other specialties. Others hypothesize that this deficit may partly be attributed to lack of mentors, departmental resources, and qualified applicants. Our objectives were to examine the association between departmental and institutional resources and career development awards and to describe the barriers to conducting research and btaining grants in EM.MethodsWe conducted an online, cross-sectional survey study of vice chairs for research and research directors at academic emergency departments in the United States in January and February 2016. Participants provided quantitative information regarding their department's demographics, available research resources, number of funded independent investigators, and number of career development awards. They were also asked about the perceived adequacy of departmental and institutional resources and perceived barriers to research and grant success. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression, as appropriate.ResultsOf 178 eligible participants, 103 (58%) completed the survey. Most departments reported some infrastructure for research and grant submission, including research coordinator(s) (n = 75/99; 76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 66%-84%), research associates (69/99; 70%, 95% CI = 60%-79%), and administrative/secretarial research support (79/101; 78%, 95% CI = 69%-86%). The majority of departments (56/103; 49%, 95% CI = 44%-64%) had no R01-funded researchers, and only 15 (15%, 95% CI = 8%-23%) had three or more R01-funded researchers. The most frequently reported challenge to junior faculty applying for grants was low motivation for applying (62/103; 60%, 95% CI = 50%-70%), followed closely by insufficient mentorship (50/103; 49%, 95% CI = 39%-59%) and discouragement from low funding rates (50/103; 49%, 95% CI = 39%-59%). In the multivariable model, only the number of departmental R-level-funded researchers was associated with the number of departmental career development awards (coefficient = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.39-1.11; R2  = 0.57).ConclusionsWhile more multiple departmental and institutional resources correlated with a greater number of funded career development awards, the single greatest predictor was the number of R-level-funded researchers in the department. Low motivation and insufficient mentorship were the most frequently reported barriers to junior faculty applying for career development awards. Further studies are needed to describe junior faculty perspectives on these issues and to explore strategies for overcoming these barriers.

PurposeTo learn the size, composition, and scholarly output of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design (BERD) units in U.S. academic health centers (AHCs).MethodEach year for four years, the authors surveyed all BERD units in U.S. AHCs that were members of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium. In 2010, 46 BERD units were surveyed; in 2011, 55; in 2012, 60; and in 2013, 61.ResultsResponse rates to the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 surveys were 93.5%, 98.2%, 98.3%, and 86.9%, respectively. Overall, the size of BERD units ranged from 3 to 86 individuals. The median FTE in BERD units remained similar and ranged from 3.0 to 3.5 FTEs over the years. BERD units reported more availability of doctoral-level biostatisticians than doctoral-level epidemiologists. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, more than a third of BERD units provided consulting support on 101 to 200 projects. A majority of BERD units reported that between 25% and 75% (in 2011) and 31% to 70% (in 2012) of their consulting was to junior investigators. More than two-thirds of BERD units reported their contributions to the submission of 20 or more non-BERD grant or contract applications annually. Nearly half of BERD units reported 1 to 10 manuscripts submitted annually with a BERD practitioner as the first or corresponding author.ConclusionsThe findings regarding BERD units provide a benchmark against which to compare BERD resources and may be particularly useful for institutions planning to develop new units to support programs such as the CTSA.

Background and importanceChallenges in healthcare policy and practice have stimulated interest in dissemination and implementation science. The Institute of Medicine Committee on the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program recommended expanding the CTSA program's investment and activity in this domain. Guidance is needed to facilitate successful growth of DII science infrastructure, activity and impacts.ObjectivesSeveral CTSAs in Southern California collaborated to identify and respond to local challenges and opportunities to expand dissemination, implementation and improvement research by strengthening capacity and relationships between DII researchers and community, health system, and population health partners.Main outcomesPlanning and outreach by the Southern California CTSAs increased awareness and interest in DII research and generated recommendations for growth. Recommendations include: increasing strong partnerships with healthcare and population health systems to guide policy research agendas and collaborative DII science; promoting multi-sector partnerships that involve researchers and delivery systems throughout DII processes; bringing together multiple disciplines; and addressing national and international barriers as well as opportunities in DII science.ImplicationsCTSAs through regional collaboration can increase their contributions to improved community health via skill-building, partnership development and enhanced outreach to local healthcare and public health agencies and delivery systems.

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided.

Adam Heller, Ernest Cockrell Sr. Chair in Engineering Emeritus of the John J. McKetta Department of Chemical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin, recalls his childhood in the Holocaust and his contributions to science and technology that earned him the US National Medal of Technology and Innovation in a conversation with Elton J. Cairns, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Heller, born in 1933, describes the enslavement of his father by Hungarians in 1942; the confiscation of his family's home, business, and all its belongings in 1944; and his incarceration in a brick factory with 18,000 Jews who were shipped by the Hungarians to be gassed by Germans in Auschwitz. Dr. Heller and his immediate family survived the Holocaust and arrived in Israel in 1945. He studied under Ernst David Bergmann at the Hebrew University, and then worked at Bell Laboratories and GTE Laboratories, where he headed Bell Lab's Electronic Materials Research Department. At GTE Laboratories, he built in 1966 the first neodymium liquid lasers and in 1973 with Jim Auborn conceived and engineered the lithium thionyl chloride battery, one of the first to be manufactured lithium batteries, which is still in use. After joining the faculty of engineering of The University of Texas at Austin, he cofounded with his son Ephraim Heller TheraSense, now a major part of Abbott Diabetes Care, which produced a microcoulometer that made the monitoring of glucose painless by accurately measuring the blood glucose concentration in 300 nL of blood. He also describes the electrical wiring of enzymes, the basis for Abbott's state-of-the-art continuous glucose monitoring system. He discusses his perspective of reducing the risk of catastrophic global warming in a wealth-accumulating, more-energy-consuming world and provides advice for students entering careers in science or engineering.

Eukaryotic cells fold and assemble membrane and secreted proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), before delivery to other cellular compartments or the extracellular environment. Correctly folded proteins are released from the ER, and poorly folded proteins are retained until they achieve stable conformations; irreparably misfolded proteins are targeted for degradation. Diverse pathological insults, such as amino acid mutations, hypoxia, or infection, can overwhelm ER protein quality control, leading to misfolded protein buildup, causing ER stress. To cope with ER stress, eukaryotic cells activate the unfolded protein response (UPR) by increasing levels of ER protein-folding enzymes and chaperones, enhancing the degradation of misfolded proteins, and reducing protein translation. In mammalian cells, three ER transmembrane proteins, inositol-requiring enzyme-1 (IRE1; official name ERN1), PKR-like ER kinase (PERK; official name EIF2AK3), and activating transcription factor-6, control the UPR. The UPR signaling triggers a set of prodeath programs when the cells fail to successfully adapt to ER stress or restore homeostasis. ER stress and UPR signaling are implicated in the pathogenesis of diverse diseases, including neurodegeneration, cancer, diabetes, and inflammation. This review discusses the current understanding in both adaptive and apoptotic responses as well as the molecular mechanisms instigating apoptosis via IRE1 and PERK signaling. We also examine how IRE1 and PERK signaling may be differentially used during neurodegeneration arising in retinitis pigmentosa and prion infection.

John Avise's career has coincided with, and to a considerable degree, guided the rise and expansion of molecular ecology and molecular evolution. Indeed, he has been a preeminent leader in both fields. John's first scientific paper on the evolutionary genetics of cave fishes, published in 1972 as an outcome of his Master's thesis, quickly became a Citation Classic. This early application of protein electrophoresis to natural populations was conducted in Robert K. Selander's laboratory at the University of Texas. It was probably the first multi‐locus allozyme survey of any fish species. It was an auspicious beginning for a highly productive and highly successful scientific career. John has published nearly 300 scientific articles, plus nine books — and still counting. He enjoys the rare distinction of being a ‘Highly Cited Author’ on the ISI Web of Knowledge list.Listing the scientific milestones in John's career would take much space. A sample should suffice. In the late 1970s at the University of Georgia, he introduced, with Bob Lansman, mitochondrial (mt) DNA methods to population biology. Wes Brown, working independently of Avise and Lansman during this same time period, was the other pioneer who recognized and documented the distinctive molecular and transmission properties of mtDNA that make it such a powerful tool for research in population genetics. mtDNA remains one of the most popular and successful molecular systems for a great variety of studies in molecular ecology and evolution.John Avise is the acknowledged father of the field of phylogeography. He coined the term, defined the discipline's major principles, wrote the leading textbook (Phylogeography), and provided many of the field's earliest and still most fascinating empirical results. He was among the early leaders who came to appreciate the multi‐dimensional genetic perspectives in conservation biology, as witnessed in Conservation Genetics, an early compendium that he co‐edited with Jim Hamrick. John has been a tireless advocate for nature and for natural history studies. He has led the successful melding of molecular genetics with traditional biological and field observations. His seminal and widely used textbook, Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution (now in its second edition), remains the basic reference and touchstone for these studies.John has investigated a great variety of genetic processes in nature, often in collaboration with others, notably his 24 graduate students, of which many have become prominent scientists. Influential and oft‐classic papers that emerged from Avise's lab have encompassed, among other topics: histocompatibility polymorphisms and clonal diversity in coral reef invertebrates; phylogeographic analyses of individual species and regional biotas, such as the terrestrial, maritime, and freshwater faunas of the southeastern United States; genetic analysis of hybridization and introgression phenomena in vertebrate and invertebrate taxa, which include the introduction and application of cytonuclear disequilibrium statistics; population genetics and evolution of endangered species of marine turtles; population genetics of clonal vertebrates, including gynogenetic and hybridogenetic fishes and polyembryonic mammals; speciation patterns and processes in birds, fishes, and other animal groups; genetic analyses of mating systems and reproductive behaviors in many invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes; and much, much more.John Avise's many achievements have been recognized with numerous awards and honors. Among them: Sloan Fellowship in Molecular Evolution, Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation, Caesar Kleberg Foundation Medal for Wildlife Conservation, Brewster Memorial Award from the American Ornithologists’ Union, and Wilhelmine Key Award from the American Genetics Association. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences. John has served as President of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the American Genetics Association, and the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. He has served on the editorial boards of 15 journals in molecular biology, ecology, evolution, and conservation.John was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1948 and attended the University of Michigan, receiving a B.S. degree in Natural Resources. His Master's degree in Zoology at the University of Texas preceded a two‐year stint as a lab technician for Michael H. Smith at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory in Aiken, South Carolina. He then joined Francisco Ayala's research group at the University of California, Davis, where he received his Ph.D. in Genetics. In 1975, he joined the faculty at the University of Georgia (UGA) and worked his way up the ranks from Assistant Professor to Distinguished Professor of Genetics. He retired from UGA in 2005 to assume his current position of Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine. His research and writing continue unabated and he is co‐organizing with Ayala a colloquium series sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, under the umbrella title In the Light of Evolution, with each colloquium devoted to a different biological topic that is important to society as well as scientifically interesting. The first colloquium, entitled Adaptation and Complex Design, was held at the Beckman Center of the National Academy of Sciences in Irvine, December 1–2, 2006. The second colloquium, on Biodiversity and Extinction, will be held December 7–8, 2007, also at the Academy's Beckman Center in Irvine.John has written ‘trade’ books for audiences beyond the scientific community. They include Captivating Life, an autobiography as well as a historical record of the birth and development of molecular ecology; The Genetic Gods, an essay on evolution and religion; The Hope, Hype, and Reality of Genetic Engineering, on genetically modified organisms; Genetics in the Wild, a compilation of nature's most intriguing genetic phenomena; and, most recently, Evolutionary Pathways in Nature, a thoughtful and broadly‐encompassing examination of the power and utility of phylogenetic perspectives in biology.John thinks of himself as a natural historian at heart, a geneticist in mindset, and a concerned environmentalist in his gut. I am pleased to convey his deep appreciation for this year's Molecular Ecology Prize, which he graciously accepts on behalf of his students and postdocs, who are listed below.