Search

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate impact on the lives and work of early-career researchers. We leveraged a cluster-randomized trial and compared survey data collected over two timepoints to explore whether these impacts persisted. Although more than a year had passed, 74% of participants reported that their research was affected in multiple ways in both 2020 and 2021. These data suggest that the effects of the pandemic on early-career researchers may be prolonged. Our findings additionally serve as an impetus to identify and implement solutions to early-career challenges that undoubtedly existed before the pandemic, but which COVID-19 brought into the spotlight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Penn Medicine BioBank (PMBB) is an electronic health record (EHR)-linked biobank at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine). A large variety of health-related information, ranging from diagnosis codes to laboratory measurements, imaging data and lifestyle information, is integrated with genomic and biomarker data in the PMBB to facilitate discoveries and translational science. To date, 174,712 participants have been enrolled into the PMBB, including approximately 30% of participants of non-European ancestry, making it one of the most diverse medical biobanks. There is a median of seven years of longitudinal data in the EHR available on participants, who also consent to permission to recontact. Herein, we describe the operations and infrastructure of the PMBB, summarize the phenotypic architecture of the enrolled participants, and use body mass index (BMI) as a proof-of-concept quantitative phenotype for PheWAS, LabWAS, and GWAS. The major representation of African-American participants in the PMBB addresses the essential need to expand the diversity in genetic and translational research. There is a critical need for a "medical biobank consortium" to facilitate replication, increase power for rare phenotypes and variants, and promote harmonized collaboration to optimize the potential for biological discovery and precision medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Identifying the most effective ways to support career development of early stage investigators in clinical and translational science should yield benefits for the biomedical research community. Institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) offer KL2 programs to facilitate career development; however, the sustained impact has not been widely assessed. Methods: A survey comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions was sent to 2144 individuals that had previously received support through CTSA KL2 mechanisms. The 547 responses were analyzed with identifying information redacted. Results: Respondents held MD (47%), PhD (36%), and MD/PhD (13%) degrees. After KL2 support was completed, physicians' time was divided 50% to research and 30% to patient care, whereas PhD respondents devoted 70% time to research. Funded research effort averaged 60% for the cohort. Respondents were satisfied with their career progression. More than 95% thought their current job was meaningful. Two-thirds felt confident or very confident in their ability to sustain a career in clinical and translational research. Factors cited as contributing to career success included protected time, mentoring, and collaborations. Conclusion: This first large systematic survey of KL2 alumni provides valuable insight into the group's perceptions of the program and outcome information. Former scholars are largely satisfied with their career choice and direction, national recognition of their expertise, and impact of their work. Importantly, they identified training activities that contributed to success. Our results and future analysis of the survey data should inform the framework for developing platforms to launch sustaining careers of translational scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The path to drug approval is long, hard and often perplexing. In recent months, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promised to bolster 'regulatory science', which aims to transform its decision-making process to be more efficient, transparent and accountable. However, diverse stakeholders, including patients, drug developers and the US Congress, will have to rise to the challenge of coordinating their priorities if this endeavor is to succeed., It seems that a month can't go by these days without the FDA announcing a new measure aimed at improving the methods it uses to evaluate therapeutics, food, cosmetics and [...]