[DIV28_ANNOUNCEMENT] Division 28 Fall Newsletter (2011)

Hello,
Please enjoy this Fall edition of the Division 28 newsletter.
Warm regards,
Kelly Dunn

--
Kelly Dunn, Ph.D.
NIDA Postdoctoral Fellow
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
5510 Nathan Shock Drive
Baltimore, MD 21224
BPRU Phone: (410) 550-2254
CLH Phone: (410) 550-5370
Fax: (410) 550-0030
 
WARNING:  E-mail sent over the Internet is not secure.  Information sent by e-mail may not remain confidential.
DISCLAIMER:  This e-mail is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed.  It may be used only in accordance with applicable laws.  If you received this e-mail by mistake, notify the sender and destroy the e-mail

_____________________div28announce____________________________
A Division 28 announcement-only list twitter: @apadiv28 join our network

[DIV28M] Scientist Spotlight: November 2011

Hello,

Please enjoy this November edition of the Scientist Spotlight!

Kelly and Sarah

-------------------------------------------

Scientist Spotlight is a monthly series that asks senior and mid-level scientists to provide information on how they choose to balance work and life responsibilities. This column is in response to an overwhelming request from Early Career Psychologists that more information (and assistance) in learning how to balance work and life be made available.  We are hopeful that by reading how different scientists balance work and life goals and responsibilities, graduate students and Early Career Psychologists will be better prepared to develop methods for being successful in science while still meeting personal life goals. Overall, we hope you find this series useful and enjoyable!

Please contact Kelly Dunn (kdunn9@jhmi.edu) or Sarah Tragesser (stragesser@tricity.wsu.edu) to nominate someone to be highlighted in this series.

--
Kelly Dunn, Ph.D.
NIDA Postdoctoral Fellow
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
5510 Nathan Shock Drive
Baltimore, MD 21224
BPRU Phone: (410) 550-2254
CLH Phone: (410) 550-5370
Fax: (410) 550-0030
 
WARNING:  E-mail sent over the Internet is not secure.  Information sent by e-mail may not remain confidential.
DISCLAIMER:  This e-mail is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed.  It may be used only in accordance with applicable laws.  If you received this e-mail by mistake, notify the sender and destroy the e-mail

_____________________________ div28m@lists.apa.org
restricted to APA members list archive
twitter: @apadiv28

[DIV28SUPER] Court Blocks Graphic Labels on Cigarette Packs

http://t.co/EgYDGgZ3

by NYTimes Health at 11/7/11 7:15 PM

(Source: http://twitter.com/nytimeshealth/status/133699095780012033)

Sent from my iPhone

___________________ div28SUPER@lists.apa.org _____________________
Div28m members may post here subscribers corner: http://lists.apa.org

[DIV28SUPER] Travel awards for junior investigators for CPDD 2012

 

The Women and Sex/Gender Differences Program at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) announces availability of a limited number of travel awards to attend the 74rd annual scientific meeting of the College of Problems on Drug Dependence (CPDD) to be held in Palm Springs, CA, June 9-14, 2012.  An applicant’s submitted CPDD abstract on women or sex/gender differences must be accepted for presentation by CPDD for either an oral session, a poster session, or a symposium.  The preferred candidate for this award is a researcher who demonstrates commitment to research on women and sex/gender differences in any area of drug abuse, both human and animal.

 

Eligibility requirements:

·         Applicant must be first author on their CPDD oral or poster abstract.

·         Applicant must fall into one of the following categories:  graduate and/or medical student, post-doctoral student, medical resident, and investigator with no more than five years past the doctoral degree or residency. 

·         Minority investigators and male investigators are especially encouraged to apply. 

·         Federal employees are ineligible. 

 

Application procedures:

 

First, follow the CPDD abstract submission instructions at http://www.cpdd.vcu.edu/ .

 

Next, submit your travel award application materials to Dr. Samia Noursi at snoursi@nida.nih.gov  in the following format and with the required attachments:

 

·            E-mail subject line: CPDD 2012 Women & Sex/Gender Junior Investigator Travel Award Application

·            Attach a copy of the abstract that you submitted to CPDD, including title and authors.  Or, if applicable, attach symposium submission.

·            Attach your curriculum vitae.  List all NIH grant support if applicable. 

·            Attach a cover letter stating (1) your eligibility, (2) your interest in continuing to pursue research on women or sex/gender differences, and (3) your  

                career goals.  Please include your mailing address, telephone number and e-mail address in your cover letter.

 

Deadline for applications: December 1, 2011. 

For more information, please visit: http://www.nida.nih.gov/WHGD/WHGDHome.html

 

[DIV28SUPER] Award nominees - First Notice

Hi Everyone,

I have attached an announcement soliciting nominations for Division 28 awards.  Nominations are requested for the 2012 MED Associates Brady/Schuster Award, Outstanding Dissertation Award, and the Young Psychopharmacologist Award. Please take some time over the next week to look over the previous winners (included in the attachment), consider potential nominees and submit nomination materials. Candidates must be nominated by a Member or Fellow of Division 28. Any snail-mailed materials should be sent to: Chana Akins, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044.   E-mailed materials may be sent to ckakin1@uky.edu.  (Please put "Division 28 Nomination"in the Subject line on all emails). Materials must be received no later than January 4, 2012 .

 

 

Thank you,  

Chana

 

Chana K. Akins, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506-0044

(859)257-1103, Fax (859)323-1979

 

[DIV28SUPER] Informational webinar, Nov 8th NIH Common Fund=?Windows-1252?Q?=92s_High_Risk-High_Reward_Program:_New_Funding_Opp_ortunity_for_the_NIH_Director=92s?= Transformative Research Award

NIH Common Fund's High Risk-High Reward Program:

New Funding Opportunity for the NIH Director's Transformative Research Award

Date: November 8, 2011

Time: 1:00-2:45 PM EST

Background

The NIH Director's High Risk-High Reward (HRHR) program, supported through the NIH Common Fund, was created to test new ways of stimulating the biomedical workforce by providing support for highly creative researchers and ideas that have the potential to fundamentally change the way we think about and conduct biomedical research.  Four different NIH Director's awards comprise the HRHR program: the NIH Director's Transformative Research Award, Pioneer Award, New Innovator Award, and the Early Independence Award.  

 

This informational webinar will provide information and answer questions about NEW funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) for the HRHR program, specifically for the Transformative Research Award  http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-11-006.html, which is open until January 12, 2012 (5:00 PM local time of applicant organization).  The types of questions to be addressed during the webinar include, but are not limited to: 

·         What types of projects have been funded to date?

·         Why don't there seem to be so many clinical and/or behavioral science projects funded?

·         What are the expectations regarding preliminary data?

·         What are typical budgets of successful applications?

·         What are the most common criticisms?

·         What makes a particularly strong application?

·         Can you give some examples of projects that might be considered transformative or not transformative?

·         What is the review process?

·         How are reviewers selected?

·         How can applications with such diverse topic areas be reasonably reviewed by a single panel?

 

Agenda

1:00 PM     Welcome

James Anderson, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), NIH

 

1:05 PM     New Funding Announcement for High Risk-High Reward Program:

NIH Director's Transformative Research Award

Ravi Basavappa, Ph.D., Program Director, Office of Strategic Coordination, DPCPSI, NIH

 

1:30 PM     Review process for Transformative Research Award applications

                       John Bowers, Ph.D., Initial Review Group Chief and Scientific Review Officer for the

                      Transformative Research Award initiative, Center for Scientific Review, NIH

 

1:40 PM     Question and Answer Session

Members of the High Risk-High Reward Working Group will answer questions submitted via Email and phone

2:45 PM     Adjourn

Access the webinar via:  https://webmeeting.nih.gov/hrhr

 

The computer system requirements for joining the webinar can be found here: http://webcollaboration.nih.gov/systemRequirements.asp

 

Please send us your questions in advance or during the program via Email at Transformative_Awards@mail.nih.gov or by phone at 1-800-593-9895, pass code 10699.

 

The webinar is open to external participants and NIH staff.  The webinar is being broadcast from the NIH Bethesda campus, Bldg 31, 6C/7.  In-person seating is limited.  The webinar will be closed captioned and video archived on the Common Fund website (http://commonfund.nih.gov).

 

The NIH Common Fund (formerly the NIH Roadmap) encourages collaboration and supports a series of exceptionally high impact, trans-NIH programs. These programs are supported by the Common Fund, and managed by the NIH Office of the Director in partnership with the various NIH Institutes, Centers and Offices. Additional information about the NIH Common Fund can be found at http://commonfund.nih.gov.

 

 

----------------------

 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) –"The Nation's Medical Research Agency" – includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to listserv@list.nih.gov, Copy and paste UNSUBSCRIBE NIDA_NEURO_SCIENCE-L   in the message body of the email

- You will receive a confirmation email if successful. If you have problems contact jpollock@mail.nih.gov 301-435-1309

 

[DIV28M] article of interest - Branching Careers Pipeline - Not all paths lead to academic careers

In case you do not follow the Tomorrow's Professor list, I thought I might pass this along.  It relates to changes in graduate training and career trajectories worthy examination.  Some of what is noted is from UCSF-based data.

Good references noted as well in the write up.

Best-

-Nancy

 

Nancy A. Piotrowski, Ph.D.

Core Faculty, General Psychology

Harold Abel School of Social and BehavioralSciences

Department of Psychology, Capella University

 

Co-Chair, Government Affairs Steering Committee, CaliforniaPsychological Association
Federal Advocacy Coordinator, Division 50, American Psychological Association

Past President & Website Chair, San Francisco Psychological Association

President-Elect, NapaSolano Psychological Association

 

3450 Geary Boulevard, Suite #107

San Francisco, CA  94118

Phone & FAX by request

 

Email:              napiotrowski@yahoo.com

Skype:             napiotrowski

 

----- Forwarded Message -----

Most local and national initiatives have focused on assisting young biomedical investigators as they transition to academic positions. A gaping hole remains: as a scientific community we have ignored the many doctoral trainees who will pursue non-traditional career paths.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER 

http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php 

Archives of all past postings can be found at: 

http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php 

Sponsored by 

Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning 

http://ctl.stanford.edu 

Folks:

The excerpts below are from an important new study showing that interest in non-academic, non-research careers is increasing among PhD and postdocs in the biomedical sciences. They are from the original peer-reviewed essay, "Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline: Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences," published in the Fall 2011 issue of CBE-Life Sciences Education by C. N. Fuhrmann and colleagues. For a complete statistical analysis of the data and further discussion (including a comparison of these data to those published for the humanities and social sciences), please see the complete article: [ http://www.lifescied.org/content/10/3.cover-expansion] Fuhrmann, C.N.*, Halme, D. G., O'Sullivan, P., Lindstaedt, B. (2011) "Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences." CBE-Life Sciences Education 10: 239-249.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Money, Happiness, and a Fulfilling Retirement

Tomorrow's Academic Careers 

------------------- 1,651 words ------------------- 

Branching Careers Pipeline - Not all paths lead to academic careers

Introduction

Forty years ago, the career trajectory of PhD-level basic biomedical scientists could be described as a linear pipeline. Trainees moved from doctoral to postdoctoral training, and ultimately to tenure-track faculty positions. As the number of trainees has outpaced the availability of academic positions, an increasing number of PhD-trained scientists have pursued careers outside of academia. In fact, today's PhD students and postdoctoral scholars commonly follow diverse career paths. Not only are PhD-trained scientists pursuing research careers beyond academe, but increasing numbers are leaving research altogether.

To better understand the career choices—and timing of these choices—among doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences, we surveyed graduate students at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a campus whose graduate programs are among the top-ranked in the nation. We found that large numbers of students are considering paths beyond academe—and even beyond research. While early-stage students reported strong interest for the "traditional" academic path (i.e., becoming a principle investigator (PI) in an academic setting), interest in this career path dropped during the first three years of training. Interestingly, there was no significant change in interest for other research career paths (i.e., research-intensive careers in biotechnology/pharmaceuticals, in government, or non-principal investigator research careers in academia). Instead, student interest in non-research career paths increased. By the later years in graduate school, fully one-third of students would choose a non-research career path (such as the business of science, teaching - or education-related, science policy, and science writing; see paper for figures and statistical analyses). The prevalent interest in such diverse career paths—and the early timing of students' career decisions—are important to consider as we ensure that the training offered appropriately prepares these talented scientists for their future careers.

Are these local effects or a national trend?

While UCSF may be unusual among graduate institutions in certain ways (discussed in the complete article), it is hardly unique. Many basic biomedical sciences doctoral programs are similarly housed in research-intensive academic medical centers. Many of these programs also attract highly talented students. We predict that a national survey of similar institutions would reveal that graduate students' career decisions follow a similar trend, with a drop in interest for research-intensive academic positions following a year of full-time experience at the bench. Preliminary discussions of the data with colleagues at other institutions support this prediction, but a formal cross-institutional study should be done.

How should we react to these data?

In combination, our data and data from prior studies (Aanerud, et al., 2006; Golde and Dore, 2001; Mason, et al., 2009) support three recommendations for how we as scientists, educators, and policy makers can strengthen graduate training, improve student wellness and satisfaction, and produce a more highly-skilled national scientific workforce.

1. Shift academic culture to embrace the "branching" science career pipeline

We believe that the academic community should be supportive of individual PhD-level trainees who are interested in pursuing careers beyond the traditional academic path. Our data show that trainees do not make major career decisions lightly; respondents shared thoughtful reasons for changing their career choice away from the traditional research-intensive PI track. The PI track, and the lifestyle, stressors, and lack of security currently associated with it, is not a fit for everyone. Moreover, there are not enough jobs in the academic sector for all PhD-trained life scientists, and this "supply-demand" gap is growing each year (Cyranoski, et al., 2011; National Research Council, 2011; Teitelbaum, 2008). With only 14% of PhD's in the biological sciences entering tenure-track positions within 5-6 years of earning their PhD (2006 data; Stephan, 2012), how can we continue to devalue other career paths? Finally, it is important for us to have PhD-trained scientists in roles that will benefit the scientific enterprise as a whole. They provide services that are critical to the advancement of science in today's world, by developing and running research facilities, working with researchers to patent discoveries, bringing those discoveries to market, funding research, setting policies, and teaching future generations of scientists. As a scientific community and as individual mentors, we should be applauding PhD graduates who move on to become leaders in any science-related career path.

2. Integrate career development into the graduate curriculum

Our national investment in graduate-level training will be optimized when trainees have a positive graduate experience, and then move on equipped to succeed in their future career paths.

The branching nature of today's biomedical sciences career pipeline—and trainees' low confidence in their career choices within this pipeline—underscores the need for structured career planning at the doctoral level, yet few science trainees are provided with career planning assistance. A lack of career planning is likely one factor that contributes to the high proportion of students who move on to postdoctoral training (80% of all biological sciences PhD's nationally (National Research Council, 2011)), even though this additional training is unnecessary for most of the students who prefer to follow a non-research career path.

Currently, career discussions between students and mentors often occur near the end of training, if at all. Our data emphasizes that this is too late; students are making career decisions early in their doctoral research experience. Career education, guidance and mentoring—tailored to the needs of students in the basic biomedical sciences and provided early in students' graduate education—would help students make career decisions from a well-informed position. Students considering non-research career paths (or research career paths outside of academia) may greatly benefit from an opportunity to try out this new role through a short-term internship. This would help ensure that career decisions are made based on realistic expectations.

Skills in areas such as interpersonal communication, presentation, leadership, management, and networking are imperative for success in all careers. Teaching skills are also needed in many of the career choices. Yet, with our traditional emphasis on developing scientific knowledge and research skills in graduate education, few if any resources are dedicated to the broader professional development of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Graduate education should be supplemented to include structured training and mentoring in these broader professional skills areas—to prepare students for success in the broad range of traditional or non-traditional science-related careers. Students could each create an Individual Development Plan (IDP) to design and then discuss their own professional skills training with mentors, to help ensure that it is pursued in a time efficient and productive manner.

Some will argue that encouraging students to explore career options and prepare for these careers will take time away from the lab, and detract from research training. However, recent studies suggest that career development activities do not negatively impact research training or productivity (in fact, the opposite may be true—see complete article). Even so, there is typically pressure on trainees to minimize distractions from research. Graduate students and postdocs make up as much as 50% of the basic biomedical research workforce (National Research Council, 2011), and their tuition and stipends are increasingly funded by PIs' research grants (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2011). This creates an inherent conflict of interest for the PI: maintaining a successful lab while also mentoring trainees within that lab (Benderly, 2010; National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2011). One way to alleviate this conflict of interest is to give thesis committees, rather than individual PI's, the responsibility of overseeing student career development. It would be appropriate for thesis committees to participate in career-related mentoring, discuss with the student his/her Individual Development Plan, and help the student and PI negotiate an appropriate level of time spent toward career-related activities.

3. Transform graduate education policy at the national level

Change in graduate education is often motivated by policies set at the national level. As such, it is important to consider how actions by national agencies might impact our view of the branching scientific pipeline and our ability to assist trainees in their career development.

Although the concept of the branching pipeline is becoming more broadly accepted at the institutional level and by individual faculty mentors, national funding agencies continue to use the traditional academic pathway as the formal definition of success. For example, in a ranking of graduate schools released in 2010 by the National Research Council, student career outcome was defined as the percent of PhD's "with definite plans for an academic position" (National Research Council, 2010). In addition, currently most—if not all—biomedical funding sources evaluate U.S. doctoral training programs based in part on the success of alumni, with many measures of success pointing to principal investigator-level positions in academia. Funding agencies and review committees should explicitly re-define the description of a "successful" PhD graduate as one whose contributions promote the scientific enterprise, including a variety of research and non-research career paths, in both academic and non-academic sectors. This would allow graduate schools to more freely support and encourage graduate students who are considering such career paths.

In addition to redefining a successful career outcome, funding agencies could urge institutions to incorporate career development components into all graduate programs. As discussed above, preparation of our future scientific leaders should include training beyond scientific knowledge and research skills. To promote this broader curriculum, funding agencies should define national expectations for mentoring, professional skills training, and career development for graduate and postdoctoral trainees, and provide funding to implement the recommendations described above.

Concluding Remarks

Part of our responsibility as educators is to adequately prepare doctoral students for success in their upcoming careers. To achieve this, we will need to realign our goals in graduate education with the realities of today's "branching science career pipeline". Pursued simultaneously, the cultural, academic, and policy changes recommended in this and other reports will help us continue to develop talented, confident, and well-trained scientific professionals who will contribute directly to our research enterprise as trainees, then move on to diverse careers that will elevate the pace and quality of scientific discovery, improving the health of our nation and our world.

References

Aanerud, R., Homer, L., Nerad, M., Cerny, J. (2006). Paths and perceptions: Assessing doctoral education using career path analysis. In: The Assessment of Doctoral Education: Emerging Criteria and New Models for Improving Outcomes. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Benderly, B. L. (2010). The real science gap. Miller-McCune, June 14, 2010. http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/ (accessed 24 January 2011).

Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. (2011). The PhD Factory: The world is producing more PhDs than ever before. Is it time to stop? Nature, 472, 276-279.

Golde, C.M. and Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education, Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts. www.phd-survey.org

Mason, M. A., Goulden, M., and Frasch, K. (2009). Why graduate students reject the fast track. Academe 95, 11-16. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2009/JF/Feat/maso.htm

National Institute of General Medical Science (2011). Investing in the future: The National Institute of General Medical Sciences strategic plan for biomedical and behavioral research training, Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/StrategicPlan.htm (accessed 6 March 2011).

National Research Council (2010). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/rdp/

National Research Council (2011). Research training in the biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research sciences, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Stephan, P. (2012) How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press, in press.

Teitelbaum, M. (2008). Research funding: Structural disequilibria in biomedical research. Science, 321, 644-645.


* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
tomorrows-professor mailing list
tomorrows-professor@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor