Transition to Independence: Characteristics and Outcomes of Mentored Career Development (KL2) Scholars at Clinical and Translational Science Award Institutions.

PURPOSE: To describe the transition from mentored to independent research funding for clinical and translational scholars supported by institutional KL2 Mentored Career Development programs. METHOD: In 2013, faculty leaders at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions completed an online survey, reporting characteristics of scholars in their KL2 programs from 2006 to 2013. The primary outcome variable was a report that the scholar had received independent funding as a principal investigator. Data analysis included descriptive summaries and mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: Respondents from 48 institutions (of 62 eligible; 77%) provided information about 914 KL2 scholars. Of those, 620 (68%) were medical doctors, 114 (12%) had other clinical training, and 177 (19%) were nonclinician PhDs. Fifty-three percent (487) were female; 12% (108/865) were members of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM). After completing KL2 training, 96% (558/582) remained engaged in research. Among scholars who completed KL2 training two or more years earlier, 39% (149/374) received independent funding. Independent funding was from non-National Institutes of Health (NIH) sources (120 scholars) more often than from NIH (101 scholars). The odds of a nonclinician attaining independent funding were twice those of a clinician (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.78). Female and URM scholars were as likely as male and non-URM scholars to attain independent funding. CONCLUSIONS: KL2 programs supported the transition to independent funding for clinical and translational scientists. Female and URM scholars were well represented. Future studies should consider non-NIH funding sources when assessing the transition to research independence.

Approaches to preparing young scholars for careers in interdisciplinary team science.

To succeed as a biomedical researcher, the ability to flourish in interdisciplinary teams of scientists is becoming ever more important. Institutions supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) from the National Institutes of Health have a specific mandate to educate the next generation of clinical and translational researchers. While they strive to advance integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to education and career development in clinical and translational science, general approaches and evaluation strategies may differ, as there is no single, universally accepted or standardized approach. It is important, therefore, to learn about the different approaches used to determine what is effective. We implemented a Web-based survey distributed to education leaders at the 60 funded CTSA institutions; 95% responded to the survey, which included questions on the importance of preparation for interdisciplinary team science careers, methods used to provide such training, and perceived effectiveness of these training programs. The vast majority (86%) of education leaders reported that such training is important, and about half (52%) of the institutions offer such training. Methods of training most often take the form of courses and seminars, both credit bearing and noncredit. These efforts are, by and large, perceived as effective by the training program leaders, although long-term follow-up of trainees would be required to fully evaluate ultimate effectiveness. Results from the survey suggest that CTSA education directors believe that specific training in interdisciplinary team science for young investigators is very important, but few methodologies are universally practiced in CTSA institutions to provide training or to assess performance. Four specific recommendations are suggested to provide measurable strategic goals for education in team science in the context of clinical and translational research.

Strengthening the career development of clinical translational scientist trainees: a consensus statement of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Research Education and Career Development Committees.

The challenges for scholars committed to successful careers in clinical and translational science are increasingly well recognized. The Education and Career Development (EdCD) of the national Clinical and Translational Science Award consortium gathered thought leaders to propose sustainable solutions and an agenda for future studies that would strengthen the infrastructure across the spectrum of pre- and postdoctoral, MD and PhD, scholars. Six consensus statements were prepared that include: (1) the requirement for career development of a qualitatively different investigator; (2) the implications of interdisciplinary science for career advancement including institutional promotion and tenure actions that were developed for discipline-specific accomplishments; (3) the need for long-term commitment of institutions to scholars; (4) discipline-specific curricula are still required but curricula designed to promote team work and interdisciplinary training will promote innovation; (5) PhD trainees have many pathways to career satisfaction and success; and (6) a centralized infrastructure to enhance and reward mentoring is required. Several themes cut across all of the recommendations including team science, innovation, and sustained institutional commitment. Implied themes include an effective and diverse job force and the requirement for a well-crafted public policy that supports continued investments in science education.