A Retrospective Analysis of Career Outcomes in Neuroscience.

What factors are associated with career outcomes among biomedical PhDs? Research to date has focused on drivers of interest in (and intention to pursue) various careers, especially during graduate school, but fewer studies have investigated participants' ultimate career outcomes. Even less is known about what factors matter for groups historically underrepresented in the US science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, such as women, some racial and ethnic groups, and persons with disabilities ( National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 2021a). This study reports a new analysis of data from 781 PhD neuroscientists that were obtained from a retrospective survey ( Ullrich et al., 2021) to investigate the factors that influence the career sector in which neuroscience PhDs are employed and whether there were group differences according to social identity. We find evidence of academia as a "default path" for incoming PhD students, but interest in different careers increases over time. Those who remained in academia had greater acceptance of the structural aspects of academic careers, such as promotion and tenure processes, and greater faculty support during postdoctoral training. Conversely, prioritizing monetary compensation and/or varied work were associated with not being in academia, while a strong interest in research was positively associated with being in nonacademic research. Somewhat surprisingly, there were few interactions with gender, and no interactions with underrepresentation status, although perhaps this was due to lower statistical power for these analyses. Our findings also underscore the role of advisors, networking, and personal relationships in securing employment in STEM.

Factors That Influence Career Choice among Different Populations of Neuroscience Trainees.

Specific groups have historically been, and continue to be, underrepresented in the biomedical research workforce, especially academia. Career choice is a multifactorial process that evolves over time; among all trainees, expressed interest in faculty research careers decreases over time in graduate school, but that trend is amplified in women and members of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Golde and Dore, 2004; Fuhrmann et al., 2011; Sauermann and Roach, 2012; Gibbs et al., 2014; Roach and Sauermann, 2017). This work was designed to investigate how career interest changes over time among recent neuroscience PhD graduates, and whether differences in career interests are associated with social identity, experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training, and personal characteristics. We report results from a survey of 1479 PhD neuroscientists (including 16% underrepresented scientists and 54% women scientists). We saw repeated evidence that individual preferences about careers in general, and academic careers specifically, predict current career interest. These findings were moderated by social identity and experiences in graduate school and postdoctoral training. Our findings highlight the important influence of the advisor in shaping a trainee's career path, and the ways in which academic culture is perceived as unwelcoming or incongruent with the values or priorities of certain groups. They suggest several areas for positive growth, ways to change how we think about the impact of mentorship, and policy and programmatic interventions that extend beyond trying to change or "fix" the individual and instead recognize the systemic structures that influence career choices.

From student to steward: the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown University as a case study in professional development during doctoral training.

A key facet of professional development is the formation of professional identity. At its most basic level, professional identity for a scientist centers on mastery of a discipline and the development of research skills during doctoral training. To develop a broader understanding of professional identity in the context of doctoral training, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) ran a multi-institutional study from 2001 to 2005. A key outcome of the CID was the development of the concept of 'stewards of the discipline'. The Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience (IPN) at Georgetown University participated in CID from 2003 to 2005. Here, we describe the IPN and highlight the programmatic developments resulting from participation in the CID. In particular, we emphasize programmatic activities that are designed to promote professional skills in parallel with scientific development. We describe activities in the domains of leadership, communication, teaching, public outreach, ethics, collaboration, and mentorship. Finally, we provide data that demonstrate that traditional metrics of academic success are not adversely affected by the inclusion of professional development activities in the curricula. By incorporating these seven 'professional development' activities into the required coursework and dissertation research experience, the IPN motivates students to become stewards of the discipline.

It's money! Real-world grant experience through a student-run, peer-reviewed program.

Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.

Drugs, the brain, and behavior: a graduate student-run comprehensive course in neuroscience.

Drugs, the Brain, and Behavior is an interdisciplinary two-semester upper level course at Georgetown University designed to expose undergraduate and graduate students to broad areas of the neurosciences, to promote the development of scientific literacy in these students, and to provide pedagogical experience for Ph.D. students in the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience (IPN) at all stages of training. Drugs, the Brain, and Behavior fulfills these goals through a unique model of student-teaching. This lecture-based, team-taught course is completely run and taught by Ph.D. students in the IPN. It is designed to gradually increase the teaching duties of new instructors, providing a structured setting for them to develop their pedagogical skills. We encourage scientific literacy in our students through the incorporation of primary literature and experimental results throughout the course. The strategies we have employed have increased student confidence on a variety of measures of scientific literacy. While running a team-taught course, we have also developed several strategies for coordinating team-taught courses within semesters and across years, which could easily be adapted to other courses.