Caught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese-American scientists.

The US global leadership in science and technology has greatly benefitted from immigrants from other countries, most notably from China in the recent decades. However, feeling the pressure of potential federal investigations since the 2018 launch of the China Initiative, scientists of Chinese descent in the United States now face higher incentives to leave the United States and lower incentives to apply for federal grants. Analyzing data pertaining to institutional affiliations of more than 200 million scientific papers, we find a steady increase in the return migration of scientists of Chinese descent from the United States to China. We also conducted a survey of scientists of Chinese descent employed by US universities in tenured or tenure-track positions (n = 1,304), with results revealing general feelings of fear and anxiety that lead them to consider leaving the United States and/or stop applying for federal grants. If the situation is not corrected, American science will likely suffer the loss of scientific talent to China and other countries.

Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics.

In scientific research, collaboration is one of the most effective ways to take advantage of new ideas, skills, and resources and for performing interdisciplinary research. Although collaboration networks have been intensively studied, the question of how individual scientists choose collaborators to study a new research topic remains almost unexplored. Here, we investigate the statistics and mechanisms of collaborations of individual scientists along their careers, revealing that, in general, collaborators are involved in significantly fewer topics than expected from a controlled surrogate. In particular, we find that highly productive scientists tend to have a higher fraction of single-topic collaborators, while highly cited-i.e., impactful-scientists have a higher fraction of multitopic collaborators. We also suggest a plausible mechanism for this distinction. Moreover, we investigate the cases where scientists involve existing collaborators in a new topic. We find that, compared to productive scientists, impactful scientists show strong preference of collaboration with high-impact scientists on a new topic. Finally, we validate our findings by investigating active scientists in different years and across different disciplines.

PAIR UP Imaging Science Program, a new framework for a diverse scientific workforce.

PAIR-UP is a new conceptual framework for developing a diverse scientific workforce for the 21st century. PAIR-UP stand for Partnering to Advance Imaging Research for Underrepresented scientists Program. The goal of PAIR-UP is to solve the longstanding and wicked problem of underrepresentation of Black scientists in the imaging science field. PAIR-UP uses a multipronged approach designed to create culturally responsive environments at historically white colleges and universities (HWCUs) where Black scientists are culturally isolated. The PAIR-UP model shows that maintaining a strong cultural identity empowers Black scientists to be more creative and productive and therefore persistent in the discipline.

Formal Degree Programs in Physiology Promote Careers of Clinical Scientists and Benefit Basic Science Departments.

Physiologists may play critical roles in the development of clinician-scientists, who aspire to an academic career. The complexity of contemporary biomedical science and economic matters regarding post-graduate education pose real conundrums. We report a more than 22-year follow-up of surgical trainees pursuing bench laboratory science in Physiology and in Surgery Departments within a single public medical school. The sources and resources include selection, funding, physiology classroom work, and laboratory studies with personal involvement by faculty that have seldom been recorded, especially with longer-term career outcomes. These selected Ph.D. candidates have subsequently pursued several lines of activity, many with distinguished careers and major influences upon future generations of academic surgeons.

Jürgen Boeckh (1934-2023) and Vera Boeckh, née von Zwehl (1928-2022): pioneers of sensory physiology and neuroethology.

Jürgen Boeckh, a respected pioneer of insect olfaction died shortly after his beloved wife Vera Boeckh, née von Zwehl, who pioneered insect vision. Both met in 1958, at the Zoological Institute in Munich. There, Jürgen worked in the group of his PhD advisor Dietrich Schneider, while Vera finished her PhD with Werner Jacobs before she joined the group of Hansjochem Autrum. There, Vera characterized the spectral sensitivity of bee photoreceptors, laying the physiological foundation of Karl von Frisch´s behavioral experiments with bee color vision. Meanwhile, Jürgen focused on the physiological characterization of insect antennal olfactory sensilla. In 1962 Vera and Jürgen married in Munich. Sadly, but characteristic of German woman at these times, Vera´s career ended after her marriage, while Jürgen moved with his mentor Schneider to the Max Planck Institute of Behavioral Physiology in Seewiesen near Munich, which became a famous cradle of insect neuroethology. Vera accompanied and supported her husband Jürgen´s career during his scientific Wanderschaft which ended in 1969, when Jürgen received a full professorship at the University of Regensburg. There, Jürgen became an accomplished German professor, focusing on insect olfaction from peripheral sensory transduction to information processing in the brain´s antennal lobe. After Jürgens retirement in 2000 they moved to Hopfen, Enzensberg near Füssen, where they enjoyed happy years together, before especially Vera´s health deteriorated. Both died shortly after one another during the Corona pandemic. We lost a remarkable couple of insect scientists that will be remembered as pioneers of sensory physiology and neuroethology.

Building momentum through networks: Bioimaging across the Americas.

In September 2023, the two largest bioimaging networks in the Americas, Latin America Bioimaging (LABI) and BioImaging North America (BINA), came together during a 1-week meeting in Mexico. This meeting provided opportunities for participants to interact closely with decision-makers from imaging core facilities across the Americas. The meeting was held in a hybrid format and attended in-person by imaging scientists from across the Americas, including Canada, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. The aims of the meeting were to discuss progress achieved over the past year, to foster networking and collaborative efforts among members of both communities, to bring together key members of the international imaging community to promote the exchange of experience and expertise, to engage with industry partners, and to establish future directions within each individual network, as well as common goals. This meeting report summarises the discussions exchanged, the achievements shared, and the goals set during the LABIxBINA2023: Bioimaging across the Americas meeting.

Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, regulation of professions is an important tool to protect the public. With increasing regulation however, professions find themselves under increasing scrutiny. Recently there has also been considerable concern with regulator performance, with high profile reports pointing to cases of inefficiency and bias. Whilst reports have often focused on large staff groups, such as doctors, in the literature there is a dearth of data on the experiences of smaller professional groups such Clinical Scientists with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council. This article reports the findings of a survey from Clinical Scientists (Physical Sciences modality) about their experiences with their regulator, and their perception of the quality and safety of that regulation. METHODS: Between July-October 2022, a survey was conducted via the Medical Physics and Engineering mail-base, open to all medical physicists & engineers. Questions covered typical topics of registration, communication, audit and fitness to practice. The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions. Likert scoring, and thematic analysis were used to assess the quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 146 responses recorded, analysis was based on 143 respondents. Overall survey sentiment was significantly more negative than positive, in terms of regulator performance (negative responses 159; positive 106; significant at p < 0.001). Continuous Professional Development audit was rated median 4; other topics were rated as neutral (fitness to practice, policies & procedures); and some as poor (value). CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Scientist (Physical Sciences) professional registrants rated the performance of their regulator more negatively than other reported assessments (by the Professional Standards Authority). Survey respondents suggested a variety of performance aspects, such as communication and fitness to practice, would benefit from improvement. Indications from this small dataset, suggest a larger survey of HCPC registrants would be useful.

A Model for Engaging Citizen Scientists: A Community-Partnered Research Collaboration to Address Inequities for Black Birthing People.

PURPOSE: Co-creation of a citizen-science research initiative with a collaborative team of community members and university-based scientists to address regional disparities in maternal and fetal health outcomes for Black birthing people. DESCRIPTION: Citizen scientist-led projects, where community members actively contribute to each discovery step, from setting a research agenda to collecting data and disseminating results, can extend community participatory research initiatives and help reconceptualize traditional research processes. The Pregnancy Collaborative is a citizen-science research initiative and one of nine scientific committees of The Pittsburgh Study-a longitudinal, community-partnered study designed to bring together collaborators to improve child thriving. ASSESSMENT: Ten community members and five university-based scientists participated during all phases of developing a citizen-scientist collaboration over an initial two-and-a-half-year period. Phases include forming the Pregnancy Collaborative and group research ethics training; co-creating a research agenda grounded in shared principles; and community-partnered data collection, analysis, and dissemination. These phases produced three key co-designed products: (1) a mission and vision statement of the Pregnancy Collaborative, (2) a Collaborative-endorsed research agenda, and (3) a citizen-scientist-executed research survey. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from the formation of the Pregnancy Collaborative highlight the importance of equitable power distribution through bidirectional knowledge sharing and by centering intellectual effort, lived experience, and tools and resources of those affected by health inequities. Using a citizen science approach to co-designing and executing research helps us move maternal health inequity work from "research on" to "research with."

COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.

With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists' productivity dropped. When female scientists conduct research, identity factors are better incorporated in research content. In order to mitigate damage to the research enterprise, funding agencies can play a role by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. A national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Further work is urgently required to address inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries.

This article analyzes the specific and critical role of trust in scientists on both the support for and compliance with nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We exploit large-scale, longitudinal, and representative surveys for 12 countries over the period from March to December 2020, and we complement the analysis with experimental data. We find that trust in scientists is the key driving force behind individual support for and compliance with NPIs and for favorable attitudes toward vaccination. The effect of trust in government is more ambiguous and tends to diminish support for and compliance with NPIs in countries where the recommendations from scientists and the government were not aligned. Trust in others also has seemingly paradoxical effects: in countries where social trust is high, the support for NPIs is low due to higher expectations that others will voluntary social distance. Our individual-level longitudinal data also allows us to evaluate the effects of within-person changes in trust over the pandemic: we show that trust levels and, in particular, trust in scientists have changed dramatically for individuals and within countries, with important subsequent effects on compliant behavior and support for NPIs. Such findings point out the challenging but critical need to maintain trust in scientists during a lasting pandemic that strains citizens and governments.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

A structured curriculum supporting biomedical trainees' transition into independent academic positions and early career success.

The United States government makes a substantial investment in biomedical training programs each year. However, for most trainees, these opportunities do not translate into career progression in academic research pathways. Only about one-fifth of postdoctoral fellows eventually secure a tenure-track faculty position, and even among these candidates, attrition is high. Although a number of factors govern career choices and career longevity, the transition from trainee to faculty is a challenging process and requires knowledge and skills that are not necessarily developed during a traditional university experience. Many postdoctoral fellows receive adequate training in research skills and scientific communication, but new faculty report not being sufficiently prepared for the job search process and for starting their labs. To address this critical training gap, the ITERT core (Interdisciplinary Translational Education and Research Training) and the Office of Postdoctoral Fellows at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center implemented a structured course for both postdoctoral fellows and senior PhD students to provide formalized training for successfully navigating academic positions in biomedical research. Here we report on the pilot Navigating Academic Careers course conducted in 2021-2022 for 30 PhD students and postdocs. The nine-module course was conducted over 13 weeks in 25.5 h instructional sessions. The key educational objectives included 1) navigating the job application and the interview/negotiation process, 2) hiring, leading, and mentoring lab personnel and program support staff, 3) project administration and financial stewardship, 4) managing time and work-life balance and 5) developing collaborations, branding, personalized niche, and networking. Survey-based analysis at the time of the course was used to capture the participants' assessment of the course content, organization, and delivery, with a follow-up survey conducted approximately 2 years post-course (2024) to evaluate longer-term impacts of the training. Initial in-course assessment revealed that 89.9% of respondents found the scope and instructional content appropriate, and 91.1% found the course relevant and applicable to their career needs. Longer-term post-course evaluation indicated that 80% of respondents applied the learnings of the course, that 80% reported feeling more confident in navigating an academic job search, and that 66.6% continued to report agreement with the course preparing them for their current role/ongoing job search, with 46.7% already securing jobs in academic research, including as independent faculty. The outcomes of this pilot course suggest that integrating this into the broader postdoctoral training curriculum can enhance both the transition and early-career success of talented scientists-in-training into working professionals in biomedical careers, as faculty and science-trained staff.

Looking back to move forward: Creating a blueprint for success for nurse scientists in the Veterans Health Administration.

AIM: The purpose of this manuscript is to report the findings of a qualitative content analysis of interviews with VA Nurse Scientists about work life experiences, barriers, and facilitators across the enterprise. BACKGROUND: The VA enterprise is widely variable in terms of size, services, research activity, and budget. For this reason, the roles of nurses with a research-focused doctorate are also quite diverse. METHODS: We purposively sampled 18 PhD prepared Nurse Scientists based on a variety geographic locations, titles, and years in the field and who conduct research. We conducted semi-structured interviews over the virtual platform, WebEx. Interviews, averaging 1 h in length, were conducted between April and May 2021. We analyzed interviews using deductive and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: We found five key factors affecting VA Nurse Scientists. Each factor emerged as an important issue influencing whether Nurse Scientists reported being successful, supported, and productive in their research. These include having: 1) mentorship, 2) supportive leadership 3) available resources, 4) respect and understanding from clinical and research colleagues who understand a Nurse Scientist's role in research, and 5) a career pathway. CONCLUSIONS: VA Nurse Scientists are leaders and innovators who generate evidence to improve health outcomes and promote equity in health and health care of Veterans, their families, and caregivers. Results from this project suggest that many Nurse Scientists need additional mentorship, resources, and networks to advance their development, increase their funding success, and maximize the impact of their role, ultimately enhancing care of Veterans and their families.

Scholars' experiences with faculty mentoring: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholars Program.

BACKGROUND: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholars program supported nurses to complete PhDs in 3 years. Support mechanisms included mentoring by the program office and school faculty, and leadership development activities. PURPOSE: To describe scholars' perspectives of mentoring received by faculty during the accelerated timeline. METHODS: Of 201 scholars, 157 (78%) completed exit surveys, providing qualitative data on their experiences working with faculty mentors. DISCUSSION: Scholars highlighted strong mentorship (i.e., accessibility, emotional support) as the most important facilitator to program completion. Mentor challenges were identified as the second-most mentioned barrier to success, while the first was the accelerated timeline. CONCLUSION: The scholars' most-reported mentor-provided facilitators to success were availability and emotional support. Among scholars who noted barriers to their success caused by their mentor relationship, the most-reported issue was lack of access to their mentors.

Prone to wellness? Dispositional awe, religion/spirituality, and well-being among academic scientists.

Recent scholarship has identified a growing mental health crisis among scientists and those in academia more generally. This study draws from nationally representative survey data collected from physicists and biologists working in four countries-the United Kingdom, the United States, India, and Italy (N = 3442)-and examines how religion/spirituality relates to their physical and mental well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential mediating role of dispositional awe, which involves transcendent experience. In the current age, science and religion are generally perceived to be in conflict, but recent evidence suggests they might be more complementary than was previously thought, especially in that they both evoke aesthetic experiences. Results from our regression and mediation analyses suggest that academic scientists who rated religion/spirituality as "very important" in their lives had higher overall flourishing scores, lower psychological distress, and were less likely to report that their mental and physical health had worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings present a strong and consistent case for the explanatory role of a sense of awe in these associations. Taken together, our research invites academic and scientific institutions to recognize and value the personal and spiritual dimensions that scientists may bring to their work.

"Follow the Science" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.

"Follow the science" was commonly repeated during debates on COVID-19-related policy. The phrase "follow the science" raises questions that are central to our theories of knowledge and the application of scientific knowledge to maximize the wellbeing of our society. The purpose of this study was to (1) perform a scoping review of literature discussing "follow the science" and COVID-19, and (2) consider "follow the science" in the context of pediatric health. A comprehensive search of 14 databases was performed on May 23, 2023. Articles were included if they used terms such as "follow the science", "follow the scientists", "listen to science" or "listen to scientists", and discussed COVID-19. There were 24 articles included in the final review. Existing literature on "follow the science" (1) differentiates between scientific knowledge and policy decisions; (2) emphasizes the importance of social sciences in policy making; (3) calls for more transparency in the knowledge synthesis and policy generating process; and (4) finds that scientific advisors see their role as advising on science rather than policy decision making. There was no definitional, epistemological, or philosophical intellectual defense of "follow the science" in the peer reviewed literature. Policy requires (1) reliable data and (2) agreement on what to do considering those empirical facts by appealing to values, ethics, morality, and law. A review of school shutdowns is used as an example of the inadequacy of "follow the science" as a guiding principle for public policy.

Women in tunicate research: Pioneers of the past and their present legacy.

The search for female scientists who pioneered the research on tunicates is hindered by the tradition of reporting only the first initials of authors' names on scientific publications using only the initials of their first names. While this practice has the theoretical merit of broadening the readership by preventing the possible bias that could be caused by the gender of the author(s) in some of the readers, it rendered the identification of female researchers active in, or before, the first half of the 20th century quite challenging. Sifting through several dozen electronic records, and with the help of references and/or quotes found online, we have stitched together the information that we were able to retrieve on the life of female scientists who authored some of the earliest publications on tunicates, and we have organized them in (approximate) chronological order. We have also compiled brief synopses of the findings of scientists active in the field of tunicate biology in more recent times, and organized them by subdiscipline.

The Next Generation: Mentoring and Diversity in the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Mentoring Program was established to develop and prepare the next generation of clinician-scientists for a career in antibacterial resistance research. The ARLG Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Working Group partners with the Mentoring Committee to help ensure diversity and excellence in the clinician-scientist workforce of the future. To advance the field of antibacterial research while fostering inclusion and diversity, the Mentoring Program has developed a number of fellowships, awards, and programs, which are described in detail in this article.

Misinformation and Disinformation in Food Science and Nutrition: Impact on Practice.

Food and nutrition are popular topics in the media and on social media. The ubiquity of social media has created new opportunities for qualified or credentialed experts in the scientific community to connect with clients and the public. It has also created challenges. Health and wellness gurus, or self-proclaimed experts, utilize social media platforms to garner attention through compelling narratives, build audience followings, and influence public opinion by sharing (often) misleading information about food and nutrition. The consequence of this can be the perpetuation of misinformation, which not only undermines a well-functioning democracy but also diminishes support for policies that are science or evidence based. Nutrition practitioners, clinician scientists, researchers, communicators, educators, and food experts need to encourage and model critical thinking (CT) to participate in our world of mass information and mitigate misinformation. These experts can play a vital role in the evaluation of information about food and nutrition against the body of evidence. This article explores the role of CT and ethics of practice in the context of misinformation and disinformation by providing a framework for engaging with clients and offering a checklist for ethical practice.

Turning Discoveries into Treatments: Immunology in Africa.

An exemplar outcome of an immunology-based intervention is vaccine development; the current COVID-19 pandemic is a case in point. Can we build an immunology research ecosystem in Africa that nurtures discovery and enables translation? We see African immunologists as key agents of change and discuss obstacles and opportunities.