Job-search basics: how to convert a CV into a resume.

For broad scientific careers, resumes serve as critical job-search tools. This Commentary provides a strategy for writing an effective resume for searching for a nonacademic job.

Ahead of her time: The multidimensional impact of Marie Ussing Nylen.

Marie Ussing Nylen was a trail blazing scientist and administrative leader at the US National Institutes of Health. She accomplished this when it was extremely difficult for a woman to do so. She was also a whole person - a wife, mother, and talented athlete, that is, a well-rounded person by any definition. She was a gift to dental and oral science, as well as to those fortunate enough to know and work with her.

Gender disparity among ophthalmologists awarded Canadian institute of health research grants.

Despite efforts toward equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic ophthalmology faculties, gender disparity continues to exist. Current evidence indicates that female ophthalmologists consistently hold lower academic ranks and receive less funding from the National Institutes of Health compared to their male colleagues. The extent of this disparity is unknown in the Canadian context. We sought to characterize the gender gap in Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding among ophthalmologists. From inception, funding decision data were collected from the official Canadian Institutes of Health Research website database hosted by the Government of Canada. Measures including gender, number of grants held over the study period, number of simultaneous grants, and total funding were collected. Female ophthalmologists were consistently awarded fewer grants (21.43 percent) compared to male counterparts and were less likely to hold multiple grants since 2008. An over five-fold disparity was found in total funding for female compared to male ophthalmologists. As well, females were less likely than males to hold a grant in each particular year except in 2020. Female ophthalmologists continue to face barriers to attaining academic support from Canadian Institute of Health Research funds. Continued action to mitigate this gender gap may improve gender-based parity in federal research funding.

Academic Influence as Reflected by h Index Is Not Associated With Total Industry Payments but Rather With National Institutes of Health Funding Among Academic Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons.

PURPOSE: (1) To compare the total number and dollar amount of industry funding and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and (2) to examine the impact of academic influence on industry funding and NIH funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. METHODS: Academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were identified using faculty web pages. Academic influence was approximated by a physician's Hirsch index (h index) and number of publications and obtained from the Scopus database. Total industry payments were acquired through the Open Payments Database, and NIH funding was determined from the NIH website. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlations with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Physicians who received industry research payments and NIH funding had a significantly higher mean h index and more mean total publications than physicians who did not receive industry research payments and NIH funding. There were no significant differences in h index (P = .374) or number of publications (P = .126) between surgeons receiving industry nonresearch funding and those who did not. h Index and number of publications were both weakly correlated with the amount of industry research and nonresearch funding. CONCLUSION: Although academic influence is associated with industry research funding and NIH funding, there is no association between measures of academic influence and total industry and industry nonresearch payments. Combined with the weak associations between academic influence and the amount of industry payments, academic influence does not appear to be a major determinant of industry funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should be cognizant of potential conflicts with industry, but the relationship between academic sports medicine surgeons and industry may be less subject to bias than previously believed.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. METHODS: Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation = $21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation = $224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38 ± 22 vs. 22.64 ± 22.7, P = .02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97 ± 127.2 vs. 100.3 ± 122.3, P = .03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.

Narrowing the gap: Health disparities formidable foe for healthcare providers.

Expanding access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act won't by itself fix the nation's health disparities. Healthcare systems recognize they have to change, too.

NIH research funding and early career physician scientists: continuing challenges in the 21st century.

Physician scientists (researchers with either M.D. or M.D.-Ph.D. degrees) have the unique potential to combine clinical perspectives with scientific insight, and their participation in biomedical research has long been an important topic for policymakers and educators. Given the recent changes in the research environment, an update and extension of earlier studies of this population was needed. Our findings show that physician scientists are less likely to take a major role in biomedical research than they were in the past. The number of physician scientists receiving postdoctoral research training and career development awards is at an all-time low. Physician scientists today, on average, receive their first major research award (R01 equivalent) at a later age than in the 1980s. The number of first-time R01-equivalent awards to physicians is at the same level as it was 30 yr ago, but physicians now represent a smaller percentage of the grant recipients. The long-term decline in the number of physicians entering research careers was temporarily halted during the period of substantial U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget growth (1998-2003). These gains are lost, however, in the subsequent years when NIH budgets failed to keep pace with rising costs.

Identifying and Applying for Professional Development Funding.

Participation in ongoing professional development can be critical for maintaining up-to-date knowledge in your field, as well as preparing for promotions and job changes. Career development activities may include formal classroom education, web-based courses, on-the-job training, workshops and seminars, professional conferences, and self-study programs. Developing a career development plan, cultivating a team to support your goals, and actively pursuing continuing education and skill-building opportunities are important across all career stages. However, the financial cost of these opportunities can often place them beyond reach. In this commentary, we summarize several potential sources for career development funding as well as best practices for completing the application process.

How Do I Evolve as a Research Nurse Practitioner?

Which career path will enable me to see the impact of my work in real time in improving a patient's life? I wondered this until I earned my first nursing degree, followed by a nurse practitioner degree. Soon after, two highly competitive opportunities, a year-long advanced practice RN fellowship and a month-long National Institute of Nursing Research Summer Genetics Institute at the National Institutes of Health, really helped me to have the necessary training and knowledge to shape my career. So, when I got an opportunity to become a research nurse practitioner and manage chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy clinical trials for patients with multiple myeloma, I knew I had found an answer to my question.

Early Outcomes of a New NIH Program to Support Research in Residency.

The work of physician-investigators has historically led to key discoveries and developments in modern medicine, but recent decades have seen significant declines in the number of U.S. physician-investigators. One of the barriers to physicians participating in research is the lack of mentored research opportunities during clinical training, especially during residency training. In response to this identified barrier and to expand the physician-investigator workforce, the National Institutes of Health initiated the R38 program, known as Stimulating Access to Research in Residency, to support mentored research opportunities for residents. This article reports on the early outcomes of the recipients of the initial round of R38 awards, granted in 2018. Early positive outcomes include increases in the reported likelihood of resident-investigators pursuing physician-investigator careers, greater reported clarity in resident-investigators' research directions, the commitment of additional institutional resources to support the R38-awarded programs, and the approval of resident-investigators as having met training requirements for certification by multiple medical boards.

NIH conflict-of-interest guidelines.

In the News & Comment article "Super Collider advocates tangle with cost cutters" by Mark Crawford (12 Jan., p. 152), the collision energy of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) was incorrectly described as being two orders of magnitude greater than that of the Tevatron. The SSC's collision energy is supposed to be 40 trillion election volts-20 times that of the Tevatron. In addition, the $7.2-billion cost estimate for the project is based on inflated dollars, not constant dollars, as was stated.