Unrealized potential from smaller institutions: Four strategies for advancing STEM diversity.

Diversity within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains disturbingly low. Relative to larger, highly funded universities, smaller schools harbor more diverse student demographics and more limited resources. Here, we propose four strategies leveraging the unique advantages of smaller institutions to advance underrepresented scholars along STEM pathways.

Using virtual interviewing to create a more accessible hybrid academic job market.

Virtual interviewing has become ubiquitous with the academic job market. Here, we highlight the best practices for candidates and departments to consider when using virtual interviewing. We propose how virtual interviews can be leveraged and adapted for hybrid academic job searches combining virtual and in-person activities in a post-pandemic world.

Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention.

Faculty hiring and retention determine the composition of the US academic workforce and directly shape educational outcomes1, careers2, the development and spread of ideas3 and research priorities4,5. However, hiring and retention are dynamic, reflecting societal and academic priorities, generational turnover and efforts to diversify the professoriate along gender6-8, racial9 and socioeconomic10 lines. A comprehensive study of the structure and dynamics of the US professoriate would elucidate the effects of these efforts and the processes that shape scholarship more broadly. Here we analyse the academic employment and doctoral education of tenure-track faculty at all PhD-granting US universities over the decade 2011-2020, quantifying stark inequalities in faculty production, prestige, retention and gender. Our analyses show universal inequalities in which a small minority of universities supply a large majority of faculty across fields, exacerbated by patterns of attrition and reflecting steep hierarchies of prestige. We identify markedly higher attrition rates among faculty trained outside the United States or employed by their doctoral university. Our results indicate that gains in women's representation over this decade result from demographic turnover and earlier changes made to hiring, and are unlikely to lead to long-term gender parity in most fields. These analyses quantify the dynamics of US faculty hiring and retention, and will support efforts to improve the organization, composition and scholarship of the US academic workforce.

Recruiting women faculty through inclusive, family-friendly practices.

Recruitment of STEM faculty is biased against parents and caregivers. Specifically, women experience discrimination associated with childrearing and marriage. Underestimating the value of these candidates leads to a tremendous loss of talent. Here, we present a toolkit to facilitate the recruitment of talented women caregivers by providing guidelines for hiring.

Creating accessibility in academic negotiations.

The process of evaluating and negotiating a tenure-track job offer is unstructured and highly variable, making it susceptible to bias and inequitable outcomes. We outline common aspects of and recommendations for negotiating an academic job offer in the life sciences to support equitable recruitment of diverse faculty.

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors.

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

Key attributes of successful research institutes.

Science does not take place in a vacuum: The physical and social workplace has a profound influence on scientific discoveries. Everyone at a research institute can contribute to its scientific output and productivity, from faculty research groups to facilities and platforms staff to administration and corporate services. Although the researchers addressing exciting scientific questions are key, their efforts can be fostered and directed by the overarching strategy of the institute, interconnection with facilities and platforms, and strong and directed support of the administration and corporate services. Everybody counts and everybody should be empowered to contribute. But what are the characteristics that make scientific organizations and their people flourish? This Essay looks at the structure and culture of successful research institutes, laying out different operational strategies and highlighting points that need be taken into consideration during their implementation.

Faculty as catalysts for training new inventors: Differential outcomes for male and female PhD students.

STEM PhDs are a critical source of human capital in the economy, contributing to commercial as well as academic science. We examine whether STEM PhD students become new inventors (file their first patent) during their doctoral training at the top 25 U.S. universities (by patenting). We find that 4% of PhDs become new inventors. However, among PhDs of faculty who are themselves top (prolific) inventors, this figure rises to 23%. These faculty train 44% of all the new inventor PhDs by copatenting with their advisees. We also explore whether new inventor PhDs are equally distributed by gender. In our university sample, the female share of new inventors is 9% points (pp) lower than the female share of PhDs. Several channels contribute to this: First, female PhDs are less likely to be trained by top inventor advisors (TIs) than male PhDs. Second, they are less likely to be trained by (the larger number of) male top inventors: The estimated gap in the female % of PhDs between female and male TIs is 7 to 9 pp. Third, female PhDs (supervised by top inventors and especially by other faculty) have a lower probability of becoming new inventors relative to their male counterparts. Notably, we find that male and female top inventors have similar rates of transforming their female advisees into new inventors at 4 to 8 pp lower (17 to 26% lower rate) than for male advisees. The gap remains at 4 pp comparing students of the same advisor and controlling for thesis topic.

Ninety-eight semesters of cytochrome P450 enzymes and related topics-What have I taught and learned?

This Reflection article begins with my family background and traces my career through elementary and high school, followed by time at the University of Illinois, Vanderbilt University, the University of Michigan, and then for 98 semesters as a Vanderbilt University faculty member. My research career has dealt with aspects of cytochrome P450 enzymes, and the basic biochemistry has had applications in fields as diverse as drug metabolism, toxicology, medicinal chemistry, pharmacogenetics, biological engineering, and bioremediation. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with the Journal of Biological Chemistry not only as an author but also for 34 years as an Editorial Board Member, Associate Editor, Deputy Editor, and interim Editor-in-Chief. Thanks are extended to my family and my mentors, particularly Profs. Harry Broquist and Minor J. Coon, and the more than 170 people who have trained with me. I have never lost the enthusiasm for research that I learned in the summer of 1968 with Harry Broquist, and I have tried to instill this in the many trainees I have worked with. A sentence I use on closing slides is "It's not just a laboratory-it's a fraternity."

Ten simple rules for leading a successful undergraduate-intensive research lab.

Participating in mentored research is an enormous benefit to undergraduate students. These immersive experiences can dramatically improve retention and completion rates, especially for students from traditionally underserved populations in STEM disciplines. Scientists typically do not receive any formal training in management or group dynamics before taking on the role of a lab head. Thus, peer forums and shared wisdom are crucial for developing the vision and skills involved with mentorship and leading a successful research lab. Faculty at any institution can help improve student outcomes and the success of their labs by thoughtfully including undergraduates in their research programs. Moreover, faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions have special challenges that are not often acknowledged or addressed in public discussions about best practices for running a lab. Here, we present 10 simple rules for fostering a successful undergraduate research lab. While much of the advice herein is applicable to mentoring undergraduates in any setting, it is especially tailored to the special circumstances found at primarily undergraduate institutions.

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists.

OBJECTIVE: To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists. BACKGROUND: Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice. METHODS: An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies. RESULTS: Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations. CONCLUSIONS: Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.

Diversifying faculty recruitment in biomedical sciences.

A wealth of data has consistently demonstrated that a diverse faculty maximizes productivity and innovation in the research enterprise and increases the persistence and success of groups that are underrepresented in STEM. While the diversity of students in graduate programs has steadily increased, faculty diversity, particularly in the biomedical sciences, continues to remain relatively flat. Several issues contribute to this mismatch between the pipeline and the professoriate including biases in search and hiring practices, lack of equity and equal opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, and unwelcoming campus climates that lead to marginalization and isolation in academic life. A comprehensive approach that addresses these challenges is necessary for institutions of higher education to achieve their faculty diversity goals and create a climate where individuals from all groups feel welcomed and succeed. This article focuses on the first step in this approach-diversifying faculty recruitment through adopting search practices that generate an applicant pool that matches national availability, ensures equity in evaluation and hiring practices, and promotes inclusion and belonging in the hiring experience. These strategies have been recently used at the University of California, Irvine's School of Biological Sciences and while the long-term impact remains unknown, short-term outcomes in recruitment and hiring have demonstrated significant improvement over previous years.

Advancing Diversity in Behavior Genetics: Strategies for Incorporating Undergraduates into Student-Driven Research.

Undergraduate research experiences are crucial for fostering the next generation of behavior genetics researchers. However, incorporating undergraduates into research can be challenging for faculty mentors. In this article, we provide strategies for successfully integrating undergraduates into behavior genetics research based on our experiences mentoring undergraduates in our lab. These strategies include: (1) Practicing reflexivity, specifically an ongoing self-examination and critical self-awareness of personal biases, beliefs, and practices; (2) Implementing an Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) centered approach; (3) empowering students through clear expectations; (4) Providing focused training and mentorship; (5) Aligning research projects with student interests; (6) Assigning meaningful tasks; and (7) Facilitating professional development opportunities. By following these strategies, faculty mentors can cultivate a supportive and inclusive research environment that empowers undergraduates for successful careers in behavior genetics research.

A generation of junior faculty is at risk from the impacts of COVID-19.

For junior investigators starting their independent careers, the challenges of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic extend beyond lost time and are career threatening. Without intervention, academic science could lose a generation of talent.

Increasing Trainee Engagement in Surgery Societies: The Society of Asian Academic Surgeons Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical societies provide a plethora of resources for trainees; however, these opportunities are often underused due to suboptimal guidance, sponsorship, or mentorship. Here, we present the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons (SAAS) experience in enhancing the trainee experience and engagement in a surgical society focused on professional development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an interactive idea-generating session during the 2022 SAAS Conference with all Associate Members (trainees) present in Honolulu, HI. Recurrent themes, concepts, and ideas/suggestions were carefully considered when planning the next SAAS Conference in Baltimore, MD. We employed a more targeted approach to trainee engagement at the 2023 SAAS Conference, with breakout sessions geared toward various levels of trainees, in addition to increased social events and networking opportunities. We obtained feedback from trainees in attendance through an electronic survey and informal conversations with faculty and Associate Members. RESULTS: Opportunities for surgical subspecialty networking was the most well-received portion of our formal Career Development program. The majority of trainees in attendance were medical students or junior residents who valued the exposure to junior faculty and those in leadership positions at academic institutions. The addition of a group text for easy communication among trainees and informal social activities for Associate Member networking among themselves were crucial in improving the overall conference experience. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to maximize trainee engagement in surgical societies are heightened during in-person conferences. Targeted session topics, guided networking opportunities, and creating channels for easier communication along with more social events have enhanced the overall experience for aspiring and current surgical trainees.