Creating Opportunities for Young Investigators

Top

00:00:13.13 I'm going to talk about what I believe
00:00:15.16 to be one of the serious problems affecting
00:00:17.19 the U.S. national science structure.
00:00:19.27 The enduring and the worsening funding challenges
00:00:23.08 that are facing young investigators in the United States.
00:00:25.26 Data points to the gravity of this problem.
00:00:29.04 Most scientists doing biomedical research
00:00:32.05 in the United States are supported by grants
00:00:34.04 from the National Institutes of Health.
00:00:35.29 The RO1 is the leading National Institutes of Health
00:00:40.15 research grant and a prerequisite to a career
00:00:43.06 as an independent investigator.
00:00:44.29 We know that the average age
00:00:47.28 at which an investigator with a medical degree
00:00:50.05 receives her first RO1 or equivalent grant
00:00:52.22 has risen from less than 38 years old in 1980
00:00:57.14 to more than 45 in 2013.
00:00:59.13 We know that the number of principal investigators
00:01:03.11 for RO1s who are 35 years old
00:01:06.12 or younger declined from 18% in 1983
00:01:10.15 to less than 2% in 2014.
00:01:13.21 And the problem extends to beyond the RO1, as well.
00:01:17.17 The percent of all grant funding
00:01:20.10 awarded to scientists from the NIH
00:01:22.21 under the age of 36 has dropped from 5.6%
00:01:26.26 in 1980 to 1.3% in 2012.
00:01:31.09 These numbers are alarming.
00:01:34.26 And they demand action.
00:01:36.13 Now of course, behind the numbers
00:01:38.26 lies a real human toll to this problem.
00:01:41.29 Those of us at universities
00:01:44.24 are regularly confronted by the wrenching harm
00:01:47.18 of our failure to address this issue.
00:01:51.01 We see this when we look at the effect
00:01:54.02 on early career scientists in a number of different ways.
00:01:56.19 The exceptionally talented faculty members
00:01:59.14 who cannot obtain funding and leave
00:02:01.27 academic research for positions in industry.
00:02:04.12 Who leave the country for opportunities in other countries,
00:02:08.07 where they're well funded.
00:02:09.15 Or most alarmingly, who leave science altogether.
00:02:12.26 And of course there are the students
00:02:16.08 who would have come into biomedical research
00:02:20.17 but then decide to pursue other careers
00:02:22.20 because they're aware of the obstacles ahead.
00:02:25.00 The departure of a generation of scientists
00:02:28.23 from the academic biomedical workforce
00:02:31.07 in turn poses great risks for the future of science.
00:02:35.09 The dangers are many and include
00:02:38.05 the gradual evaporation of a pipeline of new discoveries
00:02:42.05 and therapeutics that can make significant differences
00:02:45.11 in the lives of patient populations.
00:02:47.06 The loss of a generation of future leaders
00:02:50.00 and mentors in science.
00:02:51.10 A delay in the introduction of greater diversity
00:02:54.25 in the biomedical workforce.
00:02:56.14 Because after all, we know that we have to
00:02:59.15 bring in new people from diverse backgrounds
00:03:02.02 to replace the generation that is retiring.
00:03:05.06 And if one looks at paradigm shifts in science,
00:03:07.21 the path breaking discoveries that advance
00:03:10.19 our understanding of the world
00:03:12.08 accelerate the innovative approaches to medicine
00:03:15.10 that save lives and improve the human condition.
00:03:18.02 The linkage of youth with these major
00:03:20.27 scientific breakthroughs has been confirmed
00:03:23.23 in a number of different studies.
00:03:26.00 Finally, compare this to how we treat
00:03:29.04 the ideas of early career professionals
00:03:31.07 in other industries, in areas such as technology,
00:03:34.05 and software, and finance.
00:03:35.13 Where we've created pathways for the young
00:03:38.05 to create and lead with platforms for innovation
00:03:41.10 and advancement in opportunity.
00:03:42.21 We send important signals
00:03:44.21 that this is an arena where people entering
00:03:48.01 this setting will be welcomed
00:03:50.23 and their career aspirations supported.
00:03:53.00 And yet, in academic medicine,
00:03:55.03 our funding challenges send a very different
00:03:58.25 signal and seem to tell our students
00:04:02.10 that the promising opportunities,
00:04:04.23 the fertile avenues for discovery,
00:04:06.29 are disappearing.
00:04:08.09 So what are the causes of this problem?
00:04:10.25 How did we get here?
00:04:12.09 First, I think it's really important to emphasize
00:04:14.26 that this is not a new problem.
00:04:16.26 About a decade or so ago,
00:04:18.26 the National Academy of Sciences published
00:04:20.22 a report by a blue ribbon panel of scientists called
00:04:23.16 "Bridges to Independence."
00:04:25.03 That identified several of the problems
00:04:27.00 I discussed earlier.
00:04:28.08 And proposed a number of solutions.
00:04:30.00 And yet, the data that I chronicled earlier,
00:04:33.19 has only gotten worse since these articles
00:04:36.05 and reports. Now are the proposed solutions flawed?
00:04:40.02 Or are there policy barriers
00:04:42.09 to making these changes?
00:04:44.08 Or is there some other issue that explains
00:04:46.16 our lack of progress on this issue?
00:04:48.22 These are among the questions that we need
00:04:51.21 to unravel in thinking through a good
00:04:54.06 and durable solution to this problem.
00:04:55.22 Second, I want to underscore that this is not an easy problem.
00:05:00.22 The problem is complex and multifactorial.
00:05:03.20 The national funding ecosystem
00:05:06.25 has many interlocking parts.
00:05:08.17 And a complicated set of stakeholders
00:05:10.27 and incentives. And of course, it has been
00:05:13.18 enormously successful to date
00:05:15.14 and in truth, for all of its frailties
00:05:18.19 and challenges, it is still a model that is emulated
00:05:21.19 by other countries around the world.
00:05:23.08 Now that's not to say that we can become complacent
00:05:27.03 or that there is not a need to change.
00:05:29.26 Indeed it is imperative that we consider
00:05:31.22 and take steps to refine our system.
00:05:33.24 It's just to say that
00:05:35.20 any changes we make should be exercised
00:05:38.16 with care, in the finest traditions of the very science
00:05:42.02 we are seeking to support
00:05:43.04 based on sound data and assessment.
00:05:46.02 With that in mind, what are the likely causes?
00:05:48.25 One obvious candidate is the substantial contraction
00:05:52.07 of NIH funding over the last decade.
00:05:55.05 That decrease has been substantial.
00:05:58.07 It is by more than 20%
00:06:00.28 in real terms over the last decade.
00:06:03.11 And there is no question that that has had a real impact.
00:06:06.19 There is less funding for all.
00:06:08.07 A problem that reverberates
00:06:10.05 throughout the biomedical workforce.
00:06:11.24 And of course, can have a particular impact
00:06:14.02 on early investigators.
00:06:15.06 But even in the time of doubling
00:06:18.03 of NIH funding, around the turn of the 21st century,
00:06:20.28 we saw that the data for young investigators
00:06:23.26 worsening. So when times are good
00:06:26.08 or times are bad, young investigators
00:06:28.21 still have not been holding up well
00:06:30.21 in terms of the receipt of NIH funding.
00:06:33.07 So there must be something else going on.
00:06:35.23 Another possible explanation is
00:06:38.25 the impact of longer training periods.
00:06:40.17 Scientists emerge from their postdocs
00:06:43.08 much older than they used to be.
00:06:44.25 And so they can be expected to be older
00:06:47.17 when they obtain their first grants.
00:06:48.28 The data indicates that this explains
00:06:51.26 some but not all the problem that we see
00:06:54.11 in the data. And of course, even if it does explain
00:06:57.25 part of the problem, there is reason to doubt
00:07:00.13 this is a healthy thing. Some have argued
00:07:03.12 that a body of scientific knowledge
00:07:05.11 has grown over time, that is,
00:07:07.14 the body of scientific knowledge,
00:07:08.19 rather has grown over time
00:07:09.21 and young investigators need to train
00:07:11.24 for longer periods to obtain the level
00:07:13.23 of required mastery to support
00:07:16.24 robust independent research.
00:07:18.19 However, I'm really skeptical that this
00:07:21.18 mastery hypothesis offers a compelling reason
00:07:25.03 to tolerate the delay in funding for young scientists.
00:07:27.14 The library of scientific knowledge has been
00:07:31.00 expanding for centuries, and yet there was a time
00:07:33.22 in the very recent past, when we felt comfortable
00:07:37.07 in trusting even our youngest scientists
00:07:38.11 with scientific independence and a faculty position.
00:07:42.11 And didn't feel that they had to spend time
00:07:44.29 in laborious training programs before they were
00:07:47.13 eligible to compete for funds.
00:07:49.26 A third explanation is what I call
00:07:53.28 incumbency advantage.
00:07:55.27 Or the idea that there is something endemic
00:07:58.26 to the grant application selection process
00:08:01.12 that disadvantages early career investigators
00:08:05.19 in comparison to other scientists.
00:08:08.07 And these disadvantages can be
00:08:10.01 due to everything from
00:08:11.19 the complexity of the application process,
00:08:13.25 to the ways in which the peer review process
00:08:16.16 can favor established actors.
00:08:18.18 To the catch-22 of the need for preliminary data
00:08:21.27 to obtain an RO1, but the difficulty
00:08:24.17 of obtaining preliminary data without an RO1.
00:08:28.00 So what do we do to address this challenge?
00:08:31.03 We need to use an evidence based
00:08:33.24 and scientific approach to solving this problem.
00:08:35.22 In light of the complexity of this problem,
00:08:38.18 I don't believe that we should favor any
00:08:40.26 one great idea, one single instrumental work,
00:08:44.05 to drive reform in this area.
00:08:45.09 We should be in the mode of active experimentation,
00:08:49.02 and hypothesis testing and consider
00:08:51.28 a range of possible solutions.
00:08:53.26 The problem is complex and multifactorial
00:08:56.25 and ultimately, the remedies that we propose
00:08:59.21 are going to have to be complex and
00:09:01.25 involve a range of different initiatives.
00:09:04.04 So here, in thinking about the things that we
00:09:07.05 can do to tackle the issue
00:09:09.07 of funding for young scientists.
00:09:11.18 We should train our sights on three
00:09:14.11 broad actors. Congress, the NIH,
00:09:17.21 and then of course, other stakeholders
00:09:19.25 in the system, like research universities,
00:09:22.18 with which I am affiliated.
00:09:24.11 With regard to Congress,
00:09:26.26 as I noted, the fate of early career investigators
00:09:30.02 is at least in part, a function
00:09:32.10 of the decline in congressional appropriations
00:09:35.00 that has diminished the purchasing power
00:09:37.16 of the NIH by more than 20%
00:09:40.07 over the last decade.
00:09:42.04 This has had a profound effect on scientific
00:09:45.03 funding, as I said earlier.
00:09:47.02 And here, Congress let this situation unfold
00:09:51.13 and so to it, it is only Congress
00:09:53.15 that has the ability to change the trajectory
00:09:55.20 of funding. And in fact, in recent months,
00:09:58.16 we have seen the House pass
00:10:00.24 legislation to increase core NIH
00:10:03.13 funding and develop new funding streams
00:10:05.20 for young scientists.
00:10:07.10 This is really encouraging
00:10:08.27 and that we hope the Senate will follow in train
00:10:12.18 and ultimately, we will be able to restore
00:10:15.07 funding to the levels that we saw at the turn of the century.
00:10:20.11 Now, assuming that Congress is able to remedy
00:10:25.15 the funding challenges that the NIH and all the stakeholders
00:10:29.05 in this system experience, then of course
00:10:31.15 one wants to take a look at the ways
00:10:33.06 in which the NIH funds the system,
00:10:35.26 the way it allocates the funds that it receives.
00:10:38.17 Here, one area of possible reform,
00:10:41.19 lies in the greater emphasis of people based
00:10:44.16 rather than grant based research funding.
00:10:47.05 Now the classic example of successful
00:10:50.08 people based funding model
00:10:51.25 comes from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes.
00:10:54.00 Indeed, Howard Hughes recently announced
00:10:56.28 a new faculty scholars program
00:10:58.15 with the Gates and Simons Foundations
00:11:01.05 that would commit almost $150 million
00:11:03.17 for young investigators
00:11:05.05 with the potential to make unique contributions
00:11:07.25 to their fields, and give these recipients
00:11:10.18 the freedom to pursue complex long range
00:11:13.22 questions. Another area of reform
00:11:17.02 involves continuing to experiment with tailored grants
00:11:19.29 to young investigators. Now the NIH, in truth,
00:11:23.13 has tried its hand at new funding schemes
00:11:25.12 of this sort in recent years.
00:11:27.00 And these initiatives are laudable,
00:11:29.11 but as we know, they have not yet solved the problem.
00:11:32.12 And more creative approaches will be needed to overcome
00:11:35.29 the structural barriers confronted by young scientists.
00:11:38.19 Such as incorporating milestones,
00:11:41.10 or opportunities for preliminary data,
00:11:43.12 into the grant programs for
00:11:45.22 the unproven early stage investigator.
00:11:48.14 Remember, it's these investigators,
00:11:51.02 the unproven investigators,
00:11:52.22 those who are willing to take new and
00:11:55.17 arresting approaches to common challenges,
00:11:58.21 these are the people that we've got to find
00:12:00.28 and support and give them a chance
00:12:03.06 at contributing to the development of our
00:12:05.20 scientific field.
00:12:07.16 Still, other areas of reform
00:12:09.28 involve improving peer review.
00:12:12.01 Now this is an area that's seems particularly
00:12:14.12 susceptible to experimentation and data collection.
00:12:17.09 And yet, one recent article
00:12:20.03 noted that "for a system that determines
00:12:22.25 the fate of scientific proposals,
00:12:24.20 peer review is remarkably unscientific."
00:12:28.04 Can we experiment with the changes to voting
00:12:31.19 rules or the constitutional review panels
00:12:34.12 in order to try to address some of the network
00:12:37.17 effects that I discussed earlier?
00:12:39.10 That again, stand in the way of
00:12:41.22 young scientists receiving appropriate
00:12:44.15 levels of funding.
00:12:45.27 And finally, this leads to my concluding point.
00:12:49.15 Which is some of the solutions,
00:12:51.26 will need to emerge from all stakeholders.
00:12:54.27 Including, of course, within research universities,
00:12:58.04 like mine. Can research universities do more
00:13:02.02 to support their own biomedical workforce?
00:13:04.19 Through changes in the way that they structure
00:13:06.24 laboratories, organize core facilities,
00:13:08.29 and design postdoc fellowships.
00:13:11.22 Can we find a way to compress the period for
00:13:15.07 graduate training?
00:13:16.15 Can we think about novel ways
00:13:18.13 to compress, for instance, the long
00:13:20.29 period of training for MD PhD students?
00:13:24.06 Again, if we can do this faster,
00:13:26.22 we get our scientists out into the field earlier,
00:13:30.03 where they can compete for funding.
00:13:31.25 Can we find ways to create sustainable
00:13:34.06 non-faculty positions for scientific research
00:13:37.16 within the academy? Positions that come
00:13:39.25 with status and support, with proper promotional
00:13:43.00 opportunities, that will again lead to the professionalization
00:13:46.06 of the field.
00:13:48.05 Universities must lean into these problems, as well.
00:13:51.00 As part of a true systems
00:13:53.00 approach to biomedical research.
00:13:54.16 And such approach looks to refine
00:13:57.13 the incentives we set for the U.S. biomedical workforce
00:14:00.19 at this pivotal moment, so that it can continue
00:14:03.21 to be model for the world,
00:14:05.26 for generations to come.

This Talk

Speaker: Ronald J. Daniels

Audience:

Educators of H. School / Intro Undergrad
Student
Educators of Adv. Undergrad / Grad
Researcher

Recorded: September 2015

Talk Overview

Ron Daniels highlights the challenges facing young investigators. In light of the increasingly difficult funding situation and other barriers facing young investigators, Daniels observes that we are at risk of losing a generation of future scientists, leaders, and mentors, as well as hindering a more diverse biomedical workforce. Daniels recognizes that a problem of this complexity demands multifaceted solutions and explores changes that can be made in Congress, the NIH, and at research institutions to draw promising young scientists to biomedical research careers.

Speaker Bio

Ronald J. Daniels

Ronald J. Daniels is the 14th president of Johns Hopkins University. Since taking office in 2009, Daniels has focused his leadership on three overarching themes – enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration, individual excellence, and community engagement. He has been a leading voice on issues from research funding challenges facing early career scientists to the role universities can… Continue Reading