Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Reviews
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Top read articles
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Perspectives

  • 13 Articles
  • 0 Posts
  • ← Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next →
Training the physician-scientist: views from program directors and aspiring young investigators
Christopher S. Williams, … , Robert Salata, Mone Zaidi
Christopher S. Williams, … , Robert Salata, Mone Zaidi
Published December 6, 2018
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2018;3(23):e125651. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.125651.
View: Text | PDF

Training the physician-scientist: views from program directors and aspiring young investigators

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

There is growing concern that the physician-scientist is endangered due to a leaky training pipeline and prolonged time to scientific independence (1). The NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group has concluded that as many as 1,000 individuals will need to enter the pipeline each year to sustain the workforce (2). Moreover, surveys of postgraduate training programs document considerable variability in disposition and infrastructure (3). Programs can be broadly grouped into two classes: physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) that span residency and fellowship training, and research-in-residency programs (RiRs), which are limited to residency but trainees are able to match into PSTPs upon transitioning to fellowship (Figure 1). Funding sources for RiRs and PSTPs are varied and include NIH KL2 and T32 awards, charitable foundations, philanthropy, and institutional support. Furthermore, standards for research training and tools for evaluating programmatic success are lacking. Here, we share consensus generated from iterative workshops hosted by the Alliance of Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) and the student-led American Physician Scientists Association (APSA).

Authors

Christopher S. Williams, Audra N. Iness, Rebecca M. Baron, Olujimi A. Ajijola, Patrick J. Hu, Jatin M. Vyas, Robert Baiocchi, Alexander J. Adami, Jeremie M. Lever, Peter S. Klein, Linda Demer, Michael Madaio, Mark Geraci, Lawrence F. Brass, Melvin Blanchard, Robert Salata, Mone Zaidi

×

Talking TOR: a conversation with Joe Heitman and Rao Movva
Corinne L. Williams
Corinne L. Williams
Published February 22, 2018
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2018;3(4):e99816. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.99816.
View: Text | PDF

Talking TOR: a conversation with Joe Heitman and Rao Movva

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Authors

Corinne L. Williams

×

Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output
Marisa L. Conte, … , Santiago Schnell, M. Bishr Omary
Marisa L. Conte, … , Santiago Schnell, M. Bishr Omary
Published June 15, 2017
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2017;2(12):e95206. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.95206.
View: Text | PDF

Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The US continues to lead the world in research and development (R&D) expenditures, but there is concern that stagnation in federal support for biomedical research in the US could undermine the leading role the US has played in biomedical and clinical research discoveries. As a readout of research output in the US compared with other countries, assessment of original research articles published by US-based authors in ten clinical and basic science journals during 2000 to 2015 showed a steady decline of articles in high-ranking journals or no significant change in mid-ranking journals. In contrast, publication output originating from China-based investigators, in both high- and mid-ranking journals, has steadily increased commensurate with significant growth in R&D expenditures. These observations support the current concerns of stagnant and year-to-year uncertainty in US federal funding of biomedical research.

Authors

Marisa L. Conte, Jing Liu, Santiago Schnell, M. Bishr Omary

×
  • ← Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next →

No posts were found with this tag.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2023 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts