Research Scientists

Abstract

Jennifer M. Noto, PhD. The Paths and Places columnist for this issue is Jennifer M. Noto, PhD, Research Instructor in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works with Dr Richard M. Peek. Dr Noto provides practical advice for succeeding in a career as a non–tenure-track scientist in academia. We hope this column will be relevant not only to research scientists but also to junior investigators considering this career path and principal investigators considering working in their own laboratories with research scientists. We welcome feedback on this new Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology column as well as suggestions for future topics. Comments and topic suggestions can be emailed to [e-mail]. REBECCA WELLS, MD, AGAF Associate Editor CMGH Most individuals who obtain PhDs in the basic sciences aspire to tenure-track research careers in academia, but, in reality, the majority of scientists do not end up pursuing or obtaining these positions. Because of the limited number of tenure-track jobs, the plethora of highly trained PhD scientists, and the increasing diversity in scientists’ career aspirations, alternative scientific career paths and academic research track positions are becoming increasingly prevalent. In 2012, an Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health Director reported that only 23% of PhD scientists in biomedical research obtained tenure-track academic positions, while nearly 20% obtained non–tenure-track academic positions focused on research and teaching. The nontenure academic research track is becoming a desired career path for many scientists and is well suited for many of the scientists who desire a fulfilling research career that allows them to capitalize on their strengths, advance scientific research in a collaborative fashion, and balance research with teaching and leadership responsibilities. My career path has followed a fairly straightforward trajectory. When I began my PhD in microbiology and immunology, I was in the majority, aspiring to a tenure-track career in academia. I took a postdoctoral position in a clinical department within the Division of Gastroenterology that focused on both basic and translational research. During my postdoctoral training, however, my long-term career goals shifted because I discovered how much I enjoyed spending my time performing research and training/mentoring others at the bench. As a result, I began exploring career options that included more research- and teaching-intensive career paths. After completing my postdoctoral training, I was recruited within my postdoctoral laboratory to become a research instructor on a nontenure academic research track within the Division of Gastroenterology. This career path has been very fulfilling and has allowed me to focus the majority of my time on research. With the support of my mentor, I also have had ample opportunity for teaching, mentoring, and leadership within the laboratory, and also teaching opportunities within the university in courses relevant to my training and research. This commentary is intended to provide practical advice for scientists considering this and similar career paths. Based on my experiences, there are several factors that are important to achieving success on an academic research scientist path. These include the following: (1) research, (2) publication, (3) funding, (4) mentorship, and (5) networking and collaboration. One of the most important factors in achieving success as an academic research scientist is choosing and establishing research projects that are tailored specifically to your strengths and expertise as a scientist. Research scientists in gastroenterology (and any scientific field) should focus on projects they are well suited and trained for, projects about which they are passionate, and projects that have some translational implications within the context of human health and disease, particularly when working within a clinical discipline. Sometimes this can be difficult when working in a laboratory of a tenure-track professor and principal investigator, but it is important to consider these factors when accepting a position on a research-intensive track. Depending on the level of independence within the laboratory, research scientists may have some freedom to drive the direction of the research projects in the laboratory. Regardless of the field and extent of clinical research, it is always important to see the big picture and recognize the potential translational impacts of the research. All of these factors will contribute to the success of research projects, and the translational component will enhance the significance and impact of the work with regard to both publication and funding. Success for research scientists is defined by authorship. Publication provides the essential framework for both current and future accomplishments in science, and establishing a solid and consistent record of publication is the major contributing factor to achievement and the gold standard for measuring success on an academic research scientist career track. Authorship is something that should be discussed with the mentor/principal investigator at the start of each project. Factors to consider when it comes to authorship include the source of funding for the specific research project, the extent of collaboration within the project, and the responsibilities of each author. These are discussions that should occur in the early stages of a research project to avoid any potential conflict or authorship issues. In addition to a strong publication record, establishing a track record of funding also can be important. Research funding is not always a required component for non–tenure-track research scientists, but can be an important factor to their overall success. It is important to note that requirements for funding on this path can be university- and department-specific. The availability of funding sources also can depend on the research scientist’s degree of independence within a laboratory. If the possibility of funding is open, there are diverse funding sources available to research scientists through the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, discipline-specific private and public organizations, nonprofit organizations, institutional funding, and even departmental funding. Career development grants are relevant and appropriate for research scientists within the early stage of their research career, but also can be a pathway to independence. Some grants require independence or the promise of independence from the university once funding is achieved. There are smaller grants available for discipline-specific research that are desirable for research scientists on this track. Funding for pilot projects through these smaller grants typically are discipline-specific and emphasize explicit research topics, and this is a funding opportunity to closely monitor within discipline-specific organizations. When eligible, it is important to seek out these unique opportunities and establish a track record of funding application and success. When successful, these opportunities may provide leverage within the laboratory to move the research in a different direction and also can provide leverage for advancement within the laboratory, department, and university. Although research, publication, and funding are instrumental to the success of research scientists, none of these are possible without exceptional mentorship from the principal investigator of the laboratory and others. Choosing a mentor is one of the most important decisions facing research scientists and is important not only for scientific training, but also for future career development in academia. Each individual’s needs are different and it is important to establish a framework for a prosperous mentor-mentee relationship, which includes setting realistic expectations, defining personal goals, establishing scientific and professional development plans that promote success, and defining accurate measures of success for both the mentor and mentee. It is useful to establish a professional development and training plan that can be assessed and discussed on an annual basis. This plan should include goals for the upcoming year and a strategy on how those goals will be accomplished and measured. This plan should include ongoing and proposed research projects, plans for publication, opportunities for collaboration, plans for presenting and attending scientific meetings, and opportunities for professional development, service, and teaching. It is important to remember that mentoring relationships are mutually beneficial. A successful mentor/principal investigator typically provides a well-funded and well-established research environment for research scientists to prosper scientifically. The mentor/principal investigator also provides opportunities for professional development and advancement within the laboratory, department, and scientific community. At the same time, research scientists provide a high level of expertise to the laboratory and the ongoing research projects. They execute the research and facilitate new scientific discovery in an efficient and timely manner, which allows for increased productivity and available funding to the laboratory. In addition to their contribution to research, research scientists also contribute significantly to scientific training and mentoring at the bench and teaching in the classroom. This mentor-mentee relationship can evolve over time and it is important to reassess expectations and goals continuously throughout the duration to maintain a prosperous and productive relationship for both the mentor and mentee. Apart from performance and productivity, networking and collaboration also contribute significantly to a prosperous scientific career and are essential for a successful career in academia. These relationships can be spearheaded by the mentor/principal investigator or individually, but it is important to always keep the mentor involved in these collaborations. To establish efficacious collaborative relationships, it is important to invest sufficient time and energy into these relationships and respective research projects. It is critically important to set realistic expectations, define mutual goals, and embrace the concept that it is a mutually beneficial relationship that requires respect, concession, and compromise from everyone involved. Productive collaborations and scientific/professional networks can greatly accelerate and advance scientific discovery, which make them very important components of success in academia. Regardless of the career path, success in academic research depends on consistency and productivity within a specific field or related fields of research, and this is defined and measured specifically by a strong publication record and, depending on the institution, grant funding. Actively establishing and maintaining fruitful mentor-mentee relationships, productive collaborations, and a network of scientific experts and professionals throughout a research career will greatly enhance and expand research productivity and thereby promote academic success for research scientists.