FASEB BioAdvances

BackgroundThe main mission of NIH-sponsored institutional training programs such as the T32 is to provide strong research and career training for early career scientists, while preparing those individuals to become leaders working to meet the health-related research needs of the nation. One of the main avenues to pursue health-related research is becoming research faculty at an academic institution. It is therefore important to know whether these programs are succeeding in this mission, or, if barriers exist that prevent trainees from pursuing these careers. MethodsOur institution currently trains ~ 2400 post-doctoral scholars per year, approximately 5% of whom are enrolled in one of our 33 T32 programs. In this study, we 1) compare the professional outcomes of T32 trainees with non-T32 trainees at our institution, and 2) survey past and current T32 trainees in a subset of high-performing cardiovascular programs about the barriers and enablers they experienced to pursuing research-oriented careers. ResultsFormer T32 trainees are significantly more likely to attain appointments as primarily research faculty members, compared to other trainees. Trainees report a perceived lack of stability, the paucity of open positions, and the publish or perish competitive mentality of academia as their top reasons for abandoning careers in academia. However, they were still more likely to choose research over clinical careers after participating in a dedicated T32 program. ConclusionsOur results support the conclusion that structured training programs strengthen the pipeline of young scientists pursuing careers in academic research, including those from underrepresented backgrounds. However, T32 postdoctoral researchers are held back from pursuing academic careers by a perceived lack of stability and high competition for faculty positions. FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The Post-baccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP), established by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health in 2000, was a research-intense, one-year training program for recent college graduates from backgrounds uncommon in science who intended to matriculate with a PhD or MD/PhD program in preparation for an eventual career in biomedical research. Case Western Reserve University had an NIGMS-supported PREP (CasePREP) from 2007 to 2025, the year NIGMS terminated the PREP funding mechanism. A major goal of CasePREP was to prepare post-baccalaureate trainees (termed Scholars) for graduate school, and major metrics of success were measured as Scholars who a) matriculated in and b) completed PhD or MD/PhD programs. A major goal of NIGMS-supported PREPs was the retention of these scientists in the biomedical research workforce. We report here the extent that CasePREP met program goals as well as the economic and scientific impact NIGMS-supported PREP has had for a variety of stakeholders. Data from 18 CasePREP cohorts included self-reported (surveys, interviews, questionnaires) and public data (websites, PubMed, NIH Reporter). Descriptive statistics and large language models were used to describe the major outcomes related to program goals and a new resilience course as well as Scholar productivity and contribution to science. Between 2007 and 2025, CasePREP was awarded $5.6 million USD and trained 108 Scholars. Most (89%) Scholars resided outside of Ohio prior to the start of CasePREP, with 38.89% from Puerto Rico. Almost all (98%) Scholars completed the one-year program in Cleveland, Ohio, and of those, 83% entered a PhD or MD/PhD program. As of September 2025, 46 Scholars have completed a PhD program, two Scholars have completed an MD/PhD program, and 27 are still in training. The attrition rate for CasePREP Scholars in graduate school is currently 14.77%, much lower than the attrition rates of national PhD programs. Most CasePREP Scholars (69.44%) are co-authors on one or more published manuscripts, and these 406 published works have garnered 14,261 total citations, with an average 35.04 citations per publication. Termination of PREP represents a five-year loss of [~]$2.7 million USD to CasePREP, a budget that would have trained an additional 30 Scholars. CasePREP was a great success as measured by its major outcomes. CasePREP Scholars have persisted in science and have made substantial contributions to the scientific workforce and enterprise. PREPs in general provided a crucial bridge for research talents who had little prior research opportunities to realize their potential and career goals. NIGMS termination of PREP support has negative economic consequences and endangers an important pathway to a career in science for Americans who would not otherwise have similar opportunities.

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job-searching workshops, site visits, and internships. An initial concern was since doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, having students participate in additional complementary training activities might lengthen time to degree and hamper student research productivity. To address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity, metrics were analyzed from ten BEST awardee institutions. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Furthermore, a few institutions even demonstrated a positive correlation between participation in career and professional development activities and productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce. Significance StatementOur study is unique in that it compiled doctoral degree durations at ten different universities, recorded individual participation in career and professional development activities in terms of dosage, and tracked individual engagement in real-time rather than relying on surveys sent to trainees after graduation. Participation in career and professional development activities, including internships, did not decrease efficiency or productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.

In modern science, interdisciplinary and collaborative research is encouraged among scientists to solve complex problems. However, when the time comes to measure an individuals academic productivity, collaborative efforts are hard to conceptualize and quantify. In this study, we hypothesized that a social behavior coined "scientific civility", which encompasses civility, collaboration, cooperation, or a combination of these, enhances an individuals productivity influencing their academic performance. To facilitate recognition of this unique attribute within the scientific environment, we developed a new indicator: the C score. We examined publicly available data from 1000 academic scientists at the individual-level, focusing on their scholarly output and collaborative networks as a function of geographic distribution and time. Our findings strongly suggest that the C score gauges academic performance from an integral perspective based on a synergistic interaction between productivity and collaborative networks, prevailing over institutionally limited economic resources and minimizing inequalities related to the length of individuals academic career, field of investigation, and gender. Author SummaryThe increased connectivity between fields and specialties of science is undeniable. We propose a new indicator, the C score, to assess the value of collaborative efforts and research output to a scientists academic performance. This indicator reflects collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts and provides a measure of "scientific civility" and teamwork. The C score may be used as a decision-making tool to track career advancement within the academic environment. Along with other indicators such as the h index, the C score supports a more integrative and holistic assessment of an individuals academic performance.

Established by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) in 2001, the Career Award at the Scientific Interface (CASI) is a career development award for scientists with doctoral training in the physical/mathematical/computational sciences or engineering conducting postdoctoral research in the biological sciences. The goal of the program is to support early career scientists interested in pursuing an independent research career with an interdisciplinary focus. In order to assess the benefit of the CASI award on recipients, the authors undertook a retrospective analysis of the funding data for CASI recipients to evaluate success against matching cohorts. These cohorts included applicants who succeeded to the final interview stage but were ultimately unsuccessful (interviewed), applicants who submitted proposals but did not make it to the final interview stage (proposal declined), and a randomly selected dataset of researchers from a comparable program, the highly competitive Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The results indicate that CASI recipients outperformed unsuccessful applicants and their K99/R00 counterparts in federal grant rates and overall grant dollars. The authors conclusion affirms that the CASI mechanism and BWF support successfully achieve the objective of invigorating the careers of young investigators, resulting in tangible downstream long-term effects.

When a biomedical or basic science doctoral (PhD) student considers whether or not to become a Principal Investigator (PI), they typically base their decisions on anecdotal data from a limited number of faculty mentors. Alternatively, they may look online for guidance and be met with biased opinions rather than unbiased, comprehensive data. We sought to address this gap by anonymously surveying active faculty at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU Anschutz) to gain more clarity on the daily life of a PI, the decisions they made as they navigated their career path, and which skills were valuable for securing a faculty position. We also identified important factors in choosing a postdoctoral lab. We found that the majority of PIs would recommend becoming a PI and thought positively of the career path, with most feeling content. But attitudes differed between faculty of different ranks. Further, in addition to scientific vision, hard work, and publications, luck was also deemed as an important factor in becoming and succeeding as a PI. We present our findings so that they may serve as a resource for graduate trainees who are considering a PI/academic research career path. In addition, the information may guide future training plans to optimize achievement of their dream career.

Notable reports over the past dozen years have recommended the federal government and others improve data collection on the research workforce in the United States. The federal government already collects a wealth of data, but important datapoints, like the number of biomedical postdocs working in the U.S., for example, are still not well defined. Furthermore, of the data that are collected, differences in collection method and data naming conventions, like inconsistent naming of universities, hinders our ability to merge information across different datasets. Here I describe the creation of three macros meant to align the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSS) with NIH grants databases based on consolidating university names under a single name common to both databases. Aligning these databases will allow for a deeper understanding of how various federal and university policies affect the number trainees, grants, and funding at individual institutions.

Substantial guidance is available on undergraduate quantitative training for biologists, including reports focused on biomedical science, but far less attention has been paid to the graduate curriculum. In this setting, we propose an innovative approach to quantitative education that goes beyond recommendations of a course or set of courses or activities. Due to the diversity of quantitative methods, it is infeasible to expect that biomedical PhD students can be exposed to more than a minority of the quantitative concepts and techniques employed in modern biology. We developed a novel prioritization approach in which we mined and analyzed quantitative concepts and skills from publications that faculty in relevant units deemed central to the scientific comprehension of their field. The analysis provides a prioritization of quantitative skills and concepts and could represent an effective method to drive curricular focus based upon program-specific faculty input for biological science programs of all types. Our results highlight the disconnect between typical undergraduate quantitative education for life science students, focused on continuous mathematics, and the concepts and skills in graphics, statistics, and discrete mathematics that arise from priorities established by biomedical science faculty. One Sentence SummaryWe developed a novel approach to prioritize quantitative concepts and methods for inclusion in a graduate biomedical science curriculum based upon approaches included in faculty-identified key publications.

Scientific research drives national progress and innovation, and must be protected at all costs. Actions from the Trump administration in early 2025 sent shockwaves across academic research. Federal science budgets were slashed, hundreds of research grants were abruptly frozen or terminated, and politically appointed agency heads overrode peer-reviewed grant decisions. We conducted rapid-response surveys to capture quotes, stories, and data to understand how these seismic shifts were being felt by early career researchers. The majority of survey respondents were PhD students, and early career trainees in varying years of training at a variety of institutions, mainly in the life sciences. Their future in research, funded by major science agencies including NIH, was threatened by funding cuts with varying impacts to their professional endeavors. Survey respondents highlighted concerns with long-term research job prospects and broader systemic issues in academia, leading them to consider leaving the field altogether and/or pursue science in another country. Their opinions highlighted concerns at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels. While universities provided some resources, trainees called upon Congress to protect, stabilize, and restore science funding. They also undertook a number of advocacy actions across the nation. The fight is far from over. Continued support for early career researchers and their careers in research is imperative to continue both in the current environment and into the future, in order to develop a strong workforce and ensure U.S. global competitiveness in science and technology fields.

The ability to address the lack of diversity in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math workforce depends on inclusive and equitable training of doctoral students to succeed in the profession. An important metric used to assess equitable training in bioscience doctoral programs is the number of publications that result from a students research. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there are demographic differences in publication rates among all students in a cohort of bioscience Ph.D. programs at the University of California Los Angeles who graduated between 2011 and 2019. Using institutional data and publication database queries, we determined the number of doctoral publications parsed by authorship position, and the timing of the first publication for each student. The resulting dataset was then analyzed for the relationships between publication categories and student gender, race/ethnicity, and citizenship status. We find that female students published significantly fewer total and co-author papers compared to male students, but had the same number of first-author publications. In contrast, students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups had fewer first-author papers compared to students from well-represented groups, but similar numbers of total and co-author publications. Publication of the first doctoral paper occurred later for female versus male, and underrepresented versus well-represented students. These results provide evidence for distinct patterns of doctoral publication disparities by gender and race/ethnicity, offering insights into a key metric of bioscience student success and informing potential strategies to achieve equitable outcomes in bioscience doctoral education.

Post-baccalaureate (post-bac) programs can be instrumental in strengthening science training and expanding STEM career opportunities for junior trainees. Many of these sponsored programs are designed to increase research exposure for underrepresented minorities, including African American, Hispanic, Native American, and first-generation college students, among others. Recruiting trainees to post-bac programs can be challenging for reasons including a lack of awareness about available programs. To address this gap, an Open House event was created with the goal of raising awareness and generating interest among potential students for future post-bac programs. Students were recruited from partnering Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) to attend a two-day event at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution (PUI) and a Research-Intensive (R1) institution. During the visit, students toured both campuses, learned about various post-bac programs and research opportunities, and interacted with faculty, current graduate students, and a former post-bac scholar. Transportation, lodging, and meals were provided. Participants completed voluntary pre- and post-surveys. Results indicated that attendees, the majority of whom were underrepresented minorities in STEM, left with a stronger understanding of post-bac programs and how these experiences could support their future careers in STEM and that students attendance at the event made it more likely they would apply to available post-bac programs. Mentor and MSI faculty survey responses highlighted their strong support for participating in future recruitment events. These findings demonstrate that in-person Open House events, built on collaborative partnerships across institutions, are an effective strategy for increasing awareness and encouraging participation in post-bac training programs-- particularly among underrepresented student populations.

Historically women have been underrepresented in STEM careers. While the number of women receiving doctorate degrees in the biological sciences has exceeded the number of men since approximately 2005, there is still a disparity between the sexes at more advanced career stages. Achieving equity is an important social goal and there is an expected benefit to science since diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups. There are many factors that contribute to the disparity between men and women in science, including a disparity in research productivity. While many studies have documented this "productivity paradox" and examined factors driving this disparity, few studies have addressed differences in productivity between men and women doctoral students. This is an important population to assess since the individuals are in the formative stages of their academic career and differences in productivity could have a significant impact on career progression. This study addresses this question and identified more than 42,000 doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences working with over 16,000 advisors at 235 institutions in the United States and finds a disparity in research productivity between men and women. Men produce >10% more first author papers, >15% more total papers and their first author papers receive >17% more citations. The findings establish the generality of the gender gap in research productivity among doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences. Redressing this gap at the formative stage of young scientists careers, when they are establishing their credentials to advance in their field, is important to address the disparity between the sexes in the biomedical workforce.

An analysis of over 2.2 million NIH-funded research papers published between 1990 and 2024 reveals that there have been marked declines in the relative and absolute numbers of basic-science oriented publications. In 1990, nearly 60% of NIH-funded publications reported on basic science, with that proportion declining to 24% in 2024. The absolute number of basic science publications increased after the NIH budget doubling of 1998-2023, but at a slower rate than for human-focused publications. After the 2011-2013 budget shocks, the absolute number of basic science publications declined. These data support concerns about the long-term trajectory of NIHs support for basic science.

The recently founded Max Planck PostdocNet brings together postdoctoral researchers (or postdocs) from the Max Planck Society (MPS), provides representation for the postdoctoral community across all Max Planck Institutes (MPI) and associated institutes, and advocates for their interests on their behalf. At the 2019 founding meeting, MPS postdocs quickly raised their concerns about their employment situation and their associated social and working conditions. Subsequently, the PostdocNet conducted the first survey targeting exclusively postdoctoral researchers to gather information on their demographics, employment situations and social conditions. This report presents the results of this survey, providing a thorough characterization of the postdoc demographics as well as the working conditions experienced by the postdoctoral community of the MPS. Remarkably, the survey analysis revealed a number of disparities in the access to employment type, wage level and social benefits. These results will guide future and present MPS postdoctoral researchers and their employers at the MPS to thrive for equality and fairness. Moreover, these results should be of help to the MPS to establish, improve and maintain optimal working conditions for MPS postdocs.

ProblemAll trainees, especially those from historically minoritized backgrounds, experience stresses that may reduce their continuation in science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) careers. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine is one of [~]45 institutions with a National Institutes of Health funded Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) that provides mentoring and a year of fulltime research to prepare students from historically excluded groups for graduate school. Having experienced the conflation of stresses during the COVID-19 pandemic and related shutdown, we realized our program lacked a component that explicitly helped PREP Scholars recognize and cope with non-academic stresses (financial, familial, social, mental) that might threaten their confidence and success as scientists and future in STEMM. InterventionWe developed an early-intervention program to help Scholars develop life-long skills to become successful and resilient scientists. We developed a year-long series comprised of 9 workshops focused on community, introspection, financial fitness, emotional intelligence, mental health, and soft-skills. We recruited and compensated a cohort of PhD students and postdoctoral fellows to serve as Peer Mentors, to provide a community and the safest space for Scholars to discuss personal concerns. Peer Mentors were responsible for developing and facilitating these Community-Building Wellness Workshops (CBWW). ContextCBWW were created and exectued as part of the larger PREP program. Workshops included a PowerPoint presentation by Peer Mentors that featured several case studies that prompted discussion and provided time for small-group discussions between Scholars and Peer Mentors. We also included pre- and post-work for each workshop. These touch-points helped Scholars cultivate the habit of introspection. ImpactThe CBWW exceeded our goals. Both Peer Mentors and Scholars experienced strong mutual support, and Scholars developed life-long skills. Notably, several Scholars who had been experiencing financial, mental or mentor-related stress immediately brought this to the attention of program leadership, allowing early and successful intervention. At the completion of CBWW, PREP Scholars reported implementing many workshop skills into practice, were reshaping their criteria for choosing future mentors, and evaluating career decisions. Strikingly, Peer Mentors found they also benefitted from the program as well, suggesting a potential larger scope for the role of CBWW in academia. Lessons LearnedPeer Mentors were essential in creating a safe supportive environment that facilitated discussions, self-reflection, and self-care. Providing fair compensation to Peer Mentors for their professional mentoring and teaching contributions was essential and contributed meaningfully to the positive energy and impact of this program.

In inherited blinding diseases, such as Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), photoreceptors progressively degenerate, eventually leading to blindness. Unfortunately, effective treatments to prevent or delay vision loss do not exist for most RPs. Dark rearing is known to delay retinal degeneration in preclinical models of RP. Therefore, in this study we evaluated the impact of reducing photoreceptor light signaling on RP progression. This was done by genetically ablating or downregulating transducin in rods or cones in a preclinical RP model carrying a single P23H mutant rhodopsin allele (P23H mice). Ablating rod transducin significantly improved photoreceptor survival in the P23H retina. Additionally, downregulating rod transducin promoted photoreceptor survival and improved rod light response in P23H mice. Remarkably, male P23H mice retained robust cone function until old age in the absence of rod transducin whereas female P23H carriers experienced significantly faster loss of cone function. In these females, reducing cone transducin improved cone function whereas the same treatment was not effective in male P23H carriers. Our data demonstrate that reducing rod or cone transducin expression in P23H mice improves the survival and function of rods and cones, and suggest transducin downregulation as an effective therapeutic strategy to delay photoreceptor degeneration in RP.

The Fly-CURE is a genetics-focused multi-institutional Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) that provides undergraduate students with hands-on research experiences within a course. Through the Fly-CURE, undergraduate students at diverse types of higher education institutions across the United States map and characterize novel mutants isolated from a genetic screen in Drosophila melanogaster. To evaluate the impact of the Fly-CURE experience on students, we developed and validated assessment tools to identify students perceived research self-efficacy, sense of belonging in science, and intent to pursue additional research opportunities. Our data show gains in these metrics after completion of the Fly-CURE across all student subgroups analyzed, including comparisons of gender, academic status, racial and ethnic groups, and parents educational background. Importantly, our data also show differential gains in the areas of self-efficacy and interest in seeking additional research opportunities between Fly-CURE students with and without prior research experience, illustrating the positive impact of research exposure (dosage) on student outcomes. Altogether, our data indicate that the Fly-CURE experience has a significant impact on students efficacy with research methods, sense of belonging to the scientific community, and interest in pursuing additional research experiences.

BackgroundThe global decline in the number of physician-scientists, despite an increase in practicing physicians, underscores a critical need for integrating research training into medical education. Addressing this issue, we established an international research exchange program aimed to enhance scientific literacy, foster transferable skills, and align curricula with European standards through collaborative research experiences. MethodologyThe program enabled reciprocal student mobility, involving eleven medical undergraduates who conducted month-long basic science research projects. Participants also completed comprehensive pre-training in scientific communication, safety protocols, and ethics, and were required to participate in local public engagement events. Feedback from participants, which we present here, was collected via three anonymous, voluntary questionnaires: pre-program, post-program and post-1-year follow-up, which we provide here to support similar initiatives. ResultsDespite challenges and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the program met its objectives, demonstrating adaptability and effective resource management. Feedback revealed significant improvements in participants confidence in research methodologies, critical appraisal of scientific literature, and motivation for future research involvement. ConclusionThis project highlights the potential of structured international exchange programs, particularly among smaller institutions, to address gaps in medical education, enhance scientific training and opportunities in translational research for undergraduates, and cultivate the next generation of physician-scientists.

BackgroundAcademic life is highly competitive and expectations of fair competition underlie the assumption that academia is a meritocracy. However, implicit bias reinforces gender inequality in all peer review processes, unfairly eliminating outstanding individuals and depleting academia of diversity. Here, we ask whether applicant gender biases reviewer assessments of merit in Sweden, a country that is top ranked for gender equality. MethodsWe analyzed the peer review procedure for positions awarded at a Swedish medical University, Karolinska Institutet (KI), during four consecutive years (2014-2017) for Assistant Professor (n=207) and Senior Researcher (n=153). We derived a composite bibliometric score to compute productivity, and compared this to subjective external (non-KI) peer reviewer scores on applicants merits to test their association for men and women, separately. ResultsMen and women with equal merits are not scored equally by reviewers. Men generally have stronger associations (steeper slopes) between computed productivity and subjective external scores, meaning that peer reviewers suitably "reward" mens productivity with increased merit scores. However, for each additional composite bibliometric score point, women applying for Assistant Professor positions only receive 58% (79% for Senior Researcher) of the external reviewer score that men received, confirming that implicit bias affects external reviewers assessments. As productivity increases, the difference in merit scores between men and women increases. ConclusionsAccumulating bias impacts most strongly in the highest tier of competition, the pool from which successful candidates are ultimately chosen. Gender bias is apparent in external peer review processes of applications for academic positions in Sweden, and is likely to reinforce the unbalanced numbers of professorships in Sweden.

PurposeThis paper aims to identify the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the academic job market and the ways in which faculty job applicants altered their applications in response to a changing academia. Design/methodology/approachThe data presented here is the portion relevant to COVID-19 collected in a survey of faculty job applicants at the end of the 2019-2020 job cycle in North America (spring 2020). An additional "mid-pandemic" survey was used in fall 2020 for applicants participating in the following job search cycle to inquire about how they were adapting their application materials. A portion of data from the 2020-2022 job cycle surveys was used to represent the "late-pandemic". Job posting data from the Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC) is also used to study job availability. FindingsExamination of faculty job postings from 2018 through 2022 found that while they decreased in 2020, the market recovered in 2021 and beyond. While the market recovered, approximately 10% of the faculty job offers reported by 2019-20 survey respondents were rescinded. Respondents also reported altering their application documents in response to the pandemic as well as delaying or even abandoning their faculty job search. OriginalityThis paper provides a longitudinal perspective with quantitative data on how the academic job market changed through the major events of the COVID-19 pandemic in North America, a subject of intense discussion and stress, particularly amongst early career researchers.