Jessicaon May 4, 2017 at 10:37 am said:
I agree. I’d love to see the Ks done away with and R01s for new PIs require a 10% senior investigator mentor who can guide them on things like handling a budget, hiring staff, overseeing staff and time management; along with actual scientific mentoring. It would seem to me that it would offer a graceful and dignified transition for senior investigators nearing the end of their careers. And it would serve new investigators better than 5 years of being mentored on a project that they can’t afford to do on a K budget.
DM had a comment:
Funny, I hear noobs grumbling all the damn time about asshole reviewers suggesting adding senior colleagues https://t.co/jEwHPfkIxt
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) May 11, 2017
I think there is something more problematic here. I'm guessing Jessica is a basic scientist. I am guessing Jessica has a (relatively) new TT job, and is struggling to get funding to keep her lab afloat and do What Needs To Be Done to get tenure. Which, needless to say, involves R-level funding. I feel for the Jessica's of this world, as I mentor a passel of them here, and elsewhere. T
The first result or consequence of doing away with K's will likely be more Olde Fartes getting R-awards. I do not think putting more money into R's, even with an explicit commitment to NI/ESI folks, will result in more of those people being funded. It hasn't worked so well thus far, right? Even limiting PI's to 3 awards, I'm not sure additional funding will end up going to younger folks. We need to work towards ways of making that happen.
A second consequence of doing away with K's would be to seriously change the make-up of who does research. One goal of the many K's (and yes, there are about a dozen different K mechanisms, see below) is to help clinical researchers. There are K mechanisms explicitly for clinicians and explicitly for clinical research. These are different things, and while the overlap, they do not completely overlap. Such awards are marvelously successful at helping clinicians. This is part of the reason I suspect Jessica is a basic scientist/non-clinician. I cannot imagine any clinical person, independent of clinical degree making that statement.
I have mentored (and been The Mentor on many K23's, etc) clinicians. They have a different set of problems and imperatives governing their lives, which present them with issues different from basic scientists, or even basic-science (ie non-practicing) PhDs who do clinical research. I'm not just thinking Physicians/MDs, but also PTs, OTs, SLPs, PhD's in Psych, etc. There are clinical programs that give you a PhD at the end (SLP, Psych). There are folks who have a Masters-level clinical degree, or even the relatively new DPT degree, but went back and got a basic science PhD, and do research that falls in the middle of the spectrum. Frequently, the debt load of clinicians is higher than science-PhDs. There are not tuition waivers and TA's for these people. The logic is that they are going to make a lot of money when they are done. And, thus, the pressure (internal and external) to have a clinical practice (in whatever form they practice) is much higher. Whereas basic scientists often teach as well as research, these guys see patients, run clinics, make rounds, do surgery, whatever, and so at a much higher time commitment than most PhDs in anatomy or neuroscience or physiology or cell biology departments.
Stay with me. I know the reflexive impulse of basic-science PhD's/researchers is to despise such people. To hate on the medical students (if you teach medical students). I anticipate the various objections: they chose a clinical career and get paid for it. Yes, true. But does that mean they shouldn't do research? I am betting there are lots of you who say no. I do believe that there are lots of clinicians doing good, valuable and otherwise unapproachable research (and yes, there is a huge amount of garbage, turned out by people who think the letters after their name mean they Know Something). But, to be brutal, what basic scientists think is nearly irrelevant here. The NIH thinks differently, and the NIH wants clinicians doing clinical research. Which, as an aside, often doesn't require the same financial support as basic science bench work.
K-awards are a critical life saver to young clinical people. Yes, there is not much money for research in these awards. But if you are 70-80% clinical that means you have ONE DAY each week to do your research. One day each week, in 48-50 weeks in a year. Its not just teaching a course in the fall, and then having all spring/summer full time for research. Its not even teaching two courses in the fall and one in the spring and doing summer school. The 20% "protected" time that clinicians get is a much more honest estimate of effort spent than lots of the estimates I've see of teaching effort at MRU. The K-award is the difference between a successful research-clinician career and a pure clinical career, which at BSD/MRU institutions is like not getting tenure.
So here is a list of most of the K-awards. Go through the kiosk and look at the K-awards. Some are for "scientists" but most are for clinicians. Keep in mind not all IC's sponsor/accept/give out awards for all of these mechanisms. The K-awards that exist for experienced post-docs, but not TT, don't have a lot of money. But they are a damn good alternative to being an adjunct.
For support of a postdoctoral or early career research scientists committed to research, in need of both advanced research training and additional experience.
For support of an early to mid-career scientists with research funding, in need of additional protected time committed to research.
To support either a mentored or independent investigator to develop or enhance curricula, foster academic career development of promising young teacher-investigators, and to strengthen existing teaching programs.
To provide the opportunity for promising clinician scientists with demonstrated aptitude to develop into independent investigators, or for faculty members to pursue research, and aid in filling the academic faculty gap in health profession's institutions.
To provide support for newly trained clinicians appointed by an institution for development of independent research skills and experience in a fundamental science within the framework of an interdisciplinary research and development program.
To provide support to outstanding newly trained basic or clinical investigators to develop their independent research skills through a two phase program; an initial mentored research experience, followed by a period of independent research.
To provide support for the career development of clinically trained professionals who have made a commitment to patient-oriented research, and who have the potential to develop into productive, clinical investigators.
To provide support for mid-career clinicians with research support, to allow for protected time to devote to patient-oriented research and to serve as mentors for beginning clinical investigators.
To support the career development of investigators with quantitative scientific and engineering backgrounds outside of biology or medicine who have made a commitment to focus their research endeavors on basic or clinical biomedical research.
To provide research support and protected time to a junior scientist with a faculty position at an LMIC institution leading to an independently funded research career.
To advance the development of physician-scientists prepared to take an active role in addressing present and future challenges of a global biomedical research enterprise.
To support both an initial mentored research experience (K99) followed by independent research (R00) for highly qualified, postdoctoral researchers, to secure an independent research position. Award recipients are expected to compete successfully for independent R01 support during the R00 phase.