NIH Institutional Training Programs: Preparing a Successful T32 Application

1. NIH Institutional Training Programs: Preparing a Successful T32 Application Alison K. Hall, Ph.D. Deputy Director Division of Training, Workforce Development and Diversity National Institute of General Medical Sciences National Institutes of Health June 28, 2013

2. PhD Training Continues to Evolve NIH has supported research training since 1930s fellowships thru the 1950s National Research Service Award 1975 (i.e. T32, F30/31, F32; MARC) Ruth L. Kirschstein -funding to scientists, not health professionals -to enhance research training -in scientific areas with need for researchers -good curricula, facilities, program in add’n to research -dedication to developing talent NIH Regional Seminar June 28, 2013

3. PhD support is largely on research grantsConsider differences in apprenticeship vs a program Source: Graduate Student Survey, NSF

4. Training In light of Multiple Career OutcomesEmployment of Biomedical Science PhDs by Sector Source: http://sestat.nsf.gov/

5. Training in light of limited diversity in workforce Biomedical Workforce US Population Source: US Census; NSF, 2007

6. Snapshot of the PhD Biomedical Workforce http://acd.od.nih.gov/Biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf College Graduates NOTE: The color of the numbers reflects the confidence in the accuracy of the data. 18% Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~22,500 2% Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~2,500 13% Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~17,000 18% Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~24,000 6% Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~7,000 43% (23% tenured) Biomedical US- trained PhD 2008 ~55,000 Unemployed Industrial Research Academic Research or Teaching Government Research Science Related Non-Research Non-Science Related 16,000in 2009 Graduate Education & Training 2009 Total:83,000 Time to Degree :5.5-7yrs 2009 Graduates: 9,000 International 4,000 in 2009 8% of graduates leave the US Of graduates who stay in the US 30%skip a postdoc 70% do a postdoc 5,800 in 2009 PostdoctoralTraining 2009 Total: 37,000to68,000 Median Length: 4 years 1,900to3,900 in 2009 Post-Training Workforce • Total of ~150,000Biomedical US-trained PhD’s (128,000Biomedical US-trained PhDs)

7. Institutional Training Programs • Enhance research training through a coordinated programmatic approach • Involve many faculty, multiple departments • Trainees are selected by the institution • Parent Announcement Update • T32 FOA updates expected July • appl due January 2014

8. Strategies to Develop a Strong Proposal Start Early Consider why a TG is important for your program Be very sure there is a PROGRAM Complete tables before finalizing narrative Review the review criteria Explain, explain, explain. Remember reviewers are expert faculty familiar with training

9. Institutional Training Review Criteria • ~750 Electronic TG Submissions (May; Sept, Jan) • Center for Scientific Review to Institute/Center • Study Section—Initial Review Group • 3-4 reviewers • Established scientists, many with training experience • Program merit • Scored Review Criteria: • 1. Training Program and Environment • 2. Training Program Director/Principal Investigator • 3. Preceptors/Mentors • 4. Trainees • 5. Training Record Overall Impact Score: 1-9 • Institute or Center Council • Program relevance, guidance to program staff

10. Hallmarks of Good Training Programs Student development for biomedical team experience, contributions, growth, project Contemporary, mentored research education broad and deep academic curriculum research skills and knowledge conceptual judgment, right questions communication skills Career development for multiple outcomes as a scientist (fellowships, mtgs, papers) teaching activity? Leadership? Mgmt? externships? Policy? Workshops? Responsible Conduct

11. Training Programs are Developmental, not Selection Program Activities Planned interventions Milestone/ Outcomes Intended changes Potential Trainees How select for TG and why Mentored Research PI, advisory comm research design new techniques Planned Curriculum knowledge teaching Skill building oral communication writing workshops new collaborations Contemporary science meet new scientists Career Exposure know next steps Matriculant UG major Research Interest Courses taken Lab affiliation PhD Program Pilot research Short term Research publications Poster, meeting Fellowship Longer term Next position Biomedical career Research grants Mentoring others

12. Active Program Beyond Research in PI lab “value added” PROGRAM IS MORE THAN WORK IN A LAB Active nomination, selection of candidates from pool Planned academics with flexibility Seminars, enhancement activities Longitudinal program beyond funding Faculty trainer responsibilities make program strong Intentional activities to achieve outcomes

13. 1. Training Program and Environment  • Are the research facilities and training environment conducive to prepare trainees for successful careers as biomedical scientists? • Do the objectives, design and direction of the proposed research programensure effective training? • Is the proposed program of training likely to ensure that trainees will be prepared for successful and productive scientific careers? • Do the courses, where relevant, and research training experiences address state-of-the-art science relevant to the aims of the program? • Does the program provide training in inter- or multidisciplinary research and/or provide training in state-of-the-art or novel methodologies and techniques? • Is a significant level of institutional commitment to the program evident?

14. 2. Training Program Director/Principal Investigator • Does the Training PD/PI have the scientific background, expertise, and experience to provide strong leadership, direction, management, and administration to the program? • His/her trainees, outcomes • Does the PD/PI plan to commit sufficient time to the program to ensure its success? • Is sufficient administrative and research training support provided for the program? • Is a strong justification provided that the multiple PD/PI leadership approach will benefit the training program and the trainees? • roles and responsibilities, governance, and organizational structure consistent with and justified by training program and with the complementary expertise of PD/PIs?

15. 3. Preceptors/Mentors • Are sufficient numbers of experienced preceptors/mentors with appropriate expertise and funding available to support the number and level of trainees proposed in the application? • 3-4x faculty available to student, not all one lab… • Do the preceptors/mentors have strong records as researchers, including successful competition for research support in areas directly related to the proposed research training program? How diverse are faculty? • Do the preceptors/mentors have strong records of training pre- and/or postdoctorates?

16. 4. Trainees • Is a recruitment plan proposed with strategies to attract high quality, diverse, trainees? • Are there well-defined and justified selection criteria and retention strategies? • Nomination, re-appointment criteria, process • Is there evidence of a competitive applicant pool in sufficient numbers to warrant the proposed size and levels? • TG is catalytic, supports a third(?) of relevant TGE students

17. 4. Trainees (cont) For renewal applications, how successful has program been in attracting and retaining individuals from diverse populations, including populations underrepresented in science? Report Trainees Training Grant Eligible Students from groups underrepresented in biomedical science Students with disabilities, defined as physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

18. Once in program, students change minds …and make choices about careers • Graduate students in basic biomedical sciences • Many initially have goal of academic research • Midway thru PhD are considering multiple careers • What does the change in attitude mean? • didn’t know possibilities when began grad school • perhaps worried about academic path • learned more about what’s enjoyable • identified next steps for careers • Fuhrmann et al 2011 CBE Life SciEducn 10: 239-249

19. How Assess Skills and Interests?Individual Development Plan To be used in training, fellowships, RPGs…

20. The IDP involves • The scholarThe mentor • self assessment familiarity with opportunities • Survey opportunities discuss opportunities • Write IDP review IDP, help revise • Implement plan assess new tasks, progress • in light of the plan • Skills assessment-strengths and weaknesses • Career match- do goals match skills and interest • Do it again next year

21. 5. Training Record How successful are the trainees in completing the program? How productive are trainees in terms of research accomplishments and publications? How successful are trainees in obtaining further training appointments, fellowships, and/or career development awards? How successful are the trainees in achieving productive scientific careers, as evidenced by successful competition for research grants, receipt of honors or awards, high-impact publications, receipt of patents, promotion to scientific leadership positions, and/or other such measures of success?

22. 5. Training Record • For programs that provide research training to health-professional doctorates, is there a record of retaining health professionals in research training or other research activities for at least two years? • Does the program have a rigorous evaluation plan to assess the quality and effectiveness of the training? • Annually assess outcomes? • Adapt to changes? • Test intervention hypothesis? • Are effective mechanisms in place for obtaining feedback from current and former trainees and monitoring trainees’ subsequent career development?

23. Institutional TrainingAdditional Review Criteria & Considerations • Additional Review Criteria • Protection for Human Subjects • Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children • Vertebrate Animals • Biohazards • Resubmission, Renewal, Revision factors • Additional Review Considerations: • Diversity Recruitment Plan • Training in Responsible Conduct of Research • Select Agent Research • Budget and Period of Support

24. Table 1. Participating Departments (Finish this table last…complicated) Table 1 Instructions: Provide the total number of current faculty members, predoctoral trainees, and postdoctoral trainees in each participating department/program. Indicate the number of faculty members participating in this training grant application, the numbers of predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees with the participating faculty, and in parenthesis put the number of these trainees who are training grant eligible (TGE). For renewal applications, include the number of trainees currently supported by the training grant. Faculty members may count as part of both their primary department and an interdepartmental program(s). Predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees count only once and should be associated with a single department or program. underrepresented minorities (Group A), who are individuals with disabilities (Group B), or who are individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds (Group C). Rationale: This table provides insight into the environment in which training will take place. It allows reviewers to assess whether the program has the "critical mass" (trainees, faculty and other research personnel, and representation/distribution of scientific disciplines) to be successful. 24

25. Table 2. Participating Faculty Members (Easy, easy to modify as program shapes up. Start here)

26. Table 3. Existing Institutional Training Grants Explain overlapping faculty!

27. Table 4. Grant Support of Faculty

28. Table 5. Training Record of Faculty

29. Table 5B. Training Record of Faculty

30. Table 6. Publications of Trainees

31. Table 7A. Admissions and Completion Records for Participating Departments and Programs

32. Table 8A. Qualifications of Recent Predoctoral Applicants

33. Table 9A. Qualifications of Current Predoctoral Trainees

34. Table 10. Admissions and Completion Records of Underrepresented Individuals

35. Table 11. Appointments to the Training Grant for each Year of Past Award

36. Table 12A. Predoctoral Trainees Supported by this Training Grant TG1, TG2...Early, late…Explain use of slots!

37. Table 12A. Predoctoral Trainees Supported by this Training Grant (cont)

38. The Narrative • Background • Describe data in Tables 1, 2, 3: • Departmental Membership, Participating Faculty Members, Other TG Support • Program Plan • What students will do & why • timeline? Course structure? Expectations? • Program Faculty • Describe data in Tables 4, 5, 6: • Faculty Grant Support, Trainees, Publication of Trainees

39. The Narrative (cont) • Proposed Training • Training Program Evaluation • Trainee Candidates-Recruitment • Institutional Environment and Commitment • Admissions and Completion Records of Trainees (Tables 7A and/or 7B) • Qualifications of Applicants (Tables 8A and/or 8B)

40. The Narrative (cont) • Current Trainee Qualifications (Tables 9A and/or 9B) • Recruitment and Retention Plan to Enhance Diversity (Tables 1, 7 A/B, Renewal Apps Table 10) • Plan for Instruction in Responsible Conduct of Research • For Renewal Applications—Progress Report (Tables 11, 12 A and/orB)

41. Narrative (cont) Human Subjects Vertebrate Animals Select Reagent Research Multiple PD/PI leadership plan Consortium/Contractural Agreements Faculty biosketches Appendix

42. The Narrative (cont) Human Subjects Vertebrate Animals Select Reagent Research Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan Consortium/Contractual Agreements FACULTY BIOSKETCHES Appendix

43. Thank YouFor more info contact:Alison Hall PhD alison.hall@nih.gov