PhD Scientists Research Articles

Assessing knowledge gaps and educational needs in urine drug test interpretation among health care professionals.

Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately. In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps. Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinicallysignificant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts. The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.

Rates of National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists, 1995-2020

Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists. To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time. This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022. National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties. Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%. This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

A Qualitative Investigation of Burnout and Well-being Among Faculty and Residents in a Canadian Psychiatry Department.

This study used semi-structured interviews with faculty and residents in psychiatry to inform a qualitative, process-based understanding of well-being and related concepts, as well as to identify and critically explore strategies for maintaining well-being in psychiatry. Using interpretive description as a qualitative research methodology, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 12 faculty (nine clinical and three non-clinical) and five residents in a Canadian psychiatry department between September and December 2019, prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and subsequently analyzed for themes by the research team. Fourteen women and three men completed the study, consisting of nine faculty members, five psychiatry residents, and three non-clinical PhD scientists. Four themes were developed from the interview data: (1) The nature of working in academic psychiatry, (2) professional identity as a double-edged sword, (3) feelings of isolation and powerlessness in the system, and (4) strategies to support well-being. In the absence of many qualitative perspectives on well-being in academic psychiatry, the findings of this study can be used as a first step to inform future interventions and meaningful institutional change around well-being in psychiatry. The findings may help to enable conversations about well-being that embrace humanity and vulnerability as essential components of professional identity in psychiatry and provide opportunities for open discussion and support.

Exploring racism in the undergraduate and graduate school choices of scientists and engineers: counterspaces for Black men

Using critical race methodology as a methodological framework, this paper explores how 16 Black men PhD scientists and engineers describe their undergraduate and graduate school choices and how race and racism influenced these processes. Our analysis yielded two descriptive themes focused on counterspaces for Black men in science and engineering (S&E). Implications for higher education researchers and practitioners, and S&E faculty interested in supporting the persistence of Black men pursuing and completing S&E postsecondary degrees are offered within. This paper contributes to the literature by investigating the connections between racism, counterspaces, and undergraduate and graduate choices of Black men pursuing S&E.

Organizations Role in Allocating Immigrants and Native-born Into Analytical versus Interactive Jobs

Applying human capital and social networks-based explanations of the labor market matching framework, this study examines the role of organizational selection channels in allocating high-skilled immigrants and native-born into different types of jobs in the U.S. white-collar labor market. Specifically, it investigates the conditions under which academic organizations are likely to rely on strong versus weakly formalized recruitment channels to screen and hire candidates and its potential effect on sorting immigrants and native-born into analytical versus interactive jobs. Using a nationally representative pooled cross-section sample of PhD scientists and engineers, I demonstrate that when reliable performance records are not readily available such that organizational decision makers rely on faculty referrals to assess the potential of prospective candidates, no immigrant-native differences arise in the job matching process. However, when employment-relevant soft skills about candidates are hard to evaluate and organizations rely on peer referrals to screen applicants, a differential allocation of immigrants and native-born across analytical and interactive jobs are likely to arise because of the former’s lower access to friendship ties than the latter. Thus, human capital-based explanations of labor market matching framework pertaining to the self-selection of immigrants and native-born into analytical versus interactive jobs may overstate individual preferences, knowledge and skills the extent to which employers’ use of specific recruitment channels to hire candidates into specific types of position also contribute to this outcome. Implications of the finding for the representation of immigrant minorities at the upper echelons of organizations are discussed.

A phenomenological exploration of the impact of COVID-19 on the medical education community.

IntroductionThe COVID‐19 pandemic has caused unprecedented stress to the medical education community, potentially worsening problems like burnout and work‐life imbalance that its members have long been grappling with. However, the collective struggle sparked by the pandemic could generate the critical reflection necessary for transforming professional values and practices for the better. In this hermeneutic phenomenological study, we explore how the community is adapting—and even reconceptualising—their personal and professional roles amidst the COVID‐19 crisis.MethodBetween April and October 2020, we conducted 27 (17F, 10M) semi‐structured interviews with medical trainees (8), physicians (8), graduate students (3) and PhD scientists (8) working in medical education in Canada, the United States and Switzerland. Data analysis involved a variety of strategies, including coding for van Manen's four lifeworld existentials, reflexive writing and multiple team meetings.ResultsParticipants experienced grief related to the loss of long‐established personal and professional structures and boundaries, relationships and plans for the future. However, experiences of grief were often conflicting. Some participants also experienced moments of relief, perceiving some losses as metaphorical permissions slips to slow down and focus on their well‐being. In turn, many reflected on the opportunity they were being offered to re‐imagine the nature of their work.DiscussionParticipants' experiences with grief, relief and opportunity resonate with Ratcliffe's account of grief as a process of relearning the world after a significant loss. The dismantling of prior life structures and possibilities incited in participants critical reflection on the nature of the medical education community's professional practices. Participants demonstrated their desire for more flexibility and autonomy in the workplace and a re‐adjustment of the values and expectations inherent to their profession. On both individual and systems levels, the community must ensure that long‐standing calls for wellness and work‐life integration are realised—and persist—after the pandemic is over.

For Ethical Fundraising from Patients, Respect them as Partners.

For Ethical Fundraising from Patients, Respect them as Partners Brendan D. Curti For over 25 years, grateful patient donors and their families have financed breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy at Providence’s Earle A. Chiles Research Institute (EACRI) in Portland, Oregon. Patients and their families have given nearly $200 million to our community hospital-based program—and, while our researchers compete successfully for NIH and other public funding, grateful patient giving currently makes up nearly 70% of our budget. In my 20 years with EACRI, many of my own patients have become financial supporters of our research and volunteer to assist fellow patients in their cancer journey. One of them has contributed several hundred thousand dollars, spoken at events, and provided valuable advice as a member of one of Providence’s foundations, which works to connect the community to our research team. Never during my tenure with EACRI have I experienced medical ethical concerns about a grateful patient donor relationship. Foundation staff members have never asked me to invite a patient to an event or make any other fundraising “move” as part of a clinical visit, and none of my patients have suggested I give them access to a different treatment in exchange for a financial contribution. In fact, engaging patients in supporting our research has been remarkably uncomplicated and deeply rewarding, both professionally and personally. This engagement is not contrived. It doesn’t arise from any grateful patient fundraising training, which I’ve not received. It flows naturally out of my duty (and pleasure) to educate my patients about their disease and treatments, including research options—and out of an understanding shared by everyone in our institute that anyone can contribute to ending cancer. During clinical visits with my patients, my only role is to help them through what is probably the most difficult situation in their lives. But patients are naturally curious about cancer and its treatment, and, as a physician, I am both healer and teacher. Part of answering my patients’ questions is to tell them that we have a research program and that I spend most of my time doing research, along with a large number of PhD scientists. I never volunteer that they can contribute financially or that we have a foundation; if they do ask how we pay for our research, I tell them the truth, that it’s powered mostly by private philanthropy (including my own small gifts), peer-reviewed grants from places like the National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, the Susan B. Komen organization and pharmaceutical companies. If they ask how they can support the research, I let them know that there are brochures in the lobby or ask if they would like us to have a member of our foundation call them. (Our foundation has kindly provided us with stickers with its phone number on them for the backs of our cell phones!) If a patient—any patient, expresses a strong interest in learning more about our research, I ask them if they would like to tour our laboratories. Typically, the foundation handles scheduling without first investigating the patient’s giving capacity. I participate in tours whenever I can, again focusing on education. I talk about the history of the institute, how it came to be that we have world-class immunotherapy here, and some of the research underway. Frequently I tell the story of OX40, how it was derived from research spurred by a patient’s challenging question and received support from private donors before it won NIH funding and developed into a company founded by one of our institute members. If the patient says, “We didn’t know that cancer research was such an important part of the mission here to improve care for patients. How do we support it?” I smile and point to the foundation representative and she takes it from there. To maintain my role as healer and teacher, I never participate in any solicitations or discussions [End Page 9] with donors about potential gifts—though I may participate in reporting out to donors the impact of their giving. I do attend fundraising events with donors, some of whom are my patients. But I...

Advancing Discovery Research in Nephrology in Canada: A Conference Report From the 2021 Molecules and Mechanisms Mediating Kidney Health and Disease (M3K) Scientific Meeting and Investigator Summit.

New discoveries arising from investigations into fundamental aspects of kidney development and function in health and disease are critical to advancing kidney care. Scientific meetings focused specifically on fundamental biology of the kidney can facilitate interactions, support the development of collaborative groups, and accelerate translation of key findings. The Canadian fundamental kidney researcher community has lacked such a forum. On December 3 to 4, 2021, the first Molecules and Mechanisms Mediating Kidney Health and Disease (M3K) Scientific Meeting and Investigator Summit was held to address this gap with the goal of advancing fundamental kidney research nationally. The meeting was held virtually and was supported by a planning and dissemination grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Attendees included PhD scientists, nephrology clinician scientists, engineers, industry representatives, graduate students, medical residents, and fellows. This report was prepared from the scientific program, registration numbers, and details obtained from the online platform WHOVA, and summaries written by organizers and participants of the 2021 meeting. A 21-person team, consisting of the organizing committee members and participants from the meeting, was assembled. Key highlights of the meeting and future directions were identified and the team jointly assembled this report. Participation in the meeting was strong, with more than 140 attendees across a range of disciplines. The program featured state-of-the-art presentations on diabetic nephropathy, the immune system, kidney development, and fibrosis, and was heavily focused on trainee presentations. The moderated "Investigator Summit" identified key barriers to research advancement and discussed strategies for overcoming them. These included establishment of a pan-Canadian fundamental kidney research network, development of key resources, cross-pollination with clinical nephrology, better reintegration into the Canadian Society of Nephrology, and further establishment of identity and knowledge translation. The 2021 M3K meeting represented a key first step in uniting fundamental kidney researchers in Canada. However, it was universally agreed that regular meetings were necessary to sustain this momentum. The proceedings of this meeting and future actions to sustain the M3K Scientific Meeting and Investigator Summit are presented in this article.

Training Physician‒Scientists in Dermatology in Austria

The article by Li et al. (2022) addresses a fundamental problem that may ultimately lead to a situation where the medical globe will be divided into two hemispheres, that is, (i) medical care providers with only a poor understanding of the biological principles securing physiology and causing pathology, and (ii) PhD scientists pursuing biomedical research with deep gaps in their knowledge of human diseases.

Living the best of both worlds: A personal scientific journey.

Opportunity is the essence of a career in science or medicine and this continues to be a major source of satisfaction for the many scientists and health care providers worldwide. Having trained as a PhD scientist, the world of clinical medicine seemed to be a galaxy away. I could not have been more wrong in that assumption. Here, I tell the story of my career trajectory so that those new to the sciences understand the potential and the opportunities afforded by a career in clinical laboratory medicine.

CRO Symeres will change private equity hands

Symeres, one of Europe’s largest chemistry-oriented contract research organizations (CROs), is changing hands. Keensight Capital has agreed to acquire a majority stake in the Dutch firm from Gilde Healthcare Private Equity, which has owned Symeres for 4 years. Symeres expects to have about $85 million in sales this year, split about evenly between drug contract research and contract development and manufacturing of pharmaceutical molecules for Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, says Frank Leemhuis, Symeres’s head of corporate development and one of its founders. The company, created in 2017 by the merger of the CROs Mercachem and Syncom, has more than 500 employees, many of whom are PhD scientists. According to Leemhuis, the sale was precipitated by Gilde’s desire to exit its investment. Keensight, which already owns three biology-oriented CROs, was willing to support Symeres’s growth plans, he says. Those plans could include adding more drug discovery capabilities, entering the

Publishing program: communication bridge and marketing strategy

A modern publisher, in order to be successful, needs proper positioning, which would distinguish it among others, make it noticeable and necessary for the reader, and therefore — in demand in the market. The purpose of the study is to identify the literature that is important and contributes to the formation of personality, which will promoted to create a competitive publishing programs, as components and prerequisites for a successful marketing strategy for Ukrainian publishing houses of intellectual orientation. The theoretical understanding of this problem was based on empirical rapid research with the participation of 223 doctors of science, PhD and other scientists. The materials of the analysis are presented in comparison with the results of others conducted by the authors earlier, in particular among the audience of readers under 25, who confirmed the obvious difference in book interests of different social, professional, age and other groups. &#x0D; The results of the research will contribute to the creation of specific marketing programs by the subjects of publishing in the context of offering the reader sound intellectually important books.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on underrepresented early-career PhD and physician scientists.

Underrepresented minorities have higher attrition from the professoriate and have experienced greater negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of 196 early-career physician-scientists versus PhD researchers who are underrepresented in biomedical research. Participants in the Building Up study answered questions on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their personal and professional lives, and a mixed-methods approach was used to conduct the analysis. While most participants experienced increases in overall stress (72% of PhD researchers vs 76% of physician-scientists), physician-scientists reported that increased clinical demands, research delays, and the potential to expose family members to SARS-CoV-2 caused psychological distress, specifically. PhD researchers, more than physician-scientists, reported increased productivity (27% vs 9%), schedule flexibilities (49% vs 25%), and more quality time with friends and family (40% vs 24%). Future studies should consider assessing the effectiveness of programs addressing COVID-19-related challenges experienced by PhD researchers and physician-scientists, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds.

Patterns of National Institutes of Health Grant Funding to Surgical Research and Scholarly Productivity in the United States.

The aim of this study was to assess the contemporary trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded to surgical investigators, including potential disparities. The NIH remains the primary public funding source for surgical research in the United States; however, the patterns for grants and grantees are poorly understood. NIH RePORTER was queried for new grants (R01, -03, -21) awarded to Departments of Surgery (DoS). Principal investigators' (PIs) data were extracted from publicly available information from their institutions' websites and/or professional social media accounts. The NIH awarded 1101 new grants (total: $389,006,782; median: $313,030) between 2008 and 2018. Funding to DoS has doubled in the last 10 years ($22,983,500-2008 to $49,446,076-2018). Midwest/Southeast institutions and surgical oncologists accounted for majority of the grants (31.9% and 24.5%, respectively). Only 24.7% of the projects were led by female PIs, who were predominantly nonphysician PhD scientists (52% vs 37.7% PhD-only male PIs; P = 0.002). During this time, there was a significant increase from 12.4% to 31.7% in grants awarded to PIs with >15 years of experience. These grants were associated with 8215 publications; however, only 13.2% were published in high-impact journals (impact factor ≥10). 4.4% of the grants resulted in patents, and these were associated with higher award amounts ($345,801 vs $311,350; P = 0.030). On multivariate analysis, combined MD/PhD degree [odds ratio (OR) 5.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.18-16.39; P < 0.001] was associated with improved odds of patent creation; conversely, practicing surgeon PIs affected patent creation negatively (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.11-0.85; P = 0.024). In the last decade, a greater proportion of NIH grants in DoS were awarded to more experienced investigators. Disparities exist among grantees, and female investigators are underrepresented, especially among practicing surgeons.

The National Longitudinal Study of Young Life Scientists: Career differentiation among a diverse group of biomedical PhD students.

Young biomedical PhD scientists are needed in a wide variety of careers. Many recent efforts have been focused on revising training approaches to help them choose and prepare for different careers. However, very little is known about how biomedical PhD students decide on and “differentiate” into careers, which limits the development of new training models. This knowledge gap also severely limits efforts to increase the representation of women and some racial/ethnic groups in academic research careers. Previous studies have used cross-sectional surveys of career interests and ratings, and have not been designed to identify career intentions. They also are limited by single-time data and response bias, having typically asked participants to recount decisions made years in the past. This report draws on annual, in-depth interviews with 147 biomedical PhD students from the start of the PhD to graduation. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to fully understand scientific development and career intentions over time. Longitudinal analysis reveals a striking level of fluidity and complexity in career intentions over time. Contrary to previous studies and the dominant narrative, data do not show generalized shifts away from academic careers. In addition to those who are consistent in this intention from the start, nearly as many students shift toward research academic careers as away from them, and only modest differences exist by gender and race/ethnicity. Thus, the dominant narrative misses the high fraction of individuals who acquire or sustain their intention to purse an academic research career during training. Efforts to increase diversity in academia must capitalize on and support those who are still considering and evolve toward an academic career. Efforts to revise research training should incorporate knowledge of the tremendous fluidity in when and how career differentiation occurs.

Taste for science, academic boundary spanning, and inventive performance of scientists and engineers in industry

Abstract Matching survey data on PhD scientists and engineers currently working in an R&amp;D job in industry with publications and patents, we study the relation between their individual motives and the rate and nature of their inventive output. We find that individuals with a strong taste for science, that is motivated by intellectual challenge, autonomy, and contribution to society, create more novel and impactful patents in industry. These individuals are also more involved in academic boundary spanning, proxied by scientific publications co-authored with academic scientists, and this boundary spanning partially mediates the effect of taste for science on impactful inventive output. In contrast, individuals with a strong taste for salary and career collaborate less with academic scientists, fully mediating the negative effect of taste for salary and career on impactful inventive output.

"The storm has arrived": the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on medical students.

In a few weeks, the global community has witnessed, and for some of us experienced first-hand, the human costs of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is incredible variability in how countries are choosing to thwart the disease’s outbreak, sparking intense discussions around what it means to teach and learn in the era of COVID-19, and more specifically, the role medical students play in the midst of the pandemic. A multi-national and multi-institutional group made up of a dedicated medical student from Austria, passionate clinicians and educators from Switzerland, and a PhD scientist involved in Medical Education from Canada, have assembled to summarize the ingenious ways medical students around the world are contributing to emergency efforts. They argue that such efforts change COVID-19 from a “disruption” to medical students learning to something more tangible, more important, allowing students to become stakeholders in the expansion and delivery of healthcare.

Lessons learned from a year in Washington

Six chemists came to the US capital in the fall of 2018 to learn how the US government works. They spent a year working in federal agencies and Congress as part of a science policy fellowship program. The lessons they learned could help scientists outside the Beltway navigate the government and influence its policy priorities. On a broiling day in Washington, DC, six chemists joined hundreds of PhD scientists packed in a predictably overchilled hotel conference room. This wasn’t your standard chemistry conference, though. They were there to learn about the US government. These scientists were gathered for the first day of orientation for a yearlong fellowship, the equivalent of a postdoc in science policy. The chemists came to their positions in Congress and the executive branch with different levels of experience. What they had in common was wanting to learn more about how science is used in government, and

HIV Research Training Partnership of the University of Zambia and Vanderbilt University: Features and Early Outcomes.

Background:Despite the burden of HIV being highest in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), research expertise and capacity to address scientific questions regarding complications of HIV and ART, especially chronic non-communicable conditions, is limited in the region. The comorbidities prevalent in persons with HIV are mediated through diverse mechanisms, many of which can be context or region-specific and are yet to be elucidated. The phenotype, risk factors, and effective interventions for these conditions may differ between populations and settings, and therefore there is an urgent need for research to help understand these processes and how to best address them in SSA. Here, we report the research capacity building activities in SSA conducted by the University of Zambia (UNZA)-Vanderbilt Training Partnership for HIV-Nutrition-Metabolic Research (UVP), drawing lessons and challenges for a wide global health audience.Methods:We reviewed program data and conducted interviews with program leaders and participants to understand and document the progress and outcomes of the partnership. We report the program’s early achievements, highlighting drivers and challenges.Results:Between 2015 and 2019, UVP made substantial progress on its goals of training new UNZA PhD scientists to investigate complex nutritional and metabolic factors related to long-term HIV complications and comorbidities. The program has supported 11 UNZA PhD students with dual UNZA-Vanderbilt mentorship; three have graduated, and other candidates are progressing in their PhD studies. The project also supported institutional capacity through UNZA faculty participation in Vanderbilt grant writing workshops, with strong success in obtaining grants among those who participated. UVP also supported development of greater structure to UNZA’s PhD program and a mentorship curriculum, both now adopted by UNZA. The major drivers for success included UVP’s alignment of goals between UNZA and Vanderbilt, and local institutional ownership. The longstanding history of collaborations between the two institutions contributed substantially to alignment and mutual support of UVP’s goals. Several challenges were noted, including limits on direct research funding for students and a relatively small pool of funded investigators at UNZA.Conclusions:Despite some challenges, UVP has achieved positive outcomes over its first four years. Longstanding partnerships and local institutional ownership were the main drivers. We expect the challenges to mitigated as the project continues and produces more UNZA researchers and teams and more funded projects, collectively building the local research community. With continued resources and clear focus, we expect that UNZA’s investigators and partners will attract research funding and generate high-impact research outputs across a broad range of studies in HIV as well as newer threats from non-communicable conditions experienced by long-term survivors of HIV and by the general population.

Working for a Scientific Society.

Opportunities for employment of PhD scientists exist within the world of scientific societies. Societies exist to serve the needs of their scientific or engineering constituencies. As membership organizations, they provide their constituents with access to meetings, publications (both books and journals), educational programs, and advocacy assistance. Within many of these societies, leadership positions and associated coordinator/analyst positions can be filled by someone with a PhD. Examples of positions in societies include science policy/government relations, education, publications, communications, and executive departments. Interested PhDs should demonstrate their interest by volunteering to participate in society outreach or committee activities. The critical element is to remember that as a PhD you have the critical thinking and problem-solving ability to succeed in whatever career you pursue. The key is to demonstrate that these abilities are applicable to the available positions in the association.