Successful Research Career Research Articles

What Are the Challenges Ahead for Training the Present and Next-Generation Microscopists in the Life Sciences (a.k.a. Structural Cell Biologists)?

Abstract Becoming a life scientist microscopist involves earning a bachelor’s degree in biology, biomedicine, or a related education program, specializing in microscopy-related areas. Advanced degrees (B.A. Hons., M.A. Res., or Ph.D.) enhance hands-on proficiencies and lay the foundation to become a microscopist or structural cell biologist. Staying updated on technological advancements, networking, and attending relevant microscopy conferences and workshops are central to the success of becoming an established, competent microscopist. Building an academic career in microscopy includes showcasing skills and proficiency in a research field. This involves teaching, scholarly dissemination, and achieving success in awards and grants, which are crucial for entry-level positions in academia. Continuous professional development in specific microscopy interests through workshops, self-education, online resources, or attaining additional certificates or diplomas is essential for academic career advancement, as the science of microscopy is not characterized by a status quo but is evolving at unprecedented speed. Tailoring education and understanding job requirements for academia, research organizations, or industry are critical decisions to align skills with career goals. In this themed contribution, we highlight key considerations for aspiring or junior microscopists to contemplate when building a successful research career in biological microscopy.

A Qualitative Study of Facilitators, Barriers, and Gender Disparities in Academic Neurology.

To understand the challenges and facilitators of a successful academic neurology research career broadly and to identify gender-based disparities specifically. In 2019, participants self-identifying as researchers, preregistered for the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Annual Meeting, ≥7 years out of residency, and authors of ≥1 AAN meeting abstract submission (2006-2009) were selected to participate in the qualitative study (purposeful sampling strategy). To increase diversity, 15 participants were invited by members involved in the AAN until interviews were complete. The AAN at the time of the study asked gender using sex-based terms. Participants were asked predetermined and open-ended questions. Themes were generated using a flexible coding methodology. Sixty neurologists (31 women, 29 men) participated in the focus groups and individual interviews. Six predetermined domains relevant to a successful neurology research career were explored: success definitions, facilitators, barriers, biases and harassment, mitigation strategies, and participant recommendations. Gender-based differences were noted during discussions focused on barriers and biases and harassment. Lack of women mentors, under-representation of women in senior faculty positions, and competing responsibilities when children are young were identified as barriers to women's success. Participants acknowledged that known gender disparities in compensation, academic promotion, and publications disproportionately affect women. Women shared more experiences of bias and harassment. Some men felt that gender-based biases were minimal to nonexistent. Participants shared their recommendations on ways to mitigate gender disparities and pursue a neurology research career. Leadership involvement locally and nationally in advocating and implementing change outside academic institutions was also mentioned as being valuable. Our findings may not be generalizable to academic neurologists outside the United States. Women academic neurology researchers experienced disparities across several domains affecting success: lower compensation, fewer women mentors, bias, and harassment. Women are less likely to be promoted, have less research success, and job satisfaction. Shared experiences of bias and harassment among women neurology researchers indicate continuing opportunity for education among departments and colleagues for preventive measures. These qualitative results indicate gender disparities among US-based neurology researchers and highlight the importance of the continued need to work toward equality and equity in disparate gender-related issues in the careers of neurology researchers.

Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students.

Strong scientific writing skills are the foundation of a successful research career and require training and practice. Although these skills are critical for completing a PhD, most students receive little formal writing instruction prior to joining a graduate program. In 2015, the University of Iowa Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) addressed this issue by developing the scientific writing course Grant Writing Basics (GWB). Here we describe the structure of this course and its effectiveness. GWB is an interactive, workshop-based course that uses a National Institutes of Health (NIH) F30 predoctoral fellowship proposal as a platform for building writing expertise. GWB incorporates established pedagogical principles of adult learning, including flipped classrooms, peer teaching, and reiterative evaluation. Time spent in class centers on active student analysis of previously submitted fellowship applications, discussion of writing resources, active writing, facilitated small group discussion of critiques of student writing samples, revision, and a discussion with a panel of experienced study section members and a student who completed a fellowship submission. Outcomes of GWB include a substantial increase in the number of applications submitted and fellowships awarded. Rigorous evaluation provides evidence that learning objectives were met and that students gained confidence in both their scientific writing skills and their ability to give constructive feedback. Our findings show that investment in formal training in written scientific communication provides a foundation for good writing habits, and the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in this vital aspect of a scientific research career. Furthermore, they highlight that evaluation is valuable in guiding course evolution. Strategies embedded in GWB can be adapted for use in any graduate program to advance scientific writing skills among its trainees.

Lifetime Achievement Award in Research Presentation

Abstract:The research landscape has changed dramatically over recent decades with the evergrowing opportunities facilitated by increasingly sophisticated technologies and statistical approaches, and complexity of governance and funding requirements, coupled with a relatively recent acknowledgement of the need to consider the impact of what we study and whether it addresses concerns that are shared by patients and consumers.Over the past 20 years, the Melbourne Children's Brain and Mind team has followed children from the time of their brain injury as they have moved from infancy and childhood, through adolescence and into adulthood. With a backdrop of the myriad of changes in research approaches, over the life of this study, this presentation will describe the challenges and findings generated from our work and consider how key research questions have changed, whether the work has been impactful at a scientific and if it has impacted the outcomes of brain injury survivors.Finally, given the critical importance of researchers, at any stage of their career, in the successful conduct of programs such as ours, learnings regarding ingredients supporting successful research careers will also be explored.

Lessons for the Next Generation of Scientists from the Second Annual Arthur and Sandra Irving Cancer Immunology Symposium.

The Arthur and Sandra Irving Cancer Immunology Symposium has been created as a platform for established cancer immunologists to mentor trainees and young investigators as they launch their research career in the field. By sharing their different paths to success, the senior faculty mentors provide an invaluable resource to support the development of the next generation of leaders in the cancer immunology community. This Commentary describes some of the key topics that were discussed during the 2022 symposium: scientific and career trajectory, leadership, mentoring, collaborations, and publishing. For each of these topics, established investigators discussed the elements that facilitate success in these areas as well as mistakes that can hinder progress. Herein, we outline the critical points raised in these discussions for establishing a successful independent research career. These points are highly relevant for the broader scientific community.

Design and Implementation of a Leadership Development Program for Early-Stage Investigators: Initial Results.

Leadership skills are essential for a successful career in medical research but are often not formally taught. To address these gaps, we designed a leadership development program for early-stage investigators. A 9-month virtual program with monthly 2-hour interactive sessions was designed, covering topics such as Leadership in Research, Mentoring, Building Diverse and Inclusive Teams, Managing Conflict, Influencing without Authority, Grant Administration, and Management. An anonymized survey was sent to participants before and after completion of the program, and the results were compared using the chi-squared test. Over a 2-year period, we selected two cohorts of 41 and 46 participants, respectively. After completion of the program, 92% of survey respondents indicated that the program met their expectations and 74% had made use of skills they learned. Participants enjoyed meeting new people and discussing common challenges. There was an increase in participants' perceived understanding of personal leadership qualities, mentoring, communication, conflict resolution, grant management, and collaboration with industry (P < .05). A leadership development program for early-stage investigators led to a significant increase in participants' perceived understanding of personal leadership qualities and competencies. It also offered participants the opportunity to meet other researchers in the institution and discuss common challenges.

Faculty interviews—traps and tips

Faculty interviews—traps and tips

Transfusion medicine research in Africa: Insights from investigators in the field.

Research in low-resource settings is inherently challenging. We sought to assess the factors that have impeded or facilitated transfusion medicine (TM) research in various African settings. A qualitative case study was conducted of selected investigators in Africa; selection was based on productivity-spanning publication, leadership and research in TM. We designed a questionnaire to explore the factors impeding or facilitating TM research to understand the impact on the investigators' careers. Written responses were independently coded and double-checked for precision. Qualitative analysis was conducted, whereby responses were grouped thematically and clustered by relationship. The initial findings were discussed with respondents to validate and refine the interpretations. The recorded transcript was analysed and incorporated into the final analysis. Six investigators participated in the study. Their responses yielded 471 coded comments: 389 from the questionnaires and 82 from the ensuing discussion. The most frequently cited factors described included knowledge and intellectual abilities (n=104), personal effectiveness (n=99), research and governance structure (n=97), and engagement, influence and impact (n=75). Four relationship clusters emerged from the facilitators (n=42), barriers (n=28), and common approaches (n=26) to research, informing summary themes of adaptation, collaboration, perseverance, and resiliency. Individual attributes were found to be central to a successful TM research career in African settings. However, given other public health priorities and constraints, interpersonal relationships, organizational structures and the broader research context were important to TM researchers. Overcoming complexities demands adaptation, collaboration, perseverance and resiliency.

“Screwed from the start”: How women perceive opportunities and barriers for building a successful research career

After finishing the PhD, the researcher enters a stage in their early research career where more independence is expected. Within a relatively short time period, the researcher needs to gather research experience and support in the form of tangible resources as funding, and intangible resources like access to research networks, close collaborations, and mentorship to support their next career stage. How resources are allocated are therefore important determinants for the success of researchers. However, research shows that the resource allocation decisions in academia are biased in favor of men, with many of these gender biases that influence the success of research careers increasing. In this study, we asked women employed as early-career researchers (WECRs) about how they view their opportunities and potential for long-term success within academia, and how this relates to the resources that they have access to. We found that the WECRs were given few resources and support, and that they perceived that finding resources important for their career was up to themselves. The noticeable male dominance in who receives resources and positions within the university and the lack of women as role-models signals to WECRs that they are not wanted in academia. The WECRs suggest several ways to improve the possibilities for a successful research career for women on more equal terms as their male collegues: these include transparent processes for resource allocations, equal opportunity officers in all hiring processes, and mandatory gender training for all senior research and administrative staff. All the actions suggested are within the control of the university.

Design and Implementation of a Career Development Program for Physician-Scientists: Lessons Learned.

Although skills in health services research and data science have great potential to advance the field of urogynecology, few clinical researchers obtain such training. The aim of the R25 UrogynCREST Program is to prepare the next generation of physician-scientists for a successful career in urogynecologic health services research through skilled mentoring and advanced training. The purpose of this report is to describe program implementation and lessons learned. Administered through the program institution and in partnership with the American Urogynecologic Society, this program provided junior faculty with advanced online training and, through a core facility, access to health care databases for research projects. Participants received individualized mentoring and biostatistical support. Anonymous surveys captured actionable, real-time feedback from participants as they moved through the program. Despite a limited budget, UrogynCREST maintained a core of excellent faculty, high-quality biostatistical support, and engaged, knowledgeable advisors and mentors. This allowed for similar experiences across cohorts while permitting program improvements between cohorts in faculty-participant interactions, team dynamics, and data and regulatory support. Administrative management by a single institution facilitated responses to fiscal and regulatory changes. Asynchronized learning and partnering with a society attracted a diverse group of physician-scientists. Career development programs that incorporate online education, mentoring, database access, and biostatistical support must be prepared for midprogram changes. Regular communication among stakeholders was vital. Working with a core facility provided efficient database access, but evolving regulatory and administrative processes and costs presented challenges. Our experiences implementing this program can benefit similar programs that train early-career physician-scientists.

Closing the gender gap: building a successful career and leadership in research as a female gastroenterologist

The pillars of academic promotion include clinical service, research, teaching, and public engagement. Although women are more likely than men to pursue a career in academia after a gastroenterology fellowship (40% of women vs 25% of men choose this path), gender disparity in research and academic leadership remains. For example, only one woman was appointed assistant professor in all gastroenterology and hepatology divisions of university hospital centres in France in 2017–18, whereas ten men were appointed full professors and seven were appointed associate professors in that same period. 1 Aubart FC Roeser A Costedoat-Chalumeau N Papo T Piette J-C Women in internal medicine academic positions in France. Eur J Intern Med. 2019; 64: e18-e29 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar Only 20% of faculty and 25% of full professors in divisions of gastroenterology in the USA are women; this gender disparity has not diminished over the past 35 years and is similar across basic science and clinical departments. 2 Richter KP Clark L Wick JA et al. Women physicians and promotion in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 2148-2157 Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar Even though the representation of female physicians as first authors (42%) and senior (23%) authors of original research published in US gastroenterology journals has increased over the past two decades, the proportion of female senior authors increased at a slower rate than female first authors and was lower than expected based on the proportion of women in academia. 3 Long MT Leszczynski A Thompson KD Wasan SK Calderwood AH Female authorship in major academic gastroenterology journals: a look over 20 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 1440-1447 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar , 4 Bhatia S Eluri S Kim E Angle H Dellon E Shaheen N Trends in female authorship of high impact publications in gastroenterology journals, 1997–2017. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113: S652-S653 Google Scholar Similarly, representation of female first authors in high-impact European journals has increased since 1994, but it has plateaued in recent years. 5 Filardo G da Graca B Sass DM Pollock BD Smith EB Martinez MA-M Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ. 2016; 352: i847 Crossref PubMed Scopus (271) Google Scholar In addition, the proportion of invited women speakers at major national gastroenterological meetings remains low: for example, at the British Society of Gastroenterology meeting in 2014, only 26% of speakers were female; at United European Gastroenterology week 2019, only 28% of speakers were female; and at Digestive Disease Week 2019, only 33% of speakers were female. 6 Brooks AJ Taylor EJ Arthurs EA et al. Gender differences in leadership, workforce and scholarly presentation within a national society: a gastroenterology perspective. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019; 10: 2-6 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 7 Khan Z Rukhshan R Bhatt A et al. persistent speaker gender gap at the premier digestive disease event. Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 67: 390-396 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar , 8 Nakov R Alboraie M Tiniakos D UEG Equality and Diversity Task ForceHow to identify, encourage, and support suitable candidates for leading roles in scientific societies: the UEG experience. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021; 9: 874-876 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar How can female gastroenterologists effectively build a successful career in research and overcome these barriers to achieving leadership and academic advancement?

503 Implementing a formal research mentoring training program at the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute: early findings and outcomes

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this study is to describe the implementation of a formal research mentoring training program at Miami CTSI in collaboration with University of Colorado CTSI, to build effective mentor-mentee relationships that help build successful research careers for junior faculty. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Miami CTSI Research Mentoring Training is a three-part series for early stage faculty and their mentors to strengthen mentoring skills and build successful relationships. The curriculum uses evidence-based strategies and is modeled after University of Colorado CTSIs CO-Mentor Training Program. The pilot training was conducted as a train-the-trainer program with subsequent workshops led by Miami CTSI faculty. The program has mentee-only, mentor-only, and joint sessions covering topics such as networking skills, managing financial aspects of an academic career, and career mapping. To assess program effectiveness, pre/post surveys were conducted and follow up surveys are planned. Data collected will assess participant diversity, research productivity, and mentoring relationship status. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 49 mentor-mentee teams from 18 departments participated in the training over two cohorts. An upcoming third cohort will be included in the analysis. Overall, 100% mentors and 86% mentees reported the overall value of the program as positive. Post-training, mentees reported an increase in confidence in creating career development plans and articulating career goals. Mentors reported an increase in confidence in providing guidance tailored to mentees needs. Mentees reported improvement in their knowledge of developing personal narratives and handling financial aspects of research; both mentors and mentees reported improvement in insights into achieving work-life balance. Follow up survey results will provide insight into the evolution of the mentoring relationships. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Miami CTSIs mentoring training demonstrated successful participation and positive feedback from mentors and mentees and is poised to become a critical component of the Miami CTSIs research career development pipeline.

ROLE OF STUDENTS’ RESEARCH ACTIITY IN FOSTERING PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF POLTAVA STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

Student research activity is one of the most important forms of the education and the driving force of quality assurance activities. Ukraine has developed a regulatory and legal framework that ensures high-quality research work, which should meet the needs of future specialists in intellectual and professional development and increase their professional competence. The involvement in research work requires, first of all, gaining deep theoretical and practical knowledge in medicine, well-designed extra-curricular activities to guide students in their mastering methodology of scientific research and developing research skills, and university promotion. The experience of Poltava State Medical University convincingly proves that the most effective means of improving the quality of training is the regular active involvement of students in research activity. The role of scientific knowledge in higher education is decisive, since the active participation of the teaching staff in fostering research skills makes it possible to demonstrate the latest scientific achievements and their practical application. Structured research activities, woven into the medical school curriculum provide an opportunity to evince the intellectual potential of both students and educators, to contribute to deeper investigation of medical problems, to master the methods of scientific investigation, and to realize the importance of such activity in increasing one's competitiveness in the labour market. This approach also contributes to better comprehension of professional information, to develop mindset associated with high professionalism.&#x0D; Pathophysiology as a discipline is at the junction of theoretical and clinical disciplines that serves as a wide background to meet the diversity of students’ scientific demands and interests. Involving students into structured research activities not only promotes gaining special knowledge, but also builds up ethical and deontological foundations of future successful medical research career; enhances team spirit and cooperation between students and educators. This interaction enables in clearly stating their focus and research question, engaging in an adequate critical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the study methods, and offering conclusions that are properly qualified in the scope given the evidence gathered and analyzed. This department is proud to maintain a high university rank on student research results performance among the non-clinical departments. The culmination of knowledge in this developmental trajectory can reinforced and extend other aspects of high quality training.

In Conversation with Tony Letai.

Anthony Letai is Professor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and President of The Society for Functional Precision Medicine. Among Tony's scientific achievements, work from his lab contributed toward the FDA approval of Venetoclax combination treatment for adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Moreover, his studies on cancer cell death have led to the development of BH3 profiling, an assay that allows for the definition of how close a cell is to the threshold required to commit to apoptosis, which can be used to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients. In this interview, Tony relays the story behind some of his scientific breakthroughs, discusses the importance of function when designing targeted cancer therapies, gives an overview of BH3 profiling and its application to cancer therapy, and recalls the key events and collaborations that drove his successful research career.

NCI Awardee Skills Development Consortium (NASDC): Applicant profiles.

11030 Background: In 2020, the NCI funded a new educational consortium, NASDC (NCI Awardee Skills Development Consortium, RFA-CA-19-010 and -011), through four institutionally granted UE5 awards to deliver a specific course each and a U24 award as a Coordinating Center. The goal is to teach current early-career faculty NCI grantees skills in areas critical for successful independent academic cancer research careers. Courses focus on leadership and socioemotional skills, health disparities, immuno-oncology, and cell and gene therapy. Teaching will initially be virtual, given the COVID pandemic. Methods: A steering committee and four working groups were established to build the consortium infrastructure, including the NASDC (osu.edu) website. Clientele are early-career faculty PD/PI of a current NCI-funded grant (K01, K07, K08, K22, K23, K25, R00, R21, DP1, DP2, DP5, R01, R23, R29, R37, R56, RF1, RL1, U01), of whom 454 were directly contacted. Blast emails and social media were also used. We are reporting the characteristics of 154 applicants, who completed the RedCap application online. Results: 85% of the applicants are within the first 5 years of a faculty appointment, 87% at the assistant professor rank, and 65% on tenure track. 40% hold an M.D. degree and 72% a Ph.D. 81% are US citizens, 52% females, and 45/33/16/2/4%-11% are White/Asian/Black/Native Americans/Other–Hispanics/Latino. 76% work at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Mean protected research time is 80%. Non-mutually exclusive fields of research interest are therapeutics (46%), basic science (37%), disparities (34%) prevention (32%), public health (28%), and pediatrics (10%). 66% have received a K-award grant, 13% each an R21 or R00, and 3% an R01. Additionally, 35% had a second NCI grant as PI, 10% a third grant, and 60% had non-NCI grants. Reasons for applying included (1) not quite ready to lead a research team (42%), (2) need for stronger career mentoring (37%), and (3) not being fully confident in research skills (21%). Conclusions: Applicants to the new NCI educational consortium (NASDC) have a successful start to their academic career with a third having obtained more than one NCI award. Most applicants work at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. As cancer research continues to evolve and has the potential to address critical health care needs of the nation, NASDC will strive to equip scientists to be leaders, teach advances in technology, and impart confidence in research skills.

Creating a Resident Research Track in Synergy With the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program.

Physician scientists play an important role in the translation of research findings to patient care; however, their training faces numerous challenges. Residency research track programs represent an opportunity to facilitate the training of future physician scientists in physical medicine and rehabilitation, although optimal program organization and long-term outcomes remain unknown. The Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program is a National Institutes of Health-funded program aimed at addressing the shortage of physician researchers in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation by providing instruction, mentorship, and networking opportunities for a successful research career. While the opportunities provided through the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program provide critical education and guidance at a national level, trainees are most successful with availability of strong local support and mentorship. The purpose of this article was to present a realistic and easily applicable structure for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency research track that can be used in concert with the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program.

Research Funding, Income, and Career Satisfaction Among Clinician-Scientists in Ophthalmology in the United States

The purpose of this study was to characterize clinician-scientists in ophthalmology and identify factors associated with successful research funding, income, and career satisfaction. Cross-sectional study. A survey was conducted of clinician-scientists in ophthalmology at US academic institutions between April 17, 2019, and May 19, 2019. Collected information including 1) demographic data; 2) amount, type, and source of startup funding; first extramural grant; and first R01-equivalent independent grant; 3) starting and current salaries; and 4) Likert-scale measurements of career satisfaction were analyzed using multivariate regression. Ninety-eight clinician-scientists in ophthalmology were surveyed across different ages (mean: 48 ± 11 years), research categories, institutional types, geographic regions, and academic ranks. Median startup funding ranged from $50-99k, and median starting salaries ranged from $150-199k. A majority of investigators (67%) received their first extramural award from the National Eye Institute, mainly through K-award mechanisms (82%). The median time to receiving their first independent grant was 8 years, mainly through an R01 award (70%). Greater institutional startup support (P=.027) and earlier extramural grant success (P=.022) were associated with earlier independent funding. Male investigators (P=.001) and MD degreed participants (P=.008) were associated with higher current salaries but not starting salaries. Overall career satisfaction increased with career duration (P=.011) but not with earlier independent funding (P=.746) or higher income (P=.300). Success in research funding by clinician-scientists in ophthalmology may be linked to institutional support and earlier acquisition of extramural grants but does not impact academic salaries. Nevertheless, career satisfaction among clinician-scientists improves with time, which is not necessarily influenced by research or financial success.

Editors' Note: Challenges to Successful Research Careers in Neurology: How Gender Differences May Play a Role

In “Challenges to Successful Research Careers in Neurology: How Gender Differences May Play a Role,” Minen et al. proposed ways to increase the involvement of women neurologists in research. Aggarwal et al. provided additional examples of gender gaps in neurology and emphasized the need to take strategic steps to reduce barriers for women in academic neurology to excel. This will require both institutional and structural changes. Moawad noted that (1) the approach to narrowing the gender gap must be thoughtful to ensure it does not have an adverse impact on men and (2) incorporation of additional women neurologists in research requires improvements in funding, resource allocation, coordination, transparency, and flexibility. In response, Minen reinforced the need for collaboration, mentorship, training, and dedicated resources for women from early-to-late career. In “Challenges to Successful Research Careers in Neurology: How Gender Differences May Play a Role,” Minen et al. proposed ways to increase the involvement of women neurologists in research. Aggarwal et al. provided additional examples of gender gaps in neurology and emphasized the need to take strategic steps to reduce barriers for women in academic neurology to excel. This will require both institutional and structural changes. Moawad noted that (1) the approach to narrowing the gender gap must be thoughtful to ensure it does not have an adverse impact on men and (2) incorporation of additional women neurologists in research requires improvements in funding, resource allocation, coordination, transparency, and flexibility. In response, Minen reinforced the need for collaboration, mentorship, training, and dedicated resources for women from early-to-late career.

Author Response 1b: Challenges to Successful Research Careers in Neurology: How Gender Differences May Play a Role.

On behalf of all of the authors, we thank Dr. Moawad for and agree with the comments on our article.1 There should be less tape, less competition, and more collaboration. We would advocate for strategies to address gender disparities to be deployed at all phases of career development because this is a cross-cutting issue that affects women in neurology at the earliest and latest stages of their careers. Policies and programs at local and federal institutions that target trainees in neurology research must go hand in hand with approaches that foster the availability and commitment of mid- and late-career scientists who can provide mentorship, training, and concrete resources necessary for success.

Reader Response 1a: Challenges to Successful Research Careers in Neurology: How Gender Differences May Play a Role.

We read the interesting report by Minen et al.1 on sex disparities in the neurology research pipeline. The authors highlighted unique factors contributing to high rates of attrition among women faculty—besides family obligations—and discussed the negative implications of their early departure on the educational mission of academic medical centers. In addition to destabilizing the foundation of academic integrity, the sex gap in senior leadership roles in neurology threatens future opportunities for advancement of women. The disproportionately low numbers of women professors and chairs in neurology departments, of presidents of professional societies, of senior editors of specialty journals, and of recipients of AAN recognition awards are several examples of sex-related gaps.2,3 As Minen et al. suggest, NIH has attempted to promote career development for women through the Responsible Conduct of Research model, but the environment in research has not been entirely conducive to the 3 pillars. Because gaps have not closed on their own, intentional and strategic efforts at multiple levels are pivotal to meet the career goals of many talented and qualified women in neurology.4 The time is now to commit much needed additional resources to overcome structural and institutional barriers for women physicians and scientists in academic neurology.