Supplementary File 2 - Output from ... - Amazon Web Services



Supplementary File 2 for Shaping the Future of Research: A perspective from early career researchers in Vancouver, CanadaContents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Supplementary File 2 - Output from Breakout Sessions2Supplementary File 2 - Output from Breakout SessionsProblems and Solutions have been grouped into general themes after the event. The Problems and Solutions are not linked, and are listed arbitrarily in the tables.Breakout Session 1 – “How can trainees be better prepared for career in science in 2017?”ProblemsSolutionsAttendance of workshops, seminars, symposiums. NetworkLearning to sell your ideas and knowledgeToo many centralised professional development workshopsOpportunities to practice & demonstrate skills (trainees)Lack of project management trainingFunding for individual postdocs for professional developmentInterdisciplinary teamwork, skillsFunds that are limited to workshopsLack of relevant workshopsTraining for grant proposal writingWorkshops, training for career developmentMore tailored professional development workshopsWorkshops not mandatory "- too busy to go"Mark profession development as a part of the mandatory training curriculum (trainees) put on by departmentWe are not taught managerial skills that we would need as a Primary Investigator (or mentorship opportunities)Recruitment fairsNot trained for all aspects of future role e.g. mentoringMentors/support for women. SCWISTLearn - ordering, accounting, suppliers, collaborations, operationsDatabase of non-academics, but want grads jobs.Learning sessions for alternativesImplement courses for career, skills etc. in graduate programKnow career resources. Awareness.Clear expectations for jobs by employersLack of exposure to other career paths/trajectories for PhD trainees?Invite speakers who have careers outside of Institutional academia. Talk about their journey.Unclear what paths there areDatabase of non-academics, but want grads jobs.Diff. career options in industryImplement courses for career, skills etc. in graduate programKnowledge how to transfer skills/knowledge.University facilitated department directing funding for industry/community engagement.Lack of knowledge of opportunitiesInvite speakers who have careers outside of Institutional academia. Talk about their journey.Unaware of careersSite/database to help communicate with professionals (the trainee)We don't know how to market our skills.Panels for discussion of non-traditional jobsInformation on career trends (i.e. declining jobs)Learn to deal with rejectionUnprepared for alternatives (outside academia)University support groupsLack of specific career advicePay students better (so they feel like they are worth moreAlternate career knowledge"Humanised" mentors, encouragementImposter syndromeAttend networking eventsLack of encouragementAttend conferences outside your immediate focusLack of confidence/understanding that scientific process is translatableTalk to peopleNetworking opportunitiesHave companies come to universities to recruit. Many professions do this, e.g. engineering How to networkMore funding for travelling to conferencesUnaware of how to market skillsMore intra-departmental collaborationLimited networking due to low travel fundingMore funding for conference travel Very little business or sales backgroundPersonally challenge yourself to talk to strangers at conferencesMore collaboration with industries!Require mentorship from supervisors. Train them how to do that.Academia + industry bridgeTraining for mentors by UniversityPoor mentorship. Poor training for future career. What are other options if not academia?Focus on what happens to trainees after they leave universities. Set them up to get jobsMentors not prepared to mentor for careers outside academiaExternal mentor programs Trained by mentors who only know one path (academia)Clear expectations on mentors/traineesLack of follow-up after defenseMentoring serviceExperience the field before you startCommunicate with PIs so they know what you expectNo/few placements in industryGive all professional development to a mentor who is not PI.No independent funding opportunity in CanadaFinding alternative mentors.Financial challengesField tripsLack of diversityShort term internshipsToo focused on researchMore efficient career counsellingEtiquette & personal/prof behaviourCo-ops for grad studentsPrejudice against applied translation scienceUniversity exchange for graduate students without "punishment"Focused on science but neglect leadership or mentorship rolesElement of non-biased grant reviewsFunding to diversify and increase skills (e.g. postdoc in new field)Communicate and get the public on boardLocal competitionsWe need more funding in BC (government, institution)More recognition to the trainee in grant applicationsOpportunities to be a co-investigator rather than a traineePetition govt for professional development budget for PDFs and graduate studentsIncrease funds (funding agencies, govt)Funding for mentorship dutiesCredits for non-research activityVocational PhDsLess Trainees?Reduce money on big schemes and focus on individualsAdvocacy, e.g. engage Terry Beech, MP Parliamentary secretary for scienceReach out to diverse communitiesMore multidisciplinary projectsPublic education on what scientists do and their salariesBreakout Session 2 – “How should the supply of postdocs and graduate students be matched to demand to create sustainable, secure career pathways for young researchers?”ProblemsSolutionsLack of knowledge about non-academic positions Better collaboration between academia and industry in training and funding Lack of audience for applicationsInvolve industry in trainingLack of knowledge/exposure/communication with industry opportunitiesHard for independent PhD to start partnership for MITACs programsLack of opportunities outside academiaIncubators for start-upsIndustry is not clear where to put youIndustry problem-solving workshopsHow do PhDs sell themselves?Collaboration between business and academiaIndustry has a bad reputationMITACS projects must be mutually beneficial to lab and companyLack of opportunities for experience as a PhDTargeted funding from industry for training PhD students and hiring themLack of industry experienceMore commitment from industry to provide opportunities like MITACSLack of extracurricular trainingMore MITACS-like programsNot enough turnoverIndustry should talk more to universitiesFunding vs. low (0.3% GDP)Networking: existing groups with ????Insufficient research fundsIntegrate internships into PhDLack of investment in science from the governmentIncrease/enhance awareness and pro-activity to gain trainingMore internships promoted during PhD/postdocImportance of biotech networking is not emphasized leading to lost investmentExpose PhDs to conferences/special eventsInternshipsIncorporate other professional development/skills in graduate programsNetworking should be mandatoryCompetitive salary for postdocs in CanadaFund the institute, not the PI to create more internal competitionGovernment funding to have private research institutesMandate staff composition of labs and groups (by funding agencies)Breakout Session 3 – “How can the funding of science research in Canada be structured to promote and balance basic research, translational research, and training for the next generation of scientists?“ProblemsSolutionsAwareness/tools to identify small but significant funding sourcesTrain peer reviewers on interdisciplinary review skillsHard to get good reviewsGet KMb/KT training for grant proposals;Knowledge mobilization practices;Is the peer-review process broken or biased?Credits to those who do review for small money to support HQP (incentivize good review)Timelines: Write, apply and then wait very long for decisionsEngage more external readers in review process to get necessary expertise:Better matching reviewers;Review of reviewers at random to see if review matches application (long term plan 5-10 years);Quality peer reviewInclude more merit review in peer-review process (increase relevance)Insufficient pool of reviewers for the system (lack of subject expertise)Evaluator for fund should be from different universitiesEvaluating applications based on publications only/primarilyResearch fund evaluation processVery slow process for assessmentEngage other reviewers to support a bigger pool (industry, government, etc)Amount of time spent applying for grants [is high] with low chance of successChange the peer review system for interdisciplinary projects (have industry review)Limited money to go aroundDo the evaluation of the proposal separated from the review of the CV. Do the first double-blinded.Money allocated does not cover actual costs and budgets are often cut i.e. 25% top (CIHR)Remove CV/funding from application to focus on science during peer-review (pilot project in a grant round)Canada is not a knowledge economy; investment in science is down, unlike in Germany who make money from R&DEvaluate/require more details of science to show applicant isn't just piggy-backing on hot topicsNot enough moneyUniversities actively assist PIs to find industry partners to fund PhD/PostDoc projectsAvailable funding doesn't keep up with inflationEvaluate current project idea/value more than the publication recordAmount of money available from governmentEvaluate the researcher based on a list of most recent, relevant papers (~3 papers), not the whole careerWho should be funding science? Government + industry + who else?PIs in the early career need to be put in a separate category for grant competitionWho prioritizes the research areas?When building collaborations to form a team for grant application. Team involves and supports 1 or 2 ECR needs to be encouragedHard to find support money to support pilot work (short term; 1-2 year)AltmetricsHard to get interdisciplinary projects fundedGet rid of impact factorsLimited funding for participating in meetings, etcWhat is the output of research (paper/product)Not enough long-term grants offeredRevise evaluation metrics to reflect reality of current research climateBalance among funding the high achiever versus the junior achieverSeparate ECR and later career researchers in funding competitionsThrowing money at large, useless funding funnels (e.g. Genome BC) limits distributionCrowd-sourcingAsymmetric distribution of federal grant moneyEngage/lobby government for more money; money for scienceBetter to fund more people a little than a few people a lot?Increase translational research/applied research that can increase ROIThere is not firm criteria for funding research organizations; soft skillsspecific grants for early scientists (labelled differently);Allow PDFs to apply for own pool of operating money to help with transition to new positions;Funding for trainees a separate part of money pool instead of part of operating grantRelatively small grant sizeshort-term pilot project grants with no expectation of early data & results;Group/collaborative grants (like NIH) to promote interdisciplinary researchSustainability of fundingInvest in a knowledge economy; solution providers instead of natural resource exploitersSome subjects are more "sexy"Allocate percentage of funds to discovery based work and don't make everyone have KT or patient engagement. Buzzwords kill discovery;Focus on more strategic, high-risk innovative researchFunding only for "hot topics"Funding for transition period PDF-->Assistant Prof; salary + operatingWe don't know how to support innovationAllocate funding specially for young scientistsBasic scientific research is not favouredHave money for teams of junior and senior PIs to help junior PIs get started (mentorship grants)New funding streams favour translational/clinical relevance over basic researchPreferred funding of early career scientistsFunding that follows popular trends (biofuels, bioremediation)Spreading the money wider; smaller amounts to more labsToo much emphasis on translating findings into practiceDistribute funds to other universities and private institutesFunding "excellence" versus funding "what's important"Funding of diverse projectsPlaying on trends and hot topics to get funding versus pursuing interests or innovationNeed to diversify the type of investigations being funded-->people with new perspectivesLack of opportunities compared to ON or QCProvide independent funding for ECR to launch their own project (e.g. Humboldt Foundation, Germany)lack of funding opportunities for traineesInstitutional grants to fund ECR; CIHR gives money for University for supportive programs administered at a local level (NIH style training grants)Funding is not enough to help young scientists/ECR; Difficult for young scientists to start a groupFederal government open more funding opportunitiesCurrent system favours PIs who already have grantsPolicies that can attract industriesNeed to provide opportunities for ECR to get funding to develop own ideasCollaboration with industry (not limited within Canada)Not any options to PhD students for fundingOne of the criteria for R&D funding should be commercializationFunding preferably for established scientistsTax benefits to people who donate to scientific fundsFunding problems: favours persons later in careerNeed to others know that science doesn't need to be on the "nano" side to be great or innovativeEligibility restrictionsGetting the science out there to the publicEvaluation favours established scientistsCrowd-sourcingConvince public that research has value even without immediate applicationLack of public engagementBreakout Session 4 – “How can the current system of incentives be fixed so that scientists and institutions are rewarded for the behaviours that are believed to support good and sustainable science?“ProblemsSolutionsOften for powerAcademic rewards for open science policiesShould be about the joy of discoveryCredit impact of research, not just outputsShould be about improved situations for people (i.e., public goods)Curtail tenure lengthShould be for intellectual satisfaction/fulfillmentReputation based on different factorsOften for fame & reputationOffer a spectrum of academic positions from research to teachingGrant funding is used as a proxy for achievementJudge papers/output on content, not just metrics (systemic change)Driven by prizes/fameIncorporate alternative productivity metrics beyond citations, # publications, impact factorResearch output valued over trainingEvaluate [academics] based on relationship strength: trainee evaluations, industry partners, non-profit partnersDriven by tenureValue stories and de-prioritize numbers: e.g. 1 PhD student with a high quality relationship matters more [for promotion evaluation] than 10 that are ignoredIncentives like tenure and promotion based on publication record, leads to emphasis on priveged high-impact journals and “hot” fieldsCollaboration recordMore grants are better, even if unmanageableReward collaboration with end-users of knowledgeAlways pushing for more opportunities (and more work)Consideration for non-academic KT work in tenure and promotionWork all hours culture earns respectRecruit with ‘achievement’ lists, no publication lists‘Wrong’ motivationsAsk general public/ patient stakeholder groups what a successful researcher looks like -> inform evaluation“Impact factor” leads to smaller achievements not being valued[Evaluations considering] relationships with community, trainee evals, mentoring beyond your trainees, community service, work/life balance?Emphasis on publicationsAll knowledge translation acknowledgedEmphasis on patentsImpactful knowledge translationSystem of evaluation causes disparitiesImpacts on communityDevaluing non-‘sexy’ research (e.g. donors fund cancer cures but not theoretical work)Continued funding based on different factorsNewer researchers have fewer opportunitiesMore funding for early career investigatorsNegative outcomes arise from inequalityRequire more accountability from funding recipientsDe-incentivizing stakeholder engagement (time-consuming)Accountability requirements for post-grant knowledge translationDevaluing knowledge translation activities (not rewarded)Increase opportunities for collaborative, not competitive researchEmphasis on moneyRequire non-peer-reviewed publication of workDonor fundingScientists should share and discuss unfinished work (pre-prints) – but this requires trust/ accountabilityToo much emphasis on grantsOn the part of scientists: willingness to collaborate/ share to ensure reproducibilityNeed more collaboration grantsDouble-blind reviewsNeed for knowledge translation grantsRequire open access publicationGrants for established researchers leads to less money for early-career scientistsMake all scientific publications open accessCentralization of fundingShift by editors to include negative results publicationsMoney to develop project ideas but not to executeShort-term grants lead to less emphasis on uptake, sustainability (too many pilots)Require reproducibility ‘test’ [replication?]Career relies on supervisor/reference make them happyEstablish channels to correct/ challenge/ validate publicationsGood scientists must publish often quality?Emphasis on the public goodSubstandard incremental papers, increase paper # but decrease qualityFinancial and infrastructure support for knowledge brokers to support KT and collaborationLack of reproducibilityOpportunity to influence policy and meet with policy makersUndesirable to publish ‘negative results’Increase the profile of science among general publicMany non-open-source publicationsPublication biasDifferential access to open-access journals based on funding levelPeer reviewers ask authors to cite papersTop journals mostly behind paywalls stifles open science, sharing data ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download