Scientists want more children

Scholars partly attribute the low number of women in academic science to the impact of the science career on family life. Yet, the picture of how men and women in science--at different points in the career trajectory--compare in their perceptions of this impact is incomplete. In particular, we know little about the perceptions and experiences of junior and senior scientists at top universities, institutions that have a disproportionate influence on science, science policy, and the next generation of scientists. Here we show that having fewer children than wished as a result of the science career affects the life satisfaction of science faculty and indirectly affects career satisfaction, and that young scientists (graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) who have had fewer children than wished are more likely to plan to exit science entirely. We also show that the impact of science on family life is not just a woman's problem; the effect on life satisfaction of having fewer children than desired is more pronounced for male than female faculty, with life satisfaction strongly related to career satisfaction. And, in contrast to other research, gender differences among graduate students and postdoctoral fellows disappear. Family factors impede talented young scientists of both sexes from persisting to research positions in academic science. In an era when the global competitiveness of US science is at risk, it is concerning that a significant proportion of men and women trained in the select few spots available at top US research universities are considering leaving science and that such desires to leave are related to the impact of the science career on family life. Results from our study may inform university family leave policies for science departments as well as mentoring programs in the sciences.     

Anatomy and physiology of a scientific paper

Writing and publishing a scientific paper in academic journals is a highly competitive, time-consuming stepwise process. The road to scientific writing and publication is rarely straightforward. Scientific writing has uniform format, which is perplexing for the novice science writers due to its inflexible anatomy (structure) and physiology (functions). Many obstacles are allied with the scientific writing path which can be minimized by applying some simple guidelines and practices. The scientific papers have an almost similar format but, original articles are divided into distinct sections and each segment contains a specific type of information. The basic anatomy of scientific papers is mainly comprised of the structure of the various components of a scientific paper, including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments and references. However, the physiology of a scientific paper is difficult to understand. Early career researchers and trainees may be less familiar with the various components of scientific papers. In this study, we applied an observational approach to describe the essential steps to facilitate the readers and writers to understand the basic characteristics, anatomy and physiology of writing the various sections of a scientific paper for an academic science journal.     

Portrait of an Outsider: Class,Gender, and the Scientific Career of Ida M. Mellen

In 1916, a 41 year old woman with little formal scientific education became the secretary of the New York Aquarium (NYA). In becoming the Aquarium’s first female officer, Ida M. Mellen realized her lifelong dream of successfully pursuing a career in the biological sciences and broke with the limitations and low expectations surrounding her sex and class backgrounds. By 1930, Mellen left the NYA and pursued a career in popular hobbyist writing, becoming the foremost expert on aquarium fishes and domesticated cats in the United States. Margaret Rossiter and other historians of science have illuminated women’s common career paths in the sciences, but little work has been done on individuals whose gender and class impacted their career. Building on Rossiter’s framework, this case study suggests that class, as much as gender, structured the scientific career of women. Through the narrative of the outsider scientific practitioner, we can more fully illuminate the social structure of scientific work. Examining the struggles of Mellen to enter and maintain a scientific career sheds light, not just on her own career path, but those alternately closed to her. If we wish to understand science in the early twentieth century, especially questions of inclusion and exclusion in the scientific process, we must examine those individuals who operated on the periphery of the “traditional” scientific path.     

The bench vs. the blackboard: learning to teach during graduate school

Many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate students travel through the academic career pipeline without ever learning how to teach effectively, an oversight that negatively affects the quality of undergraduate science education and cheats trainees of valuable professional development. This article argues that all STEM graduate students and postdoctoral fellows should undergo training in teaching to strengthen their resumes, polish their oral presentation skills, and improve STEM teaching at the undergraduate level. Though this may seem like a large undertaking, the author outlines a three-step process that allows busy scientists to fit pedagogical training into their research schedules in order to make a significant investment both in their academic career and in the continuing improvement of science education.     

Ethics in Science

Ethics are a set of moral principles and values a civilized society follows. Doing science with principles of ethics is the bedrock of scientific activity. The society trusts that the results and the projected outcome of any scientific activity is based on an honest and conscientious attempt by the scientific community. However, during the last few decades, there has been an explosion of knowledge and the advent of digital age. We can access the publications of competitors with just a “click”. The evaluation parameters have evolved a lot and are based on impact factors, h-index and citations. There is a general feeling that the scientific community is under a lot of pressure for fulfilling the criteria for upward growth and even retention of the positions held. The noble profession of scientific research and academics has been marred by the temptation to falsify and fabricate data, plagiarism and other unethical practices. Broadly speaking, the breach of ethics involves: plagiarism, falsification of data, redundant (duplicate) publication, drawing far-fetched conclusions without hard data, for early publicity, gift authorship (receiving as well as giving), not giving sufficient attention and consideration to scholars and post-docs as per the norms, self promotion at the cost of team-members, treating colleagues (overall all juniors) in a feudal way and Machiavellianism (cunningness and duplicity in general conduct and push to positions of power and pelf). Misconduct in Indian academics and science is also under a lot of focus. It is important and urgent that science, engineering, and health departments and institutions in our country have in place systems for education and training in pursuit of science with ethics by sound and professional courses in Responsible Conduct of Research. All research and academic institution must have the Office of Ethics for information, guidelines, training and professional oversight of conduct of research with the ethos and ethics of research.     

Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia

Identification of the causes underlying the under-representation of women and minorities in academia is a source of ongoing concern and controversy. This is a critical issue in ensuring the openness and diversity of academia; yet differences in personal experiences and interpretations have mired it in controversy. We construct a simple model of the academic career that can be used to identify general trends, and separate the demographic effects of historical differences from ongoing biological or cultural gender differences. We apply the model to data on academics collected by the National Science Foundation (USA) over the past three decades, across all of science and engineering, and within six disciplines (agricultural and biological sciences, engineering, mathematics and computer sciences, physical sciences, psychology, and social sciences). We show that the hiring and retention of women in academia have been affected by both demographic inertia and gender differences, but that the relative influence of gender differences appears to be dwindling for most disciplines and career transitions. Our model enables us to identify the two key non-structural bottlenecks restricting female participation in academia: choice of undergraduate major and application to faculty positions. These transitions are those in greatest need of detailed study and policy development.     

Predictors of Irrational Parenthood Cognitions in an Iranian Group of Infertile Women

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate possible predictors of irrational parenthood cognitions among infertile women seeking treatment.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study, 300 women who visited an Infertility Center in Iran during 2010 were studied. A pre-validated inventory was used to assess irrational parenthood cognitions. Potential predictors of the total irrational parenthood cognitions score were assessed.

Results

Mean irrational parenthood cognition score was 39.7(Range 0–56). Through bivariate analysis, the score on irrational parenthood cognition was inversely correlated with age and positively correlated with length of time seeking for infertility treatment and length of time expecting pregnancy. In a multivariate model, infertile women with higher education, especially academic education, or those with higher economic status were less likely to have irrational parenthood cognitions. However, higher motherhood motivation, no previous experience of pregnancy and being under social pressure, from others around, increased the likelihood of having irrational parenthood cognitions.

Conclusions

Some variables such as female spouse’s educational level and being under social pressure can independently predict irrational parenthood cognitions among infertile women that may be of use in designing health promotion plans in order to target the vulnerable women.     

Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and advisor encouragement

Even though academic research is often viewed as the preferred career path for PhD trained scientists, most U.S. graduates enter careers in industry, government, or "alternative careers." There has been a growing concern that these career patterns reflect fundamental imbalances between the supply of scientists seeking academic positions and the availability of such positions. However, while government statistics provide insights into realized career transitions, there is little systematic data on scientists' career preferences and thus on the degree to which there is a mismatch between observed career paths and scientists' preferences. Moreover, we lack systematic evidence whether career preferences adjust over the course of the PhD training and to what extent advisors exacerbate imbalances by encouraging their students to pursue academic positions. Based on a national survey of PhD students at tier-one U.S. institutions, we provide insights into the career preferences of junior scientists across the life sciences, physics, and chemistry. We also show that the attractiveness of academic careers decreases significantly over the course of the PhD program, despite the fact that advisors strongly encourage academic careers over non-academic careers. Our data provide an empirical basis for common concerns regarding labor market imbalances. Our results also suggest the need for mechanisms that provide PhD applicants with information that allows them to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing a PhD, as well as for mechanisms that complement the job market advice advisors give to their current students.     

Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity Discipline?

The proportion of women occupying academic positions in biological sciences has increased in the past few decades, but women are still under-represented in senior academic ranks compared to their male colleagues. Primatology has been often singled out as a model of “equal-opportunity” discipline because of the common perception that women are more represented in Primatology than in similar fields. But is this indeed true? Here we show that, although in the past 15 years the proportion of female primatologists increased from the 38% of the early 1990s to the 57% of 2008, Primatology is far from being an “equal-opportunity” discipline, and suffers the phenomenon of “glass ceiling” as all the other scientific disciplines examined so far. In fact, even if Primatology does attract more female students than males, at the full professor level male members significantly outnumber females. Moreover, regardless of position, IPS male members publish significantly more than their female colleagues. Furthermore, when analyzing gender difference in scientific productivity in relation to the name order in the publications, it emerged that the scientific achievements of female primatologists (in terms of number and type of publications) do not always match their professional achievements (in terms of academic position). However, the gender difference in the IPS members'' number of publications does not correspond to a similar difference in their scientific impact (as measured by their H index), which may indicate that female primatologists'' fewer articles are of higher impact than those of their male colleagues.     

An integrated biochemistry and genetics outreach program designed for elementary school students

Exposure to genetic and biochemical experiments typically occurs late in one's academic career. By the time students have the opportunity to select specialized courses in these areas, many have already developed negative attitudes toward the sciences. Given little or no direct experience with the fields of genetics and biochemistry, it is likely that many young people rule these out as potential areas of study or career path. To address this problem, we developed a 7-week (~1 hr/week) hands-on course to introduce fifth grade students to basic concepts in genetics and biochemistry. These young students performed a series of investigations (ranging from examining phenotypic variation, in vitro enzymatic assays, and yeast genetic experiments) to explore scientific reasoning through direct experimentation. Despite the challenging material, the vast majority of students successfully completed each experiment, and most students reported that the experience increased their interest in science. Additionally, the experiments within the 7-week program are easily performed by instructors with basic skills in biological sciences. As such, this program can be implemented by others motivated to achieve a broader impact by increasing the accessibility of their university and communicating to a young audience a positive impression of the sciences and the potential for science as a career.     

Obstetrics and Gynecology: Considerations in Career Selection

Current training programs in obstetrics and gynecology are not producing an excess of specialists in view of future manpower needs. In addition to being specialists and consultants, obstetrician-gynecologists also function as providers of primary care for women. During the last decade, three formal sub-specialties of obstetrics and gynecology have evolved: gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine and reproductive endocrinology. These have improved patient care and have altered the structure of resident education. With more American medical school graduates entering this specialty, the quality of resident applicants has improved, creating intense competition for desirable training positions. Those inclined toward a career in obstetrics and gynecology can be assured that it will provide an increasingly favorable and challenging environment for professional activity in the future.     

Leaders in laboratory animal science: in their own words

There are a number of challenges facing young people planning their future with little but a love of animals to guide them. Pursuing a successful career in veterinary medicine can be a trying experience; there are a limited number of highly competitive academic programs, and even if one manages to enroll in such a program and complete the degree, there remains the daunting dilemma of whether to proceed directly to private practice, or whether instead to strike out on a new path and explore an alternative career in animal medicine. The eleven men and women profiled here are all respected figures from the laboratory animal science community, representing a broad cross-section of backgrounds and interests: genetics researchers, exotic species specialists, animal welfare advocates, nutritionists, facility managers, and so forth. Some worked their way through veterinary school and private practice before deciding on a radical career shift that brought them to where they are now, others started their careers in a laboratory, while others still followed a more indirect path, guided only by chance, curiosity, and a love of animals.All eleven, however, have each made their own unique contribution to the field, and Lab Animal has invited them to tell their own stories, in their own words, to illustrate some of the interesting, entertaining, and surprising turns a career in laboratory animal science can take.     

From bench to bar: careers in patent law for molecular biologists

Leaving science to pursue a career in patent law requires a considerable investment of time and energy, and possibly money, with no guarantee of finding a job or of returning to science should the decision prove infelicitous. Yet the large number of former scientists now practicing patent law shows that it can be done. I provide suggestions for investigating the potential opportunities, costs, risks, and rewards of this career path.The molecular biologist wishing to retool herself or himself as a patent law professional has a number of specific career options to choose from.     

Evaluating how we evaluate

Evaluation of scientific work underlies the process of career advancement in academic science, with publications being a fundamental metric. Many aspects of the evaluation process for grants and promotions are deeply ingrained in institutions and funding agencies and have been altered very little in the past several decades, despite substantial changes that have taken place in the scientific work force, the funding landscape, and the way that science is being conducted. This article examines how scientific productivity is being evaluated, what it is rewarding, where it falls short, and why richer information than a standard curriculum vitae/biosketch might provide a more accurate picture of scientific and educational contributions. The article also explores how the evaluation process exerts a profound influence on many aspects of the scientific enterprise, including the training of new scientists, the way in which grant resources are distributed, the manner in which new knowledge is published, and the culture of science itself.     

Mentors and role models for women in academic medicine.

Senior mentors and role models have a positive influence on the career advancement of junior professionals in law, business, and medicine. In medicine an increasing number of women are pursuing academic careers, but available senior mentors to provide career guidance are often lacking. We report on the results of a national survey of 558 full-time faculty women, aged 50 years and younger, in departments of medicine in the United States, regarding their experience with role models and mentors. Women with mentors report more publications and more time spent on research activity than those without mentors. Women with a role model reported higher overall career satisfaction. This report, with illustrative examples, may be helpful to other women pursuing academic careers and to physicians who serve as mentors or role models to others.     

50 Years of Women in Cell Biology: Where have we been? Where are we going?

It’s been 50 years since Women in Cell Biology (WICB) was founded by junior women cell biologists who found themselves neither represented at the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) presentations nor receiving the information, mentoring, and sponsorship they needed to advance their careers. Since then, gender parity at ASCB has made significant strides: WICB has become a standing ASCB committee, women are regularly elected president of the ASCB, and half the symposia speakers are women. Many of WICB’s pioneering initiatives for professional development, including career panels, workshops, awards for accomplishments in science and mentoring, and career mentoring roundtables, have been incorporated and adapted into broader “professional development” that benefits all members of ASCB. The time has passed when we can assume that all women benefit equally from progress. By strategically, thoughtfully, and honestly recognizing the challenges to women of the past and today, we may anticipate those new challenges that will arise in the next 50 years. WICB, in collaboration with the ASCB, can lead in data collection and access and can promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work will be a fitting homage to the women who, half a century ago, posted bathroom stall invitations to the first Women in Cell Biology meetup.     

The Crime Lab Project

The Crime Lab Project takes an economical, hands-on, interdisciplinary approach to studying the career of forensics in the middle or high school classroom. The project requires a week of class time, uses common household items, can be applied to students with different levels of ability, and is considered durable. In addition, the project covers topics that address national science standards such as career development, the scientific method, lab procedures, teamwork, and scientific literary skills. Students also learn to distinguish between observations and conclusions.     

Toward Sustaining Women in Careers in Core Laboratories—A Workshop Review Including Recommendations from the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities

Review of “From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine” (workshop held by the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, September 18–19, 2008).Approximately 50% of the membership in the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) includes scientists working in core facilities, i.e., a biological resource facility. A core facility, whether it resides in an academic, government, or industrial sector, provides affordable access to technologies and expertise in such fields as proteomics-related techniques, mass spectrometry, DNA sequencing and analysis, bioinformatics, and N-terminal protein sequence analysis, whih would otherwise be too expensive for most individual labs to acquire. Careers in core facilities, unless integrated into a tenure line, are distinct from traditional academic jobs. The critical transition point in a core facility career is from bench scientist to core facility director. The role of bench scientists is to maintain a high working level of technological proficiency in the techniques offered by the laboratory, while continuing to expand their skill set to incorporate the latest technological advances. The role of the director encompasses those of the bench scientist in addition to responsibilities for personnel and budget management, obtaining competitive grants, and developing and maintaining a satisfied customer base. In a workshop entitled “From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine” (held by the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, September 18–19, 2008), the ABRF and sixteen other professional societies presented data relating to field-specific gender issues as well as recommendations to sustain women through transition points in their scientific careers.In an ABRF survey study published in Nature Biotechnology in 2000,¹ the percentage of male employees holding MDs or PhDs across all core facility sectors was significantly greater than the percentage of female employees (24% and 9%, respectively). The government core facilities showed the highest level of disparity: 39% of males with an MD or PhD vs. 7% of females with these degrees (N = 42 government employee respondents). Of all the male employees hired by government-run core facilities, 54.6% held MDs or PhDs; among female employees, 19.4% held MDs or PhDs. However, in contrast to national trends, there is no significant difference in salaries for men and women at the same degree level at core facilities¹ in all sectors. Since compensation for men and women holding PhDs in core facilities is equal, why do the numbers of men and women at the PhD level working in core facilities differ significantly? This discrepancy raises the important question as to whether women with PhDs are represented in the job applicant pool in the expected ratio, and whether women are selected for core facility director positions in numbers that reflect their overall numbers within the field. If women with PhDs are found not to be represented in the applicant pool in the expected ratio, then one potential reason for the disparity could be gender hiring biases. Alternatively, the number of years on the job could also have skewed the results if more female PhDs were newer hires (data not reported), as newer employees feel increased job stress and might be less likely to respond to such a survey. The critical question remaining is whether these skews translate into fewer female core facility scientists entering director positions, as most facility directors hold advanced degrees. Since this study is somewhat dated, it is important to readdress, perhaps with a new comprehensive survey, whether these disparities still exist in core facilities, especially now when women and men in the sciences are earning their PhDs at nearly equal rates.²This study was discussed at the workshop and overall there was great enthusiasm for a new survey to address the issues. At the workshop, the observation that the number of women scientists decreases with advancing professional rank was coined the “leaky pipeline.” The leaky pipeline itself may also be a mitigating factor for the skewed gender statistics in core facility laboratories, and the workshop panelists explored this phenomenon in great detail. Joan Girgus, Professor of Psychology and Special Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty for issues concerning faculty diversity at Princeton University, attributes the leaky pipeline in part to competing family commitments. To address this specifically, Princeton has a comprehensive family-benefits program that includes (1) travel awards to offset childcare expenses when scientific conferences are attended, and (2) a dependent-care backup program. Dr. Phoebe Leboy, President of the Association for Women in Science, attributes the leaky pipeline in part to family issues, self-confidence, and more entrenched obstacles of a “chilly climate” or “locker-room mentality” where women are demeaned and undervalued, and suggests that the culture of science is designed for men, in the sense that to succeed in the environment of a normal 12-hour-plus work day relies on there being a woman at home to take care of the family and family business. She offered thought-provoking ideas for culture change including basing hiring decisions on the quality of publications and grant scores, rather than the sheer numbers of publications and grants obtained. Pardis Sabeti, a young and enthusiastic new Assistant Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard University, attributes the leaky pipeline to self-confidence issues, claiming that women in general must feel “100% prepared to apply to a new position,” whereas men may be bolder and “apply if they feel only 60% qualified.” This type of discrepancy in gender psychology may well explain gender skews in job applicant pools.One other mitigating factor that was discussed is the length of time it takes to obtain a PhD degree. Michelle Cilia, a Postdoctoral Associate with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service at Cornell University, pointed out an exemplary new PhD program that is aimed at shortening the length of time to get the degree by changing the culture of the PhD program without sacrificing the quality of education. This graduate school, The Watson School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, combines innovative coursework, bi-yearly committee meetings organized by the graduate school administrators, and a two-tier mentoring system to assist students toward the goal of a 4-year PhD. Thus, while there are many “leaks in the pipeline,” both individuals and organizations are sealing these leaks to foster improvement in retaining women in their fields. What role can the ABRF play in helping to sustain women in their scientific professions?The ABRF as an organization could potentially provide the resources, such as a mentoring program, to help women scientists along the career track from bench scientist to core facility director in the absence of other institutional support such as tenure reviews and departmental support. Currently, no such programs are established. Female core facility scientists are not alone in feeling the adverse effects of the lack of resources such as mentoring programs, for the current cohort of women chemists in academia has reported mentoring gaps and gender biases at some point during their careers.³ It is not clear whether the lack of such programs indicates that there is limited interest in mentoring female scientists who wish to become core directors or if few female scientists are on such a track and seek assistance. With the growing need for proteomics, bioinformatics, and genome sequencing services, core facilities are in high demand and are now found at almost every major research university and medical center. This growth translates into more job opportunities for women scientists. Given the rapid growth of this relatively young career path, the absence of mentorship support, and the unequal numbers of male and female employees holding advanced degrees in core facilities, the ABRF and its members would benefit from learning about and implementing proven strategies to help female members rise from the ranks of scientist to core facility director. There are numerous things the ABRF as a professional society can do to directly address issues that disproportionately affect women:

1. Gather data through the ABRF Survey Committee to identify gaps between the genders in areas that might contribute to the leaky pipeline such as the job applicant pool, promotions, job satisfaction, number of years on the job, number of women in core director positions, and the availability of family-friendly benefits packages. The Survey Committee might consider enlisting the services of a survey research specialist in designing the survey.
2. Institute a mentoring program that encourages networking and additional training to tackle the added job responsibilities of a core facility director. This can be done at annual meetings in the form of professional development workshops. For example, the American Society for Cell Biology has two programs associated with their annual meeting: one geared toward new faculty, which helps new assistant professors tackle the demands of the pre-tenure phase, and “Reboot Camp” for older faculty who might be left behind advances in technology or policies.
3. Elevate the status of the profession. Core directors are critical to the advancement and achievement of research goals and technology in all sectors. However, many feel underappreciated and not fully recognized for their work, especially if their positions are not clearly defined by the university. Through the Survey Committee, the ABRF might gather data on how core facility directors feel they are perceived by their colleagues. Local meetings, such as the Northeast Regional Life Sciences Core Directors meeting, provide networking opportunities and a great platform for core facility directors to discuss specific issues pertaining to their position.
4. Encourage undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers to use core facilities for interdisciplinary aspects of their research. Doing so will expose young scientists to alternative career options and give them networking opportunities outside their field of study. The ABRF began this tradition at last year’s 2008 annual meeting when they presented two postdoctoral scientists with awards for collaborating with core facilities, and also gave them the opportunity to present their research at the annual meeting.

The ABRF presented these suggestions at the workshop so as to highlight a distinct, new career path for women scientists and some of the unique barriers they may have to overcome while pursuing the career as core director, and to highlight what the ABRF can do to help sustain women through their career transitions. During the transition from scientist to director, a woman faces the same professional challenges as faculty members and university administrators, while also having to deal with the personal challenges that confront all working female scientists.² Women would thus benefit greatly from the same training and mentoring programs available to these other professionals.To address the issues facing women in core facility careers, the ABRF has taken the important first step of organizing a workshop at the upcoming 2009 annual meeting. Much can be learned from the workshop reviewed here—“From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine”—and its lessons might be useful as discussion points for the ABRF 2009 workshop. The overall themes that guided the panelist’s discussions and the suggestions offered by other professional societies mirror the concerns of the ABRF. Gathering information and disseminating the results of studies on issues pertaining to women, in particular women of color, is critical to the success of any workshop examining the lives of women in the world of science. Professional societies must be engaged as a vehicle for bringing change about in the culture of science; however, administrators must also be brought on board for change to occur in any systematic way. Basic issues like self-confidence, learning how to prioritize at work, and how to manage the work–family juggle have a big impact on a woman’s decision to stay in science. Outreach and education are important so senior women scientists can serve as examples for the aspiring youth, in particular with regard to teaching young women how to advantageously use their professional network. Mentorship and family-friendly benefit programs can can have a profound effect on the effort to retain women in science. Even more than a mentor, women need champions who will go to bat for them for the big promotion at the critical transition. An example of such a champion is Dr. Eugene P. Orringer, Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, and the school’s Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs. As the principal investigator of a $2.5-million grant from the National Institutes of Health—“Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health” (BIRCWH, pronounced “birch”)—he has directly helped, through instituting a mentorship program, 24 young faculty (22 of them women) obtain National Institutes of Health “K” or “R” grants at a rate of nearly 100%. Finally, leadership and inspiration are vital to success in every scientific endeavor and the ABRF is in a unique position, being an active professional society with a significant membership population of core facility directors, to provide such leadership and inspiration to their core facilities scientists who aspire to directorships or beyond.     

An international survey of Training Needs and Career Paths of Core Facility Staff

Core facilities (CFs) provide a centralised access to costly equipment, scientific expertise, experimental design, day-to-day technical support and training of users. CFs have a tremendous impact on research outputs, skills and educational agendas, increasing the competencies of staff, researchers and students. However, the rapid development of new technologies and methodologies for the life sciences requires fast adaptation and development of existing core facilities and their technical and scientific staff. Given the scarcity of well-defined CF career paths, CF staff positions are typically filled by people having followed either academic or technical tracks. Each academic institution follows different policies and often fails to adequately recognize the merits of CF personnel and to support their training efficiently. Thus, the Core Technologies for Life Science association (CTLS), through the Training working group, has conducted an anonymous online survey to assess the training needs of CF personnel, as well as to identify common characteristics and challenges in this relatively new and dynamic career type. 275 individuals, including core managers and directors, technicians, technologists and administrators, participated in the survey. The survey was divided into 2 sections; the first, applied to all respondents, and the second, specifically targeted core management issues. Training needs in technological areas, financial and soft skills, management and administrative issues were surveyed as well. The lack of clarity and consistency regarding established career paths for CF professionals was evident from the second part of the survey, highlighting geographical or cultural differences. Gender balance was achieved and the distribution was always taken into account. The results of this survey highlight a need to develop better training resources for CF staff, to improve their recognition within academic institutions, and to establish a recognized career pathway.