Tenure track Years 1 – 3 Basic scientists
Primary emphasis: Establishing a reputation as an independent investigator
“The most important order of business is getting the lab or research program up and running.”
~ Virginia Man-yee Lee, Ph.D., Professor, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Mentors should encourage their mentees to round out the work they did during their fellowships so that they can begin to establish their reputations as independent investigators. Most new faculty on the tenure track arrive at Penn with a research plan in mind, and the sooner they can set this plan in motion the better.
Setting the science in motion
“During your first year, hiring the best lab personnel should take precedence over purchasing the most cutting-edge equipment.”
~ Amita Seghal-Field, Ph.D., Professor, Neuroscience
The first order of business should be getting the experimental systems up and running. Knowing how to handle the nitty-gritty, from ordering equipment to hiring postdocs and technicians to recruiting graduate students can make or break a new faculty member’s ability to get up to speed quickly. Mentors can provide this kind of practical information. Departmental business administrators (BAs) are an excellent resource too.
In selecting staff for the lab, many faculty prefer graduate students, for graduate students can contribute to shaping the science. They have chosen science as a career and have a vested interest in learning to integrate the literature, design experiments, and interpret the data. Moreover, as entrance into Biomedical Graduate Studies continues to become more competitive, our pool of grad students has become increasingly impressive – but it is a relatively small pool.
Given the competition for grad students, mentors should alert their mentees to specific ways in which they can make themselves visible to grad students.
Coaching TipCompetition for graduate students can be intense.
Mentors can help mentees make themselves visible
to graduate students by encouraging them to do the following:
Join at least one graduate group.
Join an affinity group
Give chalk talks
Volunteer to teach first-year seminars
Cultivate rotation students
See whether there are T32 grants you can join
Link to the NIAID (National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases) website which provides on-line tutorials on preparing RO1 grant applications.
Common Pitfalls of Grant Preparation
PowerPoint presentation with audio by Ann Kennedy, D.Sc., Richard Chamberlain Professor of Research Oncology, summarizing typical fatal flaws she observed in grants when she served as a member of an NIH study section
Grant-Writing Manual -- School of Medicine
Link to the School of Medicine's Grant-Writing Manual with information on the NIH review process, the anatomy of an NIH grant, resources to support grant-writers, budgeting, and more.
How to Develop and Write an NIH Grant
PowerPoint presention by Rita Balice-Gordon, Ph.D. Professor of Neuroscience, offers dos and don'ts for writing each of the major sections of an NIH grant application, along with examples.
Inside the NIH Grant Review Process
Video presentation by the NIH Center for Scientific Review, showing a mock study section meeting. Provides an inside look at how NIH grant applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit
What Happens After Your Grant is Handed to the FedEx Guy?
PowerPoint presentation by Gary A. Koretzky, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, describing what happens during that black box of time between the moment when grants are handed off to the "FedEx guy" and reviewer comments arrive back in the mail. Also provides advice on resubmitting.
Click to Close Window
All this being said, faculty should not overlook the merits of hiring experienced laboratory technicians. Unlike professional lab techs, grad students are with an investigator for only a short period of time. Moreover, they are balancing their career needs with those of their mentor. This means that grad students require more time off a project to attend conferences and courses, and to go to job interviews. By way of contrast, professional lab techs are devoted to the needs of the research group. Any time away from their core work relates to advancing the lab. Perhaps most important, once they master relevant lab techniques, they can teach those techniques to new grad students.
Directing the science
Once new faculty have set their science in motion, they may be tempted to retreat to their offices to focus on grant-writing, leaving lab projects to hum along on their own. However, mentors should encourage faculty to meet with lab members regularly and to monitor the lab’s work closely so that they can keep pushing it to the next phase, troubleshooting as needed, helping to interpret results, and designing the next set of experiments. Ultimately, time spent this way will more than pay itself back.
Mentors should help their mentees to strike a balance between focusing their experiments in order to tell an anticipated story and, at the same time, following unexpected leads that the data suggest along the way. Often it is the most unexpected twists and turns that occur in an experiment that yield the most exciting discoveries.
Funding the science
Some departments are able to provide start-up funds, but the expectation is that faculty on the tenure track secure their own funding early on. The School of Medicine Committee on Appointments and Promotions recognizes that it takes time to generate enough preliminary data to apply for an R01. Therefore, when tenure-track faculty come up for reappointment at year three, COAP will view other competitive, peer-reviewed grants favorably, including VA merit awards, grants from the Department of Defense, and foundation grants. Even so, faculty would do well to apply for a joint R01, as co-PI at this point in their careers. That way, they will have been able to demonstrate productivity when they are ready to apply for their second R01 as PI.
Mentors should make sure that their mentees receive feedback on their grants before submitting them. If mentors do not have the background to provide an in-depth critique of the science, they should find other faculty who do. Then they should contact those faculty themselves, for their mentees may feel reluctant to approach their senior colleagues on their own. Finally, even if mentors are not conversant in mentees’ specific area of biomedical expertise, most likely they can provide feedback on the abstract and specific aims.
Extensive resources on grant-writing are available on the Advance Faculty Professional Development Program web site. (See box to the right.) A few words about issues specific to less established investigators follow after the box.
Writing scientific papers
Typically, faculty need their first year to ramp their research enterprise up to speed. By the end of the second year, they should have generated enough data to start writing papers – and mentors should encourage them to get going.
Sometimes new faculty wait for a groundbreaking story to emerge from their data, but incremental advances in their area of expertise are worth writing up too. Mentors should point out that any papers their mentees publish, whether or not they are groundbreaking, will signal productivity to COAP when candidates come up for reappointment.
Coaching tip Q & A
Roll mouse over HERE for the answer.
Myth or fact : Teaching doesn’t really count toward promotion.
(Roll mouse over the correct answer)
Making strategic decisions
The promotions clock ticks quickly on the tenure track, so faculty need to make every decision on how they allocate their time with an eye to both short-and long-term goals. They are likely to be inundated with various invitations, and mentors can help them assess invitations based on their long-term goals.(See box below)
My chief assumes that he should be senior author on all my papers because they “come out of his shop.” What’s standard?
The following statement from Section 1e in the Biomedical Graduate Studies Authorship Policy may be particularly helpful in determining senior authorship:
“General supervision of a research group is not sufficient for authorship.”
Faculty with questions on this policy, may want to contact Susan Ross, Ph.D., Professor of Microbiology, who is knowledgeable about the BGS policy.
Based on guidelines developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the BGS Authorship Policy covers a number of topics including qualification for authorship and proper sequence of authors. It is accessible on line at http://www.med.upenn.edu/policy/BGS_author.pdf