nih institutional training programs: preparing a successful t32 application

NIH Institutional Training Programs: Preparing a Successful T32 Application

Michael A. Sesma, Ph.D. Chief, Postdoctoral Training Branch

Division of Training, Workforce Development and Diversity National Institute of General Medical Sciences

National Institutes of Health

June, 2013

NIH Regional Grant Seminar, June 2014

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

Overview: The overall goal of the NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) program is to help ensure that a diverse pool of highly trained scientists is available in appropriate scientific disciplines to address the Nation's biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs. funding to scientists, not health professionals to enhance research training in scientific areas with need for researchers good curricula, facilities, program in addition

to research dedication to developing talent

NRSA Opportunities:

Training grants (Ts): Multi-slot awards that are used to support research training activities for several individuals selected by the institution.

Fellowships (Fs): Individual awards for graduate students pursuing a doctoral degree and researchers who have just earned their doctorates (postdocs).

Student “training” depends on funding


• T32 Institutional Training Grant (PA-14-015)Predoctoral and/or Postdoctoral Traineeships

• F30 (MD PhD) fellowship (PA-14-150)• F31 (PhD) fellowship (PA-14-147; PA-14-148 (diversity))• F32 Postdoctoral fellowship (PA-14-149)

Research Grant Training Grant Fellowship

“Research work”Early or Dissertation

Phase TrainingDissertation phase

training

Project Focused Value-added for Trainee Fellow’s project

Benefit to RPG PI Benefit to program PIsTrajectory for Independence

Institutional Change

Predoctoral support is largely from research grants“Training” differences in apprenticeship vs a program

Primary mechanisms of NIH Predoctoral Training support


Kirschstein-NRSA Training Grants and Fellowships Distribution of FTTPs X Activity and Career Stage


Median Time to Degree

(TTD)

10 Yr PhD Completion

rate

NIH Trainees 6.3 yrs 80.1%

Life Science PhD 6.9 yrs 62.9%

Social Science PhD 7.7 yrs 55.9%

Applied for NIH RPG within 15 yrs of degree

Received NIH RPG Award within 15 yrs of degree

NIH Trainees & Fellows

36.7% 23.6%

Other PhDs: same fields, institutions

12.8% 7.0%

Other PhDs: same fields and institutions without NIH Training Grants

5.9% 2.6%

NIH Predoc Trainees finish the PhD, have earlier success

Encourage institutions to accelerate time to scientific independenceSources: IMPAC II and the Doctorate Records File--Includes MSTP trainees


Training in light of limited diversity in workforce


Source: US Census; NSF, 2007K-12 Enro

llment

U.S. Colle

ge-Age

UG Enrollm

ent

S&E Bach

elors

S&E D

octora

tes0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Temp. Res.

non-URM

URM

2008 20500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US Population Biomedical Workforce

Trends in race/ethnicity of NIH-supported Ph.D. recipients



African American Other URM Hispanic Total Trainees

NIH 406 (5.6%) 46517 (7.2%) 7212

as many as 969 URM trainees or 13.4%* supported by T32

*Some individuals may report multiple backgrounds; T32 predoc appointees 2011; ImpacII, Off Res Info/Off Stat Anal & Report/ OER Stats

Do training grants help build diversity?

Comparison of the Number of Training Grant Awards and the Number of URM Trainees by Institution. The correlation between training grants and number of URM students is 0.748.

National Academies Press 2011; Research Doctorate Programs in the biomedical sciences: Selected findings from the NRC Assessment (2011) Board on Higher Education and Workforce


Postdoctoral Training2009 Total: 37,000 to 68,000

Median Length: 4 years

International

Post-Training Workforce

College Graduates

8% of graduates

leave the USOf graduates who stay in the US

30% skip a postdoc

70% do a postdoc1,900 to 3,900

in 2009

4,000 in 2009

Graduate Education & Training

2009 Total: 83,000Time to Degree :5.5-7yrs

2009 Graduates: 9,000

16,000 in 2009

5,800 in 2009

18%Biomedical US-trained

PhD

2008~22,500

Industrial Research

43%(23% tenured)

Biomedical US-trained PhD,

2008 ~55,000

Academic Research or

Teaching

6%Biomedical US-

trained PhD,

2008 ~7,000

Government Research

18%Biomedical US- trained PhD, 2008 ~24,000

Science Related Non-

Research

13%Biomedical US-

trained PhD,

2008 ~17,000

Non-Science Related

2%Biomedical US-

trained PhD,

2008 ~2,500

Unemployed

(128,000 Biomedical US-trained PhDs)

NOTE: The color of the numbers reflects the confidence in the accuracy of the data.

Snapshot of the PhD Biomedical Workforce

http://acd.od.nih.gov/Biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf

Training In light of Multiple Career OutcomesEmployment of Biomedical Science PhDs by Sector

NIH Regional June 2013

Source: http://sestat.nsf.gov/

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991 1993 1993NEW

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008

Nu

mb

er

Other Government

Industrial All Academic

Graduate students in basic biomedical sciences• Initially have goal of academic research• Midway thru PhD consider multiple

careers

Individual Development Plans (IDPs)self assessment and planning

To be used in training, fellowships, RPGs…Student and Mentor Engagement

What’s Next? Attention to multiple careers


myidp.sciencecareers.orgFuhrmann et al 2011 CBE Life Sci Educn 10: 239-249

The IDP involves


The scholar The mentor

Self Assessment Familiarity with opportunitiesSurvey opportunities discuss opportunitiesWrite IDP Review IDP, help reviseImplement plan Assess New Tasks, Progress

in light of the plan

1. Skills assessment - strengths and weaknesses2. Career match - do goals match skills and interest?3. Do it again next year

Kirschstein-NRSA institutional research training grants Applications, Awards, and Success Rates


15

Institutional Training Grants FY2013

Competing: 672 Applications 57 Type 1 (new) awarded 223 Type 2 (renewal) awarded

Non-Competing: 1,409 Type 5 (non-competing) awarded

Total Number of T32s in 2013 = 1,689Total Success Rate = 42%

23% for New Applications 49% for Competing Renewal Applications


Institutional Training Programs:Strategies for Preparing a Successful Application


• Understand the role of training programs• Goal to enhance research training through a

coordinated programmatic approach• Involve many faculty, multiple departments• Trainees selected by the institution

• PA-14-015 T32 Parent Announcement • Clarify value-added, careers• Evolution of review criteria

Strategies to Develop a Competitive T32 Application


1. Start Early2. Consider why a Training Grant is important 3. Be very sure there is a PROGRAM4. Consider how your training is innovative5. Complete tables before finalizing narrative6. Read and respond to the review criteria 7. Explain, explain, explain. 8. Remember reviewers are expert faculty

familiar with training

Strategy for T32 Preparation


Organize Faculty Group

Design the Program

Get Institutional

Support

Review Table Data

Write the Narrative

Training Programs Rely on Faculty Strengths


Use NIH Reporter - search your School’s Faculty Research Faculty in research area of proposal Faculty funded by particular Institute

Examine Your Institution - Training HistoryCritical mass of FacultyCurrent “pool” of potential traineesFaculty history with pre- or post-doc training Training career outcomes, fellowships, publicationsFaculty mentor development


Design the Program

Get Institutional

Support

Review Table Data

Write the Narrative


Who is the Program for?Many interdisciplinary, not departmentalHow to manage nomination, selection?Why do you need a training program?How will the trainee benefit from the program?

What are the Program Elements? Every student will..Can students complete what you outline?

What Outcome do you want and expect? What is the most Important Outcome?


Design the Program

Get Institutional

Support

Review Table Data

Write the Narrative


The “value added” from training is an Intentional program beyond research in the PI labs

Active nomination, selection of candidates from poolPlanned research and academics, with flexibilitySeminars, enhancement activitiesLongitudinal program beyond funding period

Faculty trainer responsibilities make program strong


Design the Program

Clarify Institutional

Support

Review your

Tables

Write the Narrative

Training Programs are Developmental, more than Selection of Talent


Potential TraineesSelect for TG and why

Matriculant

UG major

Research Interest

Courses taken

Lab affiliation

PhD Program

Pilot research

Program ActivitiesPlanned interventions

Milestone/ OutcomesIntended changes

Mentored Research PI, advisory cmte research design new techniquesPlanned Curriculum knowledge teachingSkill building oral communication writing workshops new collaborationsContemporary science meet new scientistsCareer Exposure know next steps

Short termResearch publicationsPoster, meetingFellowship Longer termNext positionBiomedical careerResearch grantsMentoring others


Who will “run” the program?Effort, administrative support, record-

keepinginterface with Grad Studies, PhD program,

etc.

If trainees and mentors at different siteswhere do they meet? Socialize? Retreat?how do you form a cohort?

Student Council groups attractive


Design the Program


Support

Review your

Tables

Review Criteria,

Get Advice

Write the Narrative


Institutional SupportGrants and Contracts submits grantneed faculty data, postdoc office, student information

For PI/PD and faculty effort (salary), research supportadministrative support for training programcentral graduate office support

For Traineestop-up stipend, perks?support for other students in programaccess to resources (research cores, RCR courses, recruiting)


Design the Program


Support

Review your

Tables

Review Criteria,

Get Advice

Write the Narrative


12 required tables

Some schools have central office for data

PD is responsible for content, understandingeven if assistant helps prepare the tables!

Analyze information and describe in narrativeBe sure to have at least a paragraph on each table

explain, don’t bury, data. Have a plan!


Design the Program


Support

Review your

Tables

Review Criteria,

Get Advice

Write the Narrative


Scored Review Criteria:1. Training Program and Environment2. Training Program Director/Principal Investigator3. Preceptors/Mentors4. Trainees5. Training Record

Overall Impact Score: 1-9


Design the Program


Support

Review your

Tables

Review Criteria,

Get Advice

Write the Narrative

Review of Training Grants

Two Levels of Review:Initial Review - Study Section- Scientific Merit

Appropriate Scientific Expertise Established Scientists Many Participate in Training Programs

Institute or Center Council- Program Relevance Broader Scientific Coverage Established Senior Scientists Leaders in Community (Scientific, Business, Philanthropic)

Provide Guidance to Program Staff

27

28

Your Grant Application

Electronic Submission ---May (Sept, Jan)Received Centrally by the Center for Scientific Review

and Referred to Appropriate Institute Assigned to Appropriate Initial Review Group (20 to 30

members) by the Institute Each Application Assigned to Three to Four Primary

Reviewers in Group Initial Review Group Meeting --- SeptemberAdvisory Council --- JanuaryFunding Decisions --- MarchAward Issued --- July

4. Trainees


Is a recruitment plan proposed with strategies likely to attract well-qualified candidates for the training program?

Proactive recruitment or dependent on umbrella admissions?

Are there well-defined and justified selection and re-appointment criteria as well as retention strategies?

Nomination, re-appointment criteria, process

Is there evidence of a competitive applicant pool of sufficient size and quality, at each of the proposed levels (pre, post, short-term) to ensure a successful training program?

TG is catalytic, supports a third(?) of relevant TGE students

5. Training Record


To what extent do trainees’ subsequent positions in industrial, academic, government, non-profit, or other sectors benefit from their NRSA-supported research training and directly benefit the broader biomedical research enterprise?

Preparation for multiple career paths?

Does the program propose a rigorous evaluation plan to assess the quality and effectiveness of the training?

Annually assess outcomes? What do you measure?Evidence that adapt to changes?

Are effective mechanisms in place for obtaining feedback from current and former trainees?

student council, social media, LinkedIn, etc.alumni lectures

Is there a record of retaining health professional trainees in research training or other research activities for at least two years?


Additional Review Criteria & Considerations

Additional Review CriteriaProtection for Human SubjectsInclusion of Women, Minorities, and ChildrenVertebrate AnimalsBiohazardsResubmission, Renewal, Revision factors

Additional Review Considerations:Diversity Recruitment PlanTraining in Responsible Conduct of ResearchSelect Agent ResearchBudget and Period of Support



Budget – FTTPs (Program Slots)Most TGs support two years of trainingslots are described per year justify slots at about 25-33% of TGE trainee pool in a year

Responsible Conduct of ResearchMandatory; describe hours, topics, when occurs, refreshOnline is not sufficientInstitutional program okay, IF alsoTG faculty participate in small groups

Rated as: Acceptable or UnacceptableEach IC will review plans before funding


DIVERSITYRecruitment and retention plan to enhance diversity evaluated after the overall score has been determinedGoal is diversity and inclusion in the program especially for individuals from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral science

US minorities, Individuals with disabilities Be aware of NSF data, know your institutional recordPlans to recruitPlans to retainReport Progress

Rated as: Acceptable or UnacceptableEach IC will review plans before funding


Table 2. Participating Faculty Members


Table 2. Participating Faculty Members (Alphabetically by Faculty Member)

Name/Degree(s) Rank Primary (& Secondary) Appointment(s) Role in Program Research Interest

Abrams-Johnson, Jane, PhD Asst. Prof. Pharmacology; (Biochemistry-Medical School)

Mentor Regulation of Synthesis of Biogenic Amines

Jones, Lisa S., MD Res. Asst. Prof.

Microbiology and Immunology (Neuroscience Program)

Mentor Exec Com

Protein Structure, Folding, and Immunogenicity

Sandoz, J. Miguel, MD, PhD Assoc. Prof. Neuroscience Program Mentor Developmental Genetics in Drosophila

Thomas, C. James, III, PhD Prof. & Chr. Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics Program Director Molecular and Genetic Analysis of RNA Viruses

Table 2 Instructions: List each training faculty member with his/her degree(s), academic rank, primary departmental affiliation and secondary appointments, role in the proposed training grant program, and research interests that are relevant to this program.

Rationale: This information allows reviewers to assess the distribution of junior versus senior faculty and clinical versus basic scientists participating in the training program, as well as their distribution by department. The data concisely summarize the scientific areas of the training faculty.

Do right away, its easy to modify as you collect biosketches: Start here


Table 1. Participating Departments

35

Table 1. Membership of Participating Departments/Programs (Alphabetically)

Participating Department /

Program

Faculty Members in

Department / Program

Faculty Members

Participating in This

Application

Predoctoral Trainees in


(Supported by Any NIH

Training Grant)

Predoctoral Trainees With Participating

Faculty (TGE) A/B/C

For Renewal Applications, Predoctoral

Trainees Supported by This Training

Grant (TGE) A/B/C

Postdoctoral Trainees in


(Supported by Any NIH

Training Grant)

Postdoctoral Trainees

With Participating

Faculty (TGE) A/B/C

For Renewal Applications, Postdoctoral

Trainees Supported by This Training

Grant (TGE) A/B/C

Dept. of Biology 45 14 38 (15) 12 (6) 1/1/0

2 (2) 1/0/0

50 (5) 15 (7) 1/0/0

2 (2) 0/0/0

Neuroscience Program

32 20 31 (20) 14 (7) 2/0/1

4 (4) 0/1/0

40 (7) 23 (10) 0/0/1

2(2) 1/0/0

Dept. of Pharmacology (Medical School)

25 5 30 (10) 5 (3) 1/0/0

3 (3) 0/0/0

28 (0) 12 (6) 0/0/1

0 (0) 0/0/0

Totals N/A N/A 99 (45) 31 (16) 4/1/1

9 (9) 1/1/0 108 (12) 50 (23)

4 (4) 1/0/0

From the Table 1 Instructions - Rationale: This table provides insight into the environment in which training will take place. It allows reviewers to assess whether the program has the "critical mass" (trainees, faculty and other research personnel, and representation/distribution of scientific disciplines) to be successful.

Finish this table last…its complicated


Table 3. Existing Institutional Training Grants Table 3. Institutional Training Grant Support Available to Participating Faculty Members, Department(s), or Program(s)

Title of Training Grant

Funding Source Including

Identifying Number

Active or Pending Project Period

Program Director

(Department)

Predoctoral Trainees

Supported This Year

Postdoctoral Trainees

Supported This Year

Short-Term

Trainees Supported This Year

Total No. of Participating

Faculty

Names of Overlapping

Faculty

Bioimmunotherapy Training Grant

T32 CA05964-11 06/02-07/07 Baker, A. (Pathology)

12 25 Abelson Brown Fields Johnson Sung Watson

Pharmacological Sciences

T32 GM04823-01 Pending James, C. (Pharmacology)

10 19 Jones Jenson Watson

Genetic Basis of Mental Illness

T32 MH02708-07 06/03-07/08 Johnson, A. (Psychiatry)

4 4 7 Johnson Watson

Totals N/A N/A N/A 26 4 0 51 N/A

Table 3 Instructions: List all current and pending training support available to the participating faculty members, department(s) or programs(s). For each grant, include the title of the training grant; funding source and complete identifying number; status (active or pending) and dates of the entire project period; name of the program director and department; number(s) of training positions (predoctoral, postdoctoral, and short term), number of participating faculty members; and list overlapping participating faculty members, who are also named in this application.

Rationale: This table will permit an evaluation of the level of support for training available to each of the participating departments/programs and the extent to which the proposed training grant overlaps with or duplicates available training grant support. It is useful in determining the number of training positions to be awarded.

Explain overlapping faculty, esp if overlap trainee stage


Table 4. Grant Support of FacultyTable 4. Grant and Contract Support of the Participating Faculty Members

(Alphabetically by Faculty Member)

Faculty Member

Source of Support, Grant Number and Status Faculty Member Role on Project and Grant Title

Project Period Active

Current Year Direct Costs Awarded

(Total Direct Costs for Awards With Substantial

Future Changes)

Jones, J. NIH 1 R01 CA76259-01 * PI - Structure and Function of Acetylcholine Receptors 05/09-05/014 * $190,000

Jones, J. NIH 5 K08 AI00091-03 PI - Purification & Identification of Receptors 11/03-11/08 $140,000

Mack, T. American Heart Assoc. PI - Control of Angiogenesis 03/05-03/08 $185,000

Mack, T. NSF PCM 80-12935 (D. Stockton, PD/PI)

Co-PI - Cell Culture Center 12/06-12/09 $180,000

Mack, T. NIH 1 P01 CA71802-02 (D. Stockton, PD/PI)

Project Leader of Subproject 4: "Genetic Control of Cell Division"

10/05-10/09 $165,000

Smith, J. None

Zachary, A. NIH 1 U01 AI-28507-01 * PI – Human Monoclonal Antibodies as a Therapy for Staphyloccal Enterotoxin

07/09-07/14 * $200,000 ($3 million)

Table 4 Instructions: For each participating faculty member, list active and pending research grant and contract support from all sources (including Federal, non-Federal, and institutional research grant and contract support) that will provide the context for research training experiences, but excluding research training grants. If none, state "None." Include the source of support and grant number; role of the participating faculty member (PD/PI, co-PD/PI, etc.) in the grant; title, status (use an asterisk (*) to indicate pending sources of support) and dates of the entire project period; and the current year annual direct costs. If the source of support is part of a multiple project grant (for example, a P01), additionally identify the PD/PI of the overall project, and provide the above information for that component of the grant with which the faculty member is associated. For grants with major budget changes in future years such as clinical trials, include the total direct costs of the award in parentheses.

Rationale: This table provides evidence of the strength of the research environment, the availability of funds to support research conducted by the trainees, and the appropriateness of the participating faculty members in terms of their active research support.

current and pending research funding only. If none…worry


Table 5. Training Record of Faculty

If no previous trainees, what is plan to mentor initial trainer? If poor outcomes, you may not want this trainer!


Table 6. Publications of Trainees

Comment on first author, and total publications with mentorDiscuss program policies on pubsNotice TTD here…For renewals attend to Public Access Compliance


Table 7A. Admissions and Completion Records for Participating Departments and Programs

Table 7A. Admissions and Completion Records for the Participating Departments and Programs During the Past Five Years (Predoctoral Applicants)


Entering Year

Applicants Applied (TGE)

A

Applicants Accepted

(TGE) A

Applicants Enrolled

(TGE) A/B/C

Trainees Still in

Program (TGE) A/B/C

Trainees Completed Program

Earned PhD or MD/PhD

(TGE) A/B/C

Trainees Completed Program

Earned Other Degree (TGE) A/B/C

Trainees Left

Program (TGE) A/B/C

Reason for Leaving Program

(if training was not completed)

Department of Biochemistry

2003 8 (5) 0

6 (4) 0

4 (3) 0/3/1

2 (1) 0/0/0

1 (1) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

1 (1) 0/0/0

Changed career interests


2004 9 (7) 1

6 (4) 10

5 (3) 0/0/0

4 (3) 0/0/0

1 (1) 0/0/0

0(0) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0


2005 10 (6) 2

8 (5) 1

5 (3) 1/0/0

4 (3) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

MS 1 1/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

Went to medical school


2006 12 (9) 3

10 (6) 1

8 (5) 1/0/0

6 (4) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

2 (1) 0/0/0

1 left for a job in industry; 1 left for reasons unknown


2007 15 (12) 4

10 (8) 2

8 (6) 2/1/0

8 (6) 2/1/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Genetics

2003 125 (9) 5

24 (18) 0

18 (15) 0/0/0

5 (4) 00/0

12 (11) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

1 (0) 0/0/0

Transferred to Bioengineering PhD program


2004 123 (91) 3

22 (17 1

16 (16) 1/0/0

10 (10) 0/0/0

4 (4) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

2 (2) 1/0/0

1 transferred to another institution; 1 enrolled in medical school


2005 122 (85) 5

21 (19) 0

17 (16) 0/0/0

14 (14) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

MS 1 0/0/0

2 (1) 0/0/0

1 left for job in industry; 1 enrolled in dental school


2006 130 (83) 5

35 (22) 4

20 (19) 3/0/0

18 (17) 2/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

0 (0) 0/0/0

2 (2) 1/0/0

1 transferred to neuroscience training program; 1 teaching science in high school


Table 8A. Qualifications of Recent Predoctoral ApplicantsTable 8A. Qualifications of Recent Predoctoral Applicants

Year Department /

Program

Applicant (List by

Number) Previous

Institution(s) Degree(s) & Year(s)

GRE Scores V, Q, Adv

(Percentiles) and/or MCAT

Scores Undergrad

GPA Interviewed

(Y/N) Accepted

(Y/N) Enrolled

(Y/N)

Support from this

Grant (Y/N)

2007 Medical Scientist Training Program

1* U. of WI BSN '06 12, 11, Q, 10 3.63 Y Y Y Y


2* Stanford BS '06 11, 13, N, 11 3.72 Y Y N JHU

N


3 Yale U. Wash. U.

BA '05 MS '06

10, 9, O, 11 660 680 740

3.78 Y N N N

2007 Molecular Biophysics Program

1* U. of IL BS '06 700 730 720 4.0 Y Y Y Y


2* Rutgers BS '07 710 690 680 3.36 Y Y Y Y


3 Berkeley BS '07 680 710 720 3.68 Y Y N UCSF

N


4* U. of TX BS '07 720 690 750 (97%) (79%)

(85%)

3.73 Y Y N JHU

N


5* Tufts U. BS '06 650 670 630 3.32 N N N N


6 U. of Kyoto BS '05 480 710 720 N/A N N N N

Program Statistics

Total Number of Applicants

Number of TGE Applicants

Applicants Interviewed

Applicants Accepted

Applicants Enrolled

Applicants Supported By

This Grant Average GRE / MCAT Scores Average GPA

9 6 7 6 3 3 11, 11,11

702 705 718 3.65

Similar table (8B) for Postdoctoral Applicants


Table 9A. Qualifications of Current Predoctoral Trainees

Table 9A. Qualifications of the Current Predoctoral Trainees Clearly Associated with the Training Program


Trainee (List by Number)

Previous Institution(s)

Degree(s) & Year(s)

GRE Scores / (Percentiles)

V, Q, Adv and/or

MCAT Scores Undergraduate

GPA

Current Research

Mentor Years in Program

Calendar Years

Appointed to This Grant

Biochem 1* U. of WI BSN '06 680 720 750 3.63 Jones, J. '07-present None

Genetics 2* MIT BS '06 12, 12, R, 14 3.72 Huerta, X. '05-present '06-'07

Genetics 3* U. Penn. Wash. U.

BA '05 MS '07

700 710 640 (96% 82% 84%)

3.75 Felman, R. '07-present '06-present

Genetics 4 U. Mich. BA '07 650 710 630 (80% 92% 83%)

3.34 TBN '07-present None

Program Statistics

Total Number of Trainees

Number of TGE Trainees

Average GRE / MCAT Scores Average GPA

4 3 690, 705, 695 12, 12, R, 14

3.61


Table 9A. Qualifications of Current Postdoctoral Trainees


Table 10. Admissions and Completion Records of Underrepresented Individuals

Table 10: Admissions and Completion Records for Underrepresented Minority (URM) Trainees, Trainees with Disabilities, and Trainees from Disadvantaged Backgrounds Clearly Associated With the Training Program

Diversity Recruitment

Group

Trainee (List by

Number)

Entering Year

(Pre/Post) Department /

Program

Source of Support and if Support by

NRSA Grant In

Training Completed

Training

Left Without Completing

Training

Current Status Career or

Employment

URM Trainees 1* 2006 (Pre)

Genetics T32 GM001122 F31

Y Postdoctoral Trainee UCSF

URM Trainees 1* 2007 (Post)

Cell Biology University Fellowship Research

Y Mentor and student both moved to another institution

URM Trainees 1* 2007 (Post)

Chemistry Lectureship Y

Trainees With Disabilities

1* 2004 (Pre)

Pharmacology T32 GM001144 F31

Y Postdoctoral Trainee NYU


2* 2006 (Post)

Cell Biology R01 Y Career Change


3 2007 (Post)

Medicine Research Associate Y

Trainees From Disadvantaged Backgrounds

1* 2005 (Pre)

Genetics T32 GM001155 F31

Y Postdoctoral Trainee U. Chicago

C—usually not for grad, postdoc

A

B


Table 11. Appointments to the Training Grant for each Year of Past Award

Table 11. Appointments to the Training Grant For Each Year of the Past Award (Renewal Applications Only)

Grant Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Predoctoral Positions Awarded (Months of Support) 10 (120) 12 (144) 14 (168) 14 (168) 14 (168)

Predoctoral Trainees Appointed (Months of Support Used) 10 (120) 131 (144) 14 (168) 132 (156) 14 (168)

Predoctoral URM Trainees Appointed (Months of Support) 1 (12) 2 (24) (0) 1 (12) 1 (12)

Predoctoral Trainees with Disabilities Appointed (Months of Support) 1 (12) 0 (0) 1 (12) 2 (12) 0 (0)

Predoctoral Trainees from Disadvantaged Background Appointed (Months of Support)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (12)

Postdoctoral Positions Awarded (Months of Support) 4 (48) 4 (48) 4 (48) 4 (48) 4 (48)

Postdoctoral Trainees With MD Appointed 1 1 2 1 2

Postdoctoral Trainees With MD/PhD Appointed 2 1 1 0 0

Postdoctoral Trainees With PhD Appointed 1 1 0 1 2

Postdoctoral Trainees With Other Degree Appointed 0 DrPH DrPH PharmD 0

Postdoctoral Trainees Appointed (Months of Support Used) 4 (48) 4 (48) 4 (48) 3 (38)3 4 (48)

Postdoctoral URM Trainees Appointed (Months of Support) 1 (12) 2 (24) 0 (0) 1 (12) 1 (12)

Postdoctoral Trainees with Disabilities Appointed (Months of Support) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Postdoctoral Trainees from Disadvantaged Background Appointed (Months of Support)

0 (0) 0 (0 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (12)

1 One trainee left after 6 months and a second trainee was appointed for the remainder of the year. 2 One position was not filled. 3 A fourth trainee was appointed, but fell ill and dropped out after 2 months. It was then too late to recruit a replacement trainee.


12A. Predoc Trainees Supported by this Training Grant

Program Statistics

Percentage of Trainees Entering 10 Years Ago That Completed Ph.D.s

Average Time to Ph.D. for Students in the Last 10 Years (not including leaves of absence)

50% 6.5 years

TG1, TG2...Early, late…Explain use of slots!


12B. Postdoc Trainees Supported by this Training Grant

Notes on the Narrative


BackgroundDescribe a good environment for trainingDescribe data in Tables 1, 2, 3:Departmental Membership, Participating Faculty Members, Other TG Support

Program Administration and FacultyDescribe data in Tables 4, 5, 6:Faculty Grant Support, Trainees, Publication of Trainees

Program PlanWho are students and how are they selectedWhat students will do & whyIDP?

Training Program Evaluationthe mechanisms to be used in evaluating the quality and success of the training effort, outcome measures?



Trainee Candidates - who are theyRecruitment, pool size, quality

Admissions and Completion Records of Trainees Tables 7A and/or 7B

Qualifications of Trainee Applicants Tables 8A and/or 8B

For Renewals, Current Trainee Qualifications Table 9A and/or 9B

Institutional Environment and Commitment to the ProgramRecruitment and Retention Plan to Enhance Diversity

Tables 1, 7A/B, Renewal application - Table 10Plan for Instruction in Responsible Conduct of ResearchFor Renewal Applications

Progress reportTables 11, 12A and/or 12B

Use advisory group to critique before submission



Competing Renewal Applications• describe the program success in recruitment, retention

and graduation of individuals from underrepresented groups

• highlight how the program has evolved in response to changes in relevant scientific and technical knowledge, educational practices, and to evaluation of the training program


NIGMS suggests ways to enhance the training experience of their programs. These activities would be appropriate to include in the program plan:

• offer opportunities for interested trainees to obtain experience in teaching

• if appropriate, offer opportunities for trainees to take industrial or other internships outside of the training institution.

• provide information to trainees and prospective applicants about career outcomes of recent graduates; organize student seminars and workshops on career opportunities and options.

• recruit trainees with a variety of undergraduate science backgrounds, including mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences.


Differentiate from the generic training program. Be unique.

Get up to Speed, then Innovate

Brass LF et al 2010 Are MD-PhD programs meeting their goals? An

analysis of career choices made by graduates of 24 MD-PhD

programs. Acad Med. 85: 692

Sambunjak 2006 Mentoring in Academic Medicine: A systematic review.

JAMA 296: 1103

Andrews NC 2002 The Other Physician Scientist problem: Where have

all the young girls gone? Nature Medicine 8: 439

Ciampa EJ et al. 2011 A workshop on leadership for MD/PhD students.

Med. Ed Online 16: 7075

Dickler HB et al. 2007 New Physician Investigators Receiving National

Institutes of Health Research Project Grants: A historical

perspective on the “endangered species” JAMA 297: 2496NIH Regional Grant Seminar, June 2014

Look to NSF for PhD data

Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2011

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/

Trends in earned PhDs in different biomedical fields

Trends in diversity in PhDs………. and beyond!





NIH Institute Resources for T32 Applicants

NIGMS - Answers to Institutional Predoctoral Training Grants (T32) Frequently Asked Questionshttp://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/Pages/predoc-training-

grants-faqs.aspx NIAID - Advice on Research Training and Career Awards; Institutional Research Training Grants http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/traincareer/pages/

advice.aspx#I Guide For Understanding NINDS Institutional Training Grant (T32) Applications And Their Review http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/areas/

training_and_career_development/T32_guide.pdf

Strategies to Develop a Strong Proposal


1. Start Early2. Consider why a Training Grant is important 3. Be very sure there is a PROGRAM4. Consider how your training is innovative5. Complete tables before finalizing narrative6. Read and respond to the review criteria 7. Explain, explain, explain. 8. Remember reviewers are expert faculty

familiar with training

Preparing a Successful T32 Application

Questions?

[email protected]


nih institutional training programs: preparing a successful t32 application

Documents