Improving the Infectious Diseases Physician Scientist Workforce From the View of Junior Investigators: Vision, Transparency, and Reproducibility

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Jeffrey Collins, Emory University; Erika K. Wallender, University of California San Francisco; Michael Woodworth, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2020-01-01
• Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy B - Oxford Open Option C
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2019 The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz529
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Clinical Infectious Diseases
• ISSN: 1058-4838
• Volume: 70
• Issue: 1
• Start Page: 162
• End Page: 168
• Grant/Funding Information: E. K. W. was supported in part by the Clinical Pharmacology, Drug Action and Pharmacogenetics T32 [National Institute of General Medical Sciences T32GM007546].; M. H. W. was supported in part by an Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group fellowship [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases UM1AI104681].
• Keywords: infectious disease; Science & Technology; clinical research; Immunology; Microbiology; Infectious Diseases; graduate medical education; Life Sciences & Biomedicine
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Immunology; Biology, Microbiology

Abstract

Shortcomings in the current pipeline of infectious disease physician scientists are well documented. With a focus on the transition of early stage investigators to research independence, we outline challenges in existing training pathways for physician scientists. We urge leaders of infectious disease societies, divisions, and governmental and nongovernmental funding organizations to reinvigorate a vision for nurturing trainees with interests in research, to seek transparency in physician scientist funding mechanisms, and to encourage efforts to improve the reproducibility of outcomes for talented junior investigators. We feel that the alternative to making these changes will lead to further drop-off in the physician scientist pipeline in a field that has a perpetual need for research.