Roundtable

NIAMS Forum for Clinical Mentored K Awardees - December 2023

December 5, 2024

November 30 – December 1, 2023

Co-Chairs
Lindsey Criswell, M.D., M.P.H., D.Sc.
Gayle Lester, Ph.D.
Alexey Belkin, Ph.D.
Marie Mancini, Ph.D.
Kristy Nicks, Ph.D.

Introduction

The NIH K08 and K23 Mentored Research Career Development Awards provide support for a sustained period of “protected time” (3-5 years) for intensive research career development under the guidance of an experienced mentor, or sponsor, in the biomedical, behavioral, or clinical sciences leading to research independence. Previous discussions have identified the K-to-R01 transition as a critical point in the development of clinician-scientists’ independent research careers.

Purpose

NIAMS held its first K Forum in 2012. Based on the positive feedback received from participants, NIAMS convened subsequent meetings annually. Summaries of those meetings are available on the NIAMS web page about roundtable discussions and workshops. The K Forum brings together clinician-scientists with a NIAMS K08 or K23 award. The 2023 meeting was held in-person in Bethesda, Maryland. Participants at this meeting included the 3rd year NIAMS K awardees as well as one NIAMS intramural research program scholar. The Forum also included established clinician-scientists as mentors, some of whom had NIH K awards in the past, and representatives of professional and voluntary organizations with an interest in research within the NIAMS mission.

The purpose of the meeting is to foster a shared, open discussion of challenges investigators with clinical degrees face in pursuing research independence. The Forum also provides an opportunity for the K awardees to network with other participants and interact with NIAMS leadership and staff. NIAMS long-term goal in holding this Forum is to enhance the Institute’s support of early-stage clinician-scientists by encouraging and enabling them to continue performing basic, translational, or patient-oriented research in their chosen fields.

Welcome and Introduction of K Award Investigators and NIAMS Intramural Research Scholars

The Forum started on November 30 with a welcome by the NIAMS Director Dr. Lindsey Criswell. Her remarks were followed by introductory presentations from K award investigators and NIAMS intramural scholars. The presentation session was moderated by Drs. Alexey Belkin and Marie Mancini. Each scientist provided a brief overview about their research project and proposed questions about challenges as an early-stage investigator. Dr. Mancini closed the session with reflections on the presentations. She expressed the institute’s appreciation to the speakers and commended them on their progress, especially the challenges that clinical investigators face, such as balancing their clinics, labs, and family life; grantsmanship; data collection; and managing personnel at their perspective institutions. 

Presentation and Discussion of K Award Past Outcomes, Future Directions, and NIH Policy Updates

After the introductory presentations, Dr. Kristy Nicks presented an overview of the K awards program. The presentation focused on outcomes of the program as well as information about related policies. Dr. Nicks highlighted analyses that were conducted to assess the success of the K awards and discussed steps NIH and NIAMS are taking to address and overcome common challenges faced by early-stage clinician-scientists. Dr. Nicks then reported on policy updates that are relevant to clinician-scientists with career development awards and closed by briefly reiterating the goals and purpose of the K Forum.

Dr. Nicks started her presentation by reminding the group of the goal and purpose of the NIAMS K Forum. A 2011 NIH-wide evaluation of K01, K08, and K23 awards explored who applies for and receives mentored career development awards and the effects of the K award on research productivity and independent careers. The analysis compared outcomes of individuals who received a K award to those of similar individuals who applied for but did not receive a K award. The evaluation showed that K awardees:

  • are more likely to have subsequent research publications;
  • are more likely to apply for subsequent NIH research awards;
  • have a higher R01 award success rate;
  • have a higher percentage of years with subsequent NIH support; and
  • are more likely to apply for and receive at least one competitive renewal of an R01 grant.

Dr. Nicks also was encouraged by data showing that the success rate for K award investigators in obtaining independent research grants had steadily improved over the years.

Additionally, in 2012, NIAMS collaborated with rheumatology-related foundations to conduct a small analysis. The results of the analysis suggested that individuals who received both foundation support and an NIH K award were more likely to apply for and receive R01 funding than K awardees who did not have such additional support. The analysis also identified the transition period between the K and the R01 awards as a vulnerable point in an investigator’s progression to independence.

Further, data from the 2014 Physician-Scientist Workforce Report showed that the numbers of first-time M.D. and M.D./Ph.D. NIH research project grant applicants had been stable for ten years, despite the increase in the total number of physicians.

Dr. Nicks discussed challenges facing early-career clinician-scientists, such as salary coverage, educational debt, transition to independence, time in training, mentoring support, protected time, clinical demands, and work-life balance. In recent years, NIAMS and/or NIH have made efforts to address these challenges by:

Dr. Nicks also mentioned several policy updates from the NIH related to K career development awards and early-stage researchers, including:

Dr. Nicks ended her presentation by highlighting the NIH Early Career Reviewer Program and reminding the participants about ways to stay updated with NIAMS Funding News and Alerts and informational events from NIH Grants and Funding.

Dr. Gayle Lester closed the first day with reflections on the challenges facing early-career clinician-scientists, encouraging further discussion on the second day. She expressed the institute’s appreciation to the speakers and commended the K awardees and NIAMS intramural scholars on their progress. Dr. Lester also encouraged the investigators to engage with NIAMS staff and connect with the mentors and their peers for exchange of information and collaboration.

Concurrent Sessions

K Award Investigators and NIAMS Intramural Scholars Meeting with NIAMS Extramural Staff

On December 1, scientists with K awards and NIAMS intramural scholars participated in a morning “Round Robin” session with NIAMS program, grants management, and scientific review staff, as well as with NIAMS staff who administer clinical research grants. At the beginning of the session, Dr. Marie Mancini provided a brief introduction to the NIH and the NIAMS, as well as information about the NIAMS organization and leadership and the various functions of the NIAMS extramural program. The K researchers and NIAMS intramural scholars then met in small groups with NIAMS staff to ask questions and learn about the institute’s policies, procedures, and programs.

Mentors and Professional and Voluntary Organizations Meeting with NIAMS Leadership

All other forum participants met with NIAMS Director Dr. Lindsey Criswell and NIAMS Deputy Director Dr. Bob Carter to provide input on workforce and training needs for the institute’s FYs 2025-2029 Strategic Plan. The group discussed opportunities for enhancing workforce diversity as well as needs, opportunities, and current activities related to data science and team science. The discussion also focused on ways to enhance support for early- and mid-career scientists. 

Patient and Voluntary Organizations: Funding Opportunities and Resources

After the morning concurrent sessions, the participants reconvened for presentations from the patient and voluntary organization representatives on their organizations' funding programs and resources for early-stage investigators. Dr. Criswell welcomed the group and reiterated NIAMS’ strong commitment to developing clinician-scientists.

Dr. Nicks moderated the patient and voluntary organizations’ presentations. The organizations’ representatives described their missions and funding available to early-stage investigators, some of which are specifically designed to supplement and support researchers with existing NIH career development awards and “gap” funding. They also discussed resources for new investigators, mid-career investigators, bridge funding, and supplement awards to help establish mentor and peer networks. The representatives highlighted their organizations’ efforts to improve diversity and inclusion of underrepresented groups working in their respective mission areas. These efforts focus both on diversifying the scientific workforce, including awards to improve networking and mentorship opportunities, and on encouraging research that addresses health disparities through targeted funding opportunities. The organizations’ representatives also discussed ways to retain researchers and support investigators whose grant applications fell just short of NIH paylines.

Mentor Perspective

Dr. Suzanne Maher, an established scientist focusing on joint mechanics, spoke at the forum about happiness as the driver of “Strategic Career Development.” She began her remarks by thanking NIAMS for its supportive role in her career progression. She also offered the caveat that she is not a clinician.  However, she has been a committed mentor to many scientists and clinician-scientists in the field of musculoskeletal research throughout her career. She continued with a description of her upbringing, her parents’ economic and other struggles, and their encouragement for her to fulfill her dreams. “The world is your oyster” was a message she took to heart in charting her course educationally and professionally and in pursuing opportunities. She followed her interests from mathematics, to engineering, to biology, to patient care, and developed her skills strategically, combining seemingly disparate topics in her ever-growing knowledge base. Dr. Maher encouraged perseverance, asking for help, and having fun within an academic career. She focused on continuous team building, developing professional networks at current and past institutions as well as within professional societies, and embracing one’s individuality and that of one’s teammates. She emphasized that serving as a peer reviewer, group leader, or mentor is an avenue for learning and growth.

Breakout Sessions and Group Discussion: Addressing Career Challenges During the K Award and Planning for a Successful Transition to Independent Research

In the afternoon, the K award investigators and NIAMS intramural scholars met in small breakout groups with the mentors to discuss career challenges and strategies to address them as well as planning for the transition to independence. After the small group discussions, the meeting participants re-assembled and each of the small groups shared insights. Some major themes were time management, including prioritization and work-life balance, working with mentors, mentoring, and assembling and managing a research team.

Time management

The group discussed various time management strategies, noting the importance of being selective in time and effort commitments by focusing on one’s own passion. Some of the suggestions are prioritizing projects and eliminating activities that are no longer exciting or beneficial, blocking time on the calendar for scientific reflection, delegating tasks, and allowing flexibility for shifting focus among clinical practice, research, and teaching responsibilities. The group also noted other strategies besides time management to achieve work-life balance, such as mentally preparing for challenges such as unsuccessful funding applications, addressing imposter syndrome, and including team members in discussions about hobbies and other activities to encourage work-life balance.

Working with mentors and mentoring

The group discussed how to interact productively with both mentors and trainees. Many emphasized the importance of having open discussions with mentors about research independence and focusing on excitement about one’s research while working to distinguish oneself from mentors. They also discussed strategies to effectively manage time, effort, and expectations to provide good mentorship to trainees while enjoying a rewarding experience. The group noted considerations for authorship on publications in the context of mentor-mentee relationship and at different career stages, such as strategically determining when one should be a first or last author on a paper.

Assembling and managing a research team

The researchers shared ideas about collaborating and choosing members of the research team.  Many stressed the importance of collaborators in successful research, and the group discussed strategies to find and maintain productive collaborations. For example, it is important to build a professional brand, network at professional societies, leverage in-person interactions, and approach collaborators for advice on grant writing or hiring lab members. The group suggested focusing on aptitude when hiring, regardless of what the position might be, and recommended clear, direct communication with one-on-one time when interacting with team members. Related to research management, they also discussed budgeting and how to optimize the use of funds. 

Grantsmanship Panel

After the breakout sessions and discussion, the meeting continued with a panel on grantsmanship moderated by Dr. Mancini. Panelists included the meeting mentors and Dr. Alexey Belkin, a NIAMS program director who previously worked at the NIH Center for Scientific Review. Questions and a summary of panelists’ responses are provided below.

How much preliminary data is needed for an R01?

The mentors shared that the preliminary data included should be robust. The data should be of publication-ready quality. Also, data should connect to the hypothesis and the specific aims for the grant submission. The reviewers need to understand whether the methods are achievable, and the data provides evidence that it is a feasible project. The specific aims become a living document and a guidepost for the proposed project.

What will a reviewer like to see in the draft of the specific aims?

The specific aims should tie into an overarching hypothesis. The aims page should also include one or two sentences summarizing what the applicant expects to achieve. The mentors suggested making it very easy for the reviewers to clearly understand the purpose of the project. They also emphasized the importance of making the application easy for reviewers to read. For example, including subheadings in the aims page can help reviewers find what they need such as context, research strategy, relationship between aims, rigor, and reproducibility. Another suggestion was to clearly convey to reviewers the reason why the investigator wants to conduct the proposed research. In general, the specific aims should guide for the four to five years of the project.

The panel recommended asking senior colleagues to provide feedback on the specific aims. For stylistic purposes, they suggested leaving some white space on the page and ensuring that the figures are not too small, which will improve readability.

In addition, successful applications should be interesting, and one way to stimulate interest is to present the work as an interesting story with a recurring theme throughout the entire document, leaving out any unnecessary information.

What is some important information to include in the personal statement of the biosketch?

The mentors believe that this section provides an opportunity for the applicant to highlight their collaborations. They suggested including information about the research team. The personal statement also allows for the applicant’s personality to shine and will give reviewers an opportunity to understand what drives them to pursue the research topic. It also enables investigators to discuss their project in terms of short- and long-term timelines. Lastly, applicants should include information that was stressed within the request for applications. 

Closing

Dr. Criswell noted that she enjoyed the K Forum and was impressed with the quality and topics of the research being conducted by NIAMS K award investigators and intramural scholars. She also reflected on all the presentations and breakout sessions and reminded the K awardees and intramural scholars to stay connected to resources at NIAMS. She thanked the mentors and professional organizations for sharing their insights and advice with the K awardees and intramural scholars. She also thanked the NIAMS staff who had been working with the K award investigators and on the K Forum.

Participants

* ANTIOCHOS, Brendan, M.D., Johns Hopkins University 
* BLACK, William R., Ph.D., H.S.P., Ohio State University
CALVI, Laura, M.D., University of Rochester
* DICKEY, Amy K., M.D., M.Sc., Harvard University
DY, Christopher J., M.D., M.P.H., Washington University in Saint Louis
EAKIN, Guy, Ph.D., National Psoriasis Foundation
FEGHALI-BOSTWICK, Carol, Ph.D., Medical University of South Carolina
GALATZ, Leesa, M.D., M.B.A., Mt. Sinai Health System
GROSSMAN, Lee, M.B.A., Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation
HANKENSON, Kurt, D.V.M., M.S., Ph.D., University of Michigan
* HARRISON, Lauren E., Ph.D., Stanford University
* HO, Allen W., M.D., Ph.D., Harvard University
* JORGE, April, M.D., Harvard University
* KASTURI, Shanthini, M.D., M.S., Tufts Medical Center
* KIM, Sang Taek, M.D., Ph.D., Yale University
KUHN, Kristi, M.D., Ph.D., University of Colorado, Anschutz
* KWATRA, Shawn G., M.D., Johns Hopkins University
LEE, Yvonne, M.D., M.M.Sc., Northwestern University
LIN, Brian, Ph.D., Muscular Dystrophy Association
MAHER, Suzanne, Ph.D., Hospital for Special Surgery
MCMILLEN, Allen, M.S., American Academy of Dermatology
* MEINTS, Samantha M., Ph.D., Harvard University
MUELLER, Kristen, Ph.D., Arthritis Foundation
* NADDAF, Elie, M.D., Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
* ODELL, Ian D., M.D., Ph.D., Yale University
* OLIPHANT, Bryant, M.D., M.B.A., M.Sc., University of Michigan
* PERUGINO, Cory, D.O., Harvard University
* RAZANI, Bahram, M.D., Ph.D., University of California, San Francisco
* RENTHAL, Nora E., M.D., Ph.D., Harvard University
RICHARD, Mara Lennard, Ph.D., Lupus Research Alliance
SCUMPIA, Philip, M.D., Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles
* THOMA, Louise M., P.T., D.P.T., Ph.D., University of North Carolina
* TINIAKOU, Eleni, M.D., Johns Hopkins University
* WAN, Joy, M.D., M.S.C.E., Johns Hopkins University

*Indicates current NIAMS K08 and K23 awardees.

NIAMS

BELKIN, Alexey, Ph.D.
BHAUMIK, Suniti, Ph.D.
BROWN, Mark
BURROWS, Stephanie Y., Ph.D.
CARTER, Robert, M.D.
CIBOTTI, Ricardo, Ph.D.
CRISWELL, Lindsey A., M.D., M.P.H., D.Sc.
CREENAN, Leigh-Ann M.
DAVIS, Jon, M.S., M.P.H.
DIZON, Brian, M.D., Ph.D.
DUNDAS, Colleen, M.P.H.
FURUMOTO, Yasuko, Ph.D.
GARCIA-CAZARIN, Mary, Ph.D.
GRAY, Jennifer Morgan
KRISHNAGIRI, Medha
LESTER, Gayle, Ph.D.
LINDHURST, Marjorie, Ph.D.
MANCINI, Marie, Ph.D.
MAO, Su-Yau, Ph.D.
MARQUITZ, Aron, Ph.D.
NELSON, Melinda
NGUYEN, Van T., Ph.D.
NICKS, Kristy, Ph.D.
PARK, Heiyoung, Ph.D.
RICKLIS, Rebecca, M.S.
SERRATE-SZTEIN, Susana A., M.D. 
SIMMONS, Sheila
SLEDJESKI, Darren, Ph.D.
THACH, Yen
THORNHILL, Dandre, Ph.D.
WALKER, Robert, Ph.D.
WANG, Yan, M.D., Ph.D.
WILLIAMS, Sandra, M.D., Ph.D.
WILSON, Justin L., Ph.D.
ZHENG, Xincheng, M.D, Ph.D.
 

Back to Top