A 10-year (19861995) review of data on scholar awardees in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
Cecil C. Yip, PhD
Rosalind Waxman
Clin Invest Med 1997;20(4):280-2.
Dr. Yip is the Vice Dean of Research and Ms. Rosalind Waxman is Coordinator of Research Administration, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
This report has been abridged. -- Ed.
Career investigator awards such as MRC Scholarships are awarded to individuals who have passed a rigorous external evaluation and are deemed to be the best among their peers. We have undertaken a review of members of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, including its affiliated teaching hospitals and research institutes, who have received such external competitive awards over the period 1986 to 1995 to illustrate the fate of this crucial group of faculty appointees in the research funding environment over the last decade. We were particularly interested in determining how many retained continuous peer-reviewed funding after obtaining their career investigator awards. Material for this review has been drawn from 2 databases: one documenting faculty research activity and the other a census of academic appointments.
Table 1 shows the sources of these awards to 152 awardees over this 10-year period.
In the table, "other" sources of funding include the disease-oriented foundations, such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; this group is similar in importance to the MRC as a source of personal support. Of the 152 recipients, there were 44 women (29%); 8 individuals held both MD and PhD degrees; and 64 held only an MD and 80 only a PhD.
Approximately two-thirds (100/152) of the scholarship awards were to individuals appointed to clinical departments; 41 were to basic science departments and the remaining 11 to community health departments. As would be expected, all but 2 of the 41 awardees in the basic science sector held a PhD, compared with one-third of the awardees in the clinical sector. Sixty of the 100 awardees in the clinical sector held an MD.
As indicated in Table 2, of the 152 investigators, 21 scholars (14%) left the university after receiving their awards as of May 1997, but our records do not indicate why they left. Sixteen of the 21 left clinical departments, but only 7 of these held an MD. It appears significant that nearly half (9/21) left within 2 years of the scholarship awards. Of those who left, 30% were women, almost the same percentage of women as in the scholarship group as a whole. Without knowing whether scholars left to further their careers or because they were leaving scientific research, further interpretation of these numbers is not useful.
A crucial question is the history of peer-reviewed research funding associated with this group of scholars. However, in interpreting the following data, it is important to be aware that not all investigators have been followed for the same length of time. For example, as shown in Table 3, 9/152 received their career/scholarship award 10 years ago and have had continuous peer-reviewed funding since then; 12 received their award 7 years ago and have had funding for 7 years, etc. Nevertheless, a majority (more than 70%) have been at the University of Toronto for longer than 4 years, with continuous peer-reviewed funding since their initial award.
On the basis of the data summarized in Table 4 we can make several preliminary observations, but caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the data. The figures indicate that, in the clinical sector, of the 84/100 scholars with continued peer-reviewed funding, roughly the same percentage (54/66) held an MD as held a PhD (30/34). This implies that the preparedness for independent research was no different in the 2 groups, with 12/16 MDs and 4/16 PhDs losing their peer-reviewed funding at some point after obtaining their initial scholarship award. These numbers are roughly proportional to MD and PhD representation in the clinical sector. Thus, it appears that, within the clinical sector, the success or failure rate (as measured by loss of peer-reviewed funding) was no different for MDs and PhDs.
We can make several observations, remembering that we are dealing with follow-up of a highly selected group -- presumably the elite corps of career investigators from both MD and PhD streams.
- Increasingly, sources other than government play a major role in the support of young investigators for a career in research.
- The "drop-out rate" for both MD and PhD career recipients appears to be greatest within the first 2 to 3 years. On the one hand, this suggests a need for careful support (mentoring?) for these young investigators. On the other hand, it may indicate that these young investigators were highly sought after by other universities and therefore mobile.
- Proportionally, more MDs than PhDs departed early from the research career track and were unable to sustain continuous peer-reviewed funding. At this point the follow-up information is limited, so it is premature to speculate on the reasons why they were more vulnerable (i.e., because professional practice is an option or because MDs are less competitive). Since MD scholars were as successful as PhD scholars in the clinical sector, but were less successful than PhDs in the basic science sector, one can speculate that differences in environment between the 2 sectors may contribute to the outcome.