Will Summer Science Training Programs Continue?

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-293
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey G. Shaffer ◽  
Frances J. Mather ◽  
Mamadou Wele ◽  
Jian Li ◽  
Cheick Oumar Tangara ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Schlesinger ◽  
Michelle Romanick ◽  
Jonathan N. Tobin ◽  
Donna Brassil ◽  
Rhonda G. Kost ◽  
...  

Introduction and MethodsThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master’s degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the National Institute of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program. The program consists of ∼15 trainees supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills.ResultsSince 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); 2 (5%) remain in training programs; 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 National Institute of Health awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health.ConclusionThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.


BioScience ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (7) ◽  
pp. 529-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E Wilson ◽  
Jenna L Pollock ◽  
Ian Billick ◽  
Carmen Domingo ◽  
Edna G Fernandez-Figueroa ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
K.H. Benjamin Leung ◽  
Tiffany Jefkins ◽  
Dakota Gustafson ◽  
Julie E Moore

Introduction: While training in the practice of resuscitation is standardized by AHA guidelines and ACLS protocols, training in resuscitation science research has generally relied on mentorship by current researchers. Formal research-focused training programs in resuscitation science exist but the nature of such programs is not well known. We sought to determine the current state of graduate or professional-level research-focused programs in adult resuscitation science using scoping review methodology. Methods: We conducted an online web search for the phrases “resuscitation science education”, “resuscitation science training”, “resuscitation medicine education”, and “resuscitation medicine training” in May 2020. Entries were screened for relevance by their title and web text by two independent researchers. Entries were excluded if they did not contain a sizable research foundation or major project component for students. After the screening process, entries were analyzed descriptively and thematically categorized by aspects of program delivery. Results: We identified 16 programs that satisfied all inclusion criteria, consisting of 9 instructional programs and 7 research fellowships. Instructional programs were divided between stand-alone programs (4) or electives/add-ons within existing degrees (5). These programs were highly varied in their research requirements with some requiring minimal academic output. Electives/add-ons within existing degrees were generally shorter in length with most averaging only 4 weeks to completion. Two programs offered programs discussing pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital considerations for patients/caregivers and/or clinicians. Only one stand-alone program was degree-granting. Research fellowships generally varied between 1-2 years. The vast majority of all programs were limited to those with a clinical background, with emphasis on physicians specializing in emergency medicine. Conclusion: There is a relative lack of standardized research-focused training programs within resuscitation science. Moreover, existing programs tend to be constrained to those with a clinical background, presenting a barrier of entry for non-clinicians.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document