University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL
USA
All of the intended volume editors are highly successful academic surgeons with expertise in the respective fields of basic science, clinical trials, health services research, and surgical education research. They are all also leaders within the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS). The previous AAS book, Success in Academic Surgery: Part I provided an overview with regards to the different types of surgical research, beginning one’s academic career, and balancing work and life commitments. The aims and scopes of this series of books will be to provide specifics with regards to becoming successful academic surgeons with focuses on the different types of research and academic careers (basic science, clinical trials, health services research, and surgical education). These books will provide information beyond that in the introductory book and even beyond that provided in the Fall and International Courses. The target audience would be medical students, surgical residents, and young surgical faculty. We would promote bulk sales at the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) Fall Courses (www.aasurg.org) which take place prior to the American College of Surgeons meeting in October, as well as the AAS International Courses which take place year-round in Australasia, Colombia, West Africa, and France. Courses are also planned for India, Italy, and Germany and potentially in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. As the AAS expands the course into other parts of the world, there is a greater need for an accompanying series of textbooks. The AAS has already received requests for translation of the book into Italian. These books would be closely linked with the course content and be sold as part of the registration. In 2011, there were 270 participants in the Fall Courses. In addition, we would anticipate several hundred participants combined per year at all of the international courses.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11216
Gregory Kennedy
Ankush Gosain • Melina Kibbe
Scott A. LeMaire
Editors
Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science
Second Edition
Editors
Gregory Kennedy
Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery
University of Alabama Birmingham, AL USA
Melina Kibbe
UNC School of Medicine
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC USA
Ankush Gosain
Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital
University of Tennessee Health Science Centre Memphis, TN USA
Chapter 5 and 9 was created within the capacity of an US governmental employment. US copyright protection does not apply.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
Welcome to the second edition of Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science. This updated volume is meant to provide a foundation for starting a basic science research career as an academic surgeon-scientist. A number of the topics we cover in this text were presented in the first edition and are fundamental to any basic science enterprise [1]. However, we have invited new authors to provide fresh perspectives on these topics. Taking a practical approach, the authors cover a suggested timeline for the initial academic appointment, including how to set up and fund the laboratory, identifying appropriate scientific mentors, time management techniques, and fundamentals of data integrity. Fundamental considerations, including statistical analysis, laboratory ethics, modern techniques for DNA, RNA and protein assessment, animal models, and flow cytometry are covered. We have also added several new topics that reflect the rapidly changing pace of basic science written by experts in the field. These include chapters on stem cells, tissue engineering, gene editing techniques, microbiome analysis, and systems biology.
Surgical science has a long history, dating back to the 1700s with John Hunter, who established academic surgery as being firmly rooted in an understanding of anatomy, physiology, and pathology [2]. Seminal advances in the care of medical and surgical patients have been brought about by the work of surgeon-scientists too numerous to list, but including such giants in our field as Harvey Cushing, Alfred Blalock, Lester Dragstedt, Joseph Murray, Basil Pruitt, and Frances Moore. Dr. Moore, in his presidential address to the Society of University Surgeons 50 years ago, championed the surgeon-scientist as being uniquely qualified to bring “knowledge from the biological sciences to the patient’s bedside and back again.” [3]. Since the publication of the first edition of this text 6 years ago, there is a rapidly increasing awareness of the challenges faced by today’s surgeons in establishing their basic science research programs [4]. These include declining federal funding, declining success rates in obtaining funding, increasing clinical demands (often driven by productivity and compensation models that disincentivize research), rapid evolution of technology, and a significant lack of mentorship [2, 5]. Recent studies of successful surgeon-scientists have identified factors associated with success; mentorship, time management, and persistence were identified as keys to success [5–7]. We have structured this volume to enable you, the reader, to develop these skills and to provide you with a peer and mentor group that can help you overcome obstacles on your path to scientific success.
We are extremely grateful to all of the authors for sharing their time, knowledge, and expertise in contributing chapters to this book. We are indebted to the series editors, Drs. Kao and Chen, for entrusting us with this second edition of the book, and to the editors of the first edition, Drs. Kibbe and LeMaire, for paving the way in the first edition. We appreciate the guidance of Prakash Marudhu, the project coordinator at Springer Nature who was extremely responsive through the publication process and without whom we could not have delivered this final product. Finally, we would like to thank the current and past members of our laboratories, as well as colleagues and friends in the field of Surgical Basic/Translational Science for continually making science stimulating and fun.
References
1. Success in academic surgery: basic science. New York: Springer; 2013.
2. Evers BM. The evolving role of the surgeon scientist. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.044. Epub 2015/03/01.
3. Moore FD. The university in American surgery. Surgery. 1958;44(1):1–10. Epub 1958/07/01.
4. Kibbe MR, Velazquez OC. The extinction of the surgeon scientist. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1060–1. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002192. Epub 2017/05/10.
5. Keswani SG, Moles CM, Morowitz M, Zeh H, Kuo JS, Levine MH, Cheng LS, Hackam DJ, Ahuja N, Goldstein AM, Basic Science Committee of the Society of University S. The future of basic science in academic surgery: identifying barriers to success for surgeon-scientists. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1053–9. https://doi. org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002009. Epub 2016/09/20.
6. Kodadek LM, Kapadia MR, Changoor NR, Dunn KB, Are C, Greenberg JA, Minter RM, Pawlik TM, Haider AH. Educating the surgeon-scientist: a qualitative study evaluating challenges and barriers toward becoming an academically successful surgeon. Surgery. 2016;160(6):1456–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. surg.2016.07.003. Epub 2016/08/16.
7. Goldstein AM, Blair AB, Keswani SG, Gosain A, Morowitz M, Kuo JS, Levine M, Ahuja N, Hackam DJ, Basic Science Committee of the Society of University S. A roadmap for aspiring surgeon-scientists in today’s healthcare environment. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002840. Epub 2018/06/30.
Birmingham, AL Gregory Kennedy Memphis, TN Ankush Gosain
How to Set Up, Staff, and Fund Your Basic Science or Translational Research Laboratory
Jashodeep Datta and J. Joshua Smith
Abstract
Establishing a basic or translational research laboratory is a significant undertaking that requires rigorous commitment, supportive mentorship, and meticulous planning. This chapter will review the resources that are typically required, including space, time, personnel, equipment, and mentorship. It will then discuss various options in fulfilling such needs as well as avenues to acquire funding, including intramural and extramural sources. Finally, we will briefly consider how to maintain the laboratory once it has been established and how to respond to unexpected setbacks.
Keywords
Basic science research · Translational research · Laboratory · Set up · Staff Funding · Space · Equipment · Regulations
Introduction
Appropriate resources, well-established protected time, commitment from senior clinical and laboratory mentors, and a supportive and collaborative environment are essential for even the most dedicated surgical investigator interested in developing a basic/translational science initiative. Defined broadly, resources include not only protected time but also research space, funding resources, equipment and
J. Datta
Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
J. J. Smith (*)
Department of Surgery, Colorectal Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
G. Kennedy et al. (eds.), Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science, Success in Academic Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_1
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
supplies, and key technical personnel, along with enthusiastic and supportive collaborators and senior mentors. The strategies and resources required vary based on the research agenda to be pursued. As such, one size does not fit all. Moreover, the current funding climate and competing demands for revenue generation at the hospital level may limit resources and require the surgical investigator to make challenging decisions on how to achieve his/her goals. Therefore, before embarking on this career choice, it is critical to outline as best as possible what your objectives are, why you want to pursue them, and how committed you are to this pathway. Assuming you have previously engaged in such introspection and are now ready to engage your future as a serious surgeon-scientist, this chapter will discuss considerations necessary for a successful and fulfilling career in surgical investigation.
Protected Time
The initial “package” that you will seek should contain the relevant tangible resources needed to accomplish your research aspirations. Traditionally, this will include a combination of space, equipment, supplies, personnel, and start-up funds. We will consider each of these elements separately in the following sections. However, the most critical aspect of your package is protected time. The best technician or postdoctoral fellow in the world will not be as committed to your success as you are. If you plan well (and are fortunate), you will end up with talented research personnel who are experienced in techniques beyond your own and who will bring their skills to your laboratory effort. However, you need to physically spend time in your own laboratory on a regular basis, creating the vision and driving the science. From this concept emanates the holy grail of “protected time.” This is time when you will be able to go to your laboratory/office and work, whether on experiments or manuscripts or grants, without clinical responsibilities and a minimal possibility of being disturbed. In reality, this is easier said than done, since referring physicians and patients may not understand why you are unavailable for these “protected” periods of time during the week. Moreover, surgeons are conditioned to take complete responsibility for their own patients’ welfare, regardless of time of day or day of week. Critical to this notion is the backing of the Department Chairperson and your Service Chief; without their support, this “protection” will fail.
The most common model is to carve out a certain number of days (or “half-days”) per week without assigned clinical responsibilities, recognizing that emergencies may occur during those times. The often spoken about goal of “50% protected time” is difficult to achieve in many environments, particularly without extramural funding or dedicated intramural funding to support a salary that affords 50% protection. An alternative option to the “days-per-week” model is to seek longer (e.g., 2–3 weeks long) blocks devoid of clinical responsibility; admittedly, this is feasible in few surgical specialties or practice settings. However, proponents of this approach indicate that they can make most progress on grant proposals and manuscripts when they devote consecutive days and weeks to planning and writing. Ultimately, these decisions are also based on whether your experiments require hours, days, or weeks to complete. A model for success may be to limit your practice to a narrowly defined
niche, particularly one that does not generate many emergencies. Furthermore, your mission will be greatly facilitated by cooperative partners who are willing to cover for you when you need to be in the lab for that all-important last experiment or simply have to close your door and write a grant or a manuscript.
Schedule and Time Management
Protected time is great in principle, but not always practical especially in the context of a busy call week. Patients will need your attention and may have complications at a time when you are most needed in the lab. Furthermore, it is unlikely that your grant support will compensate you (or your department) adequately for the clinical revenue you forego while in the laboratory. Some compromises may be required, but in these authors’ opinions, the surgeon-scientist should still be paid on par with the full-time clinical surgeon.
Since a salary reduction cannot be the solution, what is? This is where creative and flexible schedule/time management is essential. First, acknowledge that your “workweek” may be many hours longer than your clinical colleagues at times. Moreover, research activities can spill over into nights, weekends, and holidays. An efficient way to manage this dilemma is to consolidate your research time. One suggestion is to try to front-load clinical work at the beginning of the week and schedule research time at the end of the week. This strategy allows you to not only be attentive to patient-related issues that arise in the first few postoperative days but also continue any additional research-related duties into the late week and early weekend. Of course, your clinical colleagues may also prefer to schedule cases early in the week, so this may not always be possible. Second, communication with and buy-in from your clinical partners and scientific collaborators will be key, particularly since you will often be leaning on them for assistance. Having a supportive clinical Service Chief and partners who understand your mission cannot be overstated. Third, the constant competing tensions of the clinical and research realms can be difficult to juggle because they are such distinct environs: one fastpaced and exhilarating and the other measured and tranquil. In the authors’ opinion, one approach that has allowed effective time management in this regard is physically separating oneself from the clinical space—for example, having a dedicated research/lab office or having your clinical office in the same building in which your lab is housed. Finally, a supportive leadership team that understands the constraints on your time, is dedicated to your success, and resists the temptation to burden you with increasing clinical activities or distracting committee assignments may be the most important component of time/schedule management.
Research Space
Space requirements will vary depending on your scientific endeavors. Researchers working in cancer genomics and those in fundamental vascular biology will need different amounts and types of space. The most critical decision here is whether to
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
seek your own dedicated laboratory space or to share space (as is often the case in the “embedded” research model). Either model requires institutional commitment and significant personal investment. If it is your own lab space, the onus is on you to set it up, equip it, and to secure funds to pay for those resources. This is a very challenging way to start and requires much more planning, calculating, and multiple resource allocation strategy sessions before you start. This approach can be very rewarding but should not be initiated without significant discussions with senior leaders in the Department and the Medical Center. Shared space may not be as exciting but can be very practical and efficient at least in the beginning stages of your career. This model is increasingly seen across the country, particularly for young surgeon-scientists, and has many advantages. You may even share space with other junior investigators—who can be an important like-minded peer group—and allows the advantage of having the ready and sage advice of the senior primary investigator (PI). This person can also give added weight to early grants and provide seed money forays as your scientific mentor. Equipment and administrative costs will also be sharply reduced, which may allow you to negotiate other key resources. Often overlooked in this decision are the advantages of shared space for your research technician or research fellow; he/she also has an instant peer group that can provide both technical and moral support. Of course, you should make sure that you have some territory to call your own within the shared space and can successfully (and collegially) cohabitate with your labmates.
Equipment and Supplies: Things You Will Need to Purchase
Once you have identified space in which to work, you need to equip it. As for laboratory space, you will need to first decide whether equipment should be yours or shared. Your own equipment will never have a waiting line, but you will also have to pay for it, and your financial resources will likely be finite. Conversely, shared equipment may be less available to you, but it will be less expensive. Moreover, it will often be better equipment with more technical capabilities than you can afford. A good rule of thumb is that if you think you will be using a piece of equipment for more than an hour a day, you should consider buying it. Very large and expensive equipment will almost certainly need to be shared; on the other hand, such equipment can often be found in dedicated core facilities. Since your needs may change and your budget will be limited to start, it may be a good idea to share equipment whenever possible and purchase only what you need. Note that there is etiquette to sharing equipment, which includes a formal request to the senior PI and an offer to pay partly for the cost of maintenance if you anticipate being a heavy user. For equipment that you will dedicate to your own work, options will vary inversely in convenience and cost. Except for the most unique equipment, you should not pay retail catalog prices. Ideally, you should assemble a list of all of the basic lab equipment you plan to purchase and put this out to bid to select major equipment companies. Most feature “new lab” discounts and some flexibility in pricing for
large orders. Be alert also to institutional discounts for new equipment, as well as used equipment. In general, it is advisable to avoid used equipment when needed for “mission-critical” applications. On the other hand, one might contemplate buying used equipment for more generic applications, i.e., water baths, incubators, shakers, etc. When purchasing these items used, ask about at least a short-term warrantee, and be prepared to thoroughly inspect and test each piece of used equipment when it arrives. It is also important to see if the institution you are joining has “lightly used” or “never used” equipment that is underutilized or that has never been touched in an abandoned laboratory space or from a retired investigator.
Supplies are the least discretionary issue. You require the necessary reagents to execute your experiments, and you cannot purchase these reagents used. If you have sufficient funds, you may be able to negotiate a discount on your initial supplies purchase as part of your “new lab” discount or for 1–2 years from the same vendor. If you are purchasing antibodies or other reagents of which you only need a small aliquot, you may be able to share them with a colleague doing similar work and hence share the cost.
Laboratory Personnel and Technical Assistance
It is unlikely that you will succeed as a surgeon-scientist without a motivated and reliable lab technician. Here you get what you pay for, and there are few shortcuts. An experienced and productive research fellow may be worth his/her weight in gold but is hard to find. Research technicians are easier to recruit but are of variable experience, quality, and work ethic. Moreover, research fellows are more expensive to recruit and retain than entry-level technicians.
Research fellows and technicians vary in other ways beyond cost. A fellow will stay with you for approximately 2–3 years depending on their situations (surgery resident/fellow, Ph.D. postdoctoral scientist), whereas a technician may be available for longer periods. This mandates the competing tensions of productivity and continuity. A productive research fellow is typically motivated to publish and set up their own career for the future, while a technician may not always be as motivated. In this regard, a research fellow has more to gain if the lab succeeds because his/ her career depends on evidence of productivity; a technician can always get another job if funding dries up. A fellow may be more likely than a technician to stay late to meet with you when you are out of the OR or come in early or on the weekends to keep the experiments moving. Conversely, a well-trained technician may stay with you forever and provides a great degree of continuity that is sacrificed when the fellow moves on to their next position.
You will also encounter opportunities to incorporate untrained volunteers (e.g., high school or medical students) into your laboratory efforts. This is an enthusiastic (and free) workforce but will require more of your time for more dedicated teaching and supervision. Treat them like you would want to be treated the first time you walked into a laboratory. If paired with a research fellow or a dedicated technician, these individuals can be valuable assets to your research mission. Start them on
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
smaller tasks (e.g., abstracting medical records or obtaining and processing clinical samples), and if they excel, move them on to more challenging or technically demanding tasks. Of course, their quality and level of motivation will vary, but you have to creatively find ways to maximize their potential and your productivity. Set clear expectations and provide constructive feedback; this is a good opportunity to assume a mentorship role early in your scientific career. Beyond this, inspire them to love what you are passionate about, and your goals will automatically align. Many medical centers have programs for high school and medical students. These programs will pay them for their time in the laboratory, and this is a useful endeavor for both you and them if expectations are managed wisely.
Mentorship
Early mentorship from a clinical and scientific standpoint as a surgeon-scientist is essential. It is unrealistic to think that you will instantly be an expert in your field either clinically or scientifically, and even after excellent training, the first 3–5 years will be full of challenges and learning opportunities. A solid clinical mentor will guide you, help protect you, and introduce you as an expert to referring physicians and new colleagues. In addition, this person can help with difficult clinic cases or operative challenges. A stellar laboratory mentor will likewise help you launch the science portion of your career with minimal stumbling. They should provide smooth transition to the correct collaborators and help in forming and writing your first grants and papers, in addition to assistance with hiring your first set of technicians or graduate students. Learning to run a lab takes time, and learning this from a more senior and seasoned research scientist is important. The details of budgeting, personnel management, and grantsmanship take months and sometimes years to master—a solid mentor in this regard is invaluable. Few surgeons emerge from their residency or fellowship with sufficient knowledge, laboratory acumen, and organizational skills to embark as solo scientists successfully. A research mentor can ensure your forward progress and help you minimize delays, mistakes, and “blind alleys.” Identification of a mentor is something you must do early; think about who this person is at each place along the way during a job hunt. It is completely unnecessary for this person to have similar skill sets or a similar background as yours—sometimes a unique skill set and background are the perfect complement to your developing scientific career. You will need a mentor who compliments you, has a genuine interest in your development, and who will be overjoyed and proud when you succeed. Excellent mentors are special people because they are willing to give more than they will get and do so freely and without expectation of repayment or excess credit. Finding your mentor is an active process and one you must take very seriously. Certainly, this person could be recommended to you by your Chairperson, Service Chief, or a colleague in your specialty knowledgeable about your work. Sometimes it requires interviewing a select few candidates that could serve as your mentor to determine if they have a true desire to help you succeed and grow as a developing scientist. This process is up to you, and you should contact the potential mentor, be
active in seeking them out, and make sure you have researched them well before sitting down with them for an interview. Of course, if someone who knows you well can introduce you via email, at a conference, or even at a meeting face-to-face, that is an excellent start.
There are multiple ways to introduce yourself to a potential mentor. Face-toface meetings are always best so you can show your prior work and what you plan on doing in the future and thus gauge their interest and insight into your science. However, this is not always feasible, so a basic introduction via phone or email could be a reasonable start. Always have an agenda for the meeting, be prompt, and honor their time and space. Your first impression of them and theirs of you will be critical going forward so it is important to be organized, think about how you might fit into their scientific goals/purposes, and be willing to discuss limitations and challenges. Once you have been introduced or have interviewed someone whom you think will be a suitable mentor, then you will need to follow up with them to ensure they are willing to proceed in mentoring you.
Things to remember when selecting a mentor are the following: (1) Does this person have the necessary skills and/or resources that I do not have and that I need? (2) Is there chemistry relative to our personalities and work ethics? (3) Is this person collaborative and inclusive? (4) Are there prior mentees that are available for me to speak with who can vouch for this person? (and will the prospective mentor happily give me a list of people to call/email?) (5) What does the mentor have to offer that will give my research program unique impact and scientific rigor? (6) What is the mentor’s history of funding and their mentees’ success rate in funding? (7) Have they mentored anyone like me before? (8) Do they have time to devote to my early development, eventual challenges, and difficulties? Once you have satisfactory answers to these questions and the potential mentor seems interested in moving forward, then you should move quickly to formalize the relationship and let your Chairperson and Chief of Service know of your plans. This team of senior people working on your behalf and with you will be essential to your development and success.
Collaborators
Collaborators are key components in the modern success of the surgeon-scientist. These people are different than your primary mentor but still play an important role in helping your science succeed by giving you access to specialized technology, equipment, or personnel that you or your mentor do not have access to or have the time to employ directly in your laboratory footprint. Science today is indeed a team sport, and you will be required to assemble a group of specialized teammates with unique and focused skills. The collaborator should be an expert in the related field and should be able to accelerate your work with intellectual energy and also with time and money if needed. They can give credibility to papers and funding mechanisms, provide critical insight and input to your science, and should still have your development and interest in mind. You must remember they will also need credit for their work, and you should treat them graciously.
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
Grant Funding
Obtaining grant funding for surgeon-scientists has become increasingly difficult and competitive. In a survey-based article recently published in the Annals of Surgery, the authors show that over an 8-year period (2006–2014), total NIH funding to surgical departments dropped from $185M to $157M; at the same time, total NIH funding increased from $6.2B to $6.9B [1]. It is unclear whether this is the cause of, or the result of, the decline in the number of surgeons pursuing careers in basic and translational research. In fact, one of the critical obstacles identified by junior faculty, among whom the questionnaire from this study was circulated, was a “challenging funding environment.” Despite these challenges, it is the authors’ opinion that early-career funding success can be possible, particularly with some thought and advanced planning. This section will outline some strategies to help you navigate these challenges.
The key to obtaining early-career awards, whether it is society- or institutionbased, is advanced and meticulous planning. It is important to start developing your thought processes and goals for your work early; what better way to do this than to get to the business of writing a grant? The amounts from these awards typically range from $25,000 to $75,000, and the duration of support can range from 1 to 2 years. Of course, persistence pays off when it comes to grant applications. In the manuscript referenced above, a clear correlation was observed between the number of applications submitted by faculty and the likelihood of being funded. In fact, 85% of faculty who submitted more than eight grant applications over a 3-year period obtained competitive funding [1]. However, while the goal is to apply frequently to as many grants as possible, the greatest payoff from this process is the crystallization of ideas, focusing of aims, and fine-tuning of research strategy. The important exercise is to solidify the science and improve your grant-writing skills. This process will also give you multiple opportunities to get active feedback from your mentorship team as they read your specific aims and critique your work.
These authors recommend an early foray into the funding landscape by application to society-based grants and career development awards. Fortunately, there are a number of such grants available to young surgeon-scientists from flagship societies including the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS), the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American Surgical Association (ASA), the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA), the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT), and the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), among others. Table 1.1 represents a list that the senior author made identifying these sources, the funding lines, and deadlines for submission. The funding from these sources can supplement your existing startup funds or in some cases may be used to supplement your laboratory mentor’s funds for use when a “high-risk, potentially high-reward” experiment comes along. Obviously you can also contribute to a general laboratory pool to help pay for basic supplies, but the funds have to be designated for your use and specific research activities. In the spirit of the adage—“funding begets funding”—these monies are also a way to establish a track record and prepare you for bigger items like K-08 or R-01
Table 1.1 Early-career grant opportunities
Granting society
AAS Roslyn Award
NIH Loan Repayment Program
ASCRS Limited Project Grant
ASCRS Career Development Grant
American Surgical Association
American College of Surgeons-Clowes Award
MSKCC Society Award
ASCO Career Development Award
ACS Faculty Research Fellowships
MSKCC Faculty Research Award
SSO Clinical Investigator Awards
SSAT Career Development Award
SSAT/ASCRS Joint Research Award
August $50,000 1 year
November $35,000 2 years
November $50,000 1 year
March $75,000 2 years
June $75,000 2 years
August $45,000 5 years
April $65,000 1 year
September $66,000 3 years
November $40,000 2 years
December $75,000 2 years
January $50,000 2 years
January $50,000 2 years
February $50,000 2 years
awards or more lucrative, multi-year society grants (e.g., American Heart Association, American Association for Cancer Research, American Cancer Society, etc.).
Another important resource for early-career funding is your local institution. For example, there are institution-specific, young investigator or junior faculty awards in place, and it is highly recommended that you avail yourself to these early in your tenure. These funds are generally flexible and can be utilized when you need them for specific projects and ideas or could be added to your embedded laboratory working funds. Many of these are also renewable. It is important to have discussions about how to allocate monies earned in this manner and with other grant sources with your research mentor. It is also important to keep your clinical mentor up to date, and they are often key letter writers for many of these grant mechanisms to vouch for your protected time and expertise.
Since all early-career grants and career development awards are directed toward the junior investigator, their stipulations typically require a mentor or a mentor team. Typically one-third of the review is focused on the science; one-third on the candidate’s promise for future development, as exemplified by previous accomplishments, letters of recommendation, and personal statements; and one-third on mentorship and the institutional environment. Junior faculty members sometimes conclude from this that the scientific proposal itself is therefore relatively less important, but this is untrue. A poorly written or poorly supported proposal casts doubt on the candidate’s ability and the ability of the mentor(s) to help the candidate, as well as on the feasibility of the proposal itself. Although there may be less emphasis in a career development review on the overall novelty and scientific significance of the proposal, the science and rationale must still be solid and compelling. It is not realistic to expect a junior faculty member to do Nobel Prizewinning work in his or her first efforts, and reviewers will recognize this in a career development review. A primary focus for these types of career development awards is the rigorous acquisition of skills and preliminary data that will make the applicant competitive for future independent funding and a career in science.
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
While the nuances of writing a successful grant are beyond the scope of this chapter, a few points merit mention. First, give yourself enough time. This way you will cover all the bases and think it through carefully. Remember, if the proposal is hurried, it will read that way. We all think our grants are impenetrable, but often we are wrong. Therefore, show the grant to your (funded) colleagues who will read it critically. Of note, they need to see the grant 1–2 months before you plan to submit. Let them know that you have a thick skin for constructive criticism. The point is for them to shoot holes in it; your success will depend on you being able to plug all the holes before submission. Write, rewrite, and rewrite again. Second, preliminary data are important. The data must support the hypothesis and/or the feasibility of the techniques to be used to address the hypothesis. You may need to use published data to support your ability to be productive in the environment in which you are working. Be able to rationalize your ideas. Be focused and precise and ask one to two important questions, not five. Style counts. How you present your team, your institution, and your data will all reflect on how you are expected to perform in your laboratory. You, the environment in which you work, and your mentorship team should be highlighted in the best manner possible so you can catch the reviewers’ eye. Finally, submit only when you and your mentors think the grant proposal is the best it can possibly be.
Putting It All Together in “The Package”
Your laboratory package may consist of a total sum of money allocated to you at inception, an equal amount to be allocated annually, or a front-loaded amount for the first year to buy equipment and get started and then lower amounts for succeeding years when it will be assumed you need only more supplies and help but not more equipment. Depending on how your finances are structured, you may be able to buy all your equipment up front, or you may need to apportion out equipment expenses over your period of financial support, purchasing the most urgently required or heavily used pieces of equipment first and borrowing or sharing others until more funds are available. Careful discussions during negotiation of your start-up package and overall package with your Chairperson, Service Chief, and scientific mentor are critical as you estimate realistic numbers and set expectations.
Another key question is: How many years of financial support do you want? Realistically, you will want to seek intramural financial support until you can obtain extramural funding. Depending on your previous level of experience, it will likely take you at least 3–5 years to achieve this. It is unlikely, however, that your Chairperson will offer you a blank check in this regard, and you may wish to negotiate for a 3-year commitment with the possibility of obtaining further intramural funding if you can demonstrate appropriate progress (as defined by mutually agreed-upon benchmarks, such as application for extramural funding by year 3 or end of year 4).
Ideally, you should establish your vision and negotiate for support before taking a position, having considered carefully not only what you want but also what your Chairperson or Chief or mentor wants you to achieve. In your negotiations, we suggest that you focus on setting shared, realistic goals with the leadership rather than on dollars or square feet. Moreover, finding the combination of a committed
Chairperson, Service Chief, and scientific mentor should be your first priority. Next, having established goals with this group, try to set a mutually agreeable timetable for milestones toward achieving the long-term goal. Then, and only then, in the authors’ opinion, should you broach the subject of how the leadership will help you to pay for these efforts. Careful planning and a realistic goal-setting will give the leadership confidence in your strategy, and they may be more willing to commit resources if they are tied to realistic milestones. Of course, this strategy does have some risks; if the timetable is not met, you must be prepared to either give up your support and your laboratory efforts or convince the chair that this timetable was not realistic.
Responding to Failure
Finally, we would like to address the reality and response to failure. If you are skillful and fortunate, your grants will be funded. However, most grants do not get funded. So, what then? You have to determine why. Approach reviews with humility. Reviewers do not know your plans and may not be familiar with your unique ideas. The authors have often found that when the reviewers try to fill in the blanks left unclear in proposals, they usually infer something different from what was intended. Show the summary statement to your mentors, collaborators, and funded colleagues to get their opinions. Then, you have five options: (1) revise and resubmit, (2) redirect to another agency, (3) refocus to another project, (4) abandon the current idea set and start afresh, or (5) give up. We strongly endorse critical revision and resubmission. Keep trying, keep fighting—persistence is key. It is important to prepare your resubmission with the frame of mind that you must satisfy the reviewers. First, answer all queries in the summary statement. Be clear, concise, and complete. It is a privilege to have a review with queries and weaknesses that subject the grant to a favorable resubmission. You must link the responses to the reviewers’ queries and weaknesses to the areas in the grant body where the modifications were made. Always thank the reviewers for their thoughtful critiques. As stated regarding the original application, give yourself time to complete a good resubmission. Second, if more data is necessary, make progress and resubmit—this may mean skipping a submission cycle. Third, you may also have to diversify your funding search. When you are close to funding, consider a return to the intramural source for bridge funding. This will allow you to continue your work while awaiting a funding decision. Your institution may require that you repay this bridge support if the grant is funded. Finally, it is important to realize that there will come times in even the most determined surgeon-scientist’s career when things just do not seem to be working. Experiments fail. Papers and grants get rejected. This is reality for all of us and is expected. Again, persistence pays off, and sometimes these are opportunities to reinvent yourself, re-imagine your science, or move in a new direction based on critical feedback and input from external sources and your internal advisory team. You should be prepared to consider several issues to redirect your efforts when all the pieces do not come together. Recalibrate your priorities, refocus your energies, and try to address why you are doing this in the first place. The way you respond to failure will define your successes.
Protected Time
• Model of days/week OR weeks/months
• Limit practice to narrow clinical niche
• Frontload clinical activities weekly
• Separate academics physically from clinical workspace
• Supportive partners and leadership
Research Space & Equipment
• Own lab space or “embedded” in mentor’s lab
• Each option has pros & cons
• OWN: You set it up, equip and staff it
• EMBEDDED: Share resources, personnel, intellectual capital
• Equipment can be own or shared
• Supplies relatively non-negotiable
Personnel
• Fundamental differences between tech and research fellow beyond cost
• Vary in quality and work ethic
• Need help from mentor to recruit the right help
• Untrained volunteers (residents & medical students) can be valuable assets
J. Datta and J. J. Smith
Mentorship & Collaborators
• Both clinical and scientific mentors are necessary
• Decide on mentor early, usually during negotiation process
• CLINICAL: Support, protect, advise in tough clinical cases
• SCIENTIFIC: Navigate early stumbling blocks, recruit right help, assist with grants
• Find mentors & collaborators with complementary strengths
Funding
• Early funding sources are societal and intramural
• Plan early, apply often—goal is to refine research strategy
• “Funding begets funding” – small grants set the stage for K or R awards
• Early-career awards focus as much on the research as mentorship and career plan
Fig. 1.1 Graphical representation of key points related to protected time, research space/equipment, personnel, mentorship/collaborators, and funding
Summary
Establishing a basic or translational research laboratory is a significant undertaking that requires rigorous personal commitment and initiative, meticulous planning, passionate and supportive mentorship, and committed institutional leadership. Assuming these elements are fulfilled, there are other disparate pieces that need to come together for a successful scientific mission. These include protected space, time, personnel, equipment, and mentorship. Figure 1.1 gives a graphical representation of the key points we have reviewed relative to what it takes to set up, staff, and fund your laboratory efforts. Once the foundation for success has been established, obtaining intramural and extramural funding is the lifeblood of a laboratory effort. The authors believe that, even in the currently unfavorable funding climate, it is extremely important to champion the cause of surgeon-scientists focusing on basic and translational research.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the previous authors Marc Basson and Harvey Bumpers.
Reference
1. Keswani SG, et al. The future of basic science in academic surgery. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1053–9.
Choosing a Good Scientific Mentor and Being a Good Mentee
Mark L. Kovler and David J. Hackam
Abstract
Being a good mentor is complicated requiring time and effort. The benefits gained from serving as a mentor should not be understated as many times, the mentor is credited for the success of mentees. However, this should not discount the role of the mentee. Being a good mentee also requires time, effort, and thought. Here we will describe the critical elements of being a mentor and mentee.
The “surgeon-scientist” is a surgeon engaged in bench research who is dedicated to studying the fundamentals of surgical disease. The surgeon-scientist is in a unique position to contribute to the advancement of our understanding and treatment of surgical diseases and have led the evolution of the field of surgery since its very beginnings. However, the current academic environment presents several challenges to surgeons involved in basic science research. Decreased grant funding, increased competition from non-surgeons for limited grant funding, everincreasing requirements for clinical productivity, and increasing administrative burdens are all barriers to the success of the surgeon-scientist. Not only do these
M. L. Kovler · D. J. Hackam (*)
Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
G. Kennedy et al. (eds.), Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science, Success in Academic Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_2
M. L. Kovler and D. J. Hackam
challenges make it more difficult for junior faculty members to succeed in balancing a clinical practice and scientific research; they also decrease the abundance of mentors as the mentor role necessitates a wealth and security of these ever-limited resources. Preserving the surgeon-scientist as an entity requires a concerted effort and several forces, and one of the essential foundations of such a career is effective mentorship. Yet, the building an effective mentorship relationship itself can be challenging for both the mentor and the mentee, in part because of an absence of structured guidelines as to how the relationship should be established. We now seek to define the essential attributes of mentorship and present a framework for selecting a good scientific mentor and, as importantly, being a good mentee.
Defining Mentorship
A mentor is an experienced and trusted advisor. Mentors can play several roles including counselor, role model, sponsor, coach, and also, in many cases, friend. The overriding principle of mentorship in surgical-science is that of a more practiced and veteran individual or team of individuals who guides a mentee in the development and establishment of a successful clinical practice, creation of a scientific center, and academic advancement.
A mentee, in contrast, is a person who is directed and advocated for by a mentor or team of mentors. While much has been written on mentorship, less has been discussed regarding “menteeship.” The mentee plays an active role in guiding the mentor-mentee relationship because at the root of the product of this relationship is the mentee’s career.
Mentorship by Career Stage
While this chapter is largely dedicated to a framework for junior faculty members aspiring for success in academic surgery, mentorship is critical at all career stages. For medical students, mentors play a critical role in helping the student to decide on a specialty and residency. Mentors are central to medical student success in the residency match process as they advise students on programs to apply to and to write letters of recommendation. A well-written letter from a dedicated mentor is often cited as a top selection criterion by residency program directors. Many students participate in research with their mentors. While this is frequently clinical research, those medical students particularly interested in a scientific career may be part of a dual-degree MD-PhD program and attain scientific training through a dedicated scientific mentor during medical school. In other circumstances, medical students find mentorship from junior and senior surgical residents who recently went through the match process themselves. One of the most important values of performing
research with a mentor is not only the scholarly activity and the publications that ensue but also the opportunity to expand on this personal research journey during the interview.
Surgical residency is another career stage when mentorship plays a critical role as evidenced by the literature that up to 70% of residents go into the specialty of their mentor. Again, surgical residents seek mentors that are both senior residents and faculty. Most junior residents will describe a senior resident or two who have taken a special interest in them or have been “taken under their wing.” Senior resident mentors provide guidance in technical skill acquisition and in the acquisition of basic clinical knowledge. Further, they are a very important resource for identifying faculty mentors and opportunities for academic development. It is also important for surgical residents to develop mentor-mentee relationships with faculty. Guidance during residency includes post-training career plans and ideas for academic development. Similar to the medical student residency match, dedicated mentors play a significant role in fellowship matching.
Perhaps at no stage in the career of a surgeon-scientist is mentorship more critical than for the junior faculty member. Junior faculty in academic surgical departments face daunting challenges with regard to limited funding and resources. At the same time, they are working to launch a robust clinical practice and establish a reputation. Additionally, they are frequently faced with the challenge of navigating a new institution with its own norms. The mentor team assists in guiding the junior faculty member through the “politics” of the department and institution, helps with obtaining independent funding, and assists with scientific efforts. The effective mentor will be described further below.
Finally, while senior faculty provide mentorship, they also gain insight as mentees themselves. Senior faculty may seek out mentors especially when they branch out from their role as surgeon-scientist to include more administrative responsibilities. Promotions may lead to a change in institutions, when mentorship is critical to navigate their new environment.
In summary, throughout the career of a surgeon-scientist, mentorship has an influence on career choice, promotion, and productivity.
Choosing a Good Scientific Mentor
Defining an Effective Mentor
It is certainly easier to define an ineffective or absent mentor than the elements that make up an effective one. Yet, most established surgeon-scientists will describe mentors who meant a great deal to their career. However, pinpointing what made them effective can be elusive, and thus a junior faculty member in search of a mentor may find themselves at a loss. We believe there are certain prerequisites for effective mentors that should be sought after when pursuing a mentor-mentee relationship.
M. L. Kovler and D. J. Hackam
Experience
By definition, an effective mentor has a depth of experience. For aspiring academic surgeon-scientists, it is important to seek out mentors with experience in academic surgical departments and science. Because no single mentor may fit the exact career aspirations of a mentee, they can look for a team of mentors with different experiences, as discussed below. Experience and gained wisdom are an important entity that the mentor possesses that the mentee lacks, and in essence much of mentorship involves the transfer of that gained knowledge from mentor to mentee. Additionally, a differential level of experience is one of the factors that distinguishes friendship from mentorship. So, in choosing a good scientific mentor, one should look for those with more depth of experience. Moreover, trainees tend to gravitate toward research mentors that have spent the most clinical time with them, while potentially overlooking outstanding research mentors on other clinical rotations, or with less clinical exposure. Mentees should focus on those mentors with the passion, commitment, and experience to serve as excellent mentors, above and beyond that which they experience on their clinical rotations.
Personal Dedication
The mentor-mentee relationship is built on personal dedication, investment, and trust. While both parties certainly benefit from the relationship, on the surface, the mentee benefits more than the mentor. Therefore, an effective mentor must show a high level of commitment and an element of altruism. The motivation for mentorship comes in many forms. Shared personal experiences, an interest in giving back to their profession, and a gratitude for mentors in their own career are some of the reasons why effective mentors devote time and resources to their mentee. In truth however, an effective mentor-mentee relationship should be as beneficial to the mentor as it is to the mentee.
Generosity
Generosity in mentorship comes in many forms. As stated, transfer of experience and expertise is one of the defining characteristics of a mentor-mentee relationship. For this transfer to occur effectively, a mentor must be generous with sharing their knowledge. For example, a scientific mentor who is independently funded can share previous grant applications with a junior faculty member, giving them insight into the process and what a fundable grant looks like. Similarly, a clinical mentor may assist in developing the mentees practice by asking them to participate in interesting cases or deferring referrals to their junior partner. Both of these instances require generosity of experience—on both occasions, the mentor is sharing a resource that took years or decades to develop with an unseasoned mentee.
Generosity also comes in the form of generosity of recognition. The effective mentor defers credit to their mentee in order to elevate the mentee’s status. As discussed, this requires that the effective mentor no longer requires full credit for an accomplishment. They have to reach a status in their career that allows them to be generous with recognition in order for this to occur. But simply reaching that status does not insure shared recognition. A mentor who appears greedy or selfish with credit should be avoided, but a mentor who is known for recognizing their mentees accomplishments publicly and through authorship should be sought after.
Similarly, generosity of financial support can be especially important for junior faculty members. The goal of the junior faculty member interested in a career as a surgeon-scientist is early independent funding. In order to accomplish this, they will need preliminary data and evidence of independence. An effective mentor can foster this through “start-up funding” in the form of financial backing and allocation of lab space and resources.
Finally, time is a scarce resource for all surgeon-scientists. By description, an effective mentor is a busy surgeon-scientist themselves and often have burdensome administrative responsibilities as their career has progressed. Generosity of time is an important consideration when identifying a good scientific mentor and can come in several forms: regularity, accessibility, extent, and value of time spent mentoring.
Experience, recognition, financial support, and time are scarce resources in academic surgery. The effective mentor must not only have an abundance of these means in order to generously share with a mentee, they must also have a level of altruism as the distribution may come at some level of personal or professional sacrifice.
Roles of an Effective Mentor
The effective mentor plays several roles. As discussed, transference of experience and knowledge is the overriding principle in mentorship. But not every decision a mentor made in their life or career is appropriate for every mentee. It is therefore important for the mentor to provide career guidance but not necessarily dictate a mentee’s career. The effective mentor helps their mentee create a plan (5-year, 10-year, career) and outlines interval attainable achievements in order to meet that plan. For the aspiring surgeon-scientist, these include concrete actions such as grant preparation and achievement of independent funding, peer-reviewed publication, and presentation at institutional and national meetings. The effective mentor also provides sponsorship and advocacy. This occurs on an institutional level in the form of promotional support and nationally in the form of backing for positions within societies. The effective mentor also assists with planning work-life balance and providing opportunities for networking.
M. L. Kovler and D. J. Hackam
Establishing a Team of Mentors
Given the complexities and demands of a career as surgeon-scientist, it is unlikely in the current environment that a single individual can satisfy all of the mentoring needs of a junior faculty member. It is challenging that a single mentor can effectively mentor a large number of mentees in a department. For the sake of efficiency, it is important to establish a team of mentors and mentoring networks. For example, the junior faculty member beginning their career oftentimes requires a clinical and a scientific mentor. A clinical mentor is one who will guide them in establishing a practice, help with obtaining referrals, and assist with difficult clinical decisions and operations and a scientific mentor, who will guide them in establishing a lab, a focused line of research, obtaining grant funding, and providing introductions to cross-disciplinary collaborators.
Being a Good Mentee
Discussions of mentorship are often dominated by the description of a meaningful mentor, and while prioritizing mentorship is currently at the forefront of our profession, the role of the mentee is less appreciated. However, we believe that the success and productivity of a mentor-mentee relationship is actually reliant on being a good mentee. For the mentee, “the more you give, the more you get.” The good mentee is dedicated, is reliable, and shows a high level of work ethic. She arrives at the mentorship meetings on time, prepared, and open to guidance. Further, the mentee guides and facilitates the mentor’s efforts. The good mentee enables the working relationship by planning meetings, asking important questions, and inviting constructive feedback. While this may appear self-explanatory on the surface, and sometimes is, for those struggling to find a good mentor, a focus on the process of being a good mentee can make for a more satisfactory mentor-mentee relationship.
Beginning the Mentor-Mentee Relationship
Initiation of the mentor-mentee partnership can occur by either the party and by a variety of fashions. Recently, a number of innovative strategies have been put in place by surgical departments around the nation to encourage initiation of mentormentee partnerships. Whichever way this occurs, the mentee will always play a significant role in seeking out mentors. Mentees should be proactive and set up meetings with potential mentors that have similar interest to discuss their goals. The mentee should come to these meetings prepared to discuss their aims including 5-year, 10-year, and career goals and a potential timeline for achievement. Meetings should include direct discussion of the mentor’s past mentoring experience. Etiquette for these meetings may seem obvious for some, but it is important to note that a good mentee will prepare an updated curriculum vitae before the meeting, familiarize themselves with the clinical and research interest of the mentor, express appreciation for opportunity to meet, prepare questions, and accept feedback.
Additionally, mentees should seek mentors with like-minded interests and work styles. A good mentee will be honest about professional chemistry and appropriateness of a personal match and not simply seek out any successful surgeon-scientist in their department. A good mentee should also be mindful of initiating and continuing mentorship relationships that are not compatible. A failed mentor-mentee relationship can be a significant setback for both parties involved—the mentee feels disheartened and defeated, and the mentor is left with a negative impression of the mentee and may be less willing to mentor in the future.
Initiation of mentor-mentee relationships should occur early. A good mentee seeks mentorship at all levels of their career from medical student to senior faculty. As discussed, the need for mentorship is fluid and changing as a career develops. Additionally, as mentioned, a team of mentors is frequently necessary. Further, in academic surgery, mentors may leave an institution for promotion and opportunity elsewhere. For all these reasons, it is important for a good mentee to stay active in seeking mentors. The stagnant mentee will find themselves failing at inopportune times.
Maintenance of the Mentor-Mentee Relationship
The responsibility for maintaining the mentor-mentee partnership falls on the mentee more so than the mentor. The principles of good communication, respect, and responsibility can guide a good mentee in protecting the relationship.
Communication between mentors and mentees occurs though a variety of mechanisms. Phone calls, text messages, emails, and informal “drop-in” chats all occur regularly. A good mentee will discover the mechanisms by which their mentor likes to communicate. Good communication also implicates keeping a mentor “up to date.” The good mentee will correspond regarding career progress, project status, grants, and papers. Further, the good mentee responds at the earliest time possible to a communication from their mentor.
The good mentee shows respect to an effective mentor in a number of ways. The mentee respects the mentor’s time as a precious and scarce resource. The good mentee recognizes that time spent with them is time spent away from the mentor’s family and personal career. Therefore, meetings and discussions should be focused. The good mentee prepares for these opportunities by proposing a focused agenda and brings directed questions. It is also important to point out that the mentor’s opinion should be respected. This includes response to criticism. The bad mentee responds defensively and becomes argumentative when criticized by their mentor. In contrast, the good mentee tries to see their mentor’s point of view and perspective and politely asks clarify questions.
Most importantly, the good mentee is a responsible individual worthy of an effective mentor. The good mentee meets deadlines. Therefore, time management is a skill that the good mentee attains. In being accountable, it is also the good mentee’s responsibility to decline a mentor’s request if they cannot meet expectations. While the good mentee often feels the need to say “yes” to every opportunity to contribute, repeated failure to meet deadlines and responsibilities puts the mentormentee partnership at risk. 2 Choosing a Good
M. L. Kovler and D. J. Hackam
Summary and Conclusions
Mentorship has always been a critical aspect of the surgical-science career. However, with the current challenges in academic surgery, there may be no more important time for mentorship in academic surgery than the present. It is incumbent on our profession to meet the mentoring needs of aspiring surgeon-scientist if we are to maintain our role in the advancement of academic surgery, and it is compulsory for the young surgeons of today to be active mentees.
Suggested Reading
Goldstein AM, Blair AB, Keswani SG, et al. A roadmap for aspiring surgeon-scientists in todayʼs healthcare environment. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/ SLA.0000000000002840
Kibbe MR, Pellegrini CA, Townsend CM, Helenowski IB, Patti MG. Characterization of mentorship programs in departments of surgery in the United States. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):900–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1670
Souba WW. Mentoring young academic surgeons, our most precious asset. J Surg Res. 1999;82(2):113–20. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsre.1999.5596
Thakur A, Fedorka P, Ko C, Buchmiller-Crair TL, Atkinson JB, Fonkalsrud EW. Impact of mentor guidance in surgical career selection. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36(12):1802–4. https://doi. org/10.1053/jpsu.2001.28842
Zerzan JT, Hess R, Schur E, Phillips RS, Rigotti N. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84(1):140–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181906e8f
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Terrell must tell her story again to a larger and fuller audience.” In her remarks Mrs. Terrell told of the obstacles which confront colored women and girls in their efforts to better their conditions. Often having to battle against this great evil of race prejudice which yet lingers in our land and which so often stands in the way of progress for these women, not only, said Mrs. Terrell, must she struggle with the handicap of color, but only too often she gets no sympathy from the white woman, who should be at least willing to give a helping hand to these colored friends who, like herself, are more or less looking forward to perfect freedom and all which that means for womanhood. The speaker thought that right here was a big field for the American woman’s activities, and hoped for the co-operation of her white friends.
Mrs. Stanton Blatch, who was in the audience, made a short but forceful speech for the cause of women, and thought “the vote” would help along quicker than anything else all reforms of this or any other nature. The secretary of the Trades Woman’s League also spoke, and declared that she would do her part toward opening the doors of her association to all women, whether white or colored.
After a most delightful rendering of several Negro melodies, Mrs. Hackley told how she so much hoped to establish a school of music for her people. No one hearing her direct, simple and earnest story doubted for a moment her ultimate success in this worthy effort, and she most certainly will have the co-operation of every musical member of her audience.
The chairman made a few remarks with his usual dignity and precision, and the first musical morning was voted a real success. Those having boxes were Mrs. Villard, Mrs. E. W. Harkness, Mrs. Paul M. Warburg, Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont, Mrs. Robert Ingersoll, whose daughter, Miss Maud, acted as one of the ushers; Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, Mrs. Frederick Nathan, Mrs. Frances R. Keyser, Mrs. Charles W. Anderson, together with many other well-known women, white and colored.
The arrangements were in charge of Miss Frances Blascoer, executive secretary of the Association.
The annual report of British East Africa for the year 1908–09, which was issued a few months ago, states that the period was not marked by any salient events, but the Protectorate had made steady progress in spite of weather conditions somewhat unfavorable to agriculture. There had been little or no friction with native tribes. Labor difficulties still exist, but show a tendency to diminish. European overseers of the native railway laborers have proved far more satisfactory than the Indians formerly employed.
The report says of slavery:
“The ordinance for the abolition of the legal status of slavery has worked well and without friction during the year. Altogether 3,593 cases have been settled by the District Courts, and compensation to the amount of £7,053 has been awarded.”
WHAT TO READ
PERIODICALS.
Plea for the Conservation of Another Great National Resource. F. P. Chisholm. Education, November.
Dip of the Tar Brush. M. A. H. New England Magazine, October.
Special Plea of a Southerner. E. Harlan. New England Magazine, October.
Prince Henry of Portugal and the African Crusade of the Fifteenth Century. C. R. Beasley. American Historical Review, October.
Excavation of Cyrene. F. W. Kelsey. Nation, October 27.
Diary of Gideon Welles. Atlanta, December.
Cuban Experiences. Frederick Funston. Scribner’s, December.
A Hero’s Conscience. G. Bradford, Jr. Atlanta, December.
BOOKS.
Wilson, Lady S. D. A.—South African Memories. Longmans.
Shotwell, W. G.—Life of Charles Sumner. Crowell. 733 pp.
Steffens. Alexander H., Recollections of. Doubleday, Page & Co. 572 pp.
Newton, J. H.—Lincoln and Herndon. Torch Press. 367 pp.
Sylvester, H. M.—Indian Wars of New England. Clark. 3 vols.
Haring, C. H.—The Buccaneers of the West Indies in the 17th Century. Dutton. 298 pp.
Hagood, Johnson.—Memoirs of the War of Secession. State Co. 498 pp.
Deutsch, G.—History of the Jews. Bloch. 122 pp.
Shoemaker. M. M.—Islam Lands. Putnams. 251 pp.
Withers, P.—Egypt of Yesterday and To-day. Stokes. 293 pp.
Addams, Jane.—Twenty Years at Hull House. Macmillan, 462 pp.
Documentary History of American Industrial Society. Vol, IX: Labor Movement. Clark. 378 pp.
THE LADY OF THE SLAVE STATES.
Mrs. George Haven Putnam, in a very charming essay in the Contemporary Review for December, discusses “The Lady of the Slave States.” She deals gently enough with her subject; she says that the slave-owner’s wife like everybody else with slavery was blighted by its curse, but she demolished very effectually the myth of the gracious fascinating woman of culture who ruled family and estate by the charm of her personality.
The ante-bellum Southern lady never had much to say for herself and was in short not “the Gothic saint in her niche” that tradition pictures, but a kindly little creature surrounded by “Orientalism” and little better off, so far as opportunities for development went, than any lady of the harem.
Mrs. Putnam quotes Miss Martineau, who traveled extensively through the slave States, to show how the system limited the white women and made them “the greatest slaves on the plantation.” Patience was the supreme virtue of the ante-bellum lady—they made the best of a bad state of affairs. Logic she had little or none, and her up-bringing tended to make her a delightful girl but a middle-aged woman of only moderate attractions. And while she was often very kind to her slaves her sensibilities seemed in some measure blunted by perpetual sight of suffering and injustice.
When the war ended the ex-mistresses of slaves showed how good was the material that had been buried under the “Orientalism” of the plantation.
RACE PREJUDICE IN THE ORIENT.
Race Prejudice: An address by Melville E. Stone to the Quill Club, New York City.
The best review of this remarkable little pamphlet will be a few extracts from its pages:
What is to be the outcome? What does all this mean for the future of the world? Let us view the problem from the political, the commercial and the moral aspects. How long will the 6,000 soldiers we have in the Philippines be able to keep our flag afloat among 8,000,000 of natives? How long will the 75,000 English soldiers in India be able to maintain British sovereignty over 300,000,000 of Asians? Believe me, these are not idle questions. They are up to us for an answer, whether we will or no, and upon our ability to make answer will depend the future of what we are pleased to call our Western civilization. I would not be an alarmist, and yet I would have you feel that Macauley’s suggestion of the New Zealander on a broken arch of London Bridge, sketching the ruins of St. Paul, has come to be more than an extravagant figure of speech. And I am convinced that there is real danger awaiting us unless we mend our ways. It is not the Asian who needs educating; it is the European. I am not worrying half so much about the heathen in his blindness as I am about the Christian in his blindness. Asia is awake and preparing for the coming struggle. And we are doing very much to force the issue and to prepare her for the contest. For a century we have been sending at enormous cost our missionaries to all parts of the hemisphere to civilize. There may be doubt as to the amount of proselyting we have been able to accomplish; there can be no possible doubt of the work we have done to strengthen the Asian people politically and commercially.
We shall never meet the problems growing out of our relation with the Far East unless we absolutely and once for all put away race prejudice. I believe the European snob in Asia is distinctly the enemy of the civilized West. And his coadjutor in this country is a fitting criminal yoke-fellow. Let me give you some illustrations of what I
mean—cases which came under my personal observation. From Bombay to Yokohama there is not a social club at any port or treaty point where a native, whatever his culture or refinement, will be admitted. At the Bengal Club at Calcutta last year a member in perfectly good standing innocently invited an Eurasian gentleman— that is, one who is half native and half European—to dine with him. It became known that the invitation had been extended, and a storm of opposition broke among the members. The matter was finally adjusted by setting aside the ladies’ department of the club, and there the offending member and his unfortunate guest dined alone. The next day the member was called before the board of governors and notified that another like breach of the rules would result in his expulsion. The beating of native servants and workmen in India is a daily and hourly occurrence. It formerly was so at Hong Kong and Shanghai, but Mr. Sprague, the representative of the Standard Oil Company at Shanghai, told me that since the Russo-Japanese war the natives would not stand it, and that all beating of them by Europeans in that city had ceased.
The son of a maharaja goes to England, is educated at Oxford or Cambridge, is lionized in the West End of London—mayhap he is honored with an invitation to Windsor. When he goes back home he may enter no white man’s club; if he be fortunate enough to be invited to a white man’s function, no white woman will dance or associate with him; and if by any luck he should marry a European, he, his wife and his children become outcasts. Although native troops, like the Sikhs, have shown undying loyalty to the British flag and on frequent occasions have exhibited courage in the highest degree, no one of them ever has or ever can achieve the Victoria Cross.
Socially they are all saying to us: “Stop cheating us, stop swindling us, stop your treating us as your inferiors who are to be beaten and robbed.” Japan is crying out, “Treat us fairly and we will go more than half-way. Leave to us the question whether Japanese laborers shall go to America to annoy you, and we will stop them. But do not say that you will admit the lazaroni of Hungary and Italy and Russia, simply because they are white, and shut us out because we are yellow.”
The Sinhalese, natives of Ceylon, while I was in Colombo, addressed a remarkable communication to the Governor-General. They said a hundred years ago there was established in the United States a new theory of government—that there should be no taxation without representation. “Now,” they said, “we ask a share in the government of the island. We pay taxes. You may fix a property qualification and say that no one having less than a thousand pounds sterling shall share in the government. We shall not object. You may also fix an educational qualification. You may say that no one but a college graduate shall take part in the government. We will not object. In short, you may fix any qualification except a racial qualification. That would not be fair.” “And what answer have you to make?” I asked Mr. Crosby Rolles, editor of The Times of Ceylon. “To meet their request,” he replied, “would mean to turn over the government of Ceylon to them at once, because there are 6,000 of them and only 5,000 English men, women and children. We must stop educating them.”
What do you think of that for a remedy? Personally. I do not think it will work, any more than I think any rule of arbitrary repression can endure. I cannot bring myself to sympathize altogether with the views expressed by Mr. Roosevelt in his recent Guildhall speech. I take refuge in what seems to me the larger experience and riper judgment of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, who in July, 1904, was also given the freedom of the City of London in Guildhall, and on that occasion used these words: “Depend upon it, you will never rule the East except through the heart, and the moment imagination has gone out of your Asiatic policy your empire will dwindle and decay.
“In smug complacency you may close your doors which look toward Asia, while you open wide those which look toward Europe; you may refuse the Oriental admission to your schools, while you accord the privilege to any child of a European; you may pile import duties mountain high, and raise our standards of living to any pitch of extravagance; you may build warships without limit, and you may continue to treat the Asian as legitimate prey. But I am confident that it will not avail.
“As a soldier, whether at Omdurman, in the Sudan, or on 203–Metre Hill, at Port Arthur, the man of color has shown himself a right good fighting man; in commerce he has, by his industry,
perseverance, ingenuity and frugality, given us pause; and before the eternal throne his temporal and his spiritual welfare are worth as much as yours and mine.”
BOOKS
When our readers wish to know where to buy the best books on race and other human problems they should consult this list:
A BOOK ALL INTERESTED IN HUMAN PROBLEMS OUGHT TO READ
JOHN BROWN
A Biography Fifty Years After
By OSWALD GARRISON VILLARD THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
“I can only say after reading from first to last its more than 700 pages that I have never encountered anything this side of Gibbon’s ‘Rome’ which has made me feel more the personal power of a single work.”
JOHN T. MORSE, Editor of American Statesman Series.
“Perhaps in thus dramatically fashioning his volume Mr. Villard obeyed an instinct rather than acted upon a preconceived plan; that is often the case with great work, where a writer’s feelings are deeply enlisted. Be this as it may, the merit and charm are none the less: he has seized well a splendid opportunity and has written one of the great biographies of our literature.”
HENRY WATTERSON In the Louisville “Courier-Journal”
“No fault may justly be found with Mr. Villard’s telling of the story. It is minute and lucid, altogether fair and unvarnished.”
Fully Illustrated with Portraits, and Other Illustrations
With Copious Notes and Bibliography $5.00 Net; Postage 20 Cents
Boston HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY New York
Atlanta University Studies OF THE NEGRO PROBLEMS
13 Monographs. Sold Separately.
Address:
A. G. DILL, Atlanta University, Atlanta, Ga.
The Souls of Black Folk
By W. E. Burghardt DuBois
“It is one of the noteworthy books, not merely of a year, but of the epoch. Its every page is filled with vigor, spontaneity and spirituality.” Boston Transcript.
“A stripping bare of the moral and mental anatomy of the African in America so as to reveal the naked soul in its primitive simplicity, seared and scarred by ages of suffering.” New York Age.
Eighth Edition.
With frontispiece portrait of the author. $1.20 net.
May be ordered through any bookstore or direct from the publishers.
A. C. McCLURG & CO. New York. Chicago. San Francisco.
Books for “Crisis” Readers
JOHN BROWN
By W. E. BURGHARDT DU BOIS, A.M., Ph. D., Professor of Sociology in Atlanta University
12mo. Cloth, stamped in gold, gilt top. With frontispiece portrait of Brown
$1.25 net; by mail, $1.37
“A popular presentation of a very real figure in American history.” Chicago Evening Post.
“The author is well qualified to treat his subject and has produced a satisfactory and readable book.” Book News Monthly.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS
By BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, President of Tuskegee Institute and author of “Up from Slavery,” “Working with the Hands,” etc.
12mo. Cloth, stamped in gold, gilt top. With frontispiece portrait of Douglass
$1.25 net; by mail, $1.37
“A sympathetic study of a career which was identified with the race problem in the period of revolution and liberation. It reveals Douglass as the personification of the transition from slavery to citizenship.” Book Review Digest.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By
ELLIS PAXSON OBERHOLTZER. Ph. D., author of “Jay Cooke, Financier of the Civil War”
12mo. Cloth, stamped in gold, gilt top. With frontispiece portrait of Lincoln
$1.25 net; by mail, $1.37
“A well-balanced, readable, compact book that gives the important facts of Lincoln’s life, and shows him as posterity will be likely to see him, not as a demi-god, but with full appreciation of his character and genius.” The Dial.
THE NEGRO IN THE SOUTH
His economic progress in relation to his Moral and Religious Development. By BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, of Tuskegee Institute, and W. E. BURGHARDT DU BOIS, of Atlanta University
12mo. Cloth. $1.00 net; by mail, $1.10
Chapter 1—The Economic Development of the Negro Race in Slavery
Chapter 2—The Economic Development of the Negro Race Since Its Emancipation
Chapter 3—The Economic Revolution in the South
Chapter 4—Religion in the South
“Ought to be read by every American citizen.” Pittsburg Christian Advocate.
Sent upon receipt of price by GEORGE W. JACOBS & CO., Publishers 208 W. Washington Square, Philadelphia, Pa.
Telephone 7189 Morningside
Ten Years with Dr. D. C. White
Dr. JAMES A. BANKS DENTIST
204 WEST 133D STREET, NEW YORK
Porcelain, Crown and Bridge Work a Specialty Pure Nitrous-Oxide Gas Administered
Can’t See Well? See Me
when your eyes feel painful, hot, uncomfortable and grow weary while reading, writing, sewing or looking at near objects, letters run together while reading and become blurred.
Eyes examined by me and fitted with glasses accurately made never grow weary, but are perfectly comfortable. You may not like to wear glasses, but do you like headaches, red eyes and wrinkles better? Scientific examinations of the eyes for defective eyesight is my specialty.
Dr. R. G. ADAMS, Optometrist
Physical Eye Specialist 16 West 134th Street, New York City, N. Y.
No. 4 Special Buggy
$65.00
A value unequaled. Sold on $1.00 Profit Margin. Write for prices and other styles. Send for catalog.
C. R. Patterson & Sons GREENFIELD, OHIO
Largest Negro carriage concern in the United States
The Madison T. B. Washington Company (INCORPORATED)
a manufacturing corporation, is the sole owner of six letters patent, consisting of brake gearing and novel improvements in forks. These forks possess many practical advantages, as they combine the functions of an ordinary fork, a pike, a larding needle, a needle for sewing together a roll of beef, venison, veal or the legs of a turkey, duck or other game, stuffed or otherwise, and obviates the necessity of providing separate utensils to serve the several purposes for which such utensils are designed. The NEW POWER, on which the
Company is now securing patents, will REVOLUTIONIZE the entire mechanism of power and its application. It will surpass the Marconi Wireless and the telegraph and telephone in importance. Think of it! A POWER which will displace steam, water, electricity and all known power in use to-day. At an early date the Company will demonstrate this NEW POWER. Do not delay. Invest now. Capital Stock $100,000. Shares $5.
OFFICE, 47 WEST 66th STREET
FOR EXCLUSIVE PATRONAGE, EXCELLENT MEALS
Call at
The National Waiters’ Restaurant
128 W. 53d STREET, Between 6th and 7th Aves.
We please the critical. We serve all parties. Call and see our improvements. Everything new and well appointed. If we please you tell your friends; if not, tell us.
MUSIC SUNDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING
LYMAS WILLIAMS, Proprietor
J. A. Phillips & Co.’s Bakery
beg to remind you of their Superior Bread, Cakes, Pies, Etc.
They serve the best people and wish to serve you throughout this HAPPY NEW YEAR
17 WEST 133d STREET
Your Carpet Needs Cleaning!
Let the NEW YORK CAREFUL CLEANING BUREAU Do It
We Clean and Renovate for Particular People—from a Rug to a House—by the Vacuum System. Let us give you a Clean House for A HAPPY NEW YEAR
’Phone 3253 Harlem. 12 West 135th Street
Educational Directory
Howard University
WILBUR P. THIRKIELD, President Washington, D. C.
The College of Arts and Sciences—Kelly Miller, A.M., Dean.
The Teachers’ College—Lewis B. Moore, A.M., Ph.D., Dean.
The Academy—George J. Cummings, A.M., Dean.
The Commercial College—George W. Cook, A.M., Dean.
School of Manual Arts and Applied Sciences— PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS
The School of Theology—Isaac Clark, D.D., Dean.
The School of Medicine: Medical, Dental and Pharmaceutical Colleges—Edward O. Balloch, M.D., Dean.
The School of Law—Benjamin F. Leighton, LL.D., Dean.
For catalogue and special information address Dean of Department.
Atlanta University
Is beautifully located in the City of Atlanta, Ga. The courses of study include High School, Normal School and College, with manual training and domestic science. Among the teachers are graduates of Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Smith and Wellesley. Forty one years of
successful work have been completed. Students come from all parts of the South. Graduates are almost universally successful. For further information address
President EDWARD T. WARE
ATLANTA, GA.
Wilberforce University
WILBERFORCE, OHIO
Opens first Tuesday in September
Located in Greene County, 3¼ miles from Xenia, Ohio. Healthful surroundings. Refined community. Faculty of 32 members. Expenses low. Classical and Scientific, Theological, Preparatory, Music, Military, Normal and Business Departments. Ten industries taught. Great opportunities for High School graduates entering College or Professional Courses. Two new buildings for girls to be erected this year—one now in process of erection, and the other to be begun in the spring.
Catalogue and Special Information Furnished.
Address
W. S. SCARBOROUGH, President.
Shaw University
This institution of learning, established in 1865, has industrial departments for both young men and young women, as well as college, normal and preparatory departments. There are also Schools of Law, Medicine, Pharmacy and Theology. The facilities have recently been increased. Other improvements are being planned that will be completed within the next two years. Applications should be made several months or a year in advance, for it has become impossible during the last few years to receive all who apply. The present enrollment is over 500.
The academic year begins on the Thursday nearest the first day of October and continues for thirty-two consecutive weeks. The charges are moderate. Catalogues furnished upon application.
Address THE PRESIDENT
Shaw University, Raleigh, N. C.
Atlanta Baptist College
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
A High School and College for men, conducted under the auspices of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, founded in 1867. Has a campus of thirteen acres on one of the highest points of land in the city. Five buildings, one just completed at a cost of $40,000. Societies, debating clubs and athletics.
For further information address
JOHN HOPE, A.M. President
The Georgia State Industrial College
Good for a Trade, Normal, Industrial and Collegiate Education. Write for Catalogue to R. R. W , A.B., L.L.D., President. Legal Directory
N P
Office: Room 502, Eberly Block Columbus, O.
B. S. SMITH
A - -L
Offices: Suite 610, Sykes Block Minneapolis, Minn.
GEORGE W. MITCHELL
A - -L
908 Walnut Street Philadelphia, Pa.
J. DOUGLAS WETMORE
A C - -L
5 Beekman Street (Temple Court)
New York City
Tel. 6222 Cortlandt Cable Address, Judowet
FREDERICK L. McGHEE
A C - -L
Union Block, Fourth and Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minn.
