scholarly journals Midcareer Medical School Research Faculty Perspectives on Vitality and Professionalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. e2120642
Author(s):  
Linda H. Pololi ◽  
Vasilia Vasiliou ◽  
Kimberly Bloom-Feshbach
Author(s):  
William G. Rothstein

After shortages of physicians developed in the 1950s and 1960s, federal and state governments undertook programs to increase the number of medical students. Government funding led to the creation of many new medical schools and to substantial enrollment increases in existing schools. Medical schools admitted larger numbers of women, minority, and low-income students. The impact of medical schools on the career choices of students has been limited. Federal funding for medical research immediately after World War II was designed to avoid politically controversial issues like federal aid for medical education and health care. The 1947 Steelman report on medical research noted that it did not examine “equally important” problems, such as financial assistance for medical education, equal access to health care, continuing medical education for physicians, or “the mass application of science to the prevention of many communicable diseases.” The same restraints prevailed with regard to early federal aid for the construction of medical school research facilities. Some medical school research facilities were built with the help of federal funds during and after World War II, but the first federal legislation specifically designed to fund construction of medical school research facilities was the Health Research Facilities Act of 1956. It provided matching grants equal to 50 percent of the cost of research facilities and equipment, and benefited practically all medical schools. In 1960, medical schools received $13.8 million to construct research facilities. This may be compared to $106.4 million for research grants and $41.5 million for research training grants in the same year. Federal grants for research and research training were often used for other activities. As early as 1951, the Surgeon General's Committee on Medical School Grants and Finances reported that “Public Health Service grants have undoubtedly improved some aspects of undergraduate instruction in every medical school,” with most of the improvements resulting from training rather than research grants. By the early 1970s, according to Freymann, of $1.3 billion given to medical schools for research, “about $800 million was 'redeployed' into institutional and departmental support. . . . The distinction between research and education became as fluid as the imagination of the individual grantees wished it to be.”


OTO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2093249
Author(s):  
Evan M. Ryan ◽  
Katie R. Geelan-Hansen ◽  
Kari L. Nelson ◽  
Jayme R. Dowdall

This study examines associations among publication number, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department ranks of otolaryngology applicants during the 2018-2019 match cycle. Information regarding 2018-2019 otolaryngology applicants was collected from Otomatch.com and verified via department websites. Information was also collected regarding 2018 NIH funding rank and 2020 US News & World Report research rank of medical schools and otolaryngology departments. T tests and chi-square analyses were performed. Top 40 NIH funding rank, top 40 medical school research rank, and home institution department rank were separately associated with more publications and higher rates of matching into highly reputed otolaryngology departments (all P < .01). Furthermore, applicants who matched into ranked otolaryngology departments averaged significantly more publications ( P < .01). Prospective otolaryngology applicants should take into account NIH funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department rank, as they are associated with matching into high-ranking institutions.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Brongo Pacifici ◽  
Norman Thomson

Most students participating in science undergraduate research (UR) plan to attend either medical school or graduate school. This study examines possible differences between premed and non–premed students in their influences to do research and expectations of research. Questionnaire responses from 55 premed students and 80 non–premed students were analyzed. No differences existed in the expectations of research between the two groups, but attitudes toward science and intrinsic motivation to learn more about science were significantly higher for non–premed students. Follow-up interviews with 11 of the students, including a case study with one premed student, provided explanation for the observed differences. Premed students, while not motivated to learn more about science, were motivated to help people, which is why most of them are pursuing medicine. They viewed research as a way to help them become doctors and to rule out the possibility of research as a career. Non–premed students participated in research to learn more about a specific science topic and gain experience that may be helpful in graduate school research. The difference in the reasons students want to do UR may be used to tailor UR experiences for students planning to go to graduate school or medical school.


2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 727-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine M. Mitchell ◽  
Zachary D. Epstein-Peterson ◽  
Julia Bandini ◽  
Ada Amobi ◽  
Jonathan Cahill ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
KAYOKO HIRAFUKI

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin J. Bowen ◽  
Calvin J. Kersbergen ◽  
Olive Tang ◽  
Andrea Cox ◽  
Mary Catherine Beach

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document