Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are ...simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (
= 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.
Unprecedented opportunities for research into basic biologic mechanisms, novel diagnostic approaches and therapies, population and outcomes medicine, health policy, and health services now exist, ...expanding the role of those who understand both patient care and research. Despite this, the total number of physician-scientists in the United States is declining and the average age of physician-scientists increasing. An important cause of the declining physician-scientist workforce is both real and perceived threats to quality of life in choosing this career path. Researchers dually trained in medicine and in the rigors of scientific research have contributed and will undoubtedly continue to contribute substantially to advancing medical care if encouraged to do so. Training programs and workplaces that address threats to quality of life and support strategies that have proven successful in inspiring talented people to pursue the physician-scientist career path are needed to produce, attract, and retain more physician-scientists.
National Institute of Health (NIH) funding is a “gold-standard” of achievement; we examined trends in NIH-funded pediatric surgeons.
NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) was queried ...for American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) members (2012 vs 2022). Demographics and time-to-award (TTA) from fellowship were compared. Number of grants, funding allotment, award classification, administering institutes/centers, research type were studied.
Thirty-eight (4.6%) APSA members were NIH-funded in 2012 compared to 37 (2.9%) in 2022. Of funded surgeons in 2022, 27% were repeat awardees from 2012. TTA was similar (12 vs 14years, p=0.109). At each point, awards were commonly R01 grants (40 vs 52%, p = 0.087) and basic science-related (76 vs 63%, p = 0.179). Awardees were predominantly men (82% in 2012 vs 78% in 2022, p=0.779) and White (82% in 2012 vs 76% in 2022, p=0.586). Median amount per grant increased: $254,980 (2012) to $364,025 (2022); by $96,711 for men and $390,911 for women. Median awards for White surgeons increased by $215,699 (p=0.035), and decreased by $30,074 for non-White surgeons, though not significantly (p=0.368).
The landscape of NIH-funded pediatric surgeons has remained unchanged between time points. With a substantial number of repeat awardees, predominance of R01 grants, and a median TTA over a decade after fellowship graduation, the phenotypes of early career pediatric surgeon-scientists are facing academic endangerment.
•The academic landscape of pediatric surgeon-scientists (PSS) is continually evolving.•National Institute of Health (NIH) funding is historically a gold-standard metric.•Compared to 2012, the proportion of NIH-funded PSSs has decreased.•Gender and ethnic diversity of NIH-funding awardees has remained stagnant.•Repeat awardees and K-award decreases indicate endangerment of early career PSS.
A feature of student--teacher--scientist partnerships (STSPs) involves students working with scientists for the purpose of helping them learn more about how scientists work and think. Previous ...research on STSPs has generally focused on identifying the best practices of partnerships and on identifying challenges of these partnerships. The study reported here employed a cluster-randomized trial design to test the effectiveness of the PlantingScience STSP that combines high-quality curriculum, teacher preparation, and online mentoring by professional scientists. The results of the current study show that students who participated in the PlantingScience STSP showed significant improvements in science content knowledge and attitudes about scientists compared with students in the control group. The study sample was highly representative, demographically, to the U.S. population of high schools. These results add to the limited empirical evidence about the effectiveness of STSPs on student outcomes related to science achievement and attitudes.
The 21st century has ushered in the age of big data and data economy, in which data DNA, which carries important knowledge, insights, and potential, has become an intrinsic constituent of all ...data-based organisms. An appropriate understanding of data DNA and its organisms relies on the new field of data science and its keystone, analytics. Although it is widely debated whether big data is only hype and buzz, and data science is still in a very early phase, significant challenges and opportunities are emerging or have been inspired by the research, innovation, business, profession, and education of data science. This article provides a comprehensive survey and tutorial of the fundamental aspects of data science: the evolution from data analysis to data science, the data science concepts, a big picture of the era of data science, the major challenges and directions in data innovation, the nature of data analytics, new industrialization and service opportunities in the data economy, the profession and competency of data education, and the future of data science. This article is the first in the field to draw a comprehensive big picture, in addition to offering rich observations, lessons, and thinking about data science and analytics.
Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as ...the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another’s apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, “envied” professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences’ respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists’ trustworthy intentions.
Background
Combined clinical and research training is common in residency programs outside emergency medicine (EM), and these pathways are particularly valuable for combined MD/PhD graduates planning ...to pursue a career as a physician‐scientist. However, EM departments may not know what resources to provide these trainees during residency to create research‐focused, productive, future faculty, and trainees may not know which programs support their goal of becoming a physician‐scientist in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training and resources available to MD/PhD graduates in EM residency training with a focus on dedicated research pathways.
Methods
This study was a cross‐sectional inventory conducted through an electronic survey of EM residency program directors. We sought to identify dedicated MD/PhD research training pathways, with a focus on both resources and training priorities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses.
Results
We collected 192 survey responses (69.6% response rate). Among respondents, 41 programs (21.4%) offered a research pathway/track, 52 (27.4%) offered a research fellowship, 22 (11.5%) offered both a residency research pathway/track and a research fellowship, and two (1.0%) offered a dedicated EM physician‐scientist training pathway. Most programs considered research a priority and were enthusiastic about interviewing applicants planning a research career, but recruitment of physician‐scientist applicants was not generally prioritized.
Conclusions
Some EM residency programs offer combined clinical and mentored research training for prospective physician‐scientists, and nearly all residency programs considered research important. Future work will focus on improving the EM physician‐scientist pipeline by optimizing pathways available to trainees during residency and fellowship.
The SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal ...editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines.
A Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items.
56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group.
A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.
The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.
•A Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines.•45 (80%) invitees completed the survey and there was high agreement amongst the expert group.•The collated responses resulted in modifications, and a improved SCARE checklist is presented.
PDF
