FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2467233111> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2467233111 endingPage "18" @default.
• W2467233111 startingPage "15" @default.
• W2467233111 abstract "Because of national interest in the “graying” of the biomedical workforce, we examine aging and funding within the pool of NIH-funded investigators and applicants, particularly in the growing field of stem cell research. We provide evidence of a maturing and more competitive stem cell workforce and discuss policy implications. Because of national interest in the “graying” of the biomedical workforce, we examine aging and funding within the pool of NIH-funded investigators and applicants, particularly in the growing field of stem cell research. We provide evidence of a maturing and more competitive stem cell workforce and discuss policy implications. The biomedical research workforce is aging. This well-known fact has been discussed by NIH leadership (https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2015/03/25/age-of-investigator/ and https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/), members of Congress (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/young-brilliant-and-underfunded.html?_r=2), and extensively within extramural research communities throughout the United States (Butz, 2004Butz W.P. Will the scientific and technical workforce meet the requirements of the federal government?. RAND Office of Science and Technology Policy, Santa Monica, CA2004Google Scholar, DeLong, 2004DeLong D.W. Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. Oxford University Press, New York, NY2004Crossref Scopus (271) Google Scholar, Buerhaus et al., 2000Buerhaus P.I. Staiger D.O. Auerbach D.I. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2948-2954Crossref PubMed Scopus (435) Google Scholar). Management experts have spent the past few decades discussing the aging U.S. workforce and important topics such as the critical role of knowledge transfer (Calo, 2008Calo T.J. Public Pers. Manage. 2008; 37: 403-416Crossref Scopus (79) Google Scholar, Rappaport et al., 2003Rappaport A. Bancroft E. Okum L. Journal of Organizational Excellence. 2003; 23: 55-66Crossref Google Scholar). While national discussions take place on the aging and funding of the entire biomedical research workforce, we know little about trends within subspecialties. To help understand broad overarching themes, as well as more specialized area trends, we focus on NIH investigators in general and those engaged specifically in stem cell research (see Supplemental Information for detailed explanations of criteria for our analysis). Our preliminary analysis suggests that the collective aging of the NIH-funded independent investigator workforce is not solely the product of any policy or mechanism. Rather, it is an accumulation of multiple factors including a shift in perceptions, expectations, and the general structure of the extramural workforce, as well as global macroeconomic factors. Based on a comparison of the ratio of award to applicants by age group, we find no clear evidence that the NIH-funded independent investigator workforce is aging solely because of competitiveness in a limited resource market. While the funding and purchasing power of NIH research grants have fluctuated over time for all NIH-funded research, the proportion or rate of applicants funded during times of limited resources (e.g., post-2003) is relatively similar in older applicants compared to younger ones. Table 1 (All Researchers) and Figure 1 (All Researchers) highlight this fact. While age and experience may be correlated, Mincer, 1974Mincer J.A. Age and experience profiles of earnings.in: Mincer J.A. Schooling, Experience, and Earnings. Columbia University Press, 1974: 64-82Google Scholar showed that experience influences income and returns to education more than age. The same might be true for other sources of income, particularly funding for one’s research. If age does imply more experience, as funding restricts, we would expect to see a higher proportion of older established investigators funded. We do not see this, which could imply that experience is not highly correlated with age, that experience is more of a predictor of scientific funding than age, or that specific policies focused on early-stage investigators is mitigating some of the effect, among other possible reasons.Table 1NIH Funding Rates for Independent Investigators (R01-Equivalent) by Type of Research and Age Group, 1980–2014Age Group198019902000200520102014Stem Cell Researchers<35——ˆˆˆˆ35–39——100.017.418.421.640–44——100.030.716.718.345–49——100.036.917.117.650–54——100.023.218.413.755–59——ˆ28.617.613.460–64——ˆ23.326.513.965–69——ˆˆ16.320.970+——ˆˆˆ18.1TOTAL——100.028.917.816.5All Researchers<3546.129.728.024.222.319.235–3948.729.934.424.627.324.840–4448.833.135.626.025.923.645–4950.934.237.628.525.222.950–5452.432.439.428.327.623.755–5953.734.438.428.527.324.560–6445.034.736.926.929.025.165–6951.331.136.125.925.723.070+ˆ33.330.926.422.422.6TOTAL49.032.336.627.226.523.7(ˆ), not reported due to small cell size. (—), data unavailable. Open table in a new tab (ˆ), not reported due to small cell size. (—), data unavailable. For NIH overall, funding rates were relatively similar among age groups during the period we examined. However, the number of both awardees and applicants grew at a faster rate in older age groups than in younger age groups between 2005 and 2014. Stem cell research is a relatively new field within the almost century-long history of NIH-funded scientific research. In stem cell research, NIH R01-equivalent investigator applicants who were aged 60 to 64 grew by almost 5-fold (469.8%) between 2005 and 2014, with awardees increasing by more than 2-fold during that time period (240.0% growth, Figure 1). For all of NIH, the growth in investigator applicants between 2005 and 2014 for the same age group was 39.9% (with 30.4% growth in awardees Figure 1). Applicant growth rates for both stem cell and all research over the same period was greatest for those aged 70 plus (554.5% and 110.1% respectively, Figure 1). While the growth in applicants was fastest in the older age groups, the NIH-funded stem cell research workforce also saw growth in the number of principal investigators under age 50 between 2005 and 2014. The number of investigators funded grew by 80.4% for those aged 40–44 and 32.8% for those aged 45–49 (Figure 1). The number of all NIH R01-equivalent awardees during that same period shrunk by 9.5% for those aged 40–44 and by 22.2% for those aged 45 to 49 (Figure 1). In the 1980s, more individuals under the age of 40 applied for an R01-equivalent award than today, and, over the years, the number of awardees and applicants under age 40 has decreased (Figure S1B). For investigators under age 40, gender differences in both application and award exist over time. Fewer male investigators under age 40 apply now for R01-equivalent grants compared to the 1980s and 1990s (Figure S1B) and, in tandem, are receiving fewer awards. Women under age 40, however, have increased their applications since 1980 and the number awarded has remained relatively stable. For stem cell researchers, the field is relatively new and the number of independent investigators under age 40 grew during the period from 2000 to 2010 (Figure S1A). The number of applicants under 40 declined between 2010 and 2014 for both men and women. However, the number of awardees increased slightly during that time period for women, while declining slightly for men. Along with a major expansion of the stem cell research workforce over the past few decades, there has been a decrease in funding rates (Table 1). As the field grew and expanded, competition increased. In 2000, NIH funded all stem cell research applications submitted. By 2005, the NIH funded only about one-third of all proposed stem cell research projects, and, by 2014, it funded only one-sixth of proposals. The funding rates for stem cell researchers today are more competitive than the entire NIH research workforce pool where in 2014 NIH funded around one in four R01-equivalent investigators overall (Table 1)." @default.
• W2467233111 created "2016-07-22" @default.
• W2467233111 creator A5001624231 @default.
• W2467233111 creator A5004063950 @default.
• W2467233111 creator A5017919362 @default.
• W2467233111 creator A5066964370 @default.
• W2467233111 date "2016-07-01" @default.
• W2467233111 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2467233111 title "Policy Implications of Aging in the NIH-Funded Workforce" @default.
• W2467233111 cites W1945213396 @default.
• W2467233111 cites W1995939132 @default.
• W2467233111 cites W2058182518 @default.
• W2467233111 cites W2083948877 @default.
• W2467233111 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.012" @default.
• W2467233111 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27392223" @default.
• W2467233111 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2467233111 type Work @default.
• W2467233111 sameAs 2467233111 @default.
• W2467233111 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112017 @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112018 @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112020 @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112021 @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112022 @default.
• W2467233111 countsByYear W24672331112023 @default.
• W2467233111 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2467233111 hasAuthorship W2467233111A5001624231 @default.
• W2467233111 hasAuthorship W2467233111A5004063950 @default.
• W2467233111 hasAuthorship W2467233111A5017919362 @default.
• W2467233111 hasAuthorship W2467233111A5066964370 @default.
• W2467233111 hasBestOaLocation W24672331111 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConcept C202789569 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConcept C2778139618 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConceptScore W2467233111C162324750 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConceptScore W2467233111C202789569 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConceptScore W2467233111C2778139618 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConceptScore W2467233111C50522688 @default.
• W2467233111 hasConceptScore W2467233111C86803240 @default.
• W2467233111 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2467233111 hasLocation W24672331111 @default.
• W2467233111 hasLocation W24672331112 @default.
• W2467233111 hasOpenAccess W2467233111 @default.
• W2467233111 hasPrimaryLocation W24672331111 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W180586113 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W2126947582 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W2600959891 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W2744422711 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W275644072 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W3000496814 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W3016956291 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W3160164877 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W4286622913 @default.
• W2467233111 hasRelatedWork W605164259 @default.
• W2467233111 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2467233111 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2467233111 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2467233111 magId "2467233111" @default.
• W2467233111 workType "article" @default.