Retreat Summary
First Annual CCR
Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians Retreat
April 25th,
2005
Johns Hopkins University Montgomery County Campus
Attendance: 87 Registrants (including 3 speakers/panelists)
58 Abstracts
60 Posters
¯ Total Staff Scientists & Staff Clinicians in the CCR N=179: 146 Staff Scientists 33 Staff Clinicians.
¯ Retreat participation rate by CCR SS/SC was 47% (84/179; excluded 3 speakers/panelists)
¯ The SS/SC Executive Committee has also requested information on the number of SS/SC in non-CCR divisions for possible participation in future SS/SC retreats. DCEG has 19 Staff Scientists and 6 Staff Clinicians.
Introduction of SS/SC Executive Committee:
Co-Chairs:
Bethesda: Mike
Difilippantonio, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Genetics Branch, CCR,
Lauren
V. Wood, M.D., Staff Clinician, HIV &AIDS Malignancy Branch, CCR
Frederick: Jill Pecon-Slattery, Ph.D.,Staff Scientist, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, CCR
Secretaries:
Bethesda: Mike Espey, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Radiation Branch, CCR,
Frederick: Deborah
Hodge, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Laboratory of Experimental Immunology, CCR
Retreat Organizing Committee:
Debbie Hodge, Mike Difilippantonio, Drazen Zimonjic, S. Perwez Hussain, Ana Robles, Yvona Ward,
Jill Slattery, Ofelia Olivero, Mike Espey, Cynthia Masison, Jonathan Wiest, Howard Zack.
¯ Clarify the role of Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians within the CCR
¯ Inform members about administrative and scientific issues relevant to our positions as Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians
¯ Provide a networking infrastructure among Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians to foster interactive and productive collaborations within the CCR.
¯ Provide an opportunity for Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians to share our recent scientific advances.
Research Issues in the NIH Intramural Program and the NCI CCR: Dr. Robert Wiltrout, Director CCR
Dr. Wiltrout provided an overview of the key issues facing the CCR and the role of Staff Scientists (SS) and Staff Clinicians (SC) in the NCI CCR intramural program.
Current CCR Issues
1. A flat NIH budget: the bottom line is that resources are very tight. The NCI budget is actually slightly reduced compared to the prior fiscal year due to NIH taps, DHHS taps and inflation.
2. FTE Freeze within the CCR: close to getting the divisions FTE ceiling issues resolved.
3. Conflicts of Interest (COI): impact on recruitment, retention and NIH morale in general.
Dr. Wiltrout conveyed that the CCR should be doing high impact, distinctive research aligned with NCIÕs mission to eliminate suffering and death due to cancer and AIDS. He envisions that the CCR intramural research focus will gradually be transformed from being broad and wide to being deeper, narrower and more focused in several key scientific areas. These areas include:
1. Immunology and immunotherapy
2. Genetics and genomics
3. Molecular targets and therapeutics
4. Advanced technology
5. Imaging
6. Phase I trials involving drug discovery and clinical development.
Five years from now, the NCI wonÕt have 325 Principal Investigators as this number is likely to be reduced. Although, the budgets for a number of divisions within NCI were reduced, CCRÕs budget remained stable. A critical challenge is how the division addresses the issue of maintaining a critical PI base and adequate tenure track recruiting given the fiscal and FTE restraints of the current environment. Dr. Wiltrout noted that it was very difficult to comment on this issue because the NCI is still waiting on FY 07 and 08 budgets.
Additional areas of major concern for SS and SS are professional development and scientific recognition, specifically site visit participation:
Site Visit Participation by Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians
¯ At site visits resources and FTEs are reviewed in the context of the science of the Principal Investigator.
¯ Historically there has been a lack of participation by SS/SC in site visit reviews because they are not considered independent, even if they may function with a very high level of autonomy under the PI with which they are affiliated e.g. director of a core laboratory facility.
¯ There are two Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) site visit teams: BSC 1 Board conducts reviews of clinical branches and BSC 2 conducts reviews of basic branches.
¯ Practical issues preclude SS/SC having the opportunity to present at site visit reviews: getting BSC members to agree to conduct reviews is always a challenge due to time and workload limitations. The BSC review committees are frequently short and donÕt have the capacity to review any additional presentations by SS/SC.
¯ There are not likely to be exceptions to having SS/SC present at site visits except on a case-by-case basis e.g. a staff clinician who may be a Principal Investigator on several clinical protocols that are a significant component of a PIÕs or BranchÕs clinical research program.
Staff Scientist and Staff
Clinician Professional Development
¯ All SS and SC can compete for tenure track positions and are encouraged to do so if they are interested.
o Where future tenure track positions are going to be created is another issue: within traditional laboratories/branches vs. programs.
o Tenure track positions are more likely to be affiliated with the creation of interdisciplinary programs involving multiple labs and PIs targeting broad research areas e.g. cancer and inflammation and carcinogenesis.
¯ Dr. Wiltrout emphasized that SS/SC represent a unique resource within the CCR intramural program that provide scientific capital and a stable cadre of scientific expertise that undergirds the infrastructure of the CCR intramural program.
¯ There is a long term commitment to ensure SS/SC professional growth and development as well as job stability i.e. if the program or lab of the PI with whom a SS/SC is associated is closed down, every effort will be made to find another position for that individual within the CCR or NCI.
¯
All SS/SC are encouraged to review the NIH wide
criteria and definition of SS/SC positions outlined in the chapter on Intramural
Professional Designations (IPD) in the NIH Manual. These IPDs outline all staff titles within the intramural
program and the criteria for review.
o
http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/prof-desig/prof-desig-toc.htm
This is a page from
the Office of Intramural Research.
Click on Staff Scientist or Staff Clinician.
o
http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/prof-desig/intradesigns.htm
Q & A Panel Discussion by NIH
and NCI Personnel Officials on SS/SC Issues
Panel Moderators: Ofelia Olivero, Ph.D. & Yvona Ward, Ph.D.
Panel Participants:
Joan Schwartz, Ph.D., Office of Intramural Research, OD, NIH
Patrick Miller, CCR ARC Manager, Office of Management, NCI, Bethesda
Lori Holliday, ARC Manager, Office of Management, NCI, Frederick
Beverly Mock, Ph.D., Associate Director for Scientific Planning, OD, NCI
Barbara Vonderhaar, Ph.D., 2004 Quadrennial Review Committee Chairperson
Elaine Jaffe, M.D., Member Staff Clinician Clinical Review Panel
General Administrative Issues
¯ SS/SC are employed under one of three different appointment mechanisms:
o Title 5 (General Schedule i.e. GS series): number of individuals is very limited
¤ Note: There is a proposal to convert current Title 5 appointees to Title 42, the timetable for this is to be determined.
o Title 42: 92% of SS/SC have Title 42 appointments
o USPHS Commissioned Corps (limited among SC and extremely uncommon among SS)
o http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/personnel-appt/personnel-appts-toc.htm
Personnel Appointments and Procedures from the NIH Intramural Research Sourcebook. Lists information on all appointment mechanisms (Title 5, Title 38, Title 42 etc.)
¯ Promotion criteria will vary according to appointment mechanism:
o
Title 5: http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/personnel-appt/title5.htm
o
Title 42: All institutes have standing committees on
Title 42 promotion that review tercile promotions. This allows comparison of SS/SC within a group since all PIs
think that they have the best SS/SC affiliated with their research
efforts. The NIH intramural OD
issued a pay band model for Title 42 terciles in 2002. This pay band model can be found in the
NIH Intramural Sourcebook: http://hr.od.nih.gov/Title42/default.htm
Click on the
following PDF files (these are also posted on the SS/SC website): NIH Title 42
Pay Model (December 2004) and NIH Title 42 Pay Model Table (April 2005)
o Commissioned Corps: Promotion eligibility is established by the Corps according to time in grade and years of service and promotion review criteria are determined by promotion review boards, both of which are completely independent of NIH institutes and centers.
¯ Functional day-to-day responsibilities can vary greatly among SS/SC appointments:
o SS: conducting ongoing laboratory research vs. being a facility director or core laboratory manager with extensive supervisory and fiscal responsibilities.
o SC: providing consultative services and clinical care for patients enrolled on protocols vs. being a Principal Investigator or Protocol Chairperson on a clinical research study i.e. the medical responsible investigator.
Staff Scientist Quadrennial
Review
¯ Patrick Miller noted that the requirement for quadrennial reviews of SS has been in place since 1996 but NIH criteria for how reviews were to be conducted was lacking. NCI began quadrennial reviews for SS in 2004.
¯ The primary reason for the quadrennial review is for review of the science, not for pay adjustments. Based upon scientific reviews, the division then makes a decision regarding pay increases.
¯ Mechanisms for pay adjustments go beyond quadrennial review and involve significantly more committee review: initial review by standing IC title 42 committee Þ review by NIH financial review committee Þ review by NIH OD.
¯ Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar provided an insightful overview to the review process and issues identified during her tenure as the quadrennial review committee chair for 2004:
o In general there was a lack of consistency among the SS quadrennial review packages submitted.
o Dr. Vonderhaar noted that the Quadrennial Review Committee had sent a letter to then Division Director Carl Barrett stating that the committee felt it did not have adequate guidelines and direction from the Division regarding the review process. Dr. Wiltrout asked that a copy of this letter be forwarded to him.
o A total of 45 individuals were reviewed, of which only 4 or 5 requested promotion to the next tercile level.
o The committee made a decision to review individuals as individuals and primary and secondary reviewers were assigned from the committee.
o The committee came up with standard recommendation categories as well as a potential range of compensation based upon the review. The recommendation categories were as follows:
1. Do not renew
2. Good
3. Very good
4. Outstanding
¯ The committee did not make recommendations regarding financial compensation or requests for tercile promotion. The final decision regarding compensation was left with division level administrators.
Requirements for the quadrennial
review package include:
¯ Letter of evaluation from supervisor/PI
¯ Direct request for retention and salary adjustment, if any.
¯ 2 Letters of evaluation of scientific peers. Note: Barbara noted that letters from scientific collaborators outside the institute and NIH were regarded favorably and are recommended.
¯ Updated CV and bibliography
¯ Most recent site visit report and recommendation for the PI with whom the SS/SC is associated.
¯ Involvement (not just being on the email list serve) in NCI Faculty and NIH interests groups were also a point of consideration
There was significant discussion by SS retreat attendees regarding PI misperceptions of the quadrennial review i.e. itÕs a rubber stamp and confusion regarding the process and requirements for submission of packages. In addition, there was confusion about when the quadrennial review process should take place or the duration of review recommendations. For example, some SS underwent review but were told that their review would only be good until the time of their PIs next site visit that was to occur in 2 years and then re-review would occur. There was also concern expressed regarding the lack of feedback to SS following the review process: no one had a clue as to where they stood or how they did.
Additional discussions took place later in the day regarding the initial appointment and quadrennial review processes. There was a consensus among retreat attendees that to implement the recommendations outlined below.
Recommendations Regarding the Quadrennial Review and Initial SS/SC Appointment Process:
¯ Post the CCR Checklist for Title 42 Quadrennial Review for SS Appointment Renewal or Exceptional Pay Adjustment Request on the CCR SS/SC website.
¯ Ensure that the checklist is disseminated to PIs and that an overview of the quadrennial review process is presented at an appropriate forum to PIs (possibly the NCI PI retreat).
¯ Post a summary of the results of the quadrennial review committee on the SS/SC website and include the following information for reviews conducted in 2004 and 2005.
o Number of individuals reviewed
o Number in each category ranking i.e.Do not renew, Good, Very good, Outstanding.
o Cite specific activities that were associated with a category ranking of outstanding
o Number of requests for a tercile payband increase: cite the number of individuals requesting increase, the number of individuals recommended by the committee for an increase, and the number of individuals who actually received an increase.
¯ Ensure that quadrennial review of SS occurs in the year following the PIÕs site visit review.
¯ Conduct the Quadrennial Review in conjunction with the Annual CCR SS/SC Retreat as suggested by Dr. Beverly Mock. This will permit committee members to evaluate the posters and work of SS undergoing review.
¯ For consistency, establish a SC quadrennial review process, checklist and criteria and post on the CCR SS/SC website.
¯ Post CCR Checklists for Initial SS and SC Appointment Packages on the CCR SS/SC website. Note: the respective review panels for initial SS/SC appointments include SS and SC while the quadrennial review committee is comprised exclusively of PIs.
Poster Sessions & Plenary
Lectures:
Scientific poster sessions were held before and after lunch followed by outstanding plenary lectures given by two distinguished members of the CCR intramural program:
¯ Frank Balis, M.D., NCI Clinical Director and Principal Investigator in the Pediatric Oncology Branch: ÒPediatric Oncology Drug DevelopmentÓ.
¯ Michael
Dean, Ph.D., Chief, Human Genetics Section, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity,
CCR: ÒA Tale of Two Fellows- From Gene to Clinical Application.Ó
Afternoon Open Forum Discussion:
There was a consensus among SS/SC participants that the retreat was beneficial and provided an opportunity for exchange of scientific and critical administrative information, in addition to further clarification regarding the quadrennial review process. Attendees voted unanimously to hold another SS/SC retreat next year. Whether to have the retreat annually in conjunction with the quadrennial review process as noted previously is being considered by one of the committees created during this open forum session. There were also consensus recommendations regarding the CCR SS/SC website and priorities for the SS/SC Executive Committee over the next 6 months:
CCR SS/SC Website should include
the following sections and content:
¯ Meeting
and Annual Retreat Summaries
¯ SS/SC
Initial Appointment and Quadrennial Review Process
o
Initial Appointment Packages
¤ Checklist for Initial Staff Scientist Appointment package
¤ Membership list of Staff Scientist scientific review panel
¤ Checklist for Initial Staff Clinician Appointment package
¤ Membership list of Staff Clinician clinical review panel
o Quadrennial Review Process
¤ Checklist for Quadrennial Review process
¤ Membership of current year quadrennial review committee
¤ Results of current year quadrennial review
¤ Results of prior years quadrennial reviews
o Web link to NIH Manual Intramural Professional Designations that outline appointment criteria (Title 5, Title 42, PHS Commissioned Corps)
¯ SS/SC
Professional Development
o
Outline the requirements and approval process for adjunct
appointments at academic institutions (will need input from NCI Ethics given
recent and ongoing revisions to NIH Conflict of Interest regulations).
o
Additional resources and awards that SS/SC may apply
for to support independent projects:
¤
NIH Clinical Center Bench-to-Bedside Awards
¤
NIH Intramural AIDS Targeted Antiviral Program
¤
NIH Foundation Awards
¤
Other programs and awards
o
Staff Scientist listing of scientific and technical
expertise
o
Staff Clinician listing of clinical expertise, clinical
protocols and available clinical samples
o
Information on how to access banked clinical specimen
samples
o
NCI Frederick repository
o
Other specimen repositories supported by NCI e.g. AIDS
malignancy consortium
¯ Search
engine for CCR SS/SC web page