Attending:  Difilippantonio (NCI, President), Rovescalli (NHLBI, Vice-President, by telephone), Schaffer (NCBI, Secretary),  Baris (NCI), Epstein (NICHD), Kiesewetter (NIBIB), Lee (NEI), Meyerle (NEI), Mitz(NIMH), Olivero (member of Core Day committee), Petralia (NIDCD),  Thorsel(NIAAA), Weeraratna (NIA)

Difilippantonio called the meeting to order at approximately 1:05PM.

The agenda consisted of two items:

1.      Discussion of a “Core Day” concerning shared NIH facilities

2.      Plans for 2009.

Three members of the “Core Day” committee attended: Difilippantonio, Rovescalli, and Olivero. They presented a proposed agenda for such a one-day meeting. No date has been scheduled. At the request of Drs. Gottesman (Director of NIH Intramural Research) and Schwartz (Deputy Director of NIH Intramural Research), the participants and agenda would include three Trans-NIH Initiatives: Center for Human Immunology, Imaging Initiative, Systems Biology Initiative.

In response to a question from Weeraratna, Difilippantonio summarized the possible benefits of a “Core Day:

1.      Publicize what core facilities exist.

2.      Facilitate discussion and interaction across institutes.

3.      Sharing licenses and contracts.

4.      Compare administrative rules and conventions across institutes.

5.      Learn who is eligible to use core facilities – perhaps, some people who are eligible do not know.

The proposed agenda is too late for inclusion at the NIH Research Festival.

However, there is a poster session on October 7^th, from 11AM-1PM at which SSSC could organize some posters to highlight the activities of cores and shared facilities. The idea of presenting two posters was generally viewed favorably.  Mitz, Thorsel, Rovescalli, Olivero, and Baris made various suggestions for the contents of the posters, which are summarized as follows. One poster might list the known shared facilities, and would hopefully be accompanied by a Website listing these facilities with more information. The other poster might list issues that shared facilities face, and invite feedback from shared facility directors via a survey and a suggestion box. The committee is charged with following through on these suggestions and filling in more details and getting the posters made.

The committee is also to inquire whether specific core facilities can present posters at the October 7th session and whether there is any limit on the number of posters.

Concerning activities for 2009, the discussion focused on evaluation of Staff Scientists and preparing for career transitions.

Mitz mentioned that he has prepared a proposal for consideration in NIMH about a three-way “contract” between SS/SC ,Principal Investigator( PI), and Scientific Director (SD).  He will share his proposal with the committee at a later date. An unusual aspect of this contract is that the SS/SC is to specify a desired career trajectory and the PI and SD are too assure that the SS/SC has adequate resources to pursue this trajectory. Important examples of distinct  trajectories that need distinct preparation and resources include:

1.      Transition to independent research --- SS/SC will need first author papers

2.      Transition to management – SS/SC will need management training

3.      Transition to teaching – SS/SC will need teaching experience.

Another proposed activity was to put together a team that can present to the leadership of institutes how quadrennial reviews of SS/SC’s should be done. NCI representatives stated that at NCI Lynn Rockwood (sp?) has systematically organized the reviews and could be called upon to show a PowerPoint presentation on how they are done.

Olivero mentioned that the NIH Training Center has a variety of courses that can provide some of the training that Mitz’s proposal calls for.

Baris mentioned that the main stumbling block is that SS/SC’s have to be encouraged to go to such courses.

Weeraratna commented that in NIA, staff (including but not limited to SS’s) are required to attend a variety of such courses. Nobody else echoed this point; so, maybe NIA expends more effort on training than other institutes.

Epstein echoed by several attendees commented that such training courses should not lead to another compulsory web training course, since these courses are widely perceived to be useless wastes of time.

Difilippantonio mentioned that there exists an “Individual Development Plan” for each employee that could be used for planning a career trajectory, but it rarely is used as such.

Several attendees commented that planning for a career trajectory should include financial planning.

Olivero commented that there is value in involving the P.I. in career planning and value in customizing the quadrennial review to each scientist. Schaffer commented that customization of the quadrennial review risks creating the perception that the reviews are not done fairly.

Rovescalli commented that P.I.’s generally want SS/SC’s to stay at NIH and would be reluctant to participate in planning a career trajectory in which the SS/SC is going to leave. Difillipantonio retorted that such planning is part of mentoring and not fundamentally different from the way in which P.I.’s mentor Post-Doc’s who are expected to leave after some years.

Kiesewetter asked somewhat rhetorically, whether the resources (especially time) for mentoring at the S. D. and P.I. level exits?

Mitz suggested that P.I.’s will be motivated to mentor in the career trajectory planning if that is a condition for receiving SS/SC positions. He suggested that S.D.’s have a strong budgetary motivation for career trajectory planning because the planned departure of staff frees up funds to hire new staff and start new programs.

Lee described a case in NEI, where a SC was forced to shift labs because the original P.I. changed research focus and some technology.  In this case, an unfavorable quadrennial review was used to force the change of labs. Several attendees commented that this was an abuse of the quadrennial review process. SS/SC’s can have their positions end at the end of a contract solely because there is no more need in the lab or Institute for their skills. Such a termination of employment is based on needs and should not be coupled to the quadrennial review. Indeed, most SS/SC’s have contract lengths (typically five years) that do not coincide with the four-year review cycle.

There was further discussion about how to align the objectives of S.D., P.I., and SS/SC, but no consensus was reached.

A motion from A. Mitz to adjourn the meeting was accepted at approximately 3:20PM

Minutes of SSSC Executive Committee and other invited members September 8, 2009

The meeting took place in Bldg. 31, room 3A44.

Attending:  Difilippantonio (NCI, President), Rovescalli (NHLBI), Schaffer (NLM, Secretary),  Baris (NCI, by telephone),  Mitz(NIMH), Ghirlando (NIDDK), Olivero (member of Core Day committee).

Difilippantonio called the meeting to order at approximately 10:10AM.

Difilippantonio announced that he is in the process of transitioning from a Staff Scientist position to a non-Staff- Scientist position in NCI. Therefore, he must step down as President in the near future. He expects the transition to take 4-6 months. The topic returned to leadership transition later in the meeting.

Difilippantonio stated that he has not had and will not have much time to work SS/SC matters due to this career transition. The others present should work on matters such as the web page, Core Day, and whatever other activities we think are important to the organization.

The web page for SS/SC has been moved. Difilippantonio sent an e-mail shortly after the meeting to announce that the new URL is:

Minutes of SSSC Organization monthly meeting September 23, 2009

The meeting took place in Bldg. 50, room 1328.

Attending:  Difilippantonio (NCI, President), Rovescalli (NHLBI, Vice-President), Schaffer (NLM, Secretary),  Aksentijevich (NIAMS), Baris (NCI), Espey (NIDDK), R. Fariss (NEI, proxy for Lee), Ghirlando (NIDDK), Juhaszova (NIA, by telephone) Kiesewetter (NIBIB), , Meyerle (NEI), Mitz(NIMH), Olivero (NCI), Petralia (NIDCD),  Playford (NHLBI), Thorsel(NIAAA), Weeraratna (NIA, by telephone), Zametkin (NIMH)

Difilippantonio opened the meeting informally at approximately 2:05PM.

There was an informal discussion regarding a recent article in the Wall Street Journal concerning the uses and abuses of Title 42. A non-negligible number of NIH employees have salaries higher than the cabinet secretary level, via the Title 42 mechanism. This discussion highlighted the need for a  comparison of salaries between Staff Scientists and tenure-track scientists, and between Staff Scientists in different institutes. It was stated that Dr. Joan Schwartz, Deputy Director of Intramural Research has been particularly vigilant about gender disparities in salaries; these disparities were severe at NIH in the distant past, but seem to have been reduced in recent years due to her efforts. It was stated that salary data will be made available in response to a reasonable request.

At this meeting, we begin a process in which different representatives present snapshots of the Staff Scientist/Staff Clinician situation in each institute. The general purposes are to learn from what is going better in some institutes (e.g., NCI seems to have a very effective system of quadrennial review), spot inequities, and recognize problems that are occurring in multiple institutes. Presenters are asked to address the following question/issues:

Structure of the Institute

How many Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians?

What are typical roles of SSs and SCs?

How are the titles of SS and SC used?

How is quadrennial review done?

Is there any planning for career transitions?

What are the “hot button” issues, if any?

At this meeting, we had presentations from Schaffer (NLM), Difillipantonio/Baris/Olivero(NCI), and Ghirlando (NIDDK).

NLM has approximately 200 Staff Scientists and no SCs, NCI has approximately 250 SSs and some dozens of SCs, NIDDK has 58 SSs and 16 SCs. At NLM, most SSs are associated with projects, while at NCI and NIDDK most SSs are associated with labs. NLM has many non-Ph.D. Staff Scientists whereas NCI has single-digit numbers of non-Ph.D. Staff Scientists and NIDDK has none; representatives for NIA, NIAMS, and NHLBI also reported very low numbers (0-2). That SSs are associated with a lab in NCI and NIDDK has created problems in NCI, but not NIDDK, when the lab is closed or the head of the lab leaves. NCI and NIDDK have very well organized methods for quadrennial review. There is a clearly defined committee (in NCI half the members rotate every year, while in NIDDK it is always the same five people) doing the reviews. Each institute has a standard set of documents that need to be presented. NLM and NIDDK require a seminar; several attendees indicated that their institutes do not require a seminar associated with quadrennial review, partly because it is too burdensome for the committee. NCI and NIDDK have very strong administrative support to organize the quadrennial reviews, but NLM does not. Title 5 SSs are reviewed differently from title 42 SSs. In NIDDK, the quadrennial review has been seen as the primary opportunity to adjust salaries and correct inequities. Among the three institutes, only NCI does any career planning; Olivero has been very involved in the career planning efforts and some of what she has done could be adopted. No “hot button” issues were identified.

During the NCI report the question of whether tenure-track (but not tenured) scientists can have a Staff Scientist came up. NCI had re-assigned some displaced Staff Scientists to tenure-track investigators, during the remaining years of the SS’s contract.

NCI, NHLBI, and NIA representatives reported instances of either tenured or tenure-track investigators being “demoted” to Staff Scientists, but this practice does not seem to occur in some other institutes.

Another question that came up is the length of contracts; for example, in NCI they are generally 5 years, while in NHLBI they are generally 1 year.

At the next meeting (October 22), Meyerle (NEI), Mitz (NIMH), Rovescalli (NHLBI), Weeraratna (NIA) agreed to present analogous snapshots of their institutes.

Difilippantonio reminded all representatives that we should plan to elect representatives for 2010. Starting in 2010, positions should be staggered, so each year institutes elect or re-elect one representative with the other representative staying on for a second year.

Mitz raised the issue of presidential transition because Difilippantonio is transitioning to a non-SS position and will not be eligible to serve. It was tentatively agreed to defer this issue to the early 2010 elections for 2010 officers. Difilippantonio indicated that his transition is likely to be slow enough that we do not need a new President in 2009.

The next meeting will be held October 22, 2PM, Bldg. 50, Room 1328. The October meeting is not one of the compulsory meetings where attendance is used to determine voting eligibility at subsequent meetings.

Some things to be presented at future meetings include: Mitz’s plan for an SS contract and career planning, more information on Staff Clinicians and Veterinarians and their roles.

The meeting was adjourned by consensus at approximately 3:35PM.

Minutes of SSSC Organization quarterly meeting December 16, 2009

The meeting took place in Bldg. 40, room 1201/1203.

Attending:  Difilippantonio (NCI, President),  Schaffer (NLM, Secretary), Baris (NCI), Enoch (NIAAA), Epstein (NICHD), Ghirlando (NIDDK), Juhaszova (NIA, by telephone) Kiesewetter (NIBIB), Kurima (NIDCD), Meyerle (NEI), Merideth (NHGRI), Mitz(NIMH),  Pacheco (NHLBI), Petralia (NIDCD),  Playford (NHLBI), Sharma (NICHD), Speransky (NIBIB), Thorsel(NIAAA), Weeraratna (NIA, by telephone),

Difilippantonio opened the meeting informally at approximately 2:10PM.

Difilippantonio congratulated Catherine Meyerle (NEI ) on the birth of her child and welcomed new NIDCD representative Kiyoto Kurima.

At this meeting, we continued a process in which different representatives present snapshots of the Staff Scientist/Staff Clinician situation in each institute. The general purposes are to learn from what is going better in some institutes, spot inequities, and recognize problems that are occurring in multiple institutes. Presenters are asked to address the following question/issues:

Structure of the Institute

How many Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians?

What are typical roles of SSs and SCs?

How are the titles of SS and SC used?

How is quadrennial review done?

Is there any planning for career transitions?

What are the “hot button” issues, if any?

At this meeting, we had presentations from Meyerle(NEI), Playford (NHLBI), Weeraratna (NIA), and Mitz (NIMH). The variation in policies across institutes, especially in the quadrennial review is notable.

Difilippantonio reminded all representatives that we should plan to elect representatives for 2010. Starting in 2010, positions should be staggered, so each year institutes elect or re-elect one representative with the other representative staying on for a second year.

NEI has 38 SS and SC’s. Quadrennial review at NEI is performed by a five-member committee. The candidate’s preparation is focused on eight sets of compulsory documents. Of these, the “Statement of Duties” is most important. There is no feedback after the review, except for the possible salary and tier adjustment. There is no planning for career transitions. There are no “hot button” issues at NEI.

A discussion ensued about salaries and tiers. Several attendees remarked that it is hard to move up from one tier to the next, and the process for doing so is not widely agreed upon across institutes.

NHLBI has approximately 75 SS and SC’s. At the beginning of 2009 Rovescalli collected information about them via a survey, the results of which were summarized in a handout distributed by Playford. Concerns at NHLBI included lack of stability (42%),  lack of institutional recognition (31%), and lack of opportunity for professional development (23%). Unlike several of the other institutes we heard from, the quadrennial review process at NHLBI is rather informal and opaque. Very little feedback is given, other than a salary adjustment. The principal “hot button” issue is concern for displaced SS/SC’s, especially since some labs have closed and more labs will soon close. Rovescalli and Playford have worked with the Office of Education at NHLBI to develop a handbook entitled “Being a Staff Scientist at NHLBI”.  To address the concern about recognition, NHLBI is developing a policy for giving to the best SS and SC’s the title of Senior Staff Scientist or Senior Staff Clinician.

NIA has 12 branches and one clinical center. There are a total of 38 SS and SC’s. The position of SS/SC is highly regarded by the NIA Scientific Director. The quadrennial review is rather informal and has been rushed in some cases. “Hot button” issues include career transition and job security. Due to problems with a new building, NIA is facing a budget crisis in the coming years. SS and SC’s fear that their positions will be cut. Currently, a lab can hire a new person only after two people leave.

NIMH has approximately 70 SS and SC’s, only one of whom does not have a PhD. About 25% are women. A chart of SS/SC salary distribution was shown that included both tenure and tenure-track PIs. At least 5 SS/SC’s have direct funding and control of a budget; some of these are facility directors. This theme was touched upon in several of the presentations. In some institutes many SS/SC’s function as quasi-independent investigators with their own budgets, staff, and choice of research topics. Quadrennial review in NIMH has been haphazard, but the process may soon improve in its uniformity and transparency. Mitz’s presentation included a handout received by NIMH SS/SC’s covering: Preparation for the position, Career development, Recognition in titles, Performance review process, Clarifying the performance feedback.

Playford indicated that Sharon Milgram is planning to do a career development workshop on January 26, 2010. He asked for advice about topics. The consensus was that the topics should be a pot pourri including topics about leadership and management in a scientific laboratory.

Weeraratna asked how reports such as those we have been hearing from different institutes could be translated into recommendations to the NIH administration. Difilippantonio replied that approximately 18 months ago he and Ofelia Olivero (also NCI) did a presentation to the Scientific Directors focusing on recommendations for:

1)      Quadrennial review process

2)      Displaced scientists

3)      Recognition of SS/SC’s

This did result in their being an NIH-wide policy to help displaced scientists. The quadrennial review process has improved in some institutes (NEI seems to be a prime example we heard about at this meeting) , but other institutes are lagging. In general, the implementation of the policies is dependent on the will and interests of the Scientific Director.

Mitz asked when we are going to have another town hall meeting? According to the constitution, there should be one per year, but none was held in 2009. Unfortunately, several of the key people were too busy. We hope to have a town hall meeting in 2010.

Someone asked about what happens de facto to displaced Staff Scientists, especially those who are doing well. Mitz replied that each case is different and negotiations with the Scientific Director often occur. Mitz emphasized the need for detailed written feedback from the quadrennial review as a means to protect oneself against unforeseen events. Ghirlando picked up on Weeraratna’s earlier point about the NIA budget crisis; he indicated that several institutes are going to be downsizing in the coming years and SS/SC’s are prime targets for job cuts.

The meeting was adjourned by consensus at approximately 3:20PM.