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

Attending:  Michael Espey (NIDDK, Chair),  Alejandro Schaffer (NLM, minute-taker),   Mohammed Akbar (NIAAA), Dina Demner-Fushman (NLM), Rodolfo Ghirlando (NIDDK), Zack Howard (NCI), Magda Juhaszova (NIA, by telephone), Dale Kiesewetter  (NIBIB),  Leonardo Mariño-Ramírez (NLM), Andrew Mitz  (NIMH), Reza Momenan (NIAAA), Ana Olivera (NIAMS),  Martin Playford (NHLBI), Mark Roth (NCI),  Natalia Strunnikova (NEI).

Espey opened the meeting informally at 3:32PM with individual self-introductions.

Espey gave an update on the project to make a new LISTSERV mailing list for all Staff Scientists and Staff Clinicians. Work is ongoing to set up a new list. Within weeks, the new list should replace the old list. Addresses to include on the new list have been obtained by searching for the job titles “Staff Scientist” and “Staff Clinician” in the NIH NED system. However, the job title field is sometimes blank, so some individuals who should be included are missed by this method. Therefore, it is useful if representatives can compile lists for their institutes by different methods. Representatives for NICHD, NIDDK, and NLM have submitted such lists of their SS/SC’s for cross-checking.

Espey reminded us that January is the time to complete election of representatives for 2011, if it was not done already. He acknowledged the new representatives from NIAAA (Akbar, Momenan), which has been minimally represented in the past. We returned to this topic at the end of the meeting.

Espey introduced the first major topic of the meeting: Transition Grant Mechanism. This topic was discussed at several meetings in 2010 and will be a major effort of our organization in 2011. We want to help NIH set up a mechanism whereby SS/SC’s can apply for a grant in which the initial years are spent at an NIH Intramural Lab followed by transition to an academic position. Such grants are needed because many universities will not hire faculty who do not come with a grant. There are such mechanisms (especially the K22) for Fellows, but for various reasons (low salary, limit on years of post-PhD experience) these mechanisms are unsuitable for SS/SC’s. Currently, NCI appears to be the only institute that would support SS/SC’s applying for a K22 grant, but it is sketchy how that would work.

In December, Espey and Howard met with Henry Khachaturian a Program Officer who is expert on grant mechanisms, and had originally been scheduled to address our November 16, 2010 meeting. Today’s discussion interleaved information from Dr. Khachaturian with new comments.

An important question is: Should we extend an existing grant mechanism (K22?) or ask to create a new mechanism?

Khachaturian stated that new grant mechanisms get created frequently, so there should not be a large bureaucratic obstacle to doing that again. Part of the discussion at this meeting suggested that if we extend the K22, then that creates a situation where Post-Docs compete with SS/SC’s for grants, especially when a lab closes and all its Post-Docs and SS/SC’s need to find new funding. Nevertheless, Mariño-Ramírez suggested that at least until a new mechanism is created, we should try to get existing calls for grants explicitly extended to allow SS/SC’s to be eligible. He noted that the Fogarty Center has a mechanism for foreign PostDocs to get funding to return to their home country and set up a laboratory; perhaps some international SS/SC’s would be interested in applying for this.

Part of today’s discussion was about which administrative officials to approach. Howard stated that whatever mechanism might get created has to be supported by each institute. The OD can set up a framework, but cannot force each institute to go along. Within each institute, we should approach the Scientific Director and Education Officer. It has been suggested that Dr. Story Landis (Scientific Director of NINDS) would be particularly supportive of a transition grant mechanism.

Espey commented that in informal conversations, Dr. Gottesman (Director of Intramural Research) has been supportive, but we need to formalize this in meetings in 2011. He agrees that ultimately the individual Scientific Directors need to support and implement the mechanism, but he favors a top-down approach as we used for the issue of access to training (see below).

Mitz emphasized the point that in times of tight budgets we should use an economic argument: For orphaned SS/SC’s a transition grant would be a more efficient use of funds than what is currently done. Scientific Directors may be particular enthusiastic if the transition grant mechanism enables them to act constructively on their compassionate instincts to find new funding for orphaned SS/SC’s. Espey replied that although the cases of orphaned SSS/SC’s are particularly compelling we want the transition grant mechanism to be open to everyone. Roth noted that this would aid in recruiting SS/SC’s, since they would see a possible career path out of NIH. Strunnikova noted that a transition grant mechanism is important to establish some connection between the utopia (no grants needed) of the intramural program to the “real world” of academia, where getting grants is an essential skill.

Several attendees raised the issue that we need to collect data on how many SS/SC’s would apply for a transition grant. Dr. Khachaturian also indicate that this is essential, since Program Officers would need to have some idea of how many dollars would need to be allocated to the new mechanism. Roth suggested that we use the new LISTSERV to do a survey on this, once the LISTSERV is set up.

Mitz suggested that in addition to collecting numbers of all SS/SC’s who would be interested in applying, we should collect and encourage a few individuals who are especially interested and in difficult circumstances. We could help them apply for a K22 or other existing grant and advocate for them, as they face administrative obstacles in doing so.

Another aspect of setting up test cases is to match the grant applicants with prospective research institutions. In a 2010 meeting, Dr. Gottesman had expressed the opinion that local universities (e.g., Georgetown, U. Maryland) would be interested in serving this role. Some attendees were skeptical of this opinion. Howard and Roth suggested that local universities would be more enthusiastic if a hypothetical agreement with local universities includes mechanisms to recruit NIH employees to serve as occasional instructors and mechanisms for undergraduate alumni to find placements as IRTAs in NIH labs. Currently such teaching and IRTA arrangement are usually made based on personal contacts between individual PIs and individual faculty members.

Espey introduced the second major topic of the meeting: Training. A major success of the organization in 2010 was gaining access, in principle, to the services of the Office of Intramural Training and Education (OITE). During one of our 2010 meetings, Dr. Sharon Milgram, head of OITE addressed us about how SS/SC’s might get training. She favored access to OITE, but OITE was set up to serve Fellows, and giving access to SS/SC’s could cause problems with budget and capacity and hence was opposed by the Office of the Director (OD). Despite this opposition, the issue was presented to a meeting of the Scientific Directors and they voted to grant access to OITE to SS/SC’s. This meeting happened in December, so a principal objective in 2011 will be to work out all the detailed plans and procedures.

Toward this end, Dr. Milgram suggested that we form a small committee to meet with her and discuss what we want, especially as regards training courses targeted to SS/SC’s. Espey acted on this suggestion by forming an ad-hoc committee including: Playford (chair), Ghirlando, Mariño-Ramírez, Espey (ex-officio).

Espey asked for advice for the committee. Specifically, what is the one topic on which we would like a training course or seminar? In response, Denmer-Fushman, Mitz, and Ghirlando came to the consensus that: a) we had discussed this question in preparing our request letter in 2010 and b) part of the consensus at that time is that we want a course on management; SS’s frequently need to manage parts or all of a lab de facto, although the PI is the manager de jure.

Espey asked if there was any other business.

Mitz responded by raising the issue of election of officers for 2011.

Espey replied that election of officers should be done at the February meeting, after election of representatives is completed in January. We have three officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary. Unlike many organizations, we have no Treasurer because we have no funds. Alejandro Schaffer, who served as Secretary in 2010 cannot continue in this role for 2011, so we need a new Secretary. Representatives should discuss informally who would be good candidates for officers before the February meeting.

Olivera asked for advice about holding elections when there is apathy.

Espey said that it is acceptable to send an e-mail indicating that one is willing to serve and to ask if anyone else is willing to serve or if there are any objections.

Ghirlando noted that once the new LISTSERV is running, we can use that to make sure that all SS/SC’s have an opportunity to serve, if interested.

Mitz stated that in NIMH there is an annual meeting of all SS/SC’s at which the election is held.

Juhaszova reported the surprising news that in NIA there is so much interest that there are three candidates for two positions.

Momenan asked for information on what are the responsibilities of representatives?

Espey replied that the main responsibilities of all representatives are 1) to be informed as to the interests and concerns of the SS/SC’s in your in institute and 2) attend the monthly meetings and report back on the activities of the organization to your constituents. The organization has three officers. The organization has ad-hoc committees, such as the training committee formed at this meeting, and representatives are encouraged to serve on some of these committees.

The meeting ended informally at approximately 4:45PM.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday February 16 2-3:30PM. The room is unchanged (Bldg. 50, 1328).

Minutes of an SSSC Organization meeting February 16, 2011

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

Attendance: Ivona Aksentijevich, NIAMS; Ana Olivera, NIAMS; Robert Fariss, NEI; Amanda Black, NCI; Zack Howard, NCI; Leonardo Ramirez, NCBI; Thomas Winters, CC; Deb Croteau, NIA; Fedorova Olga, NIA; Andy Mitz, NIMH; Dale Kiesewetter, NBIB; Heiyoung Park, NIDDK; Charles Jones, NIDDK; Rodolfo Ghirlando, NIDDK; Michael Espey, NIDDK

Mike Espey called the meeting to order and attendees introduced themselves

Topics covered:

1. Officers for 2011 calendar year

2. Coordination of efforts with the NIH Office of Training/Education to establish an ongoing program of career counseling for Staff Scientists

3. Potential impact of the uncertain NIH budget on NIH Staff Scientists

4. Discussion re grant applications and other potential funding sources for Staff Scientists anticipating leaving NIH.

5. September 2011 Annual Meeting

Details:

1. Officers for 2011 calendar year

Mike reported that the current list of individuals who have been nominated or have self-nominated for chair position is very short; more volunteers were solicited.

Andy Mitz re-nominated Mike Espey to continue in 2011 as the committee chairman; the nomination was seconded;

Mike graciously volunteered to continue as chair until the September annual meeting, at which time, other nominees will hopefully come forward.

Charlie Jones volunteered to serve as Secretary.

2. Coordination of efforts with the NIH Office of Training/Education to establish an ongoing program of career counseling for Staff Scientists

This topic occupied was the most thoroughly discussed matter in today’s meeting.

Mike opened the discussion with a brief summary of the Committee’s ongoing effort in coordination with the NIH Office of Education/Training to establish a career counseling/career development tailored toward Staff Scientists. Dr. Sharon Milgram, Director Office of Intramural Training & Education is setting up the program.

A point was made that, while NIH Institutes may (or may not) have similar programs in place, this one will be more comprehensive;

Under the topic of career development, there was some discussion about teaching opportunities at local universities for Staff Scientists; funding possibilities, payment for services were mentioned, and brief comments put forward re matters of conflicts of interest.

A question was raised as to the possibility of developing a more formal model for assisting interested individuals in facilitating such opportunities;

Mike continued the discussion of career counseling:

(a) finding a new career and (b). career development to maximize opportunities in one’s current position (improving skills, developing new technologies, management expertise, etc). The point was made that such matters will be included as Professional Development topics in the program being constructed by Dr. Milgram.

It was emphasized that the NIH Office of Education/Training will take a measure of the current interest among NIH Staff Scientists in determining the content of the program (i.e., it will be to the advantage of the entire Staff Scientist population to be made aware of this effort and to give input).

A question was put forward as to what role our committee should play in this planning. Mike pointed out that Dr. Milgram has a working relationship with the Staff Scientist/Staff Clinician Committee and is interested in the needs of the group. Also, Mike Espey mentioned the sub-committee that he formed which is currently working with Dr. Milgram.

As regards details for the Career Counseling/Development Program, a four-part presentation is envisioned: 1). Overview of the total program (career management topics); 2) C.V./resume´ preparation so as to keep these documents current and maximize their usefulness; 3)Networking and career efficacy matters; 4) Interviewing skills.

Currently, the plan is to offer this series on a quarterly basis; a goal is to educate staff scientists as to how to manage a laboratory group, deal with conflicts, etc.

Also, the suggestion was put forward as to considering the need for an intermediary to assist in resolving problems that arise between a Principle Investigator and a Staff Scientist

With regard to keeping the Staff Scientist community abreast of opportunities, email notices will be sent to highlight available classes and other training opportunities as they become available; also, the suggestion was put forward about inserting pertinent urls in the Staff Scientists/Staff Clinicians website.

3. Potential impact of the uncertain NIH budget on NIH Staff Scientists

Concerns were aired as to the potential impact of impending budget cuts on Staff Scientists at the NIH. It was pointed out that in many contexts, when budgetary strains occur, a convenient relief valve could well be the termination of Title 42 positions. Consequently, it behooves all to get involved in the career development opportunities so as to be better prepared.

Also, it was pointed out that, in many laboratory settings, the turnover of P.I.s can directly impact the turnover in Staff Scientists/ Clinicians.

Mike opened the meeting for discussion of any suggested changes in the Training Program plan;

Emphasis was made by several attendees on the importance of networking at the NIH; Staff Scientists need to get to know scientists in other institutes, get involved in committees, take advantage of any opportunities to interact with Dr. Gottesman’s office, and to remain current as to developing technologies at NIH where expertise could provide opportunities for job transition in the event one’s current position is to be terminated.

There was also more discussion on the topic of Principle Investigator/Staff Scientist interaction; a committee member raised the matter of uncommunicated or misunderstood expectations with regard to authorship acknowledgment in published work; situations where the Staff Scientists is working under the expectation of recognition as a corresponding author, only to discover that the P.I. takes a different view on the matter. The point was made that communication between the two parties is very important from the outset of one’s employment in the laboratory.

A suggestion was put forward to include 2 modules in the Career Training/Counseling Program: 1) Transitioning into a new position (whether at NIH or out of NIH to another institution). This might also include information pertinent to Staff Scientists who view their current position as a stepping stone to advancement toward a more independent research position; How can one best prepare for such opportunities?; 2) Improving one’s current skill set in one’s current position

Dr. Milgram will be updated about these suggestions.

4. Discussion re grant applications and other potential funding sources for Staff Scientists anticipating leaving NIH.

Questions were offered as to classes available regarding extramural program office grant writing process.

The point was made that whatever one chooses to do, the process has to begin at the Institute level; i.e., any possibilities for acquiring grant funds that could be used as bargaining chips for securing a position outside NIH must be coordinated from within one’s institute; unfortunately, this varies wildly from institute to institute and the point was made that this process is very complicated and fraught with pitfalls and no guarantees for successful outcomes.

Also, it was pointed out that Dr. Gottesman has suggested that there might be a possibility of using one’s current salary as a bargaining tool, so that, rather than grant funds, one could arrange for NIH to cover salary costs for a period of time to cover the transition into a new position. However, it was strongly emphasized that none of this is official, only a “concept” at the present time.

Also, the group was informed that the Mental Health Institute is looking into “career transition” type grant mechanisms (modeled on the K22 format) that could be opened to Staff Scientists who are in the position to compete for positions in outside laboratories.

However, it was emphasized that, currently, there are no official mechanisms in place for these sorts of transition grants. The sense of the committee is that, if such grants were to become available, the pool of qualified candidates from among Staff Scientists would be small, so that it would not constitute an excessive burden on Institute funds.

5. September 2011 Annual Meeting

As regards plans for the September Annual Meeting:

Mike Espey presented the tentative schedule:

Location: Bldg. 10, Masur Auditorium

Time: September 16, 2011: 9 AM

Agenda:

A.  Dr. Gottesman will give a speech to open the meeting

B.   Question/Answer Session

C.   Panel Discussions

D.  Problem Solving Sessions

E.   Dr. Milgram has been asked to participate in a career development session

F.    Presentation of various scenarios that might be encountered by Staff Scientists in the process of leaving NIH for other positions.

Minutes of an SSSC Organization meeting March 15, 2011

March 15, 2011, 2:30 PM

Location: NIH, Bldg 1, Wilson Hall

Chair: Mike Espey

Attendees: Amanda Black, Andy Mitz, Charlie Jones, Dale Kiesewetter, Deb Croteau, Dina Demner-Fushman, Heiyoung Park, Michael Espey, Robert Fariss, Rodolfo Ghirlando, Thomas Winters

Topics:

1. Comments regarding the March 14, 2011 Career Transition Class presented by Dr. Sharon Milgram;

2.          Plans for the upcoming Annual Meeting;

3.          Discussion as to the need for the Organization to put together a booklet to orient new Staff Scientists;

4. Displacement guidelines (or lack thereof) for Staff Scientists at NIH;

1. Comments regarding the March 14, 2011 Career Transition Class presented by Dr. Sharon Milgram

Mike called the meeting to order and opened the discussion for comments on the Career Transition Class and gave a brief summary of Dr. Milgram’s class. Take home points for all Staff Scientists: all Staff Scientists are in temporary (even if long-term) positions and should have their CVs ready.

A question was raised about forming “job groups” to discuss strategies and information to assist Staff Scientists/Clinicians engaged in job searches. Mike pointed out that Dr. Milgram’s office (O.I.T.E.) is willing to coordinate such sessions, and have plans in place to set up small interactive sessions for evaluating and sharpening self-evaluation skills to be made available this summer. O.I.T.E. might also provide leadership training to help Staff Scientists fulfill their duties.

An attendee commented on establishing a central List Serve site for posting jobs available at NIH that would be of interest to Staff Scientists looking for another position at NIH. Mike made the point that a rudimentary version of such a list is in the works.

With regard to the ongoing Job Transition Workshops which Dr. Milgram has conducted, some discussion was given to talking with Dr. Gottesman’s office with regard to the need for a more uniform NIH-wide policy regarding minimal requirements for a  Staff Scientists step-wise transition to a new position outside of the NIH, perhaps including such topics as minimal grace period, severance pay or (in lieu of grant funds) a policy that would enable a transitioning employee to take a portion of his/her NIH salary to a new position as a bargaining tool during the interview process; or, the matter of establishing transition grants might also meet this need. The policy might be of help to Scientific Directors.

2. Plans for the upcoming Annual Meeting

Attendees discussed the possibility of having job search training sessions as part of the Annual Meeting; also, the possibility of asking the O.I.T.E. to put together a Management Training Workshop to incorporate into the meeting was also considered; it was pointed out that another possibility would be to approach Dr. Gottesman’s office with a request to hire an outside agency to put together a session.

An attendee suggested that a Q & A session specifically for new Staff Scientists/Clinicians might be useful. Mike suggested that if this were included, a request could be put to Dr. Gottesman to participate in this session.

Several attendees suggested putting together a list of things a first year Staff Scientist/Clinician might find useful would be a way to prepare for such a Q & A session. This led to the idea of putting together a booklet for new Staff Scientist/Clinicians to familiarize them with the position (see entry #3 below).

The value of assembling a panel of staff scientists with a broad range of experience and varying time in their positions was discussed as a means of educating new Staff Scientists regarding possible career paths and expectations about their current positions.

Attendees seemed to be in agreement that the Staff Scientist position has not been sufficiently explained to incoming employees; in part because the responsibilities of the position vary among the P.I.s at NIH. Also, it was pointed out that, from an administrative viewpoint, the position has not been clearly defined. A question was raised about tenure-track paths for Staff Scientists after several years of service.

An attendee for one of the NIH C.O.R.E. facilities made the point that incoming Staff Scientists need to be reminded of the importance of establishing a relationship with one’s Scientific Director; that cultivating such relationships with one’s S.D. is very important as a means of raising awareness among one’s Institute as to accomplishments and available resources in the C.O.R.E. facility. In general, it was agreed that new Staff Scientists need to be continually reminded of the need to develop working relationships and networking relationships with other NIH laboratory groups, and if one’s P.I. is amenable, to enter into collaborative work with NIH colleagues.

 
3.          Discussion as to the need for the Organization to put together a booklet to orient new Staff Scientists

The suggestion for putting together an orientation type booklet for incoming Staff Scientists/Clinicians was generally well received by meeting attendees, especially as a means for clarifying questions regarding the Staff Scientist career path, as it has changed over the years.

Phone conference attendees from Baltimore pointed out that a booklet with wide applicability, suitable for the wide-ranging variety of Staff Scientist positions in the NIH system will be a difficult task.

4. Displacement guidelines (or lack thereof) for Staff Scientists at NIH.

Problems and lack of clarity in the detailing process for transitioning to a new position were discussed with respect to staff scientists. The value of implementing exit interviews was mentioned, as a way to better understand strengths and weaknesses in the overall staff scientist position from the perspective of those who are leaving.

It was pointed out the current detailing processes at NIH are not applicable to Staff Scientists, and that this could be addressed administratively, to tailor a program to meet this need.

Minutes of an SSSC Organization meeting May 18, 2011

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

May 18, 2011, 2:00 – 3:30 PM

Location: NIH, Bldg 50, room 1328

Chair: Michael Espey

Attendees: Ana Olivera, Andy Mitz, Zack Howard, Leonardo Marino, Alejandro Schaffer, Charlie Jones

Attendees via audio conference call: Amanda Black, Olga Federova

Topics:

1. Social Networking

4.          Draft proposal for the NIH Research Festival Committee

4.          Upcoming SS/SC “Town-Hall” meeting

Mike Espey, the SS/SC Organization Chair, called the meeting to order at 2 PM.

1.          Social Networking

A question was raised as to using Facebook as a source for communication among NIH Staff Scientists. Discussion ensued as to feasibility in light of NIH I.T. Security policies. Blogging and chat room type usage over the NIH network is not permitted currently, so it is quite likely that any follow-through regarding this sort of social networking would have to be conducted away from NIH on personal computers.