Key findings of HRA workforce development survey Survey goals were to understand protocols and practices of HRA members surrounding Early career support Metrics of success Monitoring and evaluation Diversity Intended to complement and expand questions from HRA annual member survey 43 questions

Thank you! We have received responses from 17 different organizations Thank you to: ASF, Autism Speaks, American Federation for Aging Research, American Society of Hematology, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Brightfocus, Cancer Research Institute, Doris Duke Charitable Trust, NYSCF, Pew, Melanoma Research Alliance, Rita Allen Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance, Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance, Alzheimer’s Association, The V Foundation for Cancer Research

What is the definition of “early career” researcher? Organization definition Personal definition 13 yes, 4 no Of the 13 yes 7 define as independent faculty, past post-doc Range of 2-8 years in first faculty position 4 include post doc or less 2 “other” Haven’t won major award Within 5 years of fellowship start date 9 yes, 8 no or left blank Of the 9 yes 6 include independent research, past post doc 3 include post doc or less One organization funded postdocs without personal or organization established definition One organization defined early career as independent career but still funded pre and post docs

What are metrics of success? Does your organization have a definition of a successful grantee? 7 yes 10 no/blank What is the definition of success? Follow-up funding: 8 Continued research in field: 8 Promotion: 4 Publications: 4 IP: 2 Leadership/training next gen of scientists Clinical progress Collaborations Awards/national recognition Starting a company

Tracking grantees after funding is over How many months do you track early career investigators after they have completed funding? One month One year after final payment 5 years (4) Every 3-5 years over course of career Indefinitely, as possible (2) How do you collect information after grantees have completed funding? Reports submitted by grantees: 13 Internet searches: 13 Unsolicited contact from grantees: 13 Software life Research Fish, Uber Research: 8 Information at scientific meetings: 9 Feedback from mentors/collaborators: 6 Direct contact w/ grantees: 2 Software like Plum analytics: 1 Software to track pubs, citations: 1

Require acknowledgement of support Do you require the organization be acknowledged in publications? 14 yes 3 blank What happens if this does not happen? 1 organization reported consequences 10 provided gentle reminders

Diversity of applicant pool and reducing bias Does your organization have approaches to improve diversity of the applicant pool? 5 yes; 12 no/blank Of the 5 yes Used more inclusive language in RFP and inclusive images on website Modified selection criteria to avoid gendered adjectives Provide link to guidelines to mitigate unconscious bias in reference letters Distribute RFP to societies that promote women in science Allow invited institutions to submit 2 applicants for consideration if at least one if from an under represented minority Make sure department list is comprehensive when distributing RFP Partnerships with other organizations Many of the “no” organizations are interested in incorporating new ideas! Yes info- from Melanoma Research Alliance (Kristin Mueller)

Reducing bias/balancing awards Does your SAB make conscious decisions about balancing awards? 7 yes; 10 no/blank Of yes When looking at top applications, make an effort to split across gender and field of study Have reviewers read implicit bias statement aloud Programs that are specifically designed for underrepresented minorities Does your organization have approaches to reduce reviewer bias? 4 yes; 13 no/blank Implicit bias statement Do not share gender/race information in application (though gender may be apparent in recommendation letters) Conflict of interest policies Structured evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria revised to avoid adjectives that might be implicitly associated with male gender