Rethinking the Career Landscape for Nicotine and Tobacco Trainees and Early Career Professionals

Rethinking the Career Landscape for Nicotine and Tobacco Trainees and Early Career Professionals Introduction Unprecedented economic, scientific, technological, and social changes have made it necessary to reevaluate the type of career tracks available to trainees and early career scientists and clinicians. The impact of these changes on science-related career tracks has been discussed more generally in recent years,1,2 but less so with respect to nicotine and tobacco science. The goal of the present commentary is to reflect on our collective experiences as early career nicotine and tobacco scientists working in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands to provide information, resources, and additional considerations for trainees and early career scientists navigating careers in nicotine and tobacco science. We have identified four key developments that have affected career planning in nicotine and tobacco science, and each is discussed in greater detail in the following sections: (1) employment opportunities, (2) economic and financial challenges, (3) scientific and regulatory environments, and (4) clinical and social environments. Key Developments in the Field of Nicotine and Tobacco Science Education and Employment Opportunities A 2012 survey of 130 members of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) found that the majority of trainees (85%) hoped to work in an academic setting.3 Similarly, 78% of respondents to a 2015 survey of trainees in Europe, Asia, and North America reported that they intended to pursue a research career in academia.4 Unfortunately, statistics suggest that there is a shortage of academic positions worldwide with graduate degrees being awarded at a far greater rate than the number of career opportunities in academia.2,5 The degree to which these shifts in training and traditional academic employment opportunities have affected the field of nicotine and tobacco science is not clear at this time. However, our collective experience supports the idea that there has been growth in nontraditional career tracks outside of academia in nicotine and tobacco science because of the changes in economic and regulatory environments, as noted in the following. Economic and Financial Considerations Despite large investments in science from many private and public organizations over the past century,6,7 the economic downturn in the early 2000s and other factors have had a considerable impact on research funding. For example, the leading public funder of biomedical research in the world, the US National Institutes of Health7 (NIH), has seen a 13.4% reduction in budget (adjusted for inflation) across the last 10 years according to estimates from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.8 However, in the United Stated during the same period of time, a new source of funding for nicotine and tobacco research was established by the passing of the 2009 Tobacco Control Act (TCA). Thus, the CTP and related Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research is funded for the foreseeable future unless there is an act of Congress that would change the funding structure. Due to this unique arrangement, the CTP and related Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research is funded for the foreseeable future unless there is an act of Congress that would change the TCA. Coinciding with shifts in funding is the reality of rising higher education costs and student loan burden faced by many trainees.9 These economic and financial changes have the potential to influence not only the funding environment of nicotine and tobacco scientists, but also the work environment given that restricted funding or student loan burden combined with institutional requirements can create an increasingly stressful and hypercompetitive work environment for scientists.10 We were unable to find any published literature addressing the impact of these economic factors on nicotine and tobacco research, but our personal experience confirms that such factors play an important role in the career planning of trainees and early career professionals. Scientific and Regulatory Environment Collaborative and Global Research Efforts There has been a push for biomedical research to become more collaborative in recent years with a shift away from smaller research groups to larger scale projects involving global research teams across a variety of academic, government, and private sector stakeholders.1,6 Such collaborations are reflected by the recent announcement of a state-of-the-art, industrial-scale brain imaging hub in China which will permit scientists across the world to collaboratively map neural connectivity in mice and humans.11 Similarly, with respect to nicotine and tobacco research, collaborative efforts to improve tobacco control efforts on a global level have been emphasized, especially in regions such as low- and middle-income countries.12 Impactful collaborative efforts are also represented by The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (http://www.itcproject.org) which was initiated in the early 2000s as the first-ever international cohort study of tobacco use. Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity Regulatory requirements for research ethics protection in the form of institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics review boards have been increasing in the last two decades in some parts of the world.13 These requirements, while necessary and important, have contributed to unique challenges faced by researchers and IRBs including demands on time and resources to review applications and meet requirements. Relatedly, unique challenges to scientific integrity have evolved over the last decade. Some scientists have suggested that the publish or perish mentality of science, combined with intense competition for research funding, has created a “perverse incentive system” that contributes to unethical research practices.10 With respect to the nicotine and tobacco field, there are evolving nonfinancial and financial conflicts of interest with the potential to influence science because of changes in tobacco products and regulation. Such changes necessitate an emphasis on training in scientific integrity, as noted in a recent paper on mentorship in tobacco regulatory science.14 The result of these and other demands on scientists can contribute to issues such as data falsification, “p-hacking” or “spinning” of research findings, faked peer review, predatory publishers, and more broadly a “reproducibility crisis” for research findings.15 One approach for addressing these challenges has included the creation of online resources for tracking unethical publishing behavior (eg, the official US channel of the Office of Research Integrity, www.ori.hhs.gov, as well as unofficial channels: www.retractionwatch.com and http://beallslist.weebly.com/). Other initiatives include a move to open science practices, which emphasize transparency and reproducibility of scholarly research, as well reforming the peer-review process with efforts such as pre- and/or post-publication review of manuscripts (eg, PubMed Commons). Technological Innovation Although rates of smoking have declined in some countries, they remain high in many developing countries, making, for some populations, the need for innovative research to reduce smoking rates an urgent public health priority.16 The development of new, approved medications for the treatment of tobacco dependence has lagged since the advent of varenicline as a prescribed treatment in the early 2000s. In contrast, the availability of novel tobacco-related products such as electronic cigarettes has increased in recent years, and the role that these devices will play in tobacco dependence has been debated.17 Innovative research methods have also evolved over the last decade to include web- and cloud-based access to data sources such as electronic medical records and “smart” devices, as well as crowdsourcing for data collection and research funding (eg, Mechanical Turk, https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). These new products and research strategies offer exciting opportunities for early career scientists hoping to find a niche in the field of nicotine and tobacco science inside or outside of the laboratory, including those that are interested in regulatory science.14,18 Clinical and Social Environment Major changes within the field of nicotine and tobacco science have also occurred within the clinical or health care environment. Reimbursement rates have not kept pace with inflation, and time demands for nonbillable activities (eg, documentation) have continued to increase. Concurrently, the increased integration of behavioral health into primary care settings is a promising avenue for achieving better access to smoking cessation services and other preventative care for tobacco use, though one that comes with many challenges.19 In addition, the last two decades have also seen an increase in awareness of social issues affecting scientific and clinical environments such as issues related to diversity, social justice, and equity in the careers and research activities of scientists and clinicians.20,21 For example, a recent analysis of NIH R01 funding noted that fewer awards were received or applied for by women of color as compared with White men and women indicative of NIH funding gaps related to gender and race/ethnicity.22 Such concerns build on growing concerns related to the “leaky pipeline” concept that is characterized by women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related occupations being more likely to leave their field compared with other professional fields of study. Psychology-related fields such as nicotine and tobacco science might be particularly affected by such issues given the high numbers of women earning doctorate degrees relative to men in recent years. Career Planning for Trainees and Early Career Professionals As depicted in Figure 1, there are a variety of career trajectories available to trainees and early career professionals across the varying stakeholders that influence and drive nicotine and tobacco science (eg, academia, government, private). There is substantial overlap among many of these trajectories, and they do not necessarily represent discrete paths. For example, clinicians can concurrently conduct clinical hours as well as university-level research, while individuals in the private sector may hold adjunct teaching positions at academic institutions. As noted previously, collaborative work in science is becoming increasingly important, and unique approaches to working collaboratively highlight the exciting opportunities available to early career scientists and clinicians as they move forward in their careers. As noted in a recent publication addressing neuroscience training in the 21st century, “Training in teams that include biotechnology or industry partners, clinicians, patient advocates, experts in regulatory affairs, and bioethicists, among others, would foster more successful translation from the bench than in the past.”1 Such findings correspond to results from a qualitative analysis of mentoring in the field of TRS in which early career TRS professionals emphasized their need to “develop and nurture a broad professional network across scientific fields and disciplines” (p. 7).14 Along these lines, trainees and early career professionals looking to diversify their training on their own initiative might find the additional resources listed in Table 1 helpful. Table 1 includes hyperlinks associated with a range of topics including careers inside and outside of academia, career planning, funding, fellowships, law/regulation/policy, and medical writing. While Table 1 does not include an exhaustive list of available resources, it does give an overview of the varied and unique opportunities that are available to the highly trained professionals such as those in the field of nicotine and tobacco science. Ideally, the content in Figure 1 and Table 1 can prompt mentors, professional organizations, and other influential decision makers to incorporate these varied opportunities into training and career-related guidance. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Possible career paths in nicotine and tobacco science, representing the various stakeholders involved in nicotine and tobacco science across a range of sectors and geographical regions. The specific examples provided in parentheses are not meant to be exhaustive and do not represent endorsement of particular organizations or career paths over others. Acronyms are defined as follows: AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science; AHA, American Heart Association; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; BPS, British Psychological Society; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CRUK, Cancer Research UK; ERC, European Research Council; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IGO, Intergovernmental Organization; IRB, institutional review boards; MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; NGO, nongovernmental organization; NHS, National Health Service; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NIHR, National Institute for Health Research; PHE, Public Health England; RTI International, Research Triangle Institute; USVHA, United States Veterans Health Administration; WHO, World Health Organization. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Possible career paths in nicotine and tobacco science, representing the various stakeholders involved in nicotine and tobacco science across a range of sectors and geographical regions. The specific examples provided in parentheses are not meant to be exhaustive and do not represent endorsement of particular organizations or career paths over others. Acronyms are defined as follows: AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science; AHA, American Heart Association; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; BPS, British Psychological Society; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CRUK, Cancer Research UK; ERC, European Research Council; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IGO, Intergovernmental Organization; IRB, institutional review boards; MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; NGO, nongovernmental organization; NHS, National Health Service; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NIHR, National Institute for Health Research; PHE, Public Health England; RTI International, Research Triangle Institute; USVHA, United States Veterans Health Administration; WHO, World Health Organization. Table 1. Overview of Career-Related Resources in the Field of Nicotine/Tobacco Science Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  View Large Table 1. Overview of Career-Related Resources in the Field of Nicotine/Tobacco Science Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  View Large Future Directions and Recommendations As summarized in this commentary, the evolving career landscape of scientists in general, as well as nicotine and tobacco scientists and clinicians, has created unique opportunities for trainees and early career professionals in nicotine and tobacco science. We consider our commentary a call to action for those involved in the field of nicotine and tobacco science to consider the impact that these factors described in our commentary will have on nicotine and tobacco science in the 21st century. For trainees and early career professionals, we recommend the following: (1) understand and monitor the various factors affecting nicotine and tobacco science in the 21st century (eg, trends in employment or funding), (2) seek out opportunities to interact or work with individuals from various distinct career paths, including those outside traditional settings (eg, academia), (3) critically evaluate your unique skillsets to determine those that set you apart from others in the field and seek out supplemental training accordingly (eg, advanced training in particular statistical methods), and (4) determine what aspects of your work as a researcher and/or clinician that have been most rewarding and engaging, and look for careers that best align with those interests and values. In addition, those involved in the training of our next generation of nicotine and tobacco scientists, such as mentors, institutions, and professional organizations, should consider the possibility that some trainees will opt out of the “traditional” academic career track. Such a choice might be due to a variety of reasons including unique skillsets that are better served in nonacademic positions, economic constraints including funding cuts, as well as the evolving nature of the job market including new career opportunities in nicotine and tobacco science (eg, government positions in regulatory science, tech-sector jobs). Efforts to offer career support that take into account these changes include connecting trainees with early career professionals as exemplified in recent years by the Trainee Network Advisory Board of SRNT,3,23 organizing career panels that represent diverse career options, and providing interdisciplinary training inside and outside of academia, as suggested by a recent National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report.24 Our review of the literature also highlighted important topics that have yet to be explored within the field of nicotine and tobacco science as they pertain to training and career planning. For example, it is unclear whether the observed reductions in research funding more generally for science are also being observed by early career nicotine and tobacco scientists/clinicians. As noted, it could be the case in the United States that NIH funding cuts have been offset by increased funding from Food and Drug Administration or CTP. While this added source of funding is no doubt a net positive for junior investigators seeking support for their research, it does constrain research to that related to TRS and thus could alter the research landscape generated by our next cohort of nicotine and tobacco researchers. Similarly, concerns related to research ethics that have been discussed more broadly for science including the lack of reproducibility of many research findings14 have not been fully explored in the published literature on nicotine and tobacco. More attention to these and other factors affecting the future of nicotine and tobacco science will be invaluable for informing trainees and early career professionals in the field. A last point to emphasize is generalizability of our commentary suggestions. While our training and career experiences in the United States and EU are representative of the majority of members in SRNT (~81% of SRNT members are employed in these regions according to M. Johnson, personal communication, August 4, 2017), we are sensitive to the fact that there are unique and varying challenges faced by early career scientists throughout the world. Trainees’ and early career professionals’ goals and needs will likely vary geographically and culturally, and career advice should respect these differences.4 For example, expectations of PhD students might vary by geographic region as demonstrated by PhD graduate training lasting longer on average in the United States compared with the United Kingdom (eg, 5–6 years compared to 3–4 years). In addition, nicotine and tobacco policy varies considerably depending on geography, and such variation can impact training and employment opportunities. However, despite such variation in training, we are hopeful that our perspectives will provide a starting point for further discussion on careers in nicotine and tobacco science on a global level. Overall, the acknowledgment that science career trajectories are evolving as we move into the 21st century can invigorate efforts to train scientists, promote diversity of thought, and facilitate the conduct and sharing of high-quality nicotine and tobacco science inside and outside of the laboratory. Funding This project was supported in part by grant K23 DA042898 awarded to JAO and R00 DA036569 awarded to CDG. Declaration of Interests BAK is an employee of PinneyAssociates. In the past 3 years, PinneyAssociates has provided services for NJOY, Inc, a developer and marketer of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and since February 2015, for Reynolds American, Inc (RAI), on tobacco harm minimization. RAI was recently acquired by British American Tobacco. PinneyAssociates work for RAI focuses on products, regulations, and policies related to smoking cessation and harm minimization; PinneyAssociates does not work on combustible conventional cigarettes. RAI had no input into any facet of this work, from its conception, analysis, writing, or submission. References 1. Akil H, Balice-Gordon R, Cardozo DLet al.   Neuroscience training for the 21st century. Neuron . 2016; 90( 5): 917– 926. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Schillebeeckx M, Maricque B, Lewis C. The missing piece to changing the university culture. Nat Biotechnol . 2013; 31( 10): 938– 941. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Heckman BW, Blank MD, Peters ENet al.   Developing tomorrow’s tobacco scientists today: the SRNT trainee network. Nicotine Tob Res . 2013; 15( 3). 4. Woolston C. Graduate survey: uncertain futures. Nature . 2015; 526 ( 7574): 597– 600. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Pain E. Aligning career expectations with academic reality. Science . 2015. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/06/aligning-career-expectations-academic-reality. Accessed October 21, 2017. 6. Moses HIII, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA . 2015; 313( 2): 174– 189. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Viergever RF, Hendriks TC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst . 2016; 14( 1): 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Science AAftAf. National Institutes of Health Budget by Institute, 1998–2017. 2016. https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd. Accessed October 21, 2017. 9. Doran JM, Kraha A, Marks LR, Ameen EJ, El-Ghoroury NH. Graduate debt in psychology: a quantitative analysis. Train Educ Prof Psychol . 2016; 10( 1): 3. 10. Edwards MA, Roy S. Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci . 2017; 34( 1): 51– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Cyranoski D. China Launches Brain-Imaging Factory: Hub Aims to Make Industrial-Scale High-Resolution Brain Mapping A Standard Tool for Neuroscience. 2017. https://www.nature.com/news/china-launches-brain-imaging-factory-1.22456. Accessed October 21, 2017. 12. Leischow SJ, Okamoto J, McIntosh S, Ossip DJ, Lando HA. Network analysis of global tobacco control collaboration: data from the World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WCTOH). BMC Public Health . 2017; 17( 1): 338. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Hemminki E. Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States. Health Res Policy Syst . 2016; 14: 5: 1– 12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750216/pdf/12961_2016_Article_78.pdf. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Russo AR, Collins LK, Solis ACet al.   Mentoring for success in tobacco regulatory science: a qualitative study. Tob Regul Sci . 2017; 3( 3): 280– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVet al.   A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav . 2017; 1: 1– 9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021.pdf. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   16. Warner KE. An endgame for tobacco? Tob Control . 2013; 22 (suppl 1): i3– i5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. Correa JB, Ariel I, Menzie NS, Brandon TH. Documenting the emergence of electronic nicotine delivery systems as a disruptive technology in nicotine and tobacco science. Addict Behav . 2017; 65: 179– 184. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Wipfli HL, Berman M, Hanson Ket al.   Defining tobacco regulatory science competencies. Nicotine Tob Res . 2016; 19( 2): 222– 30. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Zeiss AM, Karlin BE. Integrating mental health and primary care services in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. J Clin Psychol Med Settings . 2008; 15( 1): 73– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Rosenthal L. Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: an opportunity to promote social justice and equity. Am Psychol . 2016; 71( 6): 474– 485. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Valantine HA, Collins FS. National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2015; 112( 40): 12240– 12242. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Ginther DK, Kahn S, Schaffer WT. Gender, race/ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 research awards: is there evidence of a double bind for women of color? Acad Med . 2016; 91( 8): 1098– 1107. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23. Zale EL, Rass O. SRNT Trainee network spotlight: trainee network advisory board. Nicotine Tob Res . 2015; 17( 3): 376– 377. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. National Institutes of Health. Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report. 2012. https://acd.od.nih.gov/documents/reports/bmw_report.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2017. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nicotine and Tobacco Research Oxford University Press

Rethinking the Career Landscape for Nicotine and Tobacco Trainees and Early Career Professionals

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/rethinking-the-career-landscape-for-nicotine-and-tobacco-trainees-and-jq3CdyWRnM
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
1462-2203
eISSN
1469-994X
D.O.I.
10.1093/ntr/nty041
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Introduction Unprecedented economic, scientific, technological, and social changes have made it necessary to reevaluate the type of career tracks available to trainees and early career scientists and clinicians. The impact of these changes on science-related career tracks has been discussed more generally in recent years,1,2 but less so with respect to nicotine and tobacco science. The goal of the present commentary is to reflect on our collective experiences as early career nicotine and tobacco scientists working in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands to provide information, resources, and additional considerations for trainees and early career scientists navigating careers in nicotine and tobacco science. We have identified four key developments that have affected career planning in nicotine and tobacco science, and each is discussed in greater detail in the following sections: (1) employment opportunities, (2) economic and financial challenges, (3) scientific and regulatory environments, and (4) clinical and social environments. Key Developments in the Field of Nicotine and Tobacco Science Education and Employment Opportunities A 2012 survey of 130 members of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) found that the majority of trainees (85%) hoped to work in an academic setting.3 Similarly, 78% of respondents to a 2015 survey of trainees in Europe, Asia, and North America reported that they intended to pursue a research career in academia.4 Unfortunately, statistics suggest that there is a shortage of academic positions worldwide with graduate degrees being awarded at a far greater rate than the number of career opportunities in academia.2,5 The degree to which these shifts in training and traditional academic employment opportunities have affected the field of nicotine and tobacco science is not clear at this time. However, our collective experience supports the idea that there has been growth in nontraditional career tracks outside of academia in nicotine and tobacco science because of the changes in economic and regulatory environments, as noted in the following. Economic and Financial Considerations Despite large investments in science from many private and public organizations over the past century,6,7 the economic downturn in the early 2000s and other factors have had a considerable impact on research funding. For example, the leading public funder of biomedical research in the world, the US National Institutes of Health7 (NIH), has seen a 13.4% reduction in budget (adjusted for inflation) across the last 10 years according to estimates from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.8 However, in the United Stated during the same period of time, a new source of funding for nicotine and tobacco research was established by the passing of the 2009 Tobacco Control Act (TCA). Thus, the CTP and related Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research is funded for the foreseeable future unless there is an act of Congress that would change the funding structure. Due to this unique arrangement, the CTP and related Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research is funded for the foreseeable future unless there is an act of Congress that would change the TCA. Coinciding with shifts in funding is the reality of rising higher education costs and student loan burden faced by many trainees.9 These economic and financial changes have the potential to influence not only the funding environment of nicotine and tobacco scientists, but also the work environment given that restricted funding or student loan burden combined with institutional requirements can create an increasingly stressful and hypercompetitive work environment for scientists.10 We were unable to find any published literature addressing the impact of these economic factors on nicotine and tobacco research, but our personal experience confirms that such factors play an important role in the career planning of trainees and early career professionals. Scientific and Regulatory Environment Collaborative and Global Research Efforts There has been a push for biomedical research to become more collaborative in recent years with a shift away from smaller research groups to larger scale projects involving global research teams across a variety of academic, government, and private sector stakeholders.1,6 Such collaborations are reflected by the recent announcement of a state-of-the-art, industrial-scale brain imaging hub in China which will permit scientists across the world to collaboratively map neural connectivity in mice and humans.11 Similarly, with respect to nicotine and tobacco research, collaborative efforts to improve tobacco control efforts on a global level have been emphasized, especially in regions such as low- and middle-income countries.12 Impactful collaborative efforts are also represented by The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (http://www.itcproject.org) which was initiated in the early 2000s as the first-ever international cohort study of tobacco use. Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity Regulatory requirements for research ethics protection in the form of institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics review boards have been increasing in the last two decades in some parts of the world.13 These requirements, while necessary and important, have contributed to unique challenges faced by researchers and IRBs including demands on time and resources to review applications and meet requirements. Relatedly, unique challenges to scientific integrity have evolved over the last decade. Some scientists have suggested that the publish or perish mentality of science, combined with intense competition for research funding, has created a “perverse incentive system” that contributes to unethical research practices.10 With respect to the nicotine and tobacco field, there are evolving nonfinancial and financial conflicts of interest with the potential to influence science because of changes in tobacco products and regulation. Such changes necessitate an emphasis on training in scientific integrity, as noted in a recent paper on mentorship in tobacco regulatory science.14 The result of these and other demands on scientists can contribute to issues such as data falsification, “p-hacking” or “spinning” of research findings, faked peer review, predatory publishers, and more broadly a “reproducibility crisis” for research findings.15 One approach for addressing these challenges has included the creation of online resources for tracking unethical publishing behavior (eg, the official US channel of the Office of Research Integrity, www.ori.hhs.gov, as well as unofficial channels: www.retractionwatch.com and http://beallslist.weebly.com/). Other initiatives include a move to open science practices, which emphasize transparency and reproducibility of scholarly research, as well reforming the peer-review process with efforts such as pre- and/or post-publication review of manuscripts (eg, PubMed Commons). Technological Innovation Although rates of smoking have declined in some countries, they remain high in many developing countries, making, for some populations, the need for innovative research to reduce smoking rates an urgent public health priority.16 The development of new, approved medications for the treatment of tobacco dependence has lagged since the advent of varenicline as a prescribed treatment in the early 2000s. In contrast, the availability of novel tobacco-related products such as electronic cigarettes has increased in recent years, and the role that these devices will play in tobacco dependence has been debated.17 Innovative research methods have also evolved over the last decade to include web- and cloud-based access to data sources such as electronic medical records and “smart” devices, as well as crowdsourcing for data collection and research funding (eg, Mechanical Turk, https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). These new products and research strategies offer exciting opportunities for early career scientists hoping to find a niche in the field of nicotine and tobacco science inside or outside of the laboratory, including those that are interested in regulatory science.14,18 Clinical and Social Environment Major changes within the field of nicotine and tobacco science have also occurred within the clinical or health care environment. Reimbursement rates have not kept pace with inflation, and time demands for nonbillable activities (eg, documentation) have continued to increase. Concurrently, the increased integration of behavioral health into primary care settings is a promising avenue for achieving better access to smoking cessation services and other preventative care for tobacco use, though one that comes with many challenges.19 In addition, the last two decades have also seen an increase in awareness of social issues affecting scientific and clinical environments such as issues related to diversity, social justice, and equity in the careers and research activities of scientists and clinicians.20,21 For example, a recent analysis of NIH R01 funding noted that fewer awards were received or applied for by women of color as compared with White men and women indicative of NIH funding gaps related to gender and race/ethnicity.22 Such concerns build on growing concerns related to the “leaky pipeline” concept that is characterized by women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related occupations being more likely to leave their field compared with other professional fields of study. Psychology-related fields such as nicotine and tobacco science might be particularly affected by such issues given the high numbers of women earning doctorate degrees relative to men in recent years. Career Planning for Trainees and Early Career Professionals As depicted in Figure 1, there are a variety of career trajectories available to trainees and early career professionals across the varying stakeholders that influence and drive nicotine and tobacco science (eg, academia, government, private). There is substantial overlap among many of these trajectories, and they do not necessarily represent discrete paths. For example, clinicians can concurrently conduct clinical hours as well as university-level research, while individuals in the private sector may hold adjunct teaching positions at academic institutions. As noted previously, collaborative work in science is becoming increasingly important, and unique approaches to working collaboratively highlight the exciting opportunities available to early career scientists and clinicians as they move forward in their careers. As noted in a recent publication addressing neuroscience training in the 21st century, “Training in teams that include biotechnology or industry partners, clinicians, patient advocates, experts in regulatory affairs, and bioethicists, among others, would foster more successful translation from the bench than in the past.”1 Such findings correspond to results from a qualitative analysis of mentoring in the field of TRS in which early career TRS professionals emphasized their need to “develop and nurture a broad professional network across scientific fields and disciplines” (p. 7).14 Along these lines, trainees and early career professionals looking to diversify their training on their own initiative might find the additional resources listed in Table 1 helpful. Table 1 includes hyperlinks associated with a range of topics including careers inside and outside of academia, career planning, funding, fellowships, law/regulation/policy, and medical writing. While Table 1 does not include an exhaustive list of available resources, it does give an overview of the varied and unique opportunities that are available to the highly trained professionals such as those in the field of nicotine and tobacco science. Ideally, the content in Figure 1 and Table 1 can prompt mentors, professional organizations, and other influential decision makers to incorporate these varied opportunities into training and career-related guidance. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Possible career paths in nicotine and tobacco science, representing the various stakeholders involved in nicotine and tobacco science across a range of sectors and geographical regions. The specific examples provided in parentheses are not meant to be exhaustive and do not represent endorsement of particular organizations or career paths over others. Acronyms are defined as follows: AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science; AHA, American Heart Association; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; BPS, British Psychological Society; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CRUK, Cancer Research UK; ERC, European Research Council; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IGO, Intergovernmental Organization; IRB, institutional review boards; MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; NGO, nongovernmental organization; NHS, National Health Service; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NIHR, National Institute for Health Research; PHE, Public Health England; RTI International, Research Triangle Institute; USVHA, United States Veterans Health Administration; WHO, World Health Organization. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Possible career paths in nicotine and tobacco science, representing the various stakeholders involved in nicotine and tobacco science across a range of sectors and geographical regions. The specific examples provided in parentheses are not meant to be exhaustive and do not represent endorsement of particular organizations or career paths over others. Acronyms are defined as follows: AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science; AHA, American Heart Association; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; BPS, British Psychological Society; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CRUK, Cancer Research UK; ERC, European Research Council; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IGO, Intergovernmental Organization; IRB, institutional review boards; MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; NGO, nongovernmental organization; NHS, National Health Service; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NIHR, National Institute for Health Research; PHE, Public Health England; RTI International, Research Triangle Institute; USVHA, United States Veterans Health Administration; WHO, World Health Organization. Table 1. Overview of Career-Related Resources in the Field of Nicotine/Tobacco Science Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  View Large Table 1. Overview of Career-Related Resources in the Field of Nicotine/Tobacco Science Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  Topic area  Weblink/URL  Careers in academia  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/academic-job.aspx https://edgeforscholars.org/  Careers (outside of academia)  http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2013/05/21/careers-for-scientists-away-from-the-bench/ http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/away_from_the_bench_1.pdf  Career planning  http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/ http://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan.aspx https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/elearning/  Funding opportunities  https://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/interactive-career-framework/#?funderview https://pivot.cos.com/ https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_guide.htm  Science and technology fellowships  https://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships https://www.aaas.org/page/about-1?et_rid=330134252&et_cid=1589855  Law, regulation, and policy  https://www.fdli.org/ https://www.hri.global/ http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2009/10/finding-your-way-policy-careers-europe  Medical writing  https://www.amwa.org/ https://www.emwa.org/  View Large Future Directions and Recommendations As summarized in this commentary, the evolving career landscape of scientists in general, as well as nicotine and tobacco scientists and clinicians, has created unique opportunities for trainees and early career professionals in nicotine and tobacco science. We consider our commentary a call to action for those involved in the field of nicotine and tobacco science to consider the impact that these factors described in our commentary will have on nicotine and tobacco science in the 21st century. For trainees and early career professionals, we recommend the following: (1) understand and monitor the various factors affecting nicotine and tobacco science in the 21st century (eg, trends in employment or funding), (2) seek out opportunities to interact or work with individuals from various distinct career paths, including those outside traditional settings (eg, academia), (3) critically evaluate your unique skillsets to determine those that set you apart from others in the field and seek out supplemental training accordingly (eg, advanced training in particular statistical methods), and (4) determine what aspects of your work as a researcher and/or clinician that have been most rewarding and engaging, and look for careers that best align with those interests and values. In addition, those involved in the training of our next generation of nicotine and tobacco scientists, such as mentors, institutions, and professional organizations, should consider the possibility that some trainees will opt out of the “traditional” academic career track. Such a choice might be due to a variety of reasons including unique skillsets that are better served in nonacademic positions, economic constraints including funding cuts, as well as the evolving nature of the job market including new career opportunities in nicotine and tobacco science (eg, government positions in regulatory science, tech-sector jobs). Efforts to offer career support that take into account these changes include connecting trainees with early career professionals as exemplified in recent years by the Trainee Network Advisory Board of SRNT,3,23 organizing career panels that represent diverse career options, and providing interdisciplinary training inside and outside of academia, as suggested by a recent National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report.24 Our review of the literature also highlighted important topics that have yet to be explored within the field of nicotine and tobacco science as they pertain to training and career planning. For example, it is unclear whether the observed reductions in research funding more generally for science are also being observed by early career nicotine and tobacco scientists/clinicians. As noted, it could be the case in the United States that NIH funding cuts have been offset by increased funding from Food and Drug Administration or CTP. While this added source of funding is no doubt a net positive for junior investigators seeking support for their research, it does constrain research to that related to TRS and thus could alter the research landscape generated by our next cohort of nicotine and tobacco researchers. Similarly, concerns related to research ethics that have been discussed more broadly for science including the lack of reproducibility of many research findings14 have not been fully explored in the published literature on nicotine and tobacco. More attention to these and other factors affecting the future of nicotine and tobacco science will be invaluable for informing trainees and early career professionals in the field. A last point to emphasize is generalizability of our commentary suggestions. While our training and career experiences in the United States and EU are representative of the majority of members in SRNT (~81% of SRNT members are employed in these regions according to M. Johnson, personal communication, August 4, 2017), we are sensitive to the fact that there are unique and varying challenges faced by early career scientists throughout the world. Trainees’ and early career professionals’ goals and needs will likely vary geographically and culturally, and career advice should respect these differences.4 For example, expectations of PhD students might vary by geographic region as demonstrated by PhD graduate training lasting longer on average in the United States compared with the United Kingdom (eg, 5–6 years compared to 3–4 years). In addition, nicotine and tobacco policy varies considerably depending on geography, and such variation can impact training and employment opportunities. However, despite such variation in training, we are hopeful that our perspectives will provide a starting point for further discussion on careers in nicotine and tobacco science on a global level. Overall, the acknowledgment that science career trajectories are evolving as we move into the 21st century can invigorate efforts to train scientists, promote diversity of thought, and facilitate the conduct and sharing of high-quality nicotine and tobacco science inside and outside of the laboratory. Funding This project was supported in part by grant K23 DA042898 awarded to JAO and R00 DA036569 awarded to CDG. Declaration of Interests BAK is an employee of PinneyAssociates. In the past 3 years, PinneyAssociates has provided services for NJOY, Inc, a developer and marketer of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and since February 2015, for Reynolds American, Inc (RAI), on tobacco harm minimization. RAI was recently acquired by British American Tobacco. PinneyAssociates work for RAI focuses on products, regulations, and policies related to smoking cessation and harm minimization; PinneyAssociates does not work on combustible conventional cigarettes. RAI had no input into any facet of this work, from its conception, analysis, writing, or submission. References 1. Akil H, Balice-Gordon R, Cardozo DLet al.   Neuroscience training for the 21st century. Neuron . 2016; 90( 5): 917– 926. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Schillebeeckx M, Maricque B, Lewis C. The missing piece to changing the university culture. Nat Biotechnol . 2013; 31( 10): 938– 941. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Heckman BW, Blank MD, Peters ENet al.   Developing tomorrow’s tobacco scientists today: the SRNT trainee network. Nicotine Tob Res . 2013; 15( 3). 4. Woolston C. Graduate survey: uncertain futures. Nature . 2015; 526 ( 7574): 597– 600. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Pain E. Aligning career expectations with academic reality. Science . 2015. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/06/aligning-career-expectations-academic-reality. Accessed October 21, 2017. 6. Moses HIII, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA . 2015; 313( 2): 174– 189. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Viergever RF, Hendriks TC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst . 2016; 14( 1): 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Science AAftAf. National Institutes of Health Budget by Institute, 1998–2017. 2016. https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd. Accessed October 21, 2017. 9. Doran JM, Kraha A, Marks LR, Ameen EJ, El-Ghoroury NH. Graduate debt in psychology: a quantitative analysis. Train Educ Prof Psychol . 2016; 10( 1): 3. 10. Edwards MA, Roy S. Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci . 2017; 34( 1): 51– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Cyranoski D. China Launches Brain-Imaging Factory: Hub Aims to Make Industrial-Scale High-Resolution Brain Mapping A Standard Tool for Neuroscience. 2017. https://www.nature.com/news/china-launches-brain-imaging-factory-1.22456. Accessed October 21, 2017. 12. Leischow SJ, Okamoto J, McIntosh S, Ossip DJ, Lando HA. Network analysis of global tobacco control collaboration: data from the World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WCTOH). BMC Public Health . 2017; 17( 1): 338. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Hemminki E. Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States. Health Res Policy Syst . 2016; 14: 5: 1– 12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750216/pdf/12961_2016_Article_78.pdf. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Russo AR, Collins LK, Solis ACet al.   Mentoring for success in tobacco regulatory science: a qualitative study. Tob Regul Sci . 2017; 3( 3): 280– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVet al.   A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav . 2017; 1: 1– 9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021.pdf. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   16. Warner KE. An endgame for tobacco? Tob Control . 2013; 22 (suppl 1): i3– i5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. Correa JB, Ariel I, Menzie NS, Brandon TH. Documenting the emergence of electronic nicotine delivery systems as a disruptive technology in nicotine and tobacco science. Addict Behav . 2017; 65: 179– 184. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Wipfli HL, Berman M, Hanson Ket al.   Defining tobacco regulatory science competencies. Nicotine Tob Res . 2016; 19( 2): 222– 30. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Zeiss AM, Karlin BE. Integrating mental health and primary care services in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. J Clin Psychol Med Settings . 2008; 15( 1): 73– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Rosenthal L. Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: an opportunity to promote social justice and equity. Am Psychol . 2016; 71( 6): 474– 485. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Valantine HA, Collins FS. National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2015; 112( 40): 12240– 12242. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Ginther DK, Kahn S, Schaffer WT. Gender, race/ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 research awards: is there evidence of a double bind for women of color? Acad Med . 2016; 91( 8): 1098– 1107. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23. Zale EL, Rass O. SRNT Trainee network spotlight: trainee network advisory board. Nicotine Tob Res . 2015; 17( 3): 376– 377. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. National Institutes of Health. Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report. 2012. https://acd.od.nih.gov/documents/reports/bmw_report.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2017. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Nicotine and Tobacco ResearchOxford University Press

Published: Apr 5, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off