Integrating Student Research into the Medical School Curriculum

Integrating Student Research into the Medical School Curriculum

Friday, February 24, 2012

The New York Academy of Sciences

Presented By

Presented by the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and the New York Academy of Sciences

 

Participation in basic research as a medical student improves analytic, creative, and critical-thinking skills, preparing future physicians for success. This conference will convene architects of medical school research programs to discuss the benefits and practical issues of implementing mandatory research training in the medical school curriculum. Participants will explore issues including: (I) the pros and cons of mandatory medical student research for diverse types of medical careers, from translational scientist to rural primary care physician, (II) the requirements for medical schools to provide a meaningful research experience, and (III) the moral impetus to offer research training, since tuition fees are used to fund institutional research infrastructure.

Registration Pricing

 By: 1/20/2012After: 1/20/2012Onsite: 2/24/2012
Member$45$65$85
Student / Postdoc / Fellow Member$45$65$85
Nonmember Corporate$120$160$200
Nonmember Academia$80$120$160
Nonmember Not for Profit$80$120$160
Student / Postdoc / Fellow Nonmember$60$80$100

 

Presented by

  • Mount Sinai School of Medicine
  • The New York Academy of Sciences

Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation
This meeting is part of our Translational Medicine Initiative, sponsored by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation and The Mushett Family Foundation.

 

Agenda

* Presentation times are subject to change.


Friday, February 24, 2012

8:15 AM

Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 AM

Opening Remarks
Ellis Rubinstein, The New York Academy of Sciences
George E. Thibault, MD, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation

9:20 AM

Introduction
Medical Student Research: Moral Imperative or Marketing Ploy?
David Muller, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Session I: Medical Student Research Programs — Benefits to Student, Mentor, and Society

Chair: Louise Aronson, MD, MFA, University of California, San Francisco

9:30 AM

Evolution of a Scholarly Research Program During Medical Training
Allen L. Humphrey, PhD, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

10:00 AM

Integrating Student Research into the Medical School Curriculum at Stanford University
Laurence C. Baker, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine

10:30 AM

An Innovative Portfolio of Research Training Programs for Medical Students
Karen Zier, PhD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

11:00 AM

Coffee Break

Session II: Program Pros and Cons and the Role of the Research Mentor

Chair: Laurence C. Baker, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine

11:30 AM

The Required Yale MD Thesis: Implications for Medical Student Research Training and Funding
John N. Forrest, Jr., MD, Yale University School of Medicine

12:00 PM

The Pros and Cons of Requiring Research in the Medical School Curriculum: The Perspective of a New Program
Gordon J. Strewler, MD, Harvard Medical School

12:30 PM

Round Table Working Luncheon
Working Groups consisting of Deans of curricula, faculty members, residency directors, and students—and with a designated discussion leader from participating faculty—will discuss with all participants whether medical student research adds value to the curriculum.

Session III: Does the Research Experience Influence a Physician's Career Trajectory and Corresponding Capabilities?

Chair: Gordon J. Strewler, MD, Harvard Medical School

2:00 PM

Effective Evaluation of Research Productivity During Medical School
Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, Mayo Clinic

2:30 PM

Can Diverse Scholarly Concentration Tracks Influence the Direction of Graduates Produced?
Philip A. Gruppuso, MD, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

3:00 PM

The Influence of a Research Experience on Students' Commitment to Academic Medicine
Louise Aronson, MD, MFA, University of California, San Francisco

3:30 PM

The National Institutes of Health's Clinical Research Training Program: Taking Stock of 15 Years of Teaching the Principles and Practice of Clinical and Translational Investigation
Frederick P. Ognibene, MD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center

4:00 PM

Coffee Break

Session IV: The Medical Student Perspective

4:30 PM

Medical Student Research Program Panel Discussion
Presented in collaboration with the Academy's Science Alliance program
 
Moderator: Karen Zier, PhD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
 
Panelists:
Don Hoang, Yale University School of Medicine
Samuel Vanderhoek, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Edward Vazquez, MD, New York Presbyterian Hospital – Columbia Campus
Annie Wang, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University
 
Students from medical student research programs at various institutions will be invited to participate in a panel discussion that explores the positive and negative aspects of their research experience and what future curriculum changes they recommend.

5:30 PM

Panel Discussion: Reports from Round Table Working Groups
 
Does Medical Student Research Add Value to the Curriculum?
Moderator: Frederick P. Ognibene, MD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center

6:30 PM

Networking Reception

7:30 PM

Conference Concludes

Speakers

Organizers

Erica S. Friedman, MD

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

David Muller, MD

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Karen Zier, PhD

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Sonya Dougal, PhD

The New York Academy of Sciences

Monica Kerr, PhD

The New York Academy of Sciences

Speakers

Louise Aronson, MD, MFA

University of California, San Francisco

Laurence C. Baker, PhD

Stanford University School of Medicine

Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, MHPE

Mayo Clinic

John N. Forrest, Jr., MD

Yale University School of Medicine

Philip A. Gruppuso, MD

The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Allen L. Humphrey, PhD

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Frederick P. Ognibene, MD

National Institutes of Health Clinical Center

Gordon J. Strewler, MD

Harvard Medical School

George E. Thibault, MD

The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation

Abstracts

Evolution of a Scholarly Research Program During Medical Training
Allen L. Humphrey, PhD, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

In 2005, the School of Medicine initiated a requirement that all students outside of the MD/PhD program conduct a longitudinal (2+ yrs) Scholarly Project (SP) with a faculty mentor that is focused on a medical or health-related problem. Our goal is to enhance students’ critical thinking skills and analysis of literature, improve their ability to identify deficiencies in medical knowledge, and teach them to design and implement focused research to address these deficiencies. The SP has evolved in response to various needs. For example, to address the widely different levels of students’ research expertise, two formal courses were created. One teaches students about different research methodologies, and the other employs a faculty-facilitated small-group format to help students identify mentors, plan projects and write their SP proposals. To improve the focus and clarity of study goals, project proposals need to state explicit, testable hypotheses and soundly follow the scientific method. Issues frequently requiring attention are: identifying ‘doable’ projects, recognizing and assisting struggling students, and moderating student-mentor relationships. To improve program oversight of ongoing projects, students are required to submit quarterly reports of their progress and interim grades are assigned accordingly. Dedicated IT systems and support have proved to be essential for the program’s success, and include personal student web portfolios and SP director-level tracking systems. Overall, we believe that our SP program provides students with a unique opportunity to conduct meaningful research in a broad array of disciplines, stimulates interest in clinician-scientist career choices, and enhances our graduates’ abilities to practice evidence-based medicine.

Integrating Student Research into the Medical School Curriculum at Stanford University
Laurence C. Baker, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

For more than 30 years, the Stanford University School of Medicine has supported student research as part of the MD curriculum. Changes in the last decade have increased the amount of student research that is required for MD completion, and expanded programs designed to connect students with research projects and support research. In particular, the Scholarly Concentrations program includes required coursework and research complimentary to medical education. This presentation will discuss the programs and requirements at Stanford, their evolution, and their current effects on MD training.

An Innovative Portfolio of Research Training Programs for Medical Students
Karen Zier, PhD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York

The pursuit of novel approaches to more effectively prevent, diagnose, and treat disease requires a multidisciplinary approach based upon collaboration between individuals with diverse areas of expertise. Physicians with appropriate training play a valuable role in this type of team-science. Research training early in medical school may help students appreciate that they can pursue a career that integrates their clinical and research interests. We have created a portfolio of mentored research training programs that start in year 1 of medical school and continue until graduation, providing increasing levels of independence. These programs include a) PORTAL (Patient Oriented Research, Training and Leadership), a 5 year MD/ MSCR dual degree program; b) FAME (Fellows as Mentors Experience), a peer mentor program in years 1 and 2; c) discrete programs within the Summer Research Scholars Program, following year 1, that offer clinical/translational, basic, global health and community-based projects; d) the Scholarly Year, in which students devote a full year to research; and e) INSPIRE (Individual Scholarly Project and Independent Research Experience), a 12 week program in year 4. A unique aspect of our research programs is the degree to which more senior students serve as role models and mentors for junior students. By beginning research training early, by offering diverse formats at different times, and by providing a wide choice of projects, we hope to train physicians and physician-investigators who are critical thinkers, lifelong learners, and active participants in advancing health care delivery for the benefit of society.

The Required Yale MD Thesis: Implications for Medical Student Research Training and Funding
John N. Forrest, Jr., MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Since 1863, Yale University has required a thesis for students graduating with the MD degree. Students begin their research projects in the summer between the first and second year and are supported at the NIH predoctoral stipend level ($5,400 for three months). A majority of students continue their research projects with the same faculty mentor throughout medical school. All students attend a course on Student Thesis, Study Design, and the Yale MD Thesis, and a NIH required course on the Responsible Conduct of Research. The following types of theses are submitted: laboratory science 45%, clinical research 45%, international and public health 5%, medicine and the humanities 5%. 65% of Yale medical students take a fifth year of medical school funded by one year research programs (HHMI, DDCF, Sarnoff, NIH CTSA-TL1) or pursue shorter periods of research. Students completing 5th year pull out research experiences are eligible for the joint MD-Master of Health Science Degree. Approximately 70% of students publish peer-reviewed papers and give presentations at meetings, including Yale’s Student Research Day. The Yale MD thesis program results in a large number (approximately 40%) of students entering full time faculty positions after completion of training. Extensive student research training at research intensive medical schools contributes to the national pipeline of physician-scientists. An MD thesis program requires extensive faculty support and funding. A required MD thesis should be considered at research intensive medical schools.

The Pros and Cons of Requiring Research in the Medical School Curriculum: The Perspective of a New Program
Gordon J. Strewler, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

The Scholars of Medicine Program has created a new scholarly requirement for the Class of 2015 and subsequent classes at Harvard Medical School. Faculty task forces and working groups have labored for several years to answer questions such as the following: What kind of scholarship should we expect of students who are satisfying the new requirement – research, certainly, but what about community service projects, review articles, quality improvement or systems innovation projects? What curriculum should be a standard requirement of all students? What additional curriculum should we target to subsets of students? How do we develop and reward faculty mentors of student research? How can we prospectively assess the outcomes of the program with regard to attitudes, career direction and attainment? What can we learn from programs at other schools whose scholarly requirements have already been implemented?

Effective Evaluation of Research Productivity During Medical School
Liselotte N. Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Mayo Medical School (MMS) has had a required research experience since the establishment of the school in 1972. The required research experience has always taken place during the third year of medical school, but the time allotted for research has decreased over the years to accommodate various curricular changes. Initially 21 weeks long, the experience was shortened to 18 weeks in 1992 and to 17 weeks the following year, and then to 13 weeks in 2002. The research weeks are taken consecutively and the students have no concurrent classroom or clinical responsibilities. In addition to describing the required research curriculum Dr. Dyrbye will share outcome data including (1) students’ research productivity, as measured by research reports and research abstracts published and extramural presentations delivered based on the required research experience at MMS; (2) whether this research productivity has varied depending on the duration of the research experience (21, 17-18, or 13 weeks); and (3) whether having a research product resulting from the required research experience is associated with greater short-term research productivity (research reports published through the first three years after graduation).

Can Diverse Scholarly Concentration Tracks Influence the Direction of Graduates Produced?
Philip A. Gruppuso, MD, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

While medical schools have long provided the infrastructure for students to undertake biomedical research, students interested in non-traditional areas have less often been offered the mentoring and resources needed to promote scholarly productivity. Six years ago, Alpert Medical School (AMS) developed a Scholarly Concentrations (SC) Program. This elective, longitudinal program focuses on interdisciplinary areas of medicine. Students identify an area of interest and a mentor during the first year in order to develop a SC proposal. Students whose proposals are approved are provided with a stipend for the 10-week, required immersion experience during the summer between the MD1 and MD2 years. Students continue their work during years MD2 to MD4 with a goal of producing a scholarly product by the time of graduation. At present, the 14 concentration areas are: Advocacy and Activism, Aging, Caring for Underserved Communities, Contemplative Studies, Disaster Medicine, Global Health, Health Policy, Integrative Medicine, Medical Education, Medical Informatics, Medical Humanities, Physician as Communicator, Technology Innovation and Management, and Women’s Reproductive Health. Program resources include a director and a coordinator, funding for summer stipends and travel, and compensation for Concentration Directors. During the first five years of the program, approximately one third of each first year class has elected to participate. Modest attrition has occurred in the first two graduating classes with approximately one quarter of each class completing the requirements for a Concentration. Students report that participation is a frequent subject of discussion during residency interviews. The program appears to be a significant attraction for applicants, and its interdisciplinary nature seems to have contributed to a culture of liberal education at AMS.

The Influence of a Research Experience on Students' Commitment to Academic Medicine
Louise Aronson, MD, MFA, University of California, San Francisco, California

Although only a minority of physicians will pursue academic careers, producing the next generation of academic physicians is a key role of medical schools. In the 1980s and 1990s, concern about the declining numbers and increasing age of physician-scientists led to the creation of Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTP), which have arrested the decline and produced MD-PhDs who go into academia in high numbers. The MSTP approach, however, is costly and neither trains sufficient numbers of academic physicians nor provides them with all the skills sets needed for twenty-first century medical education and research. Scholarly Concentration (SC) programs arose in part in response to the need for a larger, more diverse pool of academics, and also to address the growing need to train physicians who can contribute to health and health care beyond clinical medicine. SCs vary in their goals, duration, curricular timing, dose and type of scholarly experience, and in whether they are required, elective, or degree granting. While their recent introduction and variety preclude definitive conclusions about their influence on participants’ careers, data suggest that many SCs increase student publication rate, a known correlate of academic career choice. Moreover, students who complete SCs report greater interest in research and academics, and academic physicians routinely cite research as a critical influence on their career choice. Consequently, medical schools should more consistently and universally make recruitment to academic medicine a key goal for their SC programs and design their SCs to emphasize factors known to positively influence physician commitment to careers in academic medicine.

The National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Research Training Program: Taking Stock of 15 Years of Teaching the Principles and Practice of Clinical and Translational Investigation
Frederick P. Ognibene, MD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland

The NIH Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) was established in 1997, and since then 340 students have enrolled, representing 87 medical and dental schools; 310 have completed the program. 95 of the 310 CRTP alumni have completed their clinical training. More than half (48 of 95) of CRTP alumni who have completed their training are in self-reported “research careers.” These individuals hold faculty positions at academic medical centers in which they are conducting clinical and translational research; 6 of the 95 are faculty at academic medical centers but are not conducting research. 3 of the 95 (3%) are established leaders in the biologics/ pharmaceutical industry; 37 of the 95 (39%) are in private practice (including 2 that indicated they are also conducting research); and one individual is focusing on a non-medical writing career. Of the 310 participants who have completed CRTP, 274 have successfully matched in a total of 21 different subspecialty training areas with internal medicine, pediatrics, dermatology and radiology being the four most common primary residencies. 19 CRTP alumni (6%) have returned to the NIH intramural program for subspecialty clinical training. In September 2012, a new Medical Research Scholars Program at NIH, modeled with elements of the CRTP and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute-NIH Research Scholars Program, will enroll its first class.

Travel & Lodging

Our Location

The New York Academy of Sciences

7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street, 40th floor
New York, NY 10007-2157
212.298.8600

Directions to the Academy

Hotels Near 7 World Trade Center

Recommended partner hotel

Club Quarters, World Trade Center
140 Washington Street
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 212.577.1133

The New York Academy of Sciences is a member of the Club Quarters network, which offers significant savings on hotel reservations to member organizations. Located opposite Memorial Plaza on the south side of the World Trade Center, Club Quarters, World Trade Center is just a short walk to the Academy.

Use Club Quarters Reservation Password NYAS to reserve your discounted accommodations online.

Other nearby hotels

Millenium Hilton

212.693.2001

Marriott Financial Center

212.385.4900

Club Quarters, Wall Street

212.269.6400

Eurostars Wall Street Hotel

212.742.0003

Gild Hall, Financial District

212.232.7700

Wall Street Inn

212.747.1500

Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park

212.344.0800