3 results
3292 Duke Integrated Physician-Scientist Development
- Stephanie A. Freel, Michael Gunn, Andrew Alspaugh, Gowthami Arepally, Gerard Blobe, Jillian Hurst, Maria Price-Rapoza, Ashley Grantham, Laura J. Fish, Rasheed Gbadagesin, Sallie Permar
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 67-68
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.
Radiation-induced alcohol dehydrogenase mutants in maize following allyl alcohol selection of pollen
- Michael Freeling, David S. K. Cheng
-
- Journal:
- Genetical Research / Volume 31 / Issue 2 / April 1978
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 April 2009, pp. 107-129
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
The alcohol dehydrogenase-1 gene in maize presents advantages for mutational analysis. Foremost among these is the ability to chemically select ADH-negative and ADH-low gametophytes owing to their resistance to allyl alcohol vapour. Immature tassels were irradiated with either 220 kV X-rays or 400 MeV/amu accelerated neon-ions; spontaneous mutants were also selected and recovered. RBE for neon-20 was about 5. A total of 70 presumptive mutants were placed into one of four classes on the basis of allozyme profiles following electrophoresis and ADH staining: (A) dysfunction, (B) underproducer, (C) overproducer, and (D) up-Adh2 gene. Mutants have been recovered and confirmed in the first three classes. These include two male-transmissible deletion-type lesions induced by X-rays, five underproducer transpositions and one overproducer transposition induced by neon-20. Certain of the neoninduced alleles are unstable in their expression. All 70 mutants are chromosomal aberrations; no intragenic lesions were recovered although our experimental design would have preferentially recovered them if they had occurred.
The Discussion considers the mutagenic action of ionizing radiation, and especially the well-documented differences between maize and Drosophila data. In particular, the effect of these chromosome derangements on the ‘programmable’ component(s) of the Adhl cistron is discussed.
Genetic Evidence and the Origin of Maize
- Jeff Bennetzen, Edward Buckler, Vicki Chandler, John Doebley, Jane Dorweiler, Brandon Gaut, Michael Freeling, Sarah Hake, Elizabeth Kellogg, R. Scott Poethig, Virginia Walbot, Susan Wessler
-
- Journal:
- Latin American Antiquity / Volume 12 / Issue 1 / March 2001
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 84-86
- Print publication:
- March 2001
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The origin of maize has been a topic of interest to both biologists and archaeologists. During the twentieth century, the view point that maize is a domesticated form of teosinte received convincing support from biological data and is now broadly accepted among biologists familiar with the issues and data. There is no support of any kind for an alternative view that maize is a hybrid of the grasses Zea diploperennis and Tripsacum.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)