To evaluate the design of I-Corps@NCATS as a translational scientist training program, we mapped specific elements of the program’s content and pedagogy to the characteristics of a translational scientist, as first defined by Gilliland et al. []: systems thinker, process innovator, boundary spanner, team player, and skilled communicator. Using a mixed-methods evaluation, we examined how the I-Corps@NCATS training program, delivered across twenty-two Clinical and Translational Science Award Hubs, impacted the development of these key translational scientist characteristics.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: The Independent Investigator Incubator program provides 1:1 mentoring from ‘super-mentors’ to enhance junior faculty careers in research. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In 2014, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) in collaboration with the Indiana CTSI established the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) Program. The I3 Program is designed to provide 1:1 mentoring for new research faculty during the crucial early years of their careers. Our goal is to provide an overview of the I3 design and 5-year data. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The I3 Program employs a resource-sharing, centralized design that provides concentrated 1:1 mentorship from a senior faculty ‘super mentor’ as well as other resources, such as grant writing support. Unlike many mentorship programs, I3 mentors closely interact with the mentees within the School and are compensated for their efforts (5% full-time equivalency per mentee, max of 15%). The number of ‘super mentors’ has grown from 6 to 15 faculty over 5 years, and mentors typically serve 4 to 5 mentees. Mentee applications are accepted on a rolling enrollment basis. The I3 mentees represent a diverse group based on sex, ethnicity, terminal degree, academic track, and discipline. Mentors and mentees have annual reviews through the program. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In five years, 110 mentees have enrolled in the I3 program. Upon entering, 53% had no external funding, 28% had internal funding, 12% had K-awards, 7% had R03/R21 awards. Over the first five years, 75% have received extramural funding. The median funding was $340,000 with nearly a third of mentees securing grants > 1 million in direct costs. For mentees who joined the program in its first three years (n=59), the average time to a notable extramural grant (defined as a NIH or foundation grant >$300K direct costs) was 2.2 years (median - 2.6 years). Nearly all mentees were satisfied with their mentor pairing based on the mentor’s ‘availability’ and ‘valuable feedback,’ and all mentees wanted the mentoring relationship to continue DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Since 2014, the I3 Program has had a positive impact on the careers of junior faculty at IUSM as determined by faculty satisfaction and funding metrics. Future focus areas will include developing criteria/models for graduating from the program to balance fiscal sustainability with mentee needs during their transition to mid-career.

This article aims to temper the fetishization of the events of 1989–1990. It explores how the historical framing of the Federal Republic transforms when 1989–1990 becomes peripheral, and argues that the force of 1989–1990 as a mythic ending relies on two interpretive paradigms: on a temporal sensibility based on a belief in the progressive development of politics and society, and on a conception of identity and difference understood in terms of a Cold War global order. The article highlights how these twentieth-century paradigms guided the historiography that made 1989–1990 the climax of the history of the Federal Republic. The precondition of any new master narrative for the Federal Republic is the recognition that these paradigms have lost their purchase. Viewed instead through the new temporal sensibility of presentism and the lateral power politics of globalization, 1989–1990 assumes a new position amid longer arcs of historical change that do not hinge on the fate of the Berlin Wall.

Dieser Aufsatz zielt darauf ab die Fetischisierung der Ereignisse von 1989–1990 abzuschwächen. In diesem Sinne wird untersucht, wie sich der historische Rahmen der Bundesrepublik verändert, wenn 1989–1990 an die Peripherie gerückt wird; dabei wird argumentiert, dass die Kraft von 1989–1990 als ein mythisches Ende auf zwei interpretativen Paradigmen beruht, nämlich zum ersten auf einer temporalen Sensibilität, die auf einem Glauben an eine fortschrittliche Entwicklung von Politik und Gesellschaft beruht, und zum zweiten auf einem Konzept von Identität und Unterschiedlichkeit, das auf der globalen Ordnung des Kalten Krieges fußt. Der Aufsatz hebt hervor, wie diese Paradigmen des 20. Jahrhunderts die Historiographie bestimmten, die 1989–1990 zum Höhepunkt der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik gestaltete. Die Vorbedingung eines jeden neuen Masternarrativs für die Bundesrepublik ist somit die Erkenntnis, dass diese Paradigmen ihre Kraft verloren haben. Wenn man 1989–1990 dagegen vom Blickwinkel der neuen temporalen Sensibilität des Presentismus und der lateralen Machtpolitik der Globalisierung betrachtet, nimmt es eine neue Position ein: eine Position inmitten längerer historischer Veränderungsprozessen, die nicht vom Schicksal der Berliner Mauer abhängen.