Formal training in research...my two cents.

I started doing clinical research projects as a medical students close to 10 years ago.  A few years ago, I signed up for UCLA NIH funded Clinical and Translational Science Institute Track 2 program (formerly called K30 program). CTSI is a NIH funded institutional grant awarded to UCLA and UCLA-partners (Cedar Sinai, Harbor-UCLA, Charles Drew). It basically gives UCLA a ton of money to promote internal programs (didactics and grant based) to promote and expedite translational research. Its motto is "to accelerate discoveries towards better health". One of these programs is a didactics program for medical doctors, like myself. The certificate based program consisted of a curriculum of statistics courses, clinical methods and trials, etc for the participant to complete. Serendipitously, I was able to participate in this program a few years ago. I took about 4 advanced statistics classes (including a regression course which was the most helpful component of the curriculum of me), and completed a bunch of other requirements. Compared to the pre-K30 time, I've probably co-authored twice as many papers in half the amount of time. Any investor would agree that the K30 program was definitely worth the time! In fact, I would almost go ahead and state that augmenting my clinical research skills with the K30 program has been the most important thing I've done to help me succeed in clinical research. Obviously, NIH agrees since it spends millions of dollars funding these programs! We hear about how tough it is to win NIH grants, and it's feels good to know that some of the tax payers dollars are reaching aspiring clinical-scientist, like me.

Advantages of this program  are the following:

• participants can do their residency/fellowship concurrently (with the approval of the chair).
• the curriculum is very high yield; 80% of the material is highly applicable even if you're not  going to be a die hard clinical scientist.
• It's Free! (Thank you taxpayers.)

When I first started the program, one of the 2nd year participant told me to take the advance regression statistic classes and really learn the materials. I spent close to 14-16 hours on the weekends doing homework (seriously!). It was painful but in retrospect, I'm only as productive as I am because I did my time on my homework.  Basically, getting most out of the program takes a lot time but if you have the resources (and support of the higher ups), then I think you save so many more hours in the future (because you're a lot more efficient and faster!).  It's a gift that keeps on giving.  Because of this training, I'm able to help my colleagues with their project design and analysis.  :)

Women in Science Special by Nature

I read this Nature series on Women in Science and it's worth reading and re-reading. It's inevitable to get frustrated and let innocuous issues keep us from seeing the bigger picture. The article states some of the challenges that sets women back in science. Of course, the number one issue is childcare. There is not a good answer and I think many of us handle it very differently depending on our resources and circumstances. I used to get upset to learn about physician mothers who chose part-time practice to take care of their children...I though how sexist was this? Why doesn't the husband do that? But, now I understand. Our values and priorities change with children and success is measured very differently. Parents understand this very well even if the rest of the world doesn't.

For the rest of us who are fortunate to have support and resources to allow us to continue to pursue professional success, I think the Nature articles articulate methods to help us do that. Here are some particularly great insights from this article and others that I've read that I thought were valuable for me:

• Start a blog. This is a great way to get your research out and reach the larger population. I also found out that blogging helped me other skills like learning how to create websites, and becoming familiar with PC casting, etc. 
• Network: I didn't realize the how true this statement is: "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". As I highlighted in another blog,  collaboration is crucial to achieve greater heights. More importantly, I learn from my colleagues and that makes me better. Partnership can definitely be a win-win. 
• Hold tight: I get inpatient sometimes and holding tight is very hard for me to do at times. But, the skill to hold tight in high pressure moments and stressful periods will keep us from committing unintentional but significant errors. Truthfully, I'm still learning but time and experience help.
• Produce quality: this is a given but it easy to take short cuts especially when we're tired. Honestly, I have been distracted from working towards this at times. It's hard to see this as one of the most important habits we can develop especially when we have competing interests like research, teaching, etc. However, quality is the foundation of success and as I've seen, there is no short cut. It seems to require recognizing weaknesses and then, going through active cycles of self improvement process to get better. Being open and seeking feedback is one effective way to do this.

A Piece Of My Mind: Research & Development

I have been doing clinical research for about 10 years now and I think it's a lot of fun and as Leo Rigler puts it in his article, A Half Century of Radiology, it's exciting to see your name published. But, is there something more we can do other than publish? How do have the greatest impact on our society? Is there an effective strategy or path for radiologists and the like to make significantly more positive change? It's possible my colleagues in Engineering and Computer Science have already answered these questions sometime ago. But, I have been thinking more and more about medical doctors participating in research and development. I think my background in clinical research sets a great foundation to start on this path; moreover, I can offer clinical insights for my engineering

In fact, I found out recently from my colleague, +Nita Nayak, that UCLA offers a MedTech Innovation Program for physicians to do exactly this: to work in a collaborative team to develop and innovate medical devices (this is another reason why I love UCLA). Over a course of two quarters, the student learns about technological development and then, work with a multi-disciplinary team of engineers, design artists, physicians, etc to create a product. Once the product is developed, the program will help fund and file a patent. This whole process can take less than a year (compared to my clinical research project which averages closer to 4 years (range of 2-5 years)!

I don't have answers to my questions yet but I think others (including UCLA Business of Science Center) are ahead of me in trying to address this question by offering programs to facilitate physicians to participate in technological innovations. I'm looking forward to this.