- Email: [email protected]
A model for motivating PharmD students to pursue a PhD degree
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
A model for motivating PharmD students to pursue a PhD degree Matthew L. Banks, PharmD, PhDa, Kevin Haynes, PharmD, MSCEb, Jon E. Sprague, PhDc,* b
a Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA c Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH
Abstract Objective: To evaluate a mechanism designed to encourage pharmacy students to purse a PhD degree. Design: A model in use at Ohio Northern University (ONU)’s College of Pharmacy is described and provides research experiences and motivation for pharmacy students to pursue a PhD degree. The model described establishes a method for the recruitment and funding of undergraduate and pharmacy research students in a pharmacology laboratory. Assessment: Since 1997, the pharmacology laboratory has trained approximately 30 undergraduate and pharmacy students. These students have participated in research projects that led to more than 20 peer-reviewed publications. Former students from the laboratory were asked to fill out a web-based questionnaire of their research experience and its impact on career decisions. All respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the research experience aided in the learning of lecture material and in obtaining critical thinking skills in the practice of pharmacy. Furthermore, four of the students have earned a PhD degree and 10 students have other advanced degrees (e.g., MD, MSc). Conclusions: Although this model has been successfully used to encourage PharmD students to pursue a PhD degree in biomedical research, it can also be applied to any pharmacy discipline that offers a PhD degree program. Moreover, this model provides a template for encouraging pharmacy students to participate in biomedical research at liberal arts institutions with a primarily teaching focus. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Undergraduate research; Pharmacy school; PhD; Mentoring
Introduction The benefits of undergraduate research opportunities have been the topic of recent discussion in several prominent journals such as Science and The Chronicle of Higher Education.1,2 Some envision undergraduate research as an opportunity to “win the battle for students’ hearts and minds.”3 If research opportunities are the “weapon of choice”5 for this battle, what is the most efficient and ef-
* Corresponding author. Jon E. Sprague, PhD, Professor of Pharmacology and Dean, Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, 525 South Main St., Ada, OH 45810. E-mail address: [email protected].
fective method to ensure that both the student and faculty member experience a positive and productive research program? We propose, as one method, a research experience using the model described here. For the basis of this article, we describe an undergraduate research experience that includes both pharmacy and nonpharmacy majors at Ohio Northern University (ONU). The Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) degree is a 0- to 6-year base program, with students directly admitted into the College of Pharmacy as freshman, which is not typical for most pharmacy programs. Although the model we propose would certainly need to be modified to fit each institution, the core principles of the research experience should have broad applicability to any pharmacy discipline that offers a graduate degree.
1877-1297/09/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2009.10.008
94
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
Pharmacy school graduates are afforded a unique and diverse perspective on the fundamental principles of pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, and pharmaceutics and the application of these principles to effective disease state management. For quite some time, the pharmacy academy has been concerned with who will teach these basic science disciplines in the future. One reason for this concern may be the current lack of qualified faculty at pharmacy colleges. The most recent American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) institutional brief report estimated a shortage of more than 400 pharmacy faculty positions for the 2007– 08 academic year.4 Faculty positions in pharmaceutical sciences account for 28.3% of all vacant, nonshared positions.4 Moreover, 47.4% of all vacant positions went unfilled because of an insufficient number of qualified candidates.4 This shortage is likely to not only be the result of an ever increasing number of pharmacy schools and the corresponding need for additional pharmacy faculty, but may also be the result of a larger percentage (16.1%) of faculty that are retiring.4 This deficiency in the number of faculty with appropriate credentials has led the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) to call for pharmacy schools to increase exposure of professional pharmacy students to research.5 To quote the president of AAPS, Gene Fiese5: “Who is training the future pharmaceutical scientists?” What can pharmacy schools do to ensure that the next generation of pharmaceutical scientists and pharmacists are trained properly? Using the model described here, we propose that one solution is to make research experiences available to pharmacy students. According to a recent study, an undergraduate research experience can increase a student’s interest in a science-related career by at least 68%.1 In theory, pharmacy school graduates who enter graduate school should possess a better appreciation and understanding of the clinical implications of pharmaceutical and biomedical research than a nonpharmacy graduate student. The PharmD/PhD degree combination provides a potential future faculty member with a unique clinical perspective when teaching basic science principles to professional students (e.g., MD, PharmD, BSN). There is clearly a need in pharmacy schools for faculty members with both professional (PharmD) and graduate (PhD) credentials.6 What are the potential barriers that prevent pharmacy graduates from pursuing advanced degrees in the pharmaceutical or biomedical sciences? One such barrier may simply be implementation of the entry-level PharmD degree. Although the transition to the all-PharmD degree may have enhanced the clinical practice of pharmacy, it may have inadvertently deterred pharmacy graduates from pursuing advanced training in the basic sciences. In fact, recent commentaries about the decline in the amount of science-based pharmacy education and the potential consequences have been published.7,8 It has been suggested that the increase in emphasis on experiential training comes at the expense of basic science education.7 A reduction in exposure to sciences fundamental to the practice of pharmacy may have a direct impact on pharmacy students interest in pursuing research opportunities.
Attending school for 6-plus years for a PharmD followed by an additional 4-plus years for a PhD represents both a significant time and financial commitment. In response to this large time commitment, institutions have begun to offer dual PharmD/PhD programs that are based on the MD/PhD model. For example, the dual PharmD/PhD program at the University of Tennessee had a 70% “satisfaction” rating by the students.9 A recent study estimated that approximately 50 students have graduated from PharmD/PhD and clinical pharmaceutical science programs over the past five years, with approximately 50% pursuing a faculty or postdoctoral position.10 In an attempt to ease the financial burden on the students, several schools of pharmacy that offer dual PharmD/PhD programs provide financial incentives in the form of reduced tuition or teaching/graduate assistant programs.11,12 The difference between the starting salaries of the practicing pharmacist and faculty may further bias a student’s decision. The 2008 – 09 AACP faculty report estimated that the average salary for an assistant professor with a PhD with an academic-year appointment was $84,632, much less than a starting pharmacist’s salary of approximately $112,000.13,14 The cost of pursuing an advanced graduate degree for a PharmD student may also represent a significant financial barrier. The National Institutes of Health’s recommended stipend for a predoctoral student is $20,976 and for a postdoctoral fellow with zero years of experience is $37,368.15 Faculty mentors typically engage in discussions with students related to this financial burden and in the process provide insights gained during the research experience, the intangible benefits of earning a PhD degree, as well as “the perks” of being a faculty member at an academic institution. One additional barrier could simply be the lack of exposure to research opportunities. Given the typical time intensive teaching requirements at most pharmacy schools within liberal art universities (e.g., ONU), faculty have difficulty finding sufficient dedicated time to conduct experiments, write grant proposals, and author manuscripts while maintaining their teaching responsibilities. In addition, some have questioned whether undergraduate students are capable of conducting meaningful research suitable for publication.3 The following model demonstrates the success of exposing undergraduate and professional pharmacy students to research projects. This model has stimulated and motivated students to continue their education beyond the entry-level PharmD.
ONU model The authors propose that pharmacy student-directed research affords the unique opportunity to engage students in the scientific method and research process while reinforcing the content areas delivered during didactic lectures. Exposure to and participation in research aids in the development of critical skills that every pharmacist should have (e.g., the ability to search the literature, analyze published data, create
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
and deliver effective written and oral presentations). We have found that pharmacy student participation in research can certainly be viewed as more than stereotypical “cheap labor” and may in fact result in a significant contribution toward research manuscripts publishable in peer-reviewed journals. The primary responsibility for participating faculty is to commit fully to incorporating the students into their research program. As described here, our model provides experience in the scientific method, data analysis, and written and oral communication skills through activities including, but not limited to manuscript writing, creation of poster presentations, and participation in seminars and journal clubs. Inclusion of pharmacy students in biomedical and pharmaceutical research allows for a unique opportunity for the students to apply the content taught in didactic lectures. Students can, for example, experience “hands-on” the principles of drug effects discussed in pharmacology lectures. The authors are certainly not proposing that every pharmacy student participate in a research experience, but rather that faculty cultivate and nurture those students who have demonstrated an innate interest in research and/or demonstrate the characteristics of a researcher (e.g., creative, inquisitive, curious, forward-thinking). Research project schedule Although the academic year is used to identify and assess a student’s interest, as well as for project and funding proposal development, most research projects are conducted at the College of Pharmacy during the summer session, allowing an intensive three-month experience. Academic year research schedule At ONU, a research elective (Research in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences 565; 2 credit hours) was implemented as an incentive for students to obtain research experience. During the academic year, students and faculty have limited time for bench-based research. Thus, a systematic approach is used when a student expresses a desire to participate in research. Initially, the student (typically in their first through fourth collegiate years) is assigned 3 to 4 scientific articles relevant to the research focus of the laboratory. They are provided a brief tutorial on the format of research articles and how to approach reading/evaluating a research article. The student is asked to return to the faculty member to discuss these manuscripts. The interest level of the student is assessed based on the following criteria: 1. How soon does the student make an appointment and return to discuss the articles? 2. Does the mentor have to contact the student for follow up? 3. What is the depth of understanding and the number of questions posed by the student? 4. Can the student identify strengths/weaknesses of the manuscript and/or the research?
95
Table 1 Research funding sources Ohio Northern University Internal Grant Pfizer Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education Gateway Undergraduate Research Merck Undergraduate Research Fellowship American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics SURF American Federation for Aging Research Grant National Institutes of Health, Academic Research Enhancement Award, (AREA) National Institutes of Health, National Research Service Award fellowship mechanisms for dual PharmD/PhD candidates
5. Can the student suggest or identify future experiments to perform to answer the research questions posed in the articles? (Although this question may be a little premature, this aspect provides insight as to how much time the student has spent reading, thinking, and reflecting about the research articles assigned and thus his/her commitment to pursue a research experience.) Once a motivated and committed student is identified, the student spends a few days per week in the laboratory “shadowing” an upperclassman. The mentor meets with the student on a weekly basis to develop a potential hypothesis to be tested. Although the mentor should have a skeleton proposal already formulated, he/she will need to work with the student to begin to build the student’s knowledge base on the topic area. In addition, the student and the mentor work collaboratively to identify funding sources for research stipends (Table 1) to support the student’s research activity. The burden of responsibility is then on the student to begin the writing process. The student and mentor work closely in editing and modifying the proposal. Most proposals are due in the early spring (typically late January to early March); thus, from the beginning of the fall quarter to the beginning of the spring quarter, the entire research efforts of the new student are in background development and writing. While the proposal is under review, the student has the opportunity to work in the laboratory to learn manipulative skills and methods. Summer research schedule During the first week in the laboratory, the student is required to prepare a presentation to the laboratory group explaining the rationale of the project (Table 2). Journal clubs are held on a weekly basis for students to present important articles (initially selected by the mentor) related to their specific research project. Senior research students in the laboratory serve as mentors to junior students and assist them in development of their journal club presentations. Depending on the interest level, aptitude and academic timeline of the student, the student, and advisor may choose
96
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
Table 2 Timeline of summer research project Week
Goals/activities
Ongoing activities
1
Presentation of research project to lab group Set expectations for research and responsibilities
2 3 4 5
Students rotate presenting at weekly journal clubs (PI should select article)
Weekly meetings with mentor to discuss results, upcoming experiments and future directions. Mentor Goals: 1. Nurture and instill confidence 2. Challenge the student intellectually. Writing/revising Introduction and Methods section of research in manuscript format
Midpoint presentation of results to lab group and discussion Students rotate presenting at weekly journal clubs (student should select article from his/her reading)
Writing/revising Results and Discussion section of research in manuscript format
6 7 8 9
Formal presentation of research project to pharmacy faculty and finish writing up research in manuscript format
to continue the research and training into the subsequent fall quarter and/or summer. One advantage of the zero to 6-year pharmacy program is that it allows for interested and motivated students to participate in several summer research experiences before graduation. For exceptional students who are interested in pursuing an advanced degree, ONU developed a research thesis option in 2003 for pharmacy students to write and present a formal thesis proposal as a component of their PharmD degree. To date, three students have completed a formal thesis as part of their PharmD education. Because of the clinical orientation of the PharmD degree, this research-oriented thesis allows the PharmD graduate to be more competitive when applying to graduate schools. Outcomes and discussion The model of pharmacy student-directed research experiences described here has been successful in introducing students to biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences research. To date, from this laboratory four students have earned PhDs, with several students currently in graduate school. Ten additional students have earned other advanced degrees (e.g., MD, DO, MSc). Of note, these students have been co-authors on more than 20 peer-reviewed primary research papers, refuting the belief that undergraduates cannot participate in meaningful and publishable research.3 To quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the model described here, the authors surveyed former pharmacy students about their research experiences. The University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board approved the survey method proposed (protocol number 807257). Of the 29 former students sampled, 76% completed the web-based survey. A 5-point Likert scale was used with strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). For the statement “I had own-
ership in the research experiments conducted in the laboratory,” a median rating of 4 (range 3–5) was calculated. The statement “The research experience in the lab helped in learning lecture material” had a median rating of 5 (range 4 –5). The statement “The research experience helped in obtaining clinical critical thinking skills in the practice of pharmacy” had a median rating of 5 (range 2–5). The results suggest a ceiling effect that indicates that those surveyed agreed strongly with the statements. More than 90% of the respondents considered pursing an advanced degree (e.g., PhD, masters) after their research experience. Those who did not consider earning an advanced degree stated a clinical professional direction as their main reason. Of the 20 former students that completed the survey and considered earning an advanced degree, nine completed a program (2 PhD, 2 MD, 2 masters, 2 PharmD, 1 JD). Those who earned their PharmD degree indicated they were originally in baccalaureate programs during the laboratory experience. These outcomes support the statements regarding the aims of the research experience to advance professional independence, to strengthen material learned from lecture, and to develop valuable critical thinking skills within the profession. The research experience has the ability to stimulate thought in pursuing advanced skill development within the profession. Although the authors did not survey students who did not enroll in this research experience, the model appears to have had success in motivating students to advance their skill development and training beyond PharmD graduation. Forty-five percent of those students that have gone through this program have completed advance degree programs. Summary and conclusions To answer the question posed by AAPS President Gene Fiese—“Who is training the future pharmaceutical scien-
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97 Table 3 Key faculty consideration and implementation points 1. Students are treated as true collaborators on the project and not “just another pair of hands.” 2. Students are given ownership of the project. 3. Mentoring undergraduate students should be thought of as “coaching” and provides an invaluable opportunity to teach and apply didactic material outside the classroom. 4. Undergraduate research experiences are capable of producing peer-reviewed publishable results. 5. ONU has a unique zero- to 6-year program and the model/ timeline described may have to be modified to fit the curriculum for one’s specific institution.
tists?”—the authors suggest that pharmacy schools should answer the challenge due to their ability and responsibility to support and encourage biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences research opportunities. Most PharmD students are not fully aware of all the career options available to them or the funding sources necessary to obtain the education/training required. The authors also believe that pharmacy schools have the responsibility to provide students with more career mentoring and options. Because a pharmacy student-directed research experience can increase a student’s interest in a science-related career by at least 68%,1 the authors encourage other schools of pharmacy to develop initiatives and funding mechanisms that include recommendations on how to engage pharmacy students in research opportunities (Table 3). This exact sentiment has recently been reported by others.16,17 The research experience model described here has been successful in encouraging pharmacy students to consider pursuing advanced degrees. How to encourage these new PharmD-PhD candidates to return to colleges of pharmacy as faculty members is beyond the scope of this manuscript. To address the Roadmap to 2015,18 all colleges of pharmacy (new and established) need to promote and support pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences faculty to engage in research activities that allow for mentoring of pharmacy students. Acknowledgment We would like to thank Dr. Nicholas Popovich for his careful review, critique, and thoughtful suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript. References 1. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. The pipeline: benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 2007;316: 548 –9.
97
2. Guterman L. What good is undergraduate research, anyway? The Chronicle of Higher Education 2007;53:A12. 3. Hunter P. Undergraduate research. EMBO Reports 2007;8: 717–9. 4. AACP Institutional Research Brief Volume 9: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions—Academic Year 2007– 08. http://www.aacp.org/resources/research/institutionalresearch/ Documents/IRB%20No%209%20-%20Faculty%20Vacancies. pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 5. Fiese EF. Who is training the future pharmaceutical scientists? AAPS Newsmagazine. March 2007. Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 7, 70. 6. Beardsley R, Matzke GR, Rospond R, et al. Factors influencing the pharmacy faculty workforce. Am J Pharm Educ 2008;72: Article 34. 7. Skau K. Pharmacy is a science-based profession. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 11. 8. Newton DW. Science-based pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 38. 9. Gourley DR, Rowell C, Wingate L, et al. Status of PharmD/ PhD programs in colleges of pharmacy: the University of Tennessee dual PharmD/PhD program. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article 44. 10. Dowling TC, Murphy JE, Kalus JS, et al. Recommended education for pharmacists as competitive clinical scientists. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:236 – 44. 11. Virginia Commonwealth School of Pharmacy. Combined degrees program (PharmD/MS, PharmD/PhD) outline 2005–2006. Available at: http://www.pharmacy.vcu.edu/sub/prospective/combdeg/ docs/CombinedDegreeOutline12.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 12. The University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy. PharmD/PhD dual degree program: Accelerated program for the PharmD/PhD. Available at: http://utem.edu/pharmacy/PharmD_PhD.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 13. AACP Institutional Research Report Series: 2008 –9 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. http://aacp.org/resources/research/ institutionalresearch/Documents/2009_Faculty_summary %20report_private%20schools_32.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 14. Drug Topics: Salary survey: Pharmacist salaries continue to climb. March 1, 2009. http://www.modernmedicine.com/ modernmedicine/Modern⫹Medicine⫹Now/Salary-SurveyPharmacist-salaries-continue-to-clim/ArticleStandard/Article/ detail/585679. Accessed September 7, 2009. 15. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Stipend and other budgetary levels effect for fiscal year 2009. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ NOT-OD-09-075.html. Accessed September 3, 2009. 16. Ascione FJ. Research requirement for PharmD Students. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71(6):Article 115. 17. Murphy JE, Slack MK, Boesen KP, et al. Research-related coursework and research experiences in Doctor of Pharmacy programs. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 113. 18. Roche VF, Nahata MC, Wells BG, et al. Roadmap to 2015: Preparing competent pharmacists and pharmacy faculty for the future. Combined report of the 2005– 06 Argus commission and the academic affairs, professional affairs, and research and graduate affairs commission. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article S5.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
A model for motivating PharmD students to pursue a PhD degree Matthew L. Banks, PharmD, PhDa, Kevin Haynes, PharmD, MSCEb, Jon E. Sprague, PhDc,* b
a Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA c Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH
Abstract Objective: To evaluate a mechanism designed to encourage pharmacy students to purse a PhD degree. Design: A model in use at Ohio Northern University (ONU)’s College of Pharmacy is described and provides research experiences and motivation for pharmacy students to pursue a PhD degree. The model described establishes a method for the recruitment and funding of undergraduate and pharmacy research students in a pharmacology laboratory. Assessment: Since 1997, the pharmacology laboratory has trained approximately 30 undergraduate and pharmacy students. These students have participated in research projects that led to more than 20 peer-reviewed publications. Former students from the laboratory were asked to fill out a web-based questionnaire of their research experience and its impact on career decisions. All respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the research experience aided in the learning of lecture material and in obtaining critical thinking skills in the practice of pharmacy. Furthermore, four of the students have earned a PhD degree and 10 students have other advanced degrees (e.g., MD, MSc). Conclusions: Although this model has been successfully used to encourage PharmD students to pursue a PhD degree in biomedical research, it can also be applied to any pharmacy discipline that offers a PhD degree program. Moreover, this model provides a template for encouraging pharmacy students to participate in biomedical research at liberal arts institutions with a primarily teaching focus. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Undergraduate research; Pharmacy school; PhD; Mentoring
Introduction The benefits of undergraduate research opportunities have been the topic of recent discussion in several prominent journals such as Science and The Chronicle of Higher Education.1,2 Some envision undergraduate research as an opportunity to “win the battle for students’ hearts and minds.”3 If research opportunities are the “weapon of choice”5 for this battle, what is the most efficient and ef-
* Corresponding author. Jon E. Sprague, PhD, Professor of Pharmacology and Dean, Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, 525 South Main St., Ada, OH 45810. E-mail address: [email protected].
fective method to ensure that both the student and faculty member experience a positive and productive research program? We propose, as one method, a research experience using the model described here. For the basis of this article, we describe an undergraduate research experience that includes both pharmacy and nonpharmacy majors at Ohio Northern University (ONU). The Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) degree is a 0- to 6-year base program, with students directly admitted into the College of Pharmacy as freshman, which is not typical for most pharmacy programs. Although the model we propose would certainly need to be modified to fit each institution, the core principles of the research experience should have broad applicability to any pharmacy discipline that offers a graduate degree.
1877-1297/09/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2009.10.008
94
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
Pharmacy school graduates are afforded a unique and diverse perspective on the fundamental principles of pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, and pharmaceutics and the application of these principles to effective disease state management. For quite some time, the pharmacy academy has been concerned with who will teach these basic science disciplines in the future. One reason for this concern may be the current lack of qualified faculty at pharmacy colleges. The most recent American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) institutional brief report estimated a shortage of more than 400 pharmacy faculty positions for the 2007– 08 academic year.4 Faculty positions in pharmaceutical sciences account for 28.3% of all vacant, nonshared positions.4 Moreover, 47.4% of all vacant positions went unfilled because of an insufficient number of qualified candidates.4 This shortage is likely to not only be the result of an ever increasing number of pharmacy schools and the corresponding need for additional pharmacy faculty, but may also be the result of a larger percentage (16.1%) of faculty that are retiring.4 This deficiency in the number of faculty with appropriate credentials has led the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) to call for pharmacy schools to increase exposure of professional pharmacy students to research.5 To quote the president of AAPS, Gene Fiese5: “Who is training the future pharmaceutical scientists?” What can pharmacy schools do to ensure that the next generation of pharmaceutical scientists and pharmacists are trained properly? Using the model described here, we propose that one solution is to make research experiences available to pharmacy students. According to a recent study, an undergraduate research experience can increase a student’s interest in a science-related career by at least 68%.1 In theory, pharmacy school graduates who enter graduate school should possess a better appreciation and understanding of the clinical implications of pharmaceutical and biomedical research than a nonpharmacy graduate student. The PharmD/PhD degree combination provides a potential future faculty member with a unique clinical perspective when teaching basic science principles to professional students (e.g., MD, PharmD, BSN). There is clearly a need in pharmacy schools for faculty members with both professional (PharmD) and graduate (PhD) credentials.6 What are the potential barriers that prevent pharmacy graduates from pursuing advanced degrees in the pharmaceutical or biomedical sciences? One such barrier may simply be implementation of the entry-level PharmD degree. Although the transition to the all-PharmD degree may have enhanced the clinical practice of pharmacy, it may have inadvertently deterred pharmacy graduates from pursuing advanced training in the basic sciences. In fact, recent commentaries about the decline in the amount of science-based pharmacy education and the potential consequences have been published.7,8 It has been suggested that the increase in emphasis on experiential training comes at the expense of basic science education.7 A reduction in exposure to sciences fundamental to the practice of pharmacy may have a direct impact on pharmacy students interest in pursuing research opportunities.
Attending school for 6-plus years for a PharmD followed by an additional 4-plus years for a PhD represents both a significant time and financial commitment. In response to this large time commitment, institutions have begun to offer dual PharmD/PhD programs that are based on the MD/PhD model. For example, the dual PharmD/PhD program at the University of Tennessee had a 70% “satisfaction” rating by the students.9 A recent study estimated that approximately 50 students have graduated from PharmD/PhD and clinical pharmaceutical science programs over the past five years, with approximately 50% pursuing a faculty or postdoctoral position.10 In an attempt to ease the financial burden on the students, several schools of pharmacy that offer dual PharmD/PhD programs provide financial incentives in the form of reduced tuition or teaching/graduate assistant programs.11,12 The difference between the starting salaries of the practicing pharmacist and faculty may further bias a student’s decision. The 2008 – 09 AACP faculty report estimated that the average salary for an assistant professor with a PhD with an academic-year appointment was $84,632, much less than a starting pharmacist’s salary of approximately $112,000.13,14 The cost of pursuing an advanced graduate degree for a PharmD student may also represent a significant financial barrier. The National Institutes of Health’s recommended stipend for a predoctoral student is $20,976 and for a postdoctoral fellow with zero years of experience is $37,368.15 Faculty mentors typically engage in discussions with students related to this financial burden and in the process provide insights gained during the research experience, the intangible benefits of earning a PhD degree, as well as “the perks” of being a faculty member at an academic institution. One additional barrier could simply be the lack of exposure to research opportunities. Given the typical time intensive teaching requirements at most pharmacy schools within liberal art universities (e.g., ONU), faculty have difficulty finding sufficient dedicated time to conduct experiments, write grant proposals, and author manuscripts while maintaining their teaching responsibilities. In addition, some have questioned whether undergraduate students are capable of conducting meaningful research suitable for publication.3 The following model demonstrates the success of exposing undergraduate and professional pharmacy students to research projects. This model has stimulated and motivated students to continue their education beyond the entry-level PharmD.
ONU model The authors propose that pharmacy student-directed research affords the unique opportunity to engage students in the scientific method and research process while reinforcing the content areas delivered during didactic lectures. Exposure to and participation in research aids in the development of critical skills that every pharmacist should have (e.g., the ability to search the literature, analyze published data, create
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
and deliver effective written and oral presentations). We have found that pharmacy student participation in research can certainly be viewed as more than stereotypical “cheap labor” and may in fact result in a significant contribution toward research manuscripts publishable in peer-reviewed journals. The primary responsibility for participating faculty is to commit fully to incorporating the students into their research program. As described here, our model provides experience in the scientific method, data analysis, and written and oral communication skills through activities including, but not limited to manuscript writing, creation of poster presentations, and participation in seminars and journal clubs. Inclusion of pharmacy students in biomedical and pharmaceutical research allows for a unique opportunity for the students to apply the content taught in didactic lectures. Students can, for example, experience “hands-on” the principles of drug effects discussed in pharmacology lectures. The authors are certainly not proposing that every pharmacy student participate in a research experience, but rather that faculty cultivate and nurture those students who have demonstrated an innate interest in research and/or demonstrate the characteristics of a researcher (e.g., creative, inquisitive, curious, forward-thinking). Research project schedule Although the academic year is used to identify and assess a student’s interest, as well as for project and funding proposal development, most research projects are conducted at the College of Pharmacy during the summer session, allowing an intensive three-month experience. Academic year research schedule At ONU, a research elective (Research in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences 565; 2 credit hours) was implemented as an incentive for students to obtain research experience. During the academic year, students and faculty have limited time for bench-based research. Thus, a systematic approach is used when a student expresses a desire to participate in research. Initially, the student (typically in their first through fourth collegiate years) is assigned 3 to 4 scientific articles relevant to the research focus of the laboratory. They are provided a brief tutorial on the format of research articles and how to approach reading/evaluating a research article. The student is asked to return to the faculty member to discuss these manuscripts. The interest level of the student is assessed based on the following criteria: 1. How soon does the student make an appointment and return to discuss the articles? 2. Does the mentor have to contact the student for follow up? 3. What is the depth of understanding and the number of questions posed by the student? 4. Can the student identify strengths/weaknesses of the manuscript and/or the research?
95
Table 1 Research funding sources Ohio Northern University Internal Grant Pfizer Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education Gateway Undergraduate Research Merck Undergraduate Research Fellowship American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics SURF American Federation for Aging Research Grant National Institutes of Health, Academic Research Enhancement Award, (AREA) National Institutes of Health, National Research Service Award fellowship mechanisms for dual PharmD/PhD candidates
5. Can the student suggest or identify future experiments to perform to answer the research questions posed in the articles? (Although this question may be a little premature, this aspect provides insight as to how much time the student has spent reading, thinking, and reflecting about the research articles assigned and thus his/her commitment to pursue a research experience.) Once a motivated and committed student is identified, the student spends a few days per week in the laboratory “shadowing” an upperclassman. The mentor meets with the student on a weekly basis to develop a potential hypothesis to be tested. Although the mentor should have a skeleton proposal already formulated, he/she will need to work with the student to begin to build the student’s knowledge base on the topic area. In addition, the student and the mentor work collaboratively to identify funding sources for research stipends (Table 1) to support the student’s research activity. The burden of responsibility is then on the student to begin the writing process. The student and mentor work closely in editing and modifying the proposal. Most proposals are due in the early spring (typically late January to early March); thus, from the beginning of the fall quarter to the beginning of the spring quarter, the entire research efforts of the new student are in background development and writing. While the proposal is under review, the student has the opportunity to work in the laboratory to learn manipulative skills and methods. Summer research schedule During the first week in the laboratory, the student is required to prepare a presentation to the laboratory group explaining the rationale of the project (Table 2). Journal clubs are held on a weekly basis for students to present important articles (initially selected by the mentor) related to their specific research project. Senior research students in the laboratory serve as mentors to junior students and assist them in development of their journal club presentations. Depending on the interest level, aptitude and academic timeline of the student, the student, and advisor may choose
96
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97
Table 2 Timeline of summer research project Week
Goals/activities
Ongoing activities
1
Presentation of research project to lab group Set expectations for research and responsibilities
2 3 4 5
Students rotate presenting at weekly journal clubs (PI should select article)
Weekly meetings with mentor to discuss results, upcoming experiments and future directions. Mentor Goals: 1. Nurture and instill confidence 2. Challenge the student intellectually. Writing/revising Introduction and Methods section of research in manuscript format
Midpoint presentation of results to lab group and discussion Students rotate presenting at weekly journal clubs (student should select article from his/her reading)
Writing/revising Results and Discussion section of research in manuscript format
6 7 8 9
Formal presentation of research project to pharmacy faculty and finish writing up research in manuscript format
to continue the research and training into the subsequent fall quarter and/or summer. One advantage of the zero to 6-year pharmacy program is that it allows for interested and motivated students to participate in several summer research experiences before graduation. For exceptional students who are interested in pursuing an advanced degree, ONU developed a research thesis option in 2003 for pharmacy students to write and present a formal thesis proposal as a component of their PharmD degree. To date, three students have completed a formal thesis as part of their PharmD education. Because of the clinical orientation of the PharmD degree, this research-oriented thesis allows the PharmD graduate to be more competitive when applying to graduate schools. Outcomes and discussion The model of pharmacy student-directed research experiences described here has been successful in introducing students to biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences research. To date, from this laboratory four students have earned PhDs, with several students currently in graduate school. Ten additional students have earned other advanced degrees (e.g., MD, DO, MSc). Of note, these students have been co-authors on more than 20 peer-reviewed primary research papers, refuting the belief that undergraduates cannot participate in meaningful and publishable research.3 To quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the model described here, the authors surveyed former pharmacy students about their research experiences. The University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board approved the survey method proposed (protocol number 807257). Of the 29 former students sampled, 76% completed the web-based survey. A 5-point Likert scale was used with strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). For the statement “I had own-
ership in the research experiments conducted in the laboratory,” a median rating of 4 (range 3–5) was calculated. The statement “The research experience in the lab helped in learning lecture material” had a median rating of 5 (range 4 –5). The statement “The research experience helped in obtaining clinical critical thinking skills in the practice of pharmacy” had a median rating of 5 (range 2–5). The results suggest a ceiling effect that indicates that those surveyed agreed strongly with the statements. More than 90% of the respondents considered pursing an advanced degree (e.g., PhD, masters) after their research experience. Those who did not consider earning an advanced degree stated a clinical professional direction as their main reason. Of the 20 former students that completed the survey and considered earning an advanced degree, nine completed a program (2 PhD, 2 MD, 2 masters, 2 PharmD, 1 JD). Those who earned their PharmD degree indicated they were originally in baccalaureate programs during the laboratory experience. These outcomes support the statements regarding the aims of the research experience to advance professional independence, to strengthen material learned from lecture, and to develop valuable critical thinking skills within the profession. The research experience has the ability to stimulate thought in pursuing advanced skill development within the profession. Although the authors did not survey students who did not enroll in this research experience, the model appears to have had success in motivating students to advance their skill development and training beyond PharmD graduation. Forty-five percent of those students that have gone through this program have completed advance degree programs. Summary and conclusions To answer the question posed by AAPS President Gene Fiese—“Who is training the future pharmaceutical scien-
M.L. Banks et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1 (2009) 93–97 Table 3 Key faculty consideration and implementation points 1. Students are treated as true collaborators on the project and not “just another pair of hands.” 2. Students are given ownership of the project. 3. Mentoring undergraduate students should be thought of as “coaching” and provides an invaluable opportunity to teach and apply didactic material outside the classroom. 4. Undergraduate research experiences are capable of producing peer-reviewed publishable results. 5. ONU has a unique zero- to 6-year program and the model/ timeline described may have to be modified to fit the curriculum for one’s specific institution.
tists?”—the authors suggest that pharmacy schools should answer the challenge due to their ability and responsibility to support and encourage biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences research opportunities. Most PharmD students are not fully aware of all the career options available to them or the funding sources necessary to obtain the education/training required. The authors also believe that pharmacy schools have the responsibility to provide students with more career mentoring and options. Because a pharmacy student-directed research experience can increase a student’s interest in a science-related career by at least 68%,1 the authors encourage other schools of pharmacy to develop initiatives and funding mechanisms that include recommendations on how to engage pharmacy students in research opportunities (Table 3). This exact sentiment has recently been reported by others.16,17 The research experience model described here has been successful in encouraging pharmacy students to consider pursuing advanced degrees. How to encourage these new PharmD-PhD candidates to return to colleges of pharmacy as faculty members is beyond the scope of this manuscript. To address the Roadmap to 2015,18 all colleges of pharmacy (new and established) need to promote and support pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences faculty to engage in research activities that allow for mentoring of pharmacy students. Acknowledgment We would like to thank Dr. Nicholas Popovich for his careful review, critique, and thoughtful suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript. References 1. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. The pipeline: benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 2007;316: 548 –9.
97
2. Guterman L. What good is undergraduate research, anyway? The Chronicle of Higher Education 2007;53:A12. 3. Hunter P. Undergraduate research. EMBO Reports 2007;8: 717–9. 4. AACP Institutional Research Brief Volume 9: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions—Academic Year 2007– 08. http://www.aacp.org/resources/research/institutionalresearch/ Documents/IRB%20No%209%20-%20Faculty%20Vacancies. pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 5. Fiese EF. Who is training the future pharmaceutical scientists? AAPS Newsmagazine. March 2007. Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 7, 70. 6. Beardsley R, Matzke GR, Rospond R, et al. Factors influencing the pharmacy faculty workforce. Am J Pharm Educ 2008;72: Article 34. 7. Skau K. Pharmacy is a science-based profession. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 11. 8. Newton DW. Science-based pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 38. 9. Gourley DR, Rowell C, Wingate L, et al. Status of PharmD/ PhD programs in colleges of pharmacy: the University of Tennessee dual PharmD/PhD program. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article 44. 10. Dowling TC, Murphy JE, Kalus JS, et al. Recommended education for pharmacists as competitive clinical scientists. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:236 – 44. 11. Virginia Commonwealth School of Pharmacy. Combined degrees program (PharmD/MS, PharmD/PhD) outline 2005–2006. Available at: http://www.pharmacy.vcu.edu/sub/prospective/combdeg/ docs/CombinedDegreeOutline12.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 12. The University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy. PharmD/PhD dual degree program: Accelerated program for the PharmD/PhD. Available at: http://utem.edu/pharmacy/PharmD_PhD.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 13. AACP Institutional Research Report Series: 2008 –9 Profile of Pharmacy Faculty. http://aacp.org/resources/research/ institutionalresearch/Documents/2009_Faculty_summary %20report_private%20schools_32.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009. 14. Drug Topics: Salary survey: Pharmacist salaries continue to climb. March 1, 2009. http://www.modernmedicine.com/ modernmedicine/Modern⫹Medicine⫹Now/Salary-SurveyPharmacist-salaries-continue-to-clim/ArticleStandard/Article/ detail/585679. Accessed September 7, 2009. 15. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Stipend and other budgetary levels effect for fiscal year 2009. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ NOT-OD-09-075.html. Accessed September 3, 2009. 16. Ascione FJ. Research requirement for PharmD Students. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71(6):Article 115. 17. Murphy JE, Slack MK, Boesen KP, et al. Research-related coursework and research experiences in Doctor of Pharmacy programs. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 113. 18. Roche VF, Nahata MC, Wells BG, et al. Roadmap to 2015: Preparing competent pharmacists and pharmacy faculty for the future. Combined report of the 2005– 06 Argus commission and the academic affairs, professional affairs, and research and graduate affairs commission. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article S5.