No abstract

BackgroundClinician-scientists play an important role in translating between research and clinical practice. Significant concerns about a decline in their numbers have been raised. Potential barriers for career entry and progress are explored in this study.MethodsCase-study research methods were used to identify barriers perceived by clinician-scientists and their research teams in two Canadian laboratories. These perceptions were then compared against statistical analysis of data from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) databases on grant and award performance of clinician-scientists and non-clinical PhDs for fiscal years 2000 to 2008.ResultsThree main barriers were identified through qualitative analysis: research training, research salaries, and research grants. We then looked for evidence of these barriers in the Canada-wide statistical dataset for our study period. Clinician-scientists had a small but statistically significant higher mean number of degrees (3.3) than non-clinical scientists (3.2), potentially confirming the perception of longer training times. But evidence of the other two barriers was equivocal. For example, while overall growth in salary awards was minimal, awards to clinician-scientists increased by 45% compared to 6.3% for non-clinical PhDs. Similarly, in terms of research funding, awards to clinician-scientists increased by more than 25% compared with 5% for non-clinical PhDs. However, clinician-scientist-led grants funded under CIHR's Clinical thematic area decreased significantly from 61% to 51% (p-value<0.001) suggesting that clinician-scientists may be shifting their attention to other research domains.ConclusionWhile clinician-scientists continue to perceive barriers to career entry and progress, quantitative results suggest improvements over the last decade. Clinician-scientists are awarded an increasing proportion of CIHR research grants and salary awards. Given the translational importance of this group, however, it may be prudent to adopt specific policy and funding incentives to ensure the ongoing viability of the career path.

No abstract

The article examines convergence and divergence in national science policy frameworks over the past two decades. A comparative framework contrasts policy development in Canada and the USA, using the commercialisation of university research as a paradigm case. General indicators of Canadian and US R&D activities are compared to those of other G7 nations, and outcomes of university commercialisation activities are compared between the two countries.Historically, each country approached the policy mandate from different directions. The USA adopted a regulatory framework, while Canada took a more laissez-faire approach. An examination of policy content and instruments for the period 1979-1999 indicates that the two models appear equally effective in inducing universities to commercialise. This being the case, the article addresses three key policy questions through an analysis of the interplay of interests, institutions, ideas, and international organisations. First, where did policies promoting the commercialisation of university research originate? Second, why did Canada and the USA adopt different instruments to achieve similar policy goals? Third, after 20 years on a parallel path why is Canada now open to the US model?In terms of the first question, it appears that convergence on a policy of commercialising university research was strongly influenced by the international policy discourse. As to the second question, the paper points to the institutional differences between the two countries as a source of divergence. Regarding the third question, the paper suggests that the potential adoption of the US model is evidence that Canadian 'competitiveness coalitions' have now caught up with their US counterparts.

No abstract