InvestIng In

the Future

2008 National Advisory Mental 

Health Council Workgroup on 

Research Training }
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report i

InvestIng In

the Future

Contents

I. IntroductIon 1

 A. Mission of the nIMH 1

 B. Workgroup charge 1

 c. research training and career development Programs Supported 2

 d. Workgroup Process 2

 E. overview of the report 2

II. WHo? cHArActErIStIcS of tHE futurE nIMH rESEArcH WorkforcE 4

 A. research Phenotypes of the Workforce (the three “t’s” for tomorrow’s most successful scientists) 4

 1. trans-disciplinary Scientists 4

 2. team Players in a collaborative Scientific Enterprise 5

 3. translators 5

 B. the changing culture of Science 6

 1. A culture of Sharing Information and resources 6

 2. discovery-Based Science 6

 3. Quantitative Skills 6

 c. other considerations 6

 1. Individuals from diverse Backgrounds 7

 a. the diversity of the Workforce: Issues remaining 8

 b. the nIMH and training Individuals from diverse Groups 8 

 2. Md/Phd Investigators 8

 3. International Students and Postdoctoral Scholars 10

III. HoW MAny? EnSurInG An AdEQuAtE rESEArcH WorkforcE 12

 A. fiscal context 12

 B. nIMH’s Seven-year Plan: Balancing the Pipeline and the Payline 13

 c. national research Service Award (nrSA) Programs 14

 d. Mentored career development Award (Mentored k) Programs 20

 E. other training-related Programs 20

 f. Mds and Md/Phds in nIMH-Supported training 24
ii 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

IV. WHAt WorkS? BESt PrActIcES And EVIdEncE-BASEd PrIncIPlES for rESEArcH trAInInG 25

 A. Maintain nIMH Budget for research training and career development 25

 B. Build a Strong Pipeline 25

 1. revise approach to undergraduate research training for individuals from diverse groups 26

 2. recruit and retain outstanding physician-scientists 26

 3. Include international students and postdoctoral scholars 28

 c. Mentoring Is Essential 29

 1. develop national mentoring networks 29

 2. develop an alumni network 29

 d. Expand Support for Systematic research training/Education at nIMH-Supported centers 29

 E. Implement Efforts to Span critical transition Points in the career Pipeline 30

 1. develop a match-making system 30

 2. develop a diversity training merit program to increase options 30

 f. retaining Md/Phds in Mental Health-related research 30

 1. Expand research training options during residency 31

 2. Initiate a flexible postdoctoral fellowship program for research-track residents 31

 3. develop a portable “Pioneer-like” award 31

 G. Implement Best Practices for Institutional training 31

 H. Program Assessment and Monitoring 32

 I. Strengthen dissemination and communication with the Extramural research community 32

V. SuMMAry 33

VI. rEfErEncES 34

APPEndIcES

 Appendix 1: nAMHc roster 36

 Appendix 2: Workgroup roster 38

 Appendix 3: nIMH Staff to the Workgroup 40

 Appendix 4: research training and career development Programs 41

 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 1

InvestIng In

the Future

I. Introduction

A. Mission of the NIMH

the mission of the nIMH is to transform the understanding

and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical

research, paving the way for prevention, recovery and cure. 

four strategic objectives were defined in the recently

released nIMH Strategic Plan (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/

strategic-planning-reports/):

•	 Promote discovery in the brain and behavioral sciences to

fuel research on the causes of mental disorders 

•	 chart mental illness trajectories to determine when,

where, and how to intervene 

•	 develop new and better interventions that incorporate

the diverse needs and circumstances of people with mental

illnesses 

•	 Strengthen the public health impact of nIMH-supported

research 

these objectives will guide the Institute’s priorities in the next

five years. 

the Strategic Plan acknowledged that the Institute’s success

in the long term relies upon its ability to support and train

future generations of researchers. these researchers must be

able to use emerging technologies, approaches, and methods

as the broad field of mental health research advances and

evolves. In addition, it was noted that the Institute’s research

training efforts should stimulate creativity and innovation

among the supported trainees while ensuring that they are

appropriately trained and mentored. 

In considering the Strategic Plan at its September 2007 meeting, the national Advisory Mental Health council (nAMHc ) decided that critical thinking about research training and career

development would be best addressed by obtaining input from

a workgroup. that decision led to the formation of the Workgroup on research training that was charged with providing 

 recommendations to the nAMHc. 

B. Workgroup Charge

 this council Workgroup was asked to advise the nAMHc on 

nIMH’s investment in research training and to provide strategic recommendations about how nIMH could better achieve 

its goals of recruiting, training, and retaining a workforce

capable of integrating novel technologies and approaches 

across multiple levels of analysis in its nIMH-relevant research. 

the Workgroup was charged with answering the following 

questions: 

•	 recognizing that resources to support research training 

are limited, what portion of the budget should be dedicated to research training, and how many individuals should 

nIMH support as trainees to ensure that the Institute has 

an adequate cohort of new r01 investigators? to what extent should research training be supported collaboratively 

with other Institutes, through the neuroscience Blueprint, 

or other cooperative efforts? What “best practices” for 

institutional training programs could be adopted both 

to increase the return on investment and to anticipate 

workforce needs in the next one to two decades? With 

the goal of recruiting an outstanding workforce by the 

year 2020 that can integrate novel technologies and approaches across multiple levels of analysis, what innovative strategies might nIMH use to stimulate interest in 

mental health-related research careers among individuals 

who have not yet chosen a research career path? 

•	 How can nIMH most effectively increase the diversity of its research workforce? With limited resources, 

where should nIMH place emphasis in its efforts to diversify its research workforce? Are particular funding 
2 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

mechanisms most appropriate/effective for increasing 

workforce diversity? Are new research training programs 

needed to optimally increase the diversity of the nIMH 

research workforce? How can nIMH partner with other 

Institutes, other federal agencies, and with the private 

sector/foundations to diversify the research workforce? 

•	 How can nIMH most effectively stimulate the recruitment, training, and retention of Md/Phd scientists as 

nIMH researchers? Are there unique issues that the 

Institute must address with this cohort of future investigators, e.g. a leakier pipeline or significant retention 

issues? How can nIMH partner with other Institutes, other 

federal agencies, and with the private sector/foundations 

in this endeavor? 

C. Research Training and Career Development 

Programs Supported

nIMH supports a wide array of research training, career 

development, and related programs that extend across a 

researcher’s career (see figure 1). the Institute’s efforts primarily 

support individuals during the years of pre- and postdoctoral 

training and during the transition to research independence. 

Appendix 4 provides a brief summary of each program and 

a link to the current funding opportunity announcement for 

each program. 

D. Workgroup Process

An array of information was made available to the Workgroup 

members for their review and discussion. descriptive information about the various nIMH-supported research training, 

career development, and other related programs was provided 

so that Workgroup members were knowledgeable about the 

costs of these programs and the numbers of individuals supported. related nIH roadmap (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov) 

and neuroscience Blueprint (http://neuroscienceblueprint.nih.

gov) initiatives, various publications, and past reports were 

made available through a web-based forum that facilitated 

the rapid dissemination of information. In addition, some 

outcome data for nIMH-supported institutional training 

and diversity supplement programs were presented. Program 

directors for a sample of institutional training programs 

were asked to respond to a brief set of questions concerning 

institutional training efforts, and their responses were 

provided to the Workgroup members. At the first face-to-face 

meeting, there were two invited presentations: dr. William r. 

Galey, Jr. [director of Graduate and Medical Programs, Howard 

Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)] discussed various medically 

oriented research education initiatives of the HHMI, and dr. 

olaf S. Andersen (thomas H. Meikle, Jr., Professor of Medical 

Education in the department of Physiology and Biophysics at 

the Weill Medical college of cornell university and director 

of the tri-Institutional Medical Scientist training Program) 

discussed outcome studies of Md/Phd program graduates. At 

the third face-to-face meeting, the Workgroup members had 

a roundtable discussion with six Md/Phds at various career 

stages from Md/Phd student through residency and beyond. 

the purpose of this discussion was to provide the Workgroup 

members with candid input so that they could better understand the challenges and issues this cohort of trainees faces 

early in their career. Additionally, dr. James leckman (neison Harris Professor of child Psychiatry, Psychiatry, Psychology and Pediatrics at yale university) described the psychiatry residency training program he has developed. In total, the 

Workgroup held three web-assisted conference calls and three 

face-to-face meetings between february 2008 and May 2008. 

E. Overview of the Report

this report seeks to provide recommendations that will 

enable the nIMH to develop a future research workforce 

that is equipped with the cutting-edge knowledge, skills, 

and perspectives that will facilitate their contributions to 

the research mission of the nIMH. Section II summarizes 

desirable characteristics of the future nIMH research workforce and then goes on to consider three other important issues, the diversity of the workforce with particular emphasis 

on racial and ethnic diversity, individuals holding the Md/

Phd degree, and international students and postdoctoral 

scholars. Section III presents data that both contextualizes and 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 3

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 1. Diagram Illustrating Programs Supported by the NIMH 

enumerates current support for research training and career development by the nIMH. In addition, outcome data for selected 

cohorts of nIMH-supported individuals are provided. Section 

IV outlines recommendations for future directions for nIMHsupported research training programs and initiatives. Section 

IV also outlines recommendations for program assessment and 

dissemination to the extramural research community. Section 

V provides a final summary.

the Workgroup submits these recommendations in the hope 

that developing an even stronger scientific workforce will increase the rate of innovative discoveries that will lead to improvements in the lives of those affected by mental illness and 

ultimately cures for these illnesses. 
4 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

II. Who? Characteristics of the Future NIMH Research Workforce

Who will make the breakthroughs in the next generation of 

scientists? Who will nIMH need to solve the pressing research 

questions related to mental illnesses? the workforce must be 

capable of integrating novel technologies and approaches 

across multiple levels of analysis in order to make rapid scientific advances that address the nIMH mission. 

As noted in the Introduction, the mission of the nIMH is 

broad. Hence the research questions of interest to the Institute 

are diverse, spanning human genetics, fundamental neuroscience, behavioral science, clinical and translational research, 

and services and interventions research. An equally broad 

spectrum of scientific skills will be needed to advance the mission. this breadth of research interests dictates that the nIMH 

develop a research workforce that, in aggregate, has training 

that encompasses the future needs of the Institute. Although 

a wide variety of methodological skill sets will be appropriate for nIMH-supported researchers, six features transcend 

the specific methodologies and technical skills of the desired 

workforce: three involving the “phenotype” of the investigator 

and three recognizing the changing culture of science. 

A. Research Phenotypes of the Workforce 

(the three “T’s” for tomorrow’s most 

successful scientists) 

the Workgroup believes that a rich variety of research 

phenotypes will be needed to address the Institute’s research 

priorities and that these phenotypes are likely to change over 

time as research advances. As a result, we recommend that 

the nIMH continue to support a broad array of contemporary 

training programs across the breadth of the Institute. the Institute should, however, be mindful of the rapidly changing 

research landscape so that the composition of its training 

portfolio moves with scientific advances. regardless of the 

specific scientific domains, it is likely that the future research 

workforce will need individuals who can successfully navigate 

the changing cultural and technical face of science relevant to 

the nIMH mission with ease.

1. Trans-Disciplinary Scientists

Science is increasingly multidisciplinary and “interdisciplinary.” 

for the purposes of this report, we will use the term “interdisciplinary” and the following definition of interdisciplinary 

research: “a mode of research by teams or individuals that 

integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, 

concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or 

bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond 

the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice” 

(national research council, 2005c). 

the increasing interdisciplinarity of the science underlying 

the nIMH mission demands that nIMH’s future workforce be 

trained with the values of interdisciplinary research in mind, 

e.g. flexibility; openness to and respect for different perspectives, scientific cultures, and languages; and willingness to 

conduct research and collaborate across traditional scientific 

silos/boundaries (see, e.g., national research council, 2005c; 

nash, 2008). 

the increasing interdisciplinarity of research pertinent to the 

nIMH mission leads to two other conclusions. first, it suggests that the nIMH needs nimble scientists who can adapt 

quickly as the technologies and knowledge base relevant to 

the nIMH mission change. Second, this interdisciplinarity 

suggests that basic scientists from many research areas and 

clinician-scientists from multiple specialties have the potential to make significant contributions to the Institute’s mission. 

As a result, it may well be more important that a physicianscientist conduct innovative research that helps the nIMH 

move its research agenda forward than the physician-scientist 

be trained in a particular clinical specialty. Similarly, nIMH 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 5

InvestIng In

the Future

may benefit from cell biologists working on fundamental aspects of transcriptional control or molecular biologists investigating genetic variation as well as looking to its historical 

base of behavioral or system-level scientists. 

2. Team Players in a Collaborative Scientific 

Enterprise

team science, i.e. science based on collaborations, is increasingly common (see, e.g., Miller, 2008) and may reflect the 

increasing complexity of the research questions posed and the 

need for diverse kinds of expertise to address the research question at hand. In fact, the increase in interdisciplinary research 

and team science may be closely linked. regardless, members 

of the future nIMH research workforce need to be comfortable working as members of teams. Institutional training programs should provide the breadth of experience and the skills 

necessary to work in broad, collaborative research teams. 

collaborative research by teams of scientists may speed 

the translation of fundamental discoveries into new 

treatments and interventions for mental disorders. the cntrIcs 

(cognitive neuroscience treatment research to Improve

cognition in Schizophrenia; e.g. carter et al. 2008) initiative 

is a recent example of a collaborative approach taken by the 

nIMH to encourage collaborations among basic, clinical and

translational researchers. 

3. Translators

In 2005, the nIMH recognized the need for institutional training programs to provide trainees with the opportunities that 

would enable them to conduct interdisciplinary research and 

to contribute to team science (see http://grants1.nih.gov/

grants/guide/notice-files/not-mh-05-001.html). It was noted 

that such training programs should provide the breadth of 

experience and the skills necessary to work in broad,

collaborative research teams. Moreover, these programs should 

provide translational education and research opportunities for 

trainees in order to facilitate their ability to integrate and 

translate findings along the basic-clinical dimension and/or the 

clinical-services dimension. these translational educational/research opportunities would be expected to have multiple benefits: 1) to help trainees contextualize their research within the 

mission of the nIMH and to be able to articulate its relationship to the Institute’s mission; 2) to increase trainees’ comfort level collaborating across disciplinary boundaries and 

working with individuals who speak different scientific languages; and 3) to foster the training of individuals who will be 

facile translators from bench to bedside to the community. the 

Workgroup recognized that there are varied ways to achieve 

these interrelated goals, and that institutions should capitalize on their strengths and unique attributes in this pursuit. 

As noted below, individuals with formal Md/Phd training may 

be particularly poised to contribute to the Institute’s mission

because of their unique training that includes both clinical and 

research skill sets. In addition, with the tools now available 

for “reverse translation,” we recognize the value of bringing 

outstanding Phds into the clinical arena. one notable effort is 

the HHMI Med into Grad initiative (http://www.hhmi.org/grants/

institutions/medintograd.html) highlighted in text Box 1. 

Text Box 1. HHMI’s Med into Grad Initiative
6 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

B. The Changing Culture of Science

As a workgroup, we recognized that one of the greatest challenges of training is acknowledging that our students and fellows will need skills and perspectives that we, as mentors, 

have never used. the information technology revolution and 

the genomic revolution are recent examples of the changing 

culture of science. But there are other, broader changes, some 

that can be identified and others that will emerge, that should 

be considered as nIMH crafts new programs for training the 

most successful scientists of the future. 

1. A Culture of Sharing Information and Resources

As the culture of science shifts to a more collaborative one, 

there has also been a shift to more open access to scientific 

tools, resources, and data. notable examples include the 

Biomedical Informatics research network (BIrn; http://www.

nbirn.net/index_ie6.shtm) that enables a collaborative scientific culture through common tools and data repositories. the 

nIH has encouraged public access to resources, tools, and data 

(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/sharing.htm) as well as publications (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/index.htm). taken together, 

these three examples underscore the cultural changes that 

are occurring in science. It will be important for the Institute 

to encourage recognition and awareness of these changes and 

to implement ongoing program assessment so that nIMHsupported training programs adapt to the changing culture of 

science and transmit these cultural values to their trainees. 

2. Discovery-Based Science

While traditional training has stressed hypothesis testing, 

some of the most important research today is discovery-based 

science. Whether it is exploring patterns of gene expression 

or screening for small molecules, discovery science looks for 

new candidates upon which to build a hypothesis. until recently, most genomic research on mental disorders has focused on fewer than 20 of the 20,000 genes in the human 

genome. over the next few years nIMH researchers will need 

to identify the roster of candidates that are most important 

for pathophysiology. therefore, the future workforce needs to 

be exposed to both discovery-driven and hypothesis-driven 

approaches and to understand the strengths and limitations 

of each approach. 

3. Quantitative Skills

technological advances have enabled scientists to expand the 

spectrum of analyses at both the microscopic and macroscopic 

levels. datasets in areas such as genomics, array electrophysiology, and imaging have grown exponentially in size. research 

conducted by teams of scientists has also contributed to the 

increasing size of datasets as investigators seek to integrate 

information across scientific domains. Interdisciplinary studies combining neuroimaging and cognitive performance, the 

connectome, and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 

that assess genetic associations with targeted phenotypes are 

just a few examples. Even the very nature of scientific approaches has evolved from the more qualitative to the more 

quantitative, with information theory being integrated into 

neuroscience research. understanding the quantitative nature 

of experimental observations requires the future workforce to 

be well versed in quantitative reasoning. In agreement with a 

recommendation of the 2005 national research council report (2005a), it will be important for the nIMH to invest in 

training programs that incorporate didactics in quantitative 

methods appropriate for their scientific domains.

C. Other Considerations

Because different individuals bring different perspectives 

and experiences to research questions, it is important that 

the nIMH train a workforce that is heterogeneous, e.g. with 

respect to gender, race/ethnicity, research focus, and those 

with or without clinical training/responsibilities. In this way, 

a broad range of perspectives is brought to and helps shape 

the research that advances the Institute’s mission. Based on 

the charge given to the Workgroup (see Section I), bringing 

individuals from diverse backgrounds and individuals with 

dual degrees (Md/Phd) into the future nIMH workforce were 

considered priorities for in-depth discussion. 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 7

InvestIng In

the Future

1. Individuals from Diverse Backgrounds

for many years nIH has encouraged the recruitment and retention of underrepresented minorities into the biomedical and 

behavioral workforce. the institutional training grant program 

(t32), through the required recruitment and retention plan, 

and the research supplement program have been two major 

vehicles for this effort at all nIH Institutes. the Institutes 

also have long supported a research supplement program for 

individuals with disabilities. the national Institute of General 

Medical Sciences (nIGMS), through its division of Minority 

opportunities in research, administers a number of research 

and research training programs aimed at increasing the diversity of the research workforce (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/

Minority/). In addition to the above-mentioned nIH-wide programs, the nIMH has uniquely contributed to increasing the 

diversity of the biomedical workforce through its career 

opportunities in research (cor) institutional training (t34) 

program for undergraduate students that began in 1979. 

In 2004, the nIH broadened its efforts and identified three 

groups in need of special recruitment and retention efforts 

in order to diversify the biomedical, behavioral, and clinical 

workforce (see PHS 398, revised 11/2007; (http://grants.nih.

gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html). 

1. Individuals from racial and ethnic groups that have been 

shown by the national Science foundation to be underrepresented in health-related sciences on a national basis (see data at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.

cfm?topId=2&SubId=27) and the national Science foundation report Women, Minorities, and Persons with disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2007, p. 262). the following racial and ethnic groups have been shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research: African Americans, 

Hispanic Americans, native Americans, Alaska natives, 

Hawaiian natives, and natives of the u.S. Pacific Islands. 

In addition, it is recognized that under-representation can 

vary from setting to setting and individuals from racial or 

ethnic groups that can be convincingly demonstrated to 

be underrepresented by the grantee institution should be 

included in the recruitment and retention plan.

2. Individuals with disabilities, who are defined as those with 

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits 

one or more major life activities.

3. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who are 

defined as:

 a. Individuals who come from a family with an annual 

income below established low-income thresholds. 

these thresholds are based on family size, published 

by the u.S. Bureau of the census; adjusted annually 

for changes in the consumer Price Index; and adjusted 

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for 

use in all health professions programs. the Secretary 

periodically publishes these income levels at http://

aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml. for individuals from 

low-income backgrounds, the institution must be able 

to demonstrate that such candidates (a) have qualified for federal disadvantaged assistance; or (b) have 

received any of the following student loans: Health 

Professional Student loans, loans for disadvantaged 

Student Program; or (c) have received scholarships 

from the u.S. department of Health and Human 

Services under the Scholarship for Individuals with 

Exceptional financial need.

 b. Individuals who come from a social, cultural, or educational environment such as that found in certain rural 

or inner-city environments that have demonstrably and 

recently directly inhibited the individual from obtaining 

the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to develop 

and participate in a research career. note, however, that 

the nIH has suggested that this group would be most 

applicable to high school and perhaps undergraduate 

candidates for support, but would be more difficult to 

justify for individuals beyond that level of achievement 

(e.g., pre- and postdoctoral candidates). 
8 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

a. The Diversity of the Workforce: Issues Remaining

Because limited descriptive data are available on educational 

levels for individuals from the three groups identified by the 

nIH to be underrepresented in the workforce, this section considers the available data on individuals from underrepresented 

racial and ethnic groups. While it is estimated that 35% of the 

k-12 school-age population are from underrepresented racial 

and ethnic groups, a decreasing percentage of these individuals progress up the educational ladder (see figure 2; chubin, 

2007). less than 6% of doctorate recipients in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (StEM) are members of 

underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. 

recent data on doctorate recipients in specific disciplines are 

in agreement with the characterization of StEM doctorates 

generally (see Hoffer et al., 2006). table 1 provides a breakdown by racial and ethnic groups for u.S. citizens receiving 

their doctorate in neuroscience, human and animal genetics, 

clinical psychology, or social work in 2005. In all four disciplines shown, 75-80% of the doctorates were awarded to 

white u.S. citizens. only nine African-Americans (1.9% of total) and 26 Hispanics (5.4% of total) received doctorates in 

neuroscience in 2005. In social work, the numbers were higher 

with 21.5% of doctorates being awarded to individuals from 

underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

these data underscore general observations about the small 

numbers of individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups who enter the StEM workforce and indicate that 

these observations are consistent across several disciplines 

from which the nIMH is likely to draw its workforce in the 

next several decades. thus the pipeline of underrepresented 

individuals who complete doctorates is far from full.

Figure 2. Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Groups across the Educational Ladder1

1

 chubin (2007). 

* the k-12 group includes non-u.S. citizens because information for this group is not available by citizenship.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 9

InvestIng In

the Future

Table 1. Doctorate Recipients (2005) in Four Selected Disciplines1

neuroscience % of total Genetics, % of total Psychology, % of total Social % of total 

neuroscience human & Genetics clinical clinical Work Social Work

animal Psych

total 

doctorate 689 287 1,158 325

recipients*

non-u.S. 

191 27.7 71 24.7 60 5.2 29 8.9 citizens

u.S. 480 69.7 206 71.8 1,035 89.4 270 83.1

citizens

total 480 206 1,035 270 u.S. citizens

American 

0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.7 4 1.5 Indian/ 

Alaska native

Asian 53 11.0 20 9.7 46 4.4 2 0.7

Black 9 1.9 7 3.4 55 5.3 35 13.0

White 372 77.5 167 81.1 809 78.2 201 74.4

Hispanic 26 5.4 5 2.4 70 6.8 19 7.0

other/

20 4.2 7 3.4 48 4.6 9 3.3 unknown race

1 Source: Survey of Earned doctorates Summary report 2005, Appendix table A-2 (Hoffer et al., 2006).

* notes: includes individuals who did not report their citizenship at the time of the doctorate. As a result, the sum of non-u.S. citizens and u.S. citizens is less than 

the total doctorate recipients for each discipline. Hispanic combines Puerto rican, Mexican & other Hispanic categories used in the Survey of Earned doctorates. 

Persons reporting Hispanic ethnicity, whether singly or in combination with another race/ethnicity, are included in the respondent-selected Hispanic ethnicity 

category. other/unknown race includes native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, respondents choosing multiple races (excluding those selecting Hispanic 

ethnicity), and respondents with unknown race/ethnicity.

b. The NIMH and Training Individuals from Diverse Groups

the nIMH has a longstanding commitment to recruit and retain in its research workforce the brightest and the best from 

the diverse fabric of u.S. society. Individuals from diverse racial 

and ethnic groups may be ideally poised to address the significant mental health disparities that exist in the u.S. Since its 

creation in 1946, the nIMH has supported a variety of funding 

mechanisms to facilitate the career development of individuals 

from underrepresented groups. that commitment is currently 

exemplified by the estimated commitment of $17 million in 
10 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

fiscal year 2007 (fy 2007) to research training of individuals 

from diverse groups (see Section III for details about programs, 

funding, and outcomes). recommendations developed by the 

Workgroup to enhance nIMH’s efforts to increase the diversity 

of its workforce are found in Section IV. 

2. MD/PhD Investigators

Much has been written about the critical role that physicianscientists play in biomedical research (see, e.g., ley and rosenberg, 2005). In the last two decades of the twentieth century, 

concern that the pipeline of physician-scientists was disappearing led to development of the nIH loan repayment Program (to decrease indebtedness of medical school graduates; 

http://www.lrp.nih.gov) and other efforts by the federal government and foundations (e.g., Burroughs Wellcome fund and 

Howard Hughes Medical Institute) to increase the number 

of physician-scientists entering the research workforce. the 

Workgroup acknowledged the complexity of the problem and 

focused their attention primarily on a subset of the physician-scientists, those with dual degrees (Md/Phd). 

It is widely believed that Md/Phd investigators bring a unique 

perspective to their research programs because of the blend 

of clinical and research perspectives honed through graduate 

and medical education, residency and fellowship. In addition, 

Md/Phd investigators may be well-trained for translational 

research careers. According to ley and rosenberg (2005), less 

than 600 individuals matriculated into an Md/Phd program 

in 2005, about 4% of the total medical student population. 

unlike the relative gender parity that exists among 

matriculants into Md degree programs, the proportion of female

students in Md/Phd degree programs has been low (Bradford 

et al., 1996; Andrews, 2002). Andrews (2002) asserts that this 

disparity reflects four concerns of young women: 1) worklife balance issues; 2) concern that they must be better than 

male counterparts to be seen as equal; 3) little encouragement given to women to become physician-scientists; and 4) 

the absence of strong role models. despite these issues, the 

number of female Md/Phd students appears to be increasing 

(see below). 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 11

InvestIng In

the Future

of postdoctoral scholars do not hold u.S. citizenship. A 2006 

national Science foundation survey estimates that 60% of 

science and engineering postdoctoral scholars are temporary residents compared with 37% in 1982 (national Science 

foundation, 2008, table 50). A comparable percentage of neuroscience postdoctoral scholars are estimated to be foreignborn (2005 AndP survey: http://www.andp.org/newsite/surveys/reports/2005/Survey05report.pdf). taken together, these 

data indicate that non-u.S. citizen scientists are a significant 

component of the current research workforce. the nIMH must 

factor this cohort into its planning as the Institute considers 

how to develop an outstanding workforce that can accomplish its mission. 

A recent national research council report on policy implications of international graduate students and postdoctoral 

scholars in the united States (2005d) reported two findings 

that are pertinent to the Workgroup’s charge. they found that 

international students and scholars have made significant contributions to u.S. science and engineering and that these individuals are integral to the scientific enterprise in our country. 

the Bridges to Independence report (national research council, 2005b) recommended that the citizenship requirement for 

national research Service Awards (nrSAs) and related postdoctoral training awards should be changed, or that alternative 

and equivalent mechanisms of support should be available to 

individuals who do not meet the citizenship criterion for nrSA 

support. the nIH roadmap (rfA-rM-04-015) and (rfA rM06-006) and neuroscience Blueprint (rfA-dA-06-011) and 

(rfA-dA-06-010) issued one-time requests for Applications 

(rfA) for interdisciplinary institutional training programs that 

would support both u.S. citizens and non-u.S. citizens in the 

same training program. these rfAs used a special mechanism, 

the t90/r90 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/t90.htm), 

that has not been broadly implemented across the nIH to date. 

It should be noted that non-u.S. citizens are eligible to apply 

for the Pathway to Independence Award (k99/r00) program 

(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-297.html), 

a relatively new program for postdoctoral scholars who have 

not yet received more than five years of postdoctoral training 

at the time of application. However, there are presently no 

nIMH-supported institutional research training funding opportunities at the predoctoral or early postdoctoral level for 

which non-u.S. citizens may compete. the Workgroup agreed 

that the nIMH should make some investment in the training 

of this component of the future workforce (see Section IV).
12 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

III. How Many? Ensuring an Adequate Research Workforce

In addition to considering who is needed in the nIMH research 

workforce and the desirable skill sets, the Workgroup was 

asked to consider how many individuals the Institute should 

train through targeted research training and career development programs in the future. nIMH supports 90–100 new r01 

principal investigators (PIs) each year. A training pipeline with 

1000 investigators delivered into the r01 applicant pool each 

year would mean that 90% could not be supported by the 

nIMH. on the other hand, a pipeline that yielded only 50-60 

new investigators each year would be insufficient. Assuming a 

success rate of at least 20% (which approximates the current 

overall success rate for nIMH grant applications), the nIMH 

would need about 500 trainees joining the applicant pool each 

year. for 500 to be completing their training, how many should 

be at each stage of the pipeline? consideration of this question 

was grounded in information about both the dollars expended 

and number of individuals supported in the institutional and 

individual research training programs supported by the nIMH. 

these data are summarized below.

As we reviewed the various programs and mechanisms, the 

Workgroup discussed the importance of looking at outcomes. 

While there are many measures of success, the Workgroup 

was cognizant of measuring outcomes relevant to the Institute’s mission. We did not have an optimal measure of 

quantifying impact on the mission, but we agreed that subsequent nIMH funding was a rough surrogate for an outcome 

relevant to the nIMH mission1

. the Workgroup recognized 

that using subsequent nIH or nIMH funding as an outcome 

measure would overlook scientists making breakthrough discoveries in industry and, of course, graduates who become 

teachers for the next generation. these individuals would be 

both successful and essential but would not be identified as a 

“success” with this outcome measure. nevertheless, the rigor 

afforded by nIH/nIMH funding records and the unambiguous 

relevance to the mission provide a useful measure for estimating the outcomes of the many training efforts supported 

by the nIMH.

A. Fiscal Context2

It may be useful to place nIMH’s support for research training 

and career development within the context of what other nIH 

Institutes and centers do. In fiscal year 2004, the nIMH was 

Table 2. Total Positions (Competing and Noncompeting) 

Starting With Year 1 of the Seven-Year Plan1

fy 

2004

fy 

2005

fy 

2006

fy 

2007

fy 

2008*

Mentored k 379 376 361 336 317*

k99 1 9 17*

career k 107 99 83 79 67*

f 312 290 268 246 246*

t 1111 1074 977 827 773*

total 1909 1839 1689 1497 1420*

% of 

Budget

10.4 10.2 9.7 8.9 8.7

*

 fy 2008 values are projections. Abbreviations: fy, fiscal year; Mentored k, 

mentored career development awards (k01, k08, k22, k23, k25); career 

k, independent career development awards (k02, k24, k05); f, individual 

fellowships (f30, f31, f32); t, institutional training grants (t32, t34). note that 

the k99 program began in fy 2006. % of Budget, % of total non-AIdS budget. 

1 data Source: nIMH Budget office, September 2008

1

 Because the nIMH shares some research interests with some other Institutes 

at the nIH, subsequent funding by another Institute may, in some cases, be 

an outcome relevant to the nIMH mission.

2

 unless otherwise noted, all budget-related information reflects only the nonAIdS portion of the nIMH budget.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 13

InvestIng In

the Future

the leader among all Institutes and centers in the percentage 

of extramural research budget spent on research training and 

career development (f, k and t) awards (see figure 3). While 

the nIH-wide average was 5.8% of the extramural research 

budget, nIMH spent 11.4% of its extramural research budget 

(non-AIdS + AIdS) on support for research training and career 

development in fiscal year 2004. 

B. NIMH’s Seven-Year Plan: Balancing the 

Pipeline and the Payline

In 2003 the nIMH carefully examined projections for its 

support of research training and career development and 

conducted a very preliminary outcomes assessment for some 

of these programs. At that time, more than 10% of the 

total nIMH budget (non-AIdS) supported research training and career development programs3

 (t, f, and k), and sustaining this effort was not feasible in the budget climate 

after the nIH doubling. Based upon fiscal projections and 

preliminary outcomes assessment, the Institute formulated a 

seven-year plan that was designed to 1) maintain support for the

research pipeline support where outcomes are better (individual fellowships); 2) reduce support where growth could not be 

sustained (ks); and 3) maintain support for a diverse workforce. 

this plan led to a decrease in the number of competing (new) 

positions awarded from fy 2003 to fy 2007 and projected 

for the current fiscal year (fy 2008) (see table 2). As a result, 

nIMH’s support for research training and career development 

programs declined from 10.4% of total non-AIdS budget in fy 

2004 to 8.9% in fy 2007. 

figure 4 depicts research training and career development support (t, f and k) as a percentage of each Ic’s 

extramural research budget for fy 2007. despite nIMH’s

planned decrease, the Institute’s support for research

training and career development in fy 2007 [10.24% of

the extramural research (AIdS + non-AIdS) budget] still 

exceeds the overall nIH average of 6.01% of the extramural 

research budget. It is also informative to compare nIMH’s 

Figure 3. NIH Context: FY 2004 Research Training and Career Funds (Fs, Ts, & Ks) as a Percent of IC Extramural 

Research Budget (including AIDS)1

1 data Source: nIMH Budget office, September 2008

3

 Appendix 4 describes each of the research training, career development, and 

related programs nIMH currently supports. 
14 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 4. NIH Context: FY 2007 Research Training and Career Funds (Fs, Ts, & Ks) as a Percent of IC Extramural Research 

Budget (including AIDS)1

1

 data Source: nIMH Budget office, September 2008

support for research training and career development with

that of three Institutes that share some research interests with

the nIMH: Eunice Kennedy Shriver national Institute of child

Health and Human development (nIcHd) averaged 8.47%,

national Institute on drug Abuse (nIdA) 7.21%, and national

Institute of neurological disorders and Stroke (nIndS) 6.00%.

While there were significant decreases in the number of positions supported across this belt-tightening period from fy

2004 to present, the success rates for fy 2007 awards are

not markedly worse than for fy 2004 awards (see table 3).

the success rate is defined as the number of funded applications divided by the number of unique applications submitted

in a given fiscal year. Importantly fy 2007 success rates for

the various research training and career development award

programs exceed that for research project grants (rPG). It

should be noted that the Institute exercised the practice of

pruning the number of trainee positions awarded to institutional training (t) programs to allow a larger number of

meritorious programs to be funded during this constrained

period. Without this practice, the fy 2007 success rate would

likely have been lower for institutional training programs. 

drilling down into the fy 2007 support for research training and career development, table 4 shows the number of 

positions and total dollars spent by program category. A total of 1497 (competing and noncompeting) positions were 

awarded. As a percentage of dollars awarded, the majority 

of funds support career development (~49% of dollars) and 

institutional training (~33% of dollars) positions. More individuals are supported on institutional training awards than 

on mentored career development awards because, on a per 

person basis, each individual career development award is 

more expensive than a position on an institutional training 

award. of the $64.7 million awarded to individual career 

development awards, most (82%) supports mentored career 

development awards (k01, k08, k22, k23, k25).

C. National Research Service Award (NRSA) 

Programs 

the nIMH supports both individual and institutional 

national research Service Award (nrSA) training programs. the

individual nrSA programs include the program for individual 

Md/Phd fellows (f30), two programs for individual predoctoral 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 15

InvestIng In

the Future

Table 3. NIMH Application Success Rates1

fy 2004 fy 2007

Mentored k 36.4% 31.5%

k99 24.2%

f 29.1% 27.4%

t 54.7% 49.2%

rPG 24.2% 22.1%

1 data are success rates for total nIMH (AIdS + non-AIdS). 

 Abbreviations: fy, fiscal year; Mentored k, mentored career development 

 awards (k01, k08, k22, k23, k25); f, individual fellowships (f30, f31,f32); 

 t, institutional training grants (t32, t34); rPG, research project grant 

 (e.g., r01, r03, r21). note that the k99 program began in fy 2006. 

 data Source: http://report.nih.gov/award/success.cfm. 

Table 4. FY 2007 Support (non-AIDS) for Training & Career 

Development1

% of total n $ (M) non-AIdS Budget

Mentored k 336 53.3 4.4

k99 9 0.7 0.06

career k 79 10.7 0.9

f 246 8.8 0.7

t 827 36.0 2.9

total 1497 109.5* 8.9*

1

 Mentored k, mentored career development awards (k01, k08, k22, k23, & 

 k25). career k, independent career development awards (k02, k24, & k05). 

 f: individual fellowships (f30, f31, & f32). t, institutional training grants 

 (t32 & t34). M, million.

* Subject to rounding error. data Source: nIMH Budget office, January 2008

fellows (f31), and the program for individual postdoctoral 

fellows (f32). the nIMH supported a total of 246 individual 

fellowships in fy 2007. of this total, 14 were f30s, 175 were 

f31s, and 57 were f32s. thus, 77% of the individual fellowships were at the predoctoral level and 23% were at the 

postdoctoral level. the institutional nrSA training programs 

include programs supporting only undergraduate students 

(t34s) as well as programs for predoctoral and/or postdoctoral 

trainees (t32s). Support for predoctoral training programs includes participation in the Jointly Sponsored Predoctoral t32 

Program in the neurosciences (http://grants.nih.gov/training/joint_predoc/jointpredoc.htm). Many, but not all, of the 

remaining predoctoral training programs support advanced 

graduate students who are conducting dissertation research 

in a focused area relevant to the mission of the nIMH. Postdoctoral institutional training programs aid the training of 

individuals with the Phd, Md, or Md/Phd degree. In fy 2007, 

nIMH awarded a total of 159 institutional training grants 

(t32 and t34) and supported a total of 827 full-time training 

positions (fttPs) on these grants at a total cost of $36 million. 

of these fttPs, 11.5% (95) were undergraduate, 43.8% (362) 

were predoctoral, 0.7% (6) were short-term summer positions 

typically for medical students, and 44.0% (364) were postdoctoral positions. It is also important to remember that many 

predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees are supported on r01 

grants and not by formal training mechanisms. Indeed, nIH 

estimates that 80% of postdoctoral scholars are supported via 

r01, rather than t32 or f32, funding. unfortunately, neither

nIH nor nIMH has outcome data or training data for those 

trainees supported via r01 funding. 

1. Outcome Data: University-Based T32s and 

Individual Fellowships

Early in 2008, the nIMH obtained outcome data for 

individuals supported on individual fellowships and on 

institutional training grants. t32 pre- and postdoctoral trainees 

and f31 and f32 fellows supported in fy 1999 and f30 fellows 

supported in fy 1997 and fy 1998 were sampled. f30 fellows 

were sampled from an earlier fiscal year than f31 fellows to 

take into consideration the required medical education component of their Md/Phd degree. the following outcomes were 
16 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 5. NRSA Outcomes: Subsequent NIH Awards1

1

 training year: fy 1999 for 487 t32 predoctoral trainees, 430 t32 postdoctoral trainees, 190 f31 fellows, and 100 f32 fellows; fy 1997 and fy 1998 for 55 f30 

fellows. 

data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc.

quantified: 1) the percentage of supported individuals who a) 

ever applied for or b) ever received individual funding from 

the nIH (figure 5) subsequent to their training support; and 

2) the percentage of supported individuals who subsequently 

a) ever applied for or b) ever received individual funding from 

the nIMH (figure 6) subsequent to their training support. In 

all cases, the period assessed was from the specified year of 

training until January 2008.4 the data show that 40-50% of 

predoctoral students supported applied for subsequent funding from the nIH; predoctoral students supported by an f31 

were somewhat more likely to apply for individual funding 

than were those supported on a t32 (see figure 5). this difference persisted when the percentages of predoctoral students 

receiving subsequent funding from the nIH were compared: 

32% of f31 fellows vs. 24% of predoctoral t32 trainees. nIH 

outcome data for postdoctoral scholars supported on f32s 

and t32s were very similar with just above 50% of the supported scholars applying for subsequent nIH support and 

about 37% of the supported scholars receiving subsequent 

funding. Similar trends were observed when nIMH-specific 

outcomes were examined (see figure 6). It thus appears that 

individuals who are more advanced in their research training

are more likely to compete for and receive subsequent support. At least at the predoctoral level, fellowship recipients 

appear more likely to receive subsequent awards than trainees on institutional training grants (see Pion, 2001). this last 

observation was confirmed in an independent sample of nIMH 

trainees who were supported during an earlier fiscal year.

2. Diversity-Focused NRSA Programs

Among the institutional and individual nrSA programs are 

nrSA programs targeted to enhance the diversity of the 

research workforce. these programs include the nIMH career opportunities in research (cor) Honors undergraduate 

research training Program (t34), the Institutional research 

training Programs: Increasing diversity (t32), and the Individual Predoctoral fellowships (f31) to Promote diversity in 

Health-related research. All of these programs are intended 

to promote diversity in nIMH-related research by supporting 

research training at the undergraduate (t34), predoctoral 

(t32 and f31), and postdoctoral (t32) levels. the longstanding nIMH t34 and diversity-focused t32 initiatives were initiated in 1979; the nIH initiated the diversity f31 program 

in 1995. 4

 unless otherwise noted, the nIH outcome data include applications and 

awards from all Institutes including the nIMH.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 17

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 6. NRSA Outcomes: Subsequent NIMH Awards1

1

 training year: fy 1999 for 487 t32 predoctoral trainees, 430 t32 postdoctoral trainees, 190 f31 fellows, and 100 f32 fellows; fy 1997 and fy 1998 for 55 f30 

fellows. 

data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc.

a. COR Program (T34)

the nIMH cor program supports research training for undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds in biomedical, 

behavioral and clinical research areas relevant to the nIMH 

mission. Specific program objectives include: 1) a program of 

didactics and mentored research experiences for trainees during their junior and senior years of undergraduate education; 

and 2) enhanced undergraduate research training curricula 

relevant to the nIMH mission. trainees receive mentoring 

at their home institution and also at the annual nIMH cor 

meeting. Allowable costs for t34 programs include standard 

nrSA categories of trainee stipends, tuition and fees, and 

trainee-related expenses, as well as trainee travel. In fy 2007, 

the nIMH spent $2.7 million to support 95 undergraduate 

trainees in 34 t34 programs. 

Outcomes. Early in 2008, the nIMH examined outcomes 

for t34 trainees who were supported during fy 1996 and 

fy 1997. this cohort graduated from college in 1996-1998 

and thus could reasonably be expected to have completed 

graduate school and begun postdoctoral training by 2008, 

ten or more years after their college graduation. In assessing 

outcomes, the nIMH asked what proportion of these trainees 

ever applied for or received any individual funding from the nIH 

or the nIMH. It was expected that this cohort of t34 trainees may have applied for and received an individual training mechanism (e.g., f31, r36 or f32), a mentored career 

development award (e.g., k01) or perhaps a research grant 

between fy 1996 and fy 2008. the data (figure 7) show that 

less than 5% of the t34 trainees supported during fy 1996 

and fy 1997 had ever applied for or received any subsequent 

nIH award from the time they were supported until January 

2008. A smaller percentage of those supported had ever applied for or received any subsequent nIMH award. 

b. Diversity-Focused Institutional Training (T32) Program

the diversity-focused t32 program offers an additional vehicle (in addition to nIMH-supported, university-based t32 

programs) to support research training of individuals from diverse groups at the pre- and postdoctoral levels. the nIMH 

currently supports both national and regional diversityfocused t32 programs. the national programs support preand postdoctoral trainees who are enrolled at and receive 

mentored research training at academic institutions 

throughout the u.S. these individuals apply to the national 

organization (American Psychological Association, American 
18 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 7. T34 Trainee Outcomes: Subsequent NIH and NIMH Awards1

1

 training year fy 1996 (86 trainees) and fy 1997 (97 trainees). 

data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc. 

Sociological Association, council on Social Work Education, 

or American Psychiatric Association) for support. the national 

organization selects and appoints the trainees to their diversityfocused t32 program. the appointed trainees obtain mentored 

training at their home institution. the regional t32 programs 

are networks of at least three academic institutions that work 

together to provide research training experiences for trainees 

who are enrolled at one of the participating institutions. Many 

of these programs provide networking and mentoring opportunities beyond the trainees’ home institutions. 

In fy 2007, nIMH supported six diversity-focused t32 programs 

with a total budget of $2.54 million and 78 full-time training 

positions. of that total, $1.7 million supported national programs and $840,522 supported regional programs. two other 

Institutes, nIndS and nIdA, provided some co-funding for this 

programmatic effort. In addition to the usual nrSA-allowable 

costs (stipends, tuition, fees and health insurance, trainee 

travel, and trainee-related expenses), the diversity-focused 

t32 program allows applicants to request additional funds in 

the trainee-related expense category up to 30% of the total 

direct costs in any year. these additional funds may support 

partial administrative assistance for program management 

and other costs necessary for implementation of the program 

(e.g., travel for advisory committee members and additional 

travel for trainees to attend specialized workshops). Because 

of these additional allowable expenses, diversity-focused 

t32 programs are more expensive on a per trainee basis than 

 university-based t32 programs. 

Outcomes. Early in 2008, the nIMH examined outcomes for 

three groups of predoctoral trainees who were supported during fy 1999: 1) those supported on diversity-focused t32s 

who are, by definition, all underrepresented minorities5

; 2) 

underrepresented minorities supported on university-based 

t32s; and 3) all university-based t32 predoctoral trainees. 

data were limited to predoctoral trainees because the number 

of postdoctoral trainees supported in fy 1999 on diversityfocused t32 programs was very small. the predoctoral cohort 

5

 In fy 1999, only underrepresented minorities were eligible to apply to these 

t32 programs.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 19

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 8. Predoctoral t32 trainee outcomes1

1

 data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc. 

could reasonably be expected to have completed graduate 

school and perhaps postdoctoral training by 2008. Again, the 

outcomes assessed were the proportion of trainees who ever 

applied for or received any individual funding from the nIH 

or the nIMH.6

 Given the amount of time elapsed since their 

support as trainees, it was expected that t32 trainees may 

have applied for and received an individual training award 

(e.g., f31, r36 or f32), a mentored career development award, 

or perhaps a research grant. the data (figure 8) show that 

24-29% of all university-based t32 predoctoral trainees and 

diversity-focused t32 predoctoral trainees supported during fy 1999 applied for an nIH award subsequent to their 

t32 support, while 13-15% of trainees supported during fy 

1999 received any subsequent nIH award. Similar to the overall trends for individuals supported on t32s and fs described 

in Section III.c.1, a smaller percentage of underrepresented 

minorities supported on either a university-based t32 or a 

diversity-focused t32 program ever applied for or received 

any subsequent nIMH award (applied for, 10-12% compared

to 18% of all university-based t32 predoctoral trainees; received, 5-7% compared to 10% of all university-based t32

predoctoral trainees). Surprising to the Workgroup was that

the additional training and mentoring opportunities provided

by the diversity-focused t32 programs did not provide any detectable added value with respect to this measured outcome.

c. Predoctoral Fellowship Program to Promote Diversity 

(F31)

the nIMH supports the nIH-wide, individual predoctoral fellowship program (f31) to promote diversity in health-related

research. Eligibility is limited to individuals from diverse

groups. In fy 2007, 17 predoctoral fellows were supported at

a total cost of $525,000. As was noted in the 2001 nAMHc

report on racial/ethnic diversity in mental health research

careers, it is not clear if the relatively small number of awards

made in response to this funding opportunity announcement

is due to applicants applying to the f31 program that does

not limit eligibility to individuals from diverse groups (PA- 6

 note that, in this case, applications to or funding from the nIMH is not included in the nIH outcome measure.
20 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 9. FY 2007 Mentored K (mK) Awards1

1 data Source: nIMH Budget office, September 2008

07-002), applicants not knowing about the f31 program to

promote diversity, or applicants not wishing to be identified as

receiving an award limited to individuals from diverse groups. 

D. Mentored Career Development Award 

(Mentored K) Programs7

In fy 2007, the nIMH supported a total of 336 mentored k

and 9 k99 awards. figure 9 illustrates the mentored k awards

by individual program. Most mentored k awardees are supported either by k01 or k23 awards. the largest percentage

of new mentored k awards in fy 2007 was for k23 awards

for mentored research training in patient-oriented research.

If we examine mentored k investigators by terminal degree

(figure 10) four observations may be made: 1) the vast majority of k01 awards are made to Phd investigators; 2) k08 awards

are relatively evenly divided among Phd (clinically trained),

Md, and Md/Phd investigators; 3) k23 awards are relatively evenly divided between Phd (clinically trained) and Md

investigators; and 4) Md/Phd investigators are most

frequently awarded k08 awards. 

In January 2008, outcomes for mentored k awardees supported in fy 1999 were examined. the outcomes assessed were the 

proportion of these individuals who ever (between fy 1999 

and January 2008) applied for or received a subsequent award 

from the nIH or the nIMH (see figure 11). Because the k23 

program was relatively new in fy 1999, most of the individuals 

had k01 and k08 awards. More than 80% of the awardees 

ever applied for a subsequent nIH award and about 70% of 

the awardees received a subsequent nIH award. the percentages are lower for subsequent nIMH awards, especially for k01 

awardees, ranging from 60% to 100% of awardees applying 

for subsequent nIMH awards and from 40 to 60% of awardees 

receiving subsequent nIMH awards. these outcomes support 

the inference drawn from the outcomes of predoctoral and 

postdoctoral nrSA trainees, viz. individuals more advanced 

in their research training are more likely to compete for and 

receive subsequent nIH awards. 

E. Other Training-Related Programs8

the nIMH supports three other programs that contribute to 

its research training mission. 

7

 refer to Appendix 4 for brief descriptions of the various mentored career 

development award programs the nIMH supports. 

8

 refer to Appendix 4 for brief descriptions of the training-related programs 

that the nIMH supports.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 21

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 10. Total Mentored K Awards by PI Terminal Degree in FY 20071

1 data Source: nIMH Budget office, January 2008

the nIMH research Education Program (r25) provides the 

opportunity for creative educational opportunities for 

individuals from the graduate to investigator career

level. In fy 2007, the nIMH supported 46 research education 

programs totaling $8.28 million. figure 12 helps describe 

these programs. Because of fiscal constraints, support for new 

programs focused on undergraduate research education efforts 

was discontinued with publication of PAr-05-153 in 2005. 

A significant number (30%) of the current r25 programs focus 

on research education opportunities during residency and are 

generally designed to prepare psychiatry residents for future 

careers as physician-scientists. one example is the “research 

1

 training year fy 1999 for 49 ko1s, 75 ko8s, and 10 k23s.

 data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc

Figure 11. Outcome Data for Mentored K Awardees1
22 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 12. NIMH (non-AIDS) Research Education Programs (FY 2007)1

1 three research education grants that the nIMH administers on behalf of the nIH neuroscience Blueprint are not included in this chart. 

data Source: nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008.

Education Program for future Physician-Scientists in child 

Psychiatry” that is led by dr. James leckman at yale university 

with support from the nIMH and the klingenstein third Generation foundation. this program provides research education and 

training opportunities for both medical students and medical 

residents interested in pursuing interdisciplinary research careers in the area of child and adolescent mental health. cuttingedge scientific short courses comprise 25% of the supported 

research education programs. Such courses offer opportunities 

for individuals to gain expertise in specific skill sets in an intensive, focused program, e.g. the annual ErP boot camp led by 

Steve luck at university of california-davis center for Mind and 

Brain for individuals interested in learning the fundamentals of 

event-related potential (ErP) research (http://erpinfo.org/bootcamp). finally, the nIMH invests in research education programs that emphasize mentoring. one example is the “Summer 

Program in neuroscience, Ethics and Survival (SPInES)” at the 

Marine Biological laboratory that drs. Joe Martinez and James 

townsel direct (http://www.mbl.edu/education/courses/special_topics/spines.html). this month-long program, targeted to 

individuals from underrepresented groups, includes mentoring, discussion of neuroscience research in seminar and 

lecture format, ethics using case studies, and professional 

development activities including public speaking and grantsmanship. Another example (see text Box 2) is the “Advanced 

research Institute in Geriatric Psychiatry” organized by 

dr. Martha Bruce (http://www.cornellpsychiatry.org/research/

ari.html). this program targets a vulnerable stage in the 

career pipeline, the transition from junior investigator to 

r01-funded investigator. through focused mentoring of

selected junior candidates, this program intends to reduce 

attrition from the pipeline and thereby increase the number 

of independent investigators in geriatric psychiatry. 

nIMH offers a two-year dissertation research award (r36) 

program to increase the diversity of the workforce. Because 

this is not an nrSA program, applicants remain eligible after 

exhausting their nrSA eligibility as a predoctoral fellow. In 

fy 2007, nIMH made two r36 awards. these data identify an 

under-utilized program for individuals from diverse groups. It 

is not clear if the small numbers of applications and awards 

reflect minimal need for such a program, a lack of awareness 

of the existence of the program among potential applicants, or 

potential applicants not wishing to be identified as receiving an 

award limited to individuals from diverse groups.

like the other Institutes, the nIMH supports the research 

supplement program to promote diversity in health-related re-
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 23

InvestIng In

the Future

Figure 13. Individuals Supported by Diversity Supplements in FY 2007 by Career Stage1

1 data Source: nIMH Budget office, January 2008. 

search. the nIMH made 46 diversity supplement awards in fy 

2007 totaling $4.15 million. figure 13 shows the distribution 

of these awards as a function of career stage. the modal award 

was made to a predoctoral candidate. 

Early in 2008, nIMH examined outcomes for diversity supplement 

recipients at the pre- and postdoctoral level who were supported 

during fiscal years 2000-2002. [Asian-Americans were not included in this analysis because this group has not been shown 

Text Box 2. Advanced Research Institute in Geriatric Mental Health (ARI) 

led by dr. Martha Bruce (Weill Medical college of cornell university), this innovative, nIMH-funded research education 

program is designed to increase the number of investigators conducting translational, intervention, and services research 

focused on geriatric mental health. the program pairs mentored k awardees and other junior investigators who have 

comparable research experience with established investigators who serve as mentors and consultants. this program has 

three goals: 1) increase the likelihood of obtaining nIH independent r01-level funding; 2) decrease the lag time between 

early career development support and independent r01-level funding; and 3) enhance the knowledge and skills in mentoring 

and other responsibilities of academic leadership. the specific components of the program include: a) sustained mentoring 

of trainees by senior program faculty; b) structured opportunities for individualized mentoring and consultation including an 

intensive, annual 3-day retreat attended by trainees, mentors, research methodologists, and nIMH program staff, small group, 

web-based work-in-progress seminars, and targeted consultation on substantive and methodological issues from senior

experts; and c) enhancing participants’ knowledge and skills in mentoring and other responsibilities of academic leadership. 

the ArI also interfaces with other early stage research education programs focused on geriatric mental health and thus 

provides continuity across different stages of the trainees’ research careers. the unique web-based technology utilized by the 

ArI allows for ongoing research education as well as ongoing mentorship, consultation, and interaction amongst peers. 
24 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

to be underrepresented in biomedical research.] As before, the 

outcomes assessed were the proportion of these individuals 

who ever (between fy 2000 and January 2008) applied for or received a subsequent individual award from the nIH or the nIMH 

(see figure 14). the data show that 28% of all supplement 

recipients applied for and 18% of all supplement 

recipients received any subsequent nIH award. A smaller 

percentage of the supplement recipients (14%) applied for 

Md degree are not eligible to apply for individual fellowships 

while individuals seeking the Md/Phd degree are eligible to 

apply for the f30 or the f31 award. In fy 2006, 6.7% of f30 

and f31 awards were made to individuals seeking the Md/Phd 

degree (18 individuals). one individual postdoctoral (f32) 

award (1.4% of f32 awards) was made to an individual with the 

Md/Phd degree and none with the Md degree in fy 2006. of 

the postdoctoral t32 trainees supported in fy 2006, 21% held 

Figure 14. Outcome Data for Pre- and Postdoctoral Diversity Supplement Recipients: Subsequent NIH and NIMH Awards1

1

 training years: fy 2000-2002 for 73 pre- and postdoctoral recipients. As noted in the text, Asian-Americans are not included in this analysis.

 data Source: nIMH office for Special Populations and nIH IMPAc II database, January 2008; analysis by nIMH oSPPc.

and received (7%) any subsequent nIMH award. It was noted

that the nIMH recently modified its management of the diversity supplement program to strongly encourage recipients to

apply for individual funding during the period of supplement

support. It is, however, still premature to assess the impact of

this change in program management on program outcomes. 

F. MDs and MD/PhDs in NIMH-Supported 

Training 

the most recent data available on Mds and Md/Phds participating in nIMH-supported training programs are summarized below. At the graduate level, individuals seeking only the

the Md or Md/Phd degree (52 Mds and 22 Md/Phds). the 

number of medically trained individuals who receive support 

from the nIMH increases at the mentored career development 

level. In fy 2007, 24.7% of the mentored career development 

awards were made to Mds and 10.8% to Md/Phds. these 

percentages are similar to the nIMH pool of research project 

grant (rPG) investigators in fy 2007: 22.5% of nIMH-funded 

principal investigators held the Md degree and 8.8% held the 

Md/Phd degree. these data suggest that the nIMH currently 

tends to invest more funds to support medically trained investigators later, rather than earlier, in their training. 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 25

InvestIng In

the Future

IV. What Works? Best Practices and Evidence-Based Principles for Research Training

the charge for this nAMHc Workgroup was broad, and included, in part, the following questions. What research education/training programs are needed to produce the types of 

investigators who will be well poised to address nIMH’s research mission in the future? What steps should be taken to 

improve the recruitment, training, and retention of specific 

trainee populations (e.g., Md/Phds and those from diverse 

groups)? Given the limited nIMH research training budget, 

what modifications to existing programs or development of 

new programs should the Institute consider to maximize its 

research training yield? from discussions of future workforce 

needs (Section II) and current programs (Section III), a number 

of cross-cutting themes emerged to inform answers to these 

questions. first, targeted and flexible funding vehicles would 

constitute an important strategy for attracting, training, and 

retaining trainees who are currently underrepresented in the 

nIMH research workforce and provide a means to accelerate 

the research career progression of the most promising junior 

investigators. Second, to increase state-of-the-art training in 

areas relevant to the nIMH mission, it is critical that research 

training experiences be conducted in research intensive 

environments. third, to maximize training experiences in 

interdisciplinary research, it is important that research 

training programs be housed in, and managed by, research intensive institutions rather than by professional scientific organizations that represent a single discipline. fourth, enhanced 

and direct efforts must be made to establish continuity 

among the various research education, training, and career

development programs so that gains made in recruitment 

and training at one stage of the research career path are 

carried forward. 

As stated earlier in this report and as reflected in nIMH’s Strategic Plan, a broad array of well-trained basic, clinical, and 

services researchers is needed to address the public health 

mission of the Institute. the remainder of this section provides 

a series of specific recommendations intended to enhance existing nIMH research training efforts and investments, and to 

develop new initiatives that address current and anticipated 

areas of need. the relatively narrow focus of these recommendations reflects the charge given to the Workgroup. However, 

we wish to acknowledge the critical contributions of, and the 

need for investment in 21st century training for, Phds who 

are likely to continue to comprise the vast majority of the 

future nIMH workforce. In order to minimize unintended consequences, it will also be important for the nIMH to weigh 

carefully changes in the mix of programs supported as the 

Institute considers implementation of our recommendations. 

A. Maintain NIMH Budget for Research 

Training and Career Development

the Workgroup was of the opinion that the magnitude (percent of Institute budget) of the nIMH’s current investment 

in research training and career development was appropriate and should not be reduced further. As a result, the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH maintain its current total 

investment in research training and career development. 

However, the Workgroup recognized that implementing the 

recommendations presented below may necessitate adjustments in the relative mix of programs that the nIMH is able 

to support in the future. care should be exercised to ensure that outstanding training programs that contribute to 

the current priorities of the nIMH are not unintentionally 

harmed in implementing our recommendations. 

B. Build a Strong Pipeline

Building and maintaining a strong pipeline of trainees who 

are focused on mental health-relevant research careers are 

critical if the nIMH is to accomplish its research mission. 

While the Workgroup acknowledged the importance of maintaining a strong pipeline of individuals with varied research 
26 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

phenotypes who can contribute to the broad research mission of the nIMH, the Workgroup identified three important 

populations, individuals from diverse backgrounds, physicianscientists, and international scholars, where it is recommended 

that the nIMH make targeted efforts. 

Recommendation B-1. Revise approach to undergraduate research training for individuals from 

diverse groups

despite the significant funds nIMH has expended over several 

decades, the pipeline of individuals from diverse backgrounds 

striving toward and becoming nIMH-funded investigators 

continues to be less than would be expected or desired (see 

Section III above; national Advisory Mental Health council 

Workgroup on racial/Ethnic diversity in research training and 

Health disparities research, 2001). this pattern is most striking 

in genetics and neuroscience, two research areas in which nIMH 

expects sustained need for skilled researchers in the future. 

the college level is one stage in the research career pipeline 

where targeted efforts need to be made to increase the pool of 

trainees from diverse backgrounds who pursue research careers 

in neuroscience. nIMH’s t34 program has supported training 

at several minority-serving institutions since 1979. the nIGMS, 

the only other nIH Institute with a substantial commitment to 

pre-baccalaureate education, supports institutional training for 

future biomedical scientists at all nIH Institutes. the nIMH t34 

program, developed when nIMH was not heavily biomedical, 

is the only program from a disease-specific Institute that targets undergraduate research training. Although the Workgroup 

clearly saw the importance of increasing the pool of trainees 

at this early stage, we also recognized that it is unrealistic 

for the nIMH to accomplish this job alone. there was general 

agreement that undergraduate students are not yet prepared 

to commit to an nIMH career path at this early stage of their 

career. therefore, any future initiative targeting undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds should be carried out in 

cooperation with either the nIGMS, which has this responsibility at the nIH, or through the nIH Blueprint for neuroscience 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 27

InvestIng In

the Future

of physician-scientists in the research workforce. While Workgroup members recognized the need for increasing scientific 

literacy during medical training, attention was focused on efforts that would increase the likelihood that the most talented 

physician-scientists would choose a mental health-related research career. two potential initiatives were recommended by 

the Workgroup to address this concern.

Initiative 1: Stimulate the interest of early-stage, researchoriented medical students who have not yet finalized their 

research field. the goal of this initiative is to pique interest 

early and build upon it to foster a commitment to a research 

career. the Workgroup suggested that the nIMH consider the 

following elements in such an initiative: a) didactic experiences 

to convey current advances in the science of mental disorders 

(e.g., structured curriculum, brain-interest groups, annual retreats); b) short-term mentored research experiences at the 

students’ home institutions, the nIMH Intramural research 

Program, or as part of other short-term, summer research programs; and c) ongoing mentoring by and networking with peers, 

Text Box 3. Perspectives of MD/PhDs 

the Workgroup members held a roundtable discussion with six Md/Phds at various career stages (from graduate school 

through residency and beyond). the purpose of this discussion was to help the Workgroup members better understand the 

challenges and issues faced by individuals during their training. the Workgroup members found the discussion informative. 

the following quotations provide a flavor of the discussion. 

concerning Md/Phd education: “I don’t remember any presentations during my medical school classes of, you know, scientific 

stories that were turned into treatment advances in mental health. And that is something we could really use...”

“...for those individuals being exposed to psychiatry there is the sense that the research isn’t integrated with that [psychiatry], 

there is the sense that we’re still back at chlorpromazine in 1952, and obviously there is more than that...but I don’t think that 

is getting communicated around the programs.”

concerning the transition from the Md/Phd to residency: “So once the Phd is completed there’s the remaining years of 

medical school, and then starting residency, you are pretty much looking at a 4-5 year absence from research...there is the 

added challenge of going to a residency program that is different from where I did the MSt [Medical Scientist training] 

program, so in other words starting up a new line of research.”

concerning residency: “...encourage residency programs to value people with that identity [as a researcher], and how to keep 

that identity from the very beginning of their residency training.”

concerning the role of mentorship in Md/Phd training: “the thing I have noticed that has allowed people to succeed in 

Md/Phd programs is essentially mentorship.”

concerning the choice of specialty: “And the reason I went into psychiatry was simply that I just enjoyed it a lot more than I 

enjoyed neurology when I did my rotation as a medical student. I found it was very creative.”

“I certainly swam against the tide...advisors said, why are you doing psychiatry? It’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of your 

brain.”

“...mental health research is not just confined to, you know, the realm of psychiatry...”

concerning the Md/Phd career path: “there is no toughest point. At each point in the pipeline there is a different type of 

hurdle to overcome...there needs to be targeted intervention at each one of those different stages.”
28 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

research track residents, and faculty. Mentored research experiences have been shown to stimulate interest in research and in 

academic medical careers (fang & Meyer, 2003; Solomon et al., 

2003). Because Md/Phds are a uniquely trained cohort of researchers, increasing the number of Md/Phd students pursuing 

mental health-relevant research careers should be prioritized 

within this initiative. text Box 3 provides selected quotations 

from Md/Phds who met with Workgroup members.

Initiative 2: Encourage curricular reform to increase the 

number of physician-scientists who subsequently conduct 

mental health-related research. Since the “biological revolution,” academic psychiatry has taken a dichotomous approach 

to the study of mind and brain: basic neuroscientific research 

has focused largely on transmitter function and, more recently, 

underlying genetic mechanisms while clinically-oriented research has taken descriptive approaches to enumeration and 

categorization of symptoms and diagnoses and their response 

to medications. the Workgroup identified a fundamental gap in 

psychiatric education at the medical school and residency level 

that neglects several decades of research in behaviorally-relevant scientific areas (e.g., systems, cognitive, and social neuroscience) as well as critically related areas such as computer science, psychometrics, and the mathematics of complex systems. 

All of these areas are central to understanding brain-behavior 

relationships, mental disorders, and translational research. 

these areas, which are among the most intellectually exciting 

in modern science and promise some of the most significant 

breakthroughs for understanding normal and abnormal behavior, remain separate from psychiatric education. 

the Workgroup made recommendations at both the medical school and residency levels in order to address this gap in 

knowledge. 

At the medical school level, the Workgroup recommends an 

initiative to stimulate medical schools to incorporate substantive exposure to systems, cognitive, and social neuroscience in 

their preclinical (didactic) training programs, including specific 

opportunities to pursue graduate training in these areas as part 

of an Md/Phd program (e.g., through formal links to appropriate departments or graduate training programs). 

At the residency level, the Workgroup recommends an initiative 

supporting training programs to institute a formal/didactic program of training in systems, cognitive, and social neuroscience 

that is enriched by exposure to relevant areas of computational 

science, and is staffed by faculty from relevant disciplines (e.g., 

cognitive science, computer science, and mathematics). 

these two recommendations could also be coordinated with 

efforts to enrich graduate education and thus enhance the 

synergy of the various training efforts. for example, nIMHsupported graduate training programs in fundamental neuroscience may benefit from the opportunity to develop courses 

in the neurobiology of mental illnesses, drug discovery, and/or 

translational research for Phd students conducting basic science research relevant to the nIMH mission. the nIH Blueprint for neuroscience research funding announcement (rfAMH-05-011 and rfA-MH-06-006) could be a model for such 

an initiative. It may also be of interest to encourage nIMHsupported institutional training programs to incorporate programmatic activities that have been developed in the HHMI 

Med into Grad programs (see text Box 1) to increase the synergy between Phd-trained scientists and trainees and investigators conducting clinical and translational research. 

Recommendation B-3. Include international 

students and postdoctoral scholars 

recognizing the number of non-u.S. citizens currently in training and historic contributions of immigrants to the nation’s 

scientific workforce, the Workgroup made two specific recommendations. first, the nIMH should encourage the nIH to reduce regulatory barriers that limit training of non-u.S. citizens 

in nIH-supported research training programs. the Bridges to 

Independence report (national research council, 2005b) made 

a similar recommendation. Second, the nIMH should make a 

strategic investment in training highly promising non-u.S. 

citizens. one possibility to consider is to invest in the train-
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 29

InvestIng In

the Future

ing of non-u.S. citizens who possess skill sets that are in short

supply within our country’s citizenry (e.g., individuals with 

strong quantitative backgrounds). 

C. Mentoring Is Essential 

Mentoring was recognized by the Workgroup as a critical element of effective research training and career development. 

Effective mentoring, which is often lacking, is one of the elements essential for the development of a successful research 

career (national research council, 1997). Because of unique 

challenges, the need for mentoring for individuals from diverse backgrounds is often heightened (national Advisory 

Mental Health council Workgroup on racial/Ethnic diversity 

in research training and Health disparities research, 2001). 

As described in Section III, nIMH currently supports a small 

number of mentoring programs which focus on trainee cohorts who are at a specific research career stage and/or who 

are working in specific research areas (see text Box 2 for one 

example). Within the context of mentoring, the Workgroup 

made two recommendations. 

Recommendation C-1. Develop national mentoring 

networks

the nIMH should expand existing, and/or initiate new, national mentoring networks for individuals from diverse backgrounds. the networks should target individuals at different 

educational and research career stages and should be tailored 

to assist at critical transition points along the career path 

(e.g., undergraduate to predoctoral, predoctoral/residency to 

postdoctoral, postdoctoral to independent investigator). the 

Workgroup also recommends that the nIMH exert active 

efforts to integrate these national mentoring networks with 

current and proposed nIMH funding vehicles for research 

training. Because of their high visibility and networking capabilities, it was also noted that national scientific professional 

organizations may be well positioned to assist in establishing 

national mentoring networks. 

Recommendation C-2. Develop an alumni network

nIMH should consider developing a network of established, 

nIMH-supported investigators and nIMH training and career 

development program alumni who are now established investigators. this network could serve as a standing resource for 

current trainees (who could then contribute to the alumni 

network once they transition to research independence). 

As with any research training and career development initiative, careful monitoring of trainees’ progress through a clearly 

defined tracking and evaluation process should be a required 

component of any mentoring initiative.

D. Expand Support for Systematic Research 

Training/Education Opportunities at NIMHSupported Centers

In fy 2007, nIMH supported 49 research centers (P50 and P20 

grants) at an annual cost of $74 million. the underlying research infrastructure and high caliber research conducted in 

nIMH-sponsored research centers provide an ideal environment for building the pipeline of individuals interested in pursuing research careers relevant to the mission of the nIMH. 

one of the current center funding announcements (PAr-07-

430; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAr-07-430.

html) allows center applicants to propose a summer undergraduate research training component that would provide 

an opportunity for students interested in interdisciplinary 

mental health-related research to participate in centersupported research. the Workgroup recommends that the 

nIMH more fully utilize its research centers Programs for 

training and education experiences for trainees. Various activities could potentially be carried out at nIMH research 

centers: 1) supporting trainees and fellows from diverse 

backgrounds as part of research teams; 2) summer undergraduate or medical student research training; 3) expanding 

the breadth of existing institutional research training programs (e.g., training opportunities, retreats, symposia, technical workshops); 4) building partnerships with scientists at 

institutions with a high percentage of individuals from diverse 

groups so as to develop an additional pipeline for these individuals; and 5) summer workshops in state-of-the-art methods and technologies used at the center to enhance their dissemination throughout the extramural research community. 
30 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

E. Implement Efforts to Span Critical 

Transition Points in the Career Pipeline

the transition points between different stages of the research 

career continuum represent windows of vulnerability where 

promising trainees may be lost, or where continued research 

progress may be delayed by lack of a flexible funding vehicle 

that would enable expeditious transitions. to address this 

concern, the Workgroup recommended that nIMH develop 

flexible funding vehicles to span these vulnerable transition 

points and, when practical, to integrate them with an nIMH 

match-making system designed to facilitate communication 

between trainees and research training program directors. In 

addition, individuals supported by flexible funding programs 

should be strongly encouraged to participate in appropriate 

national mentoring networks. the following two recommendations target the undergraduate to predoctoral and predoctoral 

to postdoctoral transitions. 

Recommendation E-1. Develop a match-making 

system 

the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH develop and 

implement a formal match-making system to assist nIMHsupported trainees as they transition across the undergraduate-to-graduate and graduate-to-postdoctoral career stages. the idea is to assist the trainee in identifying a successful 

institutional training program (or nIMH-supported center; 

see recommendation d above) that provides a scientific 

and mentoring fit with the trainee’s interests for the next 

stage of their training. Given the goal of increasing the diversity of nIMH’s research workforce, the Workgroup further 

recommends that the nIMH first develop this match-making 

system for trainees from diverse backgrounds who are supported by any nIMH-supported research training program. 

Matches would be made between these individuals and 

nIMH-supported institutional training grants, including the 

Jointly Sponsored Predoctoral t32 Program in the neurosciences. If successful, this effort could then be expanded 

to incorporate additional trainee populations and training 

programs so that more may benefit. 

Recommendation E-2. Develop a diversity training 

merit program to increase options

In conjunction with recommendation E-1, the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH develop a diversity training merit 

program for well qualified individuals from diverse groups so 

that they may be supported on an existing nIMH-funded institutional training grant, even when all the positions awarded to the t32 have been filled. the nIMH should also consider 

the advantages of expanding this recommendation to include 

short-term (e.g., summer) or year-off research training positions for medical students and residents who have a strong 

interest in a mental health-related research career.

finally, given their enthusiasm for the potential value of flexible funding vehicles, the Workgroup encourages the nIMH to 

use its creativity to identify individual funding opportunities 

that could be modified to increase their flexibility and thereby 

expand the battery of options available to help promising individuals smoothly move from one career stage to the next. 

this may be another area where public-private partnerships 

(e.g., with philanthropies) may be feasible. the Workgroup 

noted the partnerships established between the national Institute on Aging and several philanthropies to support the Paul B. 

Beeson career development Awards in Aging (rfA-AG-09-012) 

and also between the national center for complementary and 

Alternative Medicine and the Bernard osher foundation 

(PAr-07-003) and encouraged the nIMH to consider such 

partnerships to advance its research training and career 

development efforts. 

F. Retaining MD/PhDs in Mental HealthRelated Research

Md/Phds entering residency are uniquely trained and have already demonstrated a commitment to research. Arguably, this 

is the most important cohort of future investigators for nIMH. 

despite this, the Workgroup learned that few of these students 

choose psychiatry (see Section III) and that some who enter 

psychiatric residency feel little support for a research career 

(see also text Box 3).9

 the nIMH should make it a priority to 

9

 As noted in Section I, it is expected that individuals who choose training 

in various clinical specialties (e.g., pediatrics and neurology) in addition to 

psychiatry may develop research careers related to the nIMH mission. 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 31

InvestIng In

the Future

attract and retain Md/Phds whose research interests align 

with the nIMH mission. Here the Workgroup focused its attention on the residency period, a time when many competing demands (e.g., work-life balance, updating research skill 

sets, and residency training requirements) can be particularly 

challenging for Md/Phds who desire to continue their research 

during this period. 

Recommendation F-1. Expand research training 

options during residency

the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH expand its current efforts to support research training opportunities during residency (see Section III.E.). A flexible administrative 

supplement program would support Md/Phds to conduct 

research during their residencies. the goal of this program is 

to help Md/Phds move more efficiently and effectively from 

their residency to the next stage of their research careers 

by supporting protected research time during the residency. 

Md/Phd residents would conduct mentored research with 

an established, nIMH-funded investigator. the supplement 

would provide salary commensurate with effort devoted 

to research as well as some research costs. to be successful, this program must operate on an expedited review and 

award cycle so that the Md/Phds do not “age out” while 

waiting for a funding decision. 

Recommendation F-2. Initiate a flexible 

postdoctoral fellowship program for researchtrack residents 

Some Workgroup members thought that the nIMH should 

develop an individual postdoctoral award (f32) for researchtrack residents (Mds and Md/Phds) who are in their final 

year of residency and who are able to devote 100% effort 

to research during this year. the notion is to provide up to 

three years of support for outstanding individuals committed 

to a research career as physician-scientists. year 1 of the f32 

would overlap with the last year of residency; years 2 and 3 

would enable additional postdoctoral training either at the 

institution to which the award was initially made or at a new 

institution where the scholar has chosen to pursue continued 

postdoctoral training. In order for this initiative to be feasible, 

the initial award must undergo an expedited peer review and 

award process; the subsequent two years of funding would 

receive nIMH programmatic review prior to award. 

Recommendation F-3. Develop a portable 

“Pioneer-like” award

the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH consider developing a portable “Pioneer-like” award10 for outstanding 

individuals completing their Md/Phd degree who are interested 

in pursuing nIMH-related research. this early-career award 

would support the residency period as well as several years 

thereafter while the physician-scientist is establishing his/her 

independent research program. Such an award would provide 

early security and funds for dedicated research training during 

residency. 

G. Implement Best Practices for Institutional 

Training

In addition to developing or enhancing research training 

programs, the Workgroup also recommended that the nIMH 

improve the way in which its university-based institutional 

training programs are internally reviewed, monitored, and 

administered. Although the following recommendations were 

made within the context of diversity research training, the 

Workgroup also viewed them as important to the nIMH t32 

portfolio in general. 

a. Establish and enforce clear expectations for t32 diversity 

recruitment and retention plans, efforts, and outcomes.

b. to increase the likelihood of interdisciplinary training, 

shift the management of training programs away from 

professional societies to academic institutions with 

structured research training environments and broad and 

deep research expertise.

10 the nIH director’s Pioneer Award Program (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer) supports individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose 

innovative and possibly transforming approaches to major challenges in biomedical and behavioral research. Awardees receive $500,000 annually for 

five years and commit the majority of their effort to their Pioneer Award 

research. 
32 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

c. develop, and widely publicize, practices for how reviewers 

and nIMH program staff will assess required components 

of institutional training grant applications.

d. to enhance quality and continuity of review, the nIMH 

should consider establishing standing review panels for 

its university-based institutional training programs. 

H. Program Assessment and Monitoring

the Workgroup expressed frustration with the limited data 

available on the Institute’s research training and career development programs and their outcomes. Although the Workgroup acknowledged that current privacy policies/regulations 

limit the types of data that may be collected, the Workgroup 

strongly encouraged the nIMH to improve programmatic 

monitoring and assessment of the Institute’s research training 

and career development portfolio. 

the Workgroup further recommended that the nIMH make a 

comprehensive data collection effort concerning its research 

training and career development portfolio. development of 

longitudinal data sets would allow for improved monitoring, 

assessment, and data-driven policy modifications. It was further recommended that prospective data collection and evaluation plans be required for any new programs initiated as a 

result of the Workgroup’s recommendations. 

finally, the Workgroup recommended that a rigorous monitoring and evaluation system be implemented in a timely manner 

to gauge the impact of each new program implemented on its 

target population. 

I. Strengthen Dissemination and 

Communication with the Extramural 

Research Community 

the Workgroup recommended that the nIMH increase its 

efforts to enhance its dissemination and communication with 

the extramural research community. one step toward accomplishing this goal would be to develop and make broadly 

available a statement of best practices which could provide 

information related to nIMH research training and career 

development funding opportunities, Institute research priorities, scientific workshops and mentoring opportunities, etc. 

Enhanced dissemination would also facilitate awareness of 

nIMH-supported institutional research training programs and 

research education (r25) programs by individuals who seek 

research training and education related to the nIMH mission.
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 33

InvestIng In

the Future

V. Summary

the nIMH has made substantial reductions in its training 

portfolio in the past five years. these cuts were initiated 

in an era of flattening budgets to balance the nIMH commitment to the pipeline with the Institute’s need to protect the 

r01 payline. the Workgroup acknowledged the need for these 

financial decisions but encouraged the nIMH to look strategically at the management of its training portfolio. Specifically, 

the Workgroup suggested a focus on (a) who will be the future scientists making the breakthroughs for nIMH research, 

(b) how many trainees will be needed at each stage of the 

pipeline, and (c) what existing programs have been the most 

likely to yield nIMH-supported scientists. the Workgroup 

identified some specific opportunities for refocusing current 

funding and suggested some potential new investments. As 

examples of the former, the Workgroup discouraged continued support of professional societies for training interdisciplinary investigators, and the Workgroup encouraged the 

nIMH to shift its support of diversity training to more effective programs. Among the new investments, the Workgroup 

stressed the need for targeted support of Md/Phd students to 

increase the number of these talented young scientists who 

work on mental disorders. It should be noted that the focus 

on the above-mentioned cohorts is not intended to discount 

the critical role of appropriately trained Phd investigators 

in advancing the Institute’s mission. finally, the Workgroup 

stressed the importance of the nIMH pursuing an evidencebased approach to training by evaluating current and future 

programs for their impact on the overall nIMH mission. 
34 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

VI. References

Abrams Mt, Patchan kM, Boat tf (Eds). Research Training in 

Psychiatry Residency: Strategies for Reform. Washington, dc. 

the national Academies Press, 2003. 

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10823.htm) 

Andrews nc. the other physician-scientist problem: Where have 

all the young girls gone? nature Med 2002; 8(5):439-441.

Bradford Wd, Anthony d, chu ct, Pizzo SV. career characteristics of graduates of a Medical Scientist training Program, 

1970-1990. Acad Med 1996; 71:484-487.

carter cS, Barch dM, Buchanan rW, Bullmore E, krystal JH, 

cohen J, Geyer, M, Green M, nuechterlein kH, robbins t, Silverstein S, Smith EE, Strauss M, Wykes t, Heinssen r. Identifying cognitive mechanisms targeted for treatment development in schizophrenia: An overview of the first meeting of 

the cognitive neuroscience treatment research to improve 

cognition in schizophrenia initiative. Biol Psychiatry 2008; 

64:4-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.020

chubin, dE. Modeling scientific workforce diversity. national 

Institute of General Medical Sciences. the big picture: contexts for urM training. Presentation october 3, 2007. 

(http://public.nigms.nih.gov/mdsw/2007%20Workforce%20

diversity%20chubin.pdf)

fang d, Meyer rE. Effect of two Howard Hughes Medical Institute research training programs for medical students on 

the likelihood of pursuing research careers. Acad Med 2003; 

78(12):1271-1280.

Hoffer tB, Welch V, Jr., Williams k, lisek B, Hess M, loew d, 

Guzman-Barron I. Doctorate Recipients from United States 

Universities: Summary Report 2005. chicago: national opinion research center, 2006. (this report gives the results of 

data collected in the Survey of Earned doctorates, conducted for six federal agencies, nSf, nIH, uSEd, nEH, uSdA, and 

nASA by norc.) 

(http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm) 

ley tJ, rosenberg lE. the physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005. Build it, and they will come. JAMA 2005; 

294(11):1343-1351.

Miller k. Successful collaborations: Helping biomedicine and 

computation play well together. Biomedical computation review 2008 Summer; 4(3):7-15. 

(http://biomedicalcomputationreview.org/4/3/5.pd)

nash JM. transdisciplinary training. key components and 

prerequisites for success. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35(2Suppl): 

S133-S140.

national Advisory Mental Health council Workgroup on racial/Ethnic diversity in research training and Health disparities research. An Investment in America’s Future: Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Mental Health Research Careers. Washington, 

dc. 2001.

national research council. Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, 

Friend. Washington, dc. the national Academy Press, 1997.

national research council. Advancing the Nation’s Health 

Needs: NIH Research Training Programs. Washington, dc. the 

national Academies Press, 2005a. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11275.htm) 

national research council. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research. Washington, dc. the national Academies Press, 2005b. 

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11249.html) 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 35

InvestIng In

the Future
36 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Appendix 1. NAMHC Roster

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH

NATIONAL ADVISORY MENTAL HEALTH COUNCIL

(Terms end 9/30 of designated year)

CHAIRPERSONEXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Jane A. Steinberg, Phd

director

division of Extramural Activities

national Institute of Mental Health

Bethesda, Md

MEMBERS

carl c. Bell, Md (11)

President and cEo

community Mental Health council and foundation, Inc.

chicago, Il

Glorisa J. canino, Phd (09)

director, Behavioral Sciences research Institute

university of Puerto rico

Medical Sciences campus

San Juan, Pr

Elizabeth childs, Md, Pc (10)

Private Practice

Brookline, MA

Jonathan d. cohen, Md, Phd (08)

Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology

director, Princeton neuroscience Institute

Princeton university

Princeton, nJ 

robert desimone, Phd (11)

director, McGovern Institute for Brain research

Massachusetts Institute of technology

cambridge, MA 

daniel H. Geschwind, Md, Phd (11)

Gordon & Virginia Macdonald

distinguished chair in Human Genetics

Professor of neurology & Psychiatry

university of california, los Angeles

los Angeles, cA 

raquel E. Gur, Md, Phd (08)

director, neuropsychiatry Section

university of Pennsylvania Medical center

Philadelphia, PA 

Peter J. Hollenbeck, Phd (08)

Professor of Biological Sciences

department of Biological Sciences

Purdue university

West lafayette, In 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 37

InvestIng In

the Future

John S. March, Md, MPH (10)

Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

director, division of neurosciences Medicine

duke clinical research Institute

duke university Medical center

durham, nc

Enola k. Proctor, Phd (10)

frank J. Bruno Professor of Social Work research

Washington university in St. louis

St. louis, Mo

Suzanne E. Vogel-Scibilia, Md (08)

Medical director

Beaver county Psychiatric Services

Beaver, PA

EX offIcIo MEMBErS

office of the Secretary, dHHS

Michael o. leavitt

Secretary

department of Health and Human Services

Washington, dc 

national Institutes of Health

Elias A. Zerhouni, Md

director

national Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Md

Veterans Affairs

Ira katz, Md, Phd

department of Veterans Affairs

office of Mental Health Services 

Washington dc

LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE

A. kathryn Power, MEd

director, center for Mental Health Services

rockville, Md
38 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Appendix 2: Workgroup Roster

MEMBErS

Samuel Barondes, Md

Jeanne and Stanford robertson Professor

director, center for neurobiology and Psychiatry 

university of california San francisco

San francisco, cA

randy d. Blakely, Phd

Allan d. Bass Professor of Pharmacology and Psychiatry

 department of Pharmacology

director, center for Molecular neuroscience

Vanderbilt university School of Medicine

nashville, tn

Martha l. Bruce, Phd, MPH

Professor of Sociology in Psychiatry, and Associate Vice-chair 

 for research, department of Psychiatry 

clinical Epidemiology Program at the Graduate School of

 Medical Sciences

Weill cornell Medical college 

White Plains, ny

Glorisa J. canino, Phd*

director, Behavioral Sciences research Institute

university of Puerto rico

Medical Sciences campus

San Juan, Pr

Jonathan d. cohen, Md, Phd* 

Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology

director, Princeton neuroscience Institute

Princeton university 

Princeton, nJ

richard J. davidson, Phd

Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry

director, Waisman laboratory for Brain Imaging & Behavior

university of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Javier I. Escobar, Md 

Associate dean for Global Health

uMdnJ-robert Wood Johnson Medical School

new Brunswick, nJ
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 39

InvestIng In

the Future

Enola k. Proctor, Phd*

frank J. Bruno Professor of Social Work research

Washington university in St. louis

St. louis, Mo

kerry J. ressler, Md, Phd

Assistant Professor, department of Psychiatry and Behavioral 

 Sciences and center for Behavioral neuroscience

Emory university School of Medicine

Atlanta, GA

ronald o. rieder, Md

Professor and Vice chair for Education & director of residency 

 training

department of Psychiatry

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine

new york, ny

cheryl l. Sisk, Phd

Professor, department of Psychology

director, neuroscience Program

Michigan State university

East lansing, MI 

 

* denotes nAMHc Member
40 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

Appendix 3: NIMH Staff to the Workgroup

NIMH STAFF CONTRIBUTING TO THE WORKGROUP ON RESEARCH TRAINING

STAFF DIRECTORS

nancy l desmond, Phd

division of neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science

Mark chavez, Phd

division of Adult translational research & treatment 

 development

StAff PArtIcIPAntS

cheryl Boyce, Phd 

division of developmental translational research

Maria Bukowski 

office of Science Policy, Planning, and communications 

James churchill, Phd 

division of neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science

laMisha fields (contractor) 

office of resource Management

della Hann, Phd 

office of Science Policy, Planning, and communications

lauren Hill, Phd 

division of Services and Intervention research

thomas r. Insel, Md 

director, national Institute of Mental Health

donna Mayo, Phd 

division of AIdS and Health and Behavior research

robert Mays, Phd 

office for Special Populations

richard k. nakamura, Phd 

deputy director, nIMH

John ohab, Phd 

office of Science Policy, Planning, and communications 

Aaron rodriguez (contractor) 

office of resource Management 

Michael Sesma, Phd 

office for Special Populations

rebecca Steiner, Phd (contractor)

office of the director

david Stoff, Phd 

division of AIdS and Health and Behavior research

Marina Volkov, Phd 

office of Science Policy, Planning, and communications

tracy Waldeck, Phd 

division of Extramural Activities

chuck Willoughby

office of resource Management

david Zielinski, Phd 

office of Science Policy, Planning, and communications
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 41

InvestIng In

the Future

Appendix 4: Research Training and Career Development Programs

Institutional NRSA Training Programs

NIMH Career Opportunities in Research (COR) 

Honors Undergraduate Research Training Grant 

(T34) PAr-08-093

the goal of this nrSA program is to provide support for prebaccalaureate research training to help ensure that a diverse 

and highly trained workforce is available to assume leadership roles related to the nation’s biomedical, neuroscience, 

behavioral and clinical research agenda for mental health. 

the specific objectives are to 1) increase the number of wellprepared undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds 

who complete a research training program leading to a research doctorate (Phd, Md/Phd, or equivalent) in biomedical, neuroscience, behavioral and clinical sciences relevant 

to mental health research; and 2) develop and strengthen 

the undergraduate research training curricula with relevance 

to mental health.

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training 

Grants (T32) PA-08-226

the purpose of the nrSA research training program is to 

help ensure that a diverse and highly trained workforce is 

available to assume leadership roles related to the nation’s 

biomedical and behavioral research agenda. training activities can be in basic biomedical or clinical sciences, in behavioral or social sciences, in health services research, or in any 

other discipline relevant to the nIMH mission. Predoctoral, 

postdoctoral, and combined pre- and postdoctoral programs 

are supported. See not-MH-05-001 for information about 

expectations for nIMH t32 programs.

Jointly Sponsored Ruth L. Kirschstein National 

Research Service Award Institutional Predoctoral 

Training Program in the Neurosciences (T32) 

PAr-08-101

nIMH supports this t32 program in collaboration with eight 

other Institutes at the nIH. the aim of this program is to 

encourage and support broad and fundamental, early-stage 

training in the neurosciences. the program supports the early 

years of graduate training, the first and second years, typically before full-time thesis research begins. this program 

encourages a curriculum that spans the breadth of neurosciences in terms of the level of analysis (genes to molecules to 

cells to integrated, functional systems), approaches (including 

translational research), and the neuroscience of disease and 

disorders. training programs are expected to include, at minimum, core courses, laboratory rotations, and programmatic 

activities. See also http://grants.nih.gov/training/joint_predoc/jointpredoc.htm

All t32 trainees are expected to contribute full-time effort to 

their training program.

Institutional Research Education Programs

NIMH Research Education Grants (R25) 

PAR-08-079

the nIMH research Education Grant is a flexible and specialized award designed to foster the development of mental 

health researchers through creative and innovative research 

educational programs that address one or more aspects of the 

Institute’s mission (see http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/compon.cfm) including basic, clinical, translational, and services 

research across the lifespan. A diverse array of programs, including those that are institutional, regional or national in 
42 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

scope, may be appropriate. formats for these programs may 

also vary, e.g., short courses, a series of seminars, workshops, 

structured short-term or long-term research experiences, or 

curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation. 

Applications must propose research education experiences 

at one or more of the following levels of professional career 

development: medical/graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, 

medical resident, and/or independent scientist. 

Individual NRSA Fellowship Programs

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Awards for Individual Predoctoral MD/PhD Fellows 

(F30) PA-05-151

this funding opportunity supports individual predoctoral fellowships for students enrolled in a combined Md/Phd degree 

program with the expectation that these training opportunities 

will increase the number of future nIMH investigators in basic, 

translational and clinical research who are physician scientists.

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellows (F31) 

PA-07-002

this program provides predoctoral training support for doctoral candidates who have successfully completed their comprehensive examinations or the equivalent by the time of award 

and will be performing dissertation research and training in 

an area relevant to the nIMH mission.

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellowships (F31) 

to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research 

PA-07-106

this initiative seeks to improve the diversity of the healthrelated research workforce by supporting the predoctoral 

training of individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and individuals from 

disadvantaged backgrounds. Eligible individuals may be supported if they are enrolled in a Phd or an Md/Phd degreegranting program. 

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Awards (NRSA) for Individual Postdoctoral Fellows 

(F32) PA-07-107

this program provides support to promising postdoctoral individuals who have the potential to become productive and successful independent research investigators in research areas 

relevant to the mission of the nIMH.

Individual fellows must contribute full-time effort to their 

fellowship.

Individual Dissertation Support

Mental Health Dissertation Research Grant To 

Increase Diversity (R36) PAr-06-217

the primary objective is to increase the diversity of the mental 

health research workforce by stimulating and supporting the 

dissertation research of: students from racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral 

science; students with disabilities; or students from socially, 

culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in 

health-related research. Eligible students must have the objective of becoming successful investigators in areas of biomedical or behavioral science relevant to the mission of the nIMH.

Mentored Career Development Programs

NIH Pathway to Independence (PI) Award (K99/

R00) PA-07-297

the primary goal of this initiative is to facilitate young investigators in transitioning to a stable independent research position with nIH or other independent research funding. Both u.S. 

and non-u.S. citizens are eligible to apply from u.S. institutions including the nIH intramural laboratories. the PI award 

will provide up to 5 years of support consisting of two phases. 

the initial mentored (k99) phase will provide support for up to 

2 years for new investigators who have no more than 5 years 
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 43

InvestIng In

the Future

of postdoctoral research training experience at the time of 

initial application or subsequent resubmission(s). this mentored phase will allow the candidate time to obtain additional 

training, complete research, publish results, and bridge to an 

independent research position. following the mentored phase, 

the individual may request up to 3 years of support to conduct 

research as an independent scientist at an extramural sponsoring institution to which the individual has been recruited, 

been offered, and has accepted a tenure-track, full-time 

assistant professor position (or equivalent). this (r00) support 

is to allow the individual to continue to work toward establishing his/her own independent research program and prepare an application for regular research grant support (r01). 

Support for the independent phase, however, is not automatic 

and is contingent upon being accepted by an appropriate extramural institution and the successful nIH programmatic review of the individual’s mentored phase of the award. See also

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/pathway_

independence.htm.

Mentored Research Scientist Development Award 

(K01) PA-06-001

this award provides support for a sustained period of “protected time” for intensive research career development 

under the guidance of an experienced mentor in the biomedical, behavioral or clinical sciences leading to research 

independence. It is expected that this sustained period of research career development and training will enable awardees 

to launch funded, independent research careers. Eligible 

individuals may use the k01 program to obtain mentored 

training that would enable them to “re-tool” their research 

program. 

Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award (K08) PA-06-512

this program provides support and “protected time” to 

individuals with a clinical doctoral degree (e.g., Md/Phd, 

clinical Phd) for an intensive, supervised research career 

development experience in biomedical and behavioral research, including translational research.

Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career 

Development Award (K23) PA-05-143

this program supports the career development of investigators who have made a commitment to focus their research endeavors on patient-oriented research. this mechanism provides 

support for supervised study and research for clinically trained 

professionals who have the potential to develop into productive 

clinical investigators focusing on patient-oriented research.

Mentored Quantitative Research Development 

Award (K25) PA-06-087 

the k25 award provides support and “protected time” for 

a period of supervised study and research for productive 

professionals with quantitative (e.g., mathematics, statistics, 

economics, computer science, imaging science, informatics, 

physics, chemistry) and engineering backgrounds to integrate 

their expertise with nIH-relevant research. the program is 

intended for research-oriented investigators from the postdoctoral level to the level of senior faculty.

All mentored career development awards initially require a 

minimum of 75% effort. In some cases, effort may later be 

decreased to a minimum of 50%.

Non-Mentored Career Development Programs

Independent Scientist Award (K02) PA-06-527

the k02 is intended to foster the development of outstanding scientists and to enable them to expand their potential 

to make significant contributions to their field of research by 

providing “protected time.” Early to mid-career faculty are 

eligible to apply for the k02 program at the nIMH if they have 

independent, peer-reviewed research support from the nIMH 

at the time of application. the k02 award supports a minimum 

of 75% (or 9.0 calendar months) of full-time professional ef-
44 2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report

InvestIng In

the Future

fort conducting research and relevant career development 

activities during the award period. 

Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented 

Research (K24) PA-08-151

the purpose of the Midcareer Investigator Award in Patientoriented research is to provide support for clinician investigators to allow them protected time to devote to patient-oriented research (Por) and to act as research mentors primarily for 

clinical residents, clinical fellows and/or junior clinical faculty. 

this award is generally intended for clinician investigators who 

are at the Associate Professor level or who are functioning at 

that rank in an academic setting or equivalent non-academic 

setting, and who have an established record of independent, 

peer-reviewed federal or private research grant funding in 

Por. this award is intended to advance both the research and 

the mentoring endeavors of outstanding patient-oriented investigators by supporting 25-50% effort by the PI. 

NIH Extramural Loan Repayment Programs 

(LRP)

the loan repayment Programs were initiated to help attract 

health professionals to research careers. In exchange for a twoyear commitment to their clinical research career, nIH will repay up to $35,000 per year of qualified educational debt, pay an 

additional 39% of the repayments to cover federal taxes, and 

may reimburse state taxes that result from these payments.

Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program 

to participate in this program, applicants must conduct 

patient-oriented research for 50% or more of their total 

level of effort for an average of at least 20 hours per week 

during each quarterly service period. See http://www.lrp.nih.

gov/nihlrp/about/lrp-clinical.htm 

Pediatric Research Loan Repayment Program

to participate in this program, applicants must conduct qualified pediatric research which is defined as research directly 

related to diseases, disorders, and other conditions in children. 

See http://www.lrp.nih.gov/nihlrp/about/lrp-pediatric.htm. 

for application guidelines and procedures for these programs, 

see http://www.lrp.nih.gov/nihlrp/about/index.htm. 

Research Grant Supplements

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in 

Health-Related Research PA-08-190

funds are available for administrative supplements to improve 

the diversity of the research workforce by supporting and recruiting students (high school through graduate level), postdoctorates, and eligible investigators from groups that have 

been shown to be underrepresented. these supplement awards 

must support research within the scope of the original project.

Supplements to Promote Reentry into Biomedical 

and Behavioral Research Careers PA-08-191

Administrative supplements are available to support individuals with high potential to reenter an active research career after taking time off to care for children or attend to other family 

responsibilities. this program provides administrative supplements to existing nIMH research grants to support full-time or 

part-time research by these individuals in a program geared to 

bring their existing research skills and knowledge up to date.

for nIMH-specific application guidelines and procedures for 

research grant supplements, see the nIMH web page for diversity and reentry research supplements. 

Eligibility Criteria 

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations for all funding opportunities described 

here must be non-profit organizations, public or private institutions, such as a university, college, hospital, or laboratory. 

for the nIMH cor (t34) program, applicant organizations 

must be 4-year public or private, non-profit colleges, univer-
2008 National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Research Training–Report 45

InvestIng In

the Future

sities, or heath professional schools with at least 50% racial/

ethnic minority students. foreign institutions are not eligible 

applicant organizations.

Citizenship Criteria for Individuals Supported on 

Funding Opportunities Described Here

trainees must be citizens or non-citizen nationals of the united States, or must have been lawfully admitted to the united 

States for permanent residence. Individuals on temporary or 

student visas are not eligible for kirschstein-nrSA support, 

Individual dissertation Award support (r36), research Grant 

Supplement Award support, or career development support 

(k01, k08, k23, k25, k02, k24). for the nIH Pathway to Independence Award (k99/r00), both u.S. and non-u.S. citizens 

are eligible to apply. under certain circumstances, non-u.S. 

citizens may be supported on nIMH research Education 

Grants (r25). 

Institutional Research Education Programs (R25)

the r25 mechanism is not intended to support long-term 

training by nrSA-eligible individuals and may not be used to 

circumvent or supplement ruth l. kirschstein nrSA research 

training mechanisms. the nIMH does not allow support for 

full-time participants under the r25 mechanism, where a 

full-time participant is defined as an individual supported for 

40 hours/week for a continuous 12-month period.