“Training the Perfect Fellow: What Industry Would Like and
What Academia Can Provide”
James Hartke, Pfizer Global Research and
Matthew Wallig, University of Illinois, College of Veterinary Medicine
Background
As part of an effort to increase the exchange of information between Academia and Industry, the ACVP/STP Coalition for Veterinary Pathology Fellows held its first Scientific Conference on June 10, 2007, in conjunction with the 2007 STP Annual Symposium. This conference was attended by Fellows, their academic and industrial mentors, and the Board of Governors. In addition to presentations given by Fellows (see http://www.vetpathcoalition.org/fundedfellowships.cfm), the program included a joint presentation by representatives from Academia and Industry entitled “Training the Perfect Fellow: What Industry Would Like and What Academia Can Provide,” which focused on an informal survey circulated to mentors from participating training institutions and sponsoring companies. This communication summarizes the results of that presentation and survey.
Methods
The survey was designed to evaluate several key components of training the Coalition uses to assess applications from academic institutions for newly funded training positions. The list (slightly modified from the Coalition’s Request for Applications) includes those components of an “ideal” training program, knowing full well that no program would meet all criteria. The survey was distributed to academic and industrial mentors for each of twelve Coalition training positions. Mentors were asked to review the following suggested training components and then respond to questions listed in the Results section below.
Curriculum. Applicants should describe how fellows receive training in
- Principles of general pathology
- Gross pathology, microscopic and ultrastructural pathology
- Clinical pathology (hematology, cytology, clin chem and surgical pathology)
- Comparative pathology of naturally occurring diseases of domestic, exotic and laboratory animals, and humans
- General, molecular and cellular biochemistry
- Biostatistics, informational pathology, computer technology
- Special techniques (e.g., tissue culture, immunohistochem, flow cytometry, in situ hybridization, nucleic acid and protein analysis, laser capture microscopy)
- Effective oral, written and interpersonal communication
- Understanding of the scientific method
Introductory Training in Toxicologic Pathology. Applicants should describe how fellows receive training in:
- Introduction to general principles of toxicology and pharmacology
- Mechanisms and morphologic manifestations of toxicant action
- Carcinogenicity and risk assessment
- Basic knowledge of animal models used in toxicologic pathology
- Basic knowledge of governmental regulations of relevance to tox path
- Core knowledge of methodologies in both toxicologic pathology and biomedical research in general
Interactions with Other Training Environments. Applicants should describe interactions with other environments that enhance training beyond that which is available at their own institution.
Results
Academic and industrial mentors were asked to respond to several questions and then rank the training (sub)components as; 1 (essential), 2 (important), or 3 (nice to have) for a residency program in toxicologic pathology. Results are shown in the following table:
Survey Item |
Responses from Academic Mentors |
Responses from Industry Mentors |
Is
the curriculum adequate? |
Yes
(8/10) |
Yes
(8/9) |
Too onerous or too basic? |
Just
right (4/10)
Too
onerous (4/10) |
Just
right (7/9)
Too
onerous (2/9) |
Needed additions? |
Critical
thinking/analysis |
(1
for each of the following):
Critical
thinking/analysis, mouse and primate path, principles of toxicokinetics, imaging,
-omics, drug discovery/development |
Needed deletions? |
Risk
assessment, carcinogenesis, regulations, methodologies |
Regulations |
Items too difficult for an academic
setting? |
Risk
assessment, carcinogenesis, regulations, methodology |
Nothing
to difficult (4/9) |
Three most critical things on which to
concentrate? |
Gross path, histopath & ultrastructural path
(7/10);
Comparative
path (6/10) |
Gross path, histopath & ultrastructural path
(6/9);
General
path (6/10) |
Primary
constraints to training? |
Insufficient
funding (6/10);
Insufficient
faculty (5/10) |
Insufficient
time (6/9);
Constraints
not an issue (5/9) |
How
can industry be most helpful? |
Contact
with trainees (3/10);
Provide
industry-specific aspects of training (3/10) |
Externship
mentoring (3/9);
Education
in risk assessment and regulations (3/9) |
Top
ranked components (score 1.0-1.5) |
General
path, comparative path, communication skills |
General
path, communication skills |
Mid
ranked components (score 1.51-2.0) |
Attendance
at short courses, carcinogenesis & risk assessment, molecular
methodologies |
Attendance
at short courses, carcinogenesis & risk assessment, molec & cell
biochem, statistics, mechs of toxicant action, laser capture microdissection |
Bottom
ranked components (score >2.0) |
Specialized
methodologies, externships, classes at other institutions |
Academic
mentors were also asked to indicate if each training component was provided for
their Fellows and if they felt it was a particular strength of their institution’s
training program. Results are shown in
the following table:
Training Component |
Yes, Component Is Provided |
Yes, Component Is a Strength |
Curriculum |
|
Principles
of general path |
10/10 |
6/10 |
|
Gross,
microscopic & ultrastructural path |
7/10 |
|
Clinical
path |
3/10 |
|
Comparative
path |
4/10 |
|
General,
molecular & cellular biochem |
3/10 |
|
Biostatistics |
1/10 |
|
Special
path techniques |
Variable |
|
Communication skills |
4/10 |
Specific Training in toxicological pathology |
|
Principles
of toxicology & pharmacology |
10/10 |
0/10 |
|
Mechanisms/morphologic
manifestations of toxicant action |
1/10 |
|
Carcinogenicity
& risk assessment |
6/10 |
0/10 |
Interaction
with other training environments |
|
Externships
(at other academic institutes, pharma, government agencies/labs) |
10/10 |
1/10 |
|
Attend
short courses & symposia |
|
Take
classes at other academic institutes |
Variable |
0/10 |
Summary Comments and General
Conclusions
Admittedly,
this survey was not scientifically conducted nor designed to be definitive. Further, it was biased since only larger,
long standing training programs and companies who have chosen to support the
ACVP/STP
Coalition
were surveyed. Nonetheless, there was general consensus between academic and industrial
respondents on the following points:
- Core
curriculum is sufficient but is becoming onerous
- General
agreement on the most important (sub)components of the core curriculum
- Industry
should provide training in carcinogenesis, risk assessment and
regulations, either as an introduction during residency or more in-depth
during post-residency
- Major
constraints on training are insufficient funding and number of faculty
(academia) and insufficient time (industry)
- Specific training in
toxicology and toxicologic pathology cannot be provided by academia due to
lack of appropriate courses and opportunities for tox training, but
industry does not need anything more than introductory exposure
|
