From Tenure Track to Tenure: The View of the NIH Central

Tenure Committee (CTC)

NCI-CCR Investigators RetreatJune 16, 2006by Arlyn Garcia-Perez, Ph.D.Assistant Director, OIR, OD, NIH andExecutive Secretary, NIH CTC

Summary 1994-2006 NIH Tenure-Track (TT) Cohorts

T – T

Cohorts

Total

TT

Tenured Still

on

TT

Left

TT

1994-1997 300 173

(58%)

13

(4%)

114

(38%)

1998-2006 328 53

(16%)

247

(75%)

28

(9%)

As of 6/5/2006

Summary 1994-2006 NCI-CCR TT Cohorts

T – T

Cohorts

Total

TT

Tenured Still

on

TT

Left

TT

1994-1997 69 31

(45%)

5

(7%)

33

(48%)

1998-2006 70 11

(16%)

53

(76%)

6

(8%)

As of 6/5/2006

Summary 1994-2006 CTC Actions

Years Total

Actions

Tenured Def.

Tenure

Denied

Tenure

1994-2006

NIH Total

369 330

(89%)

26

(7%)

13

(4%)

1994-2006

NCI-CCR

65 57

(88%)

6

(9%)

2

(3%)

As of 6/5/2006Of 26 deferred, 13 have been tenured

72% of all CTC actions have been on tenure-track cases

Recommending Memo from the Lab/Branch Chief or SD, through IC Director, specifically addressing the recommendation for tenure

The best memo should, at minimum: Contain an excellent description of the specific

and unique scientific contributions to the field(s) Address evidence of independence Address quality of science, productivity and

impact on specific field and biomedical research more generally

Address national / international recognition Address expected contributions after tenure

CV and bibliography

The CV should include, at minimum: The correct Intramural Professional Designation

(Investigator, if from the NIH tenure track) Evidence of independence – independent

contributions to research, including team research, as reflected by first-author and senior-author original papers, national & international invitations to speak, letters of reference, etc.

CV and bibliography (continued)

The CV should include, at minimum (continued): Evidence of productivity (evaluated relative to

resources) Evidence of recognition in the field(s) – awards,

honors, national & international invitations to speak, letters of reference, etc.

Evidence of mentorship abilities – trainees (postbac, grad student, postdoc) throughout the candidate’s tenure track and where these trainees are now

CV and bibliography (continued)

The CV should include, at minimum (continued): Evidence of good “citizenship” – e.g. IC or NIH-

wide committee active participation (e.g., NIH Special Interest Group, IRB, ACUC, Woman Scientist Advisor, etc.)

Attached should be: List of 5 most important publications Copies of 2 most significant papers Description of future plans by the scientist (no more

than 5 pages)

Board of Scientific Counselors’ Reports

Mid-point review (or first review as a tenure-track investigator)

Latest review (must be within the past 2 years when it arrives at OIR for CTC review)

Report of IC Promotion and Tenure Committee

Resources throughout the tenure track

A detailed description of the resources (budget, personnel, space, other) available to the candidate from the beginning of the tenure track to date, with a timeline of changes along the length of the tenure track. This should not be more than 1-2 pages long.

Letters of Recommendation(The weight of these letters and who they are from cannot be overstated)

Outgoing letter soliciting letters of recommendation (Sample from OIR). The outgoing letter must not have any reference to the evaluations of other committees, such as the BSC, regarding tenure for the candidate. Attachments to the solicitation must be limited to CV, bibliography, reprints and future plans, if desired

Letters of Recommendation(The weight of these letters and who they are from cannot be overstated)

List of all individuals (with title and contact information) from whom letters were solicited, denoting those who submitted a letter, those who declined, and those who did not respond

Avoid asking CTC members or other NIH Senior Investigators who may be called to serve as ad hoc reviewers – a letter immediately recuses that individual from the case

Letters of Recommendation(The weight of these letters and who they are from cannot be overstated)

An absolute minimum of 6 letters from non-collaborators

Top Reason for Denial of Tenure

Not meeting the standards of high quality, originality, innovation or impact of research on field

Top Reasons for Deferral of Tenure

50% of deferred cases ultimately receive tenure

Insufficient evidence of recognition as leader or up-and-coming leader in research field

Insufficient productivity (not only quantity, but quality and impact is considered) relative to resources and time on tenure track

Insufficient evidence of independent research effort

Insufficient letters from the leaders in the research field

Feel free to contact me with questions!!!

Arlyn Garcia-Perez, Ph.D.

Email: GarciaA@mail.nih.gov

Telephone: (301) 496-1381