Joint ESCMID, FEMS, IDSA, ISID and SSI position paper on the fair handling of career breaks among physicians and scientists when assessing eligibility for early-career awards.
Awards
Career breaks
Diversity
Gender balance
Medicine
Science
Journal
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
ISSN: 1469-0691
Titre abrégé: Clin Microbiol Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516420
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2021
18 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
11
09
2020
revised:
29
01
2021
accepted:
30
01
2021
pubmed:
21
2
2021
medline:
21
2
2021
entrez:
20
2
2021
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Though women increasingly make up the majority of medical-school and other science graduates, they remain a minority in academic biomedical settings, where they are less likely to hold leadership positions or be awarded research funding. A major factor is the career breaks that women disproportionately take to see to familial duties. They experience a related, but overlooked, hurdle upon their return: they are often too old to be eligible for 'early-career researcher' grants and 'career-development' awards, which are stepping stones to leadership positions in many institutions and which determine the demographics of their hierarchies for decades to come. Though age limits are imposed to protect young applicants from more experienced seniors, they have an unintended side effect of excluding returning workers, still disproportionately women, from the running. In this joint effort by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Federation of European Microbiological Societies, the Infectious Disease Society of America, the International Society for Infectious Diseases and the Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases, we invited all European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases-affiliated medical societies and funding bodies to participate in a survey on current 'early-career' application restrictions and measures taken to provide protections for career breaks. The following simple consensus recommendations are geared to funding bodies, academic societies and other organizations for the fair handling of eligibility for early-career awards: 1. Apply a professional, not physiological, age limit to applicants. 2. State clearly in the award announcement that career breaks will be factored into applicants' evaluations such that: • Time absent is time extended: for every full-time equivalent of career break taken, the same full-time equivalent will be extended to the professional age limit. • Opportunity costs will also be taken into account: people who take career breaks risk additional opportunity costs, with work that they did before the career break often being forgotten or poorly documented, particularly in bibliometric accounting. Although there is no standardized metric to measure additional opportunity costs, organizations should (a) keep in mind their existence when judging applicants' submissions, and (b) note clearly in the award announcement that opportunity costs of career breaks are also taken into account. 3. State clearly that further considerations can be undertaken, using more individualized criteria that are specific to the applicant population and the award in question. The working group welcomes feedback so that these recommendations can be improved and updated as needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Though women increasingly make up the majority of medical-school and other science graduates, they remain a minority in academic biomedical settings, where they are less likely to hold leadership positions or be awarded research funding. A major factor is the career breaks that women disproportionately take to see to familial duties. They experience a related, but overlooked, hurdle upon their return: they are often too old to be eligible for 'early-career researcher' grants and 'career-development' awards, which are stepping stones to leadership positions in many institutions and which determine the demographics of their hierarchies for decades to come. Though age limits are imposed to protect young applicants from more experienced seniors, they have an unintended side effect of excluding returning workers, still disproportionately women, from the running.
METHODS
METHODS
In this joint effort by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Federation of European Microbiological Societies, the Infectious Disease Society of America, the International Society for Infectious Diseases and the Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases, we invited all European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases-affiliated medical societies and funding bodies to participate in a survey on current 'early-career' application restrictions and measures taken to provide protections for career breaks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The following simple consensus recommendations are geared to funding bodies, academic societies and other organizations for the fair handling of eligibility for early-career awards: 1. Apply a professional, not physiological, age limit to applicants. 2. State clearly in the award announcement that career breaks will be factored into applicants' evaluations such that: • Time absent is time extended: for every full-time equivalent of career break taken, the same full-time equivalent will be extended to the professional age limit. • Opportunity costs will also be taken into account: people who take career breaks risk additional opportunity costs, with work that they did before the career break often being forgotten or poorly documented, particularly in bibliometric accounting. Although there is no standardized metric to measure additional opportunity costs, organizations should (a) keep in mind their existence when judging applicants' submissions, and (b) note clearly in the award announcement that opportunity costs of career breaks are also taken into account. 3. State clearly that further considerations can be undertaken, using more individualized criteria that are specific to the applicant population and the award in question. The working group welcomes feedback so that these recommendations can be improved and updated as needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33609786
pii: S1198-743X(21)00056-2
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.01.029
pmc: PMC9196972
mid: NIHMS1811722
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K08 AI120806
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Am Sci. 2012 Mar 1;100(2):138-145
pubmed: 24596430
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar 5;116(10):4182-4187
pubmed: 30782835
J R Soc Med. 2014 Apr 16;107(7):259-263
pubmed: 24739380
J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 14;222(Suppl 6):S543-S549
pubmed: 32926739
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):365-366
pubmed: 32433639
BMJ. 2005 Sep 10;331(7516):569-72
pubmed: 16150771
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 28;8(6):e68258
pubmed: 23840840
J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 14;222(Suppl 6):S528-S534
pubmed: 32926743