T H E N I H C A T A L Y S T | J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y 2006 |
|
F R O M | T H E | D E P U T Y | D I R E C T O R | F O R | I N T R A M U R A L | R E S E A R C H |
FINDING WAYS TO CAST A WIDER NET
I
have repeatedly
underscored the fact that the NIH Intramural Program has had limited They found
clear signs that the intent of the original search process was to cast
a wide net to find the most diverse and qualified applicants. Unfortunately,
they also found that the process used by many of these search committees
more closely resembled a selection processin which candidates who responded to ads
were evaluated and ranked rather than a search processin which special efforts were made to contact
individuals and urge them to apply for our positions. With this
grasp of the central problem, the Diversity Council made a series of recommendations
about how to improve the search process. After discussion with the scientific
directors (SDs), the Office of Intramural Research recently released a
new policy, effective January 1, 2006, governing searches at the NIH for
principal investigator positions tenure-track, tenured, senior scientist,
and senior clinician positions.The policy can be found at this
site. Although
the new process resembles the old one, there are certain critical differences: Step
1: Establishment of a new
position by the SD should reflect a long-term scientific need of the institute
or center and involve the input of senior investigators and/or the Board
of Scientific Counselors. Step2: The committee should consist of the same representation as in the past: a chair who is not the lab or branch chief but who is a subject matter expert; a representative of the Deputy Director for Intramural Research (DDIR); the woman scientist advisor (WSA) or her designee; an under-represented minority scientist; and an ex officio representative of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management; plus other subject matter experts from within and outside the lab and the NIH. Step
3:
After the DDIR reviews the description of the position and a tentative
ad sent by the SD, these are returned to the search committee. The search
committee must review and approve both the ad and position description
to be certain they are written to attract the widest possible range of
qualified candidates. Step
4:
In the meeting in which the search committee reviews the ad, a representative
of the DDIR will discuss a specific search plan with the search committee
and answer questions about strategy. Step
5:
The ad must be nationally advertised in a broad range of publications
and through minority scientific support organizations at the NIH and beyond.
Each member of the search committee not just the WSA and the under-represented
minority scientist(s) will be involved in reaching out to the scientific
community to identify the most qualified applicants. Step
6:
The members of the search committee must review the applications of all
minimally qualified applicants.
Depending on the number of applications, all committee members
may read all applications, or the work may be divided up among committee
members. The short list of candidates (usually two or three) chosen by
the search committee will be reviewed by the lab or branch chief, who
will recommend a candidate to the SD. A letter from the search committee
chair to the SD will describe the search process that led to its choices. Step
7:
The choice of the SD will be forwarded to the DDIR for review and approval
(with a copy of a tenure-track agreement when applicable), along with
the description of the search process, including a summary of the number
of women and minority applicants. Although many of these changes in the search process seem relatively small, we hope their cumulative effect will be to encourage more vigilance in our searches and, ultimately, improvement in the quality and diversity of our staff. I recognize the changes place even more burden on our search committee members, who have worked hard over the years to guarantee excellence at the NIH. I ask because I believe the Diversity Council is correctthe extra effort will be richly rewarded. We welcome your ideas about how to improve this process further. Deputy Director for Intramural Research |